Re: airbrake question

"Ed Rasimus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 08:39:19 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"miso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Thanks to both replies. I was thinking of the F15, so I thought it
> >> might be the center of gravity. I'm going to see if I can find photos
> >> of the other models mentioned.
> >
> >Yes, a fighter speed brake is completely different from most of the
replies
> >you got.  A fighter has the speed brake on the fue forward of the tail
and
> >it is only similar in name to a "spoiler deployed as a speedbrake".
> >
> John, once again you illustrate the problem with usenet. "on the fue"?
> "spoiler deployed as a speedbrake"?
>
> Seriously, the 102 and 106 certainly didn't have it deployed "forward
> of the tail" and those are the airplanes you were involved with in the
> FAT ANG. The 105 didn't have it "forward of the tail" and the F-16
> among current equippage doesn't have it "forward of the tail" either.
>
> Some do. The F-15 certainly is forward and the F-111 was certainly
> forward.

As does the F-18.

> As for "spoiler deployed as a speedbrake"--that doesn't happen on any
> fighter type that I've encountered.

That does cause one to wonder why there was such a lengthly discussion of
airliner type speedbrakes.

> Certainly some tactical aircraft
> used spoilers, primarily as a design counter to adverse yaw, but none
> with spoilers have a choice of control surface or speed brake
> function. Airliners do.

The selection capability is however there for those tactical aircraft using
an actual "speed brake", as opposed to a "spoiler deployed as a speedbrake".

> Tell me again about your fighter experience.
>
> Speed brakes on fighters are single function surfaces.

Exactly as I wrote, but thanks for playing.