A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 11th 08, 12:00 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Douglas Eagleson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

On May 10, 3:54*pm, WaltBJ wrote:
On May 10, 3:27 pm, Douglas Eagleson
wrote:
SNIP

I talk funny it is mental illness. What a kick.


SNIP:
That illness is truly unfortunate and you can't help it.
What you can do to help yourself is to educate yourself in
aerodynamics and later on, fighter capabilities and tactics. Your
conclusions are faulty because you do not truly understand these
subjects. I recommend, at the least, a visit to your local library and
spend a month or so studying these areas. At the present time you are
an amateur trying to argue with professionals who devoted a career to
the subject.
Walt BJ


Wait, wait waitie.

Not a single reply has been about the concept of debate. Some jackass
says it is comic book stuff. That is not debate. He is just hidding
his ignorence.

I claimed a certain claim, and somebody called mister a-ok guy, says
ittie comic book.

You people are wacko, the fighter pilot knows all kinda crap. Does he,
I doubt it. Has he flown a canard fighter? Has he helped debate the
future of canard versus noncanard fighter anywhere? I doubt it.

It is a constant flame the funny guy routine.

btw, you wanna be real? Tell me WHY I am not correct. NO bs.
  #24  
Old May 11th 08, 12:39 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Steve Hix
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

In article
,
Douglas Eagleson wrote:

On May 10, 2:50*pm, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 23:21:39 -0700, Steve Hix

wrote:
In article ,
(Richard Casady) wrote:


On Fri, 09 May 2008 21:45:15 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:


And what will happen when someone invents a doppler radar that doesn't
see ground clutter?


I was under the impression that look down, shoot down had been around
for many years.


Ed was gigging Eagleson. Who isn't likely to notice, sadly.


While some think Eagleson is a 'bot, my theory is mental illness.

Casady


I talk funny it is mental illness. What a kick.


It's not the *way* you talk, precisely, no.
  #25  
Old May 11th 08, 04:55 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
WaltBJ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

On May 10, 4:00 pm, Douglas Eagleson
wrote:
On May 10, 3:54 pm, WaltBJ wrote:

SNIP:

btw, you wanna be real? Tell me WHY I am not correct. NO bs.


SNIP:
You are correct in suggesting that I have never flow a canard
aircraft. However, I have bult and flown several canard model aircraft
and yes with proper design they are stable aircraft. They will stall
but with proper design they will recover by themselves - as will all
properly designed aircraft. A higher angle of attack for the canard
will ensure it stalls first to drop the nose and pick up speed and
recover automatically. Similarly, dihedral in the canard made them
laterally stable.
I know of no maneuver that a canard can execute that can not be
duplicated bya 'conventional' aircraft. As for stopping in mid-air, I
have done precisely that in 3 different aircraft, the T33, F104 and
F4. In all 3 cases I was going straight up to zero airspeed, slid
straight down backwards, and all three aircraft pitched over forward
to straight down and flew out of the maneuver. This particular
maneuver has no use tactically as one is helpless until maneuvering
airspeed is regained.
BTW, I was trying to execute 3 successive vertical rolls in the
T33 and ran out of speed. I was still in flight training and
definitely learned something on that flight. In the F104 I was testing
the aircraft with its new model engine to see how fast it could get to
45000 from brake release. 90 seconds, but shortly thereafter I was out
of airspeed. in the F4 I did it repeatedly as part of a series f
maneuvers to demonstrate to pilots new to the airplane that it was
predictable and dependable.
As for the Cobra maneuver, it leaves the aircraft suspended at 90
degrees to an attacker's path as a stationary target for gunfire. Even
if the Su pilot manages to shuck one atacker by doing the Cobra 'just
right' he better hope #2 isn't anywhere near.
A rolling dive? WW1 fighters could do that. Roll inverted to a
dive? Old prop driven divebombers did that, too. Yes, you can simply
push forward in negative G to get into a dive but that causes all thw
dust and sand in thw cockpit to get into your face and down the back
of your neck. FWIW no fighter particularly cares what you do to it so
long as you don't over-G it too much. In that case sometimes it breaks
and that can ruin your whole day. The one exception is continuous max
rate rolls - in some fighters you end up in yaw-roll coupling and
finish up going sideways and maybe breaking up.
As for a canard recovering by itself, so will a conventional
design aircraft - as the speed rises above the trim setting point the
nose wil automatically start to rise. Left alone, the bird may even
execute a series of loops until the ground interferes. I know of a
case where a 747 was inadvertently stalled up around 40,000 and it did
two wingovers (sloppy loops) before the crew got it all figured out.
But normally somewhere along the way an aircraft will roll off on one
wing and go into an increasingly steep spiral - to the ground, unless
recovered by the crew. Unless of course it is one of the new
generation computer-flown aircraft - as long as the fancy stuff
works.
A few days ago at MacDill AFB I watched the F16 and the A/F!8
perform maneuvers that told me both the wing and the tail were
generating positive lift, as does a canard. Both those aircraft are
unstable aircraft and must be computer-flown.
You can see they are different breeds of cat since the horizonta
stabilizer is pretty much in line with teh wing instead of a large
nose-up angle. Weird.
Nothing wrong with a canard as long as it is not blocking your all-
around vision. It can be designed to augment main wing lift through
vortex action. But it's not magic and there is always a tradeoff in
aircraft design.
Sweden's upgrading of the Gripen still leaves them with an
obsolescent aircraft - it ain't stealthy!
Walt BJ


  #26  
Old May 11th 08, 07:14 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
T.L. Davis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:27:22 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
wrote:

If you can not do the two maneuvers stated, in a F-16 or F-22 you will
never beat the Griphen. The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid
flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this.

