Flanker vs F-15

[Boomer]

I'm no aerodynamicist but I've been running some numbers and noticed some
interesting things.
The SU-27 is credited with being more manueverable than F-15 and yet F-15
has a higher TTW number (except at gross) and a lower wing loading by a
large margin (again except at gross). The SU should develope more body lift
than Eagle, but at best it looks like a wash at low altitudes, with Eagle
turning better than SU at altitude.
Any thoughts? Am I missing something large here? The Su's lerx's and higher
aspect wing should make a positive differance at low level and low speeds
but I dont think it would make up for the other numbers. Eagle should have a
20% better wing loading and about a 14% better TTW number.

--



Curiosity killed the cat, and I'm gonna find out why!

[John Mullen]

"Boomer" > wrote in message
...
> I'm no aerodynamicist but I've been running some numbers and noticed some
> interesting things.
> The SU-27 is credited with being more manueverable than F-15 and yet F-15
> has a higher TTW number (except at gross) and a lower wing loading by a
> large margin (again except at gross). The SU should develope more body
lift
> than Eagle, but at best it looks like a wash at low altitudes, with Eagle
> turning better than SU at altitude.
> Any thoughts? Am I missing something large here? The Su's lerx's and
higher
> aspect wing should make a positive differance at low level and low speeds
> but I dont think it would make up for the other numbers. Eagle should have
a
> 20% better wing loading and about a 14% better TTW number.

The Su has a pull-through fuction on the fbw ISTR. Might be a factor?

John

[Michael Kelly]

John Mullen wrote:
>
> The Su has a pull-through fuction on the fbw ISTR. Might be a factor?

Probably not since the the F-15C isn't FBW and only has an overload
warning function. You can over G a F-15C.

Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer

>
> John
>
>

[Boomer]

yes Flankers have a switch which over rides the FBW limits, that's the only
way they can do the "Cobra" manuever. As I recall F-15s started out with
hydro controls with FBW as back up, then later models went fully fly by
wire.

--



Curiosity killed the cat, and I'm gonna find out why!
"Michael Kelly" > wrote in message
m...
>
> John Mullen wrote:
> >
> > The Su has a pull-through fuction on the fbw ISTR. Might be a factor?
>
> Probably not since the the F-15C isn't FBW and only has an overload
> warning function. You can over G a F-15C.
>
> Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer
>
> >
> > John
> >
> >
>

[R Haskin]

"Michael Kelly" > wrote in message
m...
>
> John Mullen wrote:
> >
> > The Su has a pull-through fuction on the fbw ISTR. Might be a factor?
>
> Probably not since the the F-15C isn't FBW and only has an overload
> warning function. You can over G a F-15C.
>
> Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer

Actually fly-by-wire aircraft can be over-Gd -- it happens to F-16s all the
time.

The F-15, while not "fully" fly-by-wire, has a primary flight control system
that is FBW (called the CAS, or Control Augmentation System) and a
hydromechanical backup system.

[Jeff Crowell]

R Haskin wrote:
> Actually fly-by-wire aircraft can be over-Gd -- it happens to F-16s all
the
> time.

Yabbut, isn't that a case of a Lawn Dart pulling max G and
then hitting turbulence, etc.?


Jeff

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:44:04 -0600, "Boomer" >
wrote:

> yes Flankers have a switch which over rides the FBW limits, that's the only
> way they can do the "Cobra" manuever. As I recall F-15s started out with
> hydro controls with FBW as back up, then later models went fully fly by
> wire.

The F-15 started as conventional with conventional backup and an
analog FCS. It eventually went to a digital FCS, but not to FBW.

The E might be FBW, but the A-D aren't.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[David E. Powell]

There are two really important questions:

1. What are the other odds? (AWACS, support aircraft, SAM defenses, range to
bases, numbers on each side, etc.)

2. Who are the pilots?

Both of these are quite critical to the equation.

DEP

[Michael Kelly]

R Haskin wrote:
> Actually fly-by-wire aircraft can be over-Gd -- it happens to F-16s all the
> time.

Agreed. The Bone is a 2 channel FBW on one side with a hydromechanical
stability augmented system on the other side. There are no limiters on
the FBW or stability aug so over G's happen all the time. Limiters on
the 16 make it harder to over G but not impossible.

> The F-15, while not "fully" fly-by-wire, has a primary flight control system
> that is FBW (called the CAS, or Control Augmentation System) and a
> hydromechanical backup system.

IIRC my F-15 test pilot former colleague described the F-15C as fully
hydromechanical and the Echo's as you did. BTW saw you the other day on
the history channel. Good interview.

Cheers,
Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer

[Michael Kelly]

Jeff Crowell wrote:

> Yabbut, isn't that a case of a Lawn Dart pulling max G and
> then hitting turbulence, etc.?

I could see too high of an onset rate, or pulling a turn as you
decelerated through the sound barrier. The latter case would be a very
good candidate if pulling a turn close to the limiter because of the
forward shift in the aerodynamic center going from supersonic to subsonic.

>
> Jeff

Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer

[Jeb Hoge]

"David E. Powell" > wrote in message >...
> There are two really important questions:
>
> 1. What are the other odds? (AWACS, support aircraft, SAM defenses, range to
> bases, numbers on each side, etc.)

I wonder how long it would take a fuel-heavy Flanker to dump down to
ACM weight. Doesn't it carry a LOT more internally than an Eagle, at
least for ferry or long range ops?

[Mary Shafer]

On 26 Mar 2004 06:46:06 -0800, (Jeb Hoge) wrote:

> "David E. Powell" > wrote in message >...
> > There are two really important questions:
> >
> > 1. What are the other odds? (AWACS, support aircraft, SAM defenses, range to
> > bases, numbers on each side, etc.)
>
> I wonder how long it would take a fuel-heavy Flanker to dump down to
> ACM weight. Doesn't it carry a LOT more internally than an Eagle, at
> least for ferry or long range ops?

Nope. So far as I know, no Russian fighter carries anything like the
internal fuel a US fighter does. That's because the aircraft weren't
expected to fly long distances because they use ground control.

Actually, it's true of European fighters, too, which is why Australia
and Canada buy US aircraft. Big countries, long legs.

I read this in one of the British aircraft magazines a few years back,
in an article comparing the F-18 with the similar Russian airplane.
At least once and a half as much fuel internal to the Hornet and the
author made the comment that the US had, historically, always carried
more internal fuel in its fighters, citing WW II aircraft numbers as
well.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 05:41:52 -0500, "R Haskin"
> wrote:

>
> "Michael Kelly" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > John Mullen wrote:
> > >
> > > The Su has a pull-through fuction on the fbw ISTR. Might be a factor?
> >
> > Probably not since the the F-15C isn't FBW and only has an overload
> > warning function. You can over G a F-15C.
> >
> > Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer
>
> Actually fly-by-wire aircraft can be over-Gd -- it happens to F-16s all the
> time.
>
> The F-15, while not "fully" fly-by-wire, has a primary flight control system
> that is FBW (called the CAS, or Control Augmentation System) and a
> hydromechanical backup system.

All modern FCSs are electronic, not mechanical or hydraulic, but we
don't consider them to be FBW. We just consider them to be analog or
digital FCSs. However, it's possible to have hydraulic or mechanical
FCSs.

The point is that FBW is strictly between the pilot and the control
surfaces. That's it. Nothing to do with the feedback control in the
flight control system. After all, the SR-71 was summing electric
inputs from the FCS with the push-rod and cable inputs from the pilot
back in the '60s.

