Piper Cub Vs F-15

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 05:28:07 -0400, Cub Driver
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:19:45 -0600, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

The J-3 would be cruising at 65-75 MPH

In my case, 60 knots on the nose. Makes the chart work a breeze

(The wind tends to spoil things, however. I never know how much until
I put a GPS on the front seat-back.)

How gauche. Next you'll be putting a chrome wire through the fuel cap
instead of an old coat hangar. What then, a fiberglass float instead
of a doped cork?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

(Jim Thomas) wrote:

This led me to go find my F-15A-1, circa 1975. Level flight, 0 bank,
military thrust, gear & flaps down, sea level stall speed (defined as
30 deg AOA) was about 100 KIAS. Final approach speed under those
conditions was 143 KIAS. So, assuming the numbers haven't changed much
for the F-15C/D, staying with a 110-120 KIAS Cessna would be sporty,
but doable.

My commercial pilot log shows that in the chaotic days following 9/11
(29 October, 2001) while cruising along in a Cessna 210L at 160 kts.
or so I was intercepted by an F-15 near Miami's Turkey Point nuke
powerplant. However, since I was on an IFR flight plan and talking to
Miami Center, they handed me off to Homestead AFB who gave me
a heads up. "Shark XX" zipped by lickity split about 50-75 yards in
front of me at the same altitude and perpindicular to my flightpath
then disappeared over the Atlantic as quickly as it appeared.

Ed Rasimus wrote:
How gauche. Next you'll be putting a chrome wire through the fuel cap
instead of an old coat hangar. What then, a fiberglass float instead
of a doped cork?


People put dope on the cork?




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:18:16 -0400, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:
How gauche. Next you'll be putting a chrome wire through the fuel cap
instead of an old coat hangar. What then, a fiberglass float instead
of a doped cork?


People put dope on the cork?

Migod, I found out they cover the whole airplane with it!

I was a dope user long before it became fashionable--used to build
model airplanes in my basement. Red was my favorite color, but yellow
was nice too. The two major olfactory memories of my mispent youth
were airplane dope and the distinctive odor of castor oil laced model
airplane fuel.

Ohh, and my Italian aunt's "bana calda".

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
(Jim Thomas) wrote:

This led me to go find my F-15A-1, circa 1975. Level flight, 0 bank,
military thrust, gear & flaps down, sea level stall speed (defined as
30 deg AOA) was about 100 KIAS. Final approach speed under those
conditions was 143 KIAS. So, assuming the numbers haven't changed much
for the F-15C/D, staying with a 110-120 KIAS Cessna would be sporty,
but doable.

My commercial pilot log shows that in the chaotic days following 9/11
(29 October, 2001) while cruising along in a Cessna 210L at 160 kts.
or so I was intercepted by an F-15 near Miami's Turkey Point nuke
powerplant. However, since I was on an IFR flight plan and talking to
Miami Center, they handed me off to Homestead AFB who gave me
a heads up. "Shark XX" zipped by lickity split about 50-75 yards in
front of me at the same altitude and perpindicular to my flightpath
then disappeared over the Atlantic as quickly as it appeared.

I'll bet that was enough to produce a world class pucker even if you did know
for a second or towo that it was coming!!! (^-^)))

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:

My commercial pilot log shows that in the chaotic days following 9/11
(29 October, 2001) while cruising along in a Cessna 210L at 160 kts.
or so I was intercepted by an F-15 near Miami's Turkey Point nuke
powerplant. However, since I was on an IFR flight plan and talking to
Miami Center, they handed me off to Homestead AFB who gave me
a heads up. "Shark XX" zipped by lickity split about 50-75 yards in
front of me at the same altitude and perpindicular to my flightpath
then disappeared over the Atlantic as quickly as it appeared.

I'll bet that was enough to produce a world class pucker even if you did know
for a second or towo that it was coming!!! (^-^)))

Nah. I wasn't wearing my turban that day so I actually thought it was
cool and wished I could trade in my spamcan for an Eagle.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

Got my first (student) license supension and grounding flying a PA-22
Colt. And passed my Private license check flight in a PA-18 Super
Cub--damn complex, it had a radio and flaps!

And don't forget the elevator trim handle on the left you had to rotate like
mad to trim it before landing. Seems I always scratched my knuckles on the
metal wall while trying to do that. I never got my pilots license in it
because I was in the Aviation Cadet program in the Air Force. We went from
the Cub to the T-6 in Primary and then I flew the T-28 and T-33 in Basic
Training.

Strange. I never got my civilian ticket until I was Aircraft Commander in a
B-52H at Minot AFB, ND. Took the special written (civilian Regs) and got a
Commercial Multi-engine Instrument ticket. No single engine privileges
because I wasn't current in any single engine aircraft. I had to go to the
civilian airport and check out in a Mooney to get it to include single
engine. (couldn't afford to rent a multi-engine for our vacation trip).

-

B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:18:16 -0400, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
wrote:


Ed Rasimus wrote:

How gauche. Next you'll be putting a chrome wire through the fuel cap
instead of an old coat hangar. What then, a fiberglass float instead
of a doped cork?


People put dope on the cork?


Migod, I found out they cover the whole airplane with it!

I was a dope user long before it became fashionable--used to build
model airplanes in my basement. Red was my favorite color, but yellow
was nice too. The two major olfactory memories of my mispent youth
were airplane dope and the distinctive odor of castor oil laced model
airplane fuel.

Ohh, and my Italian aunt's "bana calda".

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

CAP commander when I was a kid made you rebuild the J3 if you pranged
it. Most of us rather liked doping the fabric in the hangar since you
could get high legally. We used a sort of Air Farce blue and it turned
an odd color on the cheap fabric we used. Of course in the fifties
everyone knew what kind of dope you were talking about. My grandkids
thing old granpa used the other kind on the plane.

George

Jim Thomas wrote:

Its actuallly about a C-172 getting intercepted, about a 110 knot airplane.
Still pretty slow though.
Guess we would need one of the eagle drivers to chime in...

This led me to go find my F-15A-1, circa 1975. Level flight, 0 bank,
military thrust, gear & flaps down, sea level stall speed (defined as
30 deg AOA) was about 100 KIAS. Final approach speed under those
conditions was 143 KIAS. So, assuming the numbers haven't changed much
for the F-15C/D, staying with a 110-120 KIAS Cessna would be sporty,
but doable.

With a pair of fighters it would be fairly easy for one to pass the
Cessna at a modest pace while the other does a 360 to take over.
Another option would be to "tack", allowing a noticeably higher
airspeed.

That said, ISTM that the civvy pilot was remarkably clueless:
sufficiently so to lose his ticket, I'd have thought.

Consider this paragraph:

Wirig says the F-15 pilot, with whom he was not in
radio contact, kept lowering his landing gear and
flaps, trying to get the GA pilot to understand. "I
couldn't figure out what he was trying to get me to
do," said the 69-year-old pilot.

The military pilot "kept lowering his landing gear", eh?

I can think of two possible reasons for that: as a signal that the
Cessna's landing gear is in an abnormal state, or as a signal that Wirig
should use his gear for its intended purpose.

I can also think of two reasons to dismiss the former signal a unlikely:
if your typical 172's landing gear is in an abnormal state there is a
fair chance that its pilot will be aware of some bent metal (although
the RG *could* have a gear fault manifest in flight); and the military
pilot "kept lowering his ... flaps", making the signal either "you have
*two* visible faults on your aeroplane" or "land now". I know which *I*
reckon is more likely ...

Alan Dicey wrote
The first production fly-by-wire aircraft was the F-16.

Eunometic wrote:

Concord actually. They even wanted to put sidearm controllers on it.

Ron wrote:

F-16 was the first with a DIGITAL FBW. I think Concorde, and
possibly F-111 too had analog systems.

Peter Stickney wrote:

F-111, actually. And, perhaps the A-5 Vigilante, depending on how you
want to define FBW.

A major problem here is that the term fly-by-wire was popularised as a
marketing soundbite by the GD team during the Lightweight Fighter
competition in the early seventies. As such it had no strict
engineering definition. Prompted by the original poster, I was using it
in the way that Harry Hillaker does: -

"'Fly-by-wire' is a totally electronic system that uses
computer-generated electrical impulses, or signals, to transmit the
pilot's commands to the flight control surfaces instead of a combination
of the push rods, bell cranks, linkages, and cables used with more
conventional hydromechanical systems."

(Harry J. Hillaker is retired vice president and deputy program director
for the F-16, General Dynamics Corporation)

- which does come down to a somewhat circular definition (fly-by-wire
is defined as what the F-16 has, so of course it is the first).
However, I think most people understand fly-by-wire to include elements
of electrical signaling and computer control, which leads us back to
Hillakers definition, which makes the defining characteristics:

* electrically signalled
* no manual connection
* pilot flies computer: computer flies plane.

I think this is also the kind of system the original poster was thinking
of, where the aircraft is kept from departing from controlled flight by
the flight control computer overriding the pilot inputs and keeping the
aircraft right on the edge of its flight envelope. My original point
was that the F-15 does not have this kind of fly-by-wire :-)

The F-16 system, manufactured by Lear Seigler, was initially an analog
system, by the way. The first digital-from-scratch FBW aircraft was the
F-18 Hornet.

If you broaden the definition of fly-by-wire to include all
electrically-signalled FCS, there are many aircraft prior to the F-16
that qualify, among them being:

The Avro Vulcan: Tim Laming's The Vulcan Story includes the aircrew
manual which describes the system as electro-hydraulic, and including
artificial feel, autostabilisation and mach trimmers.

The A-5 Vigilante:
http://www.airtoaircombat.com/backgr...p?id=87&bg=305
The aircraft had a primitive fly-by-wire flight control system in which
stick movements of the stick were converted into electrical signals
which fed into actuators that controlled lateral and l longitudinal
movements. The actuators then mechanically positioned the control
valves, the horizontal stabilizer, and the spoiler activators. There was
a mechanical backup system in case this system failed.

Concorde
http://www.concordesst.com/autopilot.html
Concorde has an Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS) installed, that
for the 1970s was state of the art. The system is designed to allow
"hands off" control of the aircraft from climb out to landing. There are
2 mains parts to the system; the Autothrottles and Autopilot, and a
number of associated systems, such as the warning displays and test systems

http://www.concordesst.com/flightsys.html
Although it is described as fly-by-wire, it is not computer-controlled
and there is manual reversion. Shades of meaning, I know.

Autopilot plus autothrottle is not fly-by-wire, by the "F-16"
definitions :-)

I don't know offhand and can't find on the web a good enough description
of the F-111 FCS to tell; but I suspect that it too falls short of the
definition I am using.

Tornado is fly-by-wire, but comes after the F-16. It is also
aerodynamically stable and has a manual reversion mode.

I'm sure there are better qualified people than me on this newsgroup who
can give a more authorative opinion: I only used to work for Marconi
Avionics, so what do I know :-)