I watched a very interesting interview with aircraft designer, Burt
Rutan on CBC-TV a few days ago. He claimed that the large aircraft
manufacturers aren't being very innovative today. As a test pilot at
Edwards he stated that some of the aircraft he tested in the past out
perform today's modern fighters. The F-104 was one of the examples. He
didn't have anything good to say about the JSF or the F-22 for that matter.
He stated that modern manufactures aren't the innovative risk takers of the
past thus holding back aircraft design technology.
Any comments on this?

"Ed Majden" > wrote:

> I watched a very interesting interview with aircraft designer, Burt
>Rutan on CBC-TV a few days ago. He claimed that the large aircraft
>manufacturers aren't being very innovative today. As a test pilot at
>Edwards he stated that some of the aircraft he tested in the past out
>perform today's modern fighters. The F-104 was one of the examples. He
>didn't have anything good to say about the JSF or the F-22 for that matter.
>He stated that modern manufactures aren't the innovative risk takers of the
>past thus holding back aircraft design technology.
> Any comments on this?
>
There's a tendency of most of us to live in the past. We were all
tougher than our predecessors and no one since has had the challenges
that we faced. Balderdash!

Certainly the F-104 was an aeronautical marvel. It was an incredible
achievement. But give me an F-22 (or for that matter, an F-15, or -16)
and I'll promise to mort the Zipper long before the merge--even before
he knows there is going to be a merge.

The way we control the air now is light-years beyond what was done
with the -104. Sure, it was fast, climbed incredibly, was a thrill to
fly---but the point is that the whole purpose is to "rove the alotted
area, find the enemy and kill him. Anything else is rubbish."

The Baron said it and it has only become more true over the years. If
you rove the alotted area in supercruise, the area is larger. If you
do it with stealth, you are infinitely more survivable. If you have
the benefit of data fusion and passive sensors, you don't need the Mk
1/Mod 0 eyeball. If you've got launch and leave, long range weapons,
you don't have to get all sweaty.

I found an interesting statistic the other day in researching a
presentation to a group about my book. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, one
fixed wing US aircraft was lost for 18,190 fixed wing sorties flown.
JUST ONE!! For Desert Storm, we lost 37 fixed wing aircraft on 116,000
sorties for a rate of one loss per 3135 sorties. During Rolling
Thunder, the F-105 was losing one aircraft per 65 sorties during 1966.

If that leads you to the conclusion that Burt Rutan is packed with an
inordinate quantity of bovine excrement, it would be a reasonable
deduction.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

"Ed Majden" > wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus"
>> Certainly the F-104 was an aeronautical marvel. It was an incredible
>> achievement. But give me an F-22 (or for that matter, an F-15, or -16)
>> and I'll promise to mort the Zipper long before the merge--even before
>> he knows there is going to be a merge.
>>
> In part, I agree but aren't you making an un-fair comparison? Modern
>electronics give these new aircraft their superior capability. Don't forget
>that the F-104 was designed with 1950's technology. It's just like
>comparing TV sets. The old tube designs packed up ever few months where the
>new solid state types seem to last forever. I think that Rutan was trying
>to point out that airframe wise, there isn't that much of an improvement
>with today's designs. He thinks that modern fighters should be much faster
>and higher performers than they are. The stealth fighter would be
>impossible to fly without the on board flight control computers that control
>them. The 104 radar was pretty Mickey Mouse as compared to modern FCS
>radars. If fitted with an up-dated system it would still be a high
>performer, at least as good as an F-16 I would think. I would hope that
>modern aircraft would be more reliable. Any of you pilot types fly both
>types?
>
Well, haven't you made my argument for me? Rutan was indicated as
saying (I didn't see the show, but someone else provided the start of
this thread) that there hasn't been much progress in military aircraft
since the days of the 104.

Here's the quote:

>He claimed that the large aircraft
>manufacturers aren't being very innovative today. As a test pilot at
>Edwards he stated that some of the aircraft he tested in the past out
>perform today's modern fighters. The F-104 was one of the examples. He
>didn't have anything good to say about the JSF or the F-22 for that matter.
>He stated that modern manufactures aren't the innovative risk takers of the
>past thus holding back aircraft design technology.

Well, I think we've done a darn good job with regard to thrust/weight,
specific fuel consumption, lift/drag, sustainability of G, agility,
reliability, sensors, weapons, integration, security of comm,
survivability, ECM, defensive systems, etc. etc.

Either the aircraft industry has been remarkably progressive, or they
haven't. Can't have it both ways.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>"Ed Majden" > wrote:

>>In part, I agree but aren't you making an un-fair comparison? Modern
>>electronics give these new aircraft their superior capability. Don't forget
>>that the F-104 was designed with 1950's technology. It's just like
>>comparing TV sets. The old tube designs packed up ever few months where the
>>new solid state types seem to last forever. I think that Rutan was trying
>>to point out that airframe wise, there isn't that much of an improvement
>>with today's designs. He thinks that modern fighters should be much faster
>>and higher performers than they are. The stealth fighter would be
>>impossible to fly without the on board flight control computers that control
>>them. The 104 radar was pretty Mickey Mouse as compared to modern FCS
>>radars. If fitted with an up-dated system it would still be a high
>>performer, at least as good as an F-16 I would think. I would hope that
>>modern aircraft would be more reliable. Any of you pilot types fly both
>>types?

