The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

On May 13, 7:49 am, Douglas Eagleson
wrote:
On May 11, 7:36 am, Ed Rasimus wrote:



On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:00:53 -0700 (PDT), Douglas Eagleson

wrote:
Wait, wait waitie.

Not a single reply has been about the concept of debate. Some jackass
says it is comic book stuff. That is not debate. He is just hidding
his ignorence.

I claimed a certain claim, and somebody called mister a-ok guy, says
ittie comic book.

You people are wacko, the fighter pilot knows all kinda crap. Does he,
I doubt it. Has he flown a canard fighter? Has he helped debate the
future of canard versus noncanard fighter anywhere? I doubt it.

I suggested that the source of your information was comic books or
video games because the claims were so detached from reality either
with regard to aerodynamic performance or tactical efficacy as to be
ludicrous.

It is a constant flame the funny guy routine.

btw, you wanna be real? Tell me WHY I am not correct. NO bs.

Canards offer excellent nose positional authority. No doubt about it.
But other methods also offer that. Fly-by-wire systems, stability
augmentation, computer assisted flight controls, vectorable thrust,
etc. all offer agility. And, they don't increase your RCS and make you
unstealthy like a lot of airframe proturbences.

Rolling into a dive is natural and within the capability of every
aircraft since shortly after the Wright Flyer.

Within-visual-range combat is not inevitable, but if and when it does
occur it is seldom dependent upon who flys slowest or who can stall
and recover. Those are losing strategies.

Nothing in combat should ever be done single-ship. If you find
yourself alone in the arena you should depart immediately or prepare
to meet your imminent demise.

My credentials in tactical aviation are pretty much public domain.
What would be yours?

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

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.

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.

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

There should be no blinders about different performace realities.

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

So if they deny the difference who pays the price? So pilots have a
self interest in identifying expected maneuvers. I point out two that
would destroy the US made aircraft in a dogfight.

Also I have training in low altitude argiculatural flying also.
And low altitude stalling turns are the normal method. I have flown
inside the deadly performance box of aircraft before.

A set of manuevers is all that makes a dogfight.

And each makes a box of deadly manuever. Pilots that have ot make the
set identified for the first time have to go out and learn and there
is no ejection seat necessarily to save the first time learners.

I got into trouble over on the rec.piloting channel once because I
train for engine out on takeoff in twins. Here is what I
recommended. After a bad engine and a hamfisted takeoff, be very
careful and lower the nose no matter what the airspeed indication.
Accelerated stall can make a small stall and nail the airspeed over
takeoff speed. IN ground effect you are effectively, MAYBE, stalled.
So lower the nose. And I could not imagine the denial of the
recommendation by so called world experts. "LOWER the nose after a
single engine takeoff in a twin." I happen to be trained in light
twiin flight by an expert.

All sorts of EXACT recommendations are the rule in flying. When I say
to bank 45 degree, maximum up, then maximuun down, and exact maneuver
is described. And few so called experts want to debate the exact
issue. A single manuever as a real thing to happen in the skys should
be a lively debate about the maneuver, not the writters ability to use
nonslang.

The manuever stated will shred all following aircraft. They will
overshoot the turn of the canard. So what happens next?

One identified expected maneuver shoudl be debated as an EXACT thing.
What is a proper defense in a dogfight against this canard maneuver?
All US aircraft will loss the challenging aircraft. Visual sighting
will be lost and attacker likely becomes defender.

What next? What should a US pilot do? I would recommend a scene
recover, escape the scene and recover a visual sights. So if the
canard stall turns, the US pilot should already have in mind what to
do. He should point the nose straight up and at 10000 feet level off
and recover the lost aircraft sighting.

A performance box for low altitude fighting is not present in US
fighters.

So, there debate of not. But recommend never again like the so called
expert on a newsgroup.

Well-said, Ed.

--
Mike Kanze

Miss Mabel Jellyman (Allison Skipworth): "Maudie, do you really think I could get rid of my inhibitions?"
Maudie Triplett (Mae West): "Why, sure. I got an old trunk you can put them in."

