MiG-21 ?
Ken S. Tucker
2) Near empty what is the landing speed?
By and large she seems to be a tame aircraft,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21
The unit is still in service, and the planform works.
Revised and stealthed that little SOB could be a hazard.
Ken
Paul F Austin
I recall that when near empty, the CG travels too far aft and the
aircraft goes unstable in pitch. Recollection is that the last 150
gallons of fuel aren't useable and this in a very short ranged aircraft.
Sure, you could pry the mains apart, slide a new airframe, engine and
avionics between them and you get...an F-16.
Paul
W.A. Baker
At one point I was negotiating to buy a Porsche from an ex-test pilot
who flew ex-Sov. fighters on the airshow circuit. His main ride was a
Mig-19 but, IIRC, he sometimes leased a Mig-21 as well. Seemed to
think it was a hot little ship, although not that maneuverable.
Jerem
Certainly makes interesting reading on wikipedia for the non-expert. A
fighter still in service for quite a few air forces that first flew in
1955 ! Presumably an age record, in terms of number of flightworthy
planes still in military use?
Simple, with a fast rate of climb, sounds like.
Dean
And a damned dangerous airplane to fly in especially if not properly
maintained. Ask the Indian Air Force.
Jerem
Holy shit. Looked that up.
Dean
Yep, it's an outstanding example of negative quality control.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
Twenty-five years ago, our C-5 broke and went into
Lajes field, Azores, for an overnight stay.
I walked around a bit and saw what appeared to be
an 'alert' strip, containing a USN P-3, and an
antique camo-painted F-86D of the Portuguese AF.
(I'd seen a few old NYANG F-86s early in my career
- but never before a D-model, which looks markedly
different, with a real radar installed.)
The PAF may still using them !
Jerem
There's got to be some country- and/or organisation-specific factors
at work there!?! The Indian Airforce is big, but that must surely be
much worse than the typical safety record for the plane, by a factor
of several (?)
Regarding the plane in general, to have the qualities to still be a
more-or-less viable warplane today, i presume it must have been
outstanding in its time, and really put the jeepers on the west/U.S in
the cold war proper...were they left playing catch-up again, as
seemingly happened with the Mig 15 and17? Seems the Phantom 4 was its
counterpart, in due course, and maybe the Lightning.
What a plane. Found this video which seems a load better than most
plane clips
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHH-YI6Rj7w
It seems to have something of those very simple 'rocket with wings'
lines a bit like the starfighter. The cockpit view is really antique,
which it is
Peter Skelton
service with a much more select group of air forces today.
--
Peter
Paul F Austin
flight was in 1954
Paul
Tankfixer
Dwarftosser f4...@yahoo.com spouted !
1978 there were South Korean F-86 standing strip alert a few miles south
of the DMZ..
We got to watch them while waiting for parts to my M113..
Ken S. Tucker
I'm surprised to read they are in Libya inventory.
I suppose cratering all airstrips is on the agenda (?).
It's easier to disable fighter jets on the ground.
Ken
Jerem
> On 3/29/2011 2:20 PM, Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
yes. I'm reading they caused a lot of trouble to the British in the
Falklands War. They seem to have lost a lot, 22 out of their 48 maybe
as it is a slow plane with poor defence systems.
Curious to note it has something similar in its general appearance to
the similarly named British Hawk trainer (another useful budget option
for budget airforces)
Greg Schuler
> On 3/29/2011 2:20 PM, Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Actually just a few and most are no longer in front line service.
Everyone that has them is planning to retire them or push them into
reserve roles.The Brazilian models probably have the most active role
left, but they show their age.
Greg Schuler
See http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Today/Contemporary/329-Bewoor.html
for one opinion. The safety record of the MiG-21 is not good in any
event.
Ron
That was probably more because they flew a very dangerous mission, and
a lot of them got nailed by shipborne SAMs.
Ken S. Tucker
> for one opinion. The safety record of the MiG-21 is not good in any
> event.
Hang-on, a safe fighter jet is one that is sitting on the ground.
