X-43A successful flight

On 4/4/04 1:46 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:


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

Missed the front part of the conversation, John. What exactly did he say?

I made a claim WRT the break out force of the F/A-18 stick and monkey came
by to correct me.


I'm not sure what break-out force you're talking about. Granted, my only
experience with MECH is during FCF's, but when you motor the right engine
(no generators on line), the stabs just move--period. If there was any
sensation of a "break out" force, I'd down the jet for binding flight
controls.

The Mech flight control function isn't easily "eliminated" from the legacy
Hornet. It is still part of the FCF checklist, however and is checked on
A
and C FCF's. (I fly so few B's that I haven't a clue if it's on that
list.)
I don't personally find it very useful (my opinion only) which is, I
think,
why it WAS eliminated from the Super Hornet.

The Super Hornet exists in a much different electric airplane reliability
reality.

Electrically? Only because it's new. From what I understand, the FCC's
aren't all that different--2 of 'em, 2 channels each. Hydraulically, it's a
different story entirely though. My last talk with a Boeing engineer about
the issue yielded that the MECH system in the legacy Hornet (baby Hornet,
whatever) was so unused, that it was deemed unnecessary by the Program folks
for the Super Hornet (cost/weight savings).

Can you imagine the skew the F/A-18E's pilot reported defect rate
is doing to the entire system? The numbers are actual war operations, so
their is no time to play chinese fire drill to hide defects. The numbers
are nearly as unbelievable as FAA turning in two zero killed years since
1997. Applying the RPL Model really paid off for the Navy.

I don't think that the "pilot reported defects" in the legacy Hornet's
flight control system were ever "hidden." In fact, I've even seen HAZREPS
with the latest PROM 10.7. The reason the Super Hornet's numbers are better
are more than likely because the jet's new and there aren't many of them
yet.

I don't know what RPL is, but if you're saying that the Super Hornet's doing
well, I agree.

The biggest reason that legacy Hornet pilots end up in MECH is because they
somehow inadvertently drive themselves there (mostly with an engine shut
down on FCF's). This is an extremely rare occurrence though and is easily
reset.

In fact, I can only recall hearing of one Mech-Off-Off incident (i.e. down
to the stabs only for controlling the jet) in the F/A-18A-D, and the guy
flying it (USMC?) shelled out shortly after because of the resulting
oscillations.

It is a simple thing to just break the stick out and use the backup.

What does that mean? The DDI will give you a MECH ON caution, and the
tic-tac-toe board will be filled with X's, but there's no "break out"
associated with MECH. The airplane will either continue to be controllable
or it won't--depending on where you are in the flight envelope and how well
the system is working for you. In this guy's case, it wasn't.

--Woody

From: "Tarver Engineering"
Date: 4/4/2004 4:40 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 4/4/04 2:52 PM, in article
, "monkey"
wrote:

"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote in
message
...
On 4/4/04 5:16 AM, in article
, "monkey"
wrote:

SNIP

err...read the post...like I said, I'm not an F/A-18 pilot, I'm a
CF-18 pilot...BITCH.
p.s. flew a great 2v2 today, what did you do, clown show?

Yep, this guy's a Hornet pilot. He certainly talks like one! Where
are you
stationed, Monkey? If Cold Lake, is Pat Peters still up there?

--Woody

Cold Lake. If you mean the USAF Pat Peters at AETE, yes he's still
here. I have to admit I don't really know the guy though. Where are
you at?

That's the guy. More off line. I'm telling you, Tarver, the guy's
authentic.

He seems authentic in many ways, especially the F/A-18 big dick attitude;
something I have to admit is earned. My only objection is his propigating a
safety of flight training defect.


Hey guys, a new dance: the Tarver Shuffle. First tarver called him a fraud now
he "seems authentic." At this rate tarver will admit he was wrong in twenty or
thirty years.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Tarver Engineering"
Date: 4/4/2004 4:40 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 4/4/04 2:52 PM, in article
, "monkey"
wrote:

"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote in
message
...
On 4/4/04 5:16 AM, in article
, "monkey"
wrote:

SNIP

err...read the post...like I said, I'm not an F/A-18 pilot, I'm a
CF-18 pilot...BITCH.
p.s. flew a great 2v2 today, what did you do, clown show?

Yep, this guy's a Hornet pilot. He certainly talks like one! Where
are you
stationed, Monkey? If Cold Lake, is Pat Peters still up there?

