[Fwd: What happened to Jay?]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:20:12 +0800, Franklin wrote:

On Tue 18 Nov08 11:04, Payton Byrd
wrote in
:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:51:53 +0800, Franklin wrote:

I have no idea who you're trying to impress here, but you
unfortunately picked the wrong guy :-) The purpose of my work with
the Turkey was related to EM :-))

You asked a question. I thought I could answer it. I got it wrong
but I'd like another go!

You don't give altitude so I will assume it. You made me
re-examine where I went wrong with Ps. And look up some F-14 specs.
Specific excess power Ps is delta energy with delta time.
Accounting for induced drag which the question focuses on then
(assumming weight is approx 55 klbs) at that state I say you would
get acceleration.

Going over the various possibilities it seemed (not entirely sure)
that greater thrust should encounter even greater drag and so
airspeed could fall. Am I getting closer?

Unless energy management systems have been rewritten.

Heh! Sorry if I wasn't clear.

When I wrote "encounter even greater drag" I wan't referring to the
increase in drag as the F-14 accelerated.

I was saying that it the increase in drag for this motion could be
greater than the increase in thrust which caused the motion. IYSWIM.

My bad, I was agreeing (in broad principle, Frank).
--
They say your heroes reflect the quantity and fullness of your life. I
have three, hummingbird, Bear Botttoms
and Me.Here, the Triumvirate. Alas, now measured by said axiom, I
have no life sigh

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:12:14 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:

On Nov 17, 11:07*pm, Ari
wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:54:34 -0800 (PST), Dudley Henriques wrote:
In the past, Ari has given me texts on aircraft dynamics and answered
a lot of my technical questions. It's where most of my A.D. theory
comes from. He's a good guy. Just ignore his direct manner because
those same reflexes are what make him good in a crisis.

I looked you up. You have quite a background in E-M.

Franklin
With all the fuss that's going on in the forum these days I'm not
quite sure who Ari is or why he posts under me in such an aggressive
manner. I've just assumed he was one more of the trolls attacking me
each day or even the same one with a different handle.
As the founder of a service organization I have a great deal of
personal respect for any vet. Perhaps whatever it was that angered him
will work itself out.
I'll give it a shot anyway, on your authority :-)
Dudley Henriques

Back up there Doodley, you're the one who claimed I was one of your
resident trollwits:

Why sure you will Maxie. *We all know that already. :-))

I answered:

"Let's get this straight, Duds. Maxie/Maqxwell/Mx or whomever is your
troll X to bear. My posting history (Ari Silverstein) is years on.

http://tinyurl.com/62bdpzand that's just alt.privacy.

Contact me at anytime you have the ballz.

Soooooo, you want to skip out on the decalage? Now back to calling you
out. I'm asking whether or not you understand the rules of decalage as
they apply to a pusher. Do they operate on the same principles of
decalage as they do in a Cessna? Or not?"

I'm me, you're wrong and the decalage question remains unanswered.
--
Meet Ari!http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

You're right I did. If I was mistaken I'm sorry. If I was right, you
can chalk up one for your side :-)
Anyway, let's assume I was wrong and give it another shot.
I'm a bit jumpy these days with all the idiots roaming around here. If
you're ligit, you will know exactly what I mean.
Let's taxi back to the beginning of the runway and try things on for
size again shall we? Perhaps we;ll have better luck this
time.............and don't call me Doodley. My father called me that
and it almost ended up a damn call sign!
Dudley

Aw, garsh, I think you're a sweetie!
--
Meet Ari!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:18:54 -0500, Ari wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:09:17 +0800, Franklin wrote:

In the past, Ari has given me texts on aircraft dynamics and answered
a lot of my technical questions. It's where most of my A.D. theory
comes from. He's a good guy. Just ignore his direct manner because
those same reflexes are what make him good in a crisis.

Something you have to do to get to the "bottoms" of things, right Ben?

Bottoms?

Bottoms?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
--
They say your heroes reflect the quantity and fullness of your life. I
have three, hummingbird, Bear Botttoms
and Me.Here, the Triumvirate. Alas, now measured by said axiom, I
have no life sigh

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:18:01 -0500, Ari wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:11:31 +0800, Franklin wrote:

Highly regarded by his peers, it's a shame the top brass dragged their
feet in praising John Boyd.

****, warped conceptions to hear Boyd's swooners he invented energy
fighter tactics and was personally responsible for the F-1Xs.
Knew little about energy tactics, energy fighting. Show me his initials
on blueprints F1Xs.

He never fired in enemy combat. The rhetoric about pilots that were
allegedly involved in everything aviation-related is historical
bull****. Contributions, goodie. The rest.....