The 21 looks deadly in the sky, I think Mr. Austin mentions it
looses energy in the turn but that's a airfoil choice.
That's why I asked the take-off rotate speed and the stall over
the numbers to put the plane down, then that provides the info
on the runway.
(I'm the OP).
If a fighter gets too "safe" it looses snappy.
Ken
deem...@aol.com
True. Israeli A-4s took a lot of casualties from SAMs and AAA
during the Yom Kippur War. A combination of flying into dangerous
conditions and few counter-measures fitted.
cavedweller
Good Grief! It's "lose".
deem...@aol.com
I guess it could "loose" it, too.......
Ken S. Tucker
Oh-oh, did I stutter.
(You guys should know it's impoolite to make fun of stuters)
30 mm cannon, in the 21,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NR-30
That's good enough to tank bust.
Ken
deem...@aol.com
> That's good enough to tank bust.
Supposedly, the gunsight tends(tended?) to be knocked out of
alignment by violent maneuvering. Either way, the 21 has never been
considered much of a CAS platform.
Ken S. Tucker
Not to be racist, but a 21 in the hands of wogs, gooks, chinks and
towel heads, is hardly a fair appraisal.
In the hands of Rusky with a few shots of Vodka, he'd turn that 21
into a serious CAS devil. Good thing we never found out.
Ken
deem...@aol.com
Let's see.....crappy range/loiter time, little load capacity,
can't take much damage, design optimized for high-altitudes......what
did I miss?
Ed Rasimus
I think you've captured the essence. The -21was designed as a point
defense interceptor. It deals with air threats overhead. It doesn't go
down range, it doesn't carry a/g ordnance, it doesn't do
CAS/interdiction/nuc alert/.
The speed for takeoff and landing are nothing more than numbers. The
essential number for a/a is "corner velocity"--the lowest airspeed you
can go and still generate the maximum allowable G. That point is where
you have the highest turn rate and the smallest turn radius. P-sub-s
or "excess power" determines whether you can sustain that high G load
or your airspeed bleeds off and you get less turn.
The -21 had limited weapons (Alkali and Atoll) and only later
generations incorporated the gun. Forward visibility was atrocious
because of thick bullet-proof front windscreen. Control loading was
brutal at high speeds. Soviet doctrine employed close control
intercepts with little pilot freedom to maneuver or employ tactics.
Engine life was very short and that meant high maintenance loads.
A good comparable (and one which simulated the Fishbed for years in
Aggressor ops) was the F-5E. Thrust/weight was similar and was size.
But, the F-5 had much better weapons and range as well as a broader
capability than the -21. A more honest aerodynamic platform as well.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
deem...@aol.com
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:02:08 -0700 (PDT), "deemsb...@aol.com"
Later models were given limited a/g capability....with limited
being emphasized.
>
> The speed for takeoff and landing are nothing more than numbers. The
> essential number for a/a is "corner velocity"--the lowest airspeed you
> can go and still generate the maximum allowable G. That point is where
> you have the highest turn rate and the smallest turn radius. P-sub-s
> or "excess power" determines whether you can sustain that high G load
> or your airspeed bleeds off and you get less turn.
>
> The -21 had limited weapons (Alkali and Atoll) and only later
> generations incorporated the gun. Forward visibility was atrocious
> because of thick bullet-proof front windscreen. Control loading was
> brutal at high speeds. Soviet doctrine employed close control
> intercepts with little pilot freedom to maneuver or employ tactics.
> Engine life was very short and that meant high maintenance loads.
Engine life wasn't as big a problem because the Soviets and their
clients didn't actually fly very much. India tried to fly them like
western jets and had them falling out of the sky left and right. Their
accident rates made the F-104 look safe. The Russians tried to blame
Indian pilots and maintenance, but the Indians asked why their other
planes weren't widow-makers too.
>
> A good comparable (and one which simulated the Fishbed for years in
> Aggressor ops) was the F-5E. Thrust/weight was similar and was size.
> But, the F-5 had much better weapons and range as well as a broader
> capability than the -21. A more honest aerodynamic platform as well.