--Woody

Cold Lake. If you mean the USAF Pat Peters at AETE, yes he's still
here. I have to admit I don't really know the guy though. Where are
you at?

That's the guy. More off line. I'm telling you, Tarver, the guy's
authentic.

He seems authentic in many ways, especially the F/A-18 big dick attitude;
something I have to admit is earned. My only objection is his
propigating a
safety of flight training defect.


Hey guys, a new dance: the Tarver Shuffle. First tarver called him a fraud
now
he "seems authentic." At this rate tarver will admit he was wrong in
twenty or
thirty years.

If monkey is not a frad he requires remedial training. From what Woody
posts the Canadians may have already lost an F-18 to the ignorance monkey
displays.

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 4/4/04 1:46 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:


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

Missed the front part of the conversation, John. What exactly did he
say?

I made a claim WRT the break out force of the F/A-18 stick and monkey
came
by to correct me.


I'm not sure what break-out force you're talking about. Granted, my only
experience with MECH is during FCF's, but when you motor the right engine
(no generators on line), the stabs just move--period. If there was any
sensation of a "break out" force, I'd down the jet for binding flight
controls.

There is a cable system connected such that the stick continues to work for
a total electric failure in the F-18ABCD.

On 4/4/04 5:55 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 4/4/04 1:46 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:


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

Missed the front part of the conversation, John. What exactly did he
say?

I made a claim WRT the break out force of the F/A-18 stick and monkey
came
by to correct me.


I'm not sure what break-out force you're talking about. Granted, my only
experience with MECH is during FCF's, but when you motor the right engine
(no generators on line), the stabs just move--period. If there was any
sensation of a "break out" force, I'd down the jet for binding flight
controls.

There is a cable system connected such that the stick continues to work for
a total electric failure in the F-18ABCD.



Yes. Truly. It's in the NATOPS and everything. My confusion with your
statements is this occasional mention of a "break out" or "break out force."
There is nothing like that.

As I explained before. If while starting up the aircraft, if you simply
windmill the right engine (battery power only, no generators on line, RPM
sitting at about 26-32%), you can wipe out the stick and observe the stabs
move--differentially for roll and together for pitch. There is no binding
and the only force is that of the artificial feel system trying to return
the stick to the neutral position--the same as when the jet is in CAS mode.
They even have more pitch authority with the flap switch in HALF or FULL.
That's MECH in a nutshell.

It is mechanically controlled and hydraulically actuated, so you must have
at least one engine windmilling to make it work.

--Woody

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 4/4/04 5:55 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 4/4/04 1:46 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:


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

Missed the front part of the conversation, John. What exactly did he
say?

I made a claim WRT the break out force of the F/A-18 stick and monkey
came
by to correct me.


I'm not sure what break-out force you're talking about. Granted, my
only
experience with MECH is during FCF's, but when you motor the right
engine
(no generators on line), the stabs just move--period. If there was any
sensation of a "break out" force, I'd down the jet for binding flight
controls.

There is a cable system connected such that the stick continues to work
for
a total electric failure in the F-18ABCD.



Yes. Truly. It's in the NATOPS and everything. My confusion with your
statements is this occasional mention of a "break out" or "break out
force."
There is nothing like that.

I know that information from having desiged the first accuratee F/A-18
simulator at Dryden. The reason for bringing up the break out force in the
first place was to demonstrate how much force a Flanker applying an
additional 33# of force directly into his crotch to do a cobra would be
risking. It is a completely different thread, but monkey wanted to branch
off into a demonstration is his huge penis and then immediately stepped on
same.

As I explained before. If while starting up the aircraft, if you simply
windmill the right engine (battery power only, no generators on line, RPM
sitting at about 26-32%), you can wipe out the stick and observe the stabs
move--differentially for roll and together for pitch. There is no binding
and the only force is that of the artificial feel system trying to return
the stick to the neutral position--the same as when the jet is in CAS
mode.
They even have more pitch authority with the flap switch in HALF or FULL.
That's MECH in a nutshell.

There is no FCS in mech mode for the F/A-18ABCD, so the limits are disabled.
The mechanical control system, is of course interesting to the Flanker
discussion in that the F/A-18ABCD are cobra capable under a disabled FCS
system just as the Flanker is. the difference bring that the F/A-18ABCD has
the FCS over ride switches delected for production.

