garryALOL! Here we go again, you lack so much critical mind and understanding of the basics of aerodynamics, you can’t even figure the commercial B.S from the reality of flight , let alone combat, controlled departure means accuracy of the yaw/pitch axis..
That rich coming guys who was proven wrong over 15 times, i love how you are so desperate to save face that you resort to tactic like lying and casually skipping important evidences that your objectors put up. What happened?, why didn’t you address the LM test report? ah yes, because it make you look like an idiot with what you claimed earlier.
Smell commercial B.S by the bucket, first it doesn’t say “but this is only because other A-F and Navies have chosen to limit their A-C AoA to 30* or 29* after testing the Operational usefulness of PSM“
Then, WHERE does L.M says it is anything like “combat rated PSM” and speaking of accuracy of yaw/pitch, Gripen has demonstrated being superior to F-35, relaxed AoA doesn’t fix inferior aerodynamics.
Just a little reminder:
1) They admit to one fact, F-22 is better than F-35 in the PS area and yet no F-22 pilot uses those otherwise than to bluff fanboys at airshows and produce pretty videos, a Rafale can beat a F-22, so I don’t think they are so impressed by F-35 stunts.
2) Regardless of what you can come up with, since they did NOT conduct those test for the purpose of validating”combat rated PSM”, there is no consencus (quiet the opposite) in the F-35 users, otherwise said, NO specific tests, NO “rating” and in reality PSM remains strictly limited in combat when it comes to its usefulness
3) X-31 pilots opinion proves and validate this point, and this A-C was designed AND tested specifically for validating and “rating” PSM.
4) Gripen has a lot more PSM capabilities due to a higher level of control in the same yaw spin situation (but not only), without loss of control throughout the whole of the maneuver, and 30*/sec higher yaw rate demonstrated.
5) I reiterate. ANY A-C going through spin testing successfully has “accuracy” of the yaw/pitc axis, or else, they would be able to a) increase yaw rate or other axis parameter for the purpose of the test, then stop it, and as a matter of FACT it takes the yaw/pitch controls to achieve that, increasing/lower AoA and yaw rate.
If you had known anything about the whole subject you would be able to distinguish between commercial hype and reality.
Regarding the AoA limit, let me ask you this: Does Russia limit their fighter AoA to 29-30 degrees? Does USA limit their fighter AoA to 29-30 degrees? Does Indian limit their fighter AoA to 29-30 degrees? Does Australia limit their fighter AoA to 29-30 degrees?..etc the answer is NO. (Though it is a bit of dishonest advertise by saying only 5 gen can perform pedal turn)
To find where LM state post stall maneuver for combat is simple, you only have to look at their test report, i know you can’t read very well so i have highlighted them
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:timage_260770.png Views:t0 Size:t837.7 KB ID:t3853720″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3853720″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
Speaking of accuracy for yaw/pitch, no Gripen have never demonstrated being superior to F-35, what happened is that Gripen departure test had higher spin rate than F-35 departure test (then again, so was F-18 and F-16), but that isn’t the indicator of accuracy, and it wasn’t really all that special either, spin rate can be accumulated overtime, you can reach high rate if you spin around several time, but it combat, that never happen. Nevertheless, a controlled departure is not the same as a PSM that can be translated to a gun/missile solution.
1) F-22 and F-35 does uses post stall maneuver in exercise though it is not the main point about them, but to be Frank, your argument is quite dumb, 1 Rafale beat 1 F-22 in mock dogfight that mean Rafale automatically better than F-22 now? what sort of idiot think that? a F-4 did beat a Rafale in Frisian flag, should we put it as the ultimate fighter?
2) Unlike you, who desperately try to interpret Gripen spin departure test as Post stall maneuver capability even though neither Gripen pilot nor SAAB claimed such a thing, i don’t have to come up with anything, Lockheed Martin test say it all: F-35 can use post stall maneuver to gain advantage in air combat, F-35 retain post stall maneuver capability from its brother F-22, and they also list several maneuvers it could perform. That not to mention pilot who described how he used pedal turn in mock dogfight. Also, FYI, they did test high AoA maneuvers for F-35, you are trying to dismiss such obvious fact in the face of overwhelming evidence only make you look super desperate
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tUntitled.png Views:t0 Size:t42.1 KB ID:t3853719″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3853719″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH][ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:timage_260771.png Views:t0 Size:t360.2 KB ID:t3853726″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3853726″,”data-size”:”medium”}[/ATTACH]
3) As usual, you are very disingenuous, they didn’t said post stall was useless, they didn’t support trading off others important fighter characteristic just to get post stall capability that means for example: it is not worth it to cut your speed in half to get post stall capability. PSM for aircraft, can be seen as similar to a sniper having a hand gun, he will rarely use it, but in some case, it can still be useful.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:timage_260765.jpg Views:t0 Size:t158.0 KB ID:t3853728″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3853728″,”data-size”:”medium”}[/ATTACH]
4-5) Nope, you can repeat that a thousand times, it still won’t change the fact that Gripen has no combat PSM capability, nor was it ever tested for such thing. SAAB never claimed Gripen has full control to transit from a PSM to a gun solution, only that it can be put into a spin then recover, that it. You want to prove Gripen can utilize post-stall maneuver, go find a single test report of SAAB saying such a thing about Gripen, instead of desparately trying to interprete controlled departure test as PSM
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:timage_260769.png Views:t0 Size:t47.2 KB ID:t3853727″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3853727″,”data-size”:”medium”}[/ATTACH]
garryAPure delusion, hardly hide how little you know about the subject.
Said the guy who claimed fighter sustain G at Mach 0.8 ,15k ft will be affected by its ultimate structure limit
No agenda here, one has airflow characteristics of the close-coupled canard and is aerodynamically stall and spin resistant, the other is not, and L-M also never claim that it is, on the other hand, when they mention loss of control and vortex brake down at high AoA, you should logically pick up on this because it is a huge clue on A-C level of control, but not everyone has the right knowledge base to do that, granted you came back for more
They clearly said in high AoA test, they have to deal with the basic problem such as turbulence, low dynamic pressure but of course, as a liar you are, you claimed F-35 lost control at high AoA
Whatever, you can’t even figure that you don’t need to be post-stall to do that
So can Jaguar perform these maneuvers or not, simple yes/no question. If yes, show a video.
a controllability needed to get out of a stall and spin, what control surfaces you need to use to get out of a yaw spin, since you have no clue, you can’t figure all A-Cs which go through those tests successfully demonstrate the same level of controllability to an extend and in some case MORE, like demonstrated by the Gripen PSM, and no it has nothing to do with F-16 loss of control, it was a fully controlled PSM
Nope, it wasn’t, Gripen was an intentional departure test, where the aircraft was put into a spin and recover. That it, nothing more, not nothing less. Not even SAAB or any Gripen pilot claimed Gripen can perform post-stall maneuvers,not in airshow, not in mock combat, your fanboy lie can’t change that.