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com-
:SuperBLUE:
Ken S. Tucker
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:02:08 -0700 (PDT), "deemsb...@aol.com"
What else is there except numbers, I (OP) asked about take-off
rotation and stall at landing, between those a "corner velocity"
correction (more or less) estimated.
But for the semi trained pilot the speeds I asked about are vital to
the mission.
> A more honest aerodynamic platform as well.
If I understand "honest" correctly, a Cessna 172is more honest,
but i think I understand what you're trying to write.
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com
Cheers
Ken
PS: I should design you guys a fighter that fits in a garage.
Daryl
How about a fighter that fits in your wallet. Think how handy
that would be.
Paul F Austin
> Today it is junk, but it was no junk back when it was new.
>
>
aircraft, a point defense interceptor. F-104s, F4Ds and EE Lightnings
started out with the same design point at about the same time: very high
rate of climb to perform a visual intercept more or less right overhead.
In the late 1940s, when the requirements for all three were formulated,
air to air combat aircraft were divided into three groups: true fighters
capable of offensive air to air operations like F-86s, local
interceptors with very high flight performance, mostly for point-defense
and long range patrol fighters like the F-89 and the Soviet YAK-25
"Flashlight" with modest flight performance. Later, as jet engines
delivered much better SFC, long range interceptors with high flight
performance became possible with aircraft like F-102s & F-106s, F4H, and
Su-15. The F4H (F-4) had enough flexibility in its design that it could
be effectively adapted to being a multi-mission fighter.
F-104s and Lightnings were modified to increase their usability, adapted
to multiple roles but not in the same aircraft. The F-104G was an
effective interdiction and nuclear delivery aircraft and the F-104S
included a RADAR and illuminator for AIM-7 Sparrows. The limitations of
the airframe prevented it from being adapted to multiple roles in the
same model.
MiG-21bis was the Soviet equivalent expansion and improvement with
better engine, RADAR, avionics and the internal cannon. It was still a
very specialized aircraft. Mikoyan proposed a variant for ground attack
but it was beaten out by the Su-25.
In general, back in the days when avionics was not much more than gum on
the windshield, once you picked the planform and engine, you pretty much
defined the envelope of missions you could fly. The F-102/F-106
illustrates that a radically improved engine can open up the flight
envelope for the same basic planform. Now that avionics (and the
software that runs it) is at least as important as propulsion, you can
use the airframe as a bracket to hold together a bunch of new boxes for
a different mission. Now the mission-defining characteristic seems to be
the LO configuration, that can't easily be changed.
If you're interested, Bill Gunston wrote a good book on the MiG-21.
Paul
:SuperBLUE:
Peter Stickney
The Soviets had a very different outlook on airplane
(actually everything else, too) maintenance.
They concentrated their debugging/fixing assets at what
would be for us, the Depot level, as opposed to the Squadron/Wing
level, and didn't do the same comprehensive midlife inspections.
So, for example, engines didn't get hot section inspections - they
just automatically crated them up and sent them to the Depot
every 500 hours. If a bird's hydraulics were broke, it got trucked
off and a new(er) plane got pulled out of storage.
This allowed them to build a large force with fewer maintainers -
the squadron/wing techs were short-service conscripts who were
treated like crap even by Russian standards.
It doesn't actually give any advantage in reliability or availability.
My experience with Soviet/Russian stuff is that while it's often
very simple and could be fixed by pounding on it with a rock, you've
got to have an awful lot of rocks and do a lot of pounding.
Stuff doesn't stay lined up for long - you're constantly fiddling with it.
> A good comparable (and one which simulated the Fishbed for years in
> Aggressor ops) was the F-5E. Thrust/weight was similar and was size.
> But, the F-5 had much better weapons and range as well as a broader
> capability than the -21. A more honest aerodynamic platform as well.
