Matt308
Glock Perfection
For us guys down south without gov't healthcare, what the hell is an "Ontarian"? Is that someone 1000 years old?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Geez...at first I thought that this was about the Arrow, but it turns out that it's really about mean people badmouthing a long-dead Ontarian.
Oh well.
JL
For us guys down south without gov't healthcare, what the hell is an "Ontarian"? Is that someone 1000 years old?
I'd love to reply but its politics
Yep.That and some really confused math...
I always compared it to the Mig 25 role, Fast ,High, Fire Missile's at Bombers and go home. Forget the dogfighting.
So, rather than arguing ad hominem why don't you show us how to calculate the thrust? Some formulae are posted at NASA as I have indicated but you can use any source you like. The problem is this: If an aircraft achieves mach 1.76 with 48,000 lbs thrust then approximately how much thrust is needed to increase the speed to mach 1.96? The answer can be in absolute thrust or the delta but specify which and show your work."
You're still confused, Murray. My 'ad hominem' was in reference to your non sequiter digression/rant about how 50-80% of the Canadian taxpayer's income was expropriated to pay for health care. A straw man...You know as well as I do that the total tax load (whatever the actual percentage may be...) covers ALL government services, not just health care costs.
As for how the Arrow performed, or later Iroquois engined models could have performed, well, the information is so contradictory that I just can't tell ya. It's pretty confusing...One set of specs says that the J-75-3 model made approx 18,000lb thrust/AB (for a total of approx 36,000)and still other specs show that the engines in the Arrow made 48,000lb thrust/AB. Which was it? All that aside, flight tests show that the Arrow did not suffer the airframe limitations of the earlier F-102 in regards to exceeding Mach, and if the the Iroquois had achieved their designed combined thrust of approx 50,000 lb thrust/AB, why shouldn't the lighter and more powerful Arrow II be capable of exceeding Mach II? Paper calculations are all very nice, but are inherently susceptible to GIGO..It's real testing that counts.
Anyway, my beef is not about what the Arrow could or could not do, but rather, what was done with those that existed. The total destruction of the Arrows was a political ploy, plain and simple. And trying to foist responsibility for that onto the DOD is a red herring. The civilian govt has the final say in such matters, and you know that also. And that's the real reason for all your Arrow polemics...it's clearly just a parochial Western screed to salvage the reputation of your beloved transplanted Ontarian, ie; Diefenbaker...
BTW, I made no 'ad hominem', as I was not making an argument. It was a comment.
Chill, dude.
JL
What about the Arrow reminds you of the Mig 25? The role of that aircraft was orignally to intercept B-70 bombers, which McNamara cancelled. The E-266 was later used for photo-recon because of its high ceiling and great speed.
You're still confused, Murray. My 'ad hominem' was in reference to your non sequiter digression/rant...
As for how the Arrow performed, or later Iroquois engined models could have performed, well, the information is so contradictory that I just can't tell ya. It's pretty confusing...One set of specs says that the J-75-3 model made approx 18,000lb thrust/AB (for a total of approx 36,000)...
...flight tests show that the Arrow did not suffer the airframe limitations of the earlier F-102 in regards to exceeding Mach..."
...and if the the Iroquois had achieved their designed combined thrust of approx 50,000 lb thrust/AB, why shouldn't the lighter and more powerful Arrow II be capable of exceeding Mach II?
... "Paper calculations are all very nice, but are inherently susceptible to GIGO..It's real testing that counts."
"...it's clearly just a parochial Western screed to salvage the reputation of your beloved transplanted Ontarian, ie; Diefenbaker...
Re: "Which lying weasel's arse did you pull the 18,000 lb figure from?"
From one of the myriad Arrow sites: (I'll scrounge up the link if you wish...)
Engine P&W J75-P-3 (RL201)
Dry Thrust 12 500lb (55.6 kN) static
Wet Thrust 18 500lb (82.3 kN) static
And from Wik:
J75-P-3: 16,470 lbf (73.3 kN) afterburning thrust
J75-P-5: 17,200 lbf (76.5 kN) afterburning thrust
J75-P-13B: 17,000 lbf (75.6 kN) afterburning thrust
J75-P-15W: 24,500 lbf (109 kN) afterburning thrust
J75-P-17: 24,500 lbf (109 kN) afterburning thrust
J75-P-19W: 17,200 lbf (76.5 kN) afterburning thrust
Maybe you can come up with something more authoritative on the subject.
The 'lateral stability/EMP-induced shower of Arrows' bit is a drama queen strawman. No fighter of the '60's would be likely to be capable of performing its mission ion the event of a total electronics failure.
I'm done
JL
As far as I know the first operational fighter that could not fly without a computer was the F-16 which went into service in the late '70s, if memory serves. I expect its digital computer system was made from ICs with some LSI. If it had microprocessors then they were multi-chip and I expect bit-slice to give the necessary speed. Maybe it had magnetic Bubble Memory too since TI was working on it at around the same time. Of course I am just guessing since I am not a 'military guy' and have never seen the electronics in an F-16. [Note: Integrated circuit electronics are very sensitive to EMP but I imagine they are well protected in a modern fighter with faraday cages, clamping diodes and the like.
Actually, the military tends to be a few years behind the curve as far as IT goes, believe it or not; they've gotten better recently, but you have to remember that defense contractors usually use a PROVEN technology at the time they design a weapons system, which means that by the time the weapons system finally gets built, it's 5-10 year old technology. IIRC, the F-16's AN/APG-66(V)1 radar did use solid-state technology, but it was transistorized, no micrprocessors; if I had to guess, I'd say the first models of the F-16 used late '60's electronics.
Recently, however, the military has finally caught up with the private sector and, in the latest weapons systems (B-2, F-22, F-35, etc.), they've designed much more flexible IT architectures, both in the hardware and the software, so that the avionics can more easily be upgraded to state-of-the-art levels. The biggest advances recently have been in the area of the software, which is also the easiest to upgrade.
Murray, this is the second time I'm gonna tell you tone it down. There won't be a third.