The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

"Dan" wrote in message
...
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
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.


I wonder if this guy has ever had a coherent thought. He's as bad as
cobb.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

It's a bot - killfile it.

On Tue, 13 May 2008 13:39:03 -0700, "Mike Kanze"
wrote:

I was simply raising the question that even when csar is being mounted
leaving the wingman may be the best course

It doesn't take long to run low on fuel. Then you have to leave or
else.

Casady

"Roger Conroy" wrote:

Jy's reg - ek gaan nou...
Groete uit die koue Karoo.

Waar? I can remember a very bitter weekend in June/July spent chasing
a bunch of army candidate officers about between Ceres and Sutherland.
With only military issue sleeping bags and rum to keep us warm. Cold!
Your skin was left on the rifle when you took your hand off the damned
thing. Us four navy terrorists spent one night in sort of a layby -
with those concrete picnic tables. The place was rat-infested and we
passed the time shooting at the things with the LAR - ****ed out of
our minds on rum. How we did not kill ourselves is still a mystery
because the ricochets were zooming about like anything.

Eugene L Griessel

Cannot find REALITY.SYS. Universe halted.

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

On May 9, 1:28*pm, Mike wrote:
The Weekly Standard

The Swedish Model
How to build a jet fighter.
by Reuben F. Johnson
04/30/2008 11:45:00 PM

Linköping, Sweden
ON WEDNESDAY APRIL 23, Sweden's Saab Aerospace rolled out what may
become the fighter aircraft that sets the standard for the future of
the military aerospace business. What Saab is calling the "Next-
Generation Gripen"
(Gripen N/G for short), is a substantially modernized version of its
JAS-39C/D model, the fighter currently in service or in the process of
being delivered to the air forces of Sweden, Hungary, the Czech
Republic, South Africa, and Thailand.

As fighter aircraft go, the Gripen does not have the look of a super-
stealthy, new-age marvel like the two most recent Lockheed Martin (LM)
platforms--the F-22A Raptor or the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF). The new Gripen N/G will also not feature an entire bevy
of brand-new, designed-from scratch on-board systems, although there
are some 3,500 new components that are part of the aircraft's
configuration.

The notable changes to the JAS-39 in its new incarnation are the
replacement of its single Volvo RM-12 engine with one General Electric
F414G, a variant of the same engine used as a two-power plant
propulsion system on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet--a 25 per cent
increase in thrust. The airplane also will have a new active
electronically scanning array (AESA) radar set, a technology that has
now become a more or less standard requirement for any new fighter
aircraft. (This new radar will feature a Saab Microwave Systems
PS-05 design on the back end of the radar set, with a Thales active
array similar to that used on the Dassault Rafale fighter's RBE2 radar
on the front end.)

But the change that has perhaps the biggest impact on the Gripen's
performance has nothing to do with high-technology weaponry or
sensors. The landing gear have been displaced from the undercarriage
to the main wing pylons. This frees up a large space in the center
fuselage section of the aircraft and provides room for additional fuel
tanks. This gives the new Gripen and unrefueled range of 2,200
nautical miles, 500 more than the unrefueled range of the F-16.

What is remarkable about this Swedish product is that despite being
produced in rather modest numbers--and then add in the high rates of
taxation and super-expensive Scandinavian welfare state in which the
plane will be produced--this jet will still end up costing less than
half of the price of a Joint Strike Fighter, perhaps as little as one-
third. Moreover, customers of the Gripen are going to have full access
to the aircraft's software source code and will be able to make their
own modifications and integration of weapon systems.

But, the most interesting fact about the Gripen is what it says about
the fallacy upon which most modern-day military aircraft programs are
based.

There are about six fighter jets in the world that could be classified
as "new-generation designs." The Gripen, France's Dassault Rafale, the
F-22A and F-35, Russia's Sukhoi Su-35 Super Flanker, and the four-
nation consortium (UK, Germany, Italy, and Spain) Eurofighter Typhoon.
(A sixth player that can in some respects be considered a new model is
Russia's modernised version of the Mikoyan MiG-29, which is designate
the "MiG-35,"
although it retains almost the same basic platform as the MiG-29 it
does contain an AESA and a host of other new systems in it its
configuration.)

Of these six aircraft, three of them are designed and built by several
companies or several nations cooperating together. The F-22A is a
joint program between LM and Boeing, with several subsystem
contractors also on board as major partners. The Eurofighter is
largely a product of the aerospace industries of the four original
partner nations. The F-35 is the biggest cooperative program of them
all, pulling in the aerospace firms of the United States and the
United Kingdom, plus industrial partners from many of the other
nations that are also part of the program.