>Well, haven't you made my argument for me? Rutan was indicated as
>saying (I didn't see the show, but someone else provided the start of
>this thread) that there hasn't been much progress in military aircraft
>since the days of the 104.

>Here's the quote:

>>He claimed that the large aircraft
>>manufacturers aren't being very innovative today. As a test pilot at
>>Edwards he stated that some of the aircraft he tested in the past out
>>perform today's modern fighters. The F-104 was one of the examples. He
>>didn't have anything good to say about the JSF or the F-22 for that matter.
>>He stated that modern manufactures aren't the innovative risk takers of the
>>past thus holding back aircraft design technology.

>Well, I think we've done a darn good job with regard to thrust/weight,
>specific fuel consumption, lift/drag, sustainability of G, agility,
>reliability, sensors, weapons, integration, security of comm,
>survivability, ECM, defensive systems, etc. etc.

>Either the aircraft industry has been remarkably progressive, or they
>haven't. Can't have it both ways.

I agree with your original assessment (e.g: Rutan is full of bovine
excretement). We've all heard about Rutan's Voyager that
circumnavigated the globe unrefueled back in 1986, however,
the record for the world's longest flight in history (64 days, 22
hours, 19 minutes w/o touching the ground) belongs to two men
flying the venerable old Cessna 172 back in the 1950's...

"To refuel, men in a stake truck would drive a desert road at about
80 mph and, with the plane flying overhead about the same speed,
attach a gas line to a rope thrown from the Cessna. The gas would
then be pumped, a procedure that took only a few minutes. Those on
the ground also would resupply the pilots with food and clothing."

With regards to military A/C, you've said it a million times already
in your outstanding contributions to RAM. Each one of your posts
is chock full of information and you've clearly explained why each
successive generation of fighter and attack aircraft has been a vast
improvement over the previous generation. Rutan is full of bovine
excretement, indeed!

-Mike Marron

(Bill Kapaun) wrote:

>Since we rarely introduce new aircraft types in this era, the
>manufacturers can't gamble as much on an innovative design. There may not
>be another contract up for bid for quite a few more years if they fail.
>Compare the # of models/year when the F-80-to F-106 were introduced/tested.
>The "pie" just doesn't have as many "slices" any more.
>In the 50's, IF a manufacturer didn't win a contract, there were several
>more up for the bidding.

Using a pair of twin-turbo V-6 automotive engines and his trademark
composite design, Burt Rutan attempted to beat the speed record for
prop-driven aircraft with his unlimited Pond racer. It burned up at
Reno, and last I heard the old Grumman F6F Bearcat still holds the
speed record.

So much for Rutan not having anything good to say about the JSF or
the F-22...

-Mike Marron

Burt has built some innovative designs, but how many of them have been sold?
Not counting the plans for the Varieze, Burt's track record is pretty
abysmal. When was the last time you saw a Beech Starship? How about the
Rutan Grizzly, or the Ares T-33 conversion? I hate to say this because the
man is really a genius, but he has no idea how to build a really useful,
economically sound and commercially successful airplane.

--
Jim Atkins
Twentynine Palms CA USA

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
- Groucho Marx

Snipped
>
> I found an interesting statistic the other day in researching a
> presentation to a group about my book. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, one
> fixed wing US aircraft was lost for 18,190 fixed wing sorties flown.
> JUST ONE!! For Desert Storm, we lost 37 fixed wing aircraft on 116,000
> sorties for a rate of one loss per 3135 sorties. During Rolling
> Thunder, the F-105 was losing one aircraft per 65 sorties during 1966.
>
Snipped

Ed, We lose more airplanes than that in a bad week at Red Flag. Comparing
the DS II rates to DS I or VietNam is apples to oranges. They hardly shot
back. Even in DS I the air defense wasn't as robust as around Hanoi,
because we were allowed to kill it.

All your statistics show is that a decent program of SEAD works to prevent
losses. Says nothing about the capabilities of the F-15E, F-16C, or the
A-10. It does say a lot about the AGM-88 and smart weaponry over the last
12 years of SEAD in Iraq.

--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)

"Bill Kapaun" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Ed Majden"
> > wrote:
>

>
> Since we rarely introduce new aircraft types in this era, the
> manufacturers can't gamble as much on an innovative design. There may not
> be another contract up for bid for quite a few more years if they fail.
> Compare the # of models/year when the F-80-to F-106 were
introduced/tested.
> The "pie" just doesn't have as many "slices" any more.
> In the 50's, IF a manufacturer didn't win a contract, there were several
> more up for the bidding.

