Re: X-43A successful flight

[Tarver Engineering]

"monkey" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > isi.com...
> > > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > > > isi.com...
> > > >
> > > >>>On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey) wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind
that
> > > >>>>Tarver is completely full of ****.
> > > >>
> > > >>It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive
evidence.
> > > >>
> > > >>Coddle, coddle, coddle...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being an
> > F/A-18
> > > > pilot.
> > >
> > > You did?
> >
> > Yep, caught monkey dead to rights.
>
> You know what, Tarver, you caught me red handed. You're right. I'm not
> an F/A-18 pilot.
> I'm actually a CF-18 pilot.

If you are an F/A-18 pilot then your squadron is in need of remedial
training, sock.

[running with scissors]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "monkey" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > > isi.com...
> > > > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > > > > isi.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >>>On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey) wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind
> that
> > > > >>>>Tarver is completely full of ****.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive
> evidence.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Coddle, coddle, coddle...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being an
> F/A-18
> > > > > pilot.
> > > >
> > > > You did?
> > >
> > > Yep, caught monkey dead to rights.
> >
> > You know what, Tarver, you caught me red handed. You're right. I'm not
> > an F/A-18 pilot.
> > I'm actually a CF-18 pilot.
>
> If you are an F/A-18 pilot then your squadron is in need of remedial
> training, sock.

and you on the other hand are in need of a remedial school.

[monkey]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "monkey" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > > isi.com...
> > > > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > > > > isi.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >>>On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey) wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my mind
> that
> > > > >>>>Tarver is completely full of ****.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive
> evidence.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Coddle, coddle, coddle...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being an
> F/A-18
> > > > > pilot.
> > > >
> > > > You did?
> > >
> > > Yep, caught monkey dead to rights.
> >
> > You know what, Tarver, you caught me red handed. You're right. I'm not
> > an F/A-18 pilot.
> > I'm actually a CF-18 pilot.
>
> If you are an F/A-18 pilot then your squadron is in need of remedial
> training, sock

err...read the post...like I said, I'm not an F/A-18 pilot, I'm a
CF-18 pilot...BITCH.
p.s. flew a great 2v2 today, what did you do, clown show?

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 4/4/04 5:16 AM, in article
, "monkey"
> wrote:

<SNIP>
>
> err...read the post...like I said, I'm not an F/A-18 pilot, I'm a
> CF-18 pilot...BITCH.
> p.s. flew a great 2v2 today, what did you do, clown show?

Yep, this guy's a Hornet pilot. He certainly talks like one! Where are you
stationed, Monkey? If Cold Lake, is Pat Peters still up there?

--Woody

[Tarver Engineering]

"monkey" > wrote in message
m...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "monkey" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > > > isi.com...
> > > > > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> > > > > > isi.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>On 1 Apr 2004 19:15:23 -0800, (monkey)
wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>I came across a USN NATOPS manual today which cements in my
mind
> > that
> > > > > >>>>Tarver is completely full of ****.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>It took a manual to do that? His daily posts are conclusive
> > evidence.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>Coddle, coddle, coddle...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yep. Monkey is new at ram and just got caught lying about being
an
> > F/A-18
> > > > > > pilot.
> > > > >
> > > > > You did?
> > > >
> > > > Yep, caught monkey dead to rights.
> > >
> > > You know what, Tarver, you caught me red handed. You're right. I'm not
> > > an F/A-18 pilot.
> > > I'm actually a CF-18 pilot.
> >
> > If you are an F/A-18 pilot then your squadron is in need of remedial
> > training, sock
>
> err...read the post...like I said, I'm not an F/A-18 pilot, I'm a
> CF-18 pilot...BITCH.

Do you believe Canadains have somehow eliminated the mechanical backup in
their F-18s? Perhaps you mean you are lying.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/4/04 5:16 AM, in article
> , "monkey"
> > wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> >
> > err...read the post...like I said, I'm not an F/A-18 pilot, I'm a
> > CF-18 pilot...BITCH.
> > p.s. flew a great 2v2 today, what did you do, clown show?
>
> Yep, this guy's a Hornet pilot. He certainly talks like one! Where are
you
> stationed, Monkey? If Cold Lake, is Pat Peters still up there?

I don't know about the boy. If his story is true the Canadian Government
has dropped out of the rest of the community and stopped even mentioning the
mechanical stick backup. It is a safety of flight issue.

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 4/4/04 9:47 AM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" > wrote:

>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 4/4/04 5:16 AM, in article
>> , "monkey"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> err...read the post...like I said, I'm not an F/A-18 pilot, I'm a
>>> CF-18 pilot...BITCH.
>>> p.s. flew a great 2v2 today, what did you do, clown show?
>>
>> Yep, this guy's a Hornet pilot. He certainly talks like one! Where are
> you
>> stationed, Monkey? If Cold Lake, is Pat Peters still up there?
>
> I don't know about the boy. If his story is true the Canadian Government
> has dropped out of the rest of the community and stopped even mentioning the
> mechanical stick backup. It is a safety of flight issue.
>
>

Missed the front part of the conversation, John. What exactly did he say?

The Mech flight control function isn't easily "eliminated" from the legacy
Hornet. It is still part of the FCF checklist, however and is checked on A
and C FCF's. (I fly so few B's that I haven't a clue if it's on that list.)
I don't personally find it very useful (my opinion only) which is, I think,
why it WAS eliminated from the Super Hornet.

In fact, I can only recall hearing of one Mech-Off-Off incident (i.e. down
to the stabs only for controlling the jet) in the F/A-18A-D, and the guy
flying it (USMC?) shelled out shortly after because of the resulting
oscillations.

--Woody

[Tarver Engineering]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/4/04 9:47 AM, in article , "Tarver
> Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On 4/4/04 5:16 AM, in article
> >> , "monkey"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> <SNIP>
> >>>
> >>> err...read the post...like I said, I'm not an F/A-18 pilot, I'm a
> >>> CF-18 pilot...BITCH.
> >>> p.s. flew a great 2v2 today, what did you do, clown show?
> >>
> >> Yep, this guy's a Hornet pilot. He certainly talks like one! Where
are
> > you
> >> stationed, Monkey? If Cold Lake, is Pat Peters still up there?
> >
> > I don't know about the boy. If his story is true the Canadian
Government
> > has dropped out of the rest of the community and stopped even mentioning
the
> > mechanical stick backup. It is a safety of flight issue.

> Missed the front part of the conversation, John. What exactly did he say?

I made a claim WRT the break out force of the F/A-18 stick and monkey came
by to correct me.

> The Mech flight control function isn't easily "eliminated" from the legacy
> Hornet. It is still part of the FCF checklist, however and is checked on
A
> and C FCF's. (I fly so few B's that I haven't a clue if it's on that
list.)
> I don't personally find it very useful (my opinion only) which is, I
think,
> why it WAS eliminated from the Super Hornet.