- Night After Night, 1932

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 13 May 2008 14:15:27 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
wrote:

Leadfoot wrote:

Nothing in combat should ever be done single-ship. If you find
yourself alone in the arena you should depart immediately or prepare
to meet your imminent demise.

I don't think you would leave a shot-down wingman in that situation,
would you?


Fully accepting your credentials and experience

Can you distinguish between the "sentimental/morale" issues (similar to
bringing home dead bodies, and the real combat effectiveness issue , e.g.
what we would risk to recover a functioning pilot?

Vince

First, for Leadfoot, my statement was with regard to the breakdown of
mutual support--in other words, you are no longer a fighting element,
but a disjointed pair of independent operators which have lost the
essential advantage of your tactics, training and weaponry. You've got
to separate from the engagment and get reorganized then if time,
mission, weapons and fuel allow, re-engage.

In the case of a downed wingman, the particular combat situation will
dictate. If you are in a large package scenario then assets are in
place to initiate CSAR operations immediately. Immediate support by
the surviving wingman is standard procedure. Initiation of precise
positioning info, communication with the survivor, triggering of
refueling support, transition to an on-scene commander, evaluation of
immediately available support assets, and a judgement about the
complex probabilities of survival in the environment are all immediate
tasks. Procedures are usually established before-hand and briefed on
every mission.

For Vince, the sentimental question of bringing home dead bodies (as
you imply) is above reasoned argument. Evaluation of options is part
of the equation in the real world. BUT---and this is a large BUT---the
clear understanding that recovering of downed combat aircrew members
is a very high priority is very critical to morale. Knowing that a
mission is dangerous is one thing, but knowing that your
fellow-warriors will support you is a huge factor. A target will be
there tomorrow, but a downed friend may have only minutes remaining.

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

Vince,

CSAR can provide a target rich environment for an alert defense. Keeping a single aircraft in the area may signal the enemy as to the possibilities

Even the dumbest of enemies knows that a downed U.S. airman will usually draw a CSAR effort, so it is one of the things that the remaining aircraft cum on-scene commander must consider. Sometimes It's not an easy choice, weighing the desire to help a buddy against the possibility of inadvertently joining him on the ground (or worse).

Other times it's a no-brainer: If shot down over metro Hanoi in 1967, one simply accepted that no CSAR effort would be forthcoming.

--
Mike Kanze

Miss Mabel Jellyman (Allison Skipworth): "Maudie, do you really think I could get rid of my inhibitions?"
Maudie Triplett (Mae West): "Why, sure. I got an old trunk you can put them in."

- Night After Night, 1932

"Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message news:P4iWj.10198$%X1.6893@trnddc08...
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008 14:15:27 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
wrote:

Leadfoot wrote:
Nothing in combat should ever be done single-ship. If you find
yourself alone in the arena you should depart immediately or
prepare to meet your imminent demise.
I don't think you would leave a shot-down wingman in that
situation, would you?

Fully accepting your credentials and experience

Can you distinguish between the "sentimental/morale" issues
(similar to bringing home dead bodies, and the real combat
effectiveness issue , e.g. what we would risk to recover a
functioning pilot?

Vince

First, for Leadfoot, my statement was with regard to the breakdown of
mutual support--in other words, you are no longer a fighting
element, but a disjointed pair of independent operators which have
lost the essential advantage of your tactics, training and weaponry.
You've got to separate from the engagment and get reorganized then if
time, mission, weapons and fuel allow, re-engage.

In the case of a downed wingman, the particular combat situation will
dictate. If you are in a large package scenario then assets are in
place to initiate CSAR operations immediately. Immediate support by
the surviving wingman is standard procedure. Initiation of precise
positioning info, communication with the survivor, triggering of
refueling support, transition to an on-scene commander, evaluation of
immediately available support assets, and a judgement about the
complex probabilities of survival in the environment are all
immediate tasks. Procedures are usually established before-hand and
briefed on every mission.

For Vince, the sentimental question of bringing home dead bodies (as
you imply) is above reasoned argument. Evaluation of options is part
of the equation in the real world. BUT---and this is a large
BUT---the clear understanding that recovering of downed combat
aircrew members is a very high priority is very critical to morale.
Knowing that a mission is dangerous is one thing, but knowing that
your fellow-warriors will support you is a huge factor. A target will
be there tomorrow, but a downed friend may have only minutes
remaining.


