Jump to content

Pierre Sprey & Lt. Col David Berke debate


Hummingbird

Recommended Posts

Then I apologize because this

 

"Unread post16 Aug 2017, 03:52

I sent 35AoA the topic and he replied directly in my inbox,

so i thought i should put it here as well....."

 

Gave me the impression it started out as a private conversation and you went out of your way to post it here to make sure everyone saw his proclamation that I was fake.

 

I already told you many times, your occupation doesn't matter to me because this is a topic with various different views point between professionals.So I only care and want to learn about the technical aspects and that it. Iam not interested in discredit you or find out who you are because if an argument is correct, it would be correct regardless of who say it. I post the reply in public because F-16.net is an aviation forum with many care about how the F-35 perform, the part where 35AoA said you are fake is not important to me and many others there. Many only care about the second part about T-45 and pickbulk. That it. Same for the discussion, it is because iam interested in the f-35 and want to share what i gathered as well as learning more. Not because i want to embarrass or insult someone who i don't even know the face.

If my goal was to insult or embarrass you in public i would have post the whole topic with many insult here or join in the attack over there. But i didn't because that was not what i want to get out of this discussion. There is no point continuing talking if the only thing we do is insult each others.


Edited by garrya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Making a seperate thread on another forum which sole purpose is to scrutinize and "confirm" what someone says here and wether or not he/she is for real, just isn't a very polite way to conduct a debate Garrya. Furthermore it makes it look like you are incapable of backing your arguments on your own, or even construct them. In the end all you achieve with this is that no'one will care responding to you.

 

In short you are both at fault for how this debate turned out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest you carefully rethink this post and revise it.

 

Ok then, let me revise this:

We have no idea what the outcome will be in a major air war between world powers based on the limited engagements of the past 45 years.

 

This is based on:

Training doctrines on all sides changing frequently (as they should to remain unpredictable).

All sides can only guess what the other side will do in terms of doctrine and tactics.

 

The platforms of the past 45 years that are still in service have not been involved in a large scale multi-nation air wars. There has been small-scale wars sure but nothing major.

 

The air to ground action in Iraq and Afghanistan had no real air opposition so outside of the sam threat, it was a benign environment to verify the effectiveness of the platforms in question.

 

So I carefully rethought my post, you happy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short you are both at fault for how this debate turned out.

 

Indeed. What began as an mildly interesting debate has devolved into a mess. The credibility of the participants is fading fast.

ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700K, Noctua NH-D14 Cooler, Crucial 32GB DDR4 2133, Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 256GB, Samsung EVO 250GB & 500GB SSD, 2TB Caviar Black, Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme 8GB, Corsair HX1000i, Phillips BDM4065UC 40" 4k monitor, VX2258 TouchScreen, TIR 5 w/ProClip, TM Warthog, VKB Gladiator Pro, Saitek X56, et. al., MFG Crosswind Pedals #1199, VolairSim Pit, Rift CV1 :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. What began as an mildly interesting debate has devolved into a mess. The credibility of the participants is fading fast.

 

I wholeheartedly agree. It's turning into a free-for-fall of personal criticisms. Everybody is coming out of the woodwork now.

 

I am out.....


Edited by neofightr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making a seperate thread on another forum which sole purpose is to scrutinize and "confirm" what someone says here and wether or not he/she is for real, just isn't a very polite way to conduct a debate Garrya. Furthermore it makes it look like you are incapable of backing your arguments on your own, or even construct them. In the end all you achieve with this is that no'one will care responding to you

 

I said it already, i do not care if neo (or anyone here) is real or not. I care whether F-35 has pitch bulking problem or not. So it is either i base that on my and neofightr opinion and knowledge alone which could be bias and wrong or i ask for extra input from many others to improve the accuracy of my final assessment . Many brains > 1-2 brains alone. The same thing for Sprey vs F-35 pilot comments. I checked the accuracy of both sides by many sources before i form my opinion. I see no problem with that. Simply healthy skepticism towards everyone including myself. Like i said, i give everyone benefit of the doubt but i also analyze and double check everyone's comments regardless of who they are.

