X-43A successful flight

Anybody know if Roger Lenard had anything to do with this project? I thnk he is
retired from AF now and works for Sandia?

-- Charlie Springer

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 02:22:48 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
wrote:

There is no difference in stick forces or "break out" as you're calling it
between CAS, DEL, or MECH modes. Perhaps you're talking about the feedback
force that is added when the stick is displaced from its neutral position?
That is certainly not a "break out."

That is, too. That's the definition of break out force, the force you
have to overcome to leave the deadband.

What do you think break out force is?

Don't get me started on stick force shaping, as I spent some serious
flight time and money looking at a variety of schedules for pilot
cueing. I can probably tell you more than you want to know about how
pilots perceive the cues, although the most interesting part is how
they can fail to consciously notice a major cue, even when it affects
their technique.

How many F-18 hours a year in the air are you and monkey getting Woody? 50?
20?

Per year? Absolutely ZERO in MECH, more than 150 or so in CAS, less than 1
in DEL (spin recovery mode).

Keep it that way. The Plastic Bug flies miserably in MECH. It was a
big deal when they finally trapped in MECH, in fact. Before that, it
had meant diverting to land. When Tom McMurtry had to land one of
ours in MECH he cheerfully declared it to be one of the worse control
modes he'd ever flown, not counting those he'd flown for me when we
were doing the PIO work.

I thought DEL was a reversionary mode for more than spin recovery,
though. Doesn't the Bug drop into DEL when the MC faults? It's the
spin recovery mode that overrides the surface limits for spin recovery
when the yaw rate goes over some limit (40 deg/sec, maybe?), isn't it?

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

On 07 Apr 2004 06:02:19 GMT, (Regnirps) wrote:

Anybody know if Roger Lenard had anything to do with this project? I thnk he is
retired from AF now and works for Sandia?

The sim John refers to was at DFRC and had nothing to do with the
USAF. He did work on it; I checked.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 4/6/04 8:11 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:


There is no difference in stick forces or "break out" as you're calling it
between CAS, DEL, or MECH modes. Perhaps you're talking about the
feedback
force that is added when the stick is displaced from its neutral position?
That is certainly not a "break out."

The stick doesn't move for electric modes.

How many F-18 hours a year in the air are you and monkey getting Woody?
50?
20?


Per year? Absolutely ZERO in MECH, more than 150 or so in CAS, less than
1
in DEL (spin recovery mode).

Look, Tarver, I've accumulated enough hours in the Hornet to have more
than
a clue about its systems and how to employ them than you do.

I did not comment on your ability to operate the F-18 wood man. You
insutled me in assuming that because you do not know something that I could
not know it. I can assure you that I know more about the
electric/electronic systems in the F-18 than you ever possibly could. I
have the advantage over you, in having brought dead F-18s back to life and
having integrated F-18 aircraft hardware and software to a computer. When I
wrote simulator, it is not the kind you think of, but something to do
controls research on.

You see, once long ago some in NASA and USN were certain that GE was lying
about their F-18 flight control computer. Much anger was exchanged between
NASA Lewis and GE and Congress was ready to get involved. Using Gould's
software we were able to input GE's numbers and match the airplane at
Dryden. Martha Evans and a delegation went back to NASA Lewis where before
a couple of Congress critters Lewis demanded that Dryden adjust their
simulation results to match Lewis, Martha just laid the airplane strip chart
over our simulation results and showed they matched.

Next thing you know Congress is having a comittee meeting and Bob Myers is
going with Martha to testify. It was all quite a big deal and Dryden was
able to become a flight test center again on the achievement. I remember
Bob comming to my office every morning to see if I was still showing up, as
Martha was hanging on by a thread in those days.

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...

Oh, and don't worry about my ego. I'll eventually get tired of playing
this
little game with you and simply quit.

Is this just some silly game you are playing Wood man?

Now, how about answering my questions about the so-called "rotary
inverter"
and its MTBF's? Where is it located, and how is it part of the FCS?

I am not doing this to have some "superior being" play games with me.

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On 07 Apr 2004 06:02:19 GMT, (Regnirps) wrote:

Anybody know if Roger Lenard had anything to do with this project? I
thnk he is
retired from AF now and works for Sandia?