Thank you

I apologize if I implied that morale was less important. As Napolean
was reputed to say "moral is to material as three to one"

I was simply inquiring about the procedure. As in the Aboukir Cressy
and Hogue, http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/cressy.htm

CSAR can provide a target rich environment for an alert defense.
Keeping a single aircraft in the area may signal the enemy as to the
possibilities

Vince





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

On May 13, 7:49 am, Douglas Eagleson
wrote:
SNIP
First let me say you got one thing right although stated it awkwardly.
FLY the aircraft. Airspeed, then altitude..

What next? What should a US pilot do? I would recommend a scene
recover, escape the scene and recover a visual sights. So if the
canard stall turns, the US pilot should already have in mind what to
do. He should point the nose straight up and at 10000 feet level off
and recover the lost aircraft sighting.
10,000 feet? In 1967 I flew a fighter that at fighting speed (650-700) could exceed 50,000 on a zoom from the deck.

A performance box for low altitude fighting is not present in US
fighters.
Wherever did you get this idea? E/M diagrams go all the way to the deck and a competent fighter pilot studies them for every airplane he flies or expects to meet sometime.
A safety rule not always observed states 10,000 AG/SL is the
floor for training. Safety rules look fine on paper but when things
get dicey one does what one must.. Not a heck pf a lot of difference
in the way the bird flies between 10,000 and the weeds except one
must be careful not to to drag a wing tip or get committed too steep
too low. BTW, the Tbirds and the Blues fly down there and so do all
the air to ground types.

So, there debate of not. But recommend never again like the so called expert on a newsgroup.
Bot phrasing, indeed.
Walt BJ

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
...
On May 13, 7:49 am, Douglas Eagleson
wrote:
SNIP
First let me say you got one thing right although stated it awkwardly.
FLY the aircraft. Airspeed, then altitude..

What next? What should a US pilot do? I would recommend a scene
recover, escape the scene and recover a visual sights. So if the
canard stall turns, the US pilot should already have in mind what to
do. He should point the nose straight up and at 10000 feet level off
and recover the lost aircraft sighting.
10,000 feet? In 1967 I flew a fighter that at fighting speed (650-700)
could exceed 50,000 on a zoom from the deck.

A performance box for low altitude fighting is not present in US
fighters.
Wherever did you get this idea? E/M diagrams go all the way to the
deck and a competent fighter pilot studies them for every airplane he
flies or expects to meet sometime.
A safety rule not always observed states 10,000 AG/SL is the
floor for training. Safety rules look fine on paper but when things
get dicey one does what one must.. Not a heck pf a lot of difference
in the way the bird flies between 10,000 and the weeds except one
must be careful not to to drag a wing tip or get committed too steep
too low. BTW, the Tbirds and the Blues fly down there and so do all
the air to ground types.

So, there debate of not. But recommend never again like the so called
expert on a newsgroup.
Bot phrasing, indeed.
Walt BJ

Walt
Its a waste of time (and electrons) responding. Douglas Eagleson is a bot.

On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:49:19 -0700 (PDT), 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.

I hope you mean aircraft performance models on computers rather than
small replicas of real airplanes.

Your discussion of canards, inverted vs erect flight, stalls either
positive or negative, etc. indicate that you DON'T understand
aerodynamics.

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.

Inverted or upright has nothing to do with speed. If, by "out speed"
you mean out-accelerate (gain speed faster) than the basic is to
achieve zero-G--the relationship of the wing to true vertical is
irrelevant. Simply reduce G to zero and you've stopped generating lift
and hence eliminated induced drag. If you also do this downward you
get the additional acceleration of gravity, but your upright or
inverted posture is irrelevant.

So pretend two fighters are in close range dog-fights. And each
select maneuver that the aircraft can do.

There are only three things that define an air-to-air engagement:
1.) Attempt to reduce angles between aircraft on offensive, increase
them on defense. (That includes both aspect angle and angle-off)

2.) Attempt to achieve a positive delta-energy (that can be either
potential or kinetic.)

3.) Unless about to shoot, do all maneuvers outside of the defenders
plane of motion. If defensive, jam the attacker into your plane of
motion thereby inducing over-shoot.

