Jump to content

Pierre Sprey & Lt. Col David Berke debate


Hummingbird

Recommended Posts

Im sorry, but reading this thread is like watching this...

 

tumblr_nubbhqC9yT1rpco88o2_r1_500.gif

  • Like 1

- Jack of many DCS modules, master of none.

- Personal wishlist: F-15A, F-4S Phantom II, JAS 39A Gripen, SAAB 35 Draken, F-104 Starfighter, Panavia Tornado IDS.

 

| Windows 11 | i5-12400 | 64Gb DDR4 | RTX 3080 | 2x M.2 | 27" 1440p | Rift CV1 | Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS | MFG Crosswind pedals |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

garryA there is also a time to drop it - that time is now - that is going way OT.

 

I would have pages ago if wasn't for various personal attacks towards me.So i thought i should represent my side as well. But fine, it is very OT so i stop.


Edited by garrya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been watching this thread for some time, and while I disagree with neofightr's position, I have to admit to having derived no small measure of humor from the likes of this:

 

You brush over it and told me F-14 wing start to sweep back at Mach 0.45. But you chose to omit the very important part about how much it sweep back, clearly, the rate of back sweep vs speed is much higher after Mach 0.7 (show in the steep of the lines). So my argument wasn't invalid and worth discussing instead of throwing insult at me like you did

 

But you have very sneaky way of arguing when you choose to hide a part of the data.

 

He asked you if you knew in post #162, and then answered his own query, to which you weren't knowledgeable, in post #173.

 

That's not hiding data- that's proving someone doesn't know what they're talking about. Which, considering you confused the Ps curves with CL Max, wasn't much of a stretch.

 

Last but not least, you said i shouldn't open threads in another forums to double check because it is not polite, but don't you think it is also impolite to bring back an old thread then make rude comments toward me?

 

There's a difference between using an old exchange as a frame of reference, versus using a thread elsewhere to have someone else generate responses on your behalf because you don't know enough about the subject to hold a discussion.

 

The last I'm going to say on this ridiculous carnival ride of a topic:

 

gerry, your understanding of aero amounts to catch phrases and recognition of terminology; you don't know what the underlying terminology means, and how it affects performance. When you call out a question in relating performance between the F-14, F-15, F-16, and F/A-18, because the former's glove regions aren't "called LERX", rather than the differences in the design and implementation, what you're signalling is a hope that you're on the right track and can baffle others with an acronym- not actually hold a legitimate conversation about why a particular airframe to wing installation may hold a performance edge.

 

It's okay, even as an adult, to admit when one doesn't have either enough knowledge or data with which to back a contention; hell- I did it just this morning discussing the F-15 flight model. When you not only need others to do the work for you, but consistently need to give the aforementioned hopeful signalling to try and stay in a conversation, you're well past the point of no return regarding legitimacy, and don't have much in the way of complaint to offer regarding people calling you out for what you don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He asked you if you knew in post #162, and then answered his own query, to which you weren't knowledgeable, in post #173.

That's not hiding data- that's proving someone doesn't know what they're talking about.

Did i say i know at exactly what point the wing sweep back? No i didn't. I only suggest that F-14 will not generate as much lift at similar AoA when its wing go back at high speed so it is hard to estimate. He said the wing start to go back at Mach 0.45 which isn't wrong but he could easily post the manual pages where it's swept angle start to be significant at Mach 0.7 onwards which fit my point.

 

 

There's a difference between using an old exchange as a frame of reference

Not just a frame of reference, if he only said garry did that before and linked the thread then that is one thing but he did post various rude comments about me after that, even though i restraint from replying at first

 

versus using a thread elsewhere to have someone else generate responses on your behalf because you don't know enough about the subject to hold a discussion

And i admitted that i asked for their input because my knowledge alone has limit. At no point i pretend like the expert comments was mine, i even go as far as screenshot the whole thing. What wrong about that?. Just like people searching for answers on Google. If i have a collection of knowledgeable people why not ask them as well?

 

you don't know what the underlying terminology means, and how it affects performance. When you call out a question in relating performance between the F-14, F-15, F-16, and F/A-18, because the former's glove regions aren't "called LERX", rather than the differences in the design and implementation

I did talk about LERX ability to generate vortex and explained that from what i know the wing gloves wasn't called lerx because it wasn't sharp and hence not very effective in vortex generation like normal LEXR like on F-16, F-18 with their specific characteristics. Iam not saying that i do not get several things wrong in that thread such as add up DI and Ps curve but to say that i always wrong is not true . To say that i don't change based on new evidences is also isn't true


Edited by garrya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually i just re read the thread and realized that i did get it a bit wrong here https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2638123&postcount=159 apologize.

