leading edge flaps

[Arquebus257WeaMag]

This questions has been killing me, what is the name of the leading
edge flaps that you find on airliners for example. Ive heard the name
slats, but I know there is another name for it.

[John Mullen]

Arquebus257WeaMag wrote:
> This questions has been killing me, what is the name of the leading
> edge flaps that you find on airliners for example. Ive heard the name
> slats, but I know there is another name for it.


Droops?


John

[Ian]

Not sure if this applies, but the Tornado used to have Krueger (think thats
how its spelt) on the leading edge where the wing pivots.

"Arquebus257WeaMag" > wrote in message
m...
> This questions has been killing me, what is the name of the leading
> edge flaps that you find on airliners for example. Ive heard the name
> slats, but I know there is another name for it.

[patrick mitchel]

krueger flaps

[Ed Rasimus]

On 10 Jan 2004 08:44:32 -0800,
(Arquebus257WeaMag) wrote:

>This questions has been killing me, what is the name of the leading
>edge flaps that you find on airliners for example. Ive heard the name
>slats, but I know there is another name for it.

Leading edge flaps are called leading edge flaps. That wasn't so
difficult was it?

Seriously, flaps are powered devices that change the airfoil shape
(increase camber) to offer greater low speed lift. They retract to
reduce drag at high speed. They CAN, but don't always extend to
simultaneously increase wing area--most airline trailing edge flaps do
this. They may also be segmented into successively extending
sections--again airliner trailing edge flaps are a good example.

Slats are typically UN-powered devices on the leading edge that extend
simply by the reduced dynamic pressure against them as airspeed slows.
Example would be the leading edge extensions of the F-86 and F-100.

Some leading and trailing edge flaps are "slotted" meaning they create
a gap in the airfoil when extended. This reduces turbulence and keeps
airflow laminar over the entire top surface by allowing a bit of air
through the slot from the bottom of the flap to the top surface.

There are all sorts of variations including Krueger flaps, Fowler
flaps, "BLC" (boundary layer control) blown flaps, flaperons that
combine both flap and aileron functions, and spoilers which disrupt
airflow across the top of the wing to reduce lift/increase drag.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[John Mullen]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On 10 Jan 2004 08:44:32 -0800,
> (Arquebus257WeaMag) wrote:
>
>
>>This questions has been killing me, what is the name of the leading
>>edge flaps that you find on airliners for example. Ive heard the name
>>slats, but I know there is another name for it.
>
>
> Leading edge flaps are called leading edge flaps. That wasn't so
> difficult was it?
>
> Seriously, flaps are powered devices that change the airfoil shape
> (increase camber) to offer greater low speed lift. They retract to
> reduce drag at high speed. They CAN, but don't always extend to
> simultaneously increase wing area--most airline trailing edge flaps do
> this. They may also be segmented into successively extending
> sections--again airliner trailing edge flaps are a good example.
>
> Slats are typically UN-powered devices on the leading edge that extend
> simply by the reduced dynamic pressure against them as airspeed slows.
> Example would be the leading edge extensions of the F-86 and F-100.
>
> Some leading and trailing edge flaps are "slotted" meaning they create
> a gap in the airfoil when extended. This reduces turbulence and keeps
> airflow laminar over the entire top surface by allowing a bit of air
> through the slot from the bottom of the flap to the top surface.
>
> There are all sorts of variations including Krueger flaps, Fowler
> flaps, "BLC" (boundary layer control) blown flaps, flaperons that
> combine both flap and aileron functions, and spoilers which disrupt
> airflow across the top of the wing to reduce lift/increase drag.

Not to mention 'splaps', but that's getting a bit technical...

John

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:46:52 +0000, John Mullen >
wrote:

>
>Not to mention 'splaps', but that's getting a bit technical...
>
>John

I wondered how long it would take. Mere minutes...

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tarver Engineering]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
> > On 10 Jan 2004 08:44:32 -0800,
> > (Arquebus257WeaMag) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>This questions has been killing me, what is the name of the leading
> >>edge flaps that you find on airliners for example. Ive heard the name
> >>slats, but I know there is another name for it.
> >
> >
> > Leading edge flaps are called leading edge flaps. That wasn't so
> > difficult was it?
> >
> > Seriously, flaps are powered devices that change the airfoil shape
> > (increase camber) to offer greater low speed lift. They retract to
> > reduce drag at high speed. They CAN, but don't always extend to
> > simultaneously increase wing area--most airline trailing edge flaps do
> > this. They may also be segmented into successively extending
> > sections--again airliner trailing edge flaps are a good example.
> >
> > Slats are typically UN-powered devices on the leading edge that extend
> > simply by the reduced dynamic pressure against them as airspeed slows.
> > Example would be the leading edge extensions of the F-86 and F-100.
> >
> > Some leading and trailing edge flaps are "slotted" meaning they create
> > a gap in the airfoil when extended. This reduces turbulence and keeps
> > airflow laminar over the entire top surface by allowing a bit of air
> > through the slot from the bottom of the flap to the top surface.
> >
> > There are all sorts of variations including Krueger flaps, Fowler
> > flaps, "BLC" (boundary layer control) blown flaps, flaperons that
> > combine both flap and aileron functions, and spoilers which disrupt
> > airflow across the top of the wing to reduce lift/increase drag.
>
> Not to mention 'splaps', but that's getting a bit technical...

Ed did not address the use of spoiler flap as used to cancel adverse Yaw,
produced by roll steering. Ed's description of the spoiler is refers only
to a spolier flap in a speedbrake configuration and while textbook in
nature, has been false for airliners since the 707; except twins. (engine
out regulations for twins require a tall tail, so the mechinisation of a
spoiler flap carrys too large a weight penalty to be practical)

Glad to educate you, John Mullin.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:07:10 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > There are all sorts of variations including Krueger flaps, Fowler
>> > flaps, "BLC" (boundary layer control) blown flaps, flaperons that
>> > combine both flap and aileron functions, and spoilers which disrupt
>> > airflow across the top of the wing to reduce lift/increase drag.
>
>Ed did not address the use of spoiler flap as used to cancel adverse Yaw,
>produced by roll steering.

One can only say so much in a newsgroup response. There's little time
to address all possible options of control surfaces at all times. But,
since you brought it up, let us note that some aircraft use "spoilers"
(not spoiler flaps) as a control surface. It is an effective way to
counter adverse yaw--the tendency of the drag of a downward deflected
aileron to be greater than that of the upward deflected one, which
causes the aircraft to way opposite the direction of intended roll.

The B-52 for example uses spoilers for roll control and the F-105 had
eight spoilers on the top of the wing on each side for the same
purpose.

Not sure what "roll steering" is. Roll is defined as rotation around
the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. Yaw as rotation around the
vertical, and pitch as rotating relative to the horizontal. One
"steers" the aircraft by inducing bank, which then creates a lift
component to divert the aircraft from straight ahead flight.

> Ed's description of the spoiler is refers only
>to a spolier flap in a speedbrake configuration and while textbook in
>nature, has been false for airliners since the 707;

Spoilers, surfaces that extend from the top surface of the wing are
used to "spoil" lift. They disrupt the smooth, accelerated flow over
the top surface of the wing which causes the low pressure area which
is different than the high pressure area on the bottom surface (maybe
wings don't lift, they "suck" the airplane up?) When these
lift-destroying devices are deployed, they help an aircraft descend
without gaining a lot of airspeed. Speedbrakes, are traditionally drag
devices, used to increase the form or parasite drag on the airframe.
Same thing gets accomplished but spoilers operate through induced
drag/destruction of lift while speedbrakes operate by parasite drag.
Got nothing to do with aircraft specific types.


> except twins. (engine
>out regulations for twins require a tall tail, so the mechinisation of a
>spoiler flap carrys too large a weight penalty to be practical)

What does tail size have to do with weight lifting capability? Twins
don't always have a tall tail, and regardless, the mechanics of a
flight control system, whether spoilers, flaps, slats, slots,
speedbrakes, ailerons, flaperons, spoilerons, stabilizers,
stabilators, or whatever is about the same.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:07:10 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >> Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > There are all sorts of variations including Krueger flaps, Fowler
> >> > flaps, "BLC" (boundary layer control) blown flaps, flaperons that
> >> > combine both flap and aileron functions, and spoilers which disrupt
> >> > airflow across the top of the wing to reduce lift/increase drag.
> >
> >Ed did not address the use of spoiler flap as used to cancel adverse Yaw,
> >produced by roll steering.
>
> One can only say so much in a newsgroup response. There's little time
> to address all possible options of control surfaces at all times. But,
> since you brought it up, let us note that some aircraft use "spoilers"
> (not spoiler flaps) as a control surface.

I think aircraft use spoiler flaps as a control surface, as opposed to a
fixed spoiler. Just as I might write the full name of a kreuger flap, or a
fowler flap. (nice description in your post, by the way, Ed) If you mean to
claim that the introduction of aerodynamics to the discussion is
problematic, you can't possibly know the depths of the buffarilla operator's
consternation that USAF had mislead him as to how his short tail B-52 wing
works. I don't really mean to bust anyone's bubble, but I think the real
answer is important too.

> It is an effective way to
> counter adverse yaw--the tendency of the drag of a downward deflected
> aileron to be greater than that of the upward deflected one, which
> causes the aircraft to way opposite the direction of intended roll.

Yet, the spoiler in such a configuration is not intended to "spoil lift",
but only to cancel the drag and lift difference between the right and left
aileron.

> The B-52 for example uses spoilers for roll control and the F-105 had
> eight spoilers on the top of the wing on each side for the same
> purpose.

Here is a question for you, did my sploiler flap discussion with Buff get
the USAF to teach the real aerodynamics of the short tail B-52 wing? I
think it would be interesting to note if it relly matter whether a pilot
knows how their wing works.

> Not sure what "roll steering" is. Roll is defined as rotation around
> the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. Yaw as rotation around the
> vertical, and pitch as rotating relative to the horizontal. One
> "steers" the aircraft by inducing bank, which then creates a lift
> component to divert the aircraft from straight ahead flight.

The error between selected course and actual course is roll steering.(or
more correctly, the output of a mode slector) On the output side of the
roll computer is roll command, which you may have seen dispalyed on a flight
director attitude display.

> > Ed's description of the spoiler is refers only
> >to a spolier flap in a speedbrake configuration and while textbook in
> >nature, has been false for airliners since the 707;
>
> Spoilers, surfaces that extend from the top surface of the wing are
> used to "spoil" lift.

Not in the application we are discussing here. The spoiler flap actually
pushes down on the wing and induces drag. Although I can understand why it
is simpler for an operator to parrot some string of words.

> They disrupt the smooth, accelerated flow over
> the top surface of the wing which causes the low pressure area which
> is different than the high pressure area on the bottom surface (maybe
> wings don't lift, they "suck" the airplane up?)

Sometimes, but right now we are not discussing a speed brake.

> When these
> lift-destroying devices are deployed, they help an aircraft descend
> without gaining a lot of airspeed.

Yes, Ed knows what a speed brake is.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:46:52 +0000, John Mullen >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Not to mention 'splaps', but that's getting a bit technical...

> I wondered how long it would take. Mere minutes...

It is what the troll is about, Ed.

I wrote kreuger and fowler flaps, as full names of wing extensions, and so
the discussion came here. Surely you must understand the sweet irony I am
enjoying.