Compare also the number of those aircraft that killed pilots
in testing and squadron service cause they had some bad
problems that werent worked out until the later variants
came along. This is no longer acceptable and is one of the
reasons it takes longer to develop aircraft today IMHO.

Keith

>There's a tendency of most of us to live in the past. We were all
>tougher than our predecessors and no one since has had the challenges
>that we faced.

I was recently told the same thing about the education system in
China--by a graduate student who is all of 23 years old!

My father of course told me the same. Evidently the world has been in
a free-fall for a very long time.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

> I found an interesting statistic the other day in researching a
> presentation to a group about my book. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, one
> fixed wing US aircraft was lost for 18,190 fixed wing sorties flown.
> JUST ONE!! For Desert Storm, we lost 37 fixed wing aircraft on 116,000
> sorties for a rate of one loss per 3135 sorties. During Rolling
> Thunder, the F-105 was losing one aircraft per 65 sorties during 1966.

Good point. It also reflects several major factors effecting loss rates:
ROE, tactics and enemy capabilities. The Vietnamese capability was far
greater (largely because of ROE), and the tactics employed (essentially WW2
mentality "here we come, try and stop us") were ill-conceived. Another
factor, technological superiority, was rarely employed to maximum advantage.

In DS1 we used technology (Stealth, cruise missiles, anti-radiation,
intelligence gathering, etc.) wisely and negated much of the air defense
capability in the first missions of the war. ROE didn't prevent bombing the
airfields or attacking defensive positions as it did in Vietnam. Our
tactics better emphasized measures to insure survivability. DS2 was more
and better of the same (with virtually no air defense network to worry
about).

I suspect the venerable Thud (suitably armed with a modern weapons system
.... I bet there was room in that vast airframe for a retrofit) could have
performed admirably as a strike aircraft in the latest war. Put an F-18
system in there and ... hmmm. Similar (more?) range, similar (more?) load,
faster ingress, faster egress. Well, there'd be a down side too.
Maintainability, maneuverability (less a factor than you might think),
survivability (not sure of the relative issues there, but if we haven't
learned anything in 40 years ...).

R / John

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 20:48:02 GMT, "Ed Majden" >
wrote:

>As a test pilot at
>Edwards he stated that some of the aircraft he tested in the past out
>perform today's modern fighters. The F-104 was one of the examples.

At the eurofighter website
http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.html#eval
there is a model for comparative evaluation of the Eurofighter and 8
current fighters using 13 factors:

Twin Seat
Thrust to Weight
Twin Engines
Air to Ground Combat
Stealth
Air to Air Combat
Range
Agility
Electronic Warfare
STOL capability
CostMaintanence
Weapon selection
Supercruise

My guess is anyone making a statement favoring the F 104 would give
high weight to only three factors: Air Combat, Agility, and Thrust.
When applied to the Eurofighter model, the F 22 beats the rest,
including the Eurofighter, F15, F16, F18,

plane rating
Typhoon-89%
F22 - 100%
JSF - 70%
Rafale- 83%
Su35 - 80%
F15 - 73%
Gripen- 71%
F16 - 63%
F18 - 68%

Adjusting for advances in avionics and engine technology AND
eliminating differences resulting from today's tendency to want
multi-purpose platforms with the result that unfortunate compromises
are necessary--would the basic Starfighter platform result in a
superior weapon?

I cannot believe it would succeed based on its lack of agility
resulting from its extreme wingloading. Using John Boyd's criteria
for an effective fighter, the flying prostitute would not even come
close.

John Bailey
http://home.rochester.rr.com/jbxroads/mailto.html

"Les Matheson" > wrote:

>Snipped
>>
>> I found an interesting statistic the other day in researching a
>> presentation to a group about my book. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, one
>> fixed wing US aircraft was lost for 18,190 fixed wing sorties flown.
>> JUST ONE!! For Desert Storm, we lost 37 fixed wing aircraft on 116,000
>> sorties for a rate of one loss per 3135 sorties. During Rolling
>> Thunder, the F-105 was losing one aircraft per 65 sorties during 1966.
>>
>Snipped
>
>Ed, We lose more airplanes than that in a bad week at Red Flag. Comparing
>the DS II rates to DS I or VietNam is apples to oranges. They hardly shot
>back. Even in DS I the air defense wasn't as robust as around Hanoi,
>because we were allowed to kill it.
>
>All your statistics show is that a decent program of SEAD works to prevent
>losses. Says nothing about the capabilities of the F-15E, F-16C, or the
>A-10. It does say a lot about the AGM-88 and smart weaponry over the last
>12 years of SEAD in Iraq.

I don't agree with the "apples to oranges" characterization. Iraq
boasted a concentrated Soviet-built integrated air defense system with
a load of radars, wide array of SAM systems and a lot of guns. While
clearly localized and probably badly mismanaged, those night-scope
videos of the fire over Baghdad were pretty impressive to this tired
Weasel-wingman's eyes.