Military airplane programs that are produced by these "teams" of
companies are structured this way because--as the rationale goes--it
is "too expensive for one company or one country to go it alone."
Sharing the costs of designing, testing, building, and validating new
technologies--and giving each country or company that part of the
program where they have a competitive advantage--is supposed to make
these airplanes cheaper to procure for all of the participants.

Except that just the opposite has occurred. The F-35, a single-engine
stealthy aircraft, is projected by a recent report from the U.S.
Government Accounting Office to cost in the neighbourhood of $130
million per copy.
This is a program that, when it was developed, was specifically
designed to be "cheap," as in around $35-40 million per copy, and that
the designers were to make maximum use of commercial-off-the-shelf
(COTS) components in order to achieve that efficiency. So, why does it
end up costing more than three times one of the aircraft it is
supposed to replace-- the F-16--and almost three times the price of
the Gripen? (Not surprisingly, some of the JSF partner nations--namely
Norway--are now talking about bolting from the program in favor of a
Gripen purchase instead.)

The Eurofighter, partially thanks the catastrophic drop in value of
the U.S.
dollar against the Euro (and if you live in Europe as I do and try to
buy groceries and gas with dollars, "catastrophic" might not even be a
strong enough description for the situation), is now well over US $100
million. It suffers from the fact that it was organised and planned
primarily as "welfare for European aerospace and high-tech
industries," as one UK-based analyst described it, "and as a program
to produce a fighter as a secondary consideration."

The economies of scale that the Eurofighter was supposed to benefit
from as a result of being built by a "team" of companies never
materialised. Instead multiple redundancies were created that only
added to the bottom line and caused the progress of the program to
move forward at what seemed like a snail's pace at times. "Don't tell
anyone I ever told you this," said a frustrated Eurofighter test pilot
to me during a private chat at the Le Bourget air show almost a decade
ago, "but there are no efficiencies achieved in this program by having
four separate flight test centres--one in each of the partner
nations." The Eurofigther also has production lines in each of the
four nations, plus ground test facilities, etc.

(Having had the experience of the Eurofighter has not caused European
industry to rethink the viability of this model very much. The new-age
European military transport, the Airbus A400M, will be built in only
one factory instead of four, the CASA/EADS factory in Sevilla, Spain,
but the costs of the program are still expected to make it the most
expensive aircraft of its kind ever built.)

F-22A tops them all, however. The program's development has been long
and expensive. Admittedly, several technologies were pioneered and
matured by the process of designing and testing the F-22A. Many of
these technologies--now that F-22A has "paid the freight"--can be
dialled into numerous other future programs. But, when these
development costs are amortised over the production run of the Raptor,
the aircraft comes in at a whopping US $390 million per unit.

Surprisingly, the three aircraft that are built by one company in one
country--a feat that we have been told for more than 20 years is "no
longer affordable"--all cost well under $100 million. These are the
Gripen, the Rafale, and the Su-35. All of them contain the latest in
on-board systems technology, but they have been designed with stealthy
airframe shaping being far less important and with more reliance on
electronic warfare as a means of keeping them survivable in the air
combat or air defence environment.

There is something to be said for the fact that the emphasis on a
stealthy, low radar cross section (RCS) aircraft shape does a lot to
increase the costs of the F-22A and F-35, and that this is a
technology that is the competitive advantage that the United States
has over its adversaries. What is sobering to realize, however, is
that the one U.S. aircraft that was built with RCS being its primary--
in fact, perhaps its only--consideration was just retired this week
after one of the shortest service lifespans in the modern jet age: the
Lockheed Skunk Works F-117A Stealth Fighter.

The F-117A is now regarded as "old" technology where its RCS reduction
methods are concerned and no longer as effective ("its survivability
has been eroded" is the operative term) as it once was. Its missions
will be taken over by other more modern stealthy aircraft, such as the
F-35. One has to ask the question, though, given the significant
advances by Russia, China, and other nations in counter-stealth
methods and air defence, will the ultra-expensive F-22 and F-35 face
similarly truncated service lives?

(The fact that the F-117A design is said to be outmoded and made
obsolete by these newer model fighters did not keep the US Air Force
from continuing to engage in needlessly silly security arrangements.
The world's most famous and experienced air-to-air aircraft
photographer, Katsuhiko Tokunaga of Japan, was barred from the
retirement ceremony on the grounds that "no foreigners at all are
allowed." This despite the fact that he has flown more than 1,000
hours in the rear seats of almost all U.S. fighters and has completed
some of the most extensive air-to-air photography of the--supposedly--
much more advanced F-22A.)