Cue Dick Jonas and "The Ballad of the F-5E"
--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system
Jerem
You would kindof think the Indian authorities might have asked that
question and addressed that problem before one hundred pilots got
killed in 182 accidents between 1993 and 2001.... but hey, this is
India. I seem to recall when i was last there a privately owned
nationally operating bus company was setting it's drivers impossible
schedule targets on crazy indian roads with inadequate pay and
training, and several people *a day* were being killed in accidents by
the company's buses. Every now and then a newspaper might make a
comment or an MP would write a letter, for months on end.
deem...@aol.com
Agreed, but it still doesn't change my point.
frank
You also have the problem of some were locally bulit under license. I
had a big argument with my PhD advisor who thought Migs were Migs.
Well, depends on who built them and how they are maintained. Not to
mention quality of pilot. Counting numbers and running statistics
sometimes is a fools errand.
Ed Rasimus
<p_sti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>Cue Dick Jonas and "The Ballad of the F-5E"
I think I've been subjected to every song that Dick and Big Irv Levine
ever wrote, but I'm not familiar with that one. Will have to ask Dick
to hum a few bars next month at the Nat'l Museum of the USAF for the
River Rats Reunion.
Cue Dick Jonas and "The Red River Rats Battle Hymn"... "charge your
glass grab a chair, I'll tell a tale to curl your hair...."
Dan
Then there's the USAF hymn: "Hymn, hymn, screw hymn."
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Ken S. Tucker
Yeah, that's how I feel about it too. The "body counts" the US used to
claim 'winning the Nam' war were misleading.
Also, same arguments you made applies to the F-104, needs good
(educated) maintenance and a good pilot.
Sincerely, ya can't expect a wog who's never owned a car to service
a MiG 21.
At about 8 years old, our gang was figuring out how to reburbish
lawn mower engines for go-carts.
That's self-education.
Ken
WaltBJ
hot light-wieght 45 minute day interceptor. Period.
The armor glass Ed mentioned is poor quality glass; kind of like
looking through a car's windshield that has that plastic scum from off
the dash condensed on it.
Another problem is that 45 degree sweep delta shaped wing that loses
speed real quick under G.
The next thing is that over the years the poor baby has gained a lot
of weight (mission creep) but the wing is the same.
Maintenance is not too difficult. I would be suspicious though of the
hydraulics and engine oil systems -as to whether the mechanics
maintained them contamination-free. People who worked with other air
forces have told me of hyrdaulic fluid drained from a system under
work being caught in a bucket and after the work was completed -
poured back into the reservoir. That is not good. FYI where i worked
for a while the valve plate in a Vickers variable flow hydraulic pump
was checked for a flat surface on an optical flat . . . just a bit of
sand would do that no good at all.
FWIW at 15,000 and below the F4 could out-maneuver it.
It wasn't all that hot up at atitude, either; something not too far
over 60K was its maneuvering limit. The dash-19 104A could best that
by at least 10000 feet.
Last, flying that type of aircraft only twice a month (if that) leaves
one lagging what is going on by a dangerous margin. I still remember
my first flight in the F4 after a four year desk job - wow! But I
caught up quick.
Walt BJ
Jim Wilkins
> ...
> My experience with Soviet/Russian stuff is that while it's often
> very simple and could be fixed by pounding on it with a rock, you've
> got to have an awful lot of rocks and do a lot of pounding.
> Stuff doesn't stay lined up for long - you're constantly fiddling with it.
> Pete Stickney
A Russian tech showed me how to align optics that way, though he bent
the lens mounts with pliers instead of a rock.
A rock is the right tool to adjust the output of the three brush
generator on an old Harley. It's heavy and non-conductive.
jsw
David E. Powell
If you get people young and train them a good five years 1964-1969 you
might be surprised. Also remember the Commies were tight with the
North before the US got in there in a big way. You also can't discount
the possibility of "varsity" from the USSR and China jumping in.
On the topic of local pilots, Col. Tomb was not considered a bad
dogfighter. He preferred a MiG-17, too. A gun armed fighter against
missile armed opponents.
There were certain units North and South that attained a high level of
training, motivation and capability. Ethnicity doesn't make someone
inferior. WW2 and all those "Blind Japanese Pilots" rumors that got
busted in December 1941 should remind anyone of that.
