The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Dogfight tricks ...
Bluewings12    4/22/2009 6:07:56 PM
A M2000-5 Pilot here in Dijon ~a friend of mine~ told me that He and his aircraft can leave any other following aircraft in the dust with one pass . When I asked "any aircraft ?" , he said yes and he directed me to that video :
h*tp://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3424v_french-air-force-mirage-20005_shortfilms

He said to me , check from 1:12 to 1:28 .
He explained to me that the Mirage is diving instantly nose first with a negative 4Gs plunge , followed by a 6g plate then followed by an 11g 180deg turn , the end speed is close to 300 knots .
He said to me , "imagine where the bugger who is following you ends up ? NOWHERE !"

To start with , 99% of the Pilots will not plunge nose first but will make a roll to dive "against the Gs" . There are 3 reasons to do so :
#1 to avoid the "red-out" , # the FBW is not at ease , #3 you need a delta wing .
When I asked him how he could turn the situation to his advantage , his answer was simple : "keep turning high Gs left or right , depends where he went and you 'll end up behind him , if he goes vertical go vertical too , he will ALSO be in front of you"

Please , post some other nice videos of good dogfight tricks :-)

Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
PierreLeGrand       5/13/2009 4:24:32 PM

?This rate of change is called the G onset rate?. 

 

I know, and I wasn?t replying to you in particular to tell you the truth I didn?t figure you weren?t one of the uninformed flamers who I was engaged replying to, I can tell the difference now.

I was including elements to reply to those who jumped into the subject or those who previous to your post were mentioning Maximum structural g loads.

For the technical aspect of your post I wish to add some particular that I already mentioned in my reply to Seagul:

 The rate at which the blood is pumped by the heart up to the brain have to be and stay positive.

 This can be helped and supplemented by breathing techniques + muscle contractions even in the case of high g onset, strong abdominal muscles and narrow blood vessles are a plus so lifting weight, working abdominals in a gym is way preferable to jogging, women are also more g resistant than men generaly due tro more developed abdominals.

Pilots prepare physically and mentally to the maneuver, it takes a little time in both case (heart beat rate and contraction) and the real issue especially in the case of the Rafale D Seagul was mentioning is preparation to the event.

What you say is true but it is taken out of operational contest, it is just a study and take one issue in particular isolated from many others.

I didn?t spin the subject as opposed to what you may think I have put it back into a much wider and real (not laboratory conditions) context.

About my English I always have to take my time to make sure my grammar stays correct, I have another unsolved issue though.

Most of the basics and more complex things I had came to learn were in French, in many case there is NO existing English documentation for it so I have to do the work myself?
 
Regards, PlG
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    More falsehoods    5/13/2009 6:52:47 PM




Aluminum tears under load the same in Russia, as it does in FRANCE.



 



There are INTERNATIONAL recognized materials standards.



 



Used for certification by the way. 
















SARCASM.






 



Herald






 




  Boy, you forget to READ what is posted and still FAIL to comprehend the basic notion of Maximum Load Industry Standards.


  1.5 as an industry standard, at Dassault airframes are beefed up to 1.9.

 

  Now do your math and come back when you will have figured than their engineers before allowing for the FCS to pull 11g up to the hard stop, have dimentioned "Aluminium" part accordingly.

 

  Ask the Greek Air Force who recovers theirs from the Agean sea bed after a crash and get them back in front line Squadrons what they think of it.

 

  BTW you had such strong built airframes not so long ago, they werer the A4 Skyhawk and A7 Corsair II, otherwise the US doesn't bother with oversizing their load standards and got airframes failing in flight after 2/3rd of their service life.

 

  I think you might well believe that god is American too...

 

  Next you can inform yourself on how they did it using a software called CATIA.


For your information and your edification, poster.
 
 
Off topic but general edification:
 
Since IBM bought license rights for that piece of crap from Dassault Systemes (based on CADAM stolen from Lockheed) American Software companies (DELMIA [MI], ABAQAS [RI], ENOVIA[MA], SPATIAL CORP [CO]  SOLID WORKS [MA]   many of them held as subsidiaries of Dassault) have worked to FIX that software.
 
The only thing FrencH in that software is the NAME. The original design kernal came from Bell Labs.. That is the acytal history.
 
Don't stir up a hornet's nest if you don't want to get stung, poster
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand    @Herald12345   5/13/2009 7:24:24 PM
More flaming material but we know by now that your knowlege base is far too low for sustaining a proper debate on the subject of aviation in general.
 