You can have FBW without having a feedback control FCS, not that
anyone does, and you can have an FCS without having FBW, which the
F-15 does and the SR-71 did. Or you can have both, which the F-16 and
F-18 do.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 05:41:52 -0500, "R Haskin"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Michael Kelly" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > >
> > > John Mullen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Su has a pull-through fuction on the fbw ISTR. Might be a
factor?
> > >
> > > Probably not since the the F-15C isn't FBW and only has an overload
> > > warning function. You can over G a F-15C.
> > >
> > > Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer
> >
> > Actually fly-by-wire aircraft can be over-Gd -- it happens to F-16s all
the
> > time.
> >
> > The F-15, while not "fully" fly-by-wire, has a primary flight control
system
> > that is FBW (called the CAS, or Control Augmentation System) and a
> > hydromechanical backup system.
>
> All modern FCSs are electronic, not mechanical or hydraulic, but we
> don't consider them to be FBW. We just consider them to be analog or
> digital FCSs. However, it's possible to have hydraulic or mechanical
> FCSs.

The part that makes the system FBW is a distinction between cable tripped
valves, or electric valves. (current, or hydraulic)

> The point is that FBW is strictly between the pilot and the control
> surfaces. That's it. Nothing to do with the feedback control in the
> flight control system. After all, the SR-71 was summing electric
> inputs from the FCS with the push-rod and cable inputs from the pilot
> back in the '60s.

The 747-200 and the DC-10 are termed "hybrid FBW" for having cable driven
hydraulic valves controlled electrically.

> You can have FBW without having a feedback control FCS, not that
> anyone does, and you can have an FCS without having FBW, which the
> F-15 does and the SR-71 did. Or you can have both, which the F-16 and
> F-18 do.

An the Boeing 717.

[Steve]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:44:04 -0600, "Boomer" > wrote:

>yes Flankers have a switch which over rides the FBW limits, that's the only
>way they can do the "Cobra" manuever.

Or you can simply apply an extra 33lb of stick force.


--
Steve.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:44:04 -0600, "Boomer" > wrote:
>
> >yes Flankers have a switch which over rides the FBW limits, that's the
only
> >way they can do the "Cobra" manuever.
>
> Or you can simply apply an extra 33lb of stick force.

That is a lot, the F/A-18 breaks out at 20 lbs.

[Ken Duffey]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Mar 2004 06:46:06 -0800, (Jeb Hoge) wrote:
>
> > "David E. Powell" > wrote in message
>...
> > > There are two really important questions:
> > >
> > > 1. What are the other odds? (AWACS, support aircraft, SAM defenses,
range to
> > > bases, numbers on each side, etc.)
> >
> > I wonder how long it would take a fuel-heavy Flanker to dump down to
> > ACM weight. Doesn't it carry a LOT more internally than an Eagle, at
> > least for ferry or long range ops?
>
> Nope. So far as I know, no Russian fighter carries anything like the
> internal fuel a US fighter does. That's because the aircraft weren't
> expected to fly long distances because they use ground control.
>
> Actually, it's true of European fighters, too, which is why Australia
> and Canada buy US aircraft. Big countries, long legs.
>
> I read this in one of the British aircraft magazines a few years back,
> in an article comparing the F-18 with the similar Russian airplane.
> At least once and a half as much fuel internal to the Hornet and the
> author made the comment that the US had, historically, always carried
> more internal fuel in its fighters, citing WW II aircraft numbers as
> well.
>
> Mary
>
> --
> Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
>

Mary, you are WAY out on this one.

The internal fuel load of a Su-27 Flanker is 9,400kg, on the F-15C it s
5,950kg (or 6,103 depending on source), the F-18 is 4,900kg.

Range without drop tanks is 3,680km for the Su-27, 1,970km for the F-15C &
2,200 for the F-18.

The magazine you quote must have been comparing a MiG-29 (which is short
legged) with the F-18 (which isn't exactly long-legged), but to state that
no Russian
fighter carries anything like the internal fuel of a US fighter is no longer
true.

The Su-27 was designed to patrol the vast skies over Russia - and has the
internal fuel to do so.

Indeed, the Su-27 flown by Anatoly Kvotchur of the 'Test Pilots' display
team, regularly flies non-stop Moscow-UK to attend our airshows - and then
does an aerobatic
display before landing !!!

Ken Duffey

Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:04:59 -0000, "Ken Duffey"
> wrote:

>"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
>> On 26 Mar 2004 06:46:06 -0800, (Jeb Hoge) wrote:
>>
>> > "David E. Powell" > wrote in message
>...
>> > > There are two really important questions:
>> > >
>> > > 1. What are the other odds? (AWACS, support aircraft, SAM defenses,
>range to
>> > > bases, numbers on each side, etc.)
>> >
>> > I wonder how long it would take a fuel-heavy Flanker to dump down to
>> > ACM weight. Doesn't it carry a LOT more internally than an Eagle, at
>> > least for ferry or long range ops?
>>
>> Nope. So far as I know, no Russian fighter carries anything like the
>> internal fuel a US fighter does. That's because the aircraft weren't
>> expected to fly long distances because they use ground control.
>>
>> Actually, it's true of European fighters, too, which is why Australia
>> and Canada buy US aircraft. Big countries, long legs.
>>
>> I read this in one of the British aircraft magazines a few years back,
>> in an article comparing the F-18 with the similar Russian airplane.
>> At least once and a half as much fuel internal to the Hornet and the
>> author made the comment that the US had, historically, always carried
>> more internal fuel in its fighters, citing WW II aircraft numbers as
>> well.
>>
>> Mary
>>
>> --
>> Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
>>
>
>Mary, you are WAY out on this one.
>
>The internal fuel load of a Su-27 Flanker is 9,400kg, on the F-15C it s
>5,950kg (or 6,103 depending on source), the F-18 is 4,900kg.
>
>Range without drop tanks is 3,680km for the Su-27, 1,970km for the F-15C &
>2,200 for the F-18.
>
>The magazine you quote must have been comparing a MiG-29 (which is short
>legged) with the F-18 (which isn't exactly long-legged), but to state that
>no Russian
>fighter carries anything like the internal fuel of a US fighter is no longer
>true.

And while the Foxhound isn't exactly a "fighter" it carries a buttload
of fuel too.

[Ron]

>Mary, you are WAY out on this one.
>
>The internal fuel load of a Su-27 Flanker is 9,400kg, on the F-15C it s
>5,950kg (or 6,103 depending on source), the F-18 is 4,900kg.
>
>Range without drop tanks is 3,680km for the Su-27, 1,970km for the F-15C &
>2,200 for the F-18.

Yeah, I was about to say the same thing.

Su-27 can carry LOTS of fuel.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[Guy Alcala]

Boomer wrote:

> I'm no aerodynamicist but I've been running some numbers and noticed some
> interesting things.
> The SU-27 is credited with being more manueverable than F-15 and yet F-15
> has a higher TTW number (except at gross) and a lower wing loading by a
> large margin (again except at gross). The SU should develope more body lift
> than Eagle, but at best it looks like a wash at low altitudes, with Eagle
> turning better than SU at altitude.
> Any thoughts? Am I missing something large here? The Su's lerx's and higher
> aspect wing should make a positive differance at low level and low speeds
> but I dont think it would make up for the other numbers. Eagle should have a
> 20% better wing loading and about a 14% better TTW number.

My guess would be that in addition to the LERX it's the auto LEF, vs. a fixed
LE, high-camber wing. The latter is lighter, but you'll note that every
maneuverable fighter designed after the F-15 has gone with LEF. McAir's
designers considered LEF, but decided against them on cost/weight grounds, and
maybe on performance grounds in a certain part of the envelope. I've always
wanted to ask whoever made the decision if, given the benefit of hindsight,
they'd have gone the other way.