It is a critical failure of US technology.


OTOH, the forward strakes of US aircraft are growing in size, either
to blend the fuselage/wing for stealth purposes (pioneered by the
SR-71), or for increased lift as in the F/A-18 as compared to the
original F-18. A large forward strake of adequate wing section would
serve the same purpose as a canard in a stall, movable or not, yes?

Or so it intuitively seems to an aeronautics newbie...

Of course, should the Su-35/Su-37 be produced in large enough
numbers, canards will be the least of our problems. Sure, the canards
help, but jet nozzles on gimbals trump their contribution.

T.L. Davis


  #27  
Old May 11th 08, 09:08 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
John D Salt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

"Dean A. Markley" wrote in
news
[Snips]
Now you have me wondering if a mentally ill bot is possible.....


Of course it is. PARRY was written to mimic the responses of a patient
suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. I think it was Douglas Hofstadter
who had the idea of hooking up a copy of ELIZA (written to mimic the
responses of a Rogerian psychotherapist) with one of PARRY and seeing how
they got on.

RACTER, the author of the first book written by a computer program ("The
Policeman's Beard is Half Constructed") has been described by its aithor as
an exercise in AI, standing for Artificial Insanity.

All the best,

John.
  #28  
Old May 11th 08, 01:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
St. John Smythe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

Douglas Eagleson wrote:
A forward mass to be the angle altered by the horizontal stabilizer
will lead the change to angle of attack always while the aircraft
appears to be flying.

snip
If you can not do the two maneuvers stated, in a F-16 or F-22 you will
never beat the Griphen. The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid
flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this.

It is a critical failure of US technology.


It would be delusional to flatter yourself into thinking you know more
about canards than do the U.S. aircraft designers who decided against
using them.
--
sjs
  #29  
Old May 11th 08, 01:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Jack Linthicum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 301
Default The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

On May 11, 2:14 am, T.L. Davis wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:27:22 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson

wrote:
If you can not do the two maneuvers stated, in a F-16 or F-22 you will
never beat the Griphen. The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid
flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this.


It is a critical failure of US technology.


OTOH, the forward strakes of US aircraft are growing in size, either
to blend the fuselage/wing for stealth purposes (pioneered by the
SR-71), or for increased lift as in the F/A-18 as compared to the
original F-18. A large forward strake of adequate wing section would
serve the same purpose as a canard in a stall, movable or not, yes?

Or so it intuitively seems to an aeronautics newbie...

Of course, should the Su-35/Su-37 be produced in large enough
numbers, canards will be the least of our problems. Sure, the canards
help, but jet nozzles on gimbals trump their contribution.

T.L. Davis


There is a sign of your newness to Russian design, maintenance is
secondary to air show performances. Imagine what a Russian mechanic
can do with those nozzles and then multiply that by the guy he
teaches, perhaps in English perhaps not. Certainly not the recipient's
native colloquial tongue
  #30  
Old May 11th 08, 03:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Ed Rasimus[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:00:53 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson
wrote:

Wait, wait waitie.

Not a single reply has been about the concept of debate. Some jackass
says it is comic book stuff. That is not debate. He is just hidding
his ignorence.

I claimed a certain claim, and somebody called mister a-ok guy, says
ittie comic book.

You people are wacko, the fighter pilot knows all kinda crap. Does he,
I doubt it. Has he flown a canard fighter? Has he helped debate the
future of canard versus noncanard fighter anywhere? I doubt it.


I suggested that the source of your information was comic books or
video games because the claims were so detached from reality either
with regard to aerodynamic performance or tactical efficacy as to be
ludicrous.

It is a constant flame the funny guy routine.

btw, you wanna be real? Tell me WHY I am not correct. NO bs.


Canards offer excellent nose positional authority. No doubt about it.
But other methods also offer that. Fly-by-wire systems, stability
augmentation, computer assisted flight controls, vectorable thrust,
etc. all offer agility. And, they don't increase your RCS and make you
unstealthy like a lot of airframe proturbences.

Rolling into a dive is natural and within the capability of every
aircraft since shortly after the Wright Flyer.

Within-visual-range combat is not inevitable, but if and when it does
occur it is seldom dependent upon who flys slowest or who can stall
and recover. Those are losing strategies.

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.

My credentials in tactical aviation are pretty much public domain.
What would be yours?


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




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LETS BUILD A MODEL PLANE adelsonsl Aviation Photos 1 May 16th 07 11:10 PM
Swedish! Owning 3 March 3rd 06 01:44 AM
The end of the Saab Viggen - The legendary Swedish jet fighter Iwan Bogels Simulators 0 April 19th 05 07:22 PM
The Very Last Operational New German Fighter Model Of WW2 Garrison Hilliard Military Aviation 13 January 13th 04 04:31 PM
RV Quick Build build times... [email protected] Home Built 2 December 17th 03 04:29 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.