Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: scott@graft.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: F-117A performance?
Message-ID: <1991Feb7.021146.4777@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 7 Feb 91 02:11:46 GMT
References: <1991Jan23.043709.7563@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb4.065635.21784@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb5.043703.6484@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb6.033318.22925@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility
Lines: 25
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: scott@graft.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey)

nak%archie@att.att.com (Neil A Kirby) writes:
|> The unclassified data I saw as an Air Force Employee (1980) showed a
|> roughly parabolic curve [open ends up] intesected by a horizontal line.
|> Everything below the horizontal line was stable, everything above was
|> unstable.  The F16's curve was very close to the line, with the computer
|> providing stability above the line.  The more stable the plane, the harder
|> it is to manuever.  The F16 is designed to be barely stable to unstable to
|> make it quicker to maneuver.

The F-18 is also designed with an inherent pitch instability.  This allows
  it to pitch up rather quickly, while the computer gives the plane the 
  illusion of great stability.  F-18 drivers often comment on how they love
  to fly it because it "basically flies itself", the pilot just needs to
  point where he wants to go.

/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Scott Silvey           | DOD Spokesman Pete Williams on Cruise Missiles:    |
| scott@xcf.berkeley.edu |   "We just don't discuss that capability.  I can't |
|                        | tell you why we don't discuss it because then I'd  |
| Flames to /dev/null    | be discussing it."                                 |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/