If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LETS BUILD A MODEL PLANE | adelsonsl | Aviation Photos | 1 | May 16th 07 11:10 PM |
Swedish! | Owning | 3 | March 3rd 06 12:44 AM | |
The end of the Saab Viggen - The legendary Swedish jet fighter | Iwan Bogels | Simulators | 0 | April 19th 05 07:22 PM |
The Very Last Operational New German Fighter Model Of WW2 | Garrison Hilliard | Military Aviation | 13 | January 13th 04 03:31 PM |
RV Quick Build build times... | [email protected] | Home Built | 2 | December 17th 03 03:29 AM |