Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Can someone tell me what we are supposed to be afraid of?
What is there to be scared of?
1. All of us supposed scared people have an understanding of weight and balance and CG, and how not to get into that type of situation.
2. None of scared people will ever actually fly that overrated thing, so...
My understanding was that the Russians also pushed the Allison way past the USAAC's limits. The price was more frequent overhauls. It would be interesting to know how many V-1710s the USA sent to Russia. outside of those mounted in aircraft.So the Soviets got such an impreesive performance by removing some excess weight from the P-39? More victories than the P-51!
I would then rather suggest a more plausible reason: the Soviet pilots were simply superior to the American pilots. Perhaps we should add to the good old 'Overpaid, oversexed, overthere'.... overrated?
As a point of reference the F-15 uses about 45lbs of pull at 9 Gs.
Cheers,
Biff
F15 is not fly-by-wire?
Have we bought any of the latest F-15s or are they just offered for sale? The F15EX is being touted right now as a good choice and is FBW. I think we ordered 8 of them, but am not exactly sure.
F15 is not fly-by-wire?
The F-15QA (Qatar), the late model F-15SA (Saudi) and F-15EX are all FBW. The rest are not. However, it's a great flying plane.
Cheers,
Biff
Schnapps....yikes. I got my ear pierced after drinking this
My understanding was that the Russians also pushed the Allison way past the USAAC's limits. The price was more frequent overhauls. It would be interesting to know how many V-1710s the USA sent to Russia. outside of those mounted in aircraft.
In other words, when you're trying to recover from the unwarned high G stall/snaproll out of your turn when you were trying to pull enough lead on your victim to get a shot, and there you are recovering from an upset right in front of his wingman's guns. GAME OVER. That matter of fact test pilot language is full of pitfalls for those who don't understand the context.The stick only oscillated laterally in one condition, when high accelerations were reached from recovery from rolls.
Once again you missed the context. That statement was made in reference to simple, coordinated, one G stalls in various configurations and maneuvers. It then went on to glaze the reader's eyes over with a lengthy discussion of sideslip angles and control surface deflections ("test pilot talk"), the gist of which was that any stall at higher G with even the slightest sideslip will result in a sharp roll without warning AGAINST aileron deflection. After you've read that sort of test pilot verbiage and then gone out and banged your helmet HARD against the side of the canopy while your world turned sharply upside down in the hands of Zeus a few times, you develop a sense of context. If you're as hard headed as I am, it takes a few tries and an aching neck before enlightenment dawns. Once preconceived notions give way to understanding, it's kind of fun. You're no longer sitting in the airplane and driving it; you're wearing it like a tightly strapped backpack, and it becomes an extension of your body and your will."In any condition, at any time after the stall occurred, recovery could be effected promptly by applying down elevator." This was stated more than once.
Cherry picking again. In several places it stated in low key unobtrusive language that the test aircraft fell short of USAAF published standards in one way or another, most notably stick free static stability (displacement oscillation damping) and stick force gradient/G. That last one is a biggie. A 14.4 lb pull (thumb and fingertips of your right hand) can put 8Gs on you and your aircraft at "normal" (30.2% MAC) CG. The plane can take it; you can't. This is well below USAAF minimum standard, and WAY below desirable values.The report was generally complimentary and all requirements were met.