The Super Hornet exists in a much different electric airplane reliability
reality. Can you imagine the skew the F/A-18E's pilot reported defect rate
is doing to the entire system? The numbers are actual war operations, so
their is no time to play chinese fire drill to hide defects. The numbers
are nearly as unbelievable as FAA turning in two zero killed years since
1997. Applying the RPL Model really paid off for the Navy.

> In fact, I can only recall hearing of one Mech-Off-Off incident (i.e. down
> to the stabs only for controlling the jet) in the F/A-18A-D, and the guy
> flying it (USMC?) shelled out shortly after because of the resulting
> oscillations.

It is a simple thing to just break the stick out and use the backup.

[monkey]

"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message >...
> On 4/4/04 5:16 AM, in article
> , "monkey"
> > wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> >
> > err...read the post...like I said, I'm not an F/A-18 pilot, I'm a
> > CF-18 pilot...BITCH.
> > p.s. flew a great 2v2 today, what did you do, clown show?
>
> Yep, this guy's a Hornet pilot. He certainly talks like one! Where are you
> stationed, Monkey? If Cold Lake, is Pat Peters still up there?
>
> --Woody

Cold Lake. If you mean the USAF Pat Peters at AETE, yes he's still
here. I have to admit I don't really know the guy though. Where are
you at?

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 4/4/04 2:52 PM, in article
, "monkey"
> wrote:

> "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> >...
>> On 4/4/04 5:16 AM, in article
>> , "monkey"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> err...read the post...like I said, I'm not an F/A-18 pilot, I'm a
>>> CF-18 pilot...BITCH.
>>> p.s. flew a great 2v2 today, what did you do, clown show?
>>
>> Yep, this guy's a Hornet pilot. He certainly talks like one! Where are you
>> stationed, Monkey? If Cold Lake, is Pat Peters still up there?
>>
>> --Woody
>
> Cold Lake. If you mean the USAF Pat Peters at AETE, yes he's still
> here. I have to admit I don't really know the guy though. Where are
> you at?

That's the guy. More off line. I'm telling you, Tarver, the guy's
authentic.

--Woody

[Tarver Engineering]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/4/04 2:52 PM, in article
> , "monkey"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in
message
> > >...
> >> On 4/4/04 5:16 AM, in article
> >> , "monkey"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> <SNIP>
> >>>
> >>> err...read the post...like I said, I'm not an F/A-18 pilot, I'm a
> >>> CF-18 pilot...BITCH.
> >>> p.s. flew a great 2v2 today, what did you do, clown show?
> >>
> >> Yep, this guy's a Hornet pilot. He certainly talks like one! Where
are you
> >> stationed, Monkey? If Cold Lake, is Pat Peters still up there?
> >>
> >> --Woody
> >
> > Cold Lake. If you mean the USAF Pat Peters at AETE, yes he's still
> > here. I have to admit I don't really know the guy though. Where are
> > you at?
>
> That's the guy. More off line. I'm telling you, Tarver, the guy's
> authentic.

He seems authentic in many ways, especially the F/A-18 big dick attitude;
something I have to admit is earned. My only objection is his propigating a
safety of flight training defect.

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 4/4/04 1:46 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" > wrote:

>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
<SNIP>
>
>> Missed the front part of the conversation, John. What exactly did he say?
>
> I made a claim WRT the break out force of the F/A-18 stick and monkey came
> by to correct me.
>

I'm not sure what break-out force you're talking about. Granted, my only
experience with MECH is during FCF's, but when you motor the right engine
(no generators on line), the stabs just move--period. If there was any
sensation of a "break out" force, I'd down the jet for binding flight
controls.

>> The Mech flight control function isn't easily "eliminated" from the legacy
>> Hornet. It is still part of the FCF checklist, however and is checked on
> A
>> and C FCF's. (I fly so few B's that I haven't a clue if it's on that
> list.)
>> I don't personally find it very useful (my opinion only) which is, I
> think,
>> why it WAS eliminated from the Super Hornet.
>
> The Super Hornet exists in a much different electric airplane reliability
> reality.

Electrically? Only because it's new. From what I understand, the FCC's
aren't all that different--2 of 'em, 2 channels each. Hydraulically, it's a
different story entirely though. My last talk with a Boeing engineer about
the issue yielded that the MECH system in the legacy Hornet (baby Hornet,
whatever) was so unused, that it was deemed unnecessary by the Program folks
for the Super Hornet (cost/weight savings).

> Can you imagine the skew the F/A-18E's pilot reported defect rate
> is doing to the entire system? The numbers are actual war operations, so
> their is no time to play chinese fire drill to hide defects. The numbers
> are nearly as unbelievable as FAA turning in two zero killed years since
> 1997. Applying the RPL Model really paid off for the Navy.

I don't think that the "pilot reported defects" in the legacy Hornet's
flight control system were ever "hidden." In fact, I've even seen HAZREPS
with the latest PROM 10.7. The reason the Super Hornet's numbers are better
are more than likely because the jet's new and there aren't many of them
yet.

I don't know what RPL is, but if you're saying that the Super Hornet's doing
well, I agree.

The biggest reason that legacy Hornet pilots end up in MECH is because they
somehow inadvertently drive themselves there (mostly with an engine shut
down on FCF's). This is an extremely rare occurrence though and is easily
reset.

>> In fact, I can only recall hearing of one Mech-Off-Off incident (i.e. down
>> to the stabs only for controlling the jet) in the F/A-18A-D, and the guy
>> flying it (USMC?) shelled out shortly after because of the resulting
>> oscillations.
>
> It is a simple thing to just break the stick out and use the backup.

What does that mean? The DDI will give you a MECH ON caution, and the
tic-tac-toe board will be filled with X's, but there's no "break out"
associated with MECH. The airplane will either continue to be controllable
or it won't--depending on where you are in the flight envelope and how well
the system is working for you. In this guy's case, it wasn't.

--Woody

[Tarver Engineering]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/4/04 1:46 PM, in article , "Tarver
> Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> > ...
> <SNIP>
> >
> >> Missed the front part of the conversation, John. What exactly did he
say?
> >
> > I made a claim WRT the break out force of the F/A-18 stick and monkey
came
> > by to correct me.
> >
>
> I'm not sure what break-out force you're talking about. Granted, my only
> experience with MECH is during FCF's, but when you motor the right engine
> (no generators on line), the stabs just move--period. If there was any
> sensation of a "break out" force, I'd down the jet for binding flight
> controls.

There is a cable system connected such that the stick continues to work for
a total electric failure in the F-18ABCD.

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 4/4/04 5:55 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" > wrote:

>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 4/4/04 1:46 PM, in article , "Tarver
>> Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>>> Missed the front part of the conversation, John. What exactly did he
> say?
>>>
>>> I made a claim WRT the break out force of the F/A-18 stick and monkey
> came
>>> by to correct me.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what break-out force you're talking about. Granted, my only
>> experience with MECH is during FCF's, but when you motor the right engine
>> (no generators on line), the stabs just move--period. If there was any
>> sensation of a "break out" force, I'd down the jet for binding flight
>> controls.
>
> There is a cable system connected such that the stick continues to work for
> a total electric failure in the F-18ABCD.
>
>

Yes. Truly. It's in the NATOPS and everything. My confusion with your
statements is this occasional mention of a "break out" or "break out force."
There is nothing like that.