[John R Weiss]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote...
>
> Slats are typically UN-powered devices on the leading edge that extend
> simply by the reduced dynamic pressure against them as airspeed slows.
> Example would be the leading edge extensions of the F-86 and F-100.

There are powered examples as well, such as the A-6 and EA-6B.


> Some leading and trailing edge flaps are "slotted" meaning they create
> a gap in the airfoil when extended.
>
> There are all sorts of variations including Krueger flaps, Fowler
> flaps, "BLC" (boundary layer control) blown flaps, flaperons that
> combine both flap and aileron functions, and spoilers which disrupt
> airflow across the top of the wing to reduce lift/increase drag.

Just so there is no confusion, flaperons and spoilers are not [normally] used as
leading edge devices.

It may be a matter of semantics on different airplanes types, but "flaperons" as
used by Grumman on the A-6 and EA-6B serve as spoilers and ailerons, but NOT as
flaps. There ARE several aircraft such as the F-4 that used drooped ailerons as
flaps, but I have not heard or seen them called "flaperons."

[John R Weiss]

"Arquebus257WeaMag" > wrote...
> This questions has been killing me, what is the name of the leading
> edge flaps that you find on airliners for example. Ive heard the name
> slats, but I know there is another name for it.

In general, they can be called "leading edge flaps."

Some of them are specific designs, such as the "Kreuger flaps" on 727s and the
inboard segment of 747s. Others, such as the outboard segments of the 747s,
look like, and perform the same function when extended, as the "leading edge
slats" on the F-86, A-4, and A-6. However, because of the manner in which they
are stowed and deployed on the 747, they are still called "leading edge flaps."

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:9WYLb.15782$na.12393@attbi_s04...
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote...
> >
> > Slats are typically UN-powered devices on the leading edge that extend
> > simply by the reduced dynamic pressure against them as airspeed slows.
> > Example would be the leading edge extensions of the F-86 and F-100.
>
> There are powered examples as well, such as the A-6 and EA-6B.
>
>
> > Some leading and trailing edge flaps are "slotted" meaning they create
> > a gap in the airfoil when extended.
> >
> > There are all sorts of variations including Krueger flaps, Fowler
> > flaps, "BLC" (boundary layer control) blown flaps, flaperons that
> > combine both flap and aileron functions, and spoilers which disrupt
> > airflow across the top of the wing to reduce lift/increase drag.
>
> Just so there is no confusion, flaperons and spoilers are not [normally]
used as
> leading edge devices.
>
> It may be a matter of semantics on different airplanes types, but
"flaperons" as
> used by Grumman on the A-6 and EA-6B serve as spoilers and ailerons, but
NOT as
> flaps.

I like the B-52 contrast in tail heights as an excellnt demonstration of the
advantages of spoilers as a control surface, as opposed to the speed brake
configuration.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> Ed did not address the use of spoiler flap as used to cancel adverse Yaw,
> produced by roll steering. Ed's description of the spoiler is refers only
> to a spolier flap in a speedbrake configuration and while textbook in
> nature, has been false for airliners since the 707; except twins. (engine
> out regulations for twins require a tall tail, so the mechinisation of a
> spoiler flap carrys too large a weight penalty to be practical)

I don't think any of us have ever seen any documentation in any book or
technical publication that refers to a "spoiler flap" -- so far, the term
appears to have been created by Tarver, here in the newsgroup. OTOH, through
the years I have seen several just-as-ridiculous descriptions of aeronautical
equipment and their [alleged] functions in the popular press (newspapers and
non-technical magazines, apparently written by people not familiar with
airplanes.

The statement "a spoiler flap in a speedbrake configuration and while textbook
in nature, has been false for airliners since the 707; except twins" sounds like
a new Tarverism, worthy of archiving. Its actual meaning escapes me, though the
misinterpretations and misinformation that could easily be drawn from it by
people looking for information are numerous. Just a few examples:

I have never read about "a spoiler flap in a speedbrake configuration" in
any textbook. Anyone else?

From "false for airliners since the 707; except twins" it is possible to
infer that the L-1011, DC-10, MD-11, 747, and other 3- and 4-engine airliners do
not have spoilers or speedbrakes. Of course, we all know that is false.

The statement that "engine out regulations for twins require a tall tail" is
clearly false in the general case, as evidenced by the DC-9, MD-80, and B-717,
as well as numerous business jets with fuselage-mounted engines.

And finally, "...require a tall tail, so the mechinisation of a spoiler flap
carrys too large a weight penalty to be practical" makes no sense whatsoever,
because: (1) we don't yet know what a "spoiler flap" is; (2) spoilers
"mechani[zed]" as speedbrakes are in fact used on virtually every modern
airliner; and (3) the height of an airplane's tail has no bearing on whether or
not spoilers "mechani[zed]" as speedbrakes are practical -- they are apparent on
both tall-tail (e.g., 777) and short-tail (e.g., MD-80) airliners.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:0nZLb.16052$na.13316@attbi_s04...

<snip of Weiss way behind the power curve>

> I have never read about "a spoiler flap in a speedbrake configuration"
in
> any textbook. Anyone else?

You might want to look at the recorded parameters for the DFDR on your
747-400.

[Kurt R. Todoroff]

Flaps and slats increase the wing camber which produces obvious advantages.
Extensible flaps and slats increase the wing area which produces obvious
advantages.

The slat (not to be confused with the leading edge flap) energizes the upper
surface boundary layer, thus delaying upper surface flow separation and stall.
This effect increases the stall angle-of-attack, increases directional
stability, but sometimes increases or decreases the coefficient of lift,
depending on the wing system design.

The net effect of both slat and flap extension working in unison is to increase
lift, increase stall angle-of-attack, and increase directional stability. This
serves to reduce the landing speed. It also serves to increase aircraft "G"
(normal acceleration) above the clean wing value at a given airspeed.




Kurt Todoroff


Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
Consent, not compulsion.

Remove "DELETEME" from my address to reply

[Tarver Engineering]

"Kurt R. Todoroff" > wrote in message
...
> Flaps and slats increase the wing camber which produces obvious
advantages.
> Extensible flaps and slats increase the wing area which produces obvious
> advantages.
>
> The slat (not to be confused with the leading edge flap) energizes the
upper
> surface boundary layer, thus delaying upper surface flow separation and
stall.
> This effect increases the stall angle-of-attack, increases directional
> stability, but sometimes increases or decreases the coefficient of lift,
> depending on the wing system design.
>
> The net effect of both slat and flap extension working in unison is to
increase
> lift, increase stall angle-of-attack, and increase directional stability.
This
> serves to reduce the landing speed. It also serves to increase aircraft
"G"
> (normal acceleration) above the clean wing value at a given airspeed.

Very nice, Kurt.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> > I have never read about "a spoiler flap in a speedbrake configuration"
> in any textbook. Anyone else?
>
> You might want to look at the recorded parameters for the DFDR on your
> 747-400.

Sorry, but they don't let me bring home a DFDR. Exactly where would I find a
reference to "a spoiler flap in a speedbrake configuration," and in what
context?

[John R Weiss]

"John R Weiss" > wrote...
>>> I have never read about "a spoiler flap in a speedbrake configuration"
>>> in any textbook. Anyone else?

>> You might want to look at the recorded parameters for the DFDR on your
>> 747-400.
>
> Sorry, but they don't let me bring home a DFDR. Exactly where would I find a
> reference to "a spoiler flap in a speedbrake configuration," and in what
> context?


Also, I just looked through 14CFR Part 121 -- including 121.343, 121.344, and
Appendices B and M (the FAA standards for Flight Recorder and DFDR operational
parameters) -- and found absolutely no reference to "spoiler flaps" in ANY
configuration.

[B2431]

>From: Ed Rasimus
>
<snip>

>Not sure what "roll steering" is.

<snip>

>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>

The only place I have ever seen the terms "roll steering" and "pitch steering"
was in reference to the bars on an ADI.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "John R Weiss"
>Date: 1/10/2004 2:05 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <9WYLb.15782$na.12393@attbi_s04>
>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote...
>>
>> Slats are typically UN-powered devices on the leading edge that extend
>> simply by the reduced dynamic pressure against them as airspeed slows.
>> Example would be the leading edge extensions of the F-86 and F-100.
>
>There are powered examples as well, such as the A-6 and EA-6B.
>
>
>> Some leading and trailing edge flaps are "slotted" meaning they create
>> a gap in the airfoil when extended.
>>
>> There are all sorts of variations including Krueger flaps, Fowler
>> flaps, "BLC" (boundary layer control) blown flaps, flaperons that
>> combine both flap and aileron functions, and spoilers which disrupt
>> airflow across the top of the wing to reduce lift/increase drag.
>
>Just so there is no confusion, flaperons and spoilers are not [normally] used
>as
>leading edge devices.
>
>It may be a matter of semantics on different airplanes types, but "flaperons"
>as
>used by Grumman on the A-6 and EA-6B serve as spoilers and ailerons, but NOT
>as
>flaps. There ARE several aircraft such as the F-4 that used drooped ailerons
>as
>flaps, but I have not heard or seen them called "flaperons."
>
Splaperons?

OK, maybe I could have resisted :)

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[John R Weiss]

"B2431" > wrote...
>
> The only place I have ever seen the terms "roll steering" and "pitch steering"
> was in reference to the bars on an ADI.

To those you can add "roll-summed steering," which is how Grumman described the
steering commands on the ADI in the A-6.

[John R Weiss]

"B2431" > wrote...

> Splaperons?

Only in Tehachipi...


> OK, maybe I could have resisted :)

But why?

[John Mullen]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:46:52 +0000, John Mullen >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Not to mention 'splaps', but that's getting a bit technical...
>>
>>John
>
>
> I wondered how long it would take. Mere minutes...

Heh heh!

[WaltBJ]

Of all the lift devices the Krueger flap is in my opinion the oddest
one. Its hinged at the front and pivots forward into 'lift' position.
Stick out your hand, palm down, fingers folded back flat. Now
straighten your hand so that your fingers are bent down about 30
degrees from the plane of your palm. You have imitated a Kruger flap.
FWIW the L1011 had a neat mode of spoiler operation - with the
trailing edge flaps in land (33 degrees) position the wing spoilers
were positioned up 8 degrees. Slight movement of the yoke fore or aft
from the trimmed position raised or lowered the spoilers effecting a
useful change in lift with minimal change in AOA. Made it very easy to
stay on a glideslope or maintain a set rate of descent.
Walt BJ

[Tarver Engineering]

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
> Of all the lift devices the Krueger flap is in my opinion the oddest
> one. Its hinged at the front and pivots forward into 'lift' position.
> Stick out your hand, palm down, fingers folded back flat. Now
> straighten your hand so that your fingers are bent down about 30
> degrees from the plane of your palm. You have imitated a Kruger flap.
> FWIW the L1011 had a neat mode of spoiler operation - with the
> trailing edge flaps in land (33 degrees) position the wing spoilers
> were positioned up 8 degrees. Slight movement of the yoke fore or aft
> from the trimmed position raised or lowered the spoilers effecting a
> useful change in lift with minimal change in AOA. Made it very easy to
> stay on a glideslope or maintain a set rate of descent.

The L-1011 lives on as a launch platform and offers performance superior in
both rate of climb and payload, over the B-52.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:46:52 +0000, John Mullen >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Not to mention 'splaps', but that's getting a bit technical...
> >>
> >>John
> >
> >
> > I wondered how long it would take. Mere minutes...
>
> Heh heh!