If more aspects, calculations, insights and theories are presented then it will only improve the accuracy of the final conclusion. That the whole point of internet discussion, you learn much quicker and has much wider range of information than you do alone because when you discussing the process of gathering information have been done for you by many people. It doesn't matter if you win or lose, you always get something news out of it. And seriously, why does it even matter to be wrong on internet? no one knows who you are. No one knows what you do. In 2 days nobody give 2 ****. Why would you be angry or embarrassed?. I would much rather make mistakes on internet than in real life. Worst case scenario, if it bother you that much, make a new account.5 seconds. Bamm. New start


Edited by garrya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Garrya posts at several aviation sites including key pubs and has always been one of the very few to actually ask questions and try to learn something over the years.

 

The evidence is in writing (including this thread) - you just have to look - everyone should challenge something if it goes against what they know to be true - and those persons ( especially fighter pilots) usually provide good enough answers to the questions gary throws at them. How anyone can fault gary for that is beyond belief.

 

Yes he has been on here in the past - but has learnt more and upped his aviation knowledge since then - wish there were more with that enthusiasm I really do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys don't get worked up over it. It's not worth it.

 

garrya, you DID take a PM and make it public. Perhaps it would have been better to PM Neo if you wanted to discuss what the f-16 pilot said.

 

Neo, you DID ignore the fact that garrya went out of the way to make his posts un-offensive, even if he messed up by posting that PM.

 

Just apologize so you can move on without hard feelings no need to be so bitter.

 

I'd really hate for either one of you to get discouraged from posting as you both have some great insight.

  • Like 1

GeForce GTX 970, i5 4690K 3.5 GHz, 8 GB ram, Win 10, 1080p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes he has been on here in the past - but has learnt more and upped his aviation knowledge since then - wish there were more with that enthusiasm I really do.

 

We should all be here to learn (I know I am) and because we are enthusiasts, otherwise what would be the point of signing up on a forum to begin with? So Garrya is not some special case here of an enthusiast who wants and tries to learn, 90% of us should fall into that category.

 

Also while it's great and healthy to be sceptical, it's not so great when its solely on the premis that something doesn't agree with ones own preferences in regards to what is true or not. Once a debate heads in that direction that is when I stop participating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also while it's great and healthy to be sceptical, it's not so great when its solely on the premis that something doesn't agree with ones own preferences in regards to what is true or not. Once a debate heads in that direction that is when I stop participating.

 

He tries to explain (to no avail) in the text that he doesn't just take someone word for it always tries to weigh up things - he simply never received good enough answers to oppose what other credible sources had given him. Going public with the PM could have been more tactful - agree there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He tries to explain (to no avail) in the text that he doesn't just take someone word for it always tries to weigh up things - he simply never received good enough answers to oppose what other credible sources had given him. Going public with the PM could have been more tactful - agree there.

 

The thing is he tried exactly the same trick with me a while back, and back then it felt very conspicuous as I had to search for these double threads and call him out myself after for a while having suspected I wasn't talking to just Garrya anymore. This suspicion came about as he would go from obviously not knowing what was up or down in aero, spelling things all wrong on top, to suddenly sounding like a he was an aero engineer and writing with perfect grammar. Hence I sensed another discussion was going on in the background where he was obviously "learning" quite a lot, and sure enough that's what I found. Yet despite all these expert opinions on the sidelines and with all the evidence piling up against him, Garrya would not budge from his initial opinions, thus I decided to just end the debate.

 

In short to me it never seemed like he wanted to learn anything, instead to me it seemed like he just wanted some thing to be true.


Edited by Hummingbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is he tried exactly the same trick with me a while back, and back then it felt very conspicuous as I had to search for these double threads and call him out myself after for a while having suspected I wasn't talking to just Garrya anymore. This suspicion came about as he would go from obviously not knowing what was up or down in aero, spelling things all wrong on top, to suddenly sounding like a he was an aero engineer and writing with perfect grammar. Hence I sensed another discussion was going on in the background where he was obviously "learning" quite a lot, and sure enough that's what I found. Yet despite all these expert opinions on the sidelines and with all the evidence piling up against him, Garrya would not budge from his initial opinions, thus I decided to just end the debate.