While the IADS had developed over the years, so too had the
counter-measures, offensive weaponry and tactics. That along with a
political structure that was willing to let the pros do the job was
the key.

Which, of course, all goes back to the original purpose which was to
debunk the statements of Burt Rutan regarding the torpor of the
American military aviation industry. We've done quite well over the
years.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

> Remember that there are TWO Rutans--Dick is the designer and Burt the
> guinea pig in the cockpit usually. The innovation and creativeness
> that gave us the Varieze, Voyager and a raft of other creations came
> from Dick. Dick's the one that usually shows up at River Rats reunions
> as well--seems to have a bit of Phantom in his background.....

Price of old age I guess. I'm always getting the two of them mixed up.
Bede's a lot easier. He looks like Pavarotti :-)))
Dudley

Ed Rasimus wrote
Snipped

While the IADS had developed over the years, so too had the
counter-measures, offensive weaponry and tactics. That along with a
political structure that was willing to let the pros do the job was
the key.

Snipped
Exactley my point. We fought a different war against a less organized
opponent and did better. Only comparison possible on a meaningful level is
to say, let the military do what is designed to do, "Break things".


--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> Remember that there are TWO Rutans--Dick is the designer and Burt the
> guinea pig in the cockpit usually. The innovation and creativeness
> that gave us the Varieze, Voyager and a raft of other creations came
> from Dick. Dick's the one that usually shows up at River Rats reunions
> as well--seems to have a bit of Phantom in his background.....
>
>
>
> Ed Rasimus


Sorry Charlie,

It is just the opposite. Burt is the designer. Dick is the test pilot.

Tex Houston

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 14:39:48 -0400, av8r >
wrote:

>Hi
>
>The wing loading on the Canadair-built F-104G (MAP) was 148 pounds per
>square foot.

And for the F22 it is 65 lb/sq ft.
ref:http://www.airtoaircombat.com/compare.asp
also:
http://www.fighter-planes.com/ (337 kg/m^2) vs 643 kg/m^2 for the F104

The F22 has about a 2 to 1 advantage over the F104 in wing loading,
which translates into maneuverability/agility--in spite of its
horrible weight: 36308 kg vs 13170 kg for the Starfighter. (My F86
only weighed 6123 kg.)




John Bailey
http://home.rochester.rr.com/jbxroads/mailto.html

In article >,
Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
> Remember that there are TWO Rutans--Dick is the designer and Burt the
> guinea pig in the cockpit usually.

Ed, it's the other way around. Burt is the designer in the family,
Dick is the test pilot and used-to-be Phantom driver. Dick flew the
Voyager around the world with Jeana Yeager, Burt designed and built
it.

> The innovation and creativeness
> that gave us the Varieze, Voyager and a raft of other creations came
> from Dick. Dick's the one that usually shows up at River Rats reunions
> as well--seems to have a bit of Phantom in his background.....

He also flew 325 missions in Vietnam, IIRC flying mostly F-100.

>Certainly the F-104 was an aeronautical marvel. It was an incredible
>achievement. But give me an F-22 (or for that matter, an F-15, or -16)
>and I'll promise to mort the Zipper long before the merge--even before
>he knows there is going to be a merge.

This reminds me of my good friend who was flying F-15's at the time out of
Eglin. He was thinking of applying for an exchange tour with the Italians to
fly F-104s, which we both agree is about one of the coolest things built.
I was encouraging him to go for it but then he brought up a good point...he
goes "John, I would kill to fly a -104, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to
take one into combat these days!"


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

"Only" 88 psf (BTW, that sounds suspiciously low) versus the Phantom's 76.
There's a lot more too it than wing loading. The F-104 had superior
specific excess power than the Phantom at one G, inferior at five,
significantly inferior at seven. The F-4 was not noted as an agile machine,
but it was superior to the 104 (and that's based on perhaps limited but
nevertheless real world personal experience).

Based on your method of comparison, many highly maneuverable aircraft would
appear to be less capable than they are.

R / John

"Ditch" > wrote in message
...
> >Certainly the F-104 was an aeronautical marvel. It was an incredible
> >achievement. But give me an F-22 (or for that matter, an F-15, or -16)
> >and I'll promise to mort the Zipper long before the merge--even before
> >he knows there is going to be a merge.
>
> This reminds me of my good friend who was flying F-15's at the time out of
> Eglin. He was thinking of applying for an exchange tour with the Italians
to
> fly F-104s, which we both agree is about one of the coolest things built.
> I was encouraging him to go for it but then he brought up a good
point...he
> goes "John, I would kill to fly a -104, but I sure as hell wouldn't want
to
> take one into combat these days!"

It's the equivilent to bringing a knife to a gunfight.

"Ditch" <wrote in message > -John
> *You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or
North
> American*

or a Boeing, Consolidated, Ford, Waco, Curtiss, Martin, McDonnell,
Northrop,Republic, Vought!!!!