It is mechanically controlled and hydraulically actuated, so you must have
at least one engine windmilling to make it work.

The probabilistic viewpoint is that the system failure most likely is that
"prince of darkness" rotary inverter. It never lived up to it's MTBF
promises.

"AbsolutelyCertain" wrote in message
...

"JL Grasso " wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 10:19:21 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"

wrote:

I know that information from having desiged the first accuratee F/A-18
simulator at Dryden.

How do you ever find the time for all of your exploits?

Jerry

They happen mostly during REM sleep, I think. Or while clenching a stick
in
his teeth to keep from swallowing his tongue.

Jack Nicholson, "One Flew Over the Gerbil's Nest". Who could forget?
Zzzzzzztttt! Zzzzzzztttt!

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.

Woody, the Tarver-dude is reasoning-proof. In ancient Greece he'd be a
sophist without a following. Plonk him ;-)

_____________
José Herculano

On 4/5/04 12:19 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
SNIP
Yes. Truly. It's in the NATOPS and everything. My confusion with your
statements is this occasional mention of a "break out" or "break out
force." There is nothing like that.

I know that information from having desiged the first accuratee F/A-18
simulator at Dryden. The reason for bringing up the break out force in the
first place was to demonstrate how much force a Flanker applying an
additional 33# of force directly into his crotch to do a cobra would be
risking. It is a completely different thread, but monkey wanted to branch
off into a demonstration is his huge penis and then immediately stepped on
same.


Flanker, whatever... It's not a Hornet, which was where I came into this
discussion. Okay? As long as you're agreeing that there's no break out
force in the Hornet, we're square. Based on the fact that you've moved onto
Flankers, it sounds like you are.

As I explained before. If while starting up the aircraft, if you simply
windmill the right engine (battery power only, no generators on line, RPM
sitting at about 26-32%), you can wipe out the stick and observe the stabs
move--differentially for roll and together for pitch. There is no binding
and the only force is that of the artificial feel system trying to return
the stick to the neutral position--the same as when the jet is in CAS
mode. They even have more pitch authority with the flap switch in HALF or
FULL. That's MECH in a nutshell.

There is no FCS in mech mode for the F/A-18ABCD, so the limits are disabled.

What you mean to say is that there are no FCC's (Flight Control Computers)
in MECH mode. MECH *IS* in fact, part of the FCS (or Flight Control System)
which includes three modes: CAS, DEL, and MECH.

There *IS* additional back-stick pitch authority provided with the flap
switch in HALF or FULL.

The mechanical control system, is of course interesting to the Flanker
discussion in that the F/A-18ABCD are cobra capable under a disabled FCS
system just as the Flanker is. the difference bring that the F/A-18ABCD has
the FCS over ride switches delected for production.


What in the world are you talking about? The only FCS override switch is
the paddle switch on the stick. That switch would have NOTHING to do with a
Cobra maneuver. And ALL Hornets (ABCDEF) are capable of doing a Cobra with
PROM 10.7 or later. You'll never see it at an air show though.

It is mechanically controlled and hydraulically actuated, so you must have
at least one engine windmilling to make it work.

The probabilistic viewpoint is that the system failure most likely is that
"prince of darkness" rotary inverter. It never lived up to it's MTBF
promises.


What rotary inverter? Where is it? How is it part of the FCS?

--Woody

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 4/5/04 12:19 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
SNIP
Yes. Truly. It's in the NATOPS and everything. My confusion with
your
statements is this occasional mention of a "break out" or "break out
force." There is nothing like that.

I know that information from having desiged the first accuratee F/A-18
simulator at Dryden. The reason for bringing up the break out force in
the
first place was to demonstrate how much force a Flanker applying an
additional 33# of force directly into his crotch to do a cobra would be
risking. It is a completely different thread, but monkey wanted to
branch
off into a demonstration is his huge penis and then immediately stepped
on
same.


Flanker, whatever... It's not a Hornet, which was where I came into this
discussion. Okay? As long as you're agreeing that there's no break out
force in the Hornet, we're square.

Let us agree that I know where the F/A-18 stick breaks out at (20#) and that
you and monkey are clueless. That is so much easier than stroking your
fragile ego, Woody. It is a safety of flight issue and I am not going to
budge on the fact. If Canada chooses to use less safe operators for their
F-18s then that is their business.