Actualy it is the other way around.
 
Dassault bought IBM license for the original CAD and developed CATIA, IBM is ONLY the US ditributor of CATIA which is a Dassault-systems trademark.
link
 
Boeing and Lockheed Martin uses it for both F/A-18 and F-35...
 
Regards, PLG
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    FJV reply.   5/13/2009 7:26:06 PM
Aluminum alloys by type used in aircraft vary by national tech tree.
 
But in general I mean the 2000 and 7000 series.
 
Tear and compression strength is of course measured in foot pounds, inch pounds, or newtons.
 
You have static loads and dynamic loads. You have compression and you have stretch. So when an amateur tries to say that tear is measured in gees, I laugh at him. Have you ever seen a strain gauge measure in change of rate of acceleration (vector)?
 
No. Its a force unit (scalar) measured as work on the object to deform.or strain.  
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand       5/13/2009 7:40:41 PM

Aluminum alloys by type used in aircraft vary by national tech tree.

 

But in general I mean the 2000 and 7000 series.


 

Tear and compression strength is of course measured in foot pounds, inch pounds, or newtons.

 

You have static loads and dynamic loads. You have compression and you have stretch. So when an amateur tries to say that tear is measured in gees, I laugh at him. Have you ever seen a strain gauge measure in change of rate of acceleration (vector)?

 

No. Its a force unit (scalar) measured as work on the object to deform.or strain.  


 


Herald

LOL!
 
When did I SAID that "tear is measured in gees"?
Boy you are loosing it BIG TIME!!!
 
 Maximum Structural g load (and NOT GEE as you keep mispeling) is the result of complexe computation you certainly have little knmowlege of at the rate you're writing mystakes after mystakes.
 
  This is what i talk about NOT the way it is computed...
 
As for CAD design:
 

Technological revolutions

From 1970 to 1986, the number of prototypes sent up into the air decreased. This normal phenomenon was due to changes in techniques which had reached a level such that virtually all possible configurations had been experimented. The "trial and error" approach of the 1950s and 60s was no longer needed to find the best solution. The best configurations were already known, in particular thanks to the contribution made by computer technology (CATIA software) which made it possible to define the best characteristics of the models envisaged well before the first flight. Composite materials were now in widespread use and electrical control systems provided significant improvements in maneuverability.



Collection Dassault Aviation
Computer-aided aircraft design and manufacturing

The Company developed this concept with a novel philosophy: from the outset, it set its sights on industrial manufacturing. These activities were included in the DRAPO (Définition et réalisation d'avions par ordinateur) program that entered industrial service at the end of 1975. In 1978, Jean Cabrière, the managing director, called for the development of a three-dimensional tool.

A new DRAPO system program, the CATI (Conception Assistée Tridimensionnelle Interactive) program was developed by the CAD Department. Used for the machining of complex parts, it was also designed for the manufacturing of wind tunnel mockup parts from outline drawings defined by DRAPO. CATI thus made it possible to design and machine the first wind tunnel wing in four weeks whereas the building of such a model previously took six months. In 1981, CATI was renamed CATIA (Conception Assistée Tridimensionnelle Inter Active). This computer program made it possible reduce cycle times, improve quality and optimize production efficiencies. A company responsible for developing and marketing this computer program was set up on June 5, 1981: Dassault Systèmes. During the same period, IBM, which was seeking to include a three-dimensional design software program in its catalogue, tested CATIA along with other US and Japanese software programs. In July 1981, it selected CATIA and entered into a non-exclusive distribution contract with Dassault Systèmes.
As a leader in the CAD/CAM field, Dassault Systèmes quickly became one of the front runners in French export companies in the computer sector and even the leader in terms of export turnover.



Collection Dassault Aviation
The use of new materials

New materials emerged during this period. These materials made it possible to reduce structural weight by 30% at a cost price often comparable with conventional products. Dassault thus produced:

  • a high-lift flap track made of titanium for the Mercure 100 (weight reduction of 20%);
  • a rudder made of carbon laminate for the Mirage III (weight reduction of 23%);
  • a curvature flap made of boron fiber laminate for the Mirage F1 (weight reduction of 27%);
  • the fin of the Falcon 50 (first aircraft worldwide certified with a vital component made of composite materials);
  • a wing of the Falcon 10 (first aircraft worldwide certified with a wing made of carbon).
Electrical flight controls and system integration

Falcon 900 flight control system The Dassault company began to design and develop so-called "fly by wire" flight control systems. This technique made it possible to design unstable aircraft, that could thus not be controlled manually in part of the flight envelopment, with their intrinsic instability being compensated for by computer-controlled flight management. Such computers, acting through an electrical transmission system, sent control signals to servo-actuators controlling the aircraft's control surfaces in order to maintain complete flight stability.