(Ditch) wrote:

>>Certainly the F-104 was an aeronautical marvel. It was an incredible
>>achievement. But give me an F-22 (or for that matter, an F-15, or -16)
>>and I'll promise to mort the Zipper long before the merge--even before
>>he knows there is going to be a merge.
>
>This reminds me of my good friend who was flying F-15's at the time out of
>Eglin. He was thinking of applying for an exchange tour with the Italians to
>fly F-104s, which we both agree is about one of the coolest things built.
>I was encouraging him to go for it but then he brought up a good point...he
>goes "John, I would kill to fly a -104, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to
>take one into combat these days!"
>
>
>-John
>*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
>American*

Last things first, I guess I'm "nothing," but I got a lot of hours.

Then, your friend characterizes what we used to refer to as an "Ego
Driver"--someone filled with the hubris of flying a pretty good
airplane who erroneously considers it superior to everything else.

If he had checked more closely (maybe he did, but I doubt it,) he
would have found out that the Italians produced and flew the "S" model
which had added AIM-7 capability to an already excellent interceptor
with great gun and all-aspect AIM-9. A pretty good airplane and, like
most, one which needs to be flown in its own best corner of the
P-sub-s charts. It wouldn't have been a bad airplane at all to take
into combat, and it would have been even more formidable if he went
with those Italian pilots who typically had a couple of thousand hours
in type and who had flown with each other for a decade.

Conversely, I determined, somewhat late in my career, that the
challenge of air combat was one that made it worthwhile in almost any
type of reasonable equipment. I guess that left me leaning a bit
toward mercenaryism.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
. ca...
>
> "Ed Rasimus"
> > Certainly the F-104 was an aeronautical marvel. It was an incredible
> > achievement. But give me an F-22 (or for that matter, an F-15, or -16)
> > and I'll promise to mort the Zipper long before the merge--even before
> > he knows there is going to be a merge.
> >
> In part, I agree but aren't you making an un-fair comparison? Modern
> electronics give these new aircraft their superior capability.

Modern aircraft are electric.

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
(Ditch) wrote:

>>This reminds me of my good friend who was flying F-15's at the time out of
>>Eglin. He was thinking of applying for an exchange tour with the Italians to
>>fly F-104s, which we both agree is about one of the coolest things built.
>>I was encouraging him to go for it but then he brought up a good point...he
>>goes "John, I would kill to fly a -104, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to
>>take one into combat these days!"

>>-John
>>*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
>>American*

>Last things first, I guess I'm "nothing," but I got a lot of hours.

>Then, your friend characterizes what we used to refer to as an "Ego
>Driver"--someone filled with the hubris of flying a pretty good
>airplane who erroneously considers it superior to everything else.

Kinda' like those punks (of both sexes) who buy SUV's so they can
bully other drivers and look down on them in city traffic. Take away
their Ford Excursions, Escapades and Hummers and they're nothings.

>If he had checked more closely (maybe he did, but I doubt it,) he
>would have found out that the Italians produced and flew the "S" model
>which had added AIM-7 capability to an already excellent interceptor
>with great gun and all-aspect AIM-9. A pretty good airplane and, like
>most, one which needs to be flown in its own best corner of the
>P-sub-s charts. It wouldn't have been a bad airplane at all to take
>into combat, and it would have been even more formidable if he went
>with those Italian pilots who typically had a couple of thousand hours
>in type and who had flown with each other for a decade.

>Conversely, I determined, somewhat late in my career, that the
>challenge of air combat was one that made it worthwhile in almost any
>type of reasonable equipment. I guess that left me leaning a bit
>toward mercenaryism.

Speaking of which, as you know the Brits have always been scrappy
special ops warriors. You wouldn't hear me telling the British Special
Air Services (SAS) mercenarys who trained in *trikes* at Boscombe
Down (RAF test pilot school) that "You are nothing until you have
flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North American."

-Mike Marron

>Then, your friend characterizes what we used to refer to as an "Ego
>Driver"--someone filled with the hubris of flying a pretty good
>airplane who erroneously considers it superior to everything else.

Actually, he has anything but an ego. The most laid back pilot I know. That is
one of the reasons he left the Eagle community...he couldn't stand most of who
he worked with.

>If he had checked more closely (maybe he did, but I doubt it,) he
>would have found out that the Italians produced and flew the "S" model
>which had added AIM-7 capability to an already excellent interceptor
>with great gun and all-aspect AIM-9. A pretty good airplane and, like
>most, one which needs to be flown in its own best corner of the
>P-sub-s charts. It wouldn't have been a bad airplane at all to take
>into combat, and it would have been even more formidable if he went
>with those Italian pilots who typically had a couple of thousand hours
>in type and who had flown with each other for a decade.
>

He researched the hell out of it. He liked the fact that in the Eagle he pretty
much saw anything before they saw him. He used to really enjoy plinking Vipers
before they even had a clue they were about to get shot because they didn't
even know the Eagles were there. :)


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

Ed Rasimus wrote:
>If that leads you to the conclusion that Burt Rutan is packed with an
>inordinate quantity of bovine excrement, it would be a reasonable
>deduction.