As I explained before. If while starting up the aircraft, if you simply
windmill the right engine (battery power only, no generators on line, RPM
sitting at about 26-32%), you can wipe out the stick and observe the stabs
move--differentially for roll and together for pitch. There is no binding
and the only force is that of the artificial feel system trying to return
the stick to the neutral position--the same as when the jet is in CAS mode.
They even have more pitch authority with the flap switch in HALF or FULL.
That's MECH in a nutshell.

It is mechanically controlled and hydraulically actuated, so you must have
at least one engine windmilling to make it work.

--Woody

[Pechs1]

dmonk-<< Cold Lake. If you mean the USAF Pat Peters at AETE, yes he's still
here. >><BR><BR>


Does the 'Sapsucker' or whatever it was called, still go on at ColdLake.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

<< Do you believe Canadains have somehow eliminated the mechanical backup in
their F-18s? Perhaps you mean you are lying. >><BR><BR>

Do ya mean that the F-18 doesn't have a powered backup, like the hydrazene
elec.gen of a F-16 that gives it trons?

Just asking, have time in the F-16N, none in the Hornet, just been behind a
few-
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Tarver Engineering]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/4/04 5:55 PM, in article , "Tarver
> Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On 4/4/04 1:46 PM, in article , "Tarver
> >> Engineering" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in
message
> >>> ...
> >> <SNIP>
> >>>
> >>>> Missed the front part of the conversation, John. What exactly did he
> > say?
> >>>
> >>> I made a claim WRT the break out force of the F/A-18 stick and monkey
> > came
> >>> by to correct me.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm not sure what break-out force you're talking about. Granted, my
only
> >> experience with MECH is during FCF's, but when you motor the right
engine
> >> (no generators on line), the stabs just move--period. If there was any
> >> sensation of a "break out" force, I'd down the jet for binding flight
> >> controls.
> >
> > There is a cable system connected such that the stick continues to work
for
> > a total electric failure in the F-18ABCD.
> >
> >
>
> Yes. Truly. It's in the NATOPS and everything. My confusion with your
> statements is this occasional mention of a "break out" or "break out
force."
> There is nothing like that.

I know that information from having desiged the first accuratee F/A-18
simulator at Dryden. The reason for bringing up the break out force in the
first place was to demonstrate how much force a Flanker applying an
additional 33# of force directly into his crotch to do a cobra would be
risking. It is a completely different thread, but monkey wanted to branch
off into a demonstration is his huge penis and then immediately stepped on
same.

> As I explained before. If while starting up the aircraft, if you simply
> windmill the right engine (battery power only, no generators on line, RPM
> sitting at about 26-32%), you can wipe out the stick and observe the stabs
> move--differentially for roll and together for pitch. There is no binding
> and the only force is that of the artificial feel system trying to return
> the stick to the neutral position--the same as when the jet is in CAS
mode.
> They even have more pitch authority with the flap switch in HALF or FULL.
> That's MECH in a nutshell.

There is no FCS in mech mode for the F/A-18ABCD, so the limits are disabled.
The mechanical control system, is of course interesting to the Flanker
discussion in that the F/A-18ABCD are cobra capable under a disabled FCS
system just as the Flanker is. the difference bring that the F/A-18ABCD has
the FCS over ride switches delected for production.

> It is mechanically controlled and hydraulically actuated, so you must have
> at least one engine windmilling to make it work.

The probabilistic viewpoint is that the system failure most likely is that
"prince of darkness" rotary inverter. It never lived up to it's MTBF
promises.

[John Mazor]

"AbsolutelyCertain" > wrote in message
...
>
> "JL Grasso >" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 10:19:21 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I know that information from having desiged the first accuratee F/A-18
> > >simulator at Dryden.
> >
> > How do you ever find the time for all of your exploits?
> >
> > Jerry
>
> They happen mostly during REM sleep, I think. Or while clenching a stick
in
> his teeth to keep from swallowing his tongue.

Jack Nicholson, "One Flew Over the Gerbil's Nest". Who could forget?
Zzzzzzztttt! Zzzzzzztttt!

[José Herculano]

> Look, Tarver, I've accumulated enough hours in the Hornet to have more
than
> a clue about its systems and how to employ them than you do.

Woody, the Tarver-dude is reasoning-proof. In ancient Greece he'd be a
sophist without a following. Plonk him ;-)

_____________
José Herculano

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 4/5/04 12:19 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" > wrote:

>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
<SNIP>
>> Yes. Truly. It's in the NATOPS and everything. My confusion with your
>> statements is this occasional mention of a "break out" or "break out
>> force." There is nothing like that.
>
> I know that information from having desiged the first accuratee F/A-18
> simulator at Dryden. The reason for bringing up the break out force in the
> first place was to demonstrate how much force a Flanker applying an
> additional 33# of force directly into his crotch to do a cobra would be
> risking. It is a completely different thread, but monkey wanted to branch
> off into a demonstration is his huge penis and then immediately stepped on
> same.
>

Flanker, whatever... It's not a Hornet, which was where I came into this
discussion. Okay? As long as you're agreeing that there's no break out
force in the Hornet, we're square. Based on the fact that you've moved onto
Flankers, it sounds like you are.

>> As I explained before. If while starting up the aircraft, if you simply
>> windmill the right engine (battery power only, no generators on line, RPM
>> sitting at about 26-32%), you can wipe out the stick and observe the stabs
>> move--differentially for roll and together for pitch. There is no binding
>> and the only force is that of the artificial feel system trying to return
>> the stick to the neutral position--the same as when the jet is in CAS
>> mode. They even have more pitch authority with the flap switch in HALF or
>> FULL. That's MECH in a nutshell.
>
> There is no FCS in mech mode for the F/A-18ABCD, so the limits are disabled.

What you mean to say is that there are no FCC's (Flight Control Computers)
in MECH mode. MECH *IS* in fact, part of the FCS (or Flight Control System)
which includes three modes: CAS, DEL, and MECH.

There *IS* additional back-stick pitch authority provided with the flap
switch in HALF or FULL.

> The mechanical control system, is of course interesting to the Flanker
> discussion in that the F/A-18ABCD are cobra capable under a disabled FCS
> system just as the Flanker is. the difference bring that the F/A-18ABCD has
> the FCS over ride switches delected for production.
>

What in the world are you talking about? The only FCS override switch is
the paddle switch on the stick. That switch would have NOTHING to do with a
Cobra maneuver. And ALL Hornets (ABCDEF) are capable of doing a Cobra with
PROM 10.7 or later. You'll never see it at an air show though.

>> It is mechanically controlled and hydraulically actuated, so you must have
>> at least one engine windmilling to make it work.
>
> The probabilistic viewpoint is that the system failure most likely is that
> "prince of darkness" rotary inverter. It never lived up to it's MTBF
> promises.
>

What rotary inverter? Where is it? How is it part of the FCS?

