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

Pooh Bear wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

Not surprising for Puke Bear.

Who the h**l rattled *your* cage Kozel ?

I once thought you were an intelligent person.

Your resort to schoolgirl hysterical abuse shows otherwise. Caught a
case of Berteimania ?

YOU sound hysterical.

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message

snip

Any evidence that STOVL kills more pilots than other fast jets? Or any
evidence that the F-35B is inherently unsafe or "risky" technology? ISTR
the
STOVL X-35 demonstrator did pretty well...

Brooks


Are you joking? How long have you been around Naval Aviation?

When I was at China Lake (for 3 years) we had two class A mishaps (in our
manned aircraft... not counting the drones)--both were Harriers--at least
one pilot was a TPS grad. For one of the pilots, it was his second
ejection
from the AV-8B. The other died in a later AV-8B mishap after he'd
returned
to the fleet. We had one class B mishap--a Harrier. The first guy I knew
of from flight school to die in an aircraft accident? Harrier. The only
flight school classmate I know who was a POW during DS? Harrier. (Sorry,
that last one shouldn't count... Not unique to the STOVL discussion. I
was
on a roll.)

Meaningless. Compare the accident rates per hours flown and get back to me.

snip

The Harrier accident rate is and has been noticeably worse, Kevin. How much of
that is due to accidents during transition/hovering (which would be the only
relevant stat, to compare with CTOL accidents during landing), I don't have the
data for. The AV-8B is apparently a lot easier to handle in the transition and
hover than the AV-8A was owing to its SAAHS and aerodynamic improvements, and
the F-35B will be even easier (accounts I've read suggest its trivial), probably
owing to a combination of different aerodynamic design and FBW controls. After
all, the basic Harrier design dates to about 1960, or even 1958.

Guy

"José Herculano" wrote:

snip

I may understand why the Marines want some fixed wing capability on their
assault ships, although the plan to replace their Hornets with the STOVL
rather than the CTOL F-35 is looking dumber by the minute.

Why? The F-35s have considerably better range than their F-18A/Cs, and
apparently equal or better range than the F-18E/Fs.

Now the USAF wanting some STOVLs... I can only reason that some political
generals are bowing to the pressure of some politicos that want a larger
numbers of the jumpers to decrease the unit price the UK and others will
have to cough. A CAS F-35? All that costly stealth platform carrying a bunch
of stuff under the wings and looking like the Statue of Liberty on the radar
on account of that, and with a questionable ability to take punishment from
bellow and still be useful on its original role?

snip

As was mentioned in the Comanche decision briefing, when doing CAS (at least
recently), RCS has been irrelevant. IR, visual and aural signatures are far
more important, along with sensors and weapons. The F-35 has all of those, PLUS
radar stealth for those first night of the war missions. And for BAI, INT, OCA,
DCA, etc.

Guy

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message

snip

Any evidence that STOVL kills more pilots than other fast jets? Or
any
evidence that the F-35B is inherently unsafe or "risky" technology?
ISTR
the
STOVL X-35 demonstrator did pretty well...

Brooks


Are you joking? How long have you been around Naval Aviation?

When I was at China Lake (for 3 years) we had two class A mishaps (in
our
manned aircraft... not counting the drones)--both were Harriers--at
least
one pilot was a TPS grad. For one of the pilots, it was his second
ejection
from the AV-8B. The other died in a later AV-8B mishap after he'd
returned
to the fleet. We had one class B mishap--a Harrier. The first guy I
knew
of from flight school to die in an aircraft accident? Harrier. The
only
flight school classmate I know who was a POW during DS? Harrier.
(Sorry,
that last one shouldn't count... Not unique to the STOVL discussion.
I
was
on a roll.)

Meaningless. Compare the accident rates per hours flown and get back to
me.

snip

The Harrier accident rate is and has been noticeably worse, Kevin. How
much of
that is due to accidents during transition/hovering (which would be the
only
relevant stat, to compare with CTOL accidents during landing), I don't
have the
data for. The AV-8B is apparently a lot easier to handle in the
transition and
hover than the AV-8A was owing to its SAAHS and aerodynamic improvements,
and
the F-35B will be even easier (accounts I've read suggest its trivial),
probably
owing to a combination of different aerodynamic design and FBW controls.
After
all, the basic Harrier design dates to about 1960, or even 1958.

I kind of figured it would be a bit worse than some of its contemporaries,
but not demonstrably so. Of course, that says little as regards the F-35B,
which uses a completely different lift system, which is reportedly a lot
better than that ised in the Harrier family, which is why I included the,
"Then tell us how that applies to the F-35B, a different aircraft with a
different lift system" part.