But a lot *less* than Jim Bede !



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In article >, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

> "Ed Majden" > wrote:
>
> > I watched a very interesting interview with aircraft designer, Burt
> >Rutan on CBC-TV a few days ago. He claimed that the large aircraft
> >manufacturers aren't being very innovative today. As a test pilot at
> >Edwards he stated that some of the aircraft he tested in the past out
> >perform today's modern fighters. The F-104 was one of the examples. He
> >didn't have anything good to say about the JSF or the F-22 for that matter.
> >He stated that modern manufactures aren't the innovative risk takers of the
> >past thus holding back aircraft design technology.
> > Any comments on this?
> >
> There's a tendency of most of us to live in the past. We were all
> tougher than our predecessors and no one since has had the challenges
> that we faced. Balderdash!
>
> Certainly the F-104 was an aeronautical marvel. It was an incredible
> achievement. But give me an F-22 (or for that matter, an F-15, or -16)
> and I'll promise to mort the Zipper long before the merge--even before
> he knows there is going to be a merge.
>
> The way we control the air now is light-years beyond what was done
> with the -104. Sure, it was fast, climbed incredibly, was a thrill to
> fly---but the point is that the whole purpose is to "rove the alotted
> area, find the enemy and kill him. Anything else is rubbish."
>
> The Baron said it and it has only become more true over the years. If
> you rove the alotted area in supercruise, the area is larger. If you
> do it with stealth, you are infinitely more survivable. If you have
> the benefit of data fusion and passive sensors, you don't need the Mk
> 1/Mod 0 eyeball. If you've got launch and leave, long range weapons,
> you don't have to get all sweaty.


As you know well Ed, people have a tendency to fixate on one aspect
of performance or design. The trouble is, a combat aircraft is a package
deal. Airframe, engines and electronics and weapons all integrated
into a whole. As you've mentioned above, the performance of the
whole is what's important. That's why it's so hard (and expensive)
to upgrade an aircraft with, say, a new radar or EW system.
The effect on the whole has to be evaluated, not just how it fits in the
airframe and affects the W&B.

The trouble with aircraft like the zipper and the lawndart is that
(IMHO) they lack airframe room for the capable avionics systems
that really distinguish the force multiplier aircraft.

Take a gander into the packed airframe of an F-16 and how small
the compartments are. I've never had the opportunity to do the
same with an F-104, but I'll bet it's the same. The F-15 OTOH,
while packed it much larger and has room for more functions.

ciao

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"JL Grasso" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:13:40 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote in rec.aviation.military:
>
> >
> >"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
> . ca...
> >>
> >> "Ed Rasimus"
> >> > Certainly the F-104 was an aeronautical marvel. It was an incredible
> >> > achievement. But give me an F-22 (or for that matter, an F-15,
or -16)
> >> > and I'll promise to mort the Zipper long before the merge--even
before
> >> > he knows there is going to be a merge.
> >> >
> >> In part, I agree but aren't you making an un-fair comparison?
Modern
> >> electronics give these new aircraft their superior capability.
> >
> >Modern aircraft are electric.
>
> Bwaaaaaahwahwahwahwahwahw!

Do you wish to disagree, Jerry? Are you unaware of fly by wire automatated
aircraft?

"JL Grasso" > wrote in message

> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:13:40 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote in rec.aviation.military:
>
>>
>> "Ed Majden" > wrote in message
>> . ca...
>>>
>>> "Ed Rasimus"
>>>> Certainly the F-104 was an aeronautical marvel. It was an
>>>> incredible achievement. But give me an F-22 (or for that matter,
>>>> an F-15, or -16) and I'll promise to mort the Zipper long before
>>>> the merge--even before he knows there is going to be a merge.
>>>>
>>> In part, I agree but aren't you making an un-fair comparison?
>>> Modern electronics give these new aircraft their superior
>>> capability.
>>
>> Modern aircraft are electric.
>
> Bwaaaaaahwahwahwahwahwahw!
>
>
> Jerry

I swear to god, every time Tarver posts, an idiot moves up one rung on the
intelligence ladder, Tarver having given up his current position.

"Modern aircraft are electric."

And to think all these years the USAF, USMC, ANG, Army Aviation, USN and
others had been worried about *fuel*! Why if they'd just purchased
*batteries* everything would be fine!


--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

> I swear to god, every time Tarver posts, an idiot moves up one rung on the
> intelligence ladder, Tarver having given up his current position.

I am pleased to see you advance, Silvey.

> "Modern aircraft are electric."

Yep, electric systems and equipments are the main advantage modren aircraft
have over their predecessors.

> And to think all these years the USAF, USMC, ANG, Army Aviation, USN and
> others had been worried about *fuel*! Why if they'd just purchased
> *batteries* everything would be fine!

All these years aircraft have moved to further electric automation.