--Woody

[Tarver Engineering]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/5/04 12:19 PM, in article , "Tarver
> Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> <SNIP>
> >> Yes. Truly. It's in the NATOPS and everything. My confusion with
your
> >> statements is this occasional mention of a "break out" or "break out
> >> force." There is nothing like that.
> >
> > I know that information from having desiged the first accuratee F/A-18
> > simulator at Dryden. The reason for bringing up the break out force in
the
> > first place was to demonstrate how much force a Flanker applying an
> > additional 33# of force directly into his crotch to do a cobra would be
> > risking. It is a completely different thread, but monkey wanted to
branch
> > off into a demonstration is his huge penis and then immediately stepped
on
> > same.
> >
>
> Flanker, whatever... It's not a Hornet, which was where I came into this
> discussion. Okay? As long as you're agreeing that there's no break out
> force in the Hornet, we're square.

Let us agree that I know where the F/A-18 stick breaks out at (20#) and that
you and monkey are clueless. That is so much easier than stroking your
fragile ego, Woody. It is a safety of flight issue and I am not going to
budge on the fact. If Canada chooses to use less safe operators for their
F-18s then that is their business.

[running with scissors]

"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message >...
> On 4/4/04 2:52 PM, in article
> , "monkey"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> On 4/4/04 5:16 AM, in article
> >> , "monkey"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> <SNIP>
> >>>
> >>> err...read the post...like I said, I'm not an F/A-18 pilot, I'm a
> >>> CF-18 pilot...BITCH.
> >>> p.s. flew a great 2v2 today, what did you do, clown show?
> >>
> >> Yep, this guy's a Hornet pilot. He certainly talks like one! Where are you
> >> stationed, Monkey? If Cold Lake, is Pat Peters still up there?
> >>
> >> --Woody
> >
> > Cold Lake. If you mean the USAF Pat Peters at AETE, yes he's still
> > here. I have to admit I don't really know the guy though. Where are
> > you at?
>
> That's the guy. More off line. I'm telling you, Tarver, the guy's
> authentic.
>
> --Woody

Tarver lives in an alternate reality, where things like a spoiler is flap.

[Allen Epps]

In article >, Tarver Engineering
> wrote:

> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 4/5/04 12:19 PM, in article , "Tarver
> > Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> > <SNIP>
> > >> Yes. Truly. It's in the NATOPS and everything. My confusion with
> your
> > >> statements is this occasional mention of a "break out" or "break out
> > >> force." There is nothing like that.
> > >
> > > I know that information from having desiged the first accuratee F/A-18
> > > simulator at Dryden. The reason for bringing up the break out force in
> the
> > > first place was to demonstrate how much force a Flanker applying an
> > > additional 33# of force directly into his crotch to do a cobra would be
> > > risking. It is a completely different thread, but monkey wanted to
> branch
> > > off into a demonstration is his huge penis and then immediately stepped
> on
> > > same.
> > >
> >
> > Flanker, whatever... It's not a Hornet, which was where I came into this
> > discussion. Okay? As long as you're agreeing that there's no break out
> > force in the Hornet, we're square.
>
> Let us agree that I know where the F/A-18 stick breaks out at (20#) and that
> you and monkey are clueless. That is so much easier than stroking your
> fragile ego, Woody. It is a safety of flight issue and I am not going to
> budge on the fact. If Canada chooses to use less safe operators for their
> F-18s then that is their business.

Woody, just unload and extend on this moron. I thought I'd give him a
chance at sanity but back in the plonk files he goes.
Pugs


>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Allen Epps" > wrote in message
et...
> In article >, Tarver Engineering
> > wrote:
>
> > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On 4/5/04 12:19 PM, in article , "Tarver
> > > Engineering" > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in
message
> > > <SNIP>
> > > >> Yes. Truly. It's in the NATOPS and everything. My confusion with
> > your
> > > >> statements is this occasional mention of a "break out" or "break
out
> > > >> force." There is nothing like that.
> > > >
> > > > I know that information from having desiged the first accuratee
F/A-18
> > > > simulator at Dryden. The reason for bringing up the break out force
in
> > the
> > > > first place was to demonstrate how much force a Flanker applying an
> > > > additional 33# of force directly into his crotch to do a cobra would
be
> > > > risking. It is a completely different thread, but monkey wanted to
> > branch
> > > > off into a demonstration is his huge penis and then immediately
stepped
> > on
> > > > same.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Flanker, whatever... It's not a Hornet, which was where I came into
this
> > > discussion. Okay? As long as you're agreeing that there's no break
out
> > > force in the Hornet, we're square.
> >
> > Let us agree that I know where the F/A-18 stick breaks out at (20#) and
that
> > you and monkey are clueless. That is so much easier than stroking your
> > fragile ego, Woody. It is a safety of flight issue and I am not going
to
> > budge on the fact. If Canada chooses to use less safe operators for
their
> > F-18s then that is their business.
>
> Woody, just unload and extend on this moron. I thought I'd give him a
> chance at sanity but back in the plonk files he goes.

I don't understand why the Canadians not knowing that the stick force
transducers on the F/A-18 break out at 20#s is a reason why I can't know it.
I am the sane one and cognitive dissonance from those avoiding learning
something new that is only adding noise to these threads.

[Mike Kanze]

>Let us agree that I know where the F/A-18 stick breaks out at (20#) and
that you and monkey are clueless.

Once again, the Tarverbot shows his OWN cluelessness.

--
Mike Kanze

"The hot dog is the reductio ad absurdum of American eating. The Sicilian
in the ditch, though he may never be President, knows better: he puts a
slice of onion between his slabs of bread, not a cartridge filled with the
sweepings of abattoirs."

- H. L. Mencken (1926)

Hooray for the start of ballpark franks and Major League Baseball this week!


"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 4/5/04 12:19 PM, in article , "Tarver
> > Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in
message
> > <SNIP>
> > >> Yes. Truly. It's in the NATOPS and everything. My confusion with
> your
> > >> statements is this occasional mention of a "break out" or "break out
> > >> force." There is nothing like that.
> > >
> > > I know that information from having desiged the first accuratee F/A-18
> > > simulator at Dryden. The reason for bringing up the break out force
in
> the
> > > first place was to demonstrate how much force a Flanker applying an
> > > additional 33# of force directly into his crotch to do a cobra would
be
> > > risking. It is a completely different thread, but monkey wanted to
> branch
> > > off into a demonstration is his huge penis and then immediately
stepped
> on
> > > same.
> > >
> >
> > Flanker, whatever... It's not a Hornet, which was where I came into this
> > discussion. Okay? As long as you're agreeing that there's no break out
> > force in the Hornet, we're square.
>
> Let us agree that I know where the F/A-18 stick breaks out at (20#) and
that
> you and monkey are clueless. That is so much easier than stroking your
> fragile ego, Woody. It is a safety of flight issue and I am not going to
> budge on the fact. If Canada chooses to use less safe operators for their
> F-18s then that is their business.
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Kanze" > wrote in message
...
> >Let us agree that I know where the F/A-18 stick breaks out at (20#) and
> that you and monkey are clueless.
>
> Once again, the Tarverbot shows his OWN cluelessness.

