Raptor F22 afterburner=C7 tail light visuals
07-12-2013, 02:09 PM
#24
Safety Car
The F-22 doesn't have spoilers - those are on the F-14 Tomcat for glide path control. The F-22 has something better - vectored thrust !!
A good airframe and it's twin F119 jet engines are the fighter versions of the LS9 !! Too bad they only built 187 of 'em. The F-35 is a poor substitute - a 21st century Brewster Buffalo.
A good airframe and it's twin F119 jet engines are the fighter versions of the LS9 !! Too bad they only built 187 of 'em. The F-35 is a poor substitute - a 21st century Brewster Buffalo.
What's wrong with your 787 at Heathrow?
07-12-2013, 04:04 PM
#25
Team Owner
Member Since: Apr 2001
Location: S.W. Ohio. . . . . . NRA Life Member
Posts: 54,200
Received 173 Likes
on
107 Posts
either paint the vent part - body color (to make them less obvious)
or
put chrome/brushed mesh grills over the vent part. I mean, if they are vents, emphasize it.
Right now, it kinda looks half-stepped; not quite one way or the other.
07-12-2013, 05:18 PM
#26
Safety Car
That is a different opinion than I have. I really like them exactly as they are!
07-12-2013, 05:34 PM
#28
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Feb 2011
Location: Paoli, IN
Posts: 5,799
Received 398 Likes
on
264 Posts
St. Jude Donor '17, '19
BTW, where did you get the photo from auto week? I haven't seen that yet and I read their magazines all the time. I would like to download an HD version of this if I can.
07-12-2013, 09:46 PM
#29
07-12-2013, 10:23 PM
#30
Advanced
Member Since: Jan 2012
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually it looks more like the brakes are on...which is why it seems a bit dumb to have the tail (brake) lights styled as "afterburners". They kind of do the opposite thing 
I'm fine with the design of the tail lights on the C7, 3d design and all, but just can't go for the "afterburner" thing.
I'm fine with the design of the tail lights on the C7, 3d design and all, but just can't go for the "afterburner" thing.
07-13-2013, 01:27 PM
#31
Actually it looks more like the brakes are on...which is why it seems a bit dumb to have the tail (brake) lights styled as "afterburners". They kind of do the opposite thing
I'm fine with the design of the tail lights on the C7, 3d design and all, but just can't go for the "afterburner" thing.
I'm fine with the design of the tail lights on the C7, 3d design and all, but just can't go for the "afterburner" thing.
I thought I'd throw this thread in for laughs.
07-13-2013, 01:51 PM
#32
Burning Brakes
Per my Naval Aviator friends, the F-14 spoilers were used to modulate wing L/D for approach control using a roller switch on the top of the throttles.....much faster than changing the throttle position due to the TF30 turbofan spool-up / spooldown time lag. This is important for CV landing. Incidently, the C-17 transport uses their spoilers the same way....both airplanes were designed to be able to "aim" touchdown at a specific point on the CV / runway.
The pitch vectoring on the F-22 2D/CD nozzle is used to enhanced transonic maneuverability and to provide additional nose down control margin to allow reduction of the horizontal tail size by 20-30% for lower drag. It was first tested on the F-15 SMTD demonstrator airplane by MCAIR (now Boeing) along with a canard where it was found to be very effective at all airspeeds. The SMTD also used the 2D/CD nozzle for thrust reversing on landing.
Any more questions ?
07-13-2013, 07:08 PM
#33
Safety Car
Good question. It costs my portfolio major $$. I'm betting somebody left the coffee pot on in the aft galley when they parked the airplane. It does not appear to be battery related this time, but we'll see.
Per my Naval Aviator friends, the F-14 spoilers were used to modulate wing L/D for approach control using a roller switch on the top of the throttles.....much faster than changing the throttle position due to the TF30 turbofan spool-up / spooldown time lag. This is important for CV landing. Incidently, the C-17 transport uses their spoilers the same way....both airplanes were designed to be able to "aim" touchdown at a specific point on the CV / runway.
The pitch vectoring on the F-22 2D/CD nozzle is used to enhanced transonic maneuverability and to provide additional nose down control margin to allow reduction of the horizontal tail size by 20-30% for lower drag. It was first tested on the F-15 SMTD demonstrator airplane by MCAIR (now Boeing) along with a canard where it was found to be very effective at all airspeeds. The SMTD also used the 2D/CD nozzle for thrust reversing on landing.
Any more questions ?
Per my Naval Aviator friends, the F-14 spoilers were used to modulate wing L/D for approach control using a roller switch on the top of the throttles.....much faster than changing the throttle position due to the TF30 turbofan spool-up / spooldown time lag. This is important for CV landing. Incidently, the C-17 transport uses their spoilers the same way....both airplanes were designed to be able to "aim" touchdown at a specific point on the CV / runway.