The F/A-18A replacement is planned to be a robot.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE
Electrical Engineer

"Bill Silvey" > wrote...
>
> I swear to god, every time Tarver posts, an idiot moves up one rung on the
> intelligence ladder, Tarver having given up his current position.
>
> "Modern aircraft are electric."
>
> And to think all these years the USAF, USMC, ANG, Army Aviation, USN and
> others had been worried about *fuel*! Why if they'd just purchased
> *batteries* everything would be fine!

Yeah, there's that minor "fuel" thang...

But I read somewhere about sumpthin called hydrastics or hydraulics or sumpthin
like that, and sumpthin about achewators or sumpthin by the ailerons and
elevators or escalators or sumpthin, that run by hydrastic fluids or sumpthin...

Oh! In anuther part of the book, I read about "air systems" that are INSIDE the
airplane! Not the air OUTSIDE the airplane, thet their flyin thru... Sumbody
sed the "air systems" run the flaps and reverse gear or sumpthin, and even the
air conditioning and the water faucet! Jus think! If yew could git the air to
run the air conditioner in a house, yew wouldn't hafta pay for electric air
conditioners in the windows!

I have an electric boat, but I haven't been on an electric airplane yet. I
gotta see one!

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
. ca...
> > The F/A-18A replacement is planned to be a robot.
> >
> > John P. Tarver, MS/PE
> > Electrical Engineer
> >
>
> Hell, they aren't thinking of bringing back the Bomarc are they?

Right now they are developimg air to air refueling capabilities. The idea
is that a pilot can fly more missions, if they never leave the ship.

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
. ca
>> The F/A-18A replacement is planned to be a robot.
>>
>> John P. Tarver, MS/PE
>> Electrical Engineer
>>
>
> Hell, they aren't thinking of bringing back the Bomarc are
> they???????????? ;-)

Further, this should come as a great huge shock to the people designing
control systems and cockpits for F35's.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
...
> "Ed Majden" > wrote in message
> . ca
> >> The F/A-18A replacement is planned to be a robot.

> > Hell, they aren't thinking of bringing back the Bomarc are
> > they???????????? ;-)
>
> Further, this should come as a great huge shock to the people designing
> control systems and cockpits for F35's.

The Navy doesn't plan to purchase F-35s. They intend to opt out when
production begins.

wrote:

>>Cub Driver > wrote:
>>>Mike Marron wrote:
>
>>>(64 days, 22
>>>hours, 19 minutes w/o touching the ground) belongs to two men
>>>flying the venerable old Cessna 172 back in the 1950's...
>
>>Did they wear diapers or what?
>
>Interesting you should mention that. One of the boxes that I recently
>hauled out of my mother's house contains some old stuff of my Dad's
>from Vietnam. I found a long (one foot or a slightly longer in length)
>skinny plastic jug. Now whaddya' s'pose THAT was for?
>
>-Mike Marron
>
>
It's probably just a mummified Canadian condom.
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> >>Cub Driver > wrote:
> >>>Mike Marron wrote:
> >
> >>>(64 days, 22
> >>>hours, 19 minutes w/o touching the ground) belongs to two men
> >>>flying the venerable old Cessna 172 back in the 1950's...
> >
> >>Did they wear diapers or what?
> >
> >Interesting you should mention that. One of the boxes that I recently
> >hauled out of my mother's house contains some old stuff of my Dad's
> >from Vietnam. I found a long (one foot or a slightly longer in length)
> >skinny plastic jug. Now whaddya' s'pose THAT was for?
> >
> >-Mike Marron
> >
> >
> It's probably just a mummified Canadian condom.
> --
>
> -Gord

Good one, Gord..

"B2431" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> Not to put too fine a point on this, but one would suppose an EE would
know the
> difference between "electric" and "electronic."

Are you attempting to expand your idiot credentials beyond air data, Dan?

You've got it backwards. Dick is the ex-F-100 pilot who flew around the
world non-stop; Burt is the designer. I didn't know either of them flew
the F-15.

Jim Thomas

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>
>>I would never go so far as to say a guy with Rutan's know how is full of it,
>>although I'm fairly certain that if he indeed did say what the initial
>>poster is saying what he said, he was in effect, doing some "creative
>>marketing" which he's been known to do from time to time.:-))
>>I remember Jim Bede doing the same thing when the BD1 was the hottest thing
>>around and he was trying like hell to sell the kits. Man, did he end up with
>>problems!!!.....but that's another story.
>>Naturally what Ras is saying about evolution is right on, but I'm also
>>fairly certain Rutan knows this as well. He's in the innovation business for
>>sure, and pushing that concept isn't all that unusual for him. I don't
>>believe his designs are commercial enough to be successful on a large scale.
>>The airplanes are good and well designed, but I can tell you from my own
>>experience they're WAY OUT THERE!!! :-)) Rutan has come up with historic
>>developments in bonding, glass, and composite construction. I honestly
>>believe that when it's all said and done, his ultimate contribution will
>>have been in how these innovations interface into other designers more
>>commercial designs.
>
>
> Remember that there are TWO Rutans--Dick is the designer and Burt the
> guinea pig in the cockpit usually. The innovation and creativeness
> that gave us the Varieze, Voyager and a raft of other creations came
> from Dick. Dick's the one that usually shows up at River Rats reunions
> as well--seems to have a bit of Phantom in his background.....
>
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (ret)
> ***"When Thunder Rolled:
> *** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
> *** from Smithsonian Books
> ISBN: 1588341038

