Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14?

"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 flight envelope?

"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

"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?

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.

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?

"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

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.

In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

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 it's 2004, and there's a good chance we'll have more than one of
those missions going on at a time sometime along the way, not to mention
training, depot maintenance, unit rotations, and the like.

There are a lot of places in the world that don't have good airstrips
and aren't close enough to coasts to deal with from carriers.

We also have the nasty contingency of "what to do if we lose some (or
all or) our carriers?"

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"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?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:j1f%b.60182$4o.83386@attbi_s52...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

According to the ASN Accident Description, "Go-around power was added
at
14.45:35"

The pilot was past the end of the runway by then and into an unmapped
part
of the A-320's flight control system.

What is "an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system" supposed
to
mean?!?

Airbus hadn't programmed their A-320 to do what the operator commanded.

Just prior to the pilot adding go-around power, the airplane was in an
aerodynamic regime that had been encountered many times previously --
airspeed
between stall and Vref, with a slight rate of descent (approx 375 fpm,
from last
datapoint), engines at idle. How could it be that the flight control
system was
"unmapped" in that aerodynamic regime?!?

That is a good question.

I am quite certain that the A-320's certification included slow flight and
approaches to stalls, and that its flight control system is well able to
handle
them.

Then you have departed from reality.

Jesus Christ John, this is ridiculous...I've read a lot about
this accident and agree with the consensus that the a/c did all
any a/c could have done given the parameters this not too bright
bulb asked it to do.

How in hell could the system have done more than, as JW
explained, hold the AoA at the max lift point just short of stall
while the autothrottle system applied max power and everyone was
waiting with bated breath for the engines to spool up. Would you
have preferred that the pilot have been able to manhandle the AoA
higher almost certainly stalling the wings?.

Maybe if you were a magician like Marron you could have changed
the Angle of Incidence therefore giving the wings 'more lift'?...
snort
--

-Gord.