And yet, all Mullen did was demonstrate his own ignorance.

You have to love the irony.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:mO0Mb.19013$I06.137495@attbi_s01...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > > I have never read about "a spoiler flap in a speedbrake
configuration"
> > in any textbook. Anyone else?
> >
> > You might want to look at the recorded parameters for the DFDR on your
> > 747-400.
>
> Sorry, but they don't let me bring home a DFDR. Exactly where would I
find a
> reference to "a spoiler flap in a speedbrake configuration," and in what
> context?

Look it up in CFR14, it is a required data element for digital flight data
recorders.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:d51Mb.18790$8H.49642@attbi_s03...
> "John R Weiss" > wrote...
> >>> I have never read about "a spoiler flap in a speedbrake configuration"
> >>> in any textbook. Anyone else?
>
> >> You might want to look at the recorded parameters for the DFDR on your
> >> 747-400.
> >
> > Sorry, but they don't let me bring home a DFDR. Exactly where would I
find a
> > reference to "a spoiler flap in a speedbrake configuration," and in what
> > context?
>
>
> Also, I just looked through 14CFR Part 121 -- including 121.343, 121.344,
and
> Appendices B and M (the FAA standards for Flight Recorder and DFDR
operational
> parameters) -- and found absolutely no reference to "spoiler flaps" in
ANY
> configuration.

Or even "spoiler". Although, anyone familiar with aerodynamic surfaces
could use the full nomenclature for the fixed spoiler, or the spoiler flap.

[John R Weiss]

"WaltBJ" > wrote...
> FWIW the L1011 had a neat mode of spoiler operation - with the
> trailing edge flaps in land (33 degrees) position the wing spoilers
> were positioned up 8 degrees. Slight movement of the yoke fore or aft
> from the trimmed position raised or lowered the spoilers effecting a
> useful change in lift with minimal change in AOA. Made it very easy to
> stay on a glideslope or maintain a set rate of descent.

Also done in the Navy F-14 and S-3, with minor variations.

Also done in many gliders, though manually, as a matter of course in the landing
pattern...

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> > Exactly where would I find a
> > reference to "a spoiler flap in a speedbrake configuration," and in what
> > context?
>
> Look it up in CFR14, it is a required data element for digital flight data
> recorders.

Nope. Not a single one.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
>>> Exactly where would I find a
>>> reference to "a spoiler flap in a speedbrake configuration," and in what
>>> context?
>>
>> Also, I just looked through 14CFR Part 121 -- including 121.343, 121.344, and
>> Appendices B and M (the FAA standards for Flight Recorder and DFDR
operational
>> parameters) -- and found absolutely no reference to "spoiler flaps" in
>> ANYconfiguration.
>
> Or even "spoiler". Although, anyone familiar with aerodynamic surfaces
> could use the full nomenclature for the fixed spoiler, or the spoiler flap.

Nope.

14CFR Part 121 (as cited above) has references to "Ground spoiler" and
"spoilers" and "spoiler", but NONE to "fixed spoiler" or "spoiler flap".

The ONLY such "full nomenclature" yet discovered is in the Tarverisms.

We're still waiting for a credible citation...

[B2431]

>From: "John R Weiss"
>Date: 1/11/2004 12:15 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <cS5Mb.19776$Rc4.81757@attbi_s54>
>
>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>>
>>>> Exactly where would I find a
>>>> reference to "a spoiler flap in a speedbrake configuration," and in what
>>>> context?
>>>
>>> Also, I just looked through 14CFR Part 121 -- including 121.343, 121.344,
>and
>>> Appendices B and M (the FAA standards for Flight Recorder and DFDR
>operational
>>> parameters) -- and found absolutely no reference to "spoiler flaps" in
>>> ANYconfiguration.
>>
>> Or even "spoiler". Although, anyone familiar with aerodynamic surfaces
>> could use the full nomenclature for the fixed spoiler, or the spoiler flap.
>
>Nope.
>
>14CFR Part 121 (as cited above) has references to "Ground spoiler" and
>"spoilers" and "spoiler", but NONE to "fixed spoiler" or "spoiler flap".
>
>The ONLY such "full nomenclature" yet discovered is in the Tarverisms.
>
>We're still waiting for a credible citation...
>

It occurs to me that a "fixed spoiler" would be immobile and thus provide
nothing of value and should be removed.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[John Carrier]

> Slats are typically UN-powered devices on the leading edge that extend
> simply by the reduced dynamic pressure against them as airspeed slows.
> Example would be the leading edge extensions of the F-86 and F-100.

I wouldn't agree with "typically." Aero slats also extend when a certain
AOA is achieved ... the A-4 slats would extend at approximately 12 units AOA
(IIRC) and bringing them out symmetrically at higher airspeeds was not a
sure thing.

Grumman liked powered slats. Both the A-6 and F-14 had them.

R / John

[John Mullen]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:46:52 +0000, John Mullen >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Not to mention 'splaps', but that's getting a bit technical...
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>
>>>
>>>I wondered how long it would take. Mere minutes...
>>
>>Heh heh!
>
>
> And yet, all Mullen did was demonstrate his own ignorance.
>
> You have to love the irony.
>
>
You do, don't you!

And ignorance is your specialist subject after all...

john

[Dudley Henriques]

"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
> > Slats are typically UN-powered devices on the leading edge that extend
> > simply by the reduced dynamic pressure against them as airspeed slows.
> > Example would be the leading edge extensions of the F-86 and F-100.
>
> I wouldn't agree with "typically." Aero slats also extend when a certain
> AOA is achieved ... the A-4 slats would extend at approximately 12 units
AOA
> (IIRC) and bringing them out symmetrically at higher airspeeds was not a
> sure thing.

The Blues bolted 'um shut. Can you imagine what would happen in a tight
diamond with an A4 if a wing position got an asymmetrical slat extension
with roll induced....say in a barrel roll? Not a pretty thought!! :-))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Mike Marron]

>"John R Weiss" > wrote:
>>"WaltBJ" > wrote:

>>FWIW the L1011 had a neat mode of spoiler operation - with the
>>trailing edge flaps in land (33 degrees) position the wing spoilers
>>were positioned up 8 degrees. Slight movement of the yoke fore or aft
>>from the trimmed position raised or lowered the spoilers effecting a
>>useful change in lift with minimal change in AOA. Made it very easy to
>>stay on a glideslope or maintain a set rate of descent.

>Also done in the Navy F-14 and S-3, with minor variations.

>Also done in many gliders, though manually, as a matter of course in the landing
>pattern...

In gliders, I raise the spoilers (about halfway) while still on
downwind and leave them partially up (occassionally raising 'em
all the way if needed) all the way down to the flare.

Another commonly used method to stay on the glideslope or maintain
a set rate of descent that hasn't been mentioned is via prop pitch
(e.g: decrease pitch if drifting above glideslope, increase pitch if
drifting below glideslope).

[Ed Rasimus]

On 11 Jan 2004 01:19:53 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

>>From: Ed Rasimus
>>
>>Not sure what "roll steering" is.
>
>The only place I have ever seen the terms "roll steering" and "pitch steering"
>was in reference to the bars on an ADI.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Not even there, Dan. The ADI terminology was "bank steering" and
"pitch steering".


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 06:05:28 -0600, "John Carrier" >
wrote:

>> Slats are typically UN-powered devices on the leading edge that extend
>> simply by the reduced dynamic pressure against them as airspeed slows.
>> Example would be the leading edge extensions of the F-86 and F-100.
>
>I wouldn't agree with "typically." Aero slats also extend when a certain
>AOA is achieved ... the A-4 slats would extend at approximately 12 units AOA
>(IIRC) and bringing them out symmetrically at higher airspeeds was not a
>sure thing.

"How many angels (angles?) can dance on the head of a pin?" My use of
"typically" referred to the "un-powered", i.e. hydraulically or
electrically actuated/operated aspect. And, the examples (F-86 and
F-100) were aerodynamic, not mechanical. It, hopefully, recognized
that slats can be mechanically operated.

If they extend when airpressure is reduced as airspeed slows, then it
would be redundant to add "also when a certain AOA is achieved"
because that is the inevitable, inexorable, undeniable result of
slowing.

Gotta believe that the assymetric deployment even intermittently would
be exciting.

Really, the discussion of the wide range of wing-modifying devices
that have been employed over the years is amazing.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:DP5Mb.20608$5V2.33682@attbi_s53...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > > Exactly where would I find a
> > > reference to "a spoiler flap in a speedbrake configuration," and in
what
> > > context?
> >
> > Look it up in CFR14, it is a required data element for digital flight
data
> > recorders.
>
> Nope. Not a single one.

Try again, Johnny.

If you can't even look up the DFDR anex in a searchable version of CFR-14,
why are you bothering to post? Besides that, I already made my point.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:cS5Mb.19776$Rc4.81757@attbi_s54...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> >>> Exactly where would I find a
> >>> reference to "a spoiler flap in a speedbrake configuration," and in
what
> >>> context?
> >>
> >> Also, I just looked through 14CFR Part 121 -- including 121.343,
121.344, and
> >> Appendices B and M (the FAA standards for Flight Recorder and DFDR
> operational
> >> parameters) -- and found absolutely no reference to "spoiler flaps" in
> >> ANYconfiguration.
> >
> > Or even "spoiler". Although, anyone familiar with aerodynamic surfaces
> > could use the full nomenclature for the fixed spoiler, or the spoiler
flap.
>
> Nope.
>
> 14CFR Part 121 (as cited above) has references to "Ground spoiler" and
> "spoilers" and "spoiler", but NONE to "fixed spoiler" or "spoiler flap".


None of that changes the fact that a fixed spoiler is different from a
spoiler flap. Just as a kreuger flap is different from a fowler flap.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
> > Slats are typically UN-powered devices on the leading edge that extend
> > simply by the reduced dynamic pressure against them as airspeed slows.
> > Example would be the leading edge extensions of the F-86 and F-100.
>
> I wouldn't agree with "typically." Aero slats also extend when a certain
> AOA is achieved ... the A-4 slats would extend at approximately 12 units
AOA
> (IIRC) and bringing them out symmetrically at higher airspeeds was not a
> sure thing.
>
> Grumman liked powered slats. Both the A-6 and F-14 had them.

Unlike otherers ego driven operators here, when I corrected John Carrier WRT
the areodynamics of the F-14, he just incorporated the new information into
his explaination. I found that far more impressive than The B-52
discussion, where it took a dozen threads here and in the .sci groups to get
Buff to relent.

Then of course there is Weiss and one has to wonder how smart that boy is.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 11 Jan 2004 01:19:53 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>
> >>From: Ed Rasimus
> >>
> >>Not sure what "roll steering" is.
> >
> >The only place I have ever seen the terms "roll steering" and "pitch
steering"
> >was in reference to the bars on an ADI.

> Not even there, Dan. The ADI terminology was "bank steering" and
> "pitch steering".

That would be because most INSs produse "roll command" and you would not
have "roll steering" in an F-4.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:46:52 +0000, John Mullen >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Not to mention 'splaps', but that's getting a bit technical...
> >>>>
> >>>>John
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I wondered how long it would take. Mere minutes...
> >>
> >>Heh heh!

> > And yet, all Mullen did was demonstrate his own ignorance.
> >
> > You have to love the irony.