Not me. It is unsafe for the operator to not know that the stick breaks out
to activate the mechanical backup. There is no guarantee the failure of the
electric controls will cause the force transducer to deactivate. Once agian
a pilot is so ignorant as to believe they know more about how an airplane
works than a systems engineer for that airplane.

How many F-18 hours a year in the air are you and monkey getting Woody? 50?
20?

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 4/6/04 8:11 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" > wrote:

>
> "Mike Kanze" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> Let us agree that I know where the F/A-18 stick breaks out at (20#) and
>> that you and monkey are clueless.
>>

Well, THAT was an insult. Nice work.

>> Once again, the Tarverbot shows his OWN cluelessness.
>
> Not me. It is unsafe for the operator to not know that the stick breaks out
> to activate the mechanical backup. There is no guarantee the failure of the
> electric controls will cause the force transducer to deactivate. Once agian
> a pilot is so ignorant as to believe they know more about how an airplane
> works than a systems engineer for that airplane.
>

This is NOT a safety of flight issue, and you couldn't possibly be a systems
engineer for the Hornet.

There is no difference in stick forces or "break out" as you're calling it
between CAS, DEL, or MECH modes. Perhaps you're talking about the feedback
force that is added when the stick is displaced from its neutral position?
That is certainly not a "break out."

> How many F-18 hours a year in the air are you and monkey getting Woody? 50?
> 20?
>

Per year? Absolutely ZERO in MECH, more than 150 or so in CAS, less than 1
in DEL (spin recovery mode).

Look, Tarver, I've accumulated enough hours in the Hornet to have more than
a clue about its systems and how to employ them than you do.

--Woody

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 4/6/04 5:39 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" > wrote:

>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 4/5/04 12:19 PM, in article , "Tarver
>> Engineering" > wrote:
<SNIP>
>> Flanker, whatever... It's not a Hornet, which was where I came into this
>> discussion. Okay? As long as you're agreeing that there's no break out
>> force in the Hornet, we're square.
>
> Let us agree that I know where the F/A-18 stick breaks out at (20#) and that
> you and monkey are clueless. That is so much easier than stroking your
> fragile ego, Woody.

We'll agree to disagree, since I'm the only participant in this two-way
conversation who has actually held a Hornet joystick.

> It is a safety of flight issue and I am not going to
> budge on the fact.

You're not going to budge on that *opinion.* Knowing the numbers for a
"break out" force means nothing when that force doesn't exist. MECH either
works when the FCC's fail or it doesn't. Stick forces don't change between
CAS, DEL, and MECH.

> If Canada chooses to use less safe operators for their
> F-18s then that is their business.
>

Oh, and don't worry about my ego. I'll eventually get tired of playing this
little game with you and simply quit.

Now, how about answering my questions about the so-called "rotary inverter"
and its MTBF's? Where is it located, and how is it part of the FCS?

--Woody

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 4/6/04 6:36 PM, in article
, "Allen Epps"
> wrote:
>
> Woody, just unload and extend on this moron. I thought I'd give him a
> chance at sanity but back in the plonk files he goes.
> Pugs
>

Sorry, Pugs. Just entertaining myself. Don't mean to clog the NG so much.

--Woody

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote:

> Look, Tarver, I've accumulated enough hours in the Hornet to have more than
> a clue about its systems and how to employ them than you do.

Don't try to confuse him with the facts. He's confused enough without
them

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Mary Shafer]

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 02:22:48 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> wrote:

> There is no difference in stick forces or "break out" as you're calling it
> between CAS, DEL, or MECH modes. Perhaps you're talking about the feedback
> force that is added when the stick is displaced from its neutral position?
> That is certainly not a "break out."

That is, too. That's the definition of break out force, the force you
have to overcome to leave the deadband.

What do you think break out force is?

Don't get me started on stick force shaping, as I spent some serious
flight time and money looking at a variety of schedules for pilot
cueing. I can probably tell you more than you want to know about how
pilots perceive the cues, although the most interesting part is how
they can fail to consciously notice a major cue, even when it affects
their technique.

> > How many F-18 hours a year in the air are you and monkey getting Woody? 50?
> > 20?
>
> Per year? Absolutely ZERO in MECH, more than 150 or so in CAS, less than 1
> in DEL (spin recovery mode).

Keep it that way. The Plastic Bug flies miserably in MECH. It was a
big deal when they finally trapped in MECH, in fact. Before that, it
had meant diverting to land. When Tom McMurtry had to land one of
ours in MECH he cheerfully declared it to be one of the worse control
modes he'd ever flown, not counting those he'd flown for me when we
were doing the PIO work.

I thought DEL was a reversionary mode for more than spin recovery,
though. Doesn't the Bug drop into DEL when the MC faults? It's the
spin recovery mode that overrides the surface limits for spin recovery
when the yaw rate goes over some limit (40 deg/sec, maybe?), isn't it?

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Tarver Engineering]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/6/04 8:11 PM, in article , "Tarver
> Engineering" > wrote:

>
> There is no difference in stick forces or "break out" as you're calling it
> between CAS, DEL, or MECH modes. Perhaps you're talking about the
feedback
> force that is added when the stick is displaced from its neutral position?
> That is certainly not a "break out."

The stick doesn't move for electric modes.

> > How many F-18 hours a year in the air are you and monkey getting Woody?
50?
> > 20?
> >
>
> Per year? Absolutely ZERO in MECH, more than 150 or so in CAS, less than
1
> in DEL (spin recovery mode).
>
> Look, Tarver, I've accumulated enough hours in the Hornet to have more
than
> a clue about its systems and how to employ them than you do.

I did not comment on your ability to operate the F-18 wood man. You
insutled me in assuming that because you do not know something that I could
not know it. I can assure you that I know more about the
electric/electronic systems in the F-18 than you ever possibly could. I
have the advantage over you, in having brought dead F-18s back to life and
having integrated F-18 aircraft hardware and software to a computer. When I
wrote simulator, it is not the kind you think of, but something to do
controls research on.

You see, once long ago some in NASA and USN were certain that GE was lying
about their F-18 flight control computer. Much anger was exchanged between
NASA Lewis and GE and Congress was ready to get involved. Using Gould's
software we were able to input GE's numbers and match the airplane at
Dryden. Martha Evans and a delegation went back to NASA Lewis where before
a couple of Congress critters Lewis demanded that Dryden adjust their
simulation results to match Lewis, Martha just laid the airplane strip chart
over our simulation results and showed they matched.

Next thing you know Congress is having a comittee meeting and Bob Myers is
going with Martha to testify. It was all quite a big deal and Dryden was
able to become a flight test center again on the achievement. I remember
Bob comming to my office every morning to see if I was still showing up, as
Martha was hanging on by a thread in those days.

[Tarver Engineering]

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

> Oh, and don't worry about my ego. I'll eventually get tired of playing
this
> little game with you and simply quit.