For your information, a controlled departure is not the same as combat rated PSM, because to be able to utilize PSM, the accuracy of the yaw/pitch is important
This clearly shown in F-18E/F flight control development versus legacy F-18C
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3852851}[/ATTACH]
Within AoA and spin testing, not PSM as such, and at this level EVERY single A-C which is put through those tests and come out of spins possesses those qualities to a degree, depending on the A-C, it doesn’t make them “PSM capable” or else, a Jaguar would be, it means they have enough control in post stall to get out of a spin
I don’t try to prove anything, you do it well enough, you proved time and time again that you know too little about the subject to figure what is what and consistently mistake subject (loss of control, vs fully controlled PSM, high AoA vs PSM) to the point of confusion, therefore when one pilot tells you B.S in airshow, you swallow the little ostia, leave your capacity of being critical in the basement, don’t ask what AoA did they turn? And then pop in Rafale topics spamming with documentation you haven’t come anywhere close to comprehend, do we have to be impressed?
I love how you are so desperately try to dismiss F-35’s post stall capability, only to be shut down by fact and evidence.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”data-attachmentid”:3852852}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”data-attachmentid”:3852853}[/ATTACH]
According to you, LM sure use air show as an opportunities to test intentional departure, even though, like you claimed, F-35 has no control at high AoA.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”data-attachmentid”:3852854}[/ATTACH]
Coming from you I take it as a compliment, at least he knows his ABC even if the most advanced stuff eludes him because apparently he haven’t been through the same training than I have, including aerodynamics, but anyone who has can understand what I write, you don’t, and I can tell why.
In other words, you lied and got caught.
garryAHammerhead in my time was not qualified as Aerobatics.
And yes I have done it hundred of times, not only because I liked it (it’s actually quiet fun), but also because it was part of my training, with and instructor or solo on different type of A-Cs, I just fail to understand how it was not part of yours
I don’t think that happened either given that you have been quite disingenuous in this thread
how about you go inside your aircraft ,fly and took a photo with a paper written thincankiller-keypublishing-2019, no need for your face.
Odd is you won’t do that and claim you don’t have time and don’t have to prove anything, but the truth is you lied and got caught
garryAYou said a lot of things because you simply don’t know your very basics:
But nope, you keep posting, spamming, flooding this topic with PSM irrelevant stuff because some geezer is doing his commercial job at an airshow, sales you high AoA maneuvers for “exceptional” PSM capabilities and you FAIL to pick up on all of that?
LOL! Don’t ask us to fall for it as easily as you do, please, I guaranty you that many of us knows better.
Said the guy who was proven wrong over 15 times in the last two page and have to result to lying
1) Where did they mention turning this FCS off?
Never, meaning the FCS needed to be twicked because otherwise it would prevent departure which is not exceptional for a FCS since it is designed for the purpose of keeping the A-C within its controlled flight parameters, it doesn’t mean that the aerodynamic of the A-C make it spin-resistant, there is NO mention there of the aerodynamics preventing departure on its own, but FCS is mentioned and it was not turned off.
In Rafale spin departure test, the pilot have to disable some mode of FCS so he can put his aircraft in a departure
In F-35 spin departure test,the pilot have to twitch the FCS so he can put his aircraft in a departure
but in your fanboy world, it is not similar, of course unless it is a close couple canard like your pet Rafale, it must be not thing exceptional, i get your agenda
Another example: What one trainee pilot will learn even before flaring an A-C and landing, stall characteristics and the importance of speed recovery, speed recovery procedure, which control surface works and up to which AoA on your A-C, when their role crosses (rudder instead of ailerons), not to use ailerons in the stall as not to increase loss of control by stalling one wing further which would trigger a spin.
ALL OF WHICH allows you to mistake high AoA for PSM, take those basics a step higher, you end up triggering spins, increasing the yaw rate, stopping the spin using the same controls as Boston Combe did with a Jaguar in yaw spins at 100* AoA, NO PSM there.
Simple, but too high end for you.
in fact you have NO clue what the difference between departed and controlled flight are..
Sure you should go and educate the engineer at LM who think F-35 can maneuver in post stall regime and gain advantage in combat with that, they are clearly clueless unlike our friend thincankiller
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:timage_260751.png Views:t0 Size:t148.1 KB ID:t3852781″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852781″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
WHY does a Gripen out-perform the F-35 in a (fully controlled on 3 axis from the start of the maneuver) 70/80* AoA yaw spin by 30*/s and still can get out of it if it is not what U. Claréus says of it?
Apply your logic, F-16 which can start a 120 degrees yaw and get out must have even better control ability at high AoA? that just show you know nothing about the topic
HOW can a Rafale pilot practise (that the word used, not “reached”) speeds as low as 15kt in mock combat vs a Mirange 2000 before high AoA testing and go away with it, was it NOT PSM?
Pitch to very high AoA, aka Cobra maneuver and you can have momentary extreme low speed, hardly on the same level as Pedal turn or Herbst or Kulbit
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tgiphy.gif Views:t0 Size:t2.10 MB ID:t3852780″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852780″,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”giphy.gif”}[/ATTACH]
If we had been able to find any video of Gripen and Rafale flight tests and PSM test phases you wouldn’t have been able to pick up on the most important aspect of the tests, controllability, so naturally meaning of the word maneuver is unknown to you
So I reiterate: There is no video
In other words, after 3 pages of trolling, you can’t provide any evidence
garryA1) You didn’t provide any “new evidences” and I didn’t change anything, from the moment members of L-M flight test team mentioned loss of control and the reasons for their test, your “new evidences” were moot, sorry.
2) You still fail to demonstrate PS Maneuvers testing phases by L-M flight test members simply because they do not mention them, quiet the opposite.
You are the most shameless liar i ever talk to. There are two phase of test, the first one is post stall maneuver while the second one is intentional departure recovery, yet you intentionally blurring the two so that you can interpret F-35 test as purely spin recovery test.
Unfortunately for you, the evidence are overwhelming
[/B]High angle of attack test take us to pass the stall point of the airplane. Once you get past that stall angle of attack, you can move the nose around: UP and DOWN , and SIDE TO SIDE
and maneuver to get where you want to be in relation to your opponent, so that will be a maneuver enhancing capability that the F-35 has
Lea Haubelt explains how the tests help define the F-35 flight control software:
To make sure the A-C stays within those parameters, not to allow for PSM.
