Flanker vs F-15

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"John Weiss" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

I take it you never flew the airplane.

...and I take it you never flew an airplane.

I flew the simulator, which puts me ahead of either of you WRT how the
operator inputs work. Monkey was playing a little game and got caught, but
I have never been one to believe pilots know how airplanes work. That would
be silly.

Of course these days the civil side of the system is beginning to drive out
operator ignorance. It is something that should have been done long ago.

You know what Tarver you are a dick - first of all I'm not playing any
games with you- I am who I say I am - not one of the things I've
posted about the hornet from a pilot perspective has been incorrect
(which by the way I can't say for you) I've yet to see any proof that
you were ever involved with airplanes at all. Oh yeah, by the way,
I've flown all sorts of sims from the old ones to the newest - and i
haven't seen one yet that truly duplicates the experience of flying a
jet, so don't go spewing crap like that - you'll be hard pressed to
find a fighter pilot anywhere who would say that flying a sim is no
substitute for real flying training. You're just going to **** off the
aviators out here because I don't know one who would say he completely
understands the Hornet FCS. But you know what, that's not our job -
ours is to put bombs on target on time, and that keeps us busy enough
without having to learn about stuff we don't need to know to get the
job done. Tarver I don't care what kind of "simulated" stuff you've
done in the sim...I'll be impressed when you strap on a real jet and
take it out on a trip..but by the amount of time you spend on the net
here I'll wager you don't get out of your cubicle enough to experience
the real world. You need to learn that the miltary aviation business
is a team effort...in my line of work not being a team player will get
you booted faster than anything else. You don't see me or any other
drivers spouting insults about support personnel, so perhaps you
should extend the same courtesy to those who operate the equipment you
(supposedly)support. Sorry to everyone else for the rant... I got into
this forum to enjoy discussion about our profession and share some
ideas, not to get involved in stuipd discussions with idiots who have
self esteem problems.

"monkey" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"John Weiss" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

I take it you never flew the airplane.

...and I take it you never flew an airplane.

I flew the simulator, which puts me ahead of either of you WRT how the
operator inputs work. Monkey was playing a little game and got caught,
but
I have never been one to believe pilots know how airplanes work. That
would
be silly.

Of course these days the civil side of the system is beginning to drive
out
operator ignorance. It is something that should have been done long
ago.

You know what Tarver you are a dick - first of all I'm not playing any
games with you- I am who I say I am - not one of the things I've
posted about the hornet from a pilot perspective has been incorrect
(which by the way I can't say for you) I've yet to see any proof that
you were ever involved with airplanes at all.

You mean other than the fact that I know more about the airplane than you
do. You might want to keep in mind that you have only posted as a sock and
therefore you really have no credibility to question anyone about
credentials.

Oh yeah, by the way,
I've flown all sorts of sims from the old ones to the newest - and i
haven't seen one yet that truly duplicates the experience of flying a
jet, so don't go spewing crap like that -

You probably never will find a motion based simulator that is substancially
correct to the airplane model. most sims are only third order, while the
F/A-18A-D are an 18th order system.

you'll be hard pressed to
find a fighter pilot anywhere who would say that flying a sim is no
substitute for real flying training.

The FAA, US Military and I agree that a simulator is a substitute for real
flight training. In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
require simulator time as part of training.

You're just going to **** off the
aviators out here because I don't know one who would say he completely
understands the Hornet FCS.

I would expect most Hornet operators have read the Dash 1.

But you know what, that's not our job -

Well you know what, as a systems engineer it is my job. All those
instruction on how to operate are written by engineers. If you mean to
claim that correcting safety of flight issues is not my job, well you are
just wrong again.

ours is to put bombs on target on time, and that keeps us busy enough
without having to learn about stuff we don't need to know to get the
job done.

Knowing how to input stick information into the machine is something an
F/A-18 pilot does need to know. These days pilots in the comercial world
are going through a new awareness of how they have exchanged urban legends
that are just not true.