The pitch vectoring on the F-22 2D/CD nozzle is used to enhanced transonic maneuverability and to provide additional nose down control margin to allow reduction of the horizontal tail size by 20-30% for lower drag. It was first tested on the F-15 SMTD demonstrator airplane by MCAIR (now Boeing) along with a canard where it was found to be very effective at all airspeeds. The SMTD also used the 2D/CD nozzle for thrust reversing on landing.
Any more questions ?
This is quite interesting: http://www.airvectors.net/avmir2k.html
but according to John Boyd of E/M Theory and OODA loop fame, stated that the F111 and F14 were the worst airplanes ever in the US inventory. "Boyd" is an amazing book to read. I flew MU2s which required only rudder inside the outer marker because the spoilerons would would stall the very high loaded wing.
Even though spoilers reduced adverse yaw which is a good thing on F4s, the extended wing on the F14 would yaw toward the wing with the spoilers deployed and require opposing FBW rudder input. Check the complexity of electronic input in this paper.
I watched 2 F22s close up doing their pre taxi flight check. Unbelievable how the control surfaces move when the stick is stirred. The nozzles only move up and down unlike Russian fighters. The Mirage 5 and F1 have flaperons, 3 on each trailing edge including trim tabs which are inboard. Moving the stick left right causes a wave from one side to the other which looks like the F22 except the F22's horizontal stabilizers join the party.
The roll in the F14 is performed by these surfaces and the dog fights with Talons (MiG 19s) and F14s in the movie 'Top gun' were comical. The mirage 2000 and the Eurofighter have slats that move in unison and in the case of the Eurofighter, which is mostly Dassault, also has canards which make me question its supercruise capabilities. Both aircraft have CGs way ahead of the center of lift.
I've watched F22s land but never took notice of the position of the nozzles during short final and landing.
Thanks for the reply.
07-13-2013, 07:33 PM
#34
Burning Brakes
This is quite interesting: http://www.airvectors.net/avmir2k.html
but according to John Boyd of E/M Theory and OODA loop fame, stated that the F111 and F14 were the worst airplanes ever in the US inventory. "Boyd" is an amazing book to read. I flew MU2s which required only rudder inside the outer marker because the spoilerons would would stall the very high loaded wing.
but according to John Boyd of E/M Theory and OODA loop fame, stated that the F111 and F14 were the worst airplanes ever in the US inventory. "Boyd" is an amazing book to read. I flew MU2s which required only rudder inside the outer marker because the spoilerons would would stall the very high loaded wing.
The F-22 follows in this tradition, but is hampered by excessive airframe weight (just about the same as the F-14 at over 43,000# vs. the Eagle which is about 34,000#). The F-14 is NOT a dogfighter - the variable sweep wing was put on for range and endurance in the flight air defense mode, where it excelled as a long-range missileer with AIM-54 Phoenix A-A stick. My USN pilot buddies called it the "Turkey Buzzard" because it was a handful at low speeds.
The EF-2000 and the Rafale look like first cousins, probably because they started as the same project. Both are balanced neutral with the canard, but I'm told an EF-2000 is a pretty good match to the F-22 inside the merge.
The European fighter I would not mix it up with is the Saab Gripen which is about 10% unstable and has a bigger canard relative to the wing than the Typhoon or the Rafale, as well as a great engine in the enhanced GEAE F414. I'd bet these babies are pretty good knife fighters.
The canard works like the LEX in the Hornet / Super Hornet and gives both enhanced lift and better control response for the wing surfaces by energizing the wing BL. I don't know if you got to fly the Hornet, but I'm told it is also very good close-in.
07-14-2013, 02:21 PM
#37
Actually it looks more like the brakes are on...which is why it seems a bit dumb to have the tail (brake) lights styled as "afterburners". They kind of do the opposite thing
I'm fine with the design of the tail lights on the C7, 3d design and all, but just can't go for the "afterburner" thing.
I'm fine with the design of the tail lights on the C7, 3d design and all, but just can't go for the "afterburner" thing.
BTW, you can see how the tail lights work here...
07-15-2013, 09:23 AM
#38
Safety Car
John Boyd is one of my heroes. His ideas on Energy Maneuverability really shaped the development of both the F-15 Eagle and the F-16 Falcon. I'll look up this book.
The F-22 follows in this tradition, but is hampered by excessive airframe weight (just about the same as the F-14 at over 43,000# vs. the Eagle which is about 34,000#). The F-14 is NOT a dogfighter - the variable sweep wing was put on for range and endurance in the flight air defense mode, where it excelled as a long-range missileer with AIM-54 Phoenix A-A stick. My USN pilot buddies called it the "Turkey Buzzard" because it was a handful at low speeds.
The EF-2000 and the Rafale look like first cousins, probably because they started as the same project. Both are balanced neutral with the canard, but I'm told an EF-2000 is a pretty good match to the F-22 inside the merge.
The European fighter I would not mix it up with is the Saab Gripen which is about 10% unstable and has a bigger canard relative to the wing than the Typhoon or the Rafale, as well as a great engine in the enhanced GEAE F414. I'd bet these babies are pretty good knife fighters.