All you demonstrated is: You don’t know what post stall maneuvers are, read the definition of the word maneuvers first.
You ignore FACTS such as, the mention of loss of control vortex breakdown, F-22 being better at it (but they still never use PSM in combat), ALL A-Cs in this field go through the same flight testing phases and use the same “manoeuvrability” capabilities with the SAME control surfaces to get out of yaw spins, test includes increasing yaw rates and oscillations with use of some control surfaces, so according to your fuzzy definition, a Jaguar is capable of PSM.
High AoA and spin recovery procedures and nothing 3rd and 4th gen A-C did not do
Can a jaguar perform a pedal turn ? nope. Did the manufacturer of Jaguar said it can maneuver in post stall region to give significant advantage in air combat? nope.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3852774}[/ATTACH]
Mention of airflow separation, vortex breakdown AND loss of control at high AoA.
Quote Dan Canin F-35 test pilot:There are several different phonomenon that occur when you get high Angle of attack.
First of all, as the angle of attack increases, the flow which is normally very smooth, starts to separate from the surfaces and you got a lot of turbulences.
First we had the basic controlability problem of high angle of attack, and flow separation also the challenge of having relatively low dynamic pressures.
You put the A-C into a spin, you get the A-C established into that out of control condition, and then when the controller calls, we add a lot to that condition
I like how you intentionally skip out part of the video and hoping no one notice what you are doing, why don’t you quote the whole part? oh yes, because it doesn’t support your nonsense claims
[Quote=”Taurean Williams CF-5 Flight test engineers] What is we testing is to see if the aircraft is still controllable at the high angle of attack regime, once we can characterize the characteristic of the aircraft at the high angle of attack regime, we move to intentional departures [/QUOTE]
Apparently the only thing that matters to you is air shows commercial B.S, understandably since you have no clue what high AoA and spin flight test procedures are, even the simplest basics of stall recovery or else you’d have pick it up..
So according to an “expert” like you, pilot intentionally depart their F-35 out of control so that they can perform pedal turn in airshow, and in mock combat. What do they have to lose, only a hundred millions USD aircraft and their life .Sure sound legit
Does Gripen yaw 30* faster than F-35 in the same situation? Yep. That’s controllability levels for you, when L-M test pilot mentions loss of control, a Gripen yaws 30*/sec FASTER that F-35.
1- LM pilot didn’t said his F-35 lost control, what he said is
There are several phenomenal when you go to high angle of attack,first is the flow which normally very smooth and get over the surface, start to separate and get a lot of turbulent, so first we have the basic control ability problem -high angle of attack and flow separation, this is basic problem for all high AoA testing, if you think the flow doesn’t start to separate from Rafale/Gripen air frame when they are at AoA of 100-110 degrees then you are simply delusional.
2- High yaw rate does not represent higher level of control ability, the control ability is show in how fast you can start and stop the yaw rate as well as how accurate you can control it. 90 degrees/sec yaw rate is irrelevant if you need a more than 1 circle to start/stop it. Otherwise, follow your logic, Gripen got nothing on F-18 and F-18 which both can reach and recover from 100-120 degrees/second yaw rate respectively
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3852775}[/ATTACH]
garryAwell, not “most fighters” but “all fighters” have to pass those tests, as in combat, you never know what the pilot will have to do and if he won’t find himself in a spin at a moment.. so these tests are mandatory to validate the behavior of the new aircraft under such circumstances… as I pointed out above, the chief test pilot explained that they were unable to get the Rafale into a spin no matter what they did to it, and to be able to perform the spin test, they had to deactivate most if not all protections of the FCS. Once they’ve done it, they validated it had positive behavior and was safe.. and then went on… as they’ve concluded that they don’t need PSM, the FCS was programmed that way.. so you won’t ever see a Rafale perform such manoeuvers, simply because the FCS will keep it under a flight rules iton
I said most because i wasn’t sure if legacy fighter such as Mig-21, P-47 were also put under such test.
and i never deny that Rafale can recover from a spin or that it is extremely spin resistant, i only disagreed with tincankiller claim that Rafale can and had done the same post stall maneuver as F-35
F-35 is also very departure resistance
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t3F72811F-1B5A-437E-9951-2EA436573F0F.png Views:t0 Size:t27.1 KB ID:t3852730″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852730″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
garryAon the other hand, if their FCS is programmed to remain capped at 28-29°, it’s not supposed to get there in the first place, no? There was an interview of the Rafale chief test pilot Yves Kerhervé who explained that, during development, for spin testing they had to disable a number of fcs features to have it in a pretty much “direct mode” (no automatic recovery of anything of the sorts) as the aircraft simply wouldn’t depart into a spin regardless of what the pilot did, and what’s more, even when they finally managed to get it into a spin, all they had to do was to release stick and rudder, and the aircraft would recover itself aerodynamically (with no input either from the pilot nor the fcs – as the fcs was in that “direct mode”)
So, basically, if they have made a choice not to go into post stall manoeuvering and programmed the FCS that way, how would you see the Rafale doing any post stall manoeuvers?
My point is:
_ Most fighters are put in spin recovery / departure test, but able to recover from a spin, highly spin resistant doesn’t mean they have control authority to ultilize post stall maneuver in combat. Because PSM for combat also require high level of accuracy for the pitch/ yaw rate, as well as the ability to start / stop quickly
_ thincankiller claimed the pedal/helicopter turn is not a post stall maneuver, and Rafale had done the same thing, so the homework is simple: where is the video?
garryANo need for that, your documentation and ours says what it is: High AoA testing in this case, NOT PSM maneuvers testing, if you haven’t got it yet, you will never, that’s most probable considering that you mistake most of the other topics on the subject.
You are mistaking being delusional (as yourself are) and educated to the point where I can actually fully comprehend what is written.
AGAIN, L-M do NOT claim being able to perform PSM, they only mention a level of control allowing them to get out of a spin and post stall AoA region, this level of manoeuvrability is used to make sure they stay within the flight parameters of the A-Cs which is the goal of those tests and that’s not PSM testing.
Again you fail to demonstrated that this A-C is actually out of those parameters even in your video, engineers and pilots in the L-M video explains this point very well, “out of control”, I can’t help you with your lack of basic knowledge, POST STALL maneuvers is very specific, high AoA with the capability to recover from post stall angle of attack another thing.
None of your documentation mentions POST STALL MANEUVERS, which is convenient for falsly claiming PSM capabilities, more of a commercial gimmick than anything else, I think this Boston Combe Jaguar pilots could claim the same having reached 100* AoA during yaw spins.