I'd also remind you that the most decorated US Army unit of WW2 was
comprised entirely of Nisei Japanese.
Ken S. Tucker
> Thing you got to keep in mind is that the MiG21 when first built was a
> hot light-wieght 45 minute day interceptor. Period.
> The armor glass Ed mentioned is poor quality glass; kind of like
> looking through a car's windshield that has that plastic scum from off
> the dash condensed on it.
> Another problem is that 45 degree sweep delta shaped wing that loses
> speed real quick under G.
> The next thing is that over the years the poor baby has gained a lot
> of weight (mission creep) but the wing is the same.
> Maintenance is not too difficult. I would be suspicious though of the
> hydraulics and engine oil systems -as to whether the mechanics
> maintained them contamination-free. People who worked with other air
> forces have told me of hyrdaulic fluid drained from a system under
> work being caught in a bucket and after the work was completed -
> poured back into the reservoir. That is not good. FYI where i worked
> for a while the valve plate in a Vickers variable flow hydraulic pump
> was checked for a flat surface on an optical flat . . . just a bit of
> sand would do that no good at all.
> FWIW at 15,000 and below the F4 could out-maneuver it.
> It wasn't all that hot up at atitude, either; something not too far
> over 60K was its maneuvering limit. The dash-19 104A could best that
> by at least 10000 feet.
WaltBJ, you're implying an F-104 could maneuver at near 70K.
What kind of air speed?
> Last, flying that type of aircraft only twice a month (if that) leaves
> one lagging what is going on by a dangerous margin. I still remember
> my first flight in the F4 after a four year desk job - wow! But I
> caught up quick.
> Walt BJ
I'd clean the windshield of my Cessna trainer lovingly, bees wax and
all,
got ribbed for it. If i didn't i may as well be flying IFR!
Ken
Dan
Tucker was just looking for excuses to express his racism. Poor boy is
insecure.
Ken S. Tucker
> On Apr 3, 5:31 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > Yeah, that's how I feel about it too. The "body counts" the US used to
> > claim 'winning the Nam' war were misleading.
> > Also, same arguments you made applies to the F-104, needs good
> > (educated) maintenance and a good pilot.
> > Sincerely, ya can't expect a wog who's never owned a car to service
> > a MiG 21.
> > At about 8 years old, our gang was figuring out how to reburbish
> > lawn mower engines for go-carts.
> > That's self-education.
> > Ken
>
> If you get people young and train them a good five years 1964-1969 you
> might be surprised. Also remember the Commies were tight with the
> North before the US got in there in a big way. You also can't discount
> the possibility of "varsity" from the USSR and China jumping in.
>
> On the topic of local pilots, Col. Tomb was not considered a bad
> dogfighter. He preferred a MiG-17, too. A gun armed fighter against
> missile armed opponents.
>
> There were certain units North and South that attained a high level of
> training, motivation and capability. Ethnicity doesn't make someone
> inferior. WW2 and all those "Blind Japanese Pilots" rumors that got
> busted in December 1941 should remind anyone of that.
>
> I'd also remind you that the most decorated US Army unit of WW2 was
> comprised entirely of Nisei Japanese.
My comment was to highlight the fact that quite a few NA kids
were weened on engines, (not oxes), my Old Boys hobby was fixing
cars, I was tool passer and beer fetcher. Washing off with gasoline
was a ritual.
I'm 99% right, it's that bloody 1% that causes problems.
Ken
Schiffner
damn, no like button. I'm told that works for old bmw's, Jawa's and
certain pre 1960 Moto Guzzi's. There's not hope of fixing a pre
hinckley Triumph if it has lucas electrics...or anything else with
lucas electrics for that matter.
Jim Wilkins
> ...There's not hope of fixing a pre
> hinckley Triumph if it has lucas electrics...or anything else with
> lucas electrics for that matter.
http://www.synthstuff.com/mt/archives/2009/lucas_smokekit2.jpg
jsw
Roger Conroy
"Jim Wilkins" <kb1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:538ae011-fa2b-4c27...@g7g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Don't be so quick to diss Lucas. They are the only successful manufacturers
of non-hypothetical Schroedinger switches.