Guy

[[email protected]]

(Ron) wrote:

>>Mary, you are WAY out on this one.
>>
>>The internal fuel load of a Su-27 Flanker is 9,400kg, on the F-15C it s
>>5,950kg (or 6,103 depending on source), the F-18 is 4,900kg.
>>
>>Range without drop tanks is 3,680km for the Su-27, 1,970km for the F-15C &
>>2,200 for the F-18.
>
>Yeah, I was about to say the same thing.
>
>Su-27 can carry LOTS of fuel.
>
>
>Ron

You don't really expect her to admit her error here do you
boys?...she doesn't 'do' admit error. Just like a couple of years
ago when she stated emphatically that there is no such thing as
'pilot error', there was only 'layout errors' (or some other
foolishness) that misled pilots into making wrong decisions.

I still think some hunk pilot whispered in her little pink shells
--

-Gord.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> (Ron) wrote:
>
> >>Mary, you are WAY out on this one.
> >>
> >>The internal fuel load of a Su-27 Flanker is 9,400kg, on the F-15C it s
> >>5,950kg (or 6,103 depending on source), the F-18 is 4,900kg.
> >>
> >>Range without drop tanks is 3,680km for the Su-27, 1,970km for the F-15C
&
> >>2,200 for the F-18.
> >
> >Yeah, I was about to say the same thing.
> >
> >Su-27 can carry LOTS of fuel.
> >
> >
> >Ron
>
> You don't really expect her to admit her error here do you
> boys?...she doesn't 'do' admit error. Just like a couple of years
> ago when she stated emphatically that there is no such thing as
> 'pilot error', there was only 'layout errors' (or some other
> foolishness) that misled pilots into making wrong decisions.

Hey, the ignorance about transports and pitot tubes in these newsgroups is
the same reason a 757 splashed.

> I still think some hunk pilot whispered in her little pink shells

It was "human factors" politics, back when they were trying to blame the
Cali 757 crash on "layout".

jt

[Mary Shafer]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:04:59 -0000, "Ken Duffey"
> wrote:

> "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message

> > I read this in one of the British aircraft magazines a few years back,
> > in an article comparing the F-18 with the similar Russian airplane.
> > At least once and a half as much fuel internal to the Hornet and the
> > author made the comment that the US had, historically, always carried
> > more internal fuel in its fighters, citing WW II aircraft numbers as
> > well.

> Mary, you are WAY out on this one.

Yes, but only because I believed a seemingly reliable source.

As I was typing the remark about big countries it did cross my mind
that the USSR wasn't exactly small. And that using ground controllers
might not work in the more remote areas.

Oh, well. There's half my quota for the year.

Yes, the Flanker has a lot of internal fuel, more than the F-18 or
F-15. Reports to the contrary are wrong.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:04:59 -0000, "Ken Duffey"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
>
> > > I read this in one of the British aircraft magazines a few years back,
> > > in an article comparing the F-18 with the similar Russian airplane.
> > > At least once and a half as much fuel internal to the Hornet and the
> > > author made the comment that the US had, historically, always carried
> > > more internal fuel in its fighters, citing WW II aircraft numbers as
> > > well.
>
> > Mary, you are WAY out on this one.
>
> Yes, but only because I believed a seemingly reliable source.

Was it some kook troll posting over a fraudulent sig file?

> As I was typing the remark about big countries it did cross my mind
> that the USSR wasn't exactly small. And that using ground controllers
> might not work in the more remote areas.

Really?

> Oh, well. There's half my quota for the year.

LOL

De Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

[[email protected]]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>De Nile is not just a river in Egypt.
>
Yep...and sometimes a cigar *IS* just a cigar!... :)
--

-Gord.

[monkey]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Steve" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:44:04 -0600, "Boomer" > wrote:
> >
> > >yes Flankers have a switch which over rides the FBW limits, that's the
> only
> > >way they can do the "Cobra" manuever.
> >
> > Or you can simply apply an extra 33lb of stick force.
>
> That is a lot, the F/A-18 breaks out at 20 lbs.

Not true - you are confusing this with aoa feedback in the stick above
20 alpha -to get more g than the programmed limiter (usually 7.5) you
must engage the paddle switch, which will then give you 33% more g.

[Tarver Engineering]

"monkey" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Steve" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:44:04 -0600, "Boomer" >
wrote:
> > >
> > > >yes Flankers have a switch which over rides the FBW limits, that's
the
> > only
> > > >way they can do the "Cobra" manuever.
> > >
> > > Or you can simply apply an extra 33lb of stick force.
> >
> > That is a lot, the F/A-18 breaks out at 20 lbs.
>
> Not true - you are confusing this with aoa feedback in the stick above
> 20 alpha -to get more g than the programmed limiter (usually 7.5) you
> must engage the paddle switch, which will then give you 33% more g.

I am refering to the force required to move the stick. My F-18 (AV6) had a
swich on the left panel to cut out the FCS much like the MiG.

[Boomer]

excellent point about the LEF I hadent thought of that.
Does anyone know if these devices help more at high or low altitude?

--



Curiosity killed the cat, and I'm gonna find out why!
"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
.. .
> Boomer wrote:
>
> > I'm no aerodynamicist but I've been running some numbers and noticed
some
> > interesting things.
> > The SU-27 is credited with being more manueverable than F-15 and yet
F-15
> > has a higher TTW number (except at gross) and a lower wing loading by a
> > large margin (again except at gross). The SU should develope more body
lift
> > than Eagle, but at best it looks like a wash at low altitudes, with
Eagle
> > turning better than SU at altitude.
> > Any thoughts? Am I missing something large here? The Su's lerx's and
higher
> > aspect wing should make a positive differance at low level and low
speeds
> > but I dont think it would make up for the other numbers. Eagle should
have a
> > 20% better wing loading and about a 14% better TTW number.
>
> My guess would be that in addition to the LERX it's the auto LEF, vs. a
fixed
> LE, high-camber wing. The latter is lighter, but you'll note that every
> maneuverable fighter designed after the F-15 has gone with LEF. McAir's
> designers considered LEF, but decided against them on cost/weight grounds,
and
> maybe on performance grounds in a certain part of the envelope. I've
always
> wanted to ask whoever made the decision if, given the benefit of
hindsight,
> they'd have gone the other way.
>
> Guy
>

[monkey]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "monkey" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Steve" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:44:04 -0600, "Boomer" >
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >yes Flankers have a switch which over rides the FBW limits, that's
> the
> only
> > > > >way they can do the "Cobra" manuever.
> > > >
> > > > Or you can simply apply an extra 33lb of stick force.
> > >
> > > That is a lot, the F/A-18 breaks out at 20 lbs.
> >
> > Not true - you are confusing this with aoa feedback in the stick above
> > 20 alpha -to get more g than the programmed limiter (usually 7.5) you
> > must engage the paddle switch, which will then give you 33% more g.
>
> I am refering to the force required to move the stick. My F-18 (AV6) had a
> swich on the left panel to cut out the FCS much like the MiG.

move the stick for what?

[Tarver Engineering]

"monkey" > wrote in message
m...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "monkey" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "Steve" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:44:04 -0600, "Boomer" >
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >yes Flankers have a switch which over rides the FBW limits,
that's
> > the
> > only
> > > > > >way they can do the "Cobra" manuever.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or you can simply apply an extra 33lb of stick force.
> > > >
> > > > That is a lot, the F/A-18 breaks out at 20 lbs.
> > >
> > > Not true - you are confusing this with aoa feedback in the stick above
> > > 20 alpha -to get more g than the programmed limiter (usually 7.5) you
> > > must engage the paddle switch, which will then give you 33% more g.
> >
> > I am refering to the force required to move the stick. My F-18 (AV6)
had a
> > swich on the left panel to cut out the FCS much like the MiG.
>
> move the stick for what?