Remind us how you get out of a yaw spin again please…
I love how you keep changing the criteria for PSM in the face of new evidences:
First, you claimed high AoA maneuver is only quantified as post-stall maneuver if the pilot can have control in both pitch and yaw
then after i quote the pilot
High angle of attack test take us to pass the stall point of the airplane. Once you get past that stall angle of attack, you can move the nose around: UP and DOWN , and SIDE TO SIDE
you changed the comments to
F-35 did NOT demonstrate PSM, L-M never make such a claim nor does their pilots, they ALL mention high AoA, spin and/or the level of control authority needed to recover from it
without realizing test pilot also mentioned how F-35 pilot can use its post stall maneuver in combat
High angle of attack test take us to pass the stall point of the airplane. Once you get past that stall angle of attack, you can move the nose around: UP and DOWN , and SIDE TO SIDE
and maneuver to get where you want to be in relation to your opponent, so that will be a maneuver enhancing capability that the F-35 has
Then your selective blindness eventhough these important information are highlighted
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:timage_260751.png Views:t0 Size:t148.1 KB ID:t3852712″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852712″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
Clearly not only to recover from a spin as you claimed
Quite funny, because while you try to interpret F-35 post stall maneuver in mock combat and airshow as purely spin recovery, you also try to interpret Gripen spin recovery test as combat post stall maneuver capability, leading to you have to eat your own words
More than all those 3 A-C, on rotation rate in the yaw axis, 30*/sec more that F-35 is a spanking from any standard
Once again, you try to blur the line between a spin recovery and an accurate pedal turn with full control authority
Come back when you can find video of Gripen or Rafale doing this
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tgiphy.gif Views:t0 Size:t2.05 MB ID:t3852713″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852713″,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”giphy.gif”}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”giphy.gif”,”data-attachmentid”:3852714}[/ATTACH]
considering that you mistake most of the other topics on the subject.
You are mistaking being delusional (as yourself are) and educated to the point where I can actually fully comprehend what is written.
Said the guy who was proven wrong repeatedly over 13 times
True (if maneuvring is getting out of post stall or spins) but not everyone of them can actually do that efficiently enough (under full 3-axis control during the whole duration of the maneuver) for those maneuver to be valid in combat situation
Which remind us of how many time Gripen pilot used its “PSM” capability in mock combat and dogfight? zero. Unlike the F-35 which used its PSM capability again then again both in mock dogfight and airshow
2) As mentioned by Yves Kerherve when he was Chief Test pilot for the Rafale program, “we don’t need TVC”, which is consistent with the level of control authority demonstrated by the A-C during flight testing, to which you can add “we don’t need 50* AoA to perform PSM
Yet you can’t find a single video of Rafale and Gripen perform a post stall maneuver. What a coincident
garryAYou still haven’t managed to demonstrate any POST STALL maneuvers capabilities from the test flight team.
Maneuvrability “beyhond stall angles of attack” is what ANY Aircraft needs to get out of a spin, ABC = elevators and rudder control authority, you don’t have it, you don’t get out of a spin, I don’t know how your brain manage to block this but you keep doing it.
Now get a life, you’re full of yourself but still don’t comprehend the basics.
You are so delusional, it is hilarious
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3852678}[/ATTACH]
Find a video of Gripen and Rafale doing this then come back
garryAFlooding a Rafale topic with F-35 nonsense still not able to figure what PSM is, that’s the local troll tactic.
Good thing I don’t bother reading it, I’ve done my home work, cheers.
Exactly like i predicted, you talk big but then get shut down immediately, all your convoluted self made theory became nonsense in the face of overwhelming evidences.
garryALOL! The average fanboys wet dream given on a plate by Lockheed Martin Commercials.
How easy it is to create a forum legend and pass intentional departure and spin recovery during F-35A high angle of attack testing for PSM, a little video showing just that and the capability of the A-C to recover from a spin is enough for some to rewrite the definition of controlled flight and invent themselves new (naturally unclaimed by L-M) capabilities.
In the other Lockheed Martin video, the difference is explained in plain English by one of the pilots (same source, different pile of L.M commercials):Quote Dan Canin F-35 test pilot:
So far, we’re in high AoA and spin recovery procedures:
NOT a mention of full 3-axis control authorify during the maneuver and even less of PSM
Otherwise said, all L-M have done are high angle of attack and spin recovery, nothing fancy there, since every fighter goes through such procedure, the difference lies in the amount of control available during the entire phase, to give you an idea, maximum AoA obtained during testing is not necessarily relevant to PSM, even the Jaguar was pushed to 100* AoA during spin testing at Boston-Combe, only it was also spin testing (yaw rotation) NOT exploring PSM capabilities.
You are such a disgusting liar. Even though i explained to you the different between spin departure test and post stall maneuver test, and the fact that F-35 high AoA test dealing with both. You intentionally ignore the video i posted and try to selective quote a small part from another video so as to fabricate a completely different story from what actually happened.
Yes, F-35 high AoA test including flight departure and spin recovery, as mentioned in several video. But it also include post stall maneuver as clearly explained by the pilot, and your lie won’t change that.
0:00-0:56
Quote Dave’Doc’ Nelson F-35 test pilot:
High angle of attack test take us to pass the stall point of the airplane. Once you get past that stall angle of attack, you can move the nose around: UP and DOWN , and SIDE TO SIDE
and maneuver to get where you want to be in relation to your opponent, so that will be a maneuver enhancing capability that the F-35 has
Your scam don’t work anymore.
PSN is defined by the word MANEUVER which implies for an aircraft to retain the full control authority (even if the axis changes as is the case of rudder/ailerons at such regime)
Dave Nelson said exactly that in the interview, not only he mentioned the word “maneuver”, he also explained the full control authority that F-35 got in that situation
so that the pilot will initiate and stop the maneuver, retain control throughout its whole duration, which was the case of the PSM passed by the Gripen (even if it was a spin it was a fully controlled “helicopter turn”; on the yaw axis using aileron input).
It is quite funny to see you try to paint F-35 post small maneuver as simple spin recovery test, yet at the same time, you try to claim Gripen can perform post stall maneuver even though even SAAB themselves never said such a thing. Literally SAAB only talk about AoA recovery-anti spin logic in their test report, Gripen had never perform any post stall maneuver in airshow, never in any dogfight exercise, but that doesn’t stop a fanboy like you claim Gripen is so good at high AoA.
Here, it is pretty clear that not only they do not initiate the stall (the A-C is just parked on its tail, then basically falls out of control as commented bybDan Canin, during all this phase, as mentioned by its test pilot, it is basically out of control, only then do they use the little control authority they still have, necessary to recover from a spin and common to most A-Cs, to add to the spin, also common in spin testing.
