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

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:AFp%b.402349$I06.4378804@attbi_s01...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

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.

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?


how did it stall ?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:86u%b.419138$na.808979@attbi_s04...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

Stalling the wing is outside the flight envelope, Weiss.

What flight envelope? What airplane?

Did you post this thread without knowing what airplane you are
discussing?

Nope.

You haven't been able to tell us what flight envelope you're referring to,
and
now you mention something about stalling, which wasn't a factor in the
current
discussion...

Do you claim that the airplane's engines hold the A-320 in the air by
themselves?

In what way do you believe the wing did not stall?

in what way do you belive it stalled ?

On 2/28/04 10:46 AM, in article ,
"Gord Beaman )" wrote:

(John Alger) wrote:

The crew expected it, but it was not there becaue they were
too low. When he realized his error, the captain manually applied TOGA
power.


This absolutely floors me...WHY wouldn't he intimately KNOW
this?...I find it almost unbelievable that he wouldn't. What was
the cojo doing all this while?...had they never heard of CRM over
there?...
--

-Gord.

Lulled into a false sense of security by automation he didn't fully
understand.

--Woody

running with scissors wrote:
every ****ing aircraft goes past the end of a runway. its called takeoff

Heh. The high-performance types often don't cross the far-end threshold
during takeoff. I remember one time 10,000 feet over Sherman field,
looking straight down at the midpoint...

--
John Miller
Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm

I have ways of making money that you know nothing of.
-John D. Rockefeller

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 2/28/04 4:09 AM, in article
,
"Guy Alcala" wrote:

SNIP
The USMC's AV-8Bs did this to
very good effect in 1991, for instance.

Using a helicopter airfield with a 6,000 foot runway in very poor
repair,
about
half of which was usable. They also operated from poor condition
forward
airfields in Iraq this past year, with fuel, weapons and
sparesapparently
brought
in mostly by truck.

Guy


Guy, it's obvious you know how to build an airfield.

The AV-8B's worked from forward airfields because they could. It was a
way
to use the assets we already have in a way that reduced crowding at
existing
airfields and slightly reduced tanker requirements.

And improved the response time and sortie generation rates, just as a FARP
alows an attack helo to generate more sorties due to reduced transit time
back and forth to the unit operating location.


It was a "nice to have" not a requirement. The war would have gone just
fine had they been F-16's or F/A-18's operating from fixed runways or
aircraft carriers.

The groundpounder who wants responsive CAS available *immediately*
throughout an operation would differ with you as to whether having an asset
capable of hitting a FARP and returning quickly to station is just "nice to
have".

Which is why the V/STOL F-35 is unnecessary.

Logic fault. You are claiming that because it was allegedly not required in
this instance, it will never be required. Kind of hard to support that kind
of argument. Given a scenario like Afghanistan, where the CAS assets had to
transit great distances to and from the required area of operations, the
ability to get STOVL assets into the A/O early in the campaign could be a
big advantage, and reduces the load on the other assets (like those F-15E's
and F-16's transiting out of the Gulf area). If it is unnecessary, why is
the USAF now joining the STOVL bandwagon--merely to make nice with their
USMC brethren? I doubt that. Is STVL the way to go for all TACAIR? Of course
not. But eliminating it just reduces your own versatility, and that would
not be a wise move in the current environment of uncertainty (as regards
where/when/how we'll have to fight).

Brooks


--Woody

In article ,
on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:36:35 GMT,
R. David Steele VE attempted to say .....


The F-35 is basically the same plane as the F-22. It has been
modified to be a carrier aircraft.

Umm, no it isn't

F-35 is the JSF



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
On 2/28/04 1:01 AM, in article , "John Keeney"
wrote:
It's all just a trick: the USAF wants the F-35Bs so they can rip
the lift fan out and put the generator for the laser there. ;-)

Honestly, now that I've said it, it doesn't sound that far fetch...

They better get that laser thing miniaturized quick then because right now
it's HUGE!

The bigger problem is cooling it.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...cle.cfm?Id=994
Cooling a laser is a “very difficult engineering challenge,” said Zimet,
especially when the goal is to generate high levels of power. In a 100
kw solid-state laser, for example, there could conceivably be 900 kw of
wasted power that has to be eliminated. That is because, by nature,
solid-state lasers are not efficient. Ten percent is considered high
efficiency, compared to most solid-state lasers that average 1 percent
efficiency.

-HJC

khobar wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in message
...
JL Grasso wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"

wrote:

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 pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and
came up
with the low slow fly by all on his own.

Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in
a
prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power
to
exit the fly-by.

The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above
'explanation'.

You are aware that the DFDR presented in court to substantiate the official
story was NOT the DFDR from the crashed aircraft, yes?

Certainly didn't look like the same one from the pictures I saw.

There is certainly something altogether 'odd' about this incident.

Graham

JL Grasso wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:23:07 -0700, "khobar" wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in message
...
JL Grasso wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"

wrote:

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 pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and
came up
with the low slow fly by all on his own.

Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in
a
prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power
to
exit the fly-by.

The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above
'explanation'.

You are aware that the DFDR presented in court to substantiate the official
story was NOT the DFDR from the crashed aircraft, yes?

... based on Assiline's assertion which he based on the appearance of the
box. IIRC correctly, he said that the one that he saw shortly after the
crash had vertical stripes on the housing, whereas the one in court had
diagonal stripes.

Pretty conclusive, yes?

Yes actually. I've seen footage of the DFDR being recovered and no way is it the
same one presented in court.

Graham

JL Grasso wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 02:45:53 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

JL Grasso wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

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 pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up
with the low slow fly by all on his own.

Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in a
prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power to
exit the fly-by.

The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above
'explanation'.

Cite?

Crikey ! I thought it was common knowledge ?

Graham