X-43A successful flight

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 4/7/04 12:05 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:

SNIP

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.

What we have here is... Failure to communicate. I never made that
assumption... At least not publically.

Sure you did. It is very insulting for you to ask me to admit I am wrong
when i am correct and you just don't know. You come off as a prick, instead
of that big dick F-18 thing, same for little blo monkey.

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:49:00 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
wrote:

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

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.

I thought the feel system changed in the spin recovery mode, with more
surface deflection per inch of stick displacement, but there's a good
chance that was either a non-standard F-18 or some other airplane. I
mean, I could have been thinking of the F-16 deep stall recovery mode,
you know.

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. |:-)

Did you know, for example, that you have a different tolerance for
time delay in the feel system than you do for time delay in the flight
control system? If asked, you probably don't even know you can tell
the difference, but you can.

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 honestly don't know if it was one axis or more. It's not a sea
story, because we got the notification from the class desk (or
whatever they call it). You know the thing I mean, the telex to all
F/A-18 squadrons and Dryden, with time-critical information.

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?

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).

I think this is all exactly right, except that my crummy memory for
numbers means I can't say about them. I don't think you can get the
jet to explode on transient excursions outside the limit, although I
know that no one should ever underestimate the fleet pilots, but you
can get it to depart again if you botch the recovery (usually by being
a little too enthusiastic too soon). If you do it just right, you can
get it to depart into a worse mode, like oscillatory instead of flat.

I'll give you my standard stall-departure-spin warning, which I give
to every fighter pilot and test pilot I know. Be careful if you're
flying a two-seat version with a centerline tank. It will depart and
spin much more easily than a single-seat jet or a clean jet. You're
not guaranteed to depart and spin, of course, but you're at greater
risk. It also probably won't recover as well or as quickly and it may
have more spin modes.

I used to have a couple of plots that really made this point clear,
but I left them with one of the flying qualities engineers when I
retired. I wasn't sure if all the data was generally available.

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

They're all squirrelly in stall-departure-spin. Maybe it's because
it's all forebody flow so there's a lot of moment arm or something.
The F-16 deep stall procedure is odd, to say the least, because you
get out of the stall by pulling up the nose and increasing the stall
angle before you push over and "rock" the airplane out of the stall.

Yo, Nauga, over here!

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

On 4/7/04 11:30 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 4/7/04 12:05 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:

SNIP

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.

What we have here is... Failure to communicate. I never made that
assumption... At least not publically.

Sure you did. It is very insulting for you to ask me to admit I am wrong
when i am correct and you just don't know. You come off as a prick, instead
of that big dick F-18 thing, same for little blo monkey.


Okay, I've asked you several questions trying to get answers... About rotary
inverters, about Bob and Mary etc... You seem to refuse to answer or to
educate, but instead break down to insults.

Meanwhile several others on the NG have asked me to stop because they're
tired of reading this tripe (probably getting nearly as bad as those "KILL
THE DEMON BUSH..." posts).

Since you've degraded into throwing around personal insults, I'm going to
oblige them.

The only good thing I got out of this discussion is a chance to learn from
Mary Shafer. Good day, sir.

--Woody

On 4/8/04 12:17 AM, in article ,
"Mary Shafer" wrote:

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:49:00 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
wrote:

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

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.

I thought the feel system changed in the spin recovery mode, with more
surface deflection per inch of stick displacement, but there's a good
chance that was either a non-standard F-18 or some other airplane. I
mean, I could have been thinking of the F-16 deep stall recovery mode,
you know.


It may, but I wouldn't know because I never move the stick more than about
1/2 an inch in that mode. I sort of doubt it though because pulling the
stick back or cycling it in a cold/dead airplane feels (force wise) exactly
the same as moving it around in a live running airplane.

I should explain here that the only time I've USED SRM is when I'm doing an
FCF A. The SRM check starts at 30K and 200 KCAS. Basically, turn the SRM
switch to RCVY, and hold the stick back. Then the aircraft hits the correct
numbers (which embarrassingly escape me right now... Circa 150 KCAS), SRM
actually engages. You basically hold 10-20 alpha for the rest of the
recovery while accelerating through 250 so that SRM will auto-disengage.
Basically, we're just diving in SRM in level flight and checking that it
engages and disengages when it's supposed to.

We used to do these checks on C and A FCF's. Now just on A's.

SNIP

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

Did you know, for example, that you have a different tolerance for
time delay in the feel system than you do for time delay in the flight
control system? If asked, you probably don't even know you can tell
the difference, but you can.


Ow.

SNIP

I think this is all exactly right, except that my crummy memory for
numbers means I can't say about them. I don't think you can get the
jet to explode on transient excursions outside the limit, although I
know that no one should ever underestimate the fleet pilots, but you
can get it to depart again if you botch the recovery (usually by being
a little too enthusiastic too soon). If you do it just right, you can
get it to depart into a worse mode, like oscillatory instead of flat.


The explode thing was a poor attempt at humor.