I wonder that does that test procedure resemble? ah yes, Gripen test
initiate the tests with a near vertical climb with speed dropping off to near zero and a rapid increase of AOA up to extreme angles
The maximum yaw rate they were able to obtain this way was 60*/sec ]rotation on the yaw axis, Gripen get 30* second higher rotation rate at 90* between 70 to 8-* AoA, this just demonstrates the difference of level of control authority between the two, since they both used aileron input but not the same way, Gripen having previously initiated the dynamic stall with elevators input.
If we follow that logic, then F-16 clearly the fighter with best post stall maneuver capability since its yaw rate can reach up ward of 120 degrees/second in spin test.?
FYI, F-18 can recover from 100 degrees/second rotation rate in spin test, so this mean Gripen clearly got nothing on F-18?
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tF-18 spin rate.PNG Views:t0 Size:t145.4 KB ID:t3852664″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852664″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
In one case, the whole maneuver was executed under full control authority, first pitch, to get the A-C at AoA between 70 and 80* when sped was close to zero (think about the 15kt controlled flight of the Rafale mentioned by Rafale flight test team members in their report), triggering a dynamic stall, second, one the A-C “parked” (involving a notion of control to keep it there) at this AoA, aileron input was used to start and stop rotation.
You made up the full control authority part
what they did in gripen AoA test was climbs near vertical, then when the Gripen lose all airspeed, it will fail down, then it can be put into a vertical spin, just like in F-35 spin test
In the other case Intentional Departure[/B]), the pilots did NOT triggered the departure, the A-C just runs our of starts to rotate by itself OUT OF CONTROL as mentioned by Dan Canin, only then do they start to apply control inputs to increase the yaw rotation and stop it, there is NOTHING there that many other A-C haven’t been through during high AoA and spin tests, and this certainly do not qualify for PSM.
This is single dumbest comment in this whole thread, are you insane ?you really believe the rotation start by itself without any flap/aileron input? nope, it need to be put in a spin. Don’t even think you can put a straw man argument against me, i had always separate spin test and post stall maneuver
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:timage_260683.png Views:t0 Size:t716.4 KB ID:t3852665″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852665″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
I demonstrate the difference between two very distinctive things: Departure + Spin tests, and PSM, which is the subject of a pale attempt to blur the difference between the two, that’s fanboys territory, flaming and inventing is not going to make this forum better
That quite ironic coming from the fanboy who was trying to blur the line so that he can claim Gripen can perform post stall maneuver from its spin recovery test.
come back when L-M says they experimented with PSM instead of trying to pass spin tests for it
We don’t need to invent ourselves capabilities by rewriting the industry books, falsely interpret what is written or said by pilots and manufacturers, it’s all there documented and available for everyone to see.
FACT: F-35 did NOT demonstrate PSM, L-M never make such a claim nor does their pilots, they ALL mention high AoA, spin and/or the level of control authority needed to recover from it; control over the at least 2 axis is part of it for those who don’t understand how to get out of a spin, you’ll need opposite rudder and elevator authority, which is used by all A-Cs to get out of a spin so yaw control and nose pointing capabilities are used by many other A-C during most high AoA and spin tests flights.
I will be honest, the most fun part of this thread is seeing you getting so loud mouth and get shut up immediately after.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tF-35 high AoA test.png Views:t0 Size:t66.2 KB ID:t3852666″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852666″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tF-35 post stall.PNG Views:t0 Size:t148.1 KB ID:t3852667″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852667″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tF-35.PNG Views:t0 Size:t102.3 KB ID:t3852668″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852668″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
Other little detail: What is wrongly qualified PSM with F-35, “Paddle” and “Helicopter turns” are not done in post-stall situations by F-35, but high AoA, most probably using the rudder (rudder turn) to obtain the A-C turn rate, Yves Kerherve demonstrated this at the Farnoborough Airshow flying the Rafale M, rudder turns are not F-35-only territory
So where is the video?
It is such a coincident how Rafale with its alleged extremely awesome post stall maneuver, only demonstrated it once, and magically no one have a recording of that, so you can’t find any video of that incident either.Sound legit
aircraft with close coupled canards are almost impossible to depart from controlled flight(FCS and mechanical problems notwithstanding)
to
“You get the A-C established into that out of control condition”.
NOT clear enough?
You are either a liar or a fanboy who like to cherry pick information to claim that he is correct
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:timage_260683.png Views:t0 Size:t27.1 KB ID:t3852669″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852669″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
During low speed tests (mock combat vs a Mirage 2000 among other things) speed as low as 15kt was practised by one of the pilots, meaning it was Post Stall in controlled flight (unless you believe Rafale is a Chinese kite)
a momentary pitch to very high AoA followed by recovery (Cobra maneuver) can slow aircraft speed down significantly for a moment, but many aircraft can do that, including F-14,F-15, and that certainly not on the same level as other PSM such as Helicopter turn, Kulbit or Herbst
garryALOL! Test flight report mentions controlled flight at speed as low as 15kt, I guess Rafale must have a hell of a CL to stay airborne at this speed without being PS no? btw this was BEFORE the high AoA test phase with a non relaxed FCS.
Actually what they said exactly was ” a low speed of 15kt was reached in mock combat against agressive Mirage pilot”, there was no details on how that speed was reaches or for how long. A pitching cobra like maneuver can easily reduce the speed significantly momentary
Now, you are the one denying what their designers and pilots say, L-M clearly never made this claim for the reasons I explained, they never did PSM, but demonstrated spin recovery and the level of control involved to do that, the fact that you managed to post tons of unrelated (to PSM) material doesn’t change this fact, so the one with the problem is yourself, stop trying to make it ours, none of us care your opinion, here is why.
Let’s resume:
You don’t accept industry standards, try to redefine the meaning of the words written or said by professional aerodynamicists and pilots, claim capabilities even pilots and manufacturers doesn’t for both F-16 and F-35, (where do they mention PSM capabilities, I posted two links mentioning them for both Rafale and Gripen you came up with none?), can’t figure out what Structural load does, not to mention what maneuver means when it comes to distinguishing between PSM, intentional departure and the level of control authority needed to get out of dodge, that if you can’t retain a certain level of control after a stall you won’t be able to get out of it but that PSM is yet another level up and involves a FULL level of control during the whole duration of the maneuver (or else, the only maneuver there is the recovery, still not PSM, something they never demonstrated), you don’t pick up on the out of control or vortex breakdown comments of F-35 pilots as if meant nothing, chose to ignore what it does when it comes to the A-C flight envelop limitation, take FCS for Jesus himself, the full monty. Poor guy.
