The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

Vince,

I didn't miss your point at all.

--
Mike Kanze

Miss Mabel Jellyman (Allison Skipworth): "Maudie, do you really think I could get rid of my inhibitions?"
Maudie Triplett (Mae West): "Why, sure. I got an old trunk you can put them in."

- Night After Night, 1932

"Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message news:aBlWj.32$0h.24@trnddc02...
Mike Kanze wrote:
Vince,

CSAR can provide a target rich environment for an alert defense.
Keeping a single aircraft in the area may signal the enemy as to the
possibilities
Even the dumbest of enemies knows that a downed U.S. airman will usually
draw a CSAR effort, so it is one of the things that the remaining
aircraft /cum/ on-scene commander must consider. Sometimes It's not an
easy choice, weighing the desire to help a buddy against the possibility
of inadvertently joining him on the ground (or worse).

Other times it's a no-brainer: If shot down over metro Hanoi in 1967,
one simply accepted that no CSAR effort would be forthcoming.

--
Mike Kanze

Of course
You miss my point
here was the exchange

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.
I don't think you would leave a shot-down wingman in that
situation, would you?

I was simply raising the question that even when csar is being mounted
leaving the wingman may be the best course

Vince



Miss Mabel Jellyman (Allison Skipworth): "Maudie, do you really think I
could get rid of my inhibitions?"
Maudie Triplett (Mae West): "Why, sure. I got an old trunk you can put
them in."

- Night After Night, 1932

"Vincent Brannigan"
wrote in message news:P4iWj.10198$%X1.6893@trnddc08...
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008 14:15:27 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
wrote:

Leadfoot wrote:
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.
I don't think you would leave a shot-down wingman in that
situation, would you?

Fully accepting your credentials and experience

Can you distinguish between the "sentimental/morale" issues
(similar to bringing home dead bodies, and the real combat
effectiveness issue , e.g. what we would risk to recover a
functioning pilot?

Vince

First, for Leadfoot, my statement was with regard to the breakdown of
mutual support--in other words, you are no longer a fighting
element, but a disjointed pair of independent operators which have
lost the essential advantage of your tactics, training and weaponry.
You've got to separate from the engagment and get reorganized then if
time, mission, weapons and fuel allow, re-engage.

In the case of a downed wingman, the particular combat situation will
dictate. If you are in a large package scenario then assets are in
place to initiate CSAR operations immediately. Immediate support by
the surviving wingman is standard procedure. Initiation of precise
positioning info, communication with the survivor, triggering of
refueling support, transition to an on-scene commander, evaluation of
immediately available support assets, and a judgement about the
complex probabilities of survival in the environment are all
immediate tasks. Procedures are usually established before-hand and
briefed on every mission.

For Vince, the sentimental question of bringing home dead bodies (as
you imply) is above reasoned argument. Evaluation of options is part
of the equation in the real world. BUT---and this is a large
BUT---the clear understanding that recovering of downed combat
aircrew members is a very high priority is very critical to morale.
Knowing that a mission is dangerous is one thing, but knowing that
your fellow-warriors will support you is a huge factor. A target will
be there tomorrow, but a downed friend may have only minutes
remaining.


Thank you

I apologize if I implied that morale was less important. As Napolean
was reputed to say "moral is to material as three to one"

I was simply inquiring about the procedure. As in the Aboukir Cressy
and Hogue, http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/cressy.htm

CSAR can provide a target rich environment for an alert defense.
Keeping a single aircraft in the area may signal the enemy as to the
possibilities

Vince





Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" "Palace
Cobra" www.thunderchief.org http://www.thunderchief.org

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote...

I am a computer programmer, but like to play with aircraft models. I
understand aerodynamics and simply point out that playing with models to
identify manuvers that US aircraft CAN NOT do is what real fighter pilots
think about.

Aircraft that dive inverted can out speed all US fighters in this manuever.
Inverted recovery from a stall is possible with canards while rear horizontal
stabilizers can NOT recover.

