On May 9, 3:27*pm, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
On May 9, 2:45*pm, Ed Rasimus wrote:





On Fri, 9 May 2008 13:48:55 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson

wrote:

This is a true canard design and as such it has a fundamental
superiority built in. *As a canard is rolled inverted it has a basic
stall capacity to recover the failed descent.

You mean that you can exceed 90 degrees of bank and roll all the way
inverted without the lifties falling off the wing? How does it know
it's inverted?

A roll to a dive is a safe and highly envelope extending ability over
the USA jets.

You mean USA jets can't roll into a dive?

It can literally out speed all USA jets as it goes to the deck.

Speed is speed. Up, down or level.

And in dogfights where unknown missles are the issue, the deck is
where the safe place is. *A good pilot could shred the YF-22 in this
maneuver.

And what will happen when someone invents a doppler radar that doesn't
see ground clutter?

Did you get this stuff out of a comic book?

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"www.thunderchief.org

A forward mass to be the angle altered by the horizontal stabilizer
will lead the change to angle of attack always while the aircraft
appears to be flying.

WWWWWWCGWWW * * * WWW

WWW is the canard winglet.

The forward CG allows all maneuvers to be recoverable. It pitches INTO
the direction of stall always.

And an inverted maneuver follows a similiar ability, but other
aircraft can NOT match the manuever. All horizontal stability alllows
a fundamentally unstable design. *If you stall, then it is
recoverable.

If you can not do the two maneuvers stated, in a F-16 or F-22 you will
never beat the Griphen. The russian mig-30 that literally stops in mid
flight and recovers, is another example. A forward canard allows this.

It is a critical failure of US technology.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I meant a mig-35 with its true canard. It needs to be addressed
because USA designers fail to understand the lack of certain maneuver
capability in combat.

It should not be hard to test the two. And then add the manuever the
uSA designs can nOT perform.