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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
On 7 Feb 2006 11:32:50 -0800, "Douglas Eagleson"
wrote: Douglas Eagleson wrote: Thats for a reasonable repy. My idea was for a rebuilt A-10, meaning the design goes back to the manufacturer. All the real professionals here need to complain of the lack of adequate fighter design, in my opinion. snip rehash of refutations of your stupidity So I changed my topic and the A-10 is a closed topic. And you're a demonstrated idiot. Thanks for playing. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
The old "declare victory and go home" maneuver.
-- Mike Kanze "If you're in the Army, it doesn't matter... you have no soul, being a brainwashed killer." (I was told this by a very earnest young woman in Berkeley the other day. The look on her face when I asked why she was risking life and limb by angering a soulless killer was worth the lecture.) -- Douglas Berry "Douglas Eagleson" wrote in message ups.com... [drivel snipped] |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
"Douglas Eagleson" wrote in message ups.com... Douglas Eagleson wrote: Thats for a reasonable repy. My idea was for a rebuilt A-10, meaning the design goes back to the manufacturer. All the real professionals here need to complain of the lack of adequate fighter design, in my opinion. Supersonic critical airspeed appears a worrysome thing when in fact it is a simple airframe stress. Nothing drastic happens. An A-10 is a slow speed design and the basic idea was to do a cheap re-engine to get an plane suitable for a fighter pilot. I will comment here on the thread responses so far. A basic complaint of my idea is that at mach 1 the wings will fall off. I do not wonder very hard at the ingenuity of the designer of the A-10 because it is an over built and stressed aircraft. Taking some weight out of the wings just might be in order. So the angle of the wings as the deciding factor has to be decided. And it is a fact that as speed increases that angle of attack decreases. ANd the supersonic speed does not alter the rule. A single problem exists and the cause of unstable airframes is a large problem. And I think the original designer made sure the design was a nice stable nonvibrating one. And so the aerodynamical question becomes the higher speed stability in relation to the original design speed. So the person then needs to consult the aerodynamical type who warns of the means of stability control in mdern airframes. So the poster/commenter has to request the exact airframe beam to be examined. And it has beams for such stability reasons already. And inadequacy for a higher frequency of reduction is then the real question. Maybe it is going to have the tail fall off. But the wings will stay on. And the beams are designed for a complete failure of the additional beam. It literally has a durability unsurpasable in strength. And so the fact remains that making it a new aircraft is the question. I vote yes. And the typical commenter says the wings will fall off. I do not know the exact design issue, but have seen the drawings and it appears fine for re-engining. In fact new engines are going in. May be a subsonic missile platform is needed. A nice radar can be mounted on it. SO my claim is that it is just an idea, and it does not stink, because it is already getting new engines and maybe then it will be allowed to go to supersonic? And so the real issue the becomes the exact method of covering air defenses. Why not ask for 12 missles and radar on the S-3. Somebody made that comment. It is a lightweight design compared to the A-10. and I get to comment critically. ANd so the story goes to the provable necessity for the design to match the exact role. So pick the tactic for the available aircraft or request the new aircraft. I can then advise on the exact usage of the given aircraft. And the commenter then gets to advise why the mission is out to the critical distance and then a return. A certain real law of available contact duration is calculatable. And the exact cause of the pattern is to be discussed by the real commenter. So I changed my topic and the A-10 is a closed topic. Largely because you could not mask your total ignorance of supersonic aerodynamics, weapons systems, or energy maneuverability with convoluted, but nonsensical English. R / John |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
Which looney farm are you posting from this time Doug?