Tarver I don't care what kind of "simulated" stuff you've
done in the sim...I'll be impressed when you strap on a real jet and
take it out on a trip..but by the amount of time you spend on the net
here I'll wager you don't get out of your cubicle enough to experience
the real world.

I have no real interest in flying an airplane, any more than I would want to
be a bus driver. The fact is that a pilot has a pretty poor quality of life
over their career. It is why they deserve the big bucks, while most of the
industry works at a discount to the rest of the world.

You need to learn that the miltary aviation business
is a team effort...in my line of work not being a team player will get
you booted faster than anything else.

I have been at it for 30 years, but do go on.

You don't see me or any other
drivers spouting insults about support personnel,

I see that constantly here at ram.

so perhaps you
should extend the same courtesy to those who operate the equipment you
(supposedly)support.

All letting you think you are correct will do is reduce flight safety, while
causing you to be even more of a prick. There is a consistent patten of
behavior amoung many operators here in the newsgroups and I had to put a
stop to operators acting out; out of respect for some of our less manic
operators.

Sorry to everyone else for the rant... I got into
this forum to enjoy discussion about our profession and share some
ideas, not to get involved in stuipd discussions with idiots who have
self esteem problems.

I don't have a problem at all, but you might want to have a look in the
mirror.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...


The FAA, US Military and I agree that a simulator is a substitute for real
flight training. In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
require simulator time as part of training.

....which displays your ignorance of the subject.

There is NO simulator requirement as part of training for any FAA pilot
certificate short of the ATP. Simulator training is ALLOWED, but not required.


Well you know what, as a systems engineer it is my job. All those
instruction on how to operate are written by engineers.

Nope. You are wrong again.

Many of the instruction[s] and procedures in Dash-1s, NATOPS, and FHBs are
written by non-engineers.

From: "John Weiss"


"Tarver Engineering" wrote...


The FAA, US Military and I agree that a simulator is a substitute for real
flight training. In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
require simulator time as part of training.

...which displays your ignorance of the subject.

There is NO simulator requirement as part of training for any FAA pilot
certificate short of the ATP. Simulator training is ALLOWED, but not
required.


Well you know what, as a systems engineer it is my job. All those
instruction on how to operate are written by engineers.

Nope. You are wrong again.

Many of the instruction[s] and procedures in Dash-1s, NATOPS, and FHBs are
written by non-engineers.

Good thing too, can you imagine a procedure written by tarver? It would be an
asset to the enemy.

Actually tech writers translate engineerese into a known language.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"John Weiss" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...


The FAA, US Military and I agree that a simulator is a substitute for
real
flight training. In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
require simulator time as part of training.

...which displays your ignorance of the subject.

There is NO simulator requirement as part of training for any FAA pilot
certificate short of the ATP. Simulator training is ALLOWED, but not
required.

Do you like this better?

In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
require simulator time as part of *military* training.

Allowed refutes the monkey sock's cluelessness too, Johnny.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"John Weiss" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...


The FAA, US Military and I agree that a simulator is a substitute for
real
flight training. In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
require simulator time as part of training.

...which displays your ignorance of the subject.

There is NO simulator requirement as part of training for any FAA pilot
certificate short of the ATP. Simulator training is ALLOWED, but not
required.

Do you like this better?

In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
require simulator time as part of *military* training.