Schiffner
wrote:
those only work if you have a schrodenger reg/rect.
Schiffner
You ever try to install that stuff? I have...unpossible!
Oddly enough there is a unrestored 100% orginal Sunbeam Alpine running
around my area, guy takes it fishing all the time, it's red, I'm
slightly jealous.
Jim Wilkins
> On Apr 4, 10:09 am, Jim Wilkins <kb1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://www.synthstuff.com/mt/archives/2009/lucas_smokekit2.jpg
> > jsw
>
> You ever try to install that stuff? I have...unpossible!
Nope, my friends had the British vehicles. (An XKE in high school!!)
After helping them I bought Hondas.
jsw
Schiffner
Pontiac in High School. More precisiely the police edition 77' Gran
Lemans. Ugly, appliance white and hiding a 6.6L with glass pack under
the hood...not to mention the T/A brakes and steering gear. ;^) Was
running wide tires on all 4 before it was cool.
F S
Tankfixer
FS...@webtv.net spouted !
>
> Lucas corperate motto- "A good day's work, and home before dark"!
I had a neighbor who had raced a RHD Mini Cooper and then sold it to
finance a Lotus Elan restoration.
In his workshop he had a bumper sticker that proclaimed;
"all the parts falling off this car are of the finest English
manufacture."
Schiffner
> Lucas corperate motto- "A good day's work, and home before dark"!
It bears saying again...the Prince of Darkenss is Named Lucas for a
reason.
Schiffner
> In article <6868-4D9BD0A3-4...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>, - F S
LOL
Ken S. Tucker
> On Mar 31, 8:38 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 4:19 am, "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Mar 30, 5:26 pm, "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 30, 8:05 pm, cavedweller <jawnwil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 30, 5:30 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 30, 1:20 pm, Greg Schuler <schu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 3:34 pm, Jerem <jeremiah...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 6:24 pm, Dean <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 11:16 am, Jerem <jeremiah...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 1:27 pm, Dean <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 5:45 am, Jerem <jeremiah...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 6:29 am, "W.A. Baker" <wabo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Did you just descibe an F-104?
What you missed is low level recon.
Consider the Cuban Missile crisis, or today Libya.
It's a cloudy day and you want intel, cloulds VFR 500' to ground.
So ya need to whoosh in at 400', and not get shot, so go fast.
Maybe the battlefield circumstances are changing hour by hour,
and you need photo intel.
An F-104 streaking past at low level is a site to see - for a moment.
It's like as soon as you notice them they're gone.
AFAIK, the MiG-21 and F-104 were crappy at altitude, not enough
wing area,unless they're at Mach2.
Ken
Ron
> Did you just descibe an F-104?
> What you missed is low level recon.
> Consider the Cuban Missile crisis, or today Libya.
> It's a cloudy day and you want intel, cloulds VFR 500' to ground.
> So ya need to whoosh in at 400', and not get shot, so go fast.
> Maybe the battlefield circumstances are changing hour by hour,
> and you need photo intel.
> An F-104 streaking past at low level is a site to see - for a moment.
> It's like as soon as you notice them they're gone.
>
> AFAIK, the MiG-21 and F-104 were crappy at altitude, not enough
> wing area,unless they're at Mach2.
> Ken
Except that I do not think there was a photo version of the F-104,
there was the RF-101 and RF-8 used over Cuba at low level. RF-4
probably did not exist yet.
And there arent any more photo birds to send in at low level over
Libya, that mission has since passed for the most part, and those
aircraft are in boneyards
Ken S. Tucker
> On Apr 6, 1:31 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > Did you just descibe an F-104?
> > What you missed is low level recon.
> > Consider the Cuban Missile crisis, or today Libya.
> > It's a cloudy day and you want intel, cloulds VFR 500' to ground.
> > So ya need to whoosh in at 400', and not get shot, so go fast.