 

In short to me it never seemed like he wanted to learn anything, instead to me it seemed like he just wanted some thing to be true.

Hummingbird, i didn't reply to your earlier comment in https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3223873&postcount=193 because i dont want another pointless hundreds pages of personal attacks. But now you say all the experts opinion piling up against me but i didn't change, i think i deserved a chance to explain myself. This is the discussion in F-16.net

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=28783

my initial question:

How would a F-16C or F-16E ( equipped with 6 Aim-120 , no CFT) fare again F-14D equipped with( 4 Aim-7 , 4 Aim-9 ) in dogfight?

No WVR or HMD on either side.

 

I used to think F-14 is a slug in dogfight but it turn out according to flight manual F-14 have very compatible sustain turn rate vs F-16 , and much better instantaneous turn rate at slow speed.

It seem like F-16 turn better at high speed while F-14 is better at slower speed , I think that may translate to better vertical fight for F-16 , and better nose pointing for F-14 but iam not 100 % sure, so can anyone ( pointing especially at you guy : Johnwill , Gums , sprut :mrgreen: ) tell me which aircraft is better in that configuration mentioned at the star

 

I made it very clear how i interpret the manual data and that iam not 100% sure so i want others inputs. Exactly like what i have been saying all along.

The replies are as following:

Where did you get the NAVAIR chart for the F-14? I have been looking for source data on the Cats. Remember than the D model cat has ~40% more useful thrust. There is an quote floating around somewhere (I've heard too many to remember where I heard them all) by an Eagle driver, "We think we fly the best fighter in the world, but we don't get slow against the gents in the fourteens." I used to think that meant they didn't relax, but as you can see it means literally getting slow. Below 0.7M the F-14 will turn tighter in both sustained and instant capacities. This means you will almost always have a larger turn radius than a Cat flown in it's comfort zone. You need to go vertical. The old A model had a "T/W" of 1.0 when completely empty. Make it point up and it will slow down. The A+/B/D changed all that. Vipers and Eagles would still easily take them in the vertical but it was not the easy move it used to be. In a Viper or Hornet you could even try getting them REAL slow and using superior low speed handing from the FBW to out roll them. In the end I would say teamwork is the BIGGEST factor for success. One problem for the Cat is that it starts to fall apart as the wings go back as far as turning so if the opposing pilot sees wings back they know they have a turning advantage and this is when the Cat driver may go vertical.

You can get a little slower in a Viper than what I've seen an Eagle do, but it just never makes sense in either case. In a Viper in full AB, if you can unload to 0G for just even a couple seconds, you will go from that poorly chosen slow fight, to having enough airspeed to go up, which a Tomcat or Hornet in that scenario will not be able to do. Conversely, if you let the fight get both slow and close, it is pretty hard to not get flushed out. The Viper also does bad things when you get too slow and still try to go up, or you combine a lot of real aggressive combined roll/yaw at high AoA and let the sideslip/yaw rate get out of control. Two other good reasons not to get slow.

 

Or do you remember when we spent hundreds of pages discussing what fuselage is better for body lift? You said flat body with separate nacelles is better, i said it is debateable and i need data to confirm that. Nevertheless i did research on it to make sure that my point was accurate.

haavarla

I am not offended by your statements. Please continue to ask questions freely, and to question my statements as you wish. Your English is not a problem for me, as I have worked with ESL people for many years.

 

To answer your questions, no one says the F-22 wide flat body is better than than Su-XX in generating lift, but I'm saying you have no basis for stating the reverse. The fact is you don't know and I don't know which is better. Both are evidently effective in doing their job. Let me give you an example of fuselage lift. The F-16 does not appear to have a very effective lifting fuselage, but in fact it provides as much as 45% of total airplane lift. The flat F-22 fuselage would likely be at least as effective as the F-16. Is it better than the the Su-XX? The only way to know is to look at actual engineering data from wind tunnel test, CFD analysis, and flight test. The entire fuselage generates lift, not just the space between the engines in the Su.

