X-43A successful flight

"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.

"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.

--Woody

Tarver lives in an alternate reality, where things like a spoiler is flap.

In article , Tarver Engineering
wrote:

"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.

Woody, just unload and extend on this moron. I thought I'd give him a
chance at sanity but back in the plonk files he goes.
Pugs

"Allen Epps" wrote in message
et...
In article , Tarver Engineering
wrote:

"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.

Woody, just unload and extend on this moron. I thought I'd give him a
chance at sanity but back in the plonk files he goes.

I don't understand why the Canadians not knowing that the stick force
transducers on the F/A-18 break out at 20#s is a reason why I can't know it.
I am the sane one and cognitive dissonance from those avoiding learning
something new that is only adding noise to these threads.

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.

--
Mike Kanze

"The hot dog is the reductio ad absurdum of American eating. The Sicilian
in the ditch, though he may never be President, knows better: he puts a
slice of onion between his slabs of bread, not a cartridge filled with the
sweepings of abattoirs."

- H. L. Mencken (1926)

Hooray for the start of ballpark franks and Major League Baseball this week!


"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
news

"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.

"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 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.

How many F-18 hours a year in the air are you and monkey getting Woody? 50?
20?

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.

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."

How many F-18 hours a year in the air are you and monkey getting Woody? 50?
20?


Per year? Absolutely ZERO in MECH, more than 150 or so in CAS, less than 1
in DEL (spin recovery mode).

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

On 4/6/04 5:39 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:


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

We'll agree to disagree, since I'm the only participant in this two-way
conversation who has actually held a Hornet joystick.

It is a safety of flight issue and I am not going to
budge on the fact.

You're not going to budge on that *opinion.* Knowing the numbers for a
"break out" force means nothing when that force doesn't exist. MECH either
works when the FCC's fail or it doesn't. Stick forces don't change between
CAS, DEL, and MECH.

If Canada chooses to use less safe operators for their
F-18s then that is their business.


Oh, and don't worry about my ego. I'll eventually get tired of playing this
little game with you and simply quit.

Now, how about answering my questions about the so-called "rotary inverter"
and its MTBF's? Where is it located, and how is it part of the FCS?

--Woody

On 4/6/04 6:36 PM, in article
, "Allen Epps"
wrote:

Woody, just unload and extend on this moron. I thought I'd give him a
chance at sanity but back in the plonk files he goes.
Pugs


Sorry, Pugs. Just entertaining myself. Don't mean to clog the NG so much.

--Woody

In article ,
"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote:

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.

Don't try to confuse him with the facts. He's confused enough without
them

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.