Obviously, you understand a LOT less about aerodynamics than you think you do!

ANY aircraft can "dive inverted"!

"Inverted recovery from a stall" or recovery from an inverted stall are BOTH
possible with "rear horizontal stabilizers!" Acrobatic pilots do them all the
time -- including from inverted spins -- in small airplanes. Test pilots do
them routinely, and fighter pilot trainees used to do them routinely, in jet
trainers like the US Navy T-2!

The question is not canard vs horizontal stabilizer; it is control authority and
the airplane's negative G capability. If the horizontal stab and elevator have
sufficient authotiry for inverted maneuvering, and the fuel and oil systems will
continue to supply the engine under negative G, canards are not needed.


So pretend two fighters are in close range dog-fights. And each select
maneuver that the aircraft can do.

Canards have a different set of selectable maneuvers.

You can continue to pretend, while many of us have actually performed...

Pretend two fighters with canards are in close range dog-fights. And each
select maneuver that the aircraft can do.

Canard 1 and canard 2 have a "different set of selectable maneuvers." EACH
AIRPLANE, regardless of design, has a preferred combat envelope. Again, canard
vs horizontal stab is moot. If the fight is within a part of the envelope that
is advantageous to the horizontal stab airplane, and its pilot can force the
other airplane to stay in that part of the envelope, he will win.


It is not a matter of anything but debate. My ability to point out the debate
was challenged. It should be a lively debate.

You ability to accurately express air combat and aerodynamic concepts was
challenged. That challenge is obviously valid.


There should be no blinders about different performace realities.

So why do you have them?


I kind of think that US aircraft manufacturers are simply not able to match
technology with overseas canard manufacturers, ergo, no canards.

And you obviously think wrong.


Also I have training in low altitude argiculatural flying also.
.. . .
A set of manuevers is all that makes a dogfight.

Here, again, you are sorely wrong, unless you're "dogfighting" with boll
weevils...

The abilities of the pilots to analyze the current situation, dynamically select
maneuvers from the set, modify them as required, execute them at the correct
instant, repeat continuously at intervals of, at most, a few seconds, and bring
appropriate weapons to bear all make a dogfight.

On May 13, 1:40*pm, "JR Weiss"
wrote:
"Douglas Eagleson" wrote...
I am a computer programmer, but like to play with aircraft models. *I
understand aerodynamics and simply point out that playing with models to
identify manuvers that US aircraft CAN NOT do is what real fighter pilots
think about.
Aircraft that dive inverted can out speed all US fighters in this manuever.
Inverted recovery from a stall is possible with canards while rear horizontal
stabilizers can NOT recover.

Obviously, you understand a LOT less about aerodynamics than you think you do!

ANY aircraft can "dive inverted"!

"Inverted recovery from a stall" or recovery from an inverted stall are BOTH
possible with "rear horizontal stabilizers!" *Acrobatic pilots do them all the
time -- including from inverted spins -- *in small airplanes. *Test pilots do
them routinely, and fighter pilot trainees used to do them routinely, in jet
trainers like the US Navy T-2!

The question is not canard vs horizontal stabilizer; it is control authority and
the airplane's negative G capability. *If the horizontal stab and elevator have
sufficient authotiry for inverted maneuvering, and the fuel and oil systems will
continue to supply the engine under negative G, canards are not needed.

So pretend two fighters are in close range dog-fights. *And each select
maneuver that the aircraft can do.
Canards have a different set of selectable maneuvers.

You can continue to pretend, while many of us have actually performed...

Pretend two fighters with canards are in close range dog-fights. *And each
select maneuver that the aircraft can do.

Canard 1 and canard 2 have a "different set of selectable maneuvers." *EACH
AIRPLANE, regardless of design, has a preferred combat envelope. *Again, canard
vs horizontal stab is moot. *If the fight is within a part of the envelope that
is advantageous to the horizontal stab airplane, and its pilot can force the
other airplane to stay in that part of the envelope, he will win.

It is not a matter of anything but debate. *My ability to point out the debate
was challenged. *It should be a lively debate.