> > Maybe the battlefield circumstances are changing hour by hour,
> > and you need photo intel.
> > An F-104 streaking past at low level is a site to see - for a moment.
> > It's like as soon as you notice them they're gone.
>
> > AFAIK, the MiG-21 and F-104 were crappy at altitude, not enough
> > wing area,unless they're at Mach2.
> > Ken
>
> Except that I do not think
That's a common affliction, we need a Viagra pill for the brain.
> there was a photo version of the F-104,
> there was the RF-101 and RF-8 used over Cuba at low level. RF-4
> probably did not exist yet.
>
> And there arent any more photo birds to send in at low level over
> Libya, that mission has since passed for the most part, and those
> aircraft are in boneyards
Kelly J. designer of U2, F104, SR-71 was an employed expert
in photo recon, mostly secret.
I think you're right, modern recon using radar can pretty much
gather intel, so a low fast bird isn't necessary, thanks for the tip.
Ken
Daryl
And just how many SU-24s are still around. Quite a few. It does
high Mach numbers a very low altitude.
Ron
Well Bomb Damage Assessment has other ways to determine these days.
Low level photo bird screaming in, after a strike package, or possibly
before the strike and coming back in afterwards, had their place.
As much as the low level high speed mission of an RF-4C sounds like a
great mission,but now with most strikes using smart weapons, UAVs in
the air, and increased other types of digital imagery and analysis
available, the mission would be quite different now with digital
weapons and digital sensors.
The USMC did probably regret their recent mothballing of their RF-4B
ships prior to the first round of unpleasantness with Saddam though.
The Nevada ANG, and other recce Phantom units, got a bit of use in
that one
Ron
And the F-111F was faster than the F-15, so was the F-105, and
possibly the F-106 too.
Wonder how the J79-19 powered F-104 would have fared.
Daryl
The SU-24 does high mach numbers on the deck. It's not fast at
higher altitudes. it comes in on the deck, does it job and
boogies. I don't know if anything can catch it on the deck
except for a SA.
Ron
> > And the F-111F was faster than the F-15, so was the F-105, and
> > possibly the F-106 too.
> > Wonder how the J79-19 powered F-104 would have fared.
>
> The SU-24 does high mach numbers on the deck. It's not fast at
> higher altitudes. it comes in on the deck, does it job and
> boogies. I don't know if anything can catch it on the deck
> except for a SA.
F-111D is good for at least M1.3, even with empty racks.
SA?
CaveLamb
>
> The USMC did probably regret their recent mothballing of their RF-4B
> ships prior to the first round of unpleasantness with Saddam though.
> The Nevada ANG, and other recce Phantom units, got a bit of use in
> that one
Which makes me quite proud!
--
Richard Lamb
Bill Shatzer
> On Apr 6, 1:31 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Did you just descibe an F-104?
>>What you missed is low level recon.
>>Consider the Cuban Missile crisis, or today Libya.
>>It's a cloudy day and you want intel, cloulds VFR 500' to ground.
>>So ya need to whoosh in at 400', and not get shot, so go fast.
>>Maybe the battlefield circumstances are changing hour by hour,
>>and you need photo intel.
>>An F-104 streaking past at low level is a site to see - for a moment.
>>It's like as soon as you notice them they're gone.
>>
>>AFAIK, the MiG-21 and F-104 were crappy at altitude, not enough
>>wing area,unless they're at Mach2.
>>Ken
>
>
> Except that I do not think there was a photo version of the F-104,
A couple of NATO air forces operated RF-104Gs but the USAF never
acquired any.
> there was the RF-101 and RF-8 used over Cuba at low level. RF-4
> probably did not exist yet.
> And there arent any more photo birds to send in at low level over
> Libya, that mission has since passed for the most part, and those
> aircraft are in boneyards
Drones and satellites have pretty much supplanted manned a/c in the
recon role.
Andrew Chaplin
> The SU-24 does high mach numbers on the deck. It's not fast at
> higher altitudes. it comes in on the deck, does it job and
> boogies. I don't know if anything can catch it on the deck
> except for a SA.