Anyway, since some of you don't like me took posts across forums since it unfair, the rest of discussion can be found here: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=28783&p=374296#p374296


Edited by garrya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that he turned up ages ago and was arguing over something completely unrelated is all the proof we need to see he is just a curious kid who is passionate about learning Aviation.

 

On the other hand you have neofighter having ago at everyone for bringing up valid concerns about Sprey but in his very first post in the thread (#9) shoots himself in the foot by calling Chip Berkes credibility into question - someone he apparently used to know!

 

He did apologize to GarryA (eventually) so that is it as far as I am concerned.

 

Ok, I am not going to let you paint a false narrative of this thread.

 

I did NOT call a fellow pilot's credibility into question, you tried to get me to go there but it didn't work. I clearly stated he had bias towards his aircraft just like I naturally did with the F18.

 

I even reminded garrya of this point when he was presenting me as a fake in another forum to another pilot.

 

Attacking someone and calling him retarded is not a valid concern. You and the other toxic posters on this thread were adamant of painting an erroneous and mean spirited picture of Sprey.

 

Let me make it clear, I apologized to Garrya about inferring that he took a private message and made it public which would be poor form. It sure looked like that to me but I will assume I was wrong with that perception and give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

I did not apologize to him for anything else I said on anything he posted in this thread.

 

The fact you call garrya a curious little kid, tells me you want to place youself above the toxicity you and others like you have established and you will be called out for it.

 

This is by far one of the most toxic interactions I have ever had on a message board.

Moderators are not to blame since in the end it was a discussion but boy was it ever so full of hubris and absurdity

 

I will never ever share my professional experience or opinion with such toxic people again.

Congrats, you now own this little part of the forum all to yourselves. So debate amongst yourselves in your own little artificial world.

 

Just like the kev2go character who sabotaged my f18 thread and forced it to move you toxic trolls have done it again because I am done with this nonesense.

 

Any future postings I do will be in threads that will be providing feedback of the game.

 

Now, I finally see why you don't have many self-identified real-world pilots on these type of forums. It's like putting a huge bullseye on your back that the armchair experts will jump on. I apologize to those that were fair and heard me out without attacking but this is crazy.


Edited by neofightr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did NOT call a fellow pilot's credibility into question, you tried to get me to go there but it didn't work. I clearly stated he had bias towards his aircraft just like I naturally did with the F18.

 

The question was only asked because you had already called his account into question as per your first post as you well know.

 

 

Attacking someone and calling him retarded is not a valid concern. You and the other toxic posters on this thread were adamant of painting an erroneous and mean spirited picture of Sprey.

 

Sprey was never called retarded and I don't appreciate you taking something out of context and twisting it around to suit your little argument - you know damn well that what I was calling retarded was the notion that the F-104 was more maneuverable than the F-35A!

 

 

Now, I finally see why you don't have many self-identified real-world pilots on these type of forums. It's like putting a huge bullseye on your back that the armchair experts will jump on.

 

Never seen it in 15 years - you are the only one and the reason in your case was your attitude and ability to talk to everyone like they were ****.

 

If you cannot understand that then I cannot help you and perhaps forums are something you need to avoid entirely if you cannot conduct your self in a befitting manner.


Edited by Basher54321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually i just re read the thread and realized that i did get it a bit wrong here https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2638123&postcount=159 apologize.

Anyway, since some of you don't like me took posts across forums since it unfair, the rest of discussion can be found here: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=28783&p=374296#p374296

 

I like how you edited this post maybe 6 times by now, from being totally wrong to being just "a little" wrong.... was about to accept the apology, but that is just ridiculous...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how you edited this post maybe 6 times by now, from being totally wrong to being just "a little" wrong.... was about to accept the apology, but that is just ridiculous...

When i re-read it, I thought i got it totally totally wrong at first aka CL max is the same even when wing fold back fully (i thought that due to higher AoA with fold back wing, to make sure i don't get it wrong again, i go ask people with the new charts and information i acquired ) , turn out what i said originally wasn't total false, and the CLmax did reduce and ITR did suffer, hence the need to edit it again, on the otherhand you was right about the flap. Since the explanation and calculations to come to that are complex and you don't like me posting the quote, it is also off topic according to basher, i decided to just give the link.


Edited by garrya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When i re-read it, I thought i got it totally totally wrong at first aka CL max is the same even when wing fold back fully (i thought that due to higher AoA with fold back wing, to make sure i don't get it wrong again, i go ask people with the new charts and information i acquired ) , turn out what i said originally wasn't total false, and the CLmax did reduce and ITR did suffer, hence the need to edit it again, on the otherhand you was right about the flap. Since the explanation and calculations to come to that are complex and you don't like me posting the quote, it is also off topic according to basher, i decided to just give the link.

 

No'one ever said the CLmax would remain the same, you can see that clearly on the chart as well.

 

Also it would be better if you provided your "expert panel" with some clearer docs, because they're arriving at inaccurate results atm.

 

For wing sweep and when LE & TE devices become active see below (past ~55 deg sweep @ M 0.85 the TE & LE devices are both inactive, hence the notch in the lift curve at exactly that Mach number):

Slatflapsweep.png.fb4491685b288c8f1977270243a5b4d0.png

Wingsweep.thumb.png.034f1a1fa7476f768a9995a2fa20d49f.png


Edited by Hummingbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can see that clearly on the chart as well

Actually, I thought the steep of the lift curve was the same between Mach 0.9-1.2 and Mach 0.5-0.7 when i first re read the thread and looking at the chart, hence the assumption that max AoA increase when wing fold back. Only when he put number in that i realized the Clmax reduce

 

Also it would be better if you provided your "expert panel" with some clearer docs, because they're arriving at inaccurate results atm.

 

For wing sweep and when LE & TE devices become active see below (past ~55 deg sweep @ M 0.85 the TE & LE devices are both inactive, hence the notch in the lift curve at exactly that Mach number):

Actually, he did talk about the effects of locked flap and leading edge when wing fold back. But no prob, i will add these charts as well just in case information are missing.


Edited by garrya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I thought the steep of the lift curve was the same between Mach 0.9-1.2 and Mach 0.5-0.7 when i first re read the thread and looking at the chart, hence the assumption that max AoA increase when wing fold back. Only when he put number in that i realized the Clmax reduce

 

Max AoA does increase, the overall lift (& drag) coefficient will however drop with the increases in wing sweep as the wing planform changes. It is however largely made up for by the LE & TE devices until the point where they are no longer operable = Mach 0.85.

 

As a result the F-14 is still capable of pulling 7.2 G's at M 1.2 @ 35,000 ft. By comparison at the same altitude & speed the F-16C in a roughly similar configuration (minus 2x missiles) pulls roughly 7 G's. Thus the F-14 maintains the ITR advantage throughout, the F-16 however is at this point all over it in terms of STR.

 

Actually, he did talk about the effects of locked flap and leading edge when wing fold back. But no prob, i will add these charts as well just in case information are missing.

 

At the wrong degrees of sweep however since he was relying on a small imprecise chart.


Edited by Hummingbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Max AoA does increase, the overall lift (& drag) coefficient will however drop with the increases in wing sweep as the wing planform changes. It is however largely made up for by the LE & TE devices until the point where they are no longer operable = Mach 0.85.

 

As a result the F-14 is still capable of pulling 7.2 G's at M 1.2 @ 35,000 ft. By comparison at the same altitude & speed the F-16C in a roughly similar configuration (minus 2x missiles) pulls roughly 7 G's. Thus the F-14 maintains the ITR advantage throughout, the F-16 however is at this point all over it in terms of STR.

Hmmm i will see about that.

 

 

At the wrong degrees of sweep however since he was relying on a small imprecise chart.

I just cut it from the manual, didn't realize a bigger version is available

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Drones can (pros):

[...]

-be completely autonomous thereby negating jamming since no comms are required.

 

Had to think of this thread when I just read about turtles that AI would classify as rifles.

 

AI image recognition fooled by single pixel change

 

Bomber or bulldog?

 

In their research, Su Jiawei and colleagues at Kyushu University made tiny changes to lots of pictures that were then analysed by widely used AI-based image recognition systems.

All the systems they tested were based around a type of AI known as deep neural networks. Typically these systems learn by being trained with lots of different examples to give them a sense of how objects, like dogs and taxis, differ.

The researchers found that changing one pixel in about 74% of the test images made the neural nets wrongly label what they saw. Some errors were near misses, such as a cat being mistaken for a dog, but others, including labelling a stealth bomber a dog, were far wider of the mark.

The Japanese researchers developed a variety of pixel-based attacks that caught out all the state-of-the-art image recognition systems they tested.

"As far as we know, there is no data-set or network that is much more robust than others," said Mr Su, from Kyushu, who led the research.

 

Quaint. What could possibly go wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...