The first electrical flight control systems were fitted to the Mirage IV, in 1959, but were backed up by a mechanical flight control system. In 1975, the Mirage 2000 was the company's first "all electric" aircraft to be mass produced. The design of the Mirage 2000 made it possible to operate the flight control system and the radar together. With a terrain-following radar, the pilot no longer touched the controls which were slaved to control signals given by the radar through a computer. The first integration of systems thus came into being. The next stage was to arrange for all systems to be integrated around the central processor as in the case of the Rafale.

link
 
 
 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    PLG reply.   5/13/2009 7:43:57 PM

More flaming material but we know by now that your knowlege base is far too low for sustaining a proper debate on the subject of aviation in general.

 

Actualy it is the other way around.

 

Dassault bought IBM license for the original CAD and developed CATIA, IBM is ONLY the US ditributor of CATIA which is a Dassault-systems trademark.

link target="_blank">link
 

Boeing and Lockheed Martin uses it for both F/A-18 and F-35...

 

Regards, PLG


Falsehood.
 
Rules prohibit me from telling you what you have done since you popped up here. but you have very much demonstrated that you and the truth are distant strangers.
 
One thing about G-lock, The sum of the acceleration vectors on you  yields a composite vector that changes dynamically over time.as y0ou change direction  If you rode a roller coaster you'd know this. You can combine negative and positive accelerations to get a composite load of about 70 meters per second/second that will KILL you; if the composite vector passes through your heart along the wrong thrust line. It can crush your brain and stroke you out.  
 
That what's Warpig tried to tell you. A sudden stop can kill you even when yoi  move during it*
 
*ever hear of iertia.. ?
 
. Anyrate you are more or less not qualified to speak on topic nor are you very honest in debate. This tends to be the characteristoic of an entire class set of nnqualified posters such as you.
 
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand    Information on Structural load   5/13/2009 9:31:39 PM
Designed to simulate the result of inertia and g loads...
 
 
 European Aviation Safet Agency standard is 1.5.
 
 
Quote    Reply

south2       5/14/2009 7:13:00 AM
I am dumber for reading this thread
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/14/2009 1:11:10 PM
I am surprised nobody came up with a nice video , the French Jets are not the only ones to do nice stuff you know .
To your defense , I did not find yet a better display than the latest Rafale 's either ... ;-)
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    You just contradicted yourself.    5/14/2009 1:25:59 PM

Designed to simulate the result of inertia and g loads...


 


 

 European Aviation Safet Agency standard is 1.5.

 


See if you can find where you LIED. I helped out with the first half...........................................


And no that doesn't change the fact that you don't know the first thing on point. Let's see of you do have a clue. Is that a static load test rig or dynamic, AMATEUR?
 
Herald
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

FJV    Nationalism is not an effective counter against the F22 or F35.   5/14/2009 3:27:35 PM
I really can't be bothered.
 
These guys are always a huge waste of my effort and my time.
 
If this guy would know his subject, he could actually make an effective counter point. But he isn't so he can't. Instead he goes all ballistic and emotional on how only an expert on airplane material could possibly make a statement on material strengths.
 
Now if this guy really knew his subject, which he obviously does not, he would know that what I was writing about applies to almost all metals. And if he really did know his stuff he would mention carbon fiber or Glare, which would make a decent counter point, which would shift the discussion to composites. Someone who knows his stuff would make that point, he didn't.
 
A discussion about faillure mechanisms of composites with this guy would end up being a mile long, which when examined closely really is a d%ck waving contest. For my posts I would have to put in a huge amount of effort to make sure the point made is correct and can also be understood by non-technical people. Only to be answered by some more French nationalist BS.
 
To be short: It's really not worth it.
 
PS
This does not adress the fact that the US has had the knowledge to make 12G maneuverable aircraft for at least 20 to 25 years and voluntarily chose to make a less maneuverable plane.
 
This is also why I refrain from posting in detail about why I thinkt the F22 advantages can be countered within 10 years by using relatively mundane technology. An honest discussion on that would have the same effect on some of the F22 fans out here. I would also hate to give the Iranians free advice on a public forum.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand       5/14/2009 3:44:07 PM




Designed to simulate the result of inertia and g loads...