> You do, don't you!

Yes. It is quite pleasant laughing at you Mullen. I'm sure the readers of
my kook "catch and release" program are quite impressed with your ignorance.

[Les Matheson]

The F-4C, D and hardwing E had leading edge flaps, the E (post 556) and
subsequent models F,G, S had powered slats. The Thunderbirds used hardwing
E-models, probably for the reasons you stated. Also had no radar and added
VHF radios, but we weren't talking about that.

I once had an asymmetric leading edge flap extension in a C model. Rolled
inverted faster than I ever had. Pilot was cool and unloaded and used a
whole bunch of rudder to regain control.

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


"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
>>
> The Blues bolted 'um shut. Can you imagine what would happen in a tight
> diamond with an A4 if a wing position got an asymmetrical slat extension
> with roll induced....say in a barrel roll? Not a pretty thought!! :-))
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> For personal email, please replace
> the z's with e's.
> dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "John R Weiss"
> >Date: 1/11/2004 12:15 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <cS5Mb.19776$Rc4.81757@attbi_s54>
> >
> >"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >>
> >>>> Exactly where would I find a
> >>>> reference to "a spoiler flap in a speedbrake configuration," and in
what
> >>>> context?
> >>>
> >>> Also, I just looked through 14CFR Part 121 -- including 121.343,
121.344,
> >and
> >>> Appendices B and M (the FAA standards for Flight Recorder and DFDR
> >operational
> >>> parameters) -- and found absolutely no reference to "spoiler flaps"
in
> >>> ANYconfiguration.
> >>
> >> Or even "spoiler". Although, anyone familiar with aerodynamic surfaces
> >> could use the full nomenclature for the fixed spoiler, or the spoiler
flap.
> >
> >Nope.
> >
> >14CFR Part 121 (as cited above) has references to "Ground spoiler" and
> >"spoilers" and "spoiler", but NONE to "fixed spoiler" or "spoiler flap".
> >
> >The ONLY such "full nomenclature" yet discovered is in the Tarverisms.
> >
> >We're still waiting for a credible citation...
> >
>
> It occurs to me that a "fixed spoiler" would be immobile and thus provide
> nothing of value and should be removed.

Lots of autos have spoilers, as they push down on the rear for more rear
wheel loading. some formula one style racers have computer controlled
spoilers they call "spoiler flaps", so as to differentiate from a fixed
spoiler.

So, I used the complete name of a control surface and got trolled by a kook
757 FO. Here today we have Dan, parroting a kook.

[John Carrier]

> The Blues bolted 'um shut. Can you imagine what would happen in a tight
> diamond with an A4 if a wing position got an asymmetrical slat extension
> with roll induced....say in a barrel roll? Not a pretty thought!! :-))

Also bolted shut when the A-4E/F (AKA Mongoose) was used as adversary for
F-8 and F-4. Then unbolted when the Turkey showed the necessity of better
slow speed capability.

John X

[John Carrier]

> If they extend when airpressure is reduced as airspeed slows, then it
> would be redundant to add "also when a certain AOA is achieved"
> because that is the inevitable, inexorable, undeniable result of
> slowing.

I was thinking of maneuvering. The A-4 slat would extend up to around
350KIAS once the proper AOA was achieved ... hardly slow. I suspect the
various NA products behaved similarly.

R / John

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:50:00 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> On 11 Jan 2004 01:19:53 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>>
>> >>From: Ed Rasimus
>> >>
>> >>Not sure what "roll steering" is.
>> >
>> >The only place I have ever seen the terms "roll steering" and "pitch
>steering"
>> >was in reference to the bars on an ADI.
>
>> Not even there, Dan. The ADI terminology was "bank steering" and
>> "pitch steering".
>
>That would be because most INSs produse "roll command" and you would not
>have "roll steering" in an F-4.
>

Dan's post refers to the nomenclature for the Attitude Director
Indicator. The two bars, one horizontal and one vertical, provide cues
for flying instruments, similar to the "bug" in more current displays.
They can offer commands related to navigation guidance such as turns
to headings or cues for flying ILS approaches or even be linked to
weapons release computers for fly up for lofted weapons deliveries.

The vertical bar on the display was called the bank steering bar
because it displaced left or right of center and when the proper
amount of bank was initiated, it returned to center. When your course
change was complete it displaced the opposite direction to return you
to wings level flight.

The horizontal bar was termed the pitch steering bar and it commanded
pitch inputs to achieve the proper climb or dive angles.

The nomenclature has nothing to do with the Inertial Navigation
system. The ADI is not specific to the F-4, but is the generic
attitude indicator display and was the same in the F-105, F-4, and
T-38, as well as a a number of other US aircraft which I don't have
several thousand hours in.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Smartace11]

>Lots of autos have spoilers, as they push down on the rear for more rear
>wheel loading. some formula one style racers have computer controlled
>spoilers they call "spoiler flaps", so as to differentiate from a fixed
>spoiler.

Formula One type open wheel cars cars don't have active aerodynamic surfaces
anywhere, flaps, spoilers, whatever. They are fixed. The fixed surfaces are
called wings and barge boards. They can be adjusted by the pit crew with tools
for track conditons. The only thing computer controlled by the computer aside
from the engine under present FIA rules is the traction system.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:50:00 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 11 Jan 2004 01:19:53 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
> >>
> >> >>From: Ed Rasimus
> >> >>
> >> >>Not sure what "roll steering" is.
> >> >
> >> >The only place I have ever seen the terms "roll steering" and "pitch
> >steering"
> >> >was in reference to the bars on an ADI.
> >
> >> Not even there, Dan. The ADI terminology was "bank steering" and
> >> "pitch steering".
> >
> >That would be because most INSs produse "roll command" and you would not
> >have "roll steering" in an F-4.
> >
>
> Dan's post refers to the nomenclature for the Attitude Director
> Indicator. The two bars, one horizontal and one vertical, provide cues
> for flying instruments, similar to the "bug" in more current displays.
> They can offer commands related to navigation guidance such as turns
> to headings or cues for flying ILS approaches or even be linked to
> weapons release computers for fly up for lofted weapons deliveries.

What roll steering refers to is a navigational error signal. From which the
flight director roll computer would use roll steering and other parameters
to produce roll command, usually displayed as a CMD bug on a flight director
attitude display.

> The vertical bar on the display was called the bank steering bar
> because it displaced left or right of center and when the proper
> amount of bank was initiated, it returned to center. When your course
> change was complete it displaced the opposite direction to return you
> to wings level flight.

Or a bug can be used to play pilot chase the needles, or just have George do
it.

> The horizontal bar was termed the pitch steering bar and it commanded
> pitch inputs to achieve the proper climb or dive angles.

Same idea, except roll steering is only part of the equation that produces
command.

> The nomenclature has nothing to do with the Inertial Navigation
> system. The ADI is not specific to the F-4, but is the generic
> attitude indicator display and was the same in the F-105, F-4, and
> T-38, as well as a a number of other US aircraft which I don't have
> several thousand hours in.

Ed, an INS usually produces roll command directly and does not use the
flight director calculation for roll command. The nomenclature is
different.

Let me give you an example of some 747 navigation changes we have
facilitated:

A certain head of state aircraft wants to have a glass cockpit and selects a
company with an FMS that integrates several flight management systems into
their computer. (PMS, Flight Director, DADC, Primary Display) For this
system integration we provided a converter from digital to Analog Roll
Command, so that the FMS could drive the aircrft's roll command input.

Another head of state has a 747 where there was a desire to integrate a
Trimble 2101 I/O for approach. In this case, we provided a signal such that
the HSI could output "roll steering" from signals derived from the GPS and
the DG.

So, it is a matter of where the signal is in the system as to what it is
named and you would not normally use roll steering with an INS, but I have
heard of some INSs that are the other way.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Smartace11" > wrote in message
...
> >Lots of autos have spoilers, as they push down on the rear for more rear
> >wheel loading. some formula one style racers have computer controlled
> >spoilers they call "spoiler flaps", so as to differentiate from a fixed
> >spoiler.
>
> Formula One type open wheel cars cars don't have active aerodynamic
surfaces
> anywhere, flaps, spoilers, whatever. They are fixed.

You mean formula one cars use fixed spoilers.

It has been well known for some time that mechanizing the fixed spoiler into
a spoiler flap produces several advantages.

<snip of rattling and clanking>

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> Lots of autos have spoilers, as they push down on the rear for more rear
> wheel loading.

Actually, most modern street cars that have spoilers use them to cause a
trailing vortex that decreases flow separation at the rear of the car
and reduces overall drag. There's also a reduction in aerodynamic lift,
but surprisingly little direct downforce. You have to have a *large*
tail spoiler to get a lot of downforce, and that usually makes more drag
than is worth it.

This is very different from the wings you see on race cars, which also
handle flow control but generate a *lot* more downforce.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > Lots of autos have spoilers, as they push down on the rear for more rear
> > wheel loading.
>
> Actually, most modern street cars that have spoilers use them to cause a
> trailing vortex that decreases flow separation at the rear of the car
> and reduces overall drag.

Excellent Chad.

> There's also a reduction in aerodynamic lift,
> but surprisingly little direct downforce. You have to have a *large*
> tail spoiler to get a lot of downforce, and that usually makes more drag
> than is worth it.

That would have to do with how fast a race car goes, Chad. Although, I have
seen some expensive ricers with very large spoilers on their cars, out
across the desert.

> This is very different from the wings you see on race cars, which also
> handle flow control but generate a *lot* more downforce.

Very nice, Chad, but my reference was to computer controlled spoilers on
race cars, something you need to do a little more research on, but thanks
for the data dump.

[John R Weiss]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote...
>
> The Blues bolted 'um shut. Can you imagine what would happen in a tight
> diamond with an A4 if a wing position got an asymmetrical slat extension
> with roll induced....say in a barrel roll? Not a pretty thought!! :-))

In over 1700 A-4 hours, I never had an asymmetric slat extension that I could
not quickly and easily control. After about 1000 hours, few of them were even
unpredictable... Careful preflight of the slats would give a VERY good idea of
which one would come out first, and any preflight "stickiness" was grounds for
rejecting the airplane or having the Airframers work on it before flight. I
believe too many TA-4s were lost in the Training Command due to students'
unfamiliarity with the airplane and instructors' failure to teach and emphasize
both preflight and recovery techniques.

That said, I fully understand why the Blues bolted them in -- their 36"
wingtip-to-fuselage clearance in some of their formation maneuvers gave quite a
bit less room for error than our nominal 3-5' wingtip-to-wingtip clearance in
the fleet.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
>>>> Exactly where would I find a
>>>> reference to "a spoiler flap in a speedbrake configuration," and in
>>>> what context?

>>> Look it up in CFR14, it is a required data element for digital flight
>>> data recorders.
> >
> > Nope. Not a single one.
>
> Try again, Johnny.
>
> If you can't even look up the DFDR anex in a searchable version of CFR-14,
> why are you bothering to post? Besides that, I already made my point.

Well, in addition to Part 121 I can look up Annexes D and E to 14CFR Part 125,
both of which address DFDR specifications, as well as 125.226, which addresses
DFDRs. Again, there are absolutely NO references such as you claim.

I suppose you have, indeed, made your "point" -- that you can spew BS in this
forum and get people to react to it.