The sim John refers to was at DFRC and had nothing to do with the
USAF. He did work on it; I checked.

I designed the hardware and unloaded all the instrument timing off of the
Stoneburner. I laid out the 1553 for Martha, wrote aircraft work orders and
was rubber stamped by Chris at the CCB. Dryden granted me a considerable
amount of authority to get a simulator that soon.

I remember one of the Navy guys stopping me in the hallway and saying, "I
don't don't what we will get out of all this". Now they have the F/A-18E to
a great extent as a direct product of having an accurate model of the
F/A-18A in 1986.

From: "Tarver Engineering"


How many F-18 hours a year in the air are you and monkey getting Woody? 50?
20?

That would be 20 to 50 hours more than you ever will have.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Tarver Engineering"


How many F-18 hours a year in the air are you and monkey getting Woody?
50?
20?

That would be 20 to 50 hours more than you ever will have.

Too late old fool, Wood man already spun into the ground.

On 4/7/04 10:52 AM, in article ,
"Mary Shafer" wrote:

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 02:22:48 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
wrote:

There is no difference in stick forces or "break out" as you're calling it
between CAS, DEL, or MECH modes. Perhaps you're talking about the feedback
force that is added when the stick is displaced from its neutral position?
That is certainly not a "break out."

That is, too. That's the definition of break out force, the force you
have to overcome to leave the deadband.

What do you think break out force is?


The way he seems to be describing it there is an additional force imparted
beyond the normal feedback when the stick is displaced from neutral. Of
course, I've got no formal training in TPS terms, so perhaps I
misunderstand.

This discussion is going round and round, but my point is... that the stick
forces do not change whether in CAS, MECH or DEL--i.e. any "break out" force
in the cockpit is incidental to what the pilot normally experiences when
pulling on the pole.

Don't get me started on stick force shaping, as I spent some serious
flight time and money looking at a variety of schedules for pilot
cueing. I can probably tell you more than you want to know about how
pilots perceive the cues, although the most interesting part is how
they can fail to consciously notice a major cue, even when it affects
their technique.


I wouldn't dare even attempt to discuss it with you, Mary unless I were in
receive only mode. |:-)

How many F-18 hours a year in the air are you and monkey getting Woody? 50?
20?

Per year? Absolutely ZERO in MECH, more than 150 or so in CAS, less than 1
in DEL (spin recovery mode).

Keep it that way. The Plastic Bug flies miserably in MECH. It was a
big deal when they finally trapped in MECH, in fact. Before that, it
had meant diverting to land. When Tom McMurtry had to land one of
ours in MECH he cheerfully declared it to be one of the worse control
modes he'd ever flown, not counting those he'd flown for me when we
were doing the PIO work.


That's what I've heard. I had no idea that a trap in MECH had actually
occurred. It must have been MECH in one axis only. Eh? Sea story?

I thought DEL was a reversionary mode for more than spin recovery,
though. Doesn't the Bug drop into DEL when the MC faults? It's the
spin recovery mode that overrides the surface limits for spin recovery
when the yaw rate goes over some limit (40 deg/sec, maybe?), isn't it?

Mary

It is. You are correct that's DEL, but the only time *I'VE* ever
experienced flying in DEL is when I do Spin Recovery Mode (SRM) checks on
FCF's (only on the A profiles now).

The way I had it explained to me years ago (by some dude at China Lake) is
that SRM is a subset of the DEL mode (with the LEF's at 33-34 degrees and
the TEF's at 0 +/- 1 degree). The nose gets a bit "slicy" coming out of 30K
in with SRM engaged, and the AOA must be kept between 10-20 degrees
(although I know from personal experience that the jet won't explode if you
fall outside of that limit for transitory periods).

It's kind of a squirrelly deal to fly in. Nauga, where are you?

--Woody

On 4/7/04 12:07 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...

Oh, and don't worry about my ego. I'll eventually get tired of playing
this
little game with you and simply quit.

Is this just some silly game you are playing Wood man?

It is if you're going to resort to these comments about my "fragile ego."


Now, how about answering my questions about the so-called "rotary
inverter"
and its MTBF's? Where is it located, and how is it part of the FCS?

I am not doing this to have some "superior being" play games with me.


Still waiting.