 

My point is that you cannot tell how effective the fuselage lift is just by appearances.

 

Yes, the Su-xx would appear to be quite stable in yaw, but at the expense of added drag from the very large vertical tails and the small ventral strakes. Notice the F-15 does not need the strakes and it has excellent yaw stability. Likewise the F-18 has no need for ventral strakes

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=15069&start=15

 

From what i understand, they do agree with my points. If experts agree with me and there is no charts or simulation contradict it then why should i change my view?

And no, it isn't a trick i used against you. It is simply facts check. In the age of internet, i can cross check everything. So why let that opportunity go to waste?. If your assessment is accurate then it would be accurate regardless of how many experts or sources i double check with. If it is incorrect then it would be incorrect regardless.


Edited by garrya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with his assessment. It goes in line with what has been discussed for 20 years now in the acquisition review process.

 

no his assessment is fallacious, and comparisons are just wrong. Like honestly a Primary school student would have made a better researched assessment that what pierre sprey did in that slide.

 

m48a5 for eg was in no way superior to the M1a2, save for Cost and fuel efficiency. Otherwise Inferior in every regard where it actually matters : Armor protection, Survive ability, Mobility, Fire Control System, Armament. 5 key aspects ( current iteration of the abrams tank). And frankly the m48a5 is even outright inferior to the likes of the T72, even if you could produce in cheaper and in larger numbers than the abrams. So keeping around the M48 would have been ludicrous.

 

He is essentially comparing a tank that is 2 generations behind ( m60 also came afterwards as a interim solution) the m1. It would have made more sense for his point to compare technology from a comparable generation if his idea is to argue over cost and affordability vs more premium expensive tech.

 

 

It would be like the Tank on tank encounters like in the gulf war, but role revered with the M48's being curbstomped by T72's and other newer generation tanks if US had not evolved its tank design.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this forum seems unable to prevent itself from lapsing into personal attacks.

 

What do you expect when the thread starts with a personal attack attitude toward a already well known person who gets so much personal attacks in the first place and just by someone mentioning his name puts them to same box with him.....

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hummingbird, i didn't reply to your earlier comment in https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3223873&postcount=193 because i dont want another pointless hundreds pages of personal attacks. But now you say all the experts opinion piling up against me but i didn't change, i think i deserved a chance to explain myself. This is the discussion in F-16.net

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=28783

my initial question:

 

 

I made it very clear how i interpret the manual data and that iam not 100% sure so i want others inputs. Exactly like what i have been saying all along.

The replies are as following:

 

 

 

Or do you remember when we spent hundreds of pages discussing what fuselage is better for body lift? You said flat body with separate nacelles is better, i said it is debateable and i need data to confirm that. Nevertheless i did research on it to make sure that my point was accurate.

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=15069&start=15

 

From what i understand, they do agree with my points. If experts agree with me and there is no charts or simulation contradict it then why should i change my view?

And no, it isn't a trick i used against you. It is simply facts check. In the age of internet, i can cross check everything. So why let that opportunity go to waste?. If your assessment is accurate then it would be accurate regardless of how many experts or sources i double check with. If it is incorrect then it would be incorrect regardless.

 

You need to re-read that thread Garrya, you were proven wrong at every turn (from where the wings started to sweep, to lift theory to LERX effects) and nowhere did the "experts" agree with you, and they don't regarding body lift either (the F-16 example illustrates that nicely). Despite all this at no point did you wish to concede this or take in the information you were given, and you're continuing that trend right now. That is why I ever since have had my doubts regarding your credibility, sorry.


Edited by Hummingbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is why I ever since have had my doubts regarding your credibility, sorry.

 

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!

 

 

...... Sprey makes good points as to why and yet Berke tries to downplay it extensively, this is baffling to me.

 

---

 

LtCol Berke is clearly biased towards the aircraft he flies and he has to be careful at what he says publicly but Sprey is making valid points.