I have also made my point -- that your claim is, as usual, totally incredible
and unsubstantiated. You make for good entertainment at times, but with such a
low signal-to-noise ratio, are a lousy source of credible or usable information.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
>>>14CFR Part 121 (as cited above) has references to "Ground spoiler" and
>>>"spoilers" and "spoiler", but NONE to "fixed spoiler" or "spoiler flap".
>
>>>The ONLY such "full nomenclature" yet discovered is in the Tarverisms.
>
>>>We're still waiting for a credible citation...
>
> Lots of autos have spoilers, as they push down on the rear for more rear
> wheel loading. some formula one style racers have computer controlled
> spoilers they call "spoiler flaps", so as to differentiate from a fixed
> spoiler.

We still have no credible citation...

Even if your latest claim had anything to do with airplanes, DFDRs, and 14CFR --
as you previously claimed -- they still do not make for a credible citation. It
took another poster only 18 minutes to debunk the latest "spoiler flaps" claim,
and he is at least as credible as you...

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:D8iMb.24836$Rc4.94947@attbi_s54...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> >>>> Exactly where would I find a
> >>>> reference to "a spoiler flap in a speedbrake configuration," and in
> >>>> what context?
>
> >>> Look it up in CFR14, it is a required data element for digital flight
> >>> data recorders.
> > >
> > > Nope. Not a single one.
> >
> > Try again, Johnny.
> >
> > If you can't even look up the DFDR anex in a searchable version of
CFR-14,
> > why are you bothering to post? Besides that, I already made my point.
>
> Well, in addition to Part 121 I can look up Annexes D and E to 14CFR Part
125,
> both of which address DFDR specifications, as well as 125.226, which
addresses
> DFDRs. Again, there are absolutely NO references such as you claim.

Speedbrake is right there, Johnny.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:aiiMb.24859$Rc4.95395@attbi_s54...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> >>>14CFR Part 121 (as cited above) has references to "Ground spoiler" and
> >>>"spoilers" and "spoiler", but NONE to "fixed spoiler" or "spoiler
flap".
> >
> >>>The ONLY such "full nomenclature" yet discovered is in the Tarverisms.
> >
> >>>We're still waiting for a credible citation...
> >
> > Lots of autos have spoilers, as they push down on the rear for more rear
> > wheel loading. some formula one style racers have computer controlled
> > spoilers they call "spoiler flaps", so as to differentiate from a fixed
> > spoiler.
>
> We still have no credible citation...

Sure you do, that is part of the irony.

You might want to adapt a more Dudley like tack to these technical
discussions and only post when you have something to say. I don't see what
you add to the Ed/Carrier/Walt pilot expert posts.

Now, back to military aviation ...

[Smartace11]

> Formula One type open wheel cars cars don't have active aerodynamic
>surfaces
>> anywhere, flaps, spoilers, whatever. They are fixed.
>
>You mean formula one cars use fixed spoilers.
>
>It has been well known for some time that mechanizing the fixed spoiler into
>a spoiler flap produces several advantages.
>
><snip of rattling and clanking>

They are fixed in that the driver has no way to change a setting on the track
and they are not actively controlled either. If you watch an open wheeler race
you will see that one of the things the crews do when the cars come into the
pits is to adjust wing angles manually. So far as flaps go the rear wings
sometimes have a main wing and one or two smaller wings stacked on the trailing
edge of the main wing to smooth the airflow coming off.. The air behind the
cars is quite "dirty" and any smoothing translates into less drag. These wings
are often problemmatic because they are subject to flutter and failurel,
leaving debris on the track, so they aren't always used..

The devices are called wings because they are airfold that produce lift but in
a downward direction a counterforce to the lift from the main body of the car.
You may have seen at the 24 Hour race at LeMans France where a Mercedes went
airborne nearly 50 ft into the air, flipped a few times then landed flat on the
ground. They don't do anything relative to "spoiling lift" under the car and
there is nor rom to put spoilers there per se as they are just an inch or so
off the ground.

Some street cars like my Porsche use an air dam that is computer controlled and
raise to increase downforce on the rear about a certain speed, usually around
100 mph or so.

Apparently they need a electrical or mechanical egineeer and not an
aerodynamicist to design them.
Lots of opportunity. I'm surprized you haven't jumped on this opportuity, John,
and have become a consultant to the Ferrari or McLaren F1 teams. I suspect the
racing industry would benefit greatly from roll steering couples to their GPS
as well.

[Smartace11]

>I suppose you have, indeed, made your "point" -- that you can spew BS in this
>forum and get people to react to it.
>
>I have also made my point -- that your claim is, as usual, totally incredible
>and unsubstantiated. You make for good entertainment at times, but with such
>a
>low signal-to-noise ratio, are a lousy source of credible or usable
>information.
>
>
>


You gotta admit it is highly entertaining though. I can hardly wait to read
the posts when I get on line. Good for many a chuckle and I usually share them
with some of my friends who are design and test engineers on several of the
major DoD weapon system programs. I suspect "splapp" and "Nyqist" will even
find their way into the "show and tell" briefings given to non-technical VIPs
just to dazzle them.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Smartace11" > wrote in message
...
> > Formula One type open wheel cars cars don't have active aerodynamic
> >surfaces
> >> anywhere, flaps, spoilers, whatever. They are fixed.
> >
> >You mean formula one cars use fixed spoilers.
> >
> >It has been well known for some time that mechanizing the fixed spoiler
into
> >a spoiler flap produces several advantages.
> >
> ><snip of rattling and clanking>
>
> They are fixed in that the driver has no way to change a setting on the
track
> and they are not actively controlled either.

They can and have been actively controlled, by computers, in both aircraft
and autos.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Smartace11" > wrote in message
...
> You gotta admit it is highly entertaining though. I can hardly wait to
read
> the posts when I get on line.

Dilbert's adiction.

[Smartace11]

>
>They can and have been actively controlled, by computers, in both aircraft
>and autos.

I agree but not in F1 or F! type cars as you said. Rules don't allow.

[Smartace11]

>Dilbert's adiction.

I gotta remember that one.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Smartace11" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >They can and have been actively controlled, by computers, in both
aircraft
> >and autos.
>
> I agree but not in F1 or F! type cars as you said. Rules don't allow.

I wrote that there are Formula One type races for cars with computer
controlled spoiler flaps. Whatever else you may have surmised must have
come from the voices in your own head.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 06:05:28 -0600, "John Carrier" >
> wrote:

> If they extend when airpressure is reduced as airspeed slows, then it
> would be redundant to add "also when a certain AOA is achieved"
> because that is the inevitable, inexorable, undeniable result of
> slowing.

Just musing here Ed; :-))))))

I might be missing something in what you're saying about slat extension Ed,
but FWIW, although it's true that dynamic pressure will bring out an
aerodynamic LE slat as airspeed is reduced and angle of attack is increased
as the result of that slowing, the only common denominator that SHOULD be
used for an aerodynamic slat extension parameter is aoa, not airspeed! You
can pull 12 units in an A4 and get a slat extension at ANY airspeed!! Using
airspeed as the single parameter seems to me to be like using airspeed as a
stall parameter instead of aoa. (Airspeed works for stall at a specific GW
for a 1g stall, but goes to hell when you start pulling g!! The alpha units
or degrees aoa for CLmax producing that stall however, remain the same. The
same thing goes for an aerodynamic slat extension. You can extend slats in
an A4 by reducing the airspeed all right, but ONLY when you reach 12 units
aoa which works for an airspeed explanation at 1g level flight decel.
BUT!!!! You can ALSO extend the same slats at much higher airspeeds by
accelerating the airplane to 12 units. The airspeed for each extension
scenario will be quite different, but the same 12 units still apply! AOA is
the right parameter for aerodynamic slat extension, and what's used in the
test community. I have to admit though, I can't for the life of me remember
however how the Natops for the A4 presented this information :-)))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[BackToNormal]

Tarver Engineering > wrote:

> "Smartace11" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > >They can and have been actively controlled, by computers, in both
> > >aircraft and autos.

> > I agree but not in F1 or F! type cars as you said. Rules don't allow.

> I wrote that there are Formula One type races for cars with computer
> controlled spoiler flaps..

Nope. You specified "some formula one style racers".
*******
That's not the same as "Formula One type races" Tarver.
*****
Airflow appendages on F1 cars can not be adjusted during racing. Any
category allowing such adjustment would not be a F1 style racer.

Which of the following allow in-race adjustment -- F1, Champcars,
Indycars, F2000, F3000, F5000, F2, F3, F4, Barber Dodge Pro,
Formula Ford, Formula Renault, Europa Cup, Formula BMW, Formula Holden,
Formula Nippon, Formula Nissan, Formula Palmer Audi, Fran-Am 1600,
Formula Russell, Formula Vee, Star Mazda, Formula F Zetec etc.

They are open wheelers (but so is my neighbour's quad bike).

Which of the above are F1 "style" categories?

Is a F1 car a 'Star Mazda style racer'?

ronh



--
"People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>Date: 1/11/2004 12:02 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "John R Weiss"
>> >Date: 1/11/2004 12:15 AM Central Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <cS5Mb.19776$Rc4.81757@attbi_s54>
>> >
>> >"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>> >>
>> >>>> Exactly where would I find a
>> >>>> reference to "a spoiler flap in a speedbrake configuration," and in
>what
>> >>>> context?
>> >>>
>> >>> Also, I just looked through 14CFR Part 121 -- including 121.343,
>121.344,
>> >and
>> >>> Appendices B and M (the FAA standards for Flight Recorder and DFDR
>> >operational
>> >>> parameters) -- and found absolutely no reference to "spoiler flaps"
>in
>> >>> ANYconfiguration.
>> >>
>> >> Or even "spoiler". Although, anyone familiar with aerodynamic surfaces
>> >> could use the full nomenclature for the fixed spoiler, or the spoiler
>flap.
>> >
>> >Nope.
>> >
>> >14CFR Part 121 (as cited above) has references to "Ground spoiler" and
>> >"spoilers" and "spoiler", but NONE to "fixed spoiler" or "spoiler flap".
>> >
>> >The ONLY such "full nomenclature" yet discovered is in the Tarverisms.
>> >
>> >We're still waiting for a credible citation...
>> >
>>
>> It occurs to me that a "fixed spoiler" would be immobile and thus provide
>> nothing of value and should be removed.
>
>Lots of autos have spoilers, as they push down on the rear for more rear
>wheel loading. some formula one style racers have computer controlled
>spoilers they call "spoiler flaps", so as to differentiate from a fixed
>spoiler.
>
>So, I used the complete name of a control surface and got trolled by a kook
>757 FO. Here today we have Dan, parroting a kook.
>
>
You really need to pay attention to what is being discussed. We were discussing
aircraft, tarver, not "autos."