Pffffffffft,

Looks like Dudley went nighty-night
--
They say your heroes reflect the quantity and fullness of your life. I
have three, hummingbird, Bear Botttoms
and Me.Here, the Triumvirate. Alas, now measured by said axiom, I
have no life sigh

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:15:36 -0500, Payton Byrd wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:18:01 -0500, Ari wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:11:31 +0800, Franklin wrote:

Highly regarded by his peers, it's a shame the top brass dragged their
feet in praising John Boyd.

****, warped conceptions to hear Boyd's swooners he invented energy
fighter tactics and was personally responsible for the F-1Xs.
Knew little about energy tactics, energy fighting. Show me his initials
on blueprints F1Xs.

He never fired in enemy combat. The rhetoric about pilots that were
allegedly involved in everything aviation-related is historical
bull****. Contributions, goodie. The rest.....

Pffffffffft,

Looks like Dudley went nighty-night

Age-induced sleep.
--
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9

On Mon 17 Nov08 23:30, Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

On Nov 17, 10:23*am, Payton Byrd
wrote:
[...]

You missed the term "increasing" I'm afraid. 5.5 squared is 30.5,
which is fine for pure math, but not fine for a turning F14 with a
linear expanding g profile.
The 25 figure as stated in the assumption is correct within the
problem.

Fun isn't it?


Sir, please sir. The Ps value is far too low.

On Nov 18, 3:20*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
On Nov 18, 12:51*pm, Franklin see_REPLY-TO_header wrote:



On Tue 18 Nov08 06:59, Dudley Henriques wrote:

On Nov 18, 7:14*am, Franklin see_REPLY-TO_header wrote:
On Mon 17 Nov08 23:30, Dudley Henriques wrote
in news:60ccd111-02f8-4eae-bb7a-582816c86b45
@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com:

On Nov 17, 10:23*am, Payton Byrd
wrote:
[...]

You missed the term "increasing" I'm afraid. 5.5 squared is 30.5,
which is fine for pure math, but not fine for a turning F14 with
a linear expanding g profile.
The 25 figure as stated in the assumption is correct within the
problem.

Fun isn't it?

Sir, please sir. The Ps value is far too low.

Good try but no cigar I'm afraid. No Ps value is possible for ANY
aircraft without the inclusion of altitude in the equation.
Ps can be positive or negative anywhere in the envelope not on the
Ps0 line for the aircraft, BUT establishing that Ps value in any
turn is directly related to the altitude where the turn parameters
are in play.

I see that now. Ok. My mistake.

I have no idea who you're trying to impress here, but you
unfortunately picked the wrong guy :-) The purpose of my work with
the Turkey was related to EM :-))

You asked a question. I thought I could answer it. I got it wrong but I'd
like another go!

You don't give altitude so I will assume it. *You made me re-examine
where I went wrong with Ps. And look up some F-14 specs. Specific excess
power Ps is delta energy with delta time. Accounting for induced drag
which the question focuses on then (assumming weight is approx 55 klbs)
at that state I say you would get acceleration.

Going over the various possibilities it seemed (not entirely sure) that
greater thrust should encounter even greater drag and so airspeed could
fall. *Am I getting closer?

If you want to talk energy maneuverability be my guest.
Dudley Henriques

That's for a John Boyd! What a maverick. I couldn't hope to match his
stunts to highlight E-M.

Sorry for my offensive post. Things have been nuts around here lately
with all these characters and I thought you might be another one :-)

Yes, your second try is exactly right. In the example given, if the g
is decreased the Turkey will accelerate which is the answer to the
first question, and if the g is increased, airspeed will fall victim
to drag.

Another way to present the "problem" would be as follows, only this
time including the altitude which as you have correctly surmised,
gives us a Ps figure for the F14. In our example, the Turkey is at T-
D=0 which = Ps=0 or on the Ps equals zero line for the F14.

An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced drag
has increased by a factor of 25. At this point, T-D=0 and Ps=0. If g
is decreased the F14 will accelerate. If we pull harder, airspeed will
drop off.

Thank you for explaining your post instead of reacting to my over
aggressive response to you.
Dudley Henriques

Is there ever a time when pulling more g does not rob airspeed? I've
not experienced any case where more g does not take energy...

Cheers

On Nov 18, 8:54*am, More_Flaps wrote:
On Nov 18, 3:20*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:



On Nov 18, 12:51*pm, Franklin see_REPLY-TO_header wrote:

On Tue 18 Nov08 06:59, Dudley Henriques wrote:

On Nov 18, 7:14*am, Franklin see_REPLY-TO_header wrote:
On Mon 17 Nov08 23:30, Dudley Henriques wrote
in news:60ccd111-02f8-4eae-bb7a-582816c86b45
@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com:

On Nov 17, 10:23*am, Payton Byrd
wrote:
[...]

You missed the term "increasing" I'm afraid. 5.5 squared is 30.5,
which is fine for pure math, but not fine for a turning F14 with
a linear expanding g profile.
The 25 figure as stated in the assumption is correct within the
problem.

Fun isn't it?

Sir, please sir. The Ps value is far too low.

Good try but no cigar I'm afraid. No Ps value is possible for ANY
aircraft without the inclusion of altitude in the equation.
Ps can be positive or negative anywhere in the envelope not on the
Ps0 line for the aircraft, BUT establishing that Ps value in any
turn is directly related to the altitude where the turn parameters
are in play.

I see that now. Ok. My mistake.

I have no idea who you're trying to impress here, but you
unfortunately picked the wrong guy :-) The purpose of my work with
the Turkey was related to EM :-))

You asked a question. I thought I could answer it. I got it wrong but I'd
like another go!

You don't give altitude so I will assume it. *You made me re-examine
where I went wrong with Ps. And look up some F-14 specs. Specific excess
power Ps is delta energy with delta time. Accounting for induced drag
which the question focuses on then (assumming weight is approx 55 klbs)
at that state I say you would get acceleration.

Going over the various possibilities it seemed (not entirely sure) that
greater thrust should encounter even greater drag and so airspeed could
fall. *Am I getting closer?

If you want to talk energy maneuverability be my guest.
Dudley Henriques

That's for a John Boyd! What a maverick. I couldn't hope to match his
stunts to highlight E-M.

Sorry for my offensive post. Things have been nuts around here lately
with all these characters and I thought you might be another one :-)

Yes, your second try is exactly right. In the example given, if the g
is decreased the Turkey will accelerate which is the answer to the
first question, and if the g is increased, airspeed will fall victim
to drag.

Another way to present the "problem" would be as follows, only this
time including the altitude which as you have correctly surmised,
gives us a Ps figure for the F14. In our example, the Turkey is at T-
D=0 which = Ps=0 or on the Ps equals zero line for the F14.

An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced drag
has increased by a factor of 25. At this point, T-D=0 and Ps=0. If g
is decreased the F14 will accelerate. If we pull harder, airspeed will
drop off.

Thank you for explaining your post instead of reacting to my over
aggressive response to you.
Dudley Henriques

Is there ever a time when pulling more g does not rob airspeed? I've
not experienced any case where more g does not take energy...

Cheers

The ability to pull g will produce a lot of things including turn rate
and radius depending on where the aircraft is in relation to it's
specific excess power available. You will lose airspeed to g as
induced drag increases, so an energy loss as you have indicated.
Thrust is the equalizer if available. The combination of all these
factors determines where the aircraft is at any moment in three
dimensional space. Create positive g and counter that with thrust and
you have a positive Ps and the ability to accelerate, turn or climb in
that area of your envelope. Create g that can't be countered by thrust
and you do indeed lose airspeed. The turn you are generating drags the
aircraft back toward it's neutral Ps=0 line for those conditions and
any g generated beyond that point will result in a negative Ps. With
negative energy rate being generated, something has to give. That will
usually be altitude.
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news:f188c124-e34b-4816-939e-
Is there ever a time when pulling more g does not rob airspeed? I've
not experienced any case where more g does not take energy...

Cheers

The ability to pull g will produce a lot of things including turn rate
and radius depending on where the aircraft is in relation to it's
specific excess power available. You will lose airspeed to g as
induced drag increases, so an energy loss as you have indicated.
Thrust is the equalizer if available. The combination of all these
factors determines where the aircraft is at any moment in three
dimensional space. Create positive g and counter that with thrust and
you have a positive Ps and the ability to accelerate, turn or climb in
that area of your envelope. Create g that can't be countered by thrust
and you do indeed lose airspeed. The turn you are generating drags the
aircraft back toward it's neutral Ps=0 line for those conditions and
any g generated beyond that point will result in a negative Ps. With
negative energy rate being generated, something has to give. That will
usually be altitude.
Dudley Henriques

------------------------------------

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt! The correct answer was No, Hemingway.

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 05:54:02 -0800 (PST), More_Flaps wrote:

Is there ever a time when pulling more g does not rob airspeed? I've
not experienced any case where more g does not take energy...

They are inversely related (through inducted drag)
--
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6glxm9