 

---

The one aspect that Berke may not be consciously aware is the "golden crew" phenomenon where either a Developmental or operational test group becomes so comfortable with the equipment they are currently testing that they lose sight of the true state of the product. Bottom line: humans have faults at all levels and unfortunately they can compound the defects in development without knowing it.

 

 

 

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


Edited by Basher54321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you expect when the thread starts with a personal attack attitude toward a already well known person who gets so much personal attacks in the first place and just by someone mentioning his name puts them to same box with him.....

 

You should definitely read what people say here about Sprey, you will love it. I was :megalol:

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53283

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

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.

 

One year ago, and as you can see even a year later he doesn't want to concede he was wrong and ungracefully stubborn. As for him just being a passionate kid, sure I can definitely accept that, problem with kids though is they also often let personal preferences get in the way of looking objectively at things - hence they tend to have questionable credibility IMHO.

 

That being said I am not saying Garrya is a kid, I am just responding to the fact that you said he was and it's no excuse for his debating methods & never admitting to be wrong.

 

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!

 

I honestly never saw him call Berkes credibility into question, I only saw him try to defend Sprey, which he is allowed to do. My problem with Neo was that he used his background to boost his ethos at one point, yet wasn't willing to provide the credentials to back it up afterwards.

 

Also lets keep in mind that just because someones a pilot doesn't mean he/she is an all knowing god about aircraft, pilots will just as often disagree about such subjects as everyone else. We are all human after all.

 

PS: I am on the side that thinks Sprey is being ridiculous as well, just to be clear.


Edited by Hummingbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to re-read that thread Garrya, you were proven wrong at every turn (from where the wings started to sweep, to lift theory to LERX effects) and nowhere did the "experts" agree with you. Despite all this at no point did you wish to concede this or take in the information you were given, and you're continuing that trend right now. That is why I ever since have had my doubts regarding your credibility, sorry.

You said i was proven wrong at every turn but not take in new information???.

When i was wrong about drag index. I thought you was wrong but once i realized you was right I accepted it.

But when expert disagree with you about looking at a body and estimate its body lift, at no point you even consider the possibility that you are wrong and more data are needed for conclusion

 

When we talk about F-14 ITR you said it would be better than all others aircraft at all speed based on the lift chart. I told you that it is hard to know because the line higher than 7G was not draw due to the G limit and if we let F-14 excess its recommended G limit for ITR then we should also let F-18, F-15, F-35 excess the recommended G limit. Same standard should apply to all of them. How is that not reasonable?. You said that it will be better because F-14 ITR below Mach 0.7 is much better. Once again, i suggest that it is still hard to know because F-14 with its wing sweep back will not generate as much lift.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

Screenshot_20170818-192136_2.png

 

Another argument you told to support that point was

at 35 kft and at a speed of Mach 1.0 (the point where the F-14's wings are already fully swept) the F-14's max instantanous load factor is 5.7 G's, where'as by comparison F-16C's max instantanous load factor at the same altitude and speed (DI = 50) is 5.5 G

I don't have the charts for F-14 so i have no idea

There isn't 35k ft graph in F-16 block 50 HAF manual either but

at 30k ft, and Mach 1, the max instantaneous load factor of F-16 with DI50 is 7.1 G (there are 6 squares between 7G and 8G, the Mach1 line up with second square)

Screenshot_20170818-201223.png

at 40k ft and Mach 1, the max instantaneous load factor of F-16 with DI50 is around 4.4 G. (there are 10 squares between 4G and 5G, the Mach 1 line up after 4 squares)

Screenshot_20170818-201217.png

 

35k ft is between 40k ft and 30k ft so it is safe to assume F-16 max instantaneous load factors at 35k ft, Mach 1 would be the middle value or (4.4+7.1)/2 = 5.75G.

Since they are very close, i can accept that you only do a rough estimate before you commented. But that not the point, the point is many times your arguments only based on it looks like this and that without providing actual numbers. No problem but you can't force me to take that as fact. At the most you can say that it is an educated guess. Or when we discussing, i always put everything on the table, from where i got the quote from, to the manual pages. But you have very sneaky way of arguing when you choose to hide a part of the data.

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?


Edited by garrya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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