One of these days you may astound us by producing a reputable citation that
refers to the term "spoiler flaps" but I seriously doubt you ever will. Then
again someday you will explain how being an EE and a long ago jet mech makes
you an expert on all this aerospace, automotive, poli-sci etc.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 1/11/2004 9:45 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 11 Jan 2004 01:19:53 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>
>>>From: Ed Rasimus
>>>
>>>Not sure what "roll steering" is.
>>
>>The only place I have ever seen the terms "roll steering" and "pitch
>steering"
>>was in reference to the bars on an ADI.
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>Not even there, Dan. The ADI terminology was "bank steering" and
>"pitch steering".
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>

You are correct. I guess I am not as perfect as tarver <g>

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:36:55 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 06:05:28 -0600, "John Carrier" >
>> wrote:
>
>> If they extend when airpressure is reduced as airspeed slows, then it
>> would be redundant to add "also when a certain AOA is achieved"
>> because that is the inevitable, inexorable, undeniable result of
>> slowing.
>
>Just musing here Ed; :-))))))
>
>I might be missing something in what you're saying about slat extension Ed,
>but FWIW, although it's true that dynamic pressure will bring out an
>aerodynamic LE slat as airspeed is reduced and angle of attack is increased
>as the result of that slowing, the only common denominator that SHOULD be
>used for an aerodynamic slat extension parameter is aoa, not airspeed!

You are correct.

It's AOA, not specifically lower airspeed. They can droop under
acceleration when a design AOA is reached.

I got so wrapped up in trying to be all-encompassing while not
grabbing the tar baby that I mis-spoke.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...

>
> You are correct. I guess I am not as perfect as tarver <g>

I am impressed that you were not a little turd for this thread, Dan.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:36:55 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 06:05:28 -0600, "John Carrier" >
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> If they extend when airpressure is reduced as airspeed slows, then it
> >> would be redundant to add "also when a certain AOA is achieved"
> >> because that is the inevitable, inexorable, undeniable result of
> >> slowing.
> >
> >Just musing here Ed; :-))))))
> >
> >I might be missing something in what you're saying about slat extension
Ed,
> >but FWIW, although it's true that dynamic pressure will bring out an
> >aerodynamic LE slat as airspeed is reduced and angle of attack is
increased
> >as the result of that slowing, the only common denominator that SHOULD be
> >used for an aerodynamic slat extension parameter is aoa, not airspeed!
>
> You are correct.
>
> It's AOA, not specifically lower airspeed. They can droop under
> acceleration when a design AOA is reached.
>
> I got so wrapped up in trying to be all-encompassing while not
> grabbing the tar baby that I mis-spoke.

I know the feeling. That ole' tar baby is one sticky character all right!
If you and Carrier ever manage to talk him into the back seat of a T38 for
just one flight......just ONE!!!.....I'll buy you both a case of Scotch if
you let me take him !! :-))
Dudley

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...

<snip> >
> You really need to pay attention to what is being discussed. We were
discussing
> aircraft, tarver, not "autos."

We discussing the complete name of control surfaces, no matter how
heartbraking it is for you to find out just how much of an idiot you are,
Dan.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message

<snip>
> I know the feeling. That ole' tar baby is one sticky character all right!
> If you and Carrier ever manage to talk him into the back seat of a T38 for
> just one flight......just ONE!!!.....I'll buy you both a case of Scotch if
> you let me take him !! :-))

Now that you mention it, we did have Servair begging us to help them
interface new digital gyros to Houston's T-38Ns, but we rejected the work;
as the CCB system is too much overhaed. we offered a Part 25 type change,
but they did not understand.

[[email protected]]

Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>You are correct.
>
>It's AOA, not specifically lower airspeed. They can droop under
>acceleration when a design AOA is reached.
>
>I got so wrapped up in trying to be all-encompassing while not
>grabbing the tar baby that I mis-spoke.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus

A gain of several notches.
--

-Gord.

[Mikko Pietilä]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 20:14:26 GMT, "John R Weiss"
> wrote:

>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote...
>>
>> The Blues bolted 'um shut. Can you imagine what would happen in a tight
>> diamond with an A4 if a wing position got an asymmetrical slat extension
>> with roll induced....say in a barrel roll? Not a pretty thought!! :-))
>
>In over 1700 A-4 hours, I never had an asymmetric slat extension that I could
>not quickly and easily control. After about 1000 hours, few of them were even
>unpredictable...

I wonder if you could try to describe, as well as you can recall, what
exactly happens during an asymmetrical slat extension?

The reason I am asking such an obvious sounding question is that we
recently had a discussion concerning asymmetric slat extension of a
BF-109 in a Finnish newsgroup. While the immediate lay-man's reaction
is that the aircraft would, of course, violently roll away from the
extended slat (=extended slat up), because of the increased lift by
the slat, the situation becomes less obvious the more I think about
it.

Theoretically, from the textbook figure illustrating the effect of
trailing edge flaps and leading edge slats, one could argue that
nothing happens, since slats (unlike flaps) do not increase Lift
Co-efficient (CL) on a given Angle of Attack (AOA) but only increase
the maximum attainable CL. This at least in the case that the net wing
area does not increase when slat extends.

If the wing area increases (as probably is the case with A-4, judging
from the photo I have) as the slat extends, the aircraft would tend to
roll extended slat up. Right?

However, if the geometry is such that the leading edge moves down as
the slat extends, one could argue that the AOA of the profile
decreases causing roll towards the extended slat.

Or, if the slat extension causes a change of pressure distribution
around the aileron (the aileron snatch reported by the British BF-109
test pilots ?) moving the ailerons (probably not on the hydraulic
irreversible(?) control system of the A-4) until the pilot corrects
it, the roll could be either way.

Mikko

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
> >You are correct.
> >
> >It's AOA, not specifically lower airspeed. They can droop under
> >acceleration when a design AOA is reached.
> >
> >I got so wrapped up in trying to be all-encompassing while not
> >grabbing the tar baby that I mis-spoke.
> >
> >
> >Ed Rasimus
>
> A gain of several notches.

And isn't it so much nicer to have a civil professional discussion?

[John R Weiss]

"Mikko Pietilä" > wrote...

>>In over 1700 A-4 hours, I never had an asymmetric slat extension that I could
>>not quickly and easily control. After about 1000 hours, few of them were even
>>unpredictable...
>
> I wonder if you could try to describe, as well as you can recall, what
> exactly happens during an asymmetrical slat extension?

That part is easy -- the airplane rolls toward the side with the unextended (or
less-extended) slat.

The difficulties arise when the slat extension is either at greater than 1 G,
very close to another airplane, and/or in the hands of an unexperienced pilot at
the top of a loop. Higher G causes a higher roll rate. If you're in close
formation and do not correct in time, you might roll into the other airplane.
If you put in the wrong control corrections at low speed (e.g., at the top of a
loop), you may depart, stall, and/or spin the airplane. Most of the training
Command mishaps related to asymmetrical slat extension, with which I am
familiar, were of the latter variety (departure or loss of orientation and
control in "unusual" attitudes).

Normal correction was to simply "pop" the stick slightly to one side, opposite
the roll, and the other slat would extend normally. However, if (due to a poor
preflight) the second slat was sticky enough to not deploy, and the AOA was
maintained high enough to keep the first one all the way out, an unexperienced
pilot could lose control. Otherwise, the airplane was controllable with
asymmetric slats.

.. . .

> If the wing area increases (as probably is the case with A-4, judging
> from the photo I have) as the slat extends, the aircraft would tend to
> roll extended slat up. Right?

Right.

Though the dynamics may be a bit more complicated than apparent from a simple
illustration, the net result of slat extension, in all the airplanes I've flown
that had them, is an increase in lift. Contributing to the increase are:

Increased wing camber
Increased effective wing area
Energized airflow through the slot delays flow separation further back on
the wing


> However, if the geometry is such that the leading edge moves down as
> the slat extends, one could argue that the AOA of the profile
> decreases causing roll towards the extended slat.

Though the apparent AOA may decrease, I suspect the other factors prevail.
Remember that with an aerodynamically-controlled slat, the wing is already at a
relatively high AOA when it deploys. I am not an aerodynamicist, but somebody
else may be able to give some insight into the relative contributions of the
different factors.


> Or, if the slat extension causes a change of pressure distribution
> around the aileron (the aileron snatch reported by the British BF-109
> test pilots ?) moving the ailerons (probably not on the hydraulic
> irreversible(?) control system of the A-4) until the pilot corrects
> it, the roll could be either way.

I'm not familiar with the "aileron snatch" you describe, but I think I can
picture it in my mind. I would guess that has to do with the point at which
flow separation occurs on the wing. If flow is instantly, and asymmetrically,
restored over the aileron, the ailerons may be pulled in that direction, causing
the opposite roll. If this is the case, the AOA at which the slats start to
deploy, and the rate at which they deploy, would likely be adjusted in the
design phase.

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"

>
>And isn't it so much nicer to have a civil professional discussion?
>
>

Yes, real civil, tarver, without you.

<begin quote>

We discussing the complete name of control surfaces, no matter how
heartbraking it is for you to find out just how much of an idiot you are,Dan.

I am impressed that you were not a little turd for this thread, Dan.

<end quote>

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[James Hart]

BackToNormal wrote:
> Tarver Engineering > wrote:
>
>> "Smartace11" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>
>>>> They can and have been actively controlled, by computers, in both
>>>> aircraft and autos.
>
>>> I agree but not in F1 or F! type cars as you said. Rules don't
>>> allow.
>
>> I wrote that there are Formula One type races for cars with computer
>> controlled spoiler flaps..
>
> Nope. You specified "some formula one style racers".
> *******
> That's not the same as "Formula One type races" Tarver.
> *****
> Airflow appendages on F1 cars can not be adjusted during racing. Any
> category allowing such adjustment would not be a F1 style racer.

Wrong.

> Which of the following allow in-race adjustment -- F1, Champcars,
> Indycars, F2000, F3000, F5000, F2, F3, F4, Barber Dodge Pro,
> Formula Ford, Formula Renault, Europa Cup, Formula BMW, Formula
> Holden, Formula Nippon, Formula Nissan, Formula Palmer Audi, Fran-Am
> 1600, Formula Russell, Formula Vee, Star Mazda, Formula F Zetec etc.

Most of those categories can have the aero package adjusted during the race,
some may even do it routinely during a pitstop like Champcars/Indycars and
to a lesser extent F1.

> They are open wheelers (but so is my neighbour's quad bike).
>
> Which of the above are F1 "style" categories?

Generally speaking F1 style categories are slicks and wings with more power
than grip.

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

[BackToNormal]

James Hart > wrote:

> BackToNormal wrote:
> > Tarver Engineering > wrote:
> >
> >> "Smartace11" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> They can and have been actively controlled, by computers, in both
> >>>> aircraft and autos.
> >
> >>> I agree but not in F1 or F! type cars as you said. Rules don't
> >>> allow.
> >
> >> I wrote that there are Formula One type races for cars with computer
> >> controlled spoiler flaps..
> >
> > Nope. You specified "some formula one style racers".
> > *******
> > That's not the same as "Formula One type races" Tarver.
> > *****
> > Airflow appendages on F1 cars can not be adjusted during racing. Any
> > category allowing such adjustment would not be a F1 style racer.

> Wrong.

Nope. You haven't quite followed the thread. Tarver wrote "they
(airflow appendages) can and have been actively controlled, by
computers, in both aircraft and autos". That obviously means while an
aircraft is flying and an auto is racing. I was referring to ON-TRACK
racing, not while the car is stationary in the pits.

> > Which of the following allow in-race adjustment -- F1, Champcars,
> > Indycars, F2000, F3000, F5000, F2, F3, F4, Barber Dodge Pro,
> > Formula Ford, Formula Renault, Europa Cup, Formula BMW, Formula
> > Holden, Formula Nippon, Formula Nissan, Formula Palmer Audi, Fran-Am
> > 1600, Formula Russell, Formula Vee, Star Mazda, Formula F Zetec etc.
>
> Most of those categories can have the aero package adjusted during the race,
> some may even do it routinely during a pitstop like Champcars/Indycars and
> to a lesser extent F1.