 






 



 European Aviation Safet Agency standard is 1.5.



 






See if you can find where you LIED. I helped out with the first half...........................................







And no that doesn't change the fact that you don't know the first thing on point. Let's see of you do have a clue. Is that a static load test rig or dynamic, AMATEUR?

 

Herald


 

 




 
 
Blah-di-Blah... MORE personal attack, insults and assumptions..
 
I strongly suggest that you start LEARNING, keep your familiarities for yourself and stop trying to make up everyone uses your own dirty trick, reading your posts is the best way to figure who is the amateur here.
 
Static tests are validating design points by simulating MANOEUVRING loads = g.
 
As usual you call people names and pretend to know something you don't and are now making an habit of it.
 
 
FJV    
Nationalism is not an effective counter against the F22 or F35. 
 
  Reality IS and ignoring reality while taking things down to personal levels is what you guys have been doing for as long as this topic have been going on.
 
  F-35 Maximum Structureal Loads have been lowered BELOW the international standards of 1.5 to gain WEIGHT as was that of Typhoon and this is a well documented FACT.
 
Dassault builts their aircraft with design points above 1.8,  in Rafale case 1.89.
 
  A 7.0 g limited aicfraft with higher g loading and lower TWR is hardly going to out turn a Rafale or a Mirage 2000.
 
Regards, PLG
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Static load tests tell you nothing about:    5/14/2009 4:02:08 PM
-Flexion limts.
-Fatigue cracking under strain. 
-Deformation after strain
-Crush limit under repetitive load.

At FJV, obviously if you deploy blob detectors en masse and support such a network with airspace saturation of suitable hunting platforms along the cprridors youm could generate you can neutralize even the Raptor.It comes down to numbers to cover a smear track.
 
I don't think I've ever said that countermeasures and active electronic warfare could ever be dispensed with; not even with LO aircraft. The LO factor just adds one more uncertainty to a generated vector solution. It doesn't make you invisible or invulnerable  I would rather see us use all the means at hand to blind the enemy so that he cannot see to generate a soliition on us at all.
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Static load tests tell you nothing about:    5/14/2009 4:04:48 PM
At FJV: I forgot the word repetitive.
 
Very important word, that.
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand    Information vs reality denial.   5/15/2009 7:09:06 AM

At FJV: I forgot the word repetitive.
 

Very important word, that.




YES of course...
 
12345 repeatedly DENY Aerospacial STANDARDS and procedures.
 
As well as disregarding their meaning, realities and the evidences brought forward to him which illustrates this clearly.
 
AGAIN, for those with a higher interest on the subject of aviation:
 
Static tests validates design points and demonstrates structural loads in many different ways including MANOEUVRING LOADS which is equal to g loads as a result (reason for being called manoeuvring).
 
  In begginers language, when a designer designs its airframe for a normal used of 9 g, static maneuvring load tests will demonsrate this limit plus a SAFETY margin of 1.5 before critical failure for certification purpose.
 
  This safety margin IS and international European standard.
 
  This safety margin was lowered in many occassion for reasons of structural weight saving, Typhoon and F-35 being the best and most recent examples, but in some cases the opposite was done too, as is the case for Mirage 2000 and Rafale.
 
  When the safety margin before catastrophic failure is demonstrated to be 1.89 (example of Rafale documentation posted in this topic), then it means that design points have included a high enough structural load to insure that a manoeuvring load of 11 g, (aerodynamic or static alike) would not cause NO failure, nor material nor structural.
 
  We KNOW by experience that the g limit for structural, non-catastrophic failure on these two aircraft is >13 g, it will take another 5.5 g for anything structural to break-up and at 11 g the risk of material failure is close to NIL.
 
  The used material load limits margin between material and catastrophic structural failures is way narrower than what you try to imply, expecially with modern materials and even more when design points are defined by professionals who know what they are talking about.
 
  If 12345 have had came anywhere close to a theorical flying licence book he would know this, because begginers are thaught this the world over even before being left to fly their first solo, a weak material CAN be made stronger by design but also weaker.
 
  Progresses with materials and design alike have insured that a good design can be as structuraly strong and much lighter than an average one.
 
  It also implies arrangement partricularities such as the DELTA wing (which one of ) characteristic is to offer a better load repartition, higher internal vol;ume (for fuel), stronger structure for a lower weight than a conventional design.
 
  Aerodynamic particulars of this wings are also interesting and i will be more than pleased to bring them forward if necessary.
 
  Regards, PLG
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy