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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
On May 10, 3:54*pm, WaltBJ wrote:
On May 10, 3:27 pm, Douglas Eagleson wrote: SNIP I talk funny it is mental illness. What a kick. SNIP: That illness is truly unfortunate and you can't help it. What you can do to help yourself is to educate yourself in aerodynamics and later on, fighter capabilities and tactics. Your conclusions are faulty because you do not truly understand these subjects. I recommend, at the least, a visit to your local library and spend a month or so studying these areas. At the present time you are an amateur trying to argue with professionals who devoted a career to the subject. Walt BJ Wait, wait waitie. Not a single reply has been about the concept of debate. Some jackass says it is comic book stuff. That is not debate. He is just hidding his ignorence. I claimed a certain claim, and somebody called mister a-ok guy, says ittie comic book. You people are wacko, the fighter pilot knows all kinda crap. Does he, I doubt it. Has he flown a canard fighter? Has he helped debate the future of canard versus noncanard fighter anywhere? I doubt it. It is a constant flame the funny guy routine. btw, you wanna be real? Tell me WHY I am not correct. NO bs. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
Richard Casady wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 23:21:39 -0700, Steve Hix wrote: In article , (Richard Casady) wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 21:45:15 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote: And what will happen when someone invents a doppler radar that doesn't see ground clutter? I was under the impression that look down, shoot down had been around for many years. Ed was gigging Eagleson. Who isn't likely to notice, sadly. While some think Eagleson is a 'bot, my theory is mental illness. Casady Now you have me wondering if a mentally ill bot is possible..... Dean |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
In article
, Douglas Eagleson wrote: On May 10, 2:50*pm, (Richard Casady) wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 23:21:39 -0700, Steve Hix wrote: In article , (Richard Casady) wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 21:45:15 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote: And what will happen when someone invents a doppler radar that doesn't see ground clutter? I was under the impression that look down, shoot down had been around for many years. Ed was gigging Eagleson. Who isn't likely to notice, sadly. While some think Eagleson is a 'bot, my theory is mental illness. Casady I talk funny it is mental illness. What a kick. It's not the *way* you talk, precisely, no. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
On May 10, 4:00 pm, Douglas Eagleson
wrote: On May 10, 3:54 pm, WaltBJ wrote: SNIP: btw, you wanna be real? Tell me WHY I am not correct. NO bs. SNIP: You are correct in suggesting that I have never flow a canard aircraft. However, I have bult and flown several canard model aircraft and yes with proper design they are stable aircraft. They will stall but with proper design they will recover by themselves - as will all properly designed aircraft. A higher angle of attack for the canard will ensure it stalls first to drop the nose and pick up speed and recover automatically. Similarly, dihedral in the canard made them laterally stable. I know of no maneuver that a canard can execute that can not be duplicated bya 'conventional' aircraft. As for stopping in mid-air, I have done precisely that in 3 different aircraft, the T33, F104 and F4. In all 3 cases I was going straight up to zero airspeed, slid straight down backwards, and all three aircraft pitched over forward to straight down and flew out of the maneuver. This particular maneuver has no use tactically as one is helpless until maneuvering airspeed is regained. BTW, I was trying to execute 3 successive vertical rolls in the T33 and ran out of speed. I was still in flight training and definitely learned something on that flight. In the F104 I was testing the aircraft with its new model engine to see how fast it could get to 45000 from brake release. 90 seconds, but shortly thereafter I was out of airspeed. in the F4 I did it repeatedly as part of a series f maneuvers to demonstrate to pilots new to the airplane that it was predictable and dependable. As for the Cobra maneuver, it leaves the aircraft suspended at 90 degrees to an attacker's path as a stationary target for gunfire. Even if the Su pilot manages to shuck one atacker by doing the Cobra 'just right' he better hope #2 isn't anywhere near. A rolling dive? WW1 fighters could do that. Roll inverted to a dive? Old prop driven divebombers did that, too. Yes, you can simply push forward in negative G to get into a dive but that causes all thw dust and sand in thw cockpit to get into your face and down the back of your neck. FWIW no fighter particularly cares what you do to it so long as you don't over-G it too much. In that case sometimes it breaks and that can ruin your whole day. The one exception is continuous max rate rolls - in some fighters you end up in yaw-roll coupling and finish up going sideways and maybe breaking up. As for a canard recovering by itself, so will a conventional design aircraft - as the speed rises above the trim setting point the nose wil automatically start to rise. Left alone, the bird may even execute a series of loops until the ground interferes. I know of a case where a 747 was inadvertently stalled up around 40,000 and it did two wingovers (sloppy loops) before the crew got it all figured out. But normally somewhere along the way an aircraft will roll off on one wing and go into an increasingly steep spiral - to the ground, unless recovered by the crew. Unless of course it is one of the new generation computer-flown aircraft - as long as the fancy stuff works. A few days ago at MacDill AFB I watched the F16 and the A/F!8 perform maneuvers that told me both the wing and the tail were generating positive lift, as does a canard. Both those aircraft are unstable aircraft and must be computer-flown. You can see they are different breeds of cat since the horizonta stabilizer is pretty much in line with teh wing instead of a large nose-up angle. Weird. Nothing wrong with a canard as long as it is not blocking your all- around vision. It can be designed to augment main wing lift through vortex action. But it's not magic and there is always a tradeoff in aircraft design. Sweden's upgrading of the Gripen still leaves them with an obsolescent aircraft - it ain't stealthy! Walt BJ |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:27:22 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
