Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14?

"John Alger" wrote in message
m...
"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:S08%b.58709$4o.76896@attbi_s52...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

Since my servers seldom get me all the newsgroup messages and
Google.groups can't seem to find the begining of this thread, please
allow me to ask a question and pose some answers. And I apologize if
any of this has been discussed previously.

From the bits I have read subsequent to John's message above, I assume
we are discussing the A-320 crash at Habshiem. If so, let me present
some information relevant to the discussion, as I have not read
anything as yet that indicates any of the posters knows much if
anything about Airbus flight control systems.

I do believe I am qualified to speak on the subject as I teach A-330
systems, which has a flight control system identical to the A-320.

The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.

The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up
with the low slow fly by all on his own.

The aircraft was below
100 feet. This is significant to the incident (and not just because
that is where we find trees). In the Airbus the computers have a group
of flight control protections collectively known as "Laws". In Normal
Law there is a low-speed, high AOA protection known as Alpha-Floor.
Alpha-Floor is reached somewhere below Vls (the lowest speed the
aircraft will fly with autopilot/autothrust on and sidestick in
neutral), and prior to Alpha-Max (maximum AOA). At Alpha-Floor the
autothrust commands TOGA power, and regardless of how much you pull
back on the sidestick, the aircraft will not decelerate below
Alpha-Max. It will just mush along at TOGA power until it runs out of
gas or the pilot lowers the nose to accelerate.

The low fly by was not an A-320 flight mode.

The problem is, Alpha-Floor is not available between 100' and
touchdown - otherwise you could never land! The pilot was expecting
Alpha-Floor, but being too low, it did not happen. By the time he
realized his error, he applied power, but it was too late. You can, in
fact, hear the engines spooling up just prior to his impact with the
trees in the video we show in class.

That is what I have been attempting to communicate to Weiss.

The aircraft performed as it should have. The pilot simply did not
have an adequate understanding of his aircraft for the manuver he was
doing. He also failed to follow the script. Two things the French
apparently frown upon, expecially when used in combination.

Yes.

It is not just the French that believe the POH is part of the Type
Certificate for an airplane.

Lesson: if you don't fully understand your aircraft, it can reach out
and bite you someday.

Weiss is in danger every time he flys then.

"John Alger" wrote...

The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet. The aircraft was below
100 feet. This is significant to the incident (and not just because
that is where we find trees). In the Airbus the computers have a group
of flight control protections collectively known as "Laws". In Normal
Law there is a low-speed, high AOA protection known as Alpha-Floor.
Alpha-Floor is reached somewhere below Vls (the lowest speed the
aircraft will fly with autopilot/autothrust on and sidestick in
neutral), and prior to Alpha-Max (maximum AOA). At Alpha-Floor the
autothrust commands TOGA power, and regardless of how much you pull
back on the sidestick, the aircraft will not decelerate below
Alpha-Max. It will just mush along at TOGA power until it runs out of
gas or the pilot lowers the nose to accelerate.

The problem is, Alpha-Floor is not available between 100' and
touchdown - otherwise you could never land! The pilot was expecting
Alpha-Floor, but being too low, it did not happen. By the time he
realized his error, he applied power, but it was too late. You can, in
fact, hear the engines spooling up just prior to his impact with the
trees in the video we show in class.

From what you say here, it does not appear autothrottle was engaged (which also
correlates with other descriptions I've read) -- apparently, the pilot manually
moved the throttles from idle to Max. Is this true?

Is Alpha-Max the stall AOA, or something less? Is there any "emergency
override" that will engage the autothrottle when approaching Alpha-Max?

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
Plus it never ceases to amaze me the number of folks who think that (a)
bringing in enough aluminum matting (and we don't use PSP anymore) to
build
a fighter strip is a piece of cake (and trying to support a C-5 on one is
a
mean proposition), (b) installing the matting is all there is to it (no
cut/fill, drainage work, or subbabse and base course prep required),
getting the requisite engineer equipment and units into the site is an
easy
matter, and (d) this will all happen over a matter of a day or two.
Laying
in a fighter-length strip from scaratch is a *major* engineer operation,
and
quite different from that required to construct a minimum length rough
field
C-130 strip.

Compare this with the effort needed to create HMS Sheathbill in the
Falklands (which was a basic "land, refuel, leave or GLI" strip). It's
*much* easier to pick a stretch of highway, fly in fuel bladders and
maybe ordnance & first-line servicing - than to build a fixed-wing CTOL
strip from scratch (lots of supplies and equipment needed just to build
the runway before anything else arrives) The USMC's AV-8Bs did this to
very good effect in 1991, for instance.

And reportedly again during OIF, where AV-8B's used FARP's.

Brooks


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Your question was (quote) "Can anyone conjure a F-35B Marine job that could
not be none by the navy?" The question was answered with specific
operational capabilities (exercised in combat operations) that the Navy does
not possess. You are obviously ignorant of the process by which
"requirements" are generated and validated. You are obviously ignorant of
how procurement #s are generated. You are ignorant of the numbers of
aircraft resident in the USMC TACAIR inventory, and you are ignorant of how
they are employed -- to wit, " I cannot get a good picture of a mission
where the marines would need 400+ of them with all the support for them but
still not have a decent runway!"

Come back with some intelligent questions after you've done some research.

"puttster" wrote in message
om...
yes, please do, but not with politispeak generalities. Instead, give
me the best one practical example of the ideal mission as the perfect
reason why the Marines would need to order 400+ F-35B's.

"Frijoles" wrote in message
hlink.net...
No need to conjure. Try expeditionary air operations (FW and RW)
ashore, as
demonstrated in DS, OEF and OIF. TACAIR operations from amphibious
shipping. How about assault support from amphibious shipping or from
expeditionary locations ashore?

Should I go on?

"puttster" wrote in message
om...
Chad Irby wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I
cannot
get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+
of
them with all the support for them but still not have a decent
runway!

Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once?

The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire
war
in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a
small
landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes,
so we
need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."

If there are no good airstrips how would the marines get their gas,
bombs, food, and all the other support?

How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?

To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go
through
the other services as much. They've been flying off of the USS
Bonhomme
Richard.

Overall, Iraq hasn't been a good test of what we'd need the Harrier
for.

JL Grasso wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.

The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up
with the low slow fly by all on his own.

Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in a
prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power to
exit the fly-by.

The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above
'explanation'.

Graham

JL Grasso wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.

The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up
with the low slow fly by all on his own.

Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in a
prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power to
exit the fly-by.

Jerry

So you're telling us that autothrottle won't work below 100 ft
and to get TOGA below 100 ft you must apply it manually?...
--

-Gord.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message news:7lM%b.72046$4o.90913@attbi_s52...
From what you say here, it does not appear autothrottle was engaged (which also
correlates with other descriptions I've read) -- apparently, the pilot manually
moved the throttles from idle to Max. Is this true?

Is Alpha-Max the stall AOA, or something less? Is there any "emergency
override" that will engage the autothrottle when approaching Alpha-Max?

Alpha-Floor protection is the automatic override. Autothrust does not
need to be on, only available. Autothrust could have been active or
not - it does not matter. However, Alpha-Floor is not available once
the aircraft descends below 100' as I stated before, regardless of A/T
status. The crew expected it, but it was not there becaue they were
too low. When he realized his error, the captain manually applied TOGA
power.

Alpha-Max is prior to stall AOA - it is the top of the L/D curve. Here
is a scenario that may help. Without touching the stick you bring the
thrust levers to idle (this disengages the autothrust BTW). The
aircraft will slow down to Vls and no more (the nose will pitch down
slightly to maintain this speed). Now, if you grab the side-stick and
pull it full aft (this will disconnect the autopilot) you will slow
further towards Alpha-Max. Depending on your rate of deceleration and
your rate of pitch (g), Alpha-floor kicks in somewhere prior to
Alpha-Max - at that moment, Autothrust is automatically re-engaged,
TOGA power is commanded (remember, your thrust levers are still at
idle) and speed will stabilize at Alpha-Max while you hold the stick
full aft. Depending on GW you may or may not be descending, but you
will not stall.

The aircraft in question never stalled - it is not possible in the
mode it was flying in (Normal Law). You CAN fly it into the ground,
but you cannot stall it. To move from Normal Law to Alternate Law (in
which the aircraft may be stalled) requires multiple failures of key
systems and/or flight control computers - none of which occured in
this case.

And, BTW: The gentleman is correct, it was a revenue flight (never
said otherwise) but it was also a pre-arranged demonstration flyby of
the new aircraft. This is why there is a very good video of the whole
event.

John A.

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 03:53:12 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

JL Grasso wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.

The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up
with the low slow fly by all on his own.

Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in a
prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power to
exit the fly-by.

Jerry

So you're telling us that autothrottle won't work below 100 ft
and to get TOGA below 100 ft you must apply it manually?...

G'day Gord,

According to Macarthur Job's description of this accident, the captain
selected "...Open Descent Idle Mode to allow the engine thrust to be
controlled manually.". Also, "...the crew deactivated the Alpha Floor
function, to prevent the computerised control system from automatically
applying power as the angle of attack increased."


Phil
--
Pfft...english! Who needs that? I'm never going to England.
Homer J. Simpson

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

f-35B's seem like an Idea without a mission to me.

The RAF , RN and USMC disagree

Add the USAF to that equation--they just officially announced that they
are
interested in revamping their programmed buy to include some B models as
well.

It's all just a trick: the USAF wants the F-35Bs so they can rip
the lift fan out and put the generator for the laser there. ;-)

Honestly, now that I've said it, it doesn't sound that far fetch...

On 2/28/04 1:01 AM, in article , "John Keeney"
wrote:


"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

f-35B's seem like an Idea without a mission to me.

The RAF , RN and USMC disagree

Add the USAF to that equation--they just officially announced that they
are
interested in revamping their programmed buy to include some B models as
well.

It's all just a trick: the USAF wants the F-35Bs so they can rip
the lift fan out and put the generator for the laser there. ;-)

Honestly, now that I've said it, it doesn't sound that far fetch...



They better get that laser thing miniaturized quick then because right now
it's HUGE!