I didn’t fail to demonstrate that you were wrong in all accounts and that both Gripen and Rafale were designed with PSM and hypermaneuvrability in mind through two different articles, you, on the other hand, still have to show us anything else than high AoA and spins testing with just enough control authority for recovery, and that, with a full 30*/sec lower yaw rotation rate than Gripen during its demonstrated PSM, something of a little detail you also fail to pick up on, since the words controled and flight means nothing to you, but eh, keep deluding yourself and entertain this paranoia of yours about this Picard guy, he must have had an easy time owing you considering your abysmal knowledge base.
I guess Star Trek online should suits you better than debating subjects way above your head because all you’ve been doing so far was trolling, out of argument, take on the poster: Sorry but i’m not used to this level of mediocrity.
Bye, you’ve been deleted, enjoy the video, but I doubt that you will understand what is going on.
To be fair i am quite impressived with how you can fabricate a story completely opposite from what happened. Unfortunately for you, everyone can read, and anyone who had followed this discussion will know that you are repeatedly proven wrong
1- you claimed no US fighter had been tested anywhere close to 100 degrees AoA=> turn out F-35 had been tested to 110 deg, same for F-22 , even F-14, F-15, F-16 all had been push to 90-100 degrees AoA in their test
2-you claimed that F-35 rivets will all fly out long before the pilot pull 10G=> turn out ,it had been flown to 9.9G
3-you claimed operational G load is directly proportional to ultimate structure limit, sustained or instantaneous aren’t important => turn out, it clearly isn’t , i showed you and example that F-16 with higher ultimate structure limit can have lower sustained G limit than F-15 and also the fact that fighter can’t sustain anywhere near 9G when they fly at 10.000 feet or higher. As a bonus, i showed you that pulling higher G doesn’t neccesary translate to a higher turn rate unless both turn are performed at the same velocity, but you choose to ignore that.
4-you claimed F-16 pilot just let go off the stick and the aircraft will recover => turn out he recover from the spin by rudder input
5-you claimed F-35 KPP specs change is the evident that its structure get weakened => turn out you were hilariously wrong, the Sustain G spec at that altitude is no where even near 9G
6- You claimed Gripen test is a post stall manuever test while F-16 test was a spin departure test=> turn out, they are both spin recovery test, it is even mentioned in the test report how the anti spin logic and the recovery control law of Gripen operate, there is not even a single word in the test report mentioning that the spin departure can be used in combat.
7- You brag about how Gripen spin rate can reach 60 degrees/seconds spin rate in its spin departure-recovery test => turn out, it is quite usual thing, F-16 yaw rate even reach 120 degrees/second in yaw departure test.
8-You keep claim that F-35 can’t perform any post stall maneuver and it was only tested for spin departure recovery=> turn out, not only i can post multiple video of F-35 perform post stall maneuver in a fully controlled manner, but also the comment of pilots talking about how he used the pedal turn in dogfight exercise.
further more, in this video:
from 0:00- 0:56
The pilot said very clearly: once past the stall point, F-35 can still pitch its nose up and down, and yaw its nose side to side, maneuver toward the adversary. He even said it is maneuver enhancing capability , but the troll keep insist F-35 can’t perform any PSM
By contrast, there is zero video of Rafale or Gripen perform post stall maneuver in airshow. Especially in the case of Gripen, there is no Gripen pilot mentioned he how used its post stall maneuver capability in combat, in the whole test report of Gripen, there is not a single word about post stall maneuver, the whole report is about how the flight control system recover Gripen to normal flight path if Pilot accidently excess 26 degrees AoA.
9- You claimed Gripen has extremely good high AoA nose control that why it is not limited to 26 AoA like F-16 => turn out, the flight control test report also show Gripen limited to AoA of 26 deg
garryAI bet you never stalled an A-C, or passed a vertical reversal, I did, it is a bit different, just to say
No you didn’t, stop with your lie, you are not impress anyone
what I am sure of is that they do NOT mention PSM anywhere…
Then what is this:
and this
and the pedal turn that pilot talk about?
It will, depending on how much they lowered its Ultimate Structural Load limit to shred weight, there again you ignore reality and try to make up that they are all equals, that’s hilarious, L-M have lowered ALL of F-35 variants Ultimate Structural Load limits to meet their weight targets, testing the 9.0G version at 9.9G is the maximum it will probably take, or else they would have pushed it a bit higher.
You haven’t provide single piece of evidence to show that weight reduction effort will affect F-35 Ultimate G limit, let alone affect it significantly
As to maximum limit the aircraft can take, if the maximum an aircraft can take is 9.9G, they won’t fly it up to that, because a slight mistake and they can lose hundred millions USD and the pilot can die. If they can fly it up to 9.9G then it means the ultimate limit is much higher than that
You seems to suffer from a strange obsession for the material coming out of this part of human anatomy, so let’s be clear: I do NOT CARE what you delude your self in to thinking I comprehend or NOT, the FACT remains, you cannot go OVER a structural G load without consequences and FCS are there to prevent this to happen
and as a matter of fact, the ultimate structure G limit will be much higher than the operation G -limit, that is clearly demonstrated when multiple aircraft excess their G limit they don’t break instantly
furthermore, I reiterate, be it instantaneous or sustained they are part of the turn rates equation, I don’t know where you figured A-C were all built the same or with Klingon material but you live in coucouland, not reality.
if you look at an E-M chart,the higher you fly, he harder it is to generate enough lift for high G, to the point that pulling high G is not beneficial anymore because your turn rate will be lower since you have to go too fast
Especially considering that sustained G of aircraft can’t even reach 9G when they fly above 10.000 feet.
Aircraft certainly aren’t made with indestructible material, but neither are the pilot flew them.
Let me guess you can’t figure what Ultimate Structural Load does to an Airframe, what G load is, what PSM, spin or Intentional Departure are.
I do, that why i was able to educate you just now
Back to your library you have MUCH work to you, because so far, all you demonstrated is a taste for false interpretation, flooding the topic with material you don’t fully comprehend doesn’t make your case.