Canards have a different set of selectable maneuvers.

Canards are irrelevant to the discussion. They are simply control
surfaces--no more, no less.

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

There should be no blinders about different performace realities.

Fighter pilots study performance charts of both their own and their
prospective opposition's aircraft. Thrust/weight, turn rate/radius,
Em, Ps and weapons parameters.

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

Canards are a low cost solution to ham-fisted pilots--see the Rutan
homebuilts for discussion of their stability.

They are inherently unstealthy and agility can be gained by other
technologies.

So if they deny the difference who pays the price? So pilots have a
self interest in identifying expected maneuvers. I point out two that
would destroy the US made aircraft in a dogfight.

Neither were rational nor were they beyond US aircraft capability.

Also I have training in low altitude argiculatural flying also.
And low altitude stalling turns are the normal method. I have flown
inside the deadly performance box of aircraft before.

Two things--a hammerhead stall used by crop-dusters is not something
adviseable in a high performance aircraft nor survivable against moder
A/A weapons.

Second the "deadly performance box" is somewhere I suspect you haven't
been.

A set of manuevers is all that makes a dogfight.

And each makes a box of deadly manuever. Pilots that have ot make the
set identified for the first time have to go out and learn and there
is no ejection seat necessarily to save the first time learners.

There is a lot of training before real-world engagements. I spent a
lot of time at three levels of that--first as student, then as
instructor and then as trainer of instructors in air/air fighter
maneuver.

I got into trouble over on the rec.piloting channel once because I
train for engine out on takeoff in twins. Here is what I
recommended. After a bad engine and a hamfisted takeoff, be very
careful and lower the nose no matter what the airspeed indication.
Accelerated stall can make a small stall and nail the airspeed over
takeoff speed. IN ground effect you are effectively, MAYBE, stalled.
So lower the nose. And I could not imagine the denial of the
recommendation by so called world experts. "LOWER the nose after a
single engine takeoff in a twin." I happen to be trained in light
twiin flight by an expert.

Good for you, but apples and oranges.

All sorts of EXACT recommendations are the rule in flying. When I say
to bank 45 degree, maximum up, then maximuun down, and exact maneuver
is described. And few so called experts want to debate the exact
issue. A single manuever as a real thing to happen in the skys should
be a lively debate about the maneuver, not the writters ability to use
nonslang.

The manuever stated will shred all following aircraft. They will
overshoot the turn of the canard. So what happens next?

One identified expected maneuver shoudl be debated as an EXACT thing.
What is a proper defense in a dogfight against this canard maneuver?

What "canard maneuver"? Rolling inverted and stalling? Rolling
inverted and diving?

All US aircraft will loss the challenging aircraft. Visual sighting
will be lost and attacker likely becomes defender.

An attacker who loses sight is a poorly trained individual. Defenders
are much more likely to lose sight--and in your scenario that
probability is more likely.

What next? What should a US pilot do? I would recommend a scene
recover, escape the scene and recover a visual sights. So if the
canard stall turns, the US pilot should already have in mind what to
do. He should point the nose straight up and at 10000 feet level off
and recover the lost aircraft sighting.

Assuming lost sight, the probable action is ease off back pressure,
drift into lag and reposition to allow your wingman to engage and
complete the kill.

A performance box for low altitude fighting is not present in US
fighters.

So, there debate of not. But recommend never again like the so called
expert on a newsgroup.

I don't know what you consider a "low altitude" regime, but
look-down/shoot-down radar weapons capability has made "ground
clutter" a thing of the past. And, super-cooled all-aspect IR missiles
are equally effective regardless of altitude or ground proximity. Guns
don't care either.


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

Dan wrote:
Dave Kearton wrote:
Dan wrote:
Douglas Eagleson wrote:

So why North Korea? Why did China invade? A fatal mistake for I am
bound ot remember. WHy? When after sixtey some years the dictator
only lines his bed with ease. And th ebABIES OF PRISONS ARE HAMMER
Is it just me or is this guy incapable of expressing himself?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



All of your verbs are belong to us.



Vowel movement?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Well, you gotta admit he does inspire creativity in OTHERS!

Dan

On May 13, 10:34 am, WaltBJ wrote:
On May 13, 7:49 am, Douglas Eagleson
wrote:
SNIP: One identified expected maneuver shoudl be debated as an EXACT thing.
What is a proper defense in a dogfight against this canard maneuver?
All US aircraft will loss the challenging aircraft. Visual sighting
will be lost and attacker likely becomes defender.

What next? What should a US pilot do? I would recommend a scene
recover, escape the scene and recover a visual sights. So if the
canard stall turns, the US pilot should already have in mind what to
do. He should point the nose straight up and at 10000 feet level off
and recover the lost aircraft sighting.

A performance box for low altitude fighting is not present in US
fighters.

SNIP:

Sir, you have said enough in the above excerpt to convince me that you
know very little about air combat maneuvering.
As Ed has repeatedly said, a single fighter ina combat arena should
imediately depart for home. As for speed in a dive,
All our fighters since the F100 have the ability to exceed their
structural limits in a full power vertical dive. I know of a case
wherein an F104A came apart at approximately 1300 EAS after the pilt
lost conscious at some 70,000 feet in full afterburner. For us, then
flying F104As, the fast that it lasted that long was very encouraging
in that we knew the airplane could far exceed its flight manual red
line of 710KIAS. Thus we had a 'combat limit' well above 710, said
limit depending on that pilot's cojones.
Let me state that capability in ACM depends upon pilot experience,
both total and current. A man can be fully knowledgable concerning ACM
but if he is not current the requirement to observe, analyze and
effect the next maneuver takes time which will not be available if his
opponent is equally knowledgeable and fully current.
Again, aerial combat 1v1 occurs in movies, not in real life, If it
does occur it is the result of mistakes on both parties.
If two pilots meet a single pilot minus the element of surprise, tha
single pilot will have to be very fortunate to survive the encounter
unless he can escape somehow. The two can phase their maneuvers so he
is always on the defensive; the only way he can attack is if one of
the two makes a mistake.
I flew one of the most maneuverable fighters in the inventory for some
six years, the F102 delta. Down on the deck it was unbeatable - until
it ran out of fuel. One could always avoid being tracked by guns, but
despite being bale to pull 6 G at 300, 3 at 200, the afterburner
would run you ought iof gas in about 5-7 minutes and then what?. The
poor old deuce could not outrun the other fighters then in the
inventory.
What the previous statement leads to is that superiority in one style
of maneuver does not mean that aircraft can bet every other aircraft
in the world. What it does mean is that an intelligent opponent will
avoid a situation where that particular maneuver would be
advantageous. "You maximize your advantage and minimize the oppo's
advantage - in other words, fight your fight, not his."
Finally your comment that the pilot should disengage and zoom up to
10,000 displays your lack of knowledge of current fighter performance.
In 1967 I flew a service aircraft that could perform a loop on takeoff
- and go over the top at 50,000 feet. granted, the loop was loose, but
the nose was raised gently all through the initial climb. That same
aircraft, first flown in 1954, with its later engine replacing the old
model, would exceed Mach 1 in military power in level flight. How did
we use that airplane in ACM? Loose Deuce/Double attack, or as I
explained it to our new guys, Fluid Four without thr wingmen. Maintain
very high indicated airspeed, shoot at any angle off as long as the
sight, ranging in radar, could track him, and go vertical when it
couldn't and reposition as your partner stepped in to keep the target
occupied.
.
Would would that Cobra maneuver for the SU30's crew do if the wingman
was lagging? On a stationary target the attacker's gun has a much
longer effective range than one fleeing at say transsonic speeds.

Somewhat immature, but I do a plot of 2 against one,
using cardboard models, manueving incrementally,
and 11/12 times the single is burned, all other things
being equal.

However, you can do some teasing maneuvers to
determine their skill levels, prior to engagement.
Specifically, their weakness of common coodination
and experience, then divide and conquer, with wing
man breaking off leader.
Then you can take one at a time.
If you can injure one, chances are his buddy will back
off.
Ken

On May 13, 10:34*am, WaltBJ wrote:
On May 13, 7:49 am, Douglas Eagleson
wrote:
SNIP: One identified expected maneuver shoudl be debated as an EXACT thing.
What is a proper defense in a dogfight against this canard maneuver?
All US aircraft will loss the challenging aircraft. Visual sighting
will be lost and attacker likely becomes defender.

What next? *What should a US pilot do? *I would recommend a scene
recover, escape the scene and recover a visual sights. *So if the
canard stall turns, the US pilot should already have in mind what to
do. He should point the nose straight up and at 10000 feet level off
and recover the lost aircraft sighting.

A performance box for low altitude fighting is not present in US
fighters.

SNIP:

Sir, you have said enough in the above excerpt to convince me that you
know very little about air combat maneuvering.
As Ed has repeatedly said, a single fighter ina combat arena should
imediately depart for home. As for speed in a dive,
All our fighters since the F100 have the ability to exceed their
structural limits in a full power vertical dive. I know of a case
wherein an F104A came apart at approximately 1300 EAS after the pilt
lost conscious at some 70,000 feet in full afterburner. For us, then
flying F104As, the fast that it lasted that long was very encouraging
in that we knew the airplane could far exceed its flight manual red
line of 710KIAS. *Thus we had a 'combat limit' well above 710, said
limit depending on that pilot's cojones.
Let me state that capability in ACM depends upon pilot experience,
both total and current. A man can be fully knowledgable concerning ACM
but if he is not current the requirement to observe, analyze and
effect the next maneuver takes time which will not be available if his
opponent is equally knowledgeable and fully current.
Again, aerial combat 1v1 occurs in movies, not in real life, If it
does occur it is the result of mistakes on both parties.
If two pilots meet a single pilot minus the element of surprise, tha
single pilot will have to be very fortunate to survive the encounter
unless he can escape somehow. The two can phase their maneuvers so he
is always on the defensive; the only way he can attack is if one of
the two makes a mistake.
I flew one of the most maneuverable fighters in the inventory for some
six years, the F102 delta. Down on the deck it was unbeatable - until
it ran out of fuel. One could always avoid being tracked by guns, but
despite being bale to pull 6 G at 300, 3 *at 200, the afterburner
would run you ought iof gas in about 5-7 minutes and then what?. The
poor old deuce could not outrun the other fighters then in the
inventory.
What the previous statement leads to is that superiority in one style
of maneuver does not mean that aircraft can bet every other aircraft
in the world. What it does mean is that an intelligent opponent will
avoid a situation where that particular maneuver would be
advantageous. "You maximize your advantage and minimize the oppo's
advantage - in other words, fight your fight, not his."
Finally your comment that the pilot should disengage and zoom up to
10,000 displays your lack of knowledge of current fighter performance.
In 1967 I flew a service aircraft that could perform a loop on takeoff
- and go over the top at 50,000 feet. granted, the loop was loose, but
the nose was raised gently all through the initial climb. That same
aircraft, first flown in 1954, with its later engine replacing the old
model, would exceed Mach 1 in military power in level flight. How did
we use that airplane in ACM? Loose Deuce/Double attack, or as I
explained it to our new guys, Fluid Four without thr wingmen. Maintain
very high indicated airspeed, shoot at any angle off as long as the
sight, ranging in radar, could track him, and go vertical when it
couldn't and reposition as your partner stepped in to keep the target
occupied.
.
Would would that Cobra maneuver for the SU30's crew do if the wingman
was lagging? On a stationary target the attacker's gun has a much
longer effective range than one fleeing at say transsonic speeds.

On May 13, 10:34*am, WaltBJ wrote:
On May 13, 7:49 am, Douglas Eagleson
wrote:
SNIP: One identified expected maneuver shoudl be debated as an EXACT thing.
What is a proper defense in a dogfight against this canard maneuver?
All US aircraft will loss the challenging aircraft. Visual sighting
will be lost and attacker likely becomes defender.

What next? *What should a US pilot do? *I would recommend a scene
recover, escape the scene and recover a visual sights. *So if the
canard stall turns, the US pilot should already have in mind what to
do. He should point the nose straight up and at 10000 feet level off
and recover the lost aircraft sighting.

A performance box for low altitude fighting is not present in US
fighters.

SNIP:

Sir, you have said enough in the above excerpt to convince me that you
know very little about air combat maneuvering.
As Ed has repeatedly said, a single fighter ina combat arena should
imediately depart for home. As for speed in a dive,
All our fighters since the F100 have the ability to exceed their
structural limits in a full power vertical dive. I know of a case
wherein an F104A came apart at approximately 1300 EAS after the pilt
lost conscious at some 70,000 feet in full afterburner. For us, then
flying F104As, the fast that it lasted that long was very encouraging
in that we knew the airplane could far exceed its flight manual red
line of 710KIAS. *Thus we had a 'combat limit' well above 710, said
limit depending on that pilot's cojones.
Let me state that capability in ACM depends upon pilot experience,
both total and current. A man can be fully knowledgable concerning ACM
but if he is not current the requirement to observe, analyze and
effect the next maneuver takes time which will not be available if his
opponent is equally knowledgeable and fully current.
Again, aerial combat 1v1 occurs in movies, not in real life, If it
does occur it is the result of mistakes on both parties.
If two pilots meet a single pilot minus the element of surprise, tha
single pilot will have to be very fortunate to survive the encounter
unless he can escape somehow. The two can phase their maneuvers so he
is always on the defensive; the only way he can attack is if one of
the two makes a mistake.
I flew one of the most maneuverable fighters in the inventory for some
six years, the F102 delta. Down on the deck it was unbeatable - until
it ran out of fuel. One could always avoid being tracked by guns, but
despite being bale to pull 6 G at 300, 3 *at 200, the afterburner
would run you ought iof gas in about 5-7 minutes and then what?. The
poor old deuce could not outrun the other fighters then in the
inventory.
What the previous statement leads to is that superiority in one style
of maneuver does not mean that aircraft can bet every other aircraft
in the world. What it does mean is that an intelligent opponent will
avoid a situation where that particular maneuver would be
advantageous. "You maximize your advantage and minimize the oppo's
advantage - in other words, fight your fight, not his."
Finally your comment that the pilot should disengage and zoom up to
10,000 displays your lack of knowledge of current fighter performance.
In 1967 I flew a service aircraft that could perform a loop on takeoff
- and go over the top at 50,000 feet. granted, the loop was loose, but
the nose was raised gently all through the initial climb. That same
aircraft, first flown in 1954, with its later engine replacing the old
model, would exceed Mach 1 in military power in level flight. How did
we use that airplane in ACM? Loose Deuce/Double attack, or as I
explained it to our new guys, Fluid Four without thr wingmen. Maintain
very high indicated airspeed, shoot at any angle off as long as the
sight, ranging in radar, could track him, and go vertical when it
couldn't and reposition as your partner stepped in to keep the target
occupied.
.
Would would that Cobra maneuver for the SU30's crew do if the wingman
was lagging? On a stationary target the attacker's gun has a much
longer effective range than one fleeing at say transsonic speeds.

Dogfighting 101

I can only imagine the scenario where the first aircraft as a rule
must destroy. A basic rule was stated outlining the worst possible
thing to do as a method. Radar homing as a method was to always be the
non-dogfight.

A pilot can change the rules and make it a true dogfight. So if the
rule is to never dogfight and break-off to recover the first attack
scenario then what is happening? A person has to hear the scenario.

Say, a flight of enemy fighters appears on the radar. You spot,
target and fire. And then find out they only lost one aircraft of the
several. As time goes, they are now maneuvering to attack. So the
worst thing is one to one fighting and it is the standard of aircraft
evaluation. Changing the scenario to non-one to one only fails to
adjust to real war time reality. So evaluate aircraft in a consistent
fashion.

I clearly demanded debate concerning dogfights. Changing my scenario
to avoid the challenge of debate is all you required.

Standard method as a radar attack is NOT the scenario. If US aircraft
are so inferior that they must retreat and radar attack only, what
does that mean when no retreat was allowed by the enemy?

A first radar targeting becomes the rule for success. Air to air
attacker then finds out that some play by real rules called first
sight by eye allows first radar launch of air to air.

Closing the eyes to not allow sighting by eye certainly says
something. Visual sighting followed by radar targeting was the real
world.

Where are you in fighter recommendation?