Allowed refutes the monkey sock's cluelessness too, Johnny.
I wouldn't speak for the US Military or the FAA if I were you Tarver.
You're so full of crap. NO military would ever admit that sims are a
substitute for flying - what they are are nice complements to a flying
program, great for procedures and emergency practice. I totally
understand your perspective though-it's basically identical to that of
every geek I've met who have bags of hours in the sim but have never
flown in a real jet, and as a result have no perspective on the
limitations of a sim. Let's face it Tarver - if you've got no time on
the pole of a real airplane your perspective is going to be a little
lacking. I'm tired of your constant rhetoric and insults to team
minded aviation professionals - I don't really care about what you say
about me - I'm a relatively new military pilot (just under 2000
hours)so i'm used to taking criticism, but I know a LOT of experienced
guys who would kick your ass over your ****ty attitude. You as a
support person need to remember you're working FOR the guys flying
these airplanes in war. If you can't deal with their opinions maybe
you shoule be doing something else. So you've flown a sim around a
bit. So what. So have I and to be honest I find that boring and
unrepresentative of real aircraft performance.If these sims you are
talking about are so great, screw it - let's just get rid of all of
the flying except for in war. Oh wait, no, lets clone a bunch of
tarvers, then we won't even need pilots at all - Bottom line- air
forces are run by military people like some of the brothers on this
forum. More specifically they are run by officers and pilots like me.
So, everyone, no matter who Tarver thinks he is, rest assured that he
is NOT making policy decisions for the military - he is just another
contractor providing services for us. So Tarver, thanks for your
insight...but how about you stick to your sims and let the military
people do the flying. Sorry if you take offense to this, but I'm sure
that I'll hear about it anyway from my boss thru CINCNORAD about my
negative attitude on this forum, since from the way you talk you must
be pretty tight with military policy makers. Actually isn't it you who
makes defense policy?I didn't think so. Keep up the good work...
contractor. Hopefully I'll get to fly one of your sims soon. Unless
the companies find a better company to do their work, which will
probably happen sooner rather than later if you keep trying to do
everyone else's job but your own.

"monkey" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message

Allowed refutes the monkey sock's cluelessness too, Johnny.

I wouldn't speak for the US Military or the FAA if I were you Tarver.

Why is that?

Anyway, before monkey sock so rudely interupted, I was discussing the 20#
stick breakout for the F/A-18. Something anyone who ever flew the airplane
would know as part of their training. I suspect "an additional 33#" of
stick force added to the regular pull of the SU 27 directly into one's
crotch would be less than fun. I'd go with flicking the switch.

snip of monkey offering additional proof that he is no pilot

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"monkey" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message

Allowed refutes the monkey sock's cluelessness too, Johnny.

I wouldn't speak for the US Military or the FAA if I were you Tarver.

Why is that?

Anyway, before monkey sock so rudely interupted, I was discussing the 20#
stick breakout for the F/A-18. Something anyone who ever flew the
airplane
would know as part of their training. I suspect "an additional 33#" of
stick force added to the regular pull of the SU 27 directly into one's
crotch would be less than fun. I'd go with flicking the switch.

Fair point. Don't you think in combat, the pull-through might be more actual
use?

John

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"monkey" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message

Allowed refutes the monkey sock's cluelessness too, Johnny.

I wouldn't speak for the US Military or the FAA if I were you Tarver.

Why is that?

Anyway, before monkey sock so rudely interupted, I was discussing the 20#
stick breakout for the F/A-18. Something anyone who ever flew the airplane
would know as part of their training. I suspect "an additional 33#" of
stick force added to the regular pull of the SU 27 directly into one's
crotch would be less than fun. I'd go with flicking the switch.

snip of monkey offering additional proof that he is no pilot
if you are talking about pulling harder to override aoa/g limits, the
canadian cf-18 does not have that feature.

Tarver Engineering wrote:

The FAA, US Military and I agree that a simulator is a substitute for

real

flight training. In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
require simulator time as part of training.

...which displays your ignorance of the subject.

There is NO simulator requirement as part of training for any FAA pilot
certificate short of the ATP. Simulator training is ALLOWED, but not

required.

Do you like this better?

In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
require simulator time as part of *military* training.

Allowed refutes the monkey sock's cluelessness too, Johnny.


Well, there is the U.S. Air Force- Sheppard AFB, as I recall, has
no simulators and manages to graduate a fair number of pilots who
have no simulator time. (They do have Partial Task trainers, I
believe).

Mike