On Monday the Indian Ministry of Defence accepted bids from six U.S.
and foreign competitors for the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (M-
MRCA) program. The $10 billion-plus program is the PowerBall lotto of
fighter aircraft sales and will be the largest procurement of a
military aircraft by a export customer in more than three decades.

The JAS-39, ...

read more »

this link might work, it is an old nasa revioew of the canard issue.

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache...1987013196.pdf


If you cannot tumble your aircraft you are dead.

A major reason for canard designs to be unacceptable was the tumble
characteristic. “The best place for canards is on your enemy’s
aircraft” is a rumored quote of an American General.

A tumble is allowed by a high angle of attack. A real maneuver. A
turn with a high speed stall can tumble canards they claim.

Why is this a surprise, because it means the angle of attack, AOA, was
real high. So canards can fly at real high AOA.

So larger tumbles means better fighters.

Somebody at NASA is an idiot. Just use a larger vertical stabilizer
so you can tumble ok.

Because USA fighters are tumble free, they loose.

Somebody in this review article cites the Wright Brothers. It is
disgusting.

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote...

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

Actually, not. You selected a generic "canard" fighter and a generic
"horizontal stabilizer" fighter. You then provided specific claims for each of
them. THEN you applied the claims to "canard vs horizontal stab" 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.

The theory as a general theory is flawed. "Canard stall recover" is
"intrinsically stable" (understood as "inherently achievable") ONLY because
current canard designs are such that the canard stalls before the main wing.
hence, the wing is still flying when the canard loses lift, and the nose will
drop and place the canard in a flying AOA again.


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.

You are wrong.

No current airplane is designed to withstand -12g. No human pilot can function
under -12g!


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?

No; it's easy.

An airplane with a rear horizontal stabilizer can easily be designed to function
under high + or -g. It is a matter of specific design parameters, not inherent
physical or aerodynamic law.

An airplane that has a profile symmetric about the lateral plane behaves the
same whether upright or inverted. Today, such an airplane COULD be designed and
flown, with stability provided by computer-controlled surfaces. It would not
"know" whether G was + or -, except for some artificial reference provided to
the computers. Its stability and maneuverability would be exactly the same
under "+" or "-" g. ONLY the pilot would be subject to the artificial
limitation of + or - g.


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.

Again, it is a SPECIFIC design problem, not an inherent design flaw. Both prop
and jet airplanes are built in canard and horizontal stab configurations. All 4
permutations are viable. All 4 come in a wide variety of specific designs. All
4 have their advantages and disadvantages, proponents and detractors. NONE of
them is inherently unsuitable for high-g maneuvering!


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.

Post the citations for such failed tests, and maybe we'll be able to help you
figure out the problem -- which may be simply that you are again trying to posit
a general theory from a specific design fault!

On May 13, 4:29*pm, "JR Weiss"
wrote:
"Douglas Eagleson" wrote...
A predicate theory was used to deselect all fighters in general.

Actually, not. *You selected a generic "canard" fighter and a generic
"horizontal stabilizer" fighter. *You then provided specific claims for each of
them. *THEN you applied the claims to "canard vs horizontal stab" 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.

The theory as a general theory is flawed. *"Canard stall recover" is
"intrinsically stable" (understood as "inherently achievable") ONLY because
current canard designs are such that the canard stalls before the main wing.
hence, the wing is still flying when the canard loses lift, and the nose will
drop and place the canard in a flying AOA again.

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.

You are wrong.

No current airplane is designed to withstand -12g. *No human pilot can function
under -12g!

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?

No; it's easy.

An airplane with a rear horizontal stabilizer can easily be designed to function
under high + or -g. *It is a matter of specific design parameters, not inherent
physical or aerodynamic law.

An airplane that has a profile *symmetric about the lateral plane behaves the
same whether upright or inverted. *Today, such an airplane COULD be designed and
flown, with stability provided by computer-controlled surfaces. *It would not
"know" whether G was + or -, except for some artificial reference provided to
the computers. *Its stability and maneuverability would be exactly the same
under "+" or "-" g. *ONLY the pilot would be subject to the artificial
limitation of + or - g.

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.

Again, it is a SPECIFIC design problem, not an inherent design flaw. *Both prop
and jet airplanes are built in canard and horizontal stab configurations. *All 4
permutations are viable. *All 4 come in a wide variety of specific designs. *All
4 have their advantages and disadvantages, proponents and detractors. *NONE of
them is inherently unsuitable for high-g maneuvering!

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.

Post the citations for such failed tests, and maybe we'll be able to help you
figure out the problem -- which may be simply that you are again trying to posit
a general theory from a specific design fault!

Well, you avoided the issue, high g stalls.

Maybe I am wrong about actual stalls, but do not just allude to me
being wrong about stalls in canards.

If you can go to the edge of the envelope and stall safely you can
beat nonstallable aircraft. It is an exact stall issue, not flight,
but stall.

On May 13, 4:29*pm, "JR Weiss"
wrote:
"Douglas Eagleson" wrote...
A predicate theory was used to deselect all fighters in general.

Actually, not. *You selected a generic "canard" fighter and a generic
"horizontal stabilizer" fighter. *You then provided specific claims for each of
them. *THEN you applied the claims to "canard vs horizontal stab" 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.

The theory as a general theory is flawed. *"Canard stall recover" is
"intrinsically stable" (understood as "inherently achievable") ONLY because
current canard designs are such that the canard stalls before the main wing.
hence, the wing is still flying when the canard loses lift, and the nose will
drop and place the canard in a flying AOA again.

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.

You are wrong.

No current airplane is designed to withstand -12g. *No human pilot can function
under -12g!

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?

No; it's easy.

An airplane with a rear horizontal stabilizer can easily be designed to function
under high + or -g. *It is a matter of specific design parameters, not inherent
physical or aerodynamic law.

An airplane that has a profile *symmetric about the lateral plane behaves the
same whether upright or inverted. *Today, such an airplane COULD be designed and
flown, with stability provided by computer-controlled surfaces. *It would not
"know" whether G was + or -, except for some artificial reference provided to
the computers. *Its stability and maneuverability would be exactly the same
under "+" or "-" g. *ONLY the pilot would be subject to the artificial
limitation of + or - g.

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.

Again, it is a SPECIFIC design problem, not an inherent design flaw. *Both prop
and jet airplanes are built in canard and horizontal stab configurations. *All 4
permutations are viable. *All 4 come in a wide variety of specific designs. *All
4 have their advantages and disadvantages, proponents and detractors. *NONE of
them is inherently unsuitable for high-g maneuvering!

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.

Post the citations for such failed tests, and maybe we'll be able to help you
figure out the problem -- which may be simply that you are again trying to posit
a general theory from a specific design fault!

Well, you avoided the issue, high g stalls.

Maybe I am wrong about actual stalls, but do not just allude to me
being wrong about stalls in canards.

If you can go to the edge of the envelope and stall safely you can
beat nonstallable aircraft. It is an exact stall issue, not flight,
but stall.

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote:

this link might work, it is an old nasa revioew of the canard issue.

http:ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013196_1987013196.pdf

[URL corrected]


If you cannot tumble your aircraft you are dead.
.. . .

So larger tumbles means better fighters.
.. . .

Because USA fighters are tumble free, they loose.


?!? Absolute nonsense!

NOTHING in that article supports ANYTHING you say!


Somebody in this review article cites the Wright Brothers. It is disgusting.

?!? They built a canard airplane. It flew. What is "disgusting" about that?

"Douglas Eagleson" wrote...

Well, you avoided the issue, high g stalls.

Nope.

In a "symmetrical" airplane as I described, its performance and recovery
characteristics in high g stalls will be identical under + or - g. I cannot
describe that performance because it will differ for EACH specific design,
whether canard or horizontal stabilizer!


Maybe I am wrong about actual stalls, but do not just allude to me being wrong
about stalls in canards.

You ARE WRONG "about stalls in canards"!!! You CANNOT generalize, based on
specific design details! A Wright Flyer is not a Viggen is not a Gripen is not
a MiG-35 MFI!


If you can go to the edge of the envelope and stall safely you can beat
nonstallable aircraft. It is an exact stall issue, not flight, but stall.

NO!!! That is still utter nonsense!

On May 13, 4:49*pm, "JR Weiss"
wrote:
"Douglas Eagleson" wrote:
this link might work, it is an old nasa revioew of the canard issue.
http:ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013196_1987013196.p*df

[URL corrected]

If you cannot tumble your aircraft you are dead.

. . .

So larger tumbles means better fighters.

. . .

Because USA fighters are tumble free, they loose.

?!? *Absolute nonsense!

NOTHING in that article supports ANYTHING you say!

Somebody in this review article cites the Wright Brothers. It is disgusting.

?!? *They built a canard airplane. *It flew. *What is "disgusting" about that?

The article was a review article that supports a contention. The US
policy is to not use canards. This was one of my contentions in one
reply in this thread.

It is disgusting because the refer to the Wright Flyer as analysis of
behavior of all canards.

And in the article a particular shortfall of the canard was it ability
to tumble. And tumble as a benefit was ignored. A canard can overcome
this shortfall by a properly sized rudder and vertcial stabilizer. And
perform one of the manuvers I suggest without failing. A 45 degree
banked Condor maneuver.