Brooks


Guy

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:17:16 -0500, JL Grasso
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:40:20 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

JL Grasso wrote:

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:03:00 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

snip old stuff

There were also known and documented defects with various A320 systems at that time -
including throttle response and height indication. Capt Assiline asserts that the a/c
showed 100 ft altitude when it was actually flying much lower.

Anyone who would rely on a pressure altimeter to operate a low, slow
aircraft 100 feet from the ground when a radar altimiter was fucntioning
(and apparently giving accurate aural information) and available is not
making a prudent decision. The pressure altimiter (servo, ADC or
otherwise) is only required to be accurate to app +/- 30 feet at sea level
to begin with (and the DFDR was only required to show pressure altitude
resolution to +/- 100 ft, but may have been more on this unit). A radar
altimiter is accurate (depending on a given antenna/plane configuration)
to within 5 feet (and quite likely less) between wheel height and terrain.

Read the CVR transcript again and tell me how the Captain could possibly
be surprised later when told/shown he was below 100 feet during the
fly-over.

With delight. Sorry about the lost formatting when text posting

(French text is translated into English)

Time: Source: Contents:

12.44:27 TOWER QNH Habsheim 1012 Fox Echo 9.8.4
Captain OK

12.44:31 Co-pilot Roger

12.44:32 Captain 9.8.4 put in 9.8.4

12.44:34 Co-pilot 9.8.4 QFE selected!

12.44:37 Good gear is down; flaps 2!

12.44:42 Captain Flaps 3

12.44:45 Co-pilot Flaps 3!
Captain That's the airfield, you confirm?

12.44:48 Co-pilot Affirmative

12.44:51 Co-pilot You see it LL 01, when we get there you're at 1 nautical mile, that's right.

12.44:55 [GONG!] - nosewheel valve

12.45:04.7 GPWS [Too Low Terrain!]
Co-pilot OK!

12.45:19.1 Radio altimeter [Forty]

12.45:04.7 [GONG!] - GPWS cut off

12.45:05.7 Radio altimeter [Two hundred]

12.45.11 Co-pilot P.....G.....! (name of flight safety officer)

12.45:11.4 Radio altimeter [Two hundred]

12.45.12 Co-pilot G.. is going to ...eh!

12.45:14 Co-pilot OK, you're at 100ft there, watch, watch

12.45:13 Radio altimeter [One hundred]

12.45:19.1 Radio altimeter [Forty]

12.45:23.6 Radio altimeter [Fifty]

12.45:26 Captain OK ,I'm OK there, disconnect autothrottle

12.45:27.5 Radio altimeter [Forty]

12.45:32 Co-pilot Watch out for those pylons ahaead, eh. See them?

12.45:33 Co-pilot Yeah, yeah, don't worry.

12.45:34.5 [Clack! Clack! Clack!] - power lever dentents

12.45:35.3 Radio altimeter [Thirty]

12.45:36.2 Radio altimeter [Thirty]

12.45:37 Co-pilot TOGA/SRS

12.45:38.3 Radio altimeter [Thirty]

12.45:39 Captain Go around track

12.45:39.9 Captain Sh...!

12.45:41.5 END OF TAPE



NOTE

12.45:11.4 Radio altimeter [Two hundred]
12.45:13 Radio altimeter [One hundred]

that's a sudden sink rate of 4000 fpm as reported by the 'radio altimeter' whilst at around
100ft !

I assume that the second time is actually incorrect since it's out of sequence but I found the
same on another copy of the transcript.

Let's assume say it should be 12.45:15 ( more in lline with other timings ) - still indicates a
sudden sink @ around 1800 fpm !

So the radio altimeter was accurate ? I think not. And that was known to be one of the weak
spots in the A320's systems at that time IIRC.

I'm guessing that Capt Asseline realised that the radar altimeter was malfunctioning and
reverted to baro readings.


Regds, Graham

You need to know that at 12:45:11, the aircraft was still well off the
airport area by several thousand yards. They were over a hilly,
partially-forested area (Hardt Forest) to the right of the approach end of
runway 02 (which was the actual runway they were supposed to parallel
during the flyover). You should also know that radar altimeters report the
distance between the transceiver antennas and any objects below. So, if
the topography of the area below varies, or the altitude varies, the
readings change nearly immediately. Changes in the attitude of the
aircraft can sometimes have effects on the readings also. This is
something that an experienced Captain would know, and something a
planespotter would not.

If you would actually read something comprehensive concerning this
accident, you could see that the RadAlt was consistent while over the
relatively level terrain of the airfield - just as one would expect.

As in (as quoted by Pooh):

12.45:27.5 Radio altimeter [Forty]

12.45:35.3 Radio altimeter [Thirty]

12.45:36.2 Radio altimeter [Thirty]

12.45:37 Co-pilot TOGA/SRS

12.45:38.3 Radio altimeter [Thirty]


Phil
--
Pfft...english! Who needs that? I'm never going to England.
Homer J. Simpson

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

Not surprising for Puke Bear.

Who the h**l rattled *your* cage Kozel ?

I once thought you were an intelligent person.

Your resort to schoolgirl hysterical abuse shows otherwise. Caught a
case of Berteimania ?

YOU sound hysterical.

Please calm down and take the pills. There's a good lad.

So ? You're prepared to resort to the verbal abuse school of debate ?

I suppose you'll be suggesting I stick rodents up my bottom next ?

You do yourself a disservice by lowering yourself to the troll-level
currently shown by most a.d.a contributors.

I have no problem with debating an arguable case. To resort to verbal
abuse ( as Scott did - and you are close to ) to make your point pretty
much voids you of any credibility.

Graham

JL Grasso wrote:

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:40:20 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

So the radio altimeter was accurate ? I think not. And that was known to be one of the weak
spots in the A320's systems at that time IIRC.

I'm guessing that Capt Asseline realised that the radar altimeter was malfunctioning and
reverted to baro readings.


Regds, Graham

You need to know that at 12:45:11, the aircraft was still well off the
airport area by several thousand yards. They were over a hilly,
partially-forested area (Hardt Forest) to the right of the approach end of
runway 02 (which was the actual runway they were supposed to parallel
during the flyover).

Ahh - the problem with the briefing !

You should also know that radar altimeters report the
distance between the transceiver antennas and any objects below.

Yes indeed - I do.

So, if
the topography of the area below varies, or the altitude varies, the
readings change nearly immediately.

Agreed.

So let's check the topography then ? The flight path etc. From my own experience, that general area
is pretty flat but I'm interested in seeing any info.

Changes in the attitude of the
aircraft can sometimes have effects on the readings also.

I can see that too - indeed you could possibly call it a deficiency of rad alts.

This is
something that an experienced Captain would know, and something a
planespotter would not.

Can't resist being Bertei's pal ? If only I had the time to go spot planes ! Last time I had a
look-around I saw some nice kit at Panshanger. I'd rather spend my time 'spotting' attractive women
- and getting to know them actually.

If you would actually read something comprehensive concerning this accident, you could see that
the RadAlt was consistent while over the relatively level terrain of the airfield - just as one
would expect.

Indeed it is.


I also assume that if the radar altimeter was broken, it would have been
deferred MMEL and cited as such in the investigation.

I never asserted it was broken. Simply that the implementation at that time in the A320 had given
rise to concerns about its accuracy.

Actually - you succeeded in diverting my attention from what I consider to be one of the more
intruiging aspects of this crash - notably a suggested compressor stall.


Graham

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 2/29/04 12:03 AM, in article , "John Keeney"
wrote:

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
SNIP
They better get that laser thing miniaturized quick then because right
now
it's HUGE!

COIL, yes, but the solid state job wasn't doing so bad in the size
department
and it would actually be the generator living in the lift fan hole I
believe.
The real problem volume wish would be fitting in the optic train.



Not familiar... Got a reference link? I'm interested.

Not any more, I sacrificed that pile of papers to a fire during
a training exercise.

Pooh Bear wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

Not surprising for Puke Bear.

Who the h**l rattled *your* cage Kozel ?

I once thought you were an intelligent person.

Your resort to schoolgirl hysterical abuse shows otherwise. Caught a
case of Berteimania ?

YOU sound hysterical.

Please calm down and take the pills. There's a good lad.

So ? You're prepared to resort to the verbal abuse school of debate ?

I suppose you'll be suggesting I stick rodents up my bottom next ?

You do yourself a disservice by lowering yourself to the troll-level
currently shown by most a.d.a contributors.

I have no problem with debating an arguable case. To resort to verbal
abuse ( as Scott did - and you are close to ) to make your point pretty
much voids you of any credibility.

You allege I "resort to schoolgirl hysterical abuse", and then you post
strings of personal abuse.

Hypocrite!

JL Grasso wrote:

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:19:22 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

JL Grasso wrote:

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:19:55 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

JL Grasso wrote:

Citing your recollection of a news clip (which you saw live in 1998)

Please illustrate where I said that ? 1998 ! Uh ?

"I most certainly recall seeing the 'black box' being recovered in live
recorded footage"

Note that I said clearly 'in recorded footage' that was taken live. I didn't say I saw it live
myself.

Presumably you meant 1988 ?

Whether you meant that you compared them from recollection, or that you
relied solely on the documentary for comparison really is not significant
to me at this point.

You would dismiss photographic evidence ? I can see I'll have to ferret out that tape if it still
exists.

Graham