You ability to accurately express air combat and aerodynamic concepts was
challenged. *That challenge is obviously valid.

There should be no blinders about different performace realities.

So why do you have them?

I kind of think that US aircraft manufacturers are simply not able to match
technology with overseas canard manufacturers, ergo, no canards.

And you obviously think wrong.



Also I have training in low altitude argiculatural flying also.
. . .
A set of manuevers is all that makes a dogfight.

Here, again, you are sorely wrong, unless you're "dogfighting" with boll
weevils...

The abilities of the pilots to analyze the current situation, dynamically select
maneuvers from the set, modify them as required, execute them at the correct
instant, repeat continuously at intervals of, at most, a few seconds, and bring
appropriate weapons to bear all make a dogfight.



A predicate theory was used to deselect all fighters in general.

Canard stall recover was claimed by me to be intrinsically stable.
Stalling a fighter inverted for the rear stabilizer aircraft was
claimed to be ALWAYS nonrecoverable. This is the point of the debate,
thanks for recognizing it.

So if an experienced fighter pilot says I am wrong on this exact
point, then my ability is challenged. Inverted means real inverted g-
forces. Meaning maybe 12g's.

I claim to know all stabiblity for the rear stabilzer appears bad
under high inverted gs. If I am wrong and you know so, then state my
incorrectness as a fact.

Is that hard?

Also do not forget the difference between fighters and common
aerobatic aircraft. Aerobatic aircraft use propellor power against the
rudder to recover, jet fighters have no ability to do this.

Now a days there is experimentation with thrust vectoring. A problem
with always thinking is that somebody has to go out and test thrust
vector stall recovery. And the answer is obvious. Why does this fail
to assist in stalls for jet fighters? Maybe I am ignorent of modern
thrust vector method, but it seeems to me to make little help.

On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:32:14 +0200, "Roger Conroy"
wrote:

Douglas Eagleson is a bot that infests sci.military.naval - ignore it.

I favor natural psychosis over artificial intellegence. More of it
around, at any rate.

Casady

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:32:14 +0200, "Roger Conroy"
wrote:

Douglas Eagleson is a bot that infests sci.military.naval - ignore it.

I favor natural psychosis over artificial intellegence. More of it
around, at any rate.

Casady

He/it never denies being a bot when someone says so.
If I called you a bot, you'd deny it.

WaltBJ wrote:

A safety rule not always observed states 10,000 AG/SL is the
floor for training. Safety rules look fine on paper but when things
get dicey one does what one must.. Not a heck pf a lot of difference
in the way the bird flies between 10,000 and the weeds except one
must be careful not to to drag a wing tip or get committed too steep
too low.

Another thing to avoid at the lower levels is cumulogranite clouds.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Roger Conroy" wrote:

Its a waste of time (and electrons) responding. Douglas Eagleson is a bot.

No, no, no! Douglas Eagleson is a very poorly written amateurish bot.
Alternately he is just a smartarse conman who thinks people will be
impressed by his idiot ramblings.

Either way killfile the stupid arsehole.

Eugene L Griessel

Earnestness is just stupidity that's been to University.

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

"Roger Conroy" wrote:


"Richard Casady" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:32:14 +0200, "Roger Conroy"
wrote:

Douglas Eagleson is a bot that infests sci.military.naval - ignore it.

I favor natural psychosis over artificial intellegence. More of it
around, at any rate.

Casady

He/it never denies being a bot when someone says so.
If I called you a bot, you'd deny it.

Wat maak jy so laat in die nag - slaaptyd!

Eugene L Griessel

One should try everything once - except incest and folk-dancing.

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
On May 13, 1:40 pm, "JR Weiss"
wrote:
"Douglas Eagleson" wrote...
I am a computer programmer, but like to play with aircraft models. I
understand aerodynamics and simply point out that playing with models to
identify manuvers that US aircraft CAN NOT do is what real fighter pilots
think about.
Aircraft that dive inverted can out speed all US fighters in this manuever.
Inverted recovery from a stall is possible with canards while rear horizontal
stabilizers can NOT recover.
Obviously, you understand a LOT less about aerodynamics than you think you do!