The stick moves to operate the cable actuated system control system.

Do you know the airplane at all, monkey sock?

[monkey]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "monkey" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "monkey" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > "Steve" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:44:04 -0600, "Boomer" >
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >yes Flankers have a switch which over rides the FBW limits,
> that's
> > > the
> > > only
> > > > > > >way they can do the "Cobra" manuever.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Or you can simply apply an extra 33lb of stick force.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is a lot, the F/A-18 breaks out at 20 lbs.
> > > >
> > > > Not true - you are confusing this with aoa feedback in the stick above
> > > > 20 alpha -to get more g than the programmed limiter (usually 7.5) you
> > > > must engage the paddle switch, which will then give you 33% more g.
> > >
> > > I am refering to the force required to move the stick. My F-18 (AV6)
> had a
> > > swich on the left panel to cut out the FCS much like the MiG.
> >
> > move the stick for what?
>
> The stick moves to operate the cable actuated system control system.
>
> Do you know the airplane at all, monkey sock?

I'm actually talking about CAS - the only FCS configuration you would
EVER fight the Hornet in - not DEL or MECH modes.

[Tarver Engineering]

"monkey" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "monkey" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "monkey" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > > "Steve" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:44:04 -0600, "Boomer"
>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >yes Flankers have a switch which over rides the FBW limits,
> > that's
> > > > the
> > > > only
> > > > > > > >way they can do the "Cobra" manuever.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Or you can simply apply an extra 33lb of stick force.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is a lot, the F/A-18 breaks out at 20 lbs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not true - you are confusing this with aoa feedback in the stick
above
> > > > > 20 alpha -to get more g than the programmed limiter (usually 7.5)
you
> > > > > must engage the paddle switch, which will then give you 33% more
g.
> > > >
> > > > I am refering to the force required to move the stick. My F-18
(AV6) had a
> > > > swich on the left panel to cut out the FCS much like the MiG.
> > >
> > > move the stick for what?
> >
> > The stick moves to operate the cable actuated system control system.
> >
> > Do you know the airplane at all, monkey sock?
>
> I'm actually talking about CAS - the only FCS configuration you would
> EVER fight the Hornet in - not DEL or MECH modes.

I take it you never flew the airplane.

[monkey]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "monkey" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "monkey" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > "monkey" > wrote in message
> > > > > om...
> > > > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > > > "Steve" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:44:04 -0600, "Boomer"
> >
> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >yes Flankers have a switch which over rides the FBW limits,
> that's
> > > > > the
> > > > > only
> > > > > > > > >way they can do the "Cobra" manuever.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Or you can simply apply an extra 33lb of stick force.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is a lot, the F/A-18 breaks out at 20 lbs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not true - you are confusing this with aoa feedback in the stick
> above
> > > > > > 20 alpha -to get more g than the programmed limiter (usually 7.5)
> you
> > > > > > must engage the paddle switch, which will then give you 33% more
> g.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am refering to the force required to move the stick. My F-18
> (AV6) had a
> > > > > swich on the left panel to cut out the FCS much like the MiG.
> > > >
> > > > move the stick for what?
> > >
> > > The stick moves to operate the cable actuated system control system.
> > >
> > > Do you know the airplane at all, monkey sock?
> >
> > I'm actually talking about CAS - the only FCS configuration you would
> > EVER fight the Hornet in - not DEL or MECH modes.
>
> I take it you never flew the airplane.

you know what- I' don't need to justify what I've done to some wannabe
clown- if you've flown it you would know that all the DEL modes
(analog, digital, etc)and MECH are backup modes only for when the CAS
system fails. Besides, I'm on this board for entertainment purposes
only - the one I read for real professional discussion, you can't get
on unless you can prove you're a military pilot. I noticed you're not
on it Tarver.

[Tarver Engineering]

"monkey" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "monkey" > wrote in message
> > om...


> > > > The stick moves to operate the cable actuated system control system.
> > > >
> > > > Do you know the airplane at all, monkey sock?
> > >
> > > I'm actually talking about CAS - the only FCS configuration you would
> > > EVER fight the Hornet in - not DEL or MECH modes.
> >
> > I take it you never flew the airplane.
>
> you know what- I' don't need to justify what I've done to some wannabe
> clown- if you've flown it you would know that all the DEL modes
> (analog, digital, etc)and MECH are backup modes only for when the CAS
> system fails.

Or when CAS is switched out. Which is the way an F-18 can do a cobra like a
Flanker.

> Besides, I'm on this board for entertainment purposes
> only - the one I read for real professional discussion, you can't get
> on unless you can prove you're a military pilot. I noticed you're not
> on it Tarver.

I did however design the HARV simulator at NASA and I am well aware of how
an F/A-18 works. (first accurate F/A-18 simulator)

[monkey]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "monkey" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "monkey" > wrote in message
> > > om...
>
>
> > > > > The stick moves to operate the cable actuated system control system.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you know the airplane at all, monkey sock?
> > > >
> > > > I'm actually talking about CAS - the only FCS configuration you would
> > > > EVER fight the Hornet in - not DEL or MECH modes.
> > >
> > > I take it you never flew the airplane.
> >
> > you know what- I' don't need to justify what I've done to some wannabe
> > clown- if you've flown it you would know that all the DEL modes
> > (analog, digital, etc)and MECH are backup modes only for when the CAS
> > system fails.
>
> Or when CAS is switched out. Which is the way an F-18 can do a cobra like a
> Flanker.
>
> > Besides, I'm on this board for entertainment purposes
> > only - the one I read for real professional discussion, you can't get
> > on unless you can prove you're a military pilot. I noticed you're not
> > on it Tarver.
>
> I did however design the HARV simulator at NASA and I am well aware of how
> an F/A-18 works. (first accurate F/A-18 simulator)

OK, now I see where you are coming from - academically. It's taken
awhile for me to see your viewpoint. Operationally, one never uses any
mode except for CAS - there's no need to unless it craps out or you
get battle damage resulting in it. Referring to the checklist, DEL ON,
MECH ON, FCS CAUT, AIL OFF, FC AIR DAT, FCS HOT, FLAPS OFF, FLAP
SCHED, R LIM OFF, RUD OFF are all considered EMERGENCY situations and
are dealt with as such. I guess the test pilot dudes might play around
with that sort of stuff, but never the line guys.

[Tarver Engineering]

"monkey" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "monkey" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "monkey" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> >
> >
> > > > > > The stick moves to operate the cable actuated system control
system.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you know the airplane at all, monkey sock?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm actually talking about CAS - the only FCS configuration you
would
> > > > > EVER fight the Hornet in - not DEL or MECH modes.
> > > >
> > > > I take it you never flew the airplane.
> > >
> > > you know what- I' don't need to justify what I've done to some wannabe
> > > clown- if you've flown it you would know that all the DEL modes
> > > (analog, digital, etc)and MECH are backup modes only for when the CAS
> > > system fails.
> >
> > Or when CAS is switched out. Which is the way an F-18 can do a cobra
like a
> > Flanker.
> >
> > > Besides, I'm on this board for entertainment purposes
> > > only - the one I read for real professional discussion, you can't get
> > > on unless you can prove you're a military pilot. I noticed you're not
> > > on it Tarver.
> >
> > I did however design the HARV simulator at NASA and I am well aware of
how
> > an F/A-18 works. (first accurate F/A-18 simulator)
>
> OK, now I see where you are coming from - academically. It's taken
> awhile for me to see your viewpoint. Operationally, one never uses any
> mode except for CAS - there's no need to unless it craps out or you
> get battle damage resulting in it. Referring to the checklist, DEL ON,
> MECH ON, FCS CAUT, AIL OFF, FC AIR DAT, FCS HOT, FLAPS OFF, FLAP
> SCHED, R LIM OFF, RUD OFF are all considered EMERGENCY situations and
> are dealt with as such. I guess the test pilot dudes might play around
> with that sort of stuff, but never the line guys.