Said the guy who was proven wrong repeatedly
I’ll reiterate for the benefit of the debate:Close-coupled canards allow Rafale to maneuver in post-stall regime by increasing maximum lift coefficient (Clmax), making it supermaneuverable (post-stall regime is any angle of attack beyond Clmax;
Post stall are maneuver done where the wing already stall, aka already pass the CLmax point
2)Maximum angle of attack that Rafale has reached during testing is 100 degrees, showing extensive post stall maneuvering capabilities)
Personal quote: THIS was done under the supervision of ONERA after digital simulation in order to explore the validity of PSM in combat situation
Reaching high AoA doesnot mean Rafale or Gripen have high level of control for post stall maneuver
F-14, F-15, F-16 were all pushed to extremely high AoA in test, between 90-100 degrees, yet none of them have the nose authority of F-35 or F-18 at low speed
3) This is a result of canard-wing vortex interaction, with presence of canard eliminating wing vortex breakdown
Personal quote: F-35 high AoA testing demonstrated just that, Wing vortex breakdown, so you can be sure that even if its FCS allows for higher AoA, the problem is still there, whether it is fully PSM capable remains to be seen, on other A-Cs, you need TVC, Rafale Chief test pilot said after the high AoA tests “WE DON’T NEED TVC”. This should be clear enough for an aerodynamic anorak like you no?
and yet, F-35 can perform post stall maneuver such as the helicopter turn both in dogfight exercise and in airshow, something neither Rafale or Gripen was able to do, some like actual LM engineers know more than you
If you had any credibility left, you destroyed it by citing Picard
Now enough of this laughable generalisation syndrome, not all A-Cs are designed with the same aerodynamic qualities and even less with the same structural standards, you having a problem with this aspect of reality doesn’t change
Not all A-C are built with the same aerodynamic qualities and i have no problem with that. But you clearly have problem with the fact that Rafale, Gripen don’t have combat post stall capability
garryAConsidering that you still make disneylandish claims about airframes and FCS surely not, I would advise you again to go back to basics and learn a tad more before posting tons of stuff you haven’t taken on board yet.
Let have a quick recap:
1- you claimed no US fighter had been tested anywhere close to 100 degrees AoA => turn out F-35 had been tested to 110 deg, same for F-22 , even F-14, F-15, F-16 all had been push to 90-100 degrees AoA in their test
2-you claimed that F-35 rivets will all fly out long before the pilot pull 10G=> turn out ,it had been flown to 9.9G
3-you claimed operational G load is directly proportional to ultimate structure limit, sustained or instantaneous aren’t important => turn out, it clearly isn’t , i showed you and example that F-16 with higher ultimate structure limit can have lower sustained G limit than F-15
4-you claimed F-16 just let go off the stick and the aircraft will recover=> turn out he recover from the spin by rudder input
5-you claimed F-35 KPP specs change is the evident that its structure get weakened => turn out you were hilariously wrong
..etc
It is quite funny how you like to make smug remark even though you are repeatedly proven wrong and almost everything you said get debunked
Looks like you were wrong again: AIRCRAFT LOADS
Dr. M. Neubauer, G. Guinther DaimlerChrysler Aerospace GmbH Military Aircraft, MT22, Postfach 80 11 60 81663 Munich, Germany.
To summarize, at lower speed you are unlikely to over-stress the air frame by pulling too many Gs, the higher the speed, the more important the Load factor becomes, and NO if your FCS is working properly it will prevent you to pull higher number of Gs than your structural Load limit throughout the whole of the flight envelop.
You don’t understand what does load factor represent or why they are a limit at higher velocity
Lift = 0.5*reference wing area*air density*lift coefficient*(velocity)^2
G that aircraft can pull =Lift/aircraft weight
In other word, the faster you fly, the more lift you will generate, and if you generate more lift, you can pull more G. At low speed you don’t have enough lift to reach the Operational G -limit value, so that why structure G-limit doesn’t matter there. It is the same case when you are at high altitude, because the air density is low, and your aircraft will struggle to generate enough lift to turn, let alone excess the G-limit. It is even worst for Sustained G value since engine thrust will also be reduced at high altitude, and lower air density mean aircraft need to fly faster to pull the same amount of G, but flying faster mean the drag is exponentially higher and hence, the turn is even harder to sustain if it wasn’t already hard enough
The same reason that make your claim about how “F-35 sustained specs change is the evidence that its structure G limit was reduced” rather laughable, at 15k feet,mach 0.8, F-35’s sustain G limit is no where even near its ultimate G-limit, this should be super obvious to you if you had seen any fighter performer chart, 10k feet and up, their sustain G-limit can’t even reach 9G, never mind excess it
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t1.PNG Views:t0 Size:t555.4 KB ID:t3852533″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852533″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
and i bet you don’t know this either:
higher G pulled doesn’t necessary mean higher turn rate unless they are performed at the same velocity:
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tg.PNG Views:t0 Size:t117.6 KB ID:t3852532″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852532″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
Fyi, the ultimate structure G limit far excess the operational G limit, so sure FCS won’t let you excess the ultimate structure limit
I was at Franborough when Kerherve pulled his high AoA turns after take off and I guaranty you that he could point his nose this way faster than the SU could achieve his Cobra maneuver, also I timed X-31 once and compared the turn rate with that of the Gripen in its (REAL) Helicopter turn, with 80* AoA and it was superior to that of X-31 with TVC.
Alright,so you witness all of that, but for some reason don’t have a single video of the incident and you can’t find any video of that on the internet either. Yeah, seem legit.
Nope, again you mistake PSM with spin and spin recovery, it was not 100* AoA but 80* AoA for a good reason, (a TRUE “Helicopter” maneuver is done around this angle using ailerons deflection to rotate the airframe):
Gripen was put into a near vertical climb at good speed then stalled dynamically when sped was low (or else you can’t have the precise 70/80* AoA), maintained at 80* AoA, which is a controlled departure and NOT a simple “Intentional Departure”, (you still can’t figure the difference between the two), then aileron inputs were used to initiate and stop rotation on the YAW axis. What we can call a PSM and what we can NOT.
In the case of Gripen PSM spin:
1) They chose the angle of attack and airspeed by stalling it dynamically.
2) Once they controlled the A-C attitude and kept it there (parking at AoA between 70 and 80*).3) They trigger the rotation in the yaw axis with aileron input.
4) They stop the rotation by applying opposite aileron input
You are such a troll
They literally call their system HIGH AOA RECOVERY CONTROL LAW
you know pitch dampening, anti spin logic
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t10.PNG Views:t0 Size:t194.6 KB ID:t3852535″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852535″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tCapture.PNG Views:t0 Size:t638.7 KB ID:t3852534″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852534″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
The test Gripen gone through is literally the same as what F-16 gone through,both are yaw departure test to see how the aircraft can get out of a spin, even the way they got out of the spin are extremely similar
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tdepartured.PNG Views:t0 Size:t178.0 KB ID:t3852536″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852536″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
Anyone with good ears can figure that L-M high AoA and spin tests departures are not controlled, they say it themselves
Quote ONE pilot.
First we had the basic control ability problem of high angle of attack, and flow separation also the challenge of having relatively low dynamic pressures.
You put the A-C into a spin, (by stalling it passively).