Is this just some silly game you are playing Wood man?

> Now, how about answering my questions about the so-called "rotary
inverter"
> and its MTBF's? Where is it located, and how is it part of the FCS?

I am not doing this to have some "superior being" play games with me.

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
> >
> >How many F-18 hours a year in the air are you and monkey getting Woody?
50?
> >20?
>
> That would be 20 to 50 hours more than you ever will have.

Too late old fool, Wood man already spun into the ground.

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 4/7/04 10:52 AM, in article ,
"Mary Shafer" > wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 02:22:48 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> > wrote:
>
>> There is no difference in stick forces or "break out" as you're calling it
>> between CAS, DEL, or MECH modes. Perhaps you're talking about the feedback
>> force that is added when the stick is displaced from its neutral position?
>> That is certainly not a "break out."
>
> That is, too. That's the definition of break out force, the force you
> have to overcome to leave the deadband.
>
> What do you think break out force is?
>

The way he seems to be describing it there is an additional force imparted
beyond the normal feedback when the stick is displaced from neutral. Of
course, I've got no formal training in TPS terms, so perhaps I
misunderstand.

This discussion is going round and round, but my point is... that the stick
forces do not change whether in CAS, MECH or DEL--i.e. any "break out" force
in the cockpit is incidental to what the pilot normally experiences when
pulling on the pole.

> Don't get me started on stick force shaping, as I spent some serious
> flight time and money looking at a variety of schedules for pilot
> cueing. I can probably tell you more than you want to know about how
> pilots perceive the cues, although the most interesting part is how
> they can fail to consciously notice a major cue, even when it affects
> their technique.
>

I wouldn't dare even attempt to discuss it with you, Mary unless I were in
receive only mode. |:-)

>>> How many F-18 hours a year in the air are you and monkey getting Woody? 50?
>>> 20?
>>
>> Per year? Absolutely ZERO in MECH, more than 150 or so in CAS, less than 1
>> in DEL (spin recovery mode).
>
> Keep it that way. The Plastic Bug flies miserably in MECH. It was a
> big deal when they finally trapped in MECH, in fact. Before that, it
> had meant diverting to land. When Tom McMurtry had to land one of
> ours in MECH he cheerfully declared it to be one of the worse control
> modes he'd ever flown, not counting those he'd flown for me when we
> were doing the PIO work.
>

That's what I've heard. I had no idea that a trap in MECH had actually
occurred. It must have been MECH in one axis only. Eh? Sea story?

> I thought DEL was a reversionary mode for more than spin recovery,
> though. Doesn't the Bug drop into DEL when the MC faults? It's the
> spin recovery mode that overrides the surface limits for spin recovery
> when the yaw rate goes over some limit (40 deg/sec, maybe?), isn't it?
>
> Mary

It is. You are correct that's DEL, but the only time *I'VE* ever
experienced flying in DEL is when I do Spin Recovery Mode (SRM) checks on
FCF's (only on the A profiles now).

The way I had it explained to me years ago (by some dude at China Lake) is
that SRM is a subset of the DEL mode (with the LEF's at 33-34 degrees and
the TEF's at 0 +/- 1 degree). The nose gets a bit "slicy" coming out of 30K
in with SRM engaged, and the AOA must be kept between 10-20 degrees
(although I know from personal experience that the jet won't explode if you
fall outside of that limit for transitory periods).

It's kind of a squirrelly deal to fly in. Nauga, where are you?

--Woody

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 4/7/04 12:07 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" > wrote:

>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Oh, and don't worry about my ego. I'll eventually get tired of playing
> this
>> little game with you and simply quit.
>
> Is this just some silly game you are playing Wood man?

It is if you're going to resort to these comments about my "fragile ego."

>
>> Now, how about answering my questions about the so-called "rotary
> inverter"
>> and its MTBF's? Where is it located, and how is it part of the FCS?
>
> I am not doing this to have some "superior being" play games with me.
>

Still waiting.

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 4/7/04 12:05 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" > wrote:

<SNIP>
>
> I did not comment on your ability to operate the F-18 wood man. You
> insutled me in assuming that because you do not know something that I could
> not know it.

What we have here is... Failure to communicate. I never made that
assumption... At least not publically.

> I can assure you that I know more about the
> electric/electronic systems in the F-18 than you ever possibly could. I
> have the advantage over you, in having brought dead F-18s back to life and
> having integrated F-18 aircraft hardware and software to a computer. When I
> wrote simulator, it is not the kind you think of, but something to do
> controls research on.
>

I understand more than you might think.

> You see, once long ago some in NASA and USN were certain that GE was lying
> about their F-18 flight control computer. Much anger was exchanged between
> NASA Lewis and GE and Congress was ready to get involved. Using Gould's
> software we were able to input GE's numbers and match the airplane at
> Dryden. Martha Evans and a delegation went back to NASA Lewis where before
> a couple of Congress critters Lewis demanded that Dryden adjust their
> simulation results to match Lewis, Martha just laid the airplane strip chart
> over our simulation results and showed they matched.
>

Are you talking about that hangar in Cleveland?

> Next thing you know Congress is having a comittee meeting and Bob Myers is
> going with Martha to testify. It was all quite a big deal and Dryden was
> able to become a flight test center again on the achievement. I remember
> Bob comming to my office every morning to see if I was still showing up, as
> Martha was hanging on by a thread in those days.
>

Who are Bob and Martha? Just trying to get educated now.

--Woody

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 4/7/04 7:35 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" > wrote:

>
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> From: "Tarver Engineering"
>>
>>>
>>> How many F-18 hours a year in the air are you and monkey getting Woody?
> 50?
>>> 20?
>>
>> That would be 20 to 50 hours more than you ever will have.
>
> Too late old fool, Wood man already spun into the ground.

?

--Woody

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote:

> On 4/7/04 7:35 PM, in article , "Tarver
> Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > Too late old fool, Wood man already spun into the ground.
>
> ?

You're run into Tarver Air Turbulence.

That's the phenomenon when you've hammered Tarver into the ground, think
you've settled it, and he wafts back up telling you that you lost.

Sorta like reincarnation without the being dead part.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Clark <stillnospam@me> wrote:

> Do the psychotic episodes of Tarver's always follow his public humiliations
> or does he occasionally lead with one?

Follows.

Sure, you can have some posts that *seem* like random starts, but
there's always a "told you so!" in the last paragraph.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/7/04 12:05 PM, in article , "Tarver
> Engineering" > wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> >
> > I did not comment on your ability to operate the F-18 wood man. You
> > insutled me in assuming that because you do not know something that I
could
> > not know it.
>
> What we have here is... Failure to communicate. I never made that
> assumption... At least not publically.

Sure you did. It is very insulting for you to ask me to admit I am wrong
when i am correct and you just don't know. You come off as a prick, instead
of that big dick F-18 thing, same for little blo monkey.

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:49:00 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> wrote:

> On 4/7/04 10:52 AM, in article ,
> "Mary Shafer" > wrote:

> This discussion is going round and round, but my point is... that the stick
> forces do not change whether in CAS, MECH or DEL--i.e. any "break out" force
> in the cockpit is incidental to what the pilot normally experiences when
> pulling on the pole.

I thought the feel system changed in the spin recovery mode, with more
surface deflection per inch of stick displacement, but there's a good
chance that was either a non-standard F-18 or some other airplane. I
mean, I could have been thinking of the F-16 deep stall recovery mode,
you know.

> > Don't get me started on stick force shaping, as I spent some serious
> > flight time and money looking at a variety of schedules for pilot
> > cueing. I can probably tell you more than you want to know about how
> > pilots perceive the cues, although the most interesting part is how
> > they can fail to consciously notice a major cue, even when it affects
> > their technique.
>
> I wouldn't dare even attempt to discuss it with you, Mary unless I were in
> receive only mode. |:-)

Did you know, for example, that you have a different tolerance for
time delay in the feel system than you do for time delay in the flight
control system? If asked, you probably don't even know you can tell
the difference, but you can.

> > Keep it that way. The Plastic Bug flies miserably in MECH. It was a
> > big deal when they finally trapped in MECH, in fact. Before that, it
> > had meant diverting to land. When Tom McMurtry had to land one of
> > ours in MECH he cheerfully declared it to be one of the worse control
> > modes he'd ever flown, not counting those he'd flown for me when we
> > were doing the PIO work.
>
> That's what I've heard. I had no idea that a trap in MECH had actually
> occurred. It must have been MECH in one axis only. Eh? Sea story?

I honestly don't know if it was one axis or more. It's not a sea
story, because we got the notification from the class desk (or
whatever they call it). You know the thing I mean, the telex to all
F/A-18 squadrons and Dryden, with time-critical information.

> > I thought DEL was a reversionary mode for more than spin recovery,
> > though. Doesn't the Bug drop into DEL when the MC faults? It's the
> > spin recovery mode that overrides the surface limits for spin recovery
> > when the yaw rate goes over some limit (40 deg/sec, maybe?), isn't it?
>
> It is. You are correct that's DEL, but the only time *I'VE* ever
> experienced flying in DEL is when I do Spin Recovery Mode (SRM) checks on
> FCF's (only on the A profiles now).
>
> The way I had it explained to me years ago (by some dude at China Lake) is
> that SRM is a subset of the DEL mode (with the LEF's at 33-34 degrees and
> the TEF's at 0 +/- 1 degree). The nose gets a bit "slicy" coming out of 30K
> in with SRM engaged, and the AOA must be kept between 10-20 degrees
> (although I know from personal experience that the jet won't explode if you
> fall outside of that limit for transitory periods).

I think this is all exactly right, except that my crummy memory for
numbers means I can't say about them. I don't think you can get the
jet to explode on transient excursions outside the limit, although I
know that no one should ever underestimate the fleet pilots, but you
can get it to depart again if you botch the recovery (usually by being
a little too enthusiastic too soon). If you do it just right, you can
get it to depart into a worse mode, like oscillatory instead of flat.

I'll give you my standard stall-departure-spin warning, which I give
to every fighter pilot and test pilot I know. Be careful if you're
flying a two-seat version with a centerline tank. It will depart and
spin much more easily than a single-seat jet or a clean jet. You're
not guaranteed to depart and spin, of course, but you're at greater
risk. It also probably won't recover as well or as quickly and it may
have more spin modes.

I used to have a couple of plots that really made this point clear,
but I left them with one of the flying qualities engineers when I
retired. I wasn't sure if all the data was generally available.

> It's kind of a squirrelly deal to fly in. Nauga, where are you?

They're all squirrelly in stall-departure-spin. Maybe it's because
it's all forebody flow so there's a lot of moment arm or something.
The F-16 deep stall procedure is odd, to say the least, because you
get out of the stall by pulling up the nose and increasing the stall
angle before you push over and "rock" the airplane out of the stall.

Yo, Nauga, over here!

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 4/7/04 11:30 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" > wrote:

>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 4/7/04 12:05 PM, in article , "Tarver
>> Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> I did not comment on your ability to operate the F-18 wood man. You
>>> insutled me in assuming that because you do not know something that I
> could
>>> not know it.
>>
>> What we have here is... Failure to communicate. I never made that
>> assumption... At least not publically.
>
> Sure you did. It is very insulting for you to ask me to admit I am wrong
> when i am correct and you just don't know. You come off as a prick, instead
> of that big dick F-18 thing, same for little blo monkey.
>

Okay, I've asked you several questions trying to get answers... About rotary
inverters, about Bob and Mary etc... You seem to refuse to answer or to
educate, but instead break down to insults.

Meanwhile several others on the NG have asked me to stop because they're
tired of reading this tripe (probably getting nearly as bad as those "KILL
THE DEMON BUSH..." posts).

Since you've degraded into throwing around personal insults, I'm going to
oblige them.

The only good thing I got out of this discussion is a chance to learn from
Mary Shafer. Good day, sir.

--Woody

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 4/8/04 12:17 AM, in article ,
"Mary Shafer" > wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:49:00 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> > wrote:
>
>> On 4/7/04 10:52 AM, in article ,
>> "Mary Shafer" > wrote:
>
>> This discussion is going round and round, but my point is... that the stick
>> forces do not change whether in CAS, MECH or DEL--i.e. any "break out" force
>> in the cockpit is incidental to what the pilot normally experiences when
>> pulling on the pole.
>
> I thought the feel system changed in the spin recovery mode, with more
> surface deflection per inch of stick displacement, but there's a good
> chance that was either a non-standard F-18 or some other airplane. I
> mean, I could have been thinking of the F-16 deep stall recovery mode,
> you know.
>

It may, but I wouldn't know because I never move the stick more than about
1/2 an inch in that mode. I sort of doubt it though because pulling the
stick back or cycling it in a cold/dead airplane feels (force wise) exactly
the same as moving it around in a live running airplane.

I should explain here that the only time I've USED SRM is when I'm doing an
FCF A. The SRM check starts at 30K and 200 KCAS. Basically, turn the SRM
switch to RCVY, and hold the stick back. Then the aircraft hits the correct
numbers (which embarrassingly escape me right now... Circa 150 KCAS), SRM
actually engages. You basically hold 10-20 alpha for the rest of the
recovery while accelerating through 250 so that SRM will auto-disengage.
Basically, we're just diving in SRM in level flight and checking that it
engages and disengages when it's supposed to.

We used to do these checks on C and A FCF's. Now just on A's.

<SNIP>
>>
>> I wouldn't dare even attempt to discuss it with you, Mary unless I were in
>> receive only mode. |:-)
>
> Did you know, for example, that you have a different tolerance for
> time delay in the feel system than you do for time delay in the flight
> control system? If asked, you probably don't even know you can tell
> the difference, but you can.
>

Ow.

