If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...
Stalling the wing is outside the flight envelope, Weiss. What flight envelope? What airplane? Did you post this thread without knowing what airplane you are discussing? Nope. You haven't been able to tell us what flight envelope you're referring to, and now you mention something about stalling, which wasn't a factor in the current discussion... |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in message news:86u%b.419138$na.808979@attbi_s04... "Tarver Engineering" wrote... Stalling the wing is outside the flight envelope, Weiss. What flight envelope? What airplane? Did you post this thread without knowing what airplane you are discussing? Nope. You haven't been able to tell us what flight envelope you're referring to, and now you mention something about stalling, which wasn't a factor in the current discussion... Do you claim that the airplane's engines hold the A-320 in the air by themselves? In what way do you believe the wing did not stall? |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in message news:S08%b.58709$4o.76896@attbi_s52...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote... Since my servers seldom get me all the newsgroup messages and Google.groups can't seem to find the begining of this thread, please allow me to ask a question and pose some answers. And I apologize if any of this has been discussed previously. From the bits I have read subsequent to John's message above, I assume we are discussing the A-320 crash at Habshiem. If so, let me present some information relevant to the discussion, as I have not read anything as yet that indicates any of the posters knows much if anything about Airbus flight control systems. I do believe I am qualified to speak on the subject as I teach A-330 systems, which has a flight control system identical to the A-320. The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet. The aircraft was below 100 feet. This is significant to the incident (and not just because that is where we find trees). In the Airbus the computers have a group of flight control protections collectively known as "Laws". In Normal Law there is a low-speed, high AOA protection known as Alpha-Floor. Alpha-Floor is reached somewhere below Vls (the lowest speed the aircraft will fly with autopilot/autothrust on and sidestick in neutral), and prior to Alpha-Max (maximum AOA). At Alpha-Floor the autothrust commands TOGA power, and regardless of how much you pull back on the sidestick, the aircraft will not decelerate below Alpha-Max. It will just mush along at TOGA power until it runs out of gas or the pilot lowers the nose to accelerate. The problem is, Alpha-Floor is not available between 100' and touchdown - otherwise you could never land! The pilot was expecting Alpha-Floor, but being too low, it did not happen. By the time he realized his error, he applied power, but it was too late. You can, in fact, hear the engines spooling up just prior to his impact with the trees in the video we show in class. The aircraft performed as it should have. The pilot simply did not have an adequate understanding of his aircraft for the manuver he was doing. He also failed to follow the script. Two things the French apparently frown upon, expecially when used in combination. Lesson: if you don't fully understand your aircraft, it can reach out and bite you someday. John Alger A-330 Flight Crew Training Instructor Former rides: TA-4J, A-7E, EC-130Q and P-3B |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in message news:rKt%b.418959$na.808977@attbi_s04... "Tarver Engineering" wrote... Airbus hadn't programmed their A-320 to do what the operator commanded. Hmmm... I suspect that when the pilot added go-around power, he commanded the airplane to provide maximum lift/minimum sink while the engines spooled up. In what wy do you believe that stalling the wing is within the flight envelope? In what way do you believe stalling the wing had anything to do with the late go-around attempt? What? |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
Chad Irby wrote in message . com...
In article , (puttster) wrote: Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway! Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once? The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we need a little fighter cover from the LHDs." Well that was my question, if the biggest mission that con be realiatically conjures is a dozen, why order 400+? How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq? To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go through the other services as much. They've been flying off of the USS Bonhomme Richard. Overall, Iraq hasn't been a good test of what we'd need the Harrier for. I heard that adfter the fighting was over the marines moved the Harriers onshore, but of course that was politics. By then they had their pick of runways and did not need VSTOL. |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
yes, please do, but not with politispeak generalities. Instead, give
me the best one practical example of the ideal mission as the perfect reason why the Marines would need to order 400+ F-35B's. "Frijoles" wrote in message hlink.net... No need to conjure. Try expeditionary air operations (FW and RW) ashore, as demonstrated in DS, OEF and OIF. TACAIR operations from amphibious shipping. How about assault support from amphibious shipping or from expeditionary locations ashore? Should I go on? "puttster" wrote in message om... Chad Irby wrote in message . com... In article , (puttster) wrote: Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway! Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once? The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we need a little fighter cover from the LHDs." If there are no good airstrips how would the marines get their gas, bombs, food, and all the other support? How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq? To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go through the other services as much. They've been flying off of the USS Bonhomme Richard. Overall, Iraq hasn't been a good test of what we'd need the Harrier for. Can anyone conjure a F-35B Marine job that could not be none by the navy? |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
"puttster" wrote in message om... Chad Irby wrote in message . com... In article , (puttster) wrote: Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway! Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once? The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we need a little fighter cover from the LHDs." Well that was my question, if the biggest mission that con be realiatically conjures is a dozen, why order 400+? Because (a) ordering 12 would be extremely expensive on a unit cost basis (obviously), (b) you'd run out of hours on those 12 airframes rather quickly (remember that those 400 will actually be ordered over a spread of years), and (c) when you need 18 and only have 12 you are in a world of hurt. They are replacing both their AV-8B's and their F-18C/D's with these aircraft, so 400 is not unrealistic. How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq? To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go through the other services as much. They've been flying off of the USS Bonhomme Richard. Overall, Iraq hasn't been a good test of what we'd need the Harrier for. I heard that adfter the fighting was over the marines moved the Harriers onshore, but of course that was politics. "Politics"? Operational advantage had nothing to do with it, huh? By then they had their pick of runways and did not need VSTOL. Hardly the case, IIRC. They did use the VSOL capability to hit FARP's, thus reducing drastically the time between CAS sorties. Imagine a scenario where we have to seize both a beachhead and a subsequent airhead from a hostile force. As part of the preparation for the assault, we naturally closed down their local airbase--maybe a few 2000 pound JDAM's punching up the runway. It takes a while to do the repairs, and until they are done you can't operate anything but maybe a C-130 on a MLS (minimum landing strip), along with F-35B's doing their STOVL thing. You can now push maybe 36 F-35B's onto the strip, to add to the dozen or so you have operating from offshore that can now join them. Having 48 fixed wing platforms supporting your force while you struggle to get the runway up and operational for later CTOL assets could be very valuable. You set up a FARP on the highway a few klicks to the rear of the FLOT, and now your F-35B's can provide continuous CAS, rotating through the FARP to rearm and refuel. The STOVL capability makes sense--that is why the USAF is apparently now going to switch part of its planned A model buy to B models. Brooks |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Chad, these are the reasons given, but to me do not add up. The
Osprey is primarily a troop carrier, it will bring 24 marines on one trip and spend the next 5 supplying them. Inbetween it can carry 10,000 lbs for the air wing, but that is barely enough for gas for a single F-35 mission. Who will bring the bombs, the operations and maintenance crews (and their food, and the cooks) and flight control people, the artillery, the barbed wire, the hooches, the field hospitals... And if we did have the capability to build up an air wing and a Brigade of marines deep into the land mass, well why couldn't we just bring in some steel planking while we aere at it and build a runway and bring in some serious cargo and F-35 A's? Wouldn't that be a faster solution than VSTOLing everything? Chad Irby wrote in message . com... In article , (puttster) wrote: Chad Irby wrote in message . com... The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we need a little fighter cover from the LHDs." If there are no good airstrips how would the marines get their gas, bombs, food, and all the other support? See the other posts in this thread about the V-22 Osprey, or read up on parachure sropping/resupply. You also have a lot of situations where the Marines would have a forward location, a few hundred miles outside of the range of carrier jets, but still accessible from the ground. It's also nice to have fast-reaction fighter jets that don't have to live on a big, obvious target like an airfeld. |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
"John Keeney" wrote in message ...
"Guy Alcala" wrote in message . .. John Keeney wrote: "puttster" wrote in message om... "John Carrier" wrote in message ... Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft designed as a Carrier Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with you. The B will be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. Sure, it can land on a carrier but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using arresting gear or Cat launches. True in a sense, but as a VSTOL and STOVL design, it's fully carrier suitable w/o the need for catapult gear (I suspect it does have a tailhook). I'd also be much surprised if its CNI suite didn't include ACLS and SPN-41 in their latest incarnations. R / John With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy still demand those giant carriers? Seems like something can be done there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane (the F-35C) to fit their ships? Because the F-35C flies farther with a bigger load than the F-35B. As always, the question is how much do you need that extra range, and should the navy a/c do that mission when it is needed? Kind of depends how you define the I want to see the carriers able to hit Afganistan from the Indian Ocean and a few other places that might be a tad less accessible. Call it the "anywhere in the second country in from the beach" rule. Here is the math fails. If the Marine F-35B's have a range of 450 miles and the Navy's F-35C's have a range of 700 miles, how are the marines going to set up at points inaccessible by the Navy? Besides, how will they get resupplied? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"C-175 SoCal Beware" Original Poster Replies | Bill Berle | Aviation Marketplace | 8 | July 8th 04 07:01 AM |
More LED's | Veeduber | Home Built | 19 | June 9th 04 10:07 PM |
Replace fabric with glass | Ernest Christley | Home Built | 38 | April 17th 04 11:37 AM |
RAN to get new LSD class vessel to replace 5 logistic vessels ... | Aerophotos | Military Aviation | 10 | November 3rd 03 11:49 PM |
Air Force to replace enlisted historians with civilians | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 1 | October 22nd 03 09:41 AM |