ANY aircraft can "dive inverted"!

"Inverted recovery from a stall" or recovery from an inverted stall are BOTH
possible with "rear horizontal stabilizers!" Acrobatic pilots do them all the
time -- including from inverted spins -- in small airplanes. Test pilots do
them routinely, and fighter pilot trainees used to do them routinely, in jet
trainers like the US Navy T-2!

The question is not canard vs horizontal stabilizer; it is control authority and
the airplane's negative G capability. If the horizontal stab and elevator have
sufficient authotiry for inverted maneuvering, and the fuel and oil systems will
continue to supply the engine under negative G, canards are not needed.

So pretend two fighters are in close range dog-fights. And each select
maneuver that the aircraft can do.
Canards have a different set of selectable maneuvers.
You can continue to pretend, while many of us have actually performed...

Pretend two fighters with canards are in close range dog-fights. And each
select maneuver that the aircraft can do.

Canard 1 and canard 2 have a "different set of selectable maneuvers." EACH
AIRPLANE, regardless of design, has a preferred combat envelope. Again, canard
vs horizontal stab is moot. If the fight is within a part of the envelope that
is advantageous to the horizontal stab airplane, and its pilot can force the
other airplane to stay in that part of the envelope, he will win.

It is not a matter of anything but debate. My ability to point out the debate
was challenged. It should be a lively debate.
You ability to accurately express air combat and aerodynamic concepts was
challenged. That challenge is obviously valid.

There should be no blinders about different performace realities.
So why do you have them?

I kind of think that US aircraft manufacturers are simply not able to match
technology with overseas canard manufacturers, ergo, no canards.
And you obviously think wrong.



Also I have training in low altitude argiculatural flying also.
. . .
A set of manuevers is all that makes a dogfight.
Here, again, you are sorely wrong, unless you're "dogfighting" with boll
weevils...

The abilities of the pilots to analyze the current situation, dynamically select
maneuvers from the set, modify them as required, execute them at the correct
instant, repeat continuously at intervals of, at most, a few seconds, and bring
appropriate weapons to bear all make a dogfight.



A predicate theory was used to deselect all fighters in general.

Canard stall recover was claimed by me to be intrinsically stable.
Stalling a fighter inverted for the rear stabilizer aircraft was
claimed to be ALWAYS nonrecoverable. This is the point of the debate,
thanks for recognizing it.

So if an experienced fighter pilot says I am wrong on this exact
point, then my ability is challenged. Inverted means real inverted g-
forces. Meaning maybe 12g's.

I claim to know all stabiblity for the rear stabilzer appears bad
under high inverted gs. If I am wrong and you know so, then state my
incorrectness as a fact.

Is that hard?

Also do not forget the difference between fighters and common
aerobatic aircraft. Aerobatic aircraft use propellor power against the
rudder to recover, jet fighters have no ability to do this.

Now a days there is experimentation with thrust vectoring. A problem
with always thinking is that somebody has to go out and test thrust
vector stall recovery. And the answer is obvious. Why does this fail
to assist in stalls for jet fighters? Maybe I am ignorent of modern
thrust vector method, but it seeems to me to make little help.


I wonder if this guy has ever had a coherent thought. He's as bad as
cobb.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Eugene Griessel" wrote in message
...
"Roger Conroy" wrote:


"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:32:14 +0200, "Roger Conroy"
wrote:

Douglas Eagleson is a bot that infests sci.military.naval - ignore it.

I favor natural psychosis over artificial intellegence. More of it
around, at any rate.

Casady

He/it never denies being a bot when someone says so.
If I called you a bot, you'd deny it.

Wat maak jy so laat in die nag - slaaptyd!

Eugene L Griessel

One should try everything once - except incest and folk-dancing.

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

Jy's reg - ek gaan nou...
Groete uit die koue Karoo.
Roger