The canard works like the LEX in the Hornet / Super Hornet and gives both enhanced lift and better control response for the wing surfaces by energizing the wing BL. I don't know if you got to fly the Hornet, but I'm told it is also very good close-in.
The F-22 follows in this tradition, but is hampered by excessive airframe weight (just about the same as the F-14 at over 43,000# vs. the Eagle which is about 34,000#). The F-14 is NOT a dogfighter - the variable sweep wing was put on for range and endurance in the flight air defense mode, where it excelled as a long-range missileer with AIM-54 Phoenix A-A stick. My USN pilot buddies called it the "Turkey Buzzard" because it was a handful at low speeds.
The EF-2000 and the Rafale look like first cousins, probably because they started as the same project. Both are balanced neutral with the canard, but I'm told an EF-2000 is a pretty good match to the F-22 inside the merge.
The European fighter I would not mix it up with is the Saab Gripen which is about 10% unstable and has a bigger canard relative to the wing than the Typhoon or the Rafale, as well as a great engine in the enhanced GEAE F414. I'd bet these babies are pretty good knife fighters.
The canard works like the LEX in the Hornet / Super Hornet and gives both enhanced lift and better control response for the wing surfaces by energizing the wing BL. I don't know if you got to fly the Hornet, but I'm told it is also very good close-in.
There is a discussion about C7 chassis materials and construction and your input would be interesting.
07-15-2013, 05:27 PM
#39
Racer
Interesting thanks. An engineering nightmare is the F14. Never landed on a carrier which requires a different 'Approach' pun intended. Glide path control and pitch vectoring are unfamiliar terms to me. I flew the Mirage III and F1 and everything in between including gliders which use spoilers for different reasons than carrier landings. I owned a Pitts S2B which cost more than a F14 to operate.
This is quite interesting: http://www.airvectors.net/avmir2k.html
but according to John Boyd of E/M Theory and OODA loop fame, stated that the F111 and F14 were the worst airplanes ever in the US inventory. "Boyd" is an amazing book to read. I flew MU2s which required only rudder inside the outer marker because the spoilerons would would stall the very high loaded wing.
Even though spoilers reduced adverse yaw which is a good thing on F4s, the extended wing on the F14 would yaw toward the wing with the spoilers deployed and require opposing FBW rudder input. Check the complexity of electronic input in this paper.
I watched 2 F22s close up doing their pre taxi flight check. Unbelievable how the control surfaces move when the stick is stirred. The nozzles only move up and down unlike Russian fighters. The Mirage 5 and F1 have flaperons, 3 on each trailing edge including trim tabs which are inboard. Moving the stick left right causes a wave from one side to the other which looks like the F22 except the F22's horizontal stabilizers join the party.
The roll in the F14 is performed by these surfaces and the dog fights with Talons (MiG 19s) and F14s in the movie 'Top gun' were comical. The mirage 2000 and the Eurofighter have slats that move in unison and in the case of the Eurofighter, which is mostly Dassault, also has canards which make me question its supercruise capabilities. Both aircraft have CGs way ahead of the center of lift.
I've watched F22s land but never took notice of the position of the nozzles during short final and landing.
Thanks for the reply.
This is quite interesting: http://www.airvectors.net/avmir2k.html
but according to John Boyd of E/M Theory and OODA loop fame, stated that the F111 and F14 were the worst airplanes ever in the US inventory. "Boyd" is an amazing book to read. I flew MU2s which required only rudder inside the outer marker because the spoilerons would would stall the very high loaded wing.
Even though spoilers reduced adverse yaw which is a good thing on F4s, the extended wing on the F14 would yaw toward the wing with the spoilers deployed and require opposing FBW rudder input. Check the complexity of electronic input in this paper.
I watched 2 F22s close up doing their pre taxi flight check. Unbelievable how the control surfaces move when the stick is stirred. The nozzles only move up and down unlike Russian fighters. The Mirage 5 and F1 have flaperons, 3 on each trailing edge including trim tabs which are inboard. Moving the stick left right causes a wave from one side to the other which looks like the F22 except the F22's horizontal stabilizers join the party.
The roll in the F14 is performed by these surfaces and the dog fights with Talons (MiG 19s) and F14s in the movie 'Top gun' were comical. The mirage 2000 and the Eurofighter have slats that move in unison and in the case of the Eurofighter, which is mostly Dassault, also has canards which make me question its supercruise capabilities. Both aircraft have CGs way ahead of the center of lift.
I've watched F22s land but never took notice of the position of the nozzles during short final and landing.
Thanks for the reply.
How do you like the MU2? My eye surgeon has a "short" version and since he has an instructor rating, he checked me out in one. I flew it from Atlanta to Dallas and back one weekend, and it's a real little hot rod. I liked it but it's not the easiest light twin to fly, and definitely not for the low hour pilot.