Do you and your wife still have that "LOOK AT HOW GREAT WE ARE" web page up? Bob Moore Holy crap, you weren't kidding. I Googled "Douglas Eagleson" and came up with the following. He has some great ideas for blowing up tanks as well. http://www.angelfire.com/md3/dougeagleson/ http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about135972.html Doug, you should get a resume off to Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, etc. immediately. They obviously been doing it all wrong these many years. Curt |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
On 7 Feb 2006 11:32:50 -0800, "Douglas Eagleson"
wrote: I will comment here on the thread responses so far. A basic complaint of my idea is that at mach 1 the wings will fall off. Not at all. The basic complaint is your contention that putting more powerful afterburning engines on a subsonic airframe would allow it to fly both longer and faster. Neither is very likely with the A-10, since the existing turbofans were designed for extended endurance in the first place. Afterburning engines would consume more fuel, not less and with the planform of the aircraft already established, there's no room for more fuel. While you might be able to push the Hog a bit faster, you won't get anywhere near Mach 1 without encountering severe problems of compressibility, high drag rise, shockwave interference, etc. etc. More powerful engines could allow you to sustain airspeed a bit better and achieve higher g-loads without airspeed bleedoff. I do not wonder very hard at the ingenuity of the designer of the A-10 because it is an over built and stressed aircraft. Taking some weight out of the wings just might be in order. The A-10 (like all aircraft) is a complex bundle of engineering trade-offs. It is not over built, but built to do the job it was designed for. Consider that the wing is stressed to carry ordnance--lots of it. That means strength is required and that strength must deal with multiples of the weight of the ordnance load encountered when maneuvering (i.e. pulling "G"). So the angle of the wings as the deciding factor has to be decided. And it is a fact that as speed increases that angle of attack decreases. ANd the supersonic speed does not alter the rule. As speed increases AOA usually does decrease. But, you also encounter increases in drag and as you approach the mach, the drag rise increase is exponential, not linear. Depending upon the shape of the airfoil, supersonic speed does alter many of the rules--that's why it was so hard to build a supersonice airplane in the first place. A single problem exists and the cause of unstable airframes is a large problem. And I think the original designer made sure the design was a nice stable nonvibrating one. And so the aerodynamical question becomes the higher speed stability in relation to the original design speed. Do not confuse issues of airframe stability with controllability at transonic speeds. Stability refers to the tendency of an aircraft to converge or diverge from original conditions after a control displacement. Highly maneuverable aircraft tend toward instability and this is compensated for by various control systems. Decidedly subsonic aircraft like the A-10 tend to be more stable and require less high tech solutions. So the person then needs to consult the aerodynamical type who warns of the means of stability control in mdern airframes. So the poster/commenter has to request the exact airframe beam to be examined. And it has beams for such stability reasons already. What? Or in the military vernacular, WTFO? And inadequacy for a higher frequency of reduction is then the real question. Maybe it is going to have the tail fall off. But the wings will stay on. You're nowhere near the problem with that either. And the beams are designed for a complete failure of the additional beam. It literally has a durability unsurpasable in strength. Still out of the ballpark with regard to supersonice flight. And so the fact remains that making it a new aircraft is the question. I vote yes. And the typical commenter says the wings will fall off. If it is a new aircraft, rather than a re-engined A-10 (which was your proposal), then I suggest we call it F-35. I do not know the exact design issue, but have seen the drawings and it appears fine for re-engining. In fact new engines are going in. May be a subsonic missile platform is needed. What new engines are these? A nice radar can be mounted on it. Where? What would be a "nice" radar? What size, weight, power requirements, emissions, agility, defensive measures, weapons served, etc? Where displayed? What range? SO my claim is that it is just an idea, and it does not stink, because it is already getting new engines and maybe then it will be allowed to go to supersonic? OK, it's official--I hereby "allow" anyone who wants to put the throttles in the far left quadrant for as long as they want and to go as fast as they can. They will not go supersonic. And so the real issue the becomes the exact method of covering air defenses. Why not ask for 12 missles and radar on the S-3. Somebody made that comment. It is a lightweight design compared to the A-10. and I get to comment critically. The Hoover is a different airplane for a different task, however it should be noted that it already has a radar and is carrier qualified. ANd so the story goes to the provable necessity for the design to match the exact role. So pick the tactic for the available aircraft or request the new aircraft. What? Do you mean design the aircraft for the mission? That's what the A-10 did. And that's what the F-14 did. And, that's what the F-22, F-35 and every other tactical system has done. Put conversion of sows ears into silk purses still isn't practical. Ditto for lead into gold. I can then advise on the exact usage of the given aircraft. And the commenter then gets to advise why the mission is out to the critical distance and then a return. A certain real law of available contact duration is calculatable. And the exact cause of the pattern is to be discussed by the real commenter. A, the ol' real commenter--hopefully someone with some tactical experience or maybe someone with some aeronautics background or maybe even someone with some design history. Yes, I'd be happy to "advise why the mission is out to the critical distance and then a return"--it's because you've got to go where the target is and because I always like to come home. So I changed my topic and the A-10 is a closed topic. Now that you've changed your topic, hopefully it will be something related to your expertise. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:05:20 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote: Yes, I'd be happy to "advise why the mission is out to the critical distance and then a return"--it's because you've got to go where the target is and because I always like to come home. And almost as importantly (for the long term at least), we want the plane to come home. Because it's hard having to replace an entire squadron several times a day. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
Well, the topic is, somebody has to judge the concept I mentioned and
they all repeat the old topic. If I mention, fit the aircraft to the mission, the poster forgot the topic of fleet coverage as opposed to figther domination one to one. Absolute superior performance is not capable of long duration flight. That is almost a law of physics. So fitting the aircraft to the long duration makes an inferior figther of longer duration. And that is it. If the figther is to expensive to loft up there then there is no defense present. And the cost of defense rules. SO make the low cost defense possible and do not use inadequate high cost offensive aircraft. A fighter coverage hole because of cost is either allowed or not. Somebody decides. ANd people are assigned a dollar value in managment. I |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On 6 Feb 2006 18:59:34 -0800, "KDR" wrote: Ed Rasimus wrote: When we exercised with Spanish air defense forces, which is apparently the closest mission to respond to your question, we would configure with three tanks, AIM-9s and AIM-7E. In that configuration on CAP, we could maintain station for slightly over two hours. If you translate that into distance, you could get one hour out at approx 500 kts ground speed, ten minutes of engagement time at altitude and one hour back: that defines a 500 nautical mile combat radius. That could be increased if you jettisoned tanks as they went dry to reduce drag. We were collocated in those days with the 98th Strat Wing, so we had tankers available at all times if the mission would require. Ed Rasimus An ex-ROKAF pilot who flew F-4D says 500NM is too far even with three tanks. He commented the 10-minute engagement should be done only using mil power to get back to base. Was there any massive difference in endurance between C and D models? The devil remains in the details. You would need to determine weapons configuration, altitude profile, speeds, weather divert requirements, etc. to avoid apples-to-oranges. There was no significant difference in endurance between C and D (and E model as well until the tanks were foamed in the mid '70s). Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com When you exercised with the Spanish, what was the assumed scenario? For instance intruders would always come from the East, and they would be multi-engined bombers, etc. I guess only Tu-95 Bear and Tu-16 Badger could have flown that far... |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
On 7 Feb 2006 15:21:52 -0800, "Douglas Eagleson"
wrote: Well, the topic is, somebody has to judge the concept I mentioned and they all repeat the old topic. Yet the people are repeating the old topic because it is just as true now as it was when you brought it up. Absolute superior performance is not capable of long duration flight. That is almost a law of physics. You might have to prove that to all the world's aircraft engineers, they don't know that yet. So fitting the aircraft to the long duration makes an inferior figther of longer duration. Not necessarily. And that is it. If the figther is to expensive to loft up there then there is no defense present. And the cost of defense rules. SO make the low cost defense possible and do not use inadequate high cost offensive aircraft. Only if the low cost aircraft are capable of stopping the high cost threat. Feel free to tell us exactly how many A-10s it will take to stop a flight of stealth aircraft inbound at night. A fighter coverage hole because of cost is either allowed or not. Somebody decides. ANd people are assigned a dollar value in managment. Not to the US military, which whill gladly risk a dozen or more additional aircraft and crews just to rescue one downed pilot. As for cost, which is more effective. Spending $18 million to train 12 pilots and putting them into 8 planes costing $15 million each for a total cost of $198 million dollars or putting a single pilot with $2.5 million in training into a single $180 million dollar aircraft who can shoot down half of the 12 cheap ones in a single engagement and then come back a few hours later for the other half? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fleet Air Arm Carriers and Squadrons in the Korean War | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | October 5th 04 02:58 AM |
"New helicopters join fleet of airborne Border Patrol" | Mike | Rotorcraft | 1 | August 16th 04 09:37 PM |
Carrier strike groups test new Fleet Response Plan | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 18th 04 10:25 PM |
Fleet Air Arm | Tonka Dude | Military Aviation | 0 | November 22nd 03 09:28 PM |
Soviet Submarines Losses - WWII | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 4 | October 30th 03 03:09 AM |