I wonder why Raptor CLAW in his rebuttal post wouldn't/couldn't address the specific need 'way back' then for 'Slim' to do a 220 knot landing at that time. Everything else was addressed. He referenced AIB/SIB proceedings as precluding an explanation of the 220.
Is he still out there? Can he address the real or perceived reason for 220 now? Controllability check results?
Is there still now an abnormal that requires a 200 knot landing? Flaperon response? Sounds very 'no-flapish' with barely adequate 'rons'. Although the bottom line here is the guy at Eglin didn't really intend to be at 200 anyway.
(In the case of severely damaged hydraulics, the good 'ole F-105 initially had a backup 'pilot' recovery system for roll control using the flaps only which was entirely electric. A form of non-software flaperon. You could maintain reasonable control to a safe bailout area. Operated with a little toggle switch on the right console. You could also correct an asymmetric flap condition with it. Done that.
It eventually was morphed to an 'aircraft' recovery system which used only flaps for roll and (gasp) pitch control electrically and theoretically could get the aircraft on the ground. Required a fairly high approach speed with only two surfaces doing everything. When I went thru the local F-105 check-out school at FWH, aptly named 'Ding Dong School', as the instructor came to this portion of the course he recommended I never use it.
)
18 Dec 2020, 18:56