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >> >> In part, I agree but aren't you making an un-fair comparison?
> Modern
> >> >> electronics give these new aircraft their superior capability.
> >> >
> >> >Modern aircraft are electric.
> >>
> >> Bwaaaaaahwahwahwahwahwahw!
> >
> >Do you wish to disagree, Jerry? Are you unaware of fly by wire automatated
> >aircraft?
> >
> >
> Not to put too fine a point on this, but one would suppose an EE would know the
> difference between "electric" and "electronic."
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

or a spoiler and a flap,
or an auto pilot and a flight director,
or even **** from shinola.

Don't know about the F-15, but Col. Jerry Gentry (rip) did the F-4 spin
tests with one of the Rutan brothers in his back seat. You've all seen the
video of the two of them stepping over the side of that flat spin after the
spin chute departs. I could swear Jerry said it was Dick.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)


"Jim Thomas" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> You've got it backwards. Dick is the ex-F-100 pilot who flew around the
> world non-stop; Burt is the designer. I didn't know either of them flew
> the F-15.
>
> Jim Thomas
>
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I would never go so far as to say a guy with Rutan's know how is full of
it,
> >>although I'm fairly certain that if he indeed did say what the initial
> >>poster is saying what he said, he was in effect, doing some "creative
> >>marketing" which he's been known to do from time to time.:-))
> >>I remember Jim Bede doing the same thing when the BD1 was the hottest
thing
> >>around and he was trying like hell to sell the kits. Man, did he end up
with
> >>problems!!!.....but that's another story.
> >>Naturally what Ras is saying about evolution is right on, but I'm also
> >>fairly certain Rutan knows this as well. He's in the innovation business
for
> >>sure, and pushing that concept isn't all that unusual for him. I don't
> >>believe his designs are commercial enough to be successful on a large
scale.
> >>The airplanes are good and well designed, but I can tell you from my own
> >>experience they're WAY OUT THERE!!! :-)) Rutan has come up with historic
> >>developments in bonding, glass, and composite construction. I honestly
> >>believe that when it's all said and done, his ultimate contribution will
> >>have been in how these innovations interface into other designers more
> >>commercial designs.
> >
> >
> > Remember that there are TWO Rutans--Dick is the designer and Burt the
> > guinea pig in the cockpit usually. The innovation and creativeness
> > that gave us the Varieze, Voyager and a raft of other creations came
> > from Dick. Dick's the one that usually shows up at River Rats reunions
> > as well--seems to have a bit of Phantom in his background.....
> >
> >
> >
> > Ed Rasimus
> > Fighter Pilot (ret)
> > ***"When Thunder Rolled:
> > *** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
> > *** from Smithsonian Books
> > ISBN: 1588341038
>

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "John R Weiss" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > "B2431" > wrote...
> >
> > >>>>Modern aircraft are electric.
> > >>
> > >>Do you wish to disagree, Jerry? Are you unaware of fly by wire
> automatated
> > >>aircraft?
> > >>
> > > Not to put too fine a point on this, but one would suppose an EE would
> know the
> > > difference between "electric" and "electronic."
> >
> > One would also think an EE would distinguish between electrically
> controlled and
> > electrically powered aircraft/systems...
>
> One would think Weiss would stop making a fool of himself.

pot. kettle. black.

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in
:

>
> "JL Grasso" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:13:40 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote in rec.aviation.military:
>>
>> >
>> >"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
>> . ca...
>> >>
>> >> "Ed Rasimus"
>> >> > Certainly the F-104 was an aeronautical marvel. It was an
>> >> > incredible achievement. But give me an F-22 (or for that matter,
>> >> > an F-15,
> or -16)
>> >> > and I'll promise to mort the Zipper long before the merge--even
> before
>> >> > he knows there is going to be a merge.
>> >> >
>> >> In part, I agree but aren't you making an un-fair comparison?
> Modern
>> >> electronics give these new aircraft their superior capability.
>> >
>> >Modern aircraft are electric.
>>
>> Bwaaaaaahwahwahwahwahwahw!
>
> Do you wish to disagree, Jerry? Are you unaware of fly by wire
> automatated aircraft?\


What you mean the ones you converted to run on washing machine motors don't
count?

Bertie

Clark <stillnospam@me> wrote:

>"John R Weiss" > wrote in
>news:LWV2b.207431$Oz4.55291@rwcrnsc54:
>
>[snip]
>> yew wouldn't hafta pay for electric air conditioners in the windows!
>>
>That's "winders"
>
>Yup, I know, another speling flame...

Git it rite son "Nother speling flamme".


--

-Gord.