The line guys need to know the emergency procedure of breaking the stick out
in order to be safe. The fact that you are still disputing that seems odd
to me.

[John Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> I take it you never flew the airplane.

....and I take it you never flew an airplane.

[Matthew G. Saroff]

"Ken Duffey" > wrote:

>
>The internal fuel load of a Su-27 Flanker is 9,400kg, on the F-15C it s
>5,950kg (or 6,103 depending on source), the F-18 is 4,900kg.
>
>Range without drop tanks is 3,680km for the Su-27, 1,970km for the F-15C &
>2,200 for the F-18.
>
It should be noted that the Su-27 is G-limited with a
full fuel load. Some of the internal tanks are not designed for
manoeuver when full.


--
--Matthew Saroff

I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page

[Tarver Engineering]

"John Weiss" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > I take it you never flew the airplane.
>
> ...and I take it you never flew an airplane.

I flew the simulator, which puts me ahead of either of you WRT how the
operator inputs work. Monkey was playing a little game and got caught, but
I have never been one to believe pilots know how airplanes work. That would
be silly.

Of course these days the civil side of the system is beginning to drive out
operator ignorance. It is something that should have been done long ago.

[Eunometic]

Mary Shafer > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:04:59 -0000, "Ken Duffey"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
>
> > > I read this in one of the British aircraft magazines a few years back,
> > > in an article comparing the F-18 with the similar Russian airplane.
> > > At least once and a half as much fuel internal to the Hornet and the
> > > author made the comment that the US had, historically, always carried
> > > more internal fuel in its fighters, citing WW II aircraft numbers as
> > > well.
>
> > Mary, you are WAY out on this one.
>
> Yes, but only because I believed a seemingly reliable source.
>
> As I was typing the remark about big countries it did cross my mind
> that the USSR wasn't exactly small. And that using ground controllers
> might not work in the more remote areas.
>
> Oh, well. There's half my quota for the year.
>
> Yes, the Flanker has a lot of internal fuel, more than the F-18 or
> F-15. Reports to the contrary are wrong.
>
> Mary


The F15 has those conformal fastpacks on the sides of the intakes that
effectively raise the fuel level.

[Jeb Hoge]

Matthew G. Saroff > wrote in message >...
> "Ken Duffey" > wrote:
>
> >
> >The internal fuel load of a Su-27 Flanker is 9,400kg, on the F-15C it s
> >5,950kg (or 6,103 depending on source), the F-18 is 4,900kg.
> >
> >Range without drop tanks is 3,680km for the Su-27, 1,970km for the F-15C &
> >2,200 for the F-18.
> >
> It should be noted that the Su-27 is G-limited with a
> full fuel load. Some of the internal tanks are not designed for
> manoeuver when full.

Right, that's what I figured and why I wondered how long it'd take a
Flanker pilot to dump enough gas to get to ACM weight. Why wouldn't
they go with external tanks instead? Was it that important to have
the wings and body clear for ordnance?

[Urban Fredriksson]

In article >,
Jeb Hoge > wrote:

> Why wouldn't
>they go with external tanks instead?

Less drag this way, so longer range.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
1) What is happening will continue to happen
2) Consider the obvious seriously
3) Consider the consequences - Asimov's "Three Laws of Futurics", F&SF, Oct 74

[monkey]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "monkey" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "monkey" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > "monkey" > wrote in message
> > > > > om...
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > The stick moves to operate the cable actuated system control
> system.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you know the airplane at all, monkey sock?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm actually talking about CAS - the only FCS configuration you
> would
> > > > > > EVER fight the Hornet in - not DEL or MECH modes.
> > > > >
> > > > > I take it you never flew the airplane.
> > > >
> > > > you know what- I' don't need to justify what I've done to some wannabe
> > > > clown- if you've flown it you would know that all the DEL modes
> > > > (analog, digital, etc)and MECH are backup modes only for when the CAS
> > > > system fails.
> > >
> > > Or when CAS is switched out. Which is the way an F-18 can do a cobra
> like a
> > > Flanker.
> > >
> > > > Besides, I'm on this board for entertainment purposes
> > > > only - the one I read for real professional discussion, you can't get
> > > > on unless you can prove you're a military pilot. I noticed you're not
> > > > on it Tarver.
> > >
> > > I did however design the HARV simulator at NASA and I am well aware of
> how
> > > an F/A-18 works. (first accurate F/A-18 simulator)
> >
> > OK, now I see where you are coming from - academically. It's taken
> > awhile for me to see your viewpoint. Operationally, one never uses any
> > mode except for CAS - there's no need to unless it craps out or you
> > get battle damage resulting in it. Referring to the checklist, DEL ON,
> > MECH ON, FCS CAUT, AIL OFF, FC AIR DAT, FCS HOT, FLAPS OFF, FLAP
> > SCHED, R LIM OFF, RUD OFF are all considered EMERGENCY situations and
> > are dealt with as such. I guess the test pilot dudes might play around
> > with that sort of stuff, but never the line guys.
>
> The line guys need to know the emergency procedure of breaking the stick out
> in order to be safe. The fact that you are still disputing that seems odd
> to me.
NO. In my air force we have been flying the Hornet for over 20 years.
I can't speak for the USN guys, but our jet does not even have a
switch to turn off CAS - except for FCE 1, 2, 3, 4, CBs. When you talk
about the switch on the "left" there is FCS reset or GAIN ORIDE, which
just controls LEF and TEF. I also took a look in more detail at the
PCL and there is NO emergency in which the system would be disable by
the pilot - it automatically reverts. I'm also not sure about the USN
jet but ours is pretty much alpha unlimited in normal operation. If
you're talking about the g limiter/paddle switch I understand- but i
think you are confusing test bed features with production aircraft.
I'll tell you what, we have a Marine exchange O on our sqn, I will
talk to him tomorrow about their EPs.

[Tarver Engineering]

"monkey" > wrote in message
om...

> NO. In my air force we have been flying the Hornet for over 20 years.
> I can't speak for the USN guys, but our jet does not even have a
> switch to turn off CAS - except for FCE 1, 2, 3, 4, CBs.

That does not mean that CAS can never fail and that alone causes your
training to be unsafe for that case. Unless of course you mean that you do
not fly the hornet and never have. Much like a Turkish 757 pilot with
static port problems thinking the pitot static system is based on pitot
tubes and the airspeed can't be doing what it is; right into the drink.

[monkey]

(Jeb Hoge) wrote in message >...
> Matthew G. Saroff > wrote in message >...
> > "Ken Duffey" > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >The internal fuel load of a Su-27 Flanker is 9,400kg, on the F-15C it s
> > >5,950kg (or 6,103 depending on source), the F-18 is 4,900kg.
> > >
> > >Range without drop tanks is 3,680km for the Su-27, 1,970km for the F-15C &
> > >2,200 for the F-18.
> > >
> > It should be noted that the Su-27 is G-limited with a
> > full fuel load. Some of the internal tanks are not designed for
> > manoeuver when full.
>
> Right, that's what I figured and why I wondered how long it'd take a
> Flanker pilot to dump enough gas to get to ACM weight. Why wouldn't
> they go with external tanks instead? Was it that important to have
> the wings and body clear for ordnance?

i don't think they need to dump down to any acm weight - you can turn
with gas - our f-18s routinely train/fight in a two tank
configuration, but it's the extra drag that kills you flying against a
category 4 bandit with external fuel

[Tarver Engineering]

"monkey" > wrote in message
om...
> (Jeb Hoge) wrote in message
>...
> > Matthew G. Saroff > wrote in message
>...
> > > "Ken Duffey" > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >The internal fuel load of a Su-27 Flanker is 9,400kg, on the F-15C it
s
> > > >5,950kg (or 6,103 depending on source), the F-18 is 4,900kg.
> > > >
> > > >Range without drop tanks is 3,680km for the Su-27, 1,970km for the
F-15C &
> > > >2,200 for the F-18.
> > > >
> > > It should be noted that the Su-27 is G-limited with a
> > > full fuel load. Some of the internal tanks are not designed for
> > > manoeuver when full.
> >
> > Right, that's what I figured and why I wondered how long it'd take a
> > Flanker pilot to dump enough gas to get to ACM weight. Why wouldn't
> > they go with external tanks instead? Was it that important to have
> > the wings and body clear for ordnance?
>
> i don't think they need to dump down to any acm weight - you can turn
> with gas - our f-18s routinely train/fight in a two tank
> configuration, but it's the extra drag that kills you flying against a
> category 4 bandit with external fuel

An electric feedback control system could make Russian fighters quite
attractive to some countries. Poor reliability has been the major
limitation of the Russian fighters since 3rd generation production began. I
expect the long legs would save a lot of money that would otherwise be spent
on tankers.

[monkey]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "monkey" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> > NO. In my air force we have been flying the Hornet for over 20 years.
> > I can't speak for the USN guys, but our jet does not even have a
> > switch to turn off CAS - except for FCE 1, 2, 3, 4, CBs.
>
> That does not mean that CAS can never fail and that alone causes your
> training to be unsafe for that case. Unless of course you mean that you do
> not fly the hornet and never have. Much like a Turkish 757 pilot with
> static port problems thinking the pitot static system is based on pitot
> tubes and the airspeed can't be doing what it is; right into the drink.

you know what dude, I'm tired of you and your pigheaded opinions - I
don't see why you have this need to continually act like an ass and
try to condescend people - I have absolutely NO need to justify myself
to you - I notice that you make a lot of posts, so I guess your "job"
doesn't keep you busy enough. The only reason I can think for your
argumentative nature is this forum helps you out with your "small
rocket' syndrome - see ya, clown.

[Tarver Engineering]

"monkey" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "monkey" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > > NO. In my air force we have been flying the Hornet for over 20 years.
> > > I can't speak for the USN guys, but our jet does not even have a
> > > switch to turn off CAS - except for FCE 1, 2, 3, 4, CBs.
> >
> > That does not mean that CAS can never fail and that alone causes your
> > training to be unsafe for that case. Unless of course you mean that you
do
> > not fly the hornet and never have. Much like a Turkish 757 pilot with
> > static port problems thinking the pitot static system is based on pitot
> > tubes and the airspeed can't be doing what it is; right into the drink.
>
> you know what dude, I'm tired of you and your pigheaded opinions

I did not offer you an opinion, I explained how the F/A-18 stick works in
different FCS modes. If you thought any of what I wrote was opinion, then
you have a deep seated denial that is beyond the scope of these newsgroups
to solve.

> - I
> don't see why you have this need to continually act like an ass and
> try to condescend people - I have absolutely NO need to justify myself
> to you - I notice that you make a lot of posts, so I guess your "job"
> doesn't keep you busy enough.

I am living off royalties right now, but I'll be busier later in the year.
Thank you for your concern.

> The only reason I can think for your
> argumentative nature is this forum helps you out with your "small
> rocket' syndrome - see ya, clown.

You came up and corrected me about something you were wrong about, short
stick. At one time I would have just allowed you to think you are right,
like I used to with Weiss, but these days I know that blowing you out of the
sky is the only way to break through your thick ego.

[monkey]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "John Weiss" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> > >
> > > I take it you never flew the airplane.
> >
> > ...and I take it you never flew an airplane.
>
> I flew the simulator, which puts me ahead of either of you WRT how the
> operator inputs work. Monkey was playing a little game and got caught, but
> I have never been one to believe pilots know how airplanes work. That would
> be silly.
>
> Of course these days the civil side of the system is beginning to drive out
> operator ignorance. It is something that should have been done long ago.

You know what Tarver you are a dick - first of all I'm not playing any
games with you- I am who I say I am - not one of the things I've
posted about the hornet from a pilot perspective has been incorrect
(which by the way I can't say for you) I've yet to see any proof that
you were ever involved with airplanes at all. Oh yeah, by the way,
I've flown all sorts of sims from the old ones to the newest - and i
haven't seen one yet that truly duplicates the experience of flying a
jet, so don't go spewing crap like that - you'll be hard pressed to
find a fighter pilot anywhere who would say that flying a sim is no
substitute for real flying training. You're just going to **** off the
aviators out here because I don't know one who would say he completely
understands the Hornet FCS. But you know what, that's not our job -
ours is to put bombs on target on time, and that keeps us busy enough
without having to learn about stuff we don't need to know to get the
job done. Tarver I don't care what kind of "simulated" stuff you've
done in the sim...I'll be impressed when you strap on a real jet and
take it out on a trip..but by the amount of time you spend on the net
here I'll wager you don't get out of your cubicle enough to experience
the real world. You need to learn that the miltary aviation business
is a team effort...in my line of work not being a team player will get
you booted faster than anything else. You don't see me or any other
drivers spouting insults about support personnel, so perhaps you
should extend the same courtesy to those who operate the equipment you
(supposedly)support. Sorry to everyone else for the rant... I got into
this forum to enjoy discussion about our profession and share some
ideas, not to get involved in stuipd discussions with idiots who have
self esteem problems.

[Tarver Engineering]

"monkey" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "John Weiss" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> > > >
> > > > I take it you never flew the airplane.
> > >
> > > ...and I take it you never flew an airplane.
> >
> > I flew the simulator, which puts me ahead of either of you WRT how the
> > operator inputs work. Monkey was playing a little game and got caught,
but
> > I have never been one to believe pilots know how airplanes work. That
would
> > be silly.
> >
> > Of course these days the civil side of the system is beginning to drive
out
> > operator ignorance. It is something that should have been done long
ago.
>
> You know what Tarver you are a dick - first of all I'm not playing any
> games with you- I am who I say I am - not one of the things I've
> posted about the hornet from a pilot perspective has been incorrect
> (which by the way I can't say for you) I've yet to see any proof that
> you were ever involved with airplanes at all.

You mean other than the fact that I know more about the airplane than you
do. You might want to keep in mind that you have only posted as a sock and
therefore you really have no credibility to question anyone about
credentials.

> Oh yeah, by the way,
> I've flown all sorts of sims from the old ones to the newest - and i
> haven't seen one yet that truly duplicates the experience of flying a
> jet, so don't go spewing crap like that -

You probably never will find a motion based simulator that is substancially
correct to the airplane model. most sims are only third order, while the
F/A-18A-D are an 18th order system.

> you'll be hard pressed to
> find a fighter pilot anywhere who would say that flying a sim is no
> substitute for real flying training.

The FAA, US Military and I agree that a simulator is a substitute for real
flight training. In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
require simulator time as part of training.

> You're just going to **** off the
> aviators out here because I don't know one who would say he completely
> understands the Hornet FCS.

I would expect most Hornet operators have read the Dash 1.

> But you know what, that's not our job -

Well you know what, as a systems engineer it is my job. All those
instruction on how to operate are written by engineers. If you mean to
claim that correcting safety of flight issues is not my job, well you are
just wrong again.

> ours is to put bombs on target on time, and that keeps us busy enough
> without having to learn about stuff we don't need to know to get the
> job done.

Knowing how to input stick information into the machine is something an
F/A-18 pilot does need to know. These days pilots in the comercial world
are going through a new awareness of how they have exchanged urban legends
that are just not true.

> Tarver I don't care what kind of "simulated" stuff you've
> done in the sim...I'll be impressed when you strap on a real jet and
> take it out on a trip..but by the amount of time you spend on the net
> here I'll wager you don't get out of your cubicle enough to experience
> the real world.

I have no real interest in flying an airplane, any more than I would want to
be a bus driver. The fact is that a pilot has a pretty poor quality of life
over their career. It is why they deserve the big bucks, while most of the
industry works at a discount to the rest of the world.

> You need to learn that the miltary aviation business
> is a team effort...in my line of work not being a team player will get
> you booted faster than anything else.

I have been at it for 30 years, but do go on.

> You don't see me or any other
> drivers spouting insults about support personnel,

I see that constantly here at ram.

> so perhaps you
> should extend the same courtesy to those who operate the equipment you
> (supposedly)support.

All letting you think you are correct will do is reduce flight safety, while
causing you to be even more of a prick. There is a consistent patten of
behavior amoung many operators here in the newsgroups and I had to put a
stop to operators acting out; out of respect for some of our less manic
operators.

> Sorry to everyone else for the rant... I got into
> this forum to enjoy discussion about our profession and share some
> ideas, not to get involved in stuipd discussions with idiots who have
> self esteem problems.

I don't have a problem at all, but you might want to have a look in the
mirror.

[John Weiss]

"monkey" > wrote...
>>
>> That does not mean that CAS can never fail and that alone causes your
>> training to be unsafe for that case. Unless of course you mean that you do
>> not fly the hornet and never have. Much like a Turkish 757 pilot with
>> static port problems thinking the pitot static system is based on pitot
>> tubes and the airspeed can't be doing what it is; right into the drink.
>
> you know what dude, I'm tired of you and your pigheaded opinions - I
> don't see why you have this need to continually act like an ass and
> try to condescend people - I have absolutely NO need to justify myself
> to you - I notice that you make a lot of posts, so I guess your "job"
> doesn't keep you busy enough. The only reason I can think for your
> argumentative nature is this forum helps you out with your "small
> rocket' syndrome - see ya, clown.

Bummer... You fell into the tarverbot trap...

You'll find he's not worth getting ****ed off; he claims to know a lot about
airplanes, but every person who's been here a while has discovered the abundance
of BS he spews.

The bottom line is that he gets off on ****ing people off. A good approach is
to ignore him unless you want to debunk one of his spews.

[John Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
>
> The FAA, US Military and I agree that a simulator is a substitute for real
> flight training. In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
> require simulator time as part of training.

....which displays your ignorance of the subject.

There is NO simulator requirement as part of training for any FAA pilot
certificate short of the ATP. Simulator training is ALLOWED, but not required.


> Well you know what, as a systems engineer it is my job. All those
> instruction on how to operate are written by engineers.

Nope. You are wrong again.

Many of the instruction[s] and procedures in Dash-1s, NATOPS, and FHBs are
written by non-engineers.

[B2431]

>From: "John Weiss"

>
>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>>
>>
>> The FAA, US Military and I agree that a simulator is a substitute for real
>> flight training. In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
>> require simulator time as part of training.
>
>...which displays your ignorance of the subject.
>
>There is NO simulator requirement as part of training for any FAA pilot
>certificate short of the ATP. Simulator training is ALLOWED, but not
>required.
>
>
>> Well you know what, as a systems engineer it is my job. All those
>> instruction on how to operate are written by engineers.
>
>Nope. You are wrong again.
>
>Many of the instruction[s] and procedures in Dash-1s, NATOPS, and FHBs are
>written by non-engineers.

Good thing too, can you imagine a procedure written by tarver? It would be an
asset to the enemy.

Actually tech writers translate engineerese into a known language.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"John Weiss" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> >
> > The FAA, US Military and I agree that a simulator is a substitute for
real
> > flight training. In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
> > require simulator time as part of training.
>
> ...which displays your ignorance of the subject.
>
> There is NO simulator requirement as part of training for any FAA pilot
> certificate short of the ATP. Simulator training is ALLOWED, but not
required.

Do you like this better?

In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
require simulator time as part of *military* training.

Allowed refutes the monkey sock's cluelessness too, Johnny.

[monkey]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "John Weiss" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> > >
> > >
> > > The FAA, US Military and I agree that a simulator is a substitute for
> real
> > > flight training. In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
> > > require simulator time as part of training.
> >
> > ...which displays your ignorance of the subject.
> >
> > There is NO simulator requirement as part of training for any FAA pilot
> > certificate short of the ATP. Simulator training is ALLOWED, but not
> required.
>
> Do you like this better?
>
> In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
> require simulator time as part of *military* training.
>
> Allowed refutes the monkey sock's cluelessness too, Johnny.
I wouldn't speak for the US Military or the FAA if I were you Tarver.
You're so full of crap. NO military would ever admit that sims are a
substitute for flying - what they are are nice complements to a flying
program, great for procedures and emergency practice. I totally
understand your perspective though-it's basically identical to that of
every geek I've met who have bags of hours in the sim but have never
flown in a real jet, and as a result have no perspective on the
limitations of a sim. Let's face it Tarver - if you've got no time on
the pole of a real airplane your perspective is going to be a little
lacking. I'm tired of your constant rhetoric and insults to team
minded aviation professionals - I don't really care about what you say
about me - I'm a relatively new military pilot (just under 2000
hours)so i'm used to taking criticism, but I know a LOT of experienced
guys who would kick your ass over your ****ty attitude. You as a
support person need to remember you're working FOR the guys flying
these airplanes in war. If you can't deal with their opinions maybe
you shoule be doing something else. So you've flown a sim around a
bit. So what. So have I and to be honest I find that boring and
unrepresentative of real aircraft performance.If these sims you are
talking about are so great, screw it - let's just get rid of all of
the flying except for in war. Oh wait, no, lets clone a bunch of
tarvers, then we won't even need pilots at all - Bottom line- air
forces are run by military people like some of the brothers on this
forum. More specifically they are run by officers and pilots like me.
So, everyone, no matter who Tarver thinks he is, rest assured that he
is NOT making policy decisions for the military - he is just another
contractor providing services for us. So Tarver, thanks for your
insight...but how about you stick to your sims and let the military
people do the flying. Sorry if you take offense to this, but I'm sure
that I'll hear about it anyway from my boss thru CINCNORAD about my
negative attitude on this forum, since from the way you talk you must
be pretty tight with military policy makers. Actually isn't it you who
makes defense policy?I didn't think so. Keep up the good work...
contractor. Hopefully I'll get to fly one of your sims soon. Unless
the companies find a better company to do their work, which will
probably happen sooner rather than later if you keep trying to do
everyone else's job but your own.

[Tarver Engineering]

"monkey" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message

> > Allowed refutes the monkey sock's cluelessness too, Johnny.

> I wouldn't speak for the US Military or the FAA if I were you Tarver.

Why is that?

Anyway, before monkey sock so rudely interupted, I was discussing the 20#
stick breakout for the F/A-18. Something anyone who ever flew the airplane
would know as part of their training. I suspect "an additional 33#" of
stick force added to the regular pull of the SU 27 directly into one's
crotch would be less than fun. I'd go with flicking the switch.

<snip of monkey offering additional proof that he is no pilot>

[John Mullen]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "monkey" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>
> > > Allowed refutes the monkey sock's cluelessness too, Johnny.
>
> > I wouldn't speak for the US Military or the FAA if I were you Tarver.
>
> Why is that?
>
> Anyway, before monkey sock so rudely interupted, I was discussing the 20#
> stick breakout for the F/A-18. Something anyone who ever flew the
airplane
> would know as part of their training. I suspect "an additional 33#" of
> stick force added to the regular pull of the SU 27 directly into one's
> crotch would be less than fun. I'd go with flicking the switch.

Fair point. Don't you think in combat, the pull-through might be more actual
use?

John

[Tarver Engineering]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "monkey" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >
> > > > Allowed refutes the monkey sock's cluelessness too, Johnny.
> >
> > > I wouldn't speak for the US Military or the FAA if I were you Tarver.
> >
> > Why is that?
> >
> > Anyway, before monkey sock so rudely interupted, I was discussing the
20#
> > stick breakout for the F/A-18. Something anyone who ever flew the
airplane
> > would know as part of their training. I suspect "an additional 33#" of
> > stick force added to the regular pull of the SU 27 directly into one's
> > crotch would be less than fun. I'd go with flicking the switch.
>
> Fair point. Don't you think in combat, the pull-through might be more
actual
> use?

I don't believe the cobra is a viable combat manouver, but I suppose the use
of the pull through might be useful where the operator is scared ****less.
I expect that during a dog fight where your competetor is colsing for a shot
fear would be part of the equation.

[Mike Williamson]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

>>>The FAA, US Military and I agree that a simulator is a substitute for
>>
> real
>
>>>flight training. In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
>>>require simulator time as part of training.
>>
>>...which displays your ignorance of the subject.
>>
>>There is NO simulator requirement as part of training for any FAA pilot
>>certificate short of the ATP. Simulator training is ALLOWED, but not
>
> required.
>
> Do you like this better?
>
> In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
> require simulator time as part of *military* training.
>
> Allowed refutes the monkey sock's cluelessness too, Johnny.


Well, there is the U.S. Air Force- Sheppard AFB, as I recall, has
no simulators and manages to graduate a fair number of pilots who
have no simulator time. (They do have Partial Task trainers, I
believe).

Mike

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Williamson" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> >>>The FAA, US Military and I agree that a simulator is a substitute for
> >>
> > real
> >
> >>>flight training. In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
> >>>require simulator time as part of training.
> >>
> >>...which displays your ignorance of the subject.
> >>
> >>There is NO simulator requirement as part of training for any FAA pilot
> >>certificate short of the ATP. Simulator training is ALLOWED, but not
> >
> > required.
> >
> > Do you like this better?
> >
> > In fact I have no knowlege of anywhere that would not
> > require simulator time as part of *military* training.
> >
> > Allowed refutes the monkey sock's cluelessness too, Johnny.
>
>
> Well, there is the U.S. Air Force- Sheppard AFB, as I recall, has
> no simulators and manages to graduate a fair number of pilots who
> have no simulator time. (They do have Partial Task trainers, I
> believe).

Sounds like a simulator to me.

How are you, Mike?

[Mike Williamson]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

>
>
> Sounds like a simulator to me.
>
> How are you, Mike?
>
>

Moved into a new house the beginning of this month- still trying to
get everything working and all the stuff unpacked. So I'm busy,
with a possible trip to Little Rock in May for instructor school.

The PTTs, IIRC, are just wooden mockups without any moving parts, btw.
They use them to teach switch positions and let the students get
familiar with the checklists, but they don't actually do anything. I
don't believe that they've got anything more sophisticated in the
way of actual (movement, vis, guages that do anything) simulators
there. That makes Sheppard's training syllabus very different from
that at the other bases- not to mention the multinational staff and
student population.

Mike

[monkey]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "monkey" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>
> > > Allowed refutes the monkey sock's cluelessness too, Johnny.
>
> > I wouldn't speak for the US Military or the FAA if I were you Tarver.
>
> Why is that?
>
> Anyway, before monkey sock so rudely interupted, I was discussing the 20#
> stick breakout for the F/A-18. Something anyone who ever flew the airplane
> would know as part of their training. I suspect "an additional 33#" of
> stick force added to the regular pull of the SU 27 directly into one's
> crotch would be less than fun. I'd go with flicking the switch.
>
> <snip of monkey offering additional proof that he is no pilot>
if you are talking about pulling harder to override aoa/g limits, the
canadian cf-18 does not have that feature.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Williamson" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Sounds like a simulator to me.
> >
> > How are you, Mike?
> >
> >
>
> Moved into a new house the beginning of this month- still trying to
> get everything working and all the stuff unpacked. So I'm busy,
> with a possible trip to Little Rock in May for instructor school.

I have the best blloms on my apple tree this year that I have ever had. The
Granny smith is almost solid white with flowers. I am going to try and grow
Indian tobacco this year, the yellow rose of Alabama.

> The PTTs, IIRC, are just wooden mockups without any moving parts, btw.
> They use them to teach switch positions and let the students get
> familiar with the checklists, but they don't actually do anything. I
> don't believe that they've got anything more sophisticated in the
> way of actual (movement, vis, guages that do anything) simulators
> there. That makes Sheppard's training syllabus very different from
> that at the other bases- not to mention the multinational staff and
> student population.

That is different from what I am used to.

[Ron]

>The PTTs, IIRC, are just wooden mockups without any moving parts, btw.
>They use them to teach switch positions and let the students get
>familiar with the checklists, but they don't actually do anything. I
>don't believe that they've got anything more sophisticated in the
>way of actual (movement, vis, guages that do anything) simulators
>there. That makes Sheppard's training syllabus very different from
>that at the other bases- not to mention the multinational staff and
>student population.
>
>Mike
>

Did they get rid of their IFR link trainers? They had those last I saw for IFR
practice, and was a fully functional cockpit, just no kind of visual display.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[Mike Williamson]

Ron wrote:

>
> Did they get rid of their IFR link trainers? They had those last I saw for IFR
> practice, and was a fully functional cockpit, just no kind of visual display.
>
>
> Ron
> Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
>

Hadn't heard of any functional simulators there- guess I'll have
to check into it- I may be able to find a ENJJPT grad somewhere and
get a more definitive answer.

Mike

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Williamson" > wrote in message
...
> Ron wrote:
>
> >
> > Did they get rid of their IFR link trainers? They had those last I saw
for IFR
> > practice, and was a fully functional cockpit, just no kind of visual
display.
> >
> >
> > Ron
> > Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
> >
>
> Hadn't heard of any functional simulators there- guess I'll have
> to check into it- I may be able to find a ENJJPT grad somewhere and
> get a more definitive answer.

Then you may have been posting out of turn, Mike.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 05:24:55 GMT, Michael Kelly
> wrote:

>R Haskin wrote:
>> Actually fly-by-wire aircraft can be over-Gd -- it happens to F-16s all the
>> time.
>
>Agreed. The Bone is a 2 channel FBW on one side with a hydromechanical
>stability augmented system on the other side. There are no limiters on
>the FBW or stability aug so over G's happen all the time. Limiters on
>the 16 make it harder to over G but not impossible.
>
>> The F-15, while not "fully" fly-by-wire, has a primary flight control system
>> that is FBW (called the CAS, or Control Augmentation System) and a
>> hydromechanical backup system.
>
>IIRC my F-15 test pilot former colleague described the F-15C as fully
>hydromechanical and the Echo's as you did. BTW saw you the other day on
>the history channel. Good interview.
>
>Cheers,
>Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer



WTF????? I have no idea why this is showing up as me typing it.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...

> WTF????? I have no idea why this is showing up as me typing it.

Perhaps when your tinfoil hat falls off you become a different person.