<SNIP>
>
> I think this is all exactly right, except that my crummy memory for
> numbers means I can't say about them. I don't think you can get the
> jet to explode on transient excursions outside the limit, although I
> know that no one should ever underestimate the fleet pilots, but you
> can get it to depart again if you botch the recovery (usually by being
> a little too enthusiastic too soon). If you do it just right, you can
> get it to depart into a worse mode, like oscillatory instead of flat.
>

The explode thing was a poor attempt at humor.

> I'll give you my standard stall-departure-spin warning, which I give
> to every fighter pilot and test pilot I know. Be careful if you're
> flying a two-seat version with a centerline tank. It will depart and
> spin much more easily than a single-seat jet or a clean jet. You're
> not guaranteed to depart and spin, of course, but you're at greater
> risk. It also probably won't recover as well or as quickly and it may
> have more spin modes.
>

Concur with the two-seater/single C/L.

Departing I have done (single-seat)... Twice. Once was fairly eye-opening.
460KCAS (probably much slower 350 or less when it stopped flying) at 15000
feet with a full load of back stick and a full boot of top rudder--a real
ham-fist piece of work. The airplane recovered after disappearing into its
own cotton-ball and some real bang-me-up PSG's. I felt pretty sheepish.
Jet was just fine. The immediate action procedures (basically let go and
wait) worked like a champ.

> I used to have a couple of plots that really made this point clear,
> but I left them with one of the flying qualities engineers when I
> retired. I wasn't sure if all the data was generally available.
>
>> It's kind of a squirrelly deal to fly in. Nauga, where are you?
>
> They're all squirrelly in stall-departure-spin. Maybe it's because
> it's all forebody flow so there's a lot of moment arm or something.
> The F-16 deep stall procedure is odd, to say the least, because you
> get out of the stall by pulling up the nose and increasing the stall
> angle before you push over and "rock" the airplane out of the stall.
>

Weird. Do those guys still do that with the 25 alpha limiter installed?

> Yo, Nauga, over here!
>

If he's lurking, this is usually the point where he shows up.

--Woody

> Mary

[Tarver Engineering]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/7/04 11:30 PM, in article , "Tarver
> Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On 4/7/04 12:05 PM, in article , "Tarver
> >> Engineering" > wrote:
> >>
> >> <SNIP>
> >>>
> >>> I did not comment on your ability to operate the F-18 wood man. You
> >>> insutled me in assuming that because you do not know something that I
> > could
> >>> not know it.
> >>
> >> What we have here is... Failure to communicate. I never made that
> >> assumption... At least not publically.
> >
> > Sure you did. It is very insulting for you to ask me to admit I am
wrong
> > when i am correct and you just don't know. You come off as a prick,
instead
> > of that big dick F-18 thing, same for little blo monkey.
> >
>
> Okay, I've asked you several questions trying to get answers... About
rotary
> inverters, about Bob and Mary etc... You seem to refuse to answer or to
> educate, but instead break down to insults.

I am sorry that once found clueless, being a prick didn't carry the day for
you, wood man. Perhaps in our next encounter you might act in a civilized
manner and I may answer your questions. It is you and little blo monkey
that are being insulting and that is odd considering the laughable condition
of the Canadain military.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/8/04 12:17 AM, in article ,
> "Mary Shafer" > wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:49:00 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/7/04 10:52 AM, in article
,
> >> "Mary Shafer" > wrote:
> >
> >> This discussion is going round and round, but my point is... that the
stick
> >> forces do not change whether in CAS, MECH or DEL--i.e. any "break out"
force
> >> in the cockpit is incidental to what the pilot normally experiences
when
> >> pulling on the pole.
> >
> > I thought the feel system changed in the spin recovery mode, with more
> > surface deflection per inch of stick displacement, but there's a good
> > chance that was either a non-standard F-18 or some other airplane. I
> > mean, I could have been thinking of the F-16 deep stall recovery mode,
> > you know.
> >
>
> It may, but I wouldn't know

There is your problem, wood man. Next time you want to be a prick, let it
be about something you know; instead of making such a fool of yourself and
your Nation.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/7/04 10:52 AM, in article ,
> "Mary Shafer" > wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 02:22:48 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> There is no difference in stick forces or "break out" as you're calling
it
> >> between CAS, DEL, or MECH modes. Perhaps you're talking about the
feedback
> >> force that is added when the stick is displaced from its neutral
position?
> >> That is certainly not a "break out."
> >
> > That is, too. That's the definition of break out force, the force you
> > have to overcome to leave the deadband.
> >
> > What do you think break out force is?
> >
>
> The way he seems to be describing it there is an additional force imparted
> beyond the normal feedback when the stick is displaced from neutral. Of
> course, I've got no formal training in TPS terms, so perhaps I
> misunderstand.

You didn't know, so you assumed I must not know. The only misunderstanding
here is your confucion at why being a dick didn't work for you. That is a
very common practice amoung pilots with more ego than knowledge. In the
past I would have just walked away and left you to your ignorance, but I
have learned over my years on usenet that walking away will only embolden
you to be even more of a prick, wood man. (see Weiss' posts)

> This discussion is going round and round, but my point is...

No it isn't, you have allready spun into the ground wood man.

[running with scissors]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Mike Kanze" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Let us agree that I know where the F/A-18 stick breaks out at (20#) and
> > that you and monkey are clueless.
> >
> > Once again, the Tarverbot shows his OWN cluelessness.
>
> Not me. It is unsafe for the operator..............
<Snip>

mmm lets look at a tarver quote from the archives....

Newsgroups: alt.disasters.aviation
Subject: Re: Southwest skids another one off the runway
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 10:05:37 -0800

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ...

> Bwawhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahhw!

> So, Splaps boy, wanna tell me how an autothrottle is going to slow an
> airplane down?

Retarding the throttles will cease the engines from adding thrust, my silly
rodent. Reducing pilot workload gives the Operator more time to deploy
Spoiler Flaps into a Speed Brake configuration.

Not like your Piper at all.

John

[running with scissors]

"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message >...
> On 4/6/04 8:11 PM, in article , "Tarver
> Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Mike Kanze" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>> Let us agree that I know where the F/A-18 stick breaks out at (20#) and
> >> that you and monkey are clueless.
> >>
>
> Well, THAT was an insult. Nice work.
>
> >> Once again, the Tarverbot shows his OWN cluelessness.
> >
> > Not me. It is unsafe for the operator to not know that the stick breaks out
> > to activate the mechanical backup. There is no guarantee the failure of the
> > electric controls will cause the force transducer to deactivate. Once agian
> > a pilot is so ignorant as to believe they know more about how an airplane
> > works than a systems engineer for that airplane.
> >
>
> This is NOT a safety of flight issue, and you couldn't possibly be a systems
> engineer for the Hornet.

Tarver's engineering capabilities are predominantly associated with
repairs of the domestic toaster.

[Pechs1]

geezzz-since you two are so busy wacking each other, I'll ask again. Does the
F-18 have a means to provide trons to the flight controls with a flameout, ala
the hydrazine generator like the F-16??

Or a RAT, or APU, or what. We practiced flameout approaches in the F-16..
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer