On May 13, 1:40*pm, "JR Weiss"
wrote:
"Douglas Eagleson" wrote...
I am a computer programmer, but like to play with aircraft models. *I
understand aerodynamics and simply point out that playing with models to
identify manuvers that US aircraft CAN NOT do is what real fighter pilots
think about.
Aircraft that dive inverted can out speed all US fighters in this manuever.
Inverted recovery from a stall is possible with canards while rear horizontal
stabilizers can NOT recover.

Obviously, you understand a LOT less about aerodynamics than you think you do!

ANY aircraft can "dive inverted"!

"Inverted recovery from a stall" or recovery from an inverted stall are BOTH
possible with "rear horizontal stabilizers!" *Acrobatic pilots do them all the
time -- including from inverted spins -- *in small airplanes. *Test pilots do
them routinely, and fighter pilot trainees used to do them routinely, in jet
trainers like the US Navy T-2!

The question is not canard vs horizontal stabilizer; it is control authority and
the airplane's negative G capability. *If the horizontal stab and elevator have
sufficient authotiry for inverted maneuvering, and the fuel and oil systems will
continue to supply the engine under negative G, canards are not needed.

So pretend two fighters are in close range dog-fights. *And each select
maneuver that the aircraft can do.
Canards have a different set of selectable maneuvers.

You can continue to pretend, while many of us have actually performed...

Pretend two fighters with canards are in close range dog-fights. *And each
select maneuver that the aircraft can do.

Canard 1 and canard 2 have a "different set of selectable maneuvers." *EACH
AIRPLANE, regardless of design, has a preferred combat envelope. *Again, canard
vs horizontal stab is moot. *If the fight is within a part of the envelope that
is advantageous to the horizontal stab airplane, and its pilot can force the
other airplane to stay in that part of the envelope, he will win.

It is not a matter of anything but debate. *My ability to point out the debate
was challenged. *It should be a lively debate.

You ability to accurately express air combat and aerodynamic concepts was
challenged. *That challenge is obviously valid.

There should be no blinders about different performace realities.

So why do you have them?

I kind of think that US aircraft manufacturers are simply not able to match
technology with overseas canard manufacturers, ergo, no canards.

And you obviously think wrong.



Also I have training in low altitude argiculatural flying also.
. . .
A set of manuevers is all that makes a dogfight.

Here, again, you are sorely wrong, unless you're "dogfighting" with boll
weevils...

The abilities of the pilots to analyze the current situation, dynamically select
maneuvers from the set, modify them as required, execute them at the correct
instant, repeat continuously at intervals of, at most, a few seconds, and bring
appropriate weapons to bear all make a dogfight.



A predicate theory was used to deselect all fighters in general.

Canard stall recover was claimed by me to be intrinsically stable.
Stalling a fighter inverted for the rear stabilizer aircraft was
claimed to be ALWAYS nonrecoverable. This is the point of the debate,
thanks for recognizing it.

So if an experienced fighter pilot says I am wrong on this exact
point, then my ability is challenged. Inverted means real inverted g-
forces. Meaning maybe 12g's.

I claim to know all stabiblity for the rear stabilzer appears bad
under high inverted gs. If I am wrong and you know so, then state my
incorrectness as a fact.

Is that hard?

Also do not forget the difference between fighters and common
aerobatic aircraft. Aerobatic aircraft use propellor power against the
rudder to recover, jet fighters have no ability to do this.

Now a days there is experimentation with thrust vectoring. A problem
with always thinking is that somebody has to go out and test thrust
vector stall recovery. And the answer is obvious. Why does this fail
to assist in stalls for jet fighters? Maybe I am ignorent of modern
thrust vector method, but it seeems to me to make little help.