wrote: If you can not do the two maneuvers stated, in a F-16 or F-22 you will never beat the Griphen. The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this. It is a critical failure of US technology. OTOH, the forward strakes of US aircraft are growing in size, either to blend the fuselage/wing for stealth purposes (pioneered by the SR-71), or for increased lift as in the F/A-18 as compared to the original F-18. A large forward strake of adequate wing section would serve the same purpose as a canard in a stall, movable or not, yes? Or so it intuitively seems to an aeronautics newbie... Of course, should the Su-35/Su-37 be produced in large enough numbers, canards will be the least of our problems. Sure, the canards help, but jet nozzles on gimbals trump their contribution. T.L. Davis |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
"Dean A. Markley" wrote in
news [Snips] Now you have me wondering if a mentally ill bot is possible..... Of course it is. PARRY was written to mimic the responses of a patient suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. I think it was Douglas Hofstadter who had the idea of hooking up a copy of ELIZA (written to mimic the responses of a Rogerian psychotherapist) with one of PARRY and seeing how they got on. RACTER, the author of the first book written by a computer program ("The Policeman's Beard is Half Constructed") has been described by its aithor as an exercise in AI, standing for Artificial Insanity. All the best, John. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
A forward mass to be the angle altered by the horizontal stabilizer will lead the change to angle of attack always while the aircraft appears to be flying. snip If you can not do the two maneuvers stated, in a F-16 or F-22 you will never beat the Griphen. The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this. It is a critical failure of US technology. It would be delusional to flatter yourself into thinking you know more about canards than do the U.S. aircraft designers who decided against using them. -- sjs |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
On May 11, 2:14 am, T.L. Davis wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:27:22 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson wrote: If you can not do the two maneuvers stated, in a F-16 or F-22 you will never beat the Griphen. The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this. It is a critical failure of US technology. OTOH, the forward strakes of US aircraft are growing in size, either to blend the fuselage/wing for stealth purposes (pioneered by the SR-71), or for increased lift as in the F/A-18 as compared to the original F-18. A large forward strake of adequate wing section would serve the same purpose as a canard in a stall, movable or not, yes? Or so it intuitively seems to an aeronautics newbie... Of course, should the Su-35/Su-37 be produced in large enough numbers, canards will be the least of our problems. Sure, the canards help, but jet nozzles on gimbals trump their contribution. T.L. Davis There is a sign of your newness to Russian design, maintenance is secondary to air show performances. Imagine what a Russian mechanic can do with those nozzles and then multiply that by the guy he teaches, perhaps in English perhaps not. Certainly not the recipient's native colloquial tongue |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:00:53 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
wrote: Wait, wait waitie. Not a single reply has been about the concept of debate. Some jackass says it is comic book stuff. That is not debate. He is just hidding his ignorence. I claimed a certain claim, and somebody called mister a-ok guy, says ittie comic book. You people are wacko, the fighter pilot knows all kinda crap. Does he, I doubt it. Has he flown a canard fighter? Has he helped debate the future of canard versus noncanard fighter anywhere? I doubt it. I suggested that the source of your information was comic books or video games because the claims were so detached from reality either with regard to aerodynamic performance or tactical efficacy as to be ludicrous. It is a constant flame the funny guy routine. btw, you wanna be real? Tell me WHY I am not correct. NO bs. Canards offer excellent nose positional authority. No doubt about it. But other methods also offer that. Fly-by-wire systems, stability augmentation, computer assisted flight controls, vectorable thrust, etc. all offer agility. And, they don't increase your RCS and make you unstealthy like a lot of airframe proturbences. Rolling into a dive is natural and within the capability of every aircraft since shortly after the Wright Flyer. Within-visual-range combat is not inevitable, but if and when it does occur it is seldom dependent upon who flys slowest or who can stall and recover. Those are losing strategies. Nothing in combat should ever be done single-ship. If you find yourself alone in the arena you should depart immediately or prepare to meet your imminent demise. My credentials in tactical aviation are pretty much public domain. What would be yours? Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" "Palace Cobra" www.thunderchief.org |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LETS BUILD A MODEL PLANE | adelsonsl | Aviation Photos | 1 | May 16th 07 11:10 PM |
Swedish! | Owning | 3 | March 3rd 06 12:44 AM | |
The end of the Saab Viggen - The legendary Swedish jet fighter | Iwan Bogels | Simulators | 0 | April 19th 05 07:22 PM |
The Very Last Operational New German Fighter Model Of WW2 | Garrison Hilliard | Military Aviation | 13 | January 13th 04 03:31 PM |
RV Quick Build build times... | [email protected] | Home Built | 2 | December 17th 03 03:29 AM |