See above.

> > They are open wheelers (but so is my neighbour's quad bike).
> >
> > Which of the above are F1 "style" categories?

> Generally speaking F1 style categories are slicks and wings with more power
> than grip.

Huh! F1 cars do NOT have slicks!

ronh


--
"People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine

[James Hart]

BackToNormal wrote:
> James Hart > wrote:
>
>> BackToNormal wrote:
>>> Tarver Engineering > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Smartace11" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They can and have been actively controlled, by computers, in both
>>>>>> aircraft and autos.
>>>
>>>>> I agree but not in F1 or F! type cars as you said. Rules don't
>>>>> allow.
>>>
>>>> I wrote that there are Formula One type races for cars with
>>>> computer controlled spoiler flaps..
>>>
>>> Nope. You specified "some formula one style racers".
>>> *******
>>> That's not the same as "Formula One type races" Tarver.
>>> *****
>>> Airflow appendages on F1 cars can not be adjusted during racing. Any
>>> category allowing such adjustment would not be a F1 style racer.
>
>> Wrong.
>
> Nope. You haven't quite followed the thread.

Yes I have.

Tarver wrote "they
> (airflow appendages) can and have been actively controlled, by
> computers, in both aircraft and autos". That obviously means while an
> aircraft is flying and an auto is racing.

Correct, he did write that and what's more he's right, computer controlled
airflow appendages have been used in auto racing. These days they are mostly
banned though.

> I was referring to ON-TRACK
> racing, not while the car is stationary in the pits.

Then why didn't you state that then? Quote "Airflow appendages on F1 cars
can not be adjusted during racing."
Last I checked the pits are part of racing.

>>> Which of the following allow in-race adjustment -- F1, Champcars,
>>> Indycars, F2000, F3000, F5000, F2, F3, F4, Barber Dodge Pro,
>>> Formula Ford, Formula Renault, Europa Cup, Formula BMW, Formula
>>> Holden, Formula Nippon, Formula Nissan, Formula Palmer Audi, Fran-Am
>>> 1600, Formula Russell, Formula Vee, Star Mazda, Formula F Zetec etc.
>>
>> Most of those categories can have the aero package adjusted during
>> the race, some may even do it routinely during a pitstop like
>> Champcars/Indycars and to a lesser extent F1.
>
> See above.
>
>>> They are open wheelers (but so is my neighbour's quad bike).
>>>
>>> Which of the above are F1 "style" categories?
>
>> Generally speaking F1 style categories are slicks and wings with
>> more power than grip.
>
> Huh! F1 cars do NOT have slicks!

Correct, these days they don't (although the FIA do refer to them as grooved
slicks) but to a casual observer it's easy to decribe something like an
F3000 car as being F1 like rather than NASCAR like.

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

[Pete]

"BackToNormal" > wrote
>
> Huh! F1 cars do NOT have slicks!
>
> ronh

It is being discussed for the future.
http://f1.racing-live.com/en/index.html?http://f1.racing-live.com/en/headlines/news/detail/021205013503.shtml

Pete

[[email protected]]

"John R Weiss" > wrote:

>"Mikko Pietilä" > wrote...
>
>>>In over 1700 A-4 hours, I never had an asymmetric slat extension that I could
>>>not quickly and easily control. After about 1000 hours, few of them were even
>>>unpredictable...
>>
>> I wonder if you could try to describe, as well as you can recall, what
>> exactly happens during an asymmetrical slat extension?
>
>That part is easy -- the airplane rolls toward the side with the unextended (or
>less-extended) slat.
>
>The difficulties arise when the slat extension is either at greater than 1 G,
>very close to another airplane, and/or in the hands of an unexperienced pilot at
>the top of a loop. Higher G causes a higher roll rate. If you're in close
>formation and do not correct in time, you might roll into the other airplane.
>If you put in the wrong control corrections at low speed (e.g., at the top of a
>loop), you may depart, stall, and/or spin the airplane. Most of the training
>Command mishaps related to asymmetrical slat extension, with which I am
>familiar, were of the latter variety (departure or loss of orientation and
>control in "unusual" attitudes).
>
>Normal correction was to simply "pop" the stick slightly to one side, opposite
>the roll, and the other slat would extend normally. However, if (due to a poor
>preflight) the second slat was sticky enough to not deploy, and the AOA was
>maintained high enough to keep the first one all the way out, an unexperienced
>pilot could lose control. Otherwise, the airplane was controllable with
>asymmetric slats.
>
>. . .
>
>> If the wing area increases (as probably is the case with A-4, judging
>> from the photo I have) as the slat extends, the aircraft would tend to
>> roll extended slat up. Right?
>
>Right.
>
>Though the dynamics may be a bit more complicated than apparent from a simple
>illustration, the net result of slat extension, in all the airplanes I've flown
>that had them, is an increase in lift. Contributing to the increase are:
>
> Increased wing camber
> Increased effective wing area
> Energized airflow through the slot delays flow separation further back on
>the wing
>
>
>> However, if the geometry is such that the leading edge moves down as
>> the slat extends, one could argue that the AOA of the profile
>> decreases causing roll towards the extended slat.
>
>Though the apparent AOA may decrease, I suspect the other factors prevail.
>Remember that with an aerodynamically-controlled slat, the wing is already at a
>relatively high AOA when it deploys. I am not an aerodynamicist, but somebody
>else may be able to give some insight into the relative contributions of the
>different factors.
>
>
>> Or, if the slat extension causes a change of pressure distribution
>> around the aileron (the aileron snatch reported by the British BF-109
>> test pilots ?) moving the ailerons (probably not on the hydraulic
>> irreversible(?) control system of the A-4) until the pilot corrects
>> it, the roll could be either way.
>
>I'm not familiar with the "aileron snatch" you describe, but I think I can
>picture it in my mind. I would guess that has to do with the point at which
>flow separation occurs on the wing. If flow is instantly, and asymmetrically,
>restored over the aileron, the ailerons may be pulled in that direction, causing
>the opposite roll. If this is the case, the AOA at which the slats start to
>deploy, and the rate at which they deploy, would likely be adjusted in the
>design phase.
>
>
Very interesting...
--

-Gord.

[Mary Shafer]

On 11 Jan 2004 18:20:04 GMT, (Smartace11) wrote:

> >Lots of autos have spoilers, as they push down on the rear for more rear
> >wheel loading. some formula one style racers have computer controlled
> >spoilers they call "spoiler flaps", so as to differentiate from a fixed
> >spoiler.
>
> Formula One type open wheel cars cars don't have active aerodynamic surfaces
> anywhere, flaps, spoilers, whatever. They are fixed. The fixed surfaces are
> called wings and barge boards. They can be adjusted by the pit crew with tools
> for track conditons. The only thing computer controlled by the computer aside
> from the engine under present FIA rules is the traction system.

NASCAR uses spoilers that pop up when a car or truck is going
backward; these are designed to generate drag, spoil lift, and slow
the vehicle down while encouraging it to stay on the ground.

You can see them when they open; they're just in front of the back
window. They're pretty conspicuous.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Mary Shafer]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:13:00 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

> The Blues bolted 'um shut. Can you imagine what would happen in a tight
> diamond with an A4 if a wing position got an asymmetrical slat extension
> with roll induced....say in a barrel roll? Not a pretty thought!! :-))

Or you could ask Steve what happens when one F-18 slat popped up over
the stops and got stuck, perpendicular to the airflow. Not a pretty
sight at all.

Of course, the O'Hare DC-10 had a slat asymmetry, although that was an
asymmetric retraction of an extended slat. Subsequent simulator
studies showed that, even knowing the problem was asymmetric slats,
the airplane was too low to recover.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Frank Hitlaw]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
> >
> >And isn't it so much nicer to have a civil professional discussion?
> >
> >
>
> Yes, real civil, tarver, without you.
>
> <begin quote>
>
> We discussing the complete name of control surfaces, no matter how
> heartbraking it is for you to find out just how much of an idiot you are,Dan.
>
> I am impressed that you were not a little turd for this thread, Dan.
>
> <end quote>
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired


Dan, Tarver lost me with the fixed spoiler,what purpose would it
serve on an aircraft.It would be pretty silly to have a spoiler fixed
stowed or deployed. Then again you have to consider the source of this
information.I am still looking for section 40 on Boeing aircraft.

Frank M.Hitlaw

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:03:31 -0800, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>Of course, the O'Hare DC-10 had a slat asymmetry, although that was an
>asymmetric retraction of an extended slat. Subsequent simulator
>studies showed that, even knowing the problem was asymmetric slats,
>the airplane was too low to recover.
>
>Mary

If we're talking about the same DC-10 that was lost at O'Hare about 20
years ago, the slat assymetry was caused by the engine and pylon
departing the wing, up and over and in the process taking a chunk of
leading edge with it.

The accident investigation and subsequent simulator trials
demonstrated fairly conclusively that the aircraft was recoverable,
however training to immediately pull up and reduce speed to Vmc was
incorrect. What was needed was the more high performance airplane
practice of "unload for control" in which you (counter-intuitively)
ease off the back pressure possibly all the way to zero G and let
airspeed build to a point where more G is available for the recovery.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On 13 Jan 2004 06:58:46 -0800, (Frank Hitlaw)
wrote:

> Dan, Tarver lost me with the fixed spoiler,what purpose would it
>serve on an aircraft.It would be pretty silly to have a spoiler fixed
>stowed or deployed. Then again you have to consider the source of this
>information.I am still looking for section 40 on Boeing aircraft.
>
> Frank M.Hitlaw

Well, if we take the concept of "spoiler" as a device to destroy lift,
and fixed as being a permanent, unmovable device, then we find
examples on a lot of airliners. Look out the window at the top surface
of the wing at those rows of little (about an inch high and four or
five inches long) vortex generators. They are clearly spoilers of the
smooth, lift-generating surface of the wing and they are fixed. Their
function is to activate and energize the boundary layer and they
actually keep smooth flow attached to the wing upper surface.

Or, maybe we could consider wing fences on highly swept wing aircraft.
They spoil span-wise flow and are definitely fixed.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Mike Marron]

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>> Mary Shafer > wrote:

>>Of course, the O'Hare DC-10 had a slat asymmetry, although that was an
>>asymmetric retraction of an extended slat. Subsequent simulator
>>studies showed that, even knowing the problem was asymmetric slats,
>>the airplane was too low to recover.

>If we're talking about the same DC-10 that was lost at O'Hare about 20
>years ago, the slat assymetry was caused by the engine and pylon
>departing the wing, up and over and in the process taking a chunk of
>leading edge with it.

>The accident investigation and subsequent simulator trials
>demonstrated fairly conclusively that the aircraft was recoverable,
>however training to immediately pull up and reduce speed to Vmc was
>incorrect. What was needed was the more high performance airplane
>practice of "unload for control" in which you (counter-intuitively)
>ease off the back pressure possibly all the way to zero G and let
>airspeed build to a point where more G is available for the recovery.

What you're saying is true (e.g: the crippled DC-10 was indeed
recoverable in SIMULATOR flights) however;

1) During the actual event the stall warning system had been
rendered INOP due to the port engine departing the wing whereas
the stall warning system was functioning normally during the simulator
rides.

2) Although the pilots flying the simulator were able to recover
control after the roll began, these pilots were all aware of the
circumstances of the accident.

3) All participating pilots agreed that based on the accident
circumstances and lack of available warning systems, it was
not reasonable to expect the pilots of Flight 191 either to have
recognized the beginning of the roll as a stall or to recover
from the roll to which the Safety Board concurred.

In other words, unfortunately all those poor folks on American
Airlines Flight 191 back in '79 didn't stand a snowball's chance in
hell of walking away from that one!

[John Mullen]

Mike Marron wrote:
>>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>
>>>Mary Shafer > wrote:
>
>
>>>Of course, the O'Hare DC-10 had a slat asymmetry, although that was an
>>>asymmetric retraction of an extended slat. Subsequent simulator
>>>studies showed that, even knowing the problem was asymmetric slats,
>>>the airplane was too low to recover.
>
>
>>If we're talking about the same DC-10 that was lost at O'Hare about 20
>>years ago, the slat assymetry was caused by the engine and pylon
>>departing the wing, up and over and in the process taking a chunk of
>>leading edge with it.
>
>
>>The accident investigation and subsequent simulator trials
>>demonstrated fairly conclusively that the aircraft was recoverable,
>>however training to immediately pull up and reduce speed to Vmc was
>>incorrect. What was needed was the more high performance airplane
>>practice of "unload for control" in which you (counter-intuitively)
>>ease off the back pressure possibly all the way to zero G and let
>>airspeed build to a point where more G is available for the recovery.
>
>
> What you're saying is true (e.g: the crippled DC-10 was indeed
> recoverable in SIMULATOR flights) however;
>
> 1) During the actual event the stall warning system had been
> rendered INOP due to the port engine departing the wing whereas
> the stall warning system was functioning normally during the simulator
> rides.
>
> 2) Although the pilots flying the simulator were able to recover
> control after the roll began, these pilots were all aware of the
> circumstances of the accident.
>
> 3) All participating pilots agreed that based on the accident
> circumstances and lack of available warning systems, it was
> not reasonable to expect the pilots of Flight 191 either to have
> recognized the beginning of the roll as a stall or to recover
> from the roll to which the Safety Board concurred.
>
> In other words, unfortunately all those poor folks on American
> Airlines Flight 191 back in '79 didn't stand a snowball's chance in
> hell of walking away from that one!
>
>
>
>
>
But hey - they saved a *lot* of time changing the engines that way.

(Wonder if JT was involved in that idea?)

John

[[email protected]]

Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:03:31 -0800, Mary Shafer >
>wrote:
>
>>Of course, the O'Hare DC-10 had a slat asymmetry, although that was an
>>asymmetric retraction of an extended slat. Subsequent simulator
>>studies showed that, even knowing the problem was asymmetric slats,
>>the airplane was too low to recover.
>>
>>Mary
>
>If we're talking about the same DC-10 that was lost at O'Hare about 20
>years ago, the slat assymetry was caused by the engine and pylon
>departing the wing, up and over and in the process taking a chunk of
>leading edge with it.
>
>The accident investigation and subsequent simulator trials
>demonstrated fairly conclusively that the aircraft was recoverable,
>however training to immediately pull up and reduce speed to Vmc was
>incorrect.

But the thinking here is to gain maximum height and this will do
it in a normally configured a/c. That this one *wasn't* normally
configured couldn't be detected due to the 'slat asymmetry
warning' being unpowered because of failure of that busbar.

Had the slat warning worked then he 'wouldn't have pulled up to
Vmc'. So when the cojo followed instructions the port wing
stalled and took them in. They've since changed the dash one to
remove the requirement to climb at Vmc unless there's an urgent
need to.

This poor crew had everything against them, they lost the power
from that engine, they lost it's DC bus, they lost the slat plus
they lost the warning so even though the a/c was flown properly
they lost their lives because four major problems lined up
against them.

> What was needed was the more high performance airplane
>practice of "unload for control" in which you (counter-intuitively)
>ease off the back pressure possibly all the way to zero G and let
>airspeed build to a point where more G is available for the recovery.
>
>
But in the normal(?) case of a DC-10 engine fail there's lot's of
power from the other two so control isn't a problem and you'll
gain more height safety by climbing at Vmc...which was the
thinking then.

Apparently the chances of a wing engine failure plus an
asymmetric slat condition plus the left DC bus failure PLUS a
slat asym. warning failure was a pretty remote possibility.
--

-Gord.

[John Mullen]

wrote:

> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:03:31 -0800, Mary Shafer >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Of course, the O'Hare DC-10 had a slat asymmetry, although that was an
>>>asymmetric retraction of an extended slat. Subsequent simulator
>>>studies showed that, even knowing the problem was asymmetric slats,
>>>the airplane was too low to recover.
>>>
>>>Mary
>>
>>If we're talking about the same DC-10 that was lost at O'Hare about 20
>>years ago, the slat assymetry was caused by the engine and pylon
>>departing the wing, up and over and in the process taking a chunk of
>>leading edge with it.
>>
>>The accident investigation and subsequent simulator trials
>>demonstrated fairly conclusively that the aircraft was recoverable,
>>however training to immediately pull up and reduce speed to Vmc was
>>incorrect.
>
>
> But the thinking here is to gain maximum height and this will do
> it in a normally configured a/c. That this one *wasn't* normally
> configured couldn't be detected due to the 'slat asymmetry
> warning' being unpowered because of failure of that busbar.
>
> Had the slat warning worked then he 'wouldn't have pulled up to
> Vmc'. So when the cojo followed instructions the port wing
> stalled and took them in. They've since changed the dash one to
> remove the requirement to climb at Vmc unless there's an urgent
> need to.
>
> This poor crew had everything against them, they lost the power
> from that engine, they lost it's DC bus, they lost the slat plus
> they lost the warning so even though the a/c was flown properly
> they lost their lives because four major problems lined up
> against them.
>
>
>>What was needed was the more high performance airplane
>>practice of "unload for control" in which you (counter-intuitively)
>>ease off the back pressure possibly all the way to zero G and let
>>airspeed build to a point where more G is available for the recovery.
>>
>>
>
> But in the normal(?) case of a DC-10 engine fail there's lot's of
> power from the other two so control isn't a problem and you'll
> gain more height safety by climbing at Vmc...which was the
> thinking then.
>
> Apparently the chances of a wing engine failure plus an
> asymmetric slat condition plus the left DC bus failure PLUS a
> slat asym. warning failure was a pretty remote possibility.

Or at least was considered as such. In fact all were caused by the same
factor. The engine fell off.

John

[B2431]

>From: (Frank Hitlaw)

<snip>

> Dan, Tarver lost me with the fixed spoiler,what purpose would it
>serve on an aircraft.It would be pretty silly to have a spoiler fixed
>stowed or deployed. Then again you have to consider the source of this
>information.I am still looking for section 40 on Boeing aircraft.
>
> Frank M.Hitlaw
>
It's somewhere between the third and sixth cocktail.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

John Mullen > wrote:

wrote:
>
>>
>> Apparently the chances of a wing engine failure plus an
>> asymmetric slat condition plus the left DC bus failure PLUS a
>> slat asym. warning failure was a pretty remote possibility.
>
>Or at least was considered as such. In fact all were caused by the same
>factor. The engine fell off.
>
>John

Yes indeed, but then almost every aircraft accident is caused by
a string of problems, sometimes connected (as these were)
sometimes not.

Each by themselves usually no big sweat but taken together are
sometimes deadly. Consider this example, remove any one of the
series of four and they'd have recovered.
--

-Gord.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Frank Hitlaw" > wrote in message
om...

>
> Dan, Tarver lost me with the fixed spoiler,what purpose would it
> serve on an aircraft.

I lost you with the full name of any control surface, Frank.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 13 Jan 2004 06:58:46 -0800, (Frank Hitlaw)
> wrote:
>
> > Dan, Tarver lost me with the fixed spoiler,what purpose would it
> >serve on an aircraft.It would be pretty silly to have a spoiler fixed
> >stowed or deployed. Then again you have to consider the source of this
> >information.I am still looking for section 40 on Boeing aircraft.
> >
> > Frank M.Hitlaw
>
> Well, if we take the concept of "spoiler" as a device to destroy lift,
> and fixed as being a permanent, unmovable device, then we find
> examples on a lot of airliners. Look out the window at the top surface
> of the wing at those rows of little (about an inch high and four or
> five inches long) vortex generators. They are clearly spoilers of the
> smooth, lift-generating surface of the wing and they are fixed. Their
> function is to activate and energize the boundary layer and they
> actually keep smooth flow attached to the wing upper surface.
>
> Or, maybe we could consider wing fences on highly swept wing aircraft.
> They spoil span-wise flow and are definitely fixed.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 13 Jan 2004 06:58:46 -0800, (Frank Hitlaw)
> wrote:
>
> > Dan, Tarver lost me with the fixed spoiler,what purpose would it
> >serve on an aircraft.It would be pretty silly to have a spoiler fixed
> >stowed or deployed. Then again you have to consider the source of this
> >information.I am still looking for section 40 on Boeing aircraft.
> >
> > Frank M.Hitlaw
>
> Well, if we take the concept of "spoiler" as a device to destroy lift,
> and fixed as being a permanent, unmovable device, then we find
> examples on a lot of airliners. Look out the window at the top surface
> of the wing at those rows of little (about an inch high and four or
> five inches long) vortex generators. They are clearly spoilers of the
> smooth, lift-generating surface of the wing and they are fixed. Their
> function is to activate and energize the boundary layer and they
> actually keep smooth flow attached to the wing upper surface.
>
> Or, maybe we could consider wing fences on highly swept wing aircraft.
> They spoil span-wise flow and are definitely fixed.

This thread is information rich.

Too bad about the two noise generators.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message

<snip>
> If this is the case, the AOA at which the slats start to
> deploy, and the rate at which they deploy, would likely be adjusted in the
> design phase.

This is really good stuff, Weiss.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> But hey - they saved a *lot* of time changing the engines that way.
>
> (Wonder if JT was involved in that idea?)

The airline improvised their own way of completing a Douglas service
bulletin. It is a fact that the cause of the engine departure was some
dumbass mechanics ignoring Engineering.

The irony of your post is humorous, Mullen.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> Apparently the chances of a wing engine failure plus an
> asymmetric slat condition plus the left DC bus failure PLUS a
> slat asym. warning failure was a pretty remote possibility.

Unless the Airline's mechanics ignore the Manufacturer's engineering, then
it is a certainty.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> Yes indeed, but then almost every aircraft accident is caused by
> a string of problems, sometimes connected (as these were)
> sometimes not.

Death is often the result, when mechanics shun engineering.

The irony of this branch of the thread is wonderful.

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: (Frank Hitlaw)
>
> <snip>
>
> > Dan, Tarver lost me with the fixed spoiler,what purpose would it
> >serve on an aircraft.It would be pretty silly to have a spoiler fixed
> >stowed or deployed. Then again you have to consider the source of this
> >information.I am still looking for section 40 on Boeing aircraft.

> It's somewhere between the third and sixth cocktail.

Why would either of you have a clue how an airplane is constructed?

Do you see the irony of your posts?

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
> >
> >And isn't it so much nicer to have a civil professional discussion?
> >
> >
>
> Yes, real civil, tarver, without you.

More so than you deserve, little troll.