You get the A-C established into that out of control condition, and then when the controller calls we add a lot to that condition (I guess with aileron input).
So at which point exactly can you call it a maneuver under full control since the A-C basically does what it wants and you let it until it is established in the spin?
Nothing to do with what SAAB did which was basically to chose which AoA, what speed (since they stall it at a given speed) which implies full control of the maneuver, with enough pitch authority at low speed to create 70 to 80* AoA, so if one maneuver IS a maneuver with full control (AoA, speed), the other one is only as departure where the A-C get into the spin by itself.
You misunderstood post stall maneuver and spin recovery big time:
There are two separate thing which sound very similar but not the same:
1-The pedal/helicopter turn which F-35 used in airshow and also against F-16/F-15 in dogfight practice, in this case the aircraft can be yaw around its vertical axis extremely accurate, hence, it can be used for combat, the yaw rate is around 28 degrees/second. This is what aircraft with high level of control at extreme AoA can perform
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tpedal turn.PNG Views:t0 Size:t43.9 KB ID:t3852537″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852537″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
https://www.realcleardefense.com/art…_109673-7.html
You can see the level of accuracy of the pedal turn in earlier airshow video in this thread, it is not in any shape or form resemble a departure spin
2-The yaw departure/ spin recovery test, this is what most fighters have to go through, including F-15, F-16, F-35, Gripen, Rafale..etc. The aircraft is intentionally put in a spin, this spin has very high yaw rate: can be any where from 60-120 degrees/second, then the aircraft FCS will recover the aircraft from the spin by rudder/ailerons/flaps input, depend on the kind of aircraft
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tspin.PNG Views:t0 Size:t43.5 KB ID:t3852538″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852538″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tjas-39.PNG Views:t0 Size:t325.4 KB ID:t3852539″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852539″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
Look at the F-35 video and see how they initiate those spins, obviously a true helicopter turn is a spin, only fully controlled, F-35 departs from the vertical when speed is ZERO, at this point there is NO control whatsoever.
So this F-35 stop yaw by coincidence?
In the high AOA and spin tests that has taken place since 1996 and recently concluded successfully, the normal tactic was to initiate the tests with a near vertical climb with speed dropping off to near zero and a rapid increase of AOA up to extreme angles, and the aircraft could then be “parked” at 70 to 80 degrees of alpha.
When giving adverse aileron input there, a flat spin with up to a maximum of 90 degrees per second of yaw rotation started and could then be stopped by pro aileron input. Recovery followed, whenever commanded.
This is what PSM is, not a pseudo/ false “helicopter turn” at high AoA which his in fact a turn NOT a rotation on the Yaw axis as what an “helicopter turn” should be with full all-axis control throughout the whole of the phase, or a spin departure with no increased AoA to trigger it, apparently despite posting half your library you still haven’t got the difference between the two.
Now; 90* per second means 4 sec for 360*, I invite you to compare to the X-31 figure, for the time being here is the
If I were you i’d save and archive it because it is a rare document
Firstly, F-35 helicopter turn is a post stall maneuver, because it is a rotation around its yaw axis, which can be see quite clearly in my earlier video
Secondly, if i was you would learn what is a spin test first, any aircraft can be put in a spin with very high spin rate, for example, this F-16 yaw rate was 120 degrees/second in the departures test, and it can recover from that too
Nope, allowing a departure into a spin by stalling passively does NOT qualify as PSM simply because you do not have full control of the A-C on all axis throughout the whole “maneuver “
and yet you think Gripentests with a near vertical climb with speed dropping off to near zero and a rapid increase of AOA is a PSM? it is a departure test. period.
any A-C can actually be put into a spin and recover with proper control input, this “me too” complexion is reaching new levels, this is not as you said “exactly” what F-16 and F-35 were doing.
It isn’t a complexion, it is fact.
WHERE did you read PSM anywhere in your documentation please? It never is mentioned, if F-35 had tested PSM we all would know by now, not the case, it’s only spin tests and high AoA.
It literally mentioned by the pilot how the F-35 use the pedal turn in dogfight practice with F-15 and F-16, a departure spin is not accurate enough to use in combat, and not safe enough to use in air show, hence, we don’t see Gripen perform post stall maneuver either in exercise or airshows
Again watch the video as see HOW they triggered those spins, nothing to do with SAAB PSM even if they both spin on the yaw axis, they left the A-C drop from a near nose up, vertical attitude, they didn’t stall it with sudden increase of AoA, there is a full phase during which they didn’t have control of the A-C, it was down to gravity, not a dynamic stall even a low speed, that’s what is different (dynamic stall and AoA) and why they won’t call it a PSM.
1- as mentioned earlier, the pedal turn F-35 performed is not the same as the same as the spin it done in recovery test. I have post multiple video of F-35 perform pedal turn right after a pull and that has nothing to do with intentional departure
2- The test of Gripen spin recovery is exactly the same as F-35 spin recovery test. Neither are PSM
initiate the tests with a near vertical climb with speed dropping off to near zero and a rapid increase of AOA up to extreme angles
They HAVE the right level of control authority, on the other hand F-16 doesn’t, reason why DRYDEN limited it to 25* AoA to prevent superstall, looks like you don’t know much about it either
Guess what is the AoA limit of Gripen?
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tgripen aoa.PNG Views:t0 Size:t49.2 KB ID:t3852540″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852540″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
garryAHelicopter turn who are you kidding?
If you look at the video and compare to the picture I posted you’ll figure the turn radius is not only similar, the A-C attitude as well, they both end up nose down when they are close to finish their 360*, this is not a X-31.
Nope, not the same, if the Rafale actually spin in the horizontal, then you should be able to get a video of it, in your photo, the rafale only pull down after the turn
Nope not only you totally FAIL to comprehend what designed Ultimate Structural Load limits are but you also ignore the operational load limits imposed by their FCS to prevent them to reach those limits, enough with the forum legends and Teletubbies B.S
Wrong, Ultimate Structural Load is ALSO part of the equation you will not go over it if your structural limit is too low or your FCS prevent you to do so because it is too low, it is exactly WHY those FCS limits are there.
There are plenty of case aircraft excess their operational G limit in combat.
ultimate limit are far from what pilot can pull in combat, a fighter with 9G operational G limit will have their ultimate far excess that number.
Nothing to do with their respective designed Ultimate Structural Load limits, back to the square ” I did not get it right must revise my copy”.
Instantaneous like sustained turn rates depends on the SAME factors bar the installed thrust in the case of sustained and this includes how your airframe is built, as simple as that.
In other words, F-35 sustained G limit at 15.000 feet has nothing to do with its ultimate limit
Sign In
