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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
"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. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
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. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
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 |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
"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. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
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 |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
"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 - |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
"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 - |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
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 |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 12:44 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 03:31 PM |
RV Quick Build build times... | [email protected] | Home Built | 2 | December 17th 03 03:29 AM |