I'll give you my standard stall-departure-spin warning, which I give
to every fighter pilot and test pilot I know. Be careful if you're
flying a two-seat version with a centerline tank. It will depart and
spin much more easily than a single-seat jet or a clean jet. You're
not guaranteed to depart and spin, of course, but you're at greater
risk. It also probably won't recover as well or as quickly and it may
have more spin modes.


Concur with the two-seater/single C/L.

Departing I have done (single-seat)... Twice. Once was fairly eye-opening.
460KCAS (probably much slower 350 or less when it stopped flying) at 15000
feet with a full load of back stick and a full boot of top rudder--a real
ham-fist piece of work. The airplane recovered after disappearing into its
own cotton-ball and some real bang-me-up PSG's. I felt pretty sheepish.
Jet was just fine. The immediate action procedures (basically let go and
wait) worked like a champ.

I used to have a couple of plots that really made this point clear,
but I left them with one of the flying qualities engineers when I
retired. I wasn't sure if all the data was generally available.

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

They're all squirrelly in stall-departure-spin. Maybe it's because
it's all forebody flow so there's a lot of moment arm or something.
The F-16 deep stall procedure is odd, to say the least, because you
get out of the stall by pulling up the nose and increasing the stall
angle before you push over and "rock" the airplane out of the stall.


Weird. Do those guys still do that with the 25 alpha limiter installed?

Yo, Nauga, over here!


If he's lurking, this is usually the point where he shows up.

--Woody

Mary

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 4/7/04 11:30 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 4/7/04 12:05 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:

SNIP

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.

What we have here is... Failure to communicate. I never made that
assumption... At least not publically.

Sure you did. It is very insulting for you to ask me to admit I am
wrong
when i am correct and you just don't know. You come off as a prick,
instead
of that big dick F-18 thing, same for little blo monkey.


Okay, I've asked you several questions trying to get answers... About
rotary
inverters, about Bob and Mary etc... You seem to refuse to answer or to
educate, but instead break down to insults.

I am sorry that once found clueless, being a prick didn't carry the day for
you, wood man. Perhaps in our next encounter you might act in a civilized
manner and I may answer your questions. It is you and little blo monkey
that are being insulting and that is odd considering the laughable condition
of the Canadain military.

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 4/8/04 12:17 AM, in article ,
"Mary Shafer" wrote:

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:49:00 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
wrote:

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

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.

I thought the feel system changed in the spin recovery mode, with more
surface deflection per inch of stick displacement, but there's a good
chance that was either a non-standard F-18 or some other airplane. I
mean, I could have been thinking of the F-16 deep stall recovery mode,
you know.


It may, but I wouldn't know

There is your problem, wood man. Next time you want to be a prick, let it
be about something you know; instead of making such a fool of yourself and
your Nation.

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

You didn't know, so you assumed I must not know. The only misunderstanding
here is your confucion at why being a dick didn't work for you. That is a
very common practice amoung pilots with more ego than knowledge. In the
past I would have just walked away and left you to your ignorance, but I
have learned over my years on usenet that walking away will only embolden
you to be even more of a prick, wood man. (see Weiss' posts)

This discussion is going round and round, but my point is...

No it isn't, you have allready spun into the ground wood man.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"Mike Kanze" wrote in message
...
Let us agree that I know where the F/A-18 stick breaks out at (20#) and
that you and monkey are clueless.

Once again, the Tarverbot shows his OWN cluelessness.

Not me. It is unsafe for the operator..............
Snip

mmm lets look at a tarver quote from the archives....

Newsgroups: alt.disasters.aviation
Subject: Southwest skids another one off the runway
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 10:05:37 -0800

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ...

Bwawhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahhw!

So, Splaps boy, wanna tell me how an autothrottle is going to slow an
airplane down?

Retarding the throttles will cease the engines from adding thrust, my silly
rodent. Reducing pilot workload gives the Operator more time to deploy
Spoiler Flaps into a Speed Brake configuration.

Not like your Piper at all.

John

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


"Mike Kanze" wrote in message
...
Let us agree that I know where the F/A-18 stick breaks out at (20#) and
that you and monkey are clueless.


Well, THAT was an insult. Nice work.

Once again, the Tarverbot shows his OWN cluelessness.

Not me. It is unsafe for the operator to not know that the stick breaks out
to activate the mechanical backup. There is no guarantee the failure of the
electric controls will cause the force transducer to deactivate. Once agian
a pilot is so ignorant as to believe they know more about how an airplane
works than a systems engineer for that airplane.


This is NOT a safety of flight issue, and you couldn't possibly be a systems
engineer for the Hornet.

Tarver's engineering capabilities are predominantly associated with
repairs of the domestic toaster.

geezzz-since you two are so busy wacking each other, I'll ask again. Does the
F-18 have a means to provide trons to the flight controls with a flameout, ala
the hydrazine generator like the F-16??

Or a RAT, or APU, or what. We practiced flameout approaches in the F-16..
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer