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.