Flanker vs F-15

There are two really important questions:

1. What are the other odds? (AWACS, support aircraft, SAM defenses, range to
bases, numbers on each side, etc.)

2. Who are the pilots?

Both of these are quite critical to the equation.

DEP

"David E. Powell" wrote in message ws.com...
There are two really important questions:

1. What are the other odds? (AWACS, support aircraft, SAM defenses, range to
bases, numbers on each side, etc.)

I wonder how long it would take a fuel-heavy Flanker to dump down to
ACM weight. Doesn't it carry a LOT more internally than an Eagle, at
least for ferry or long range ops?

On 26 Mar 2004 06:46:06 -0800, (Jeb Hoge) wrote:

"David E. Powell" wrote in message ws.com...
There are two really important questions:

1. What are the other odds? (AWACS, support aircraft, SAM defenses, range to
bases, numbers on each side, etc.)

I wonder how long it would take a fuel-heavy Flanker to dump down to
ACM weight. Doesn't it carry a LOT more internally than an Eagle, at
least for ferry or long range ops?

Nope. So far as I know, no Russian fighter carries anything like the
internal fuel a US fighter does. That's because the aircraft weren't
expected to fly long distances because they use ground control.

Actually, it's true of European fighters, too, which is why Australia
and Canada buy US aircraft. Big countries, long legs.

I read this in one of the British aircraft magazines a few years back,
in an article comparing the F-18 with the similar Russian airplane.
At least once and a half as much fuel internal to the Hornet and the
author made the comment that the US had, historically, always carried
more internal fuel in its fighters, citing WW II aircraft numbers as
well.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Jeff Crowell wrote:

Yabbut, isn't that a case of a Lawn Dart pulling max G and
then hitting turbulence, etc.?

I could see too high of an onset rate, or pulling a turn as you
decelerated through the sound barrier. The latter case would be a very
good candidate if pulling a turn close to the limiter because of the
forward shift in the aerodynamic center going from supersonic to subsonic.


Jeff

Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer

R Haskin wrote:
Actually fly-by-wire aircraft can be over-Gd -- it happens to F-16s all the
time.

Agreed. The Bone is a 2 channel FBW on one side with a hydromechanical
stability augmented system on the other side. There are no limiters on
the FBW or stability aug so over G's happen all the time. Limiters on
the 16 make it harder to over G but not impossible.

The F-15, while not "fully" fly-by-wire, has a primary flight control system
that is FBW (called the CAS, or Control Augmentation System) and a
hydromechanical backup system.

IIRC my F-15 test pilot former colleague described the F-15C as fully
hydromechanical and the Echo's as you did. BTW saw you the other day on
the history channel. Good interview.

Cheers,
Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 05:41:52 -0500, "R Haskin"
wrote:


"Michael Kelly" wrote in message
m...

John Mullen wrote:

The Su has a pull-through fuction on the fbw ISTR. Might be a factor?

Probably not since the the F-15C isn't FBW and only has an overload
warning function. You can over G a F-15C.

Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer

Actually fly-by-wire aircraft can be over-Gd -- it happens to F-16s all the
time.

The F-15, while not "fully" fly-by-wire, has a primary flight control system
that is FBW (called the CAS, or Control Augmentation System) and a
hydromechanical backup system.

All modern FCSs are electronic, not mechanical or hydraulic, but we
don't consider them to be FBW. We just consider them to be analog or
digital FCSs. However, it's possible to have hydraulic or mechanical
FCSs.

The point is that FBW is strictly between the pilot and the control
surfaces. That's it. Nothing to do with the feedback control in the
flight control system. After all, the SR-71 was summing electric
inputs from the FCS with the push-rod and cable inputs from the pilot
back in the '60s.

You can have FBW without having a feedback control FCS, not that
anyone does, and you can have an FCS without having FBW, which the
F-15 does and the SR-71 did. Or you can have both, which the F-16 and
F-18 do.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 05:41:52 -0500, "R Haskin"
wrote:


"Michael Kelly" wrote in message
m...

John Mullen wrote:

The Su has a pull-through fuction on the fbw ISTR. Might be a
factor?

Probably not since the the F-15C isn't FBW and only has an overload
warning function. You can over G a F-15C.

Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer

Actually fly-by-wire aircraft can be over-Gd -- it happens to F-16s all
the
time.

The F-15, while not "fully" fly-by-wire, has a primary flight control
system
that is FBW (called the CAS, or Control Augmentation System) and a
hydromechanical backup system.

All modern FCSs are electronic, not mechanical or hydraulic, but we
don't consider them to be FBW. We just consider them to be analog or
digital FCSs. However, it's possible to have hydraulic or mechanical
FCSs.

The part that makes the system FBW is a distinction between cable tripped
valves, or electric valves. (current, or hydraulic)

The point is that FBW is strictly between the pilot and the control
surfaces. That's it. Nothing to do with the feedback control in the
flight control system. After all, the SR-71 was summing electric
inputs from the FCS with the push-rod and cable inputs from the pilot
back in the '60s.

The 747-200 and the DC-10 are termed "hybrid FBW" for having cable driven
hydraulic valves controlled electrically.

You can have FBW without having a feedback control FCS, not that
anyone does, and you can have an FCS without having FBW, which the
F-15 does and the SR-71 did. Or you can have both, which the F-16 and
F-18 do.

An the Boeing 717.