When I was working on airfield defence problems in the 1980s, FENCER was
voted the Warsaw Pact aircraft most likely to come calling, likely with
bouquets of VR and s***loads of ARMs. It was a major reason our low-level
defences at Lahr and Baden-Soelingen were layers of ADATS and Skyguard/GDF-
005. We estimated it was going to get ugly early.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Daryl
> Daryl<dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote in news:inj0mb$ckt$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> The SU-24 does high mach numbers on the deck. It's not fast at
>> higher altitudes. it comes in on the deck, does it job and
>> boogies. I don't know if anything can catch it on the deck
>> except for a SA.
>
> When I was working on airfield defence problems in the 1980s, FENCER was
> voted the Warsaw Pact aircraft most likely to come calling, likely with
> bouquets of VR and s***loads of ARMs. It was a major reason our low-level
> defences at Lahr and Baden-Soelingen were layers of ADATS and Skyguard/GDF-
> 005. We estimated it was going to get ugly early.
'If I had to pick and aircraft that had the biggest impact on the
cold war it would be the fencer. Too many think that a Mig must
be a fighter and would be lesser than the Wests counterparts.
The Fencer couldn't fight it's way out of a paper bag. But it
could fly high mach and deliver a large bomb and missile load on
target flying through it. When you are talking about 6 minutes
flight time from takeoff to target like you were in Europe, that
high mach low altitude number is almost impossible to defend against.
I notice that the stats given for the Mig-27 is listed as the
same as the ones for the Mig-23. The original Mig-27 had
different, cheaper engines in it and was much slower.
Oftentimes, the Mig-27 was confused with a the Mig-23 with Bomb
racks mounted on it. AFter seeing the Internet reporting of the
Mig-27 it's a pretty established misconception.
Many even state that the Mig-23 came after the Mig-27 and the
mods to the Mig-27 MADE the Mig-23. This is not the case. The
Mig-23 did give the origins to the Mig-27. But there were
differences in the engines, Nose Assembly, the racks and even the
engine.
The Engine for the Mig-27 was a simplified version that was used
in the Mig-23. The Mig-27 max speed was just over 1100 mph while
the Mig-23 top speed was over 1500.
Mig-23 engine: Powerplant: 1 × Khatchaturov R-35-300
afterburning turbojet, 83.6 kN dry, 127 kN afterburning (18,850
lbf / 28,700 lbf)
Mig-27 Engine: 1 × Khatchaturov R-29B-300 afterburning turbojet
The Mig-27 only had about 1100 made. It was never a popular
aircraft. It was designed for ground attack and had much of the
more capable radar removed for air to air that the Mig-23
carried. While the Mig-23 became wildly successful, the Mig-27
never did. It was too easy to just mount the racks on the Mig-23
and go do the job and have a fighter that could protect itself.
Mapomme
> On Mar 28, 2:35 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>> 1) At full load at what speed does the 21 rotate for take-off? 2) Near
>> empty what is the landing speed? By and large she seems to be a tame
>> aircraft,
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21
>>
>> The unit is still in service, and the planform works. Revised and
>> stealthed that little SOB could be a hazard. Ken
>
> At one point I was negotiating to buy a Porsche from an ex-test pilot
> who flew ex-Sov. fighters on the airshow circuit. His main ride was a
> Mig-19 but, IIRC, he sometimes leased a Mig-21 as well. Seemed to think
> it was a hot little ship, although not that maneuverable.
Due to the air intake, you had to deal with the Alpha, above 14°, just
fly symetrical, DO NOT USE the rudders!!!
At the opposite, flying a Mirage III at low speed (high alpha) was a
pleasure, using rudders to turn, perform manœuvres called "eventail" or
inverted flight.
On the stick, the MiG 21 was like a transport aircraft even if it was a
fighter, I mean, you didn't had good feeling about what you did compared
to some others ships.
On basic fight manoeuvres vs a Mirage F1, that was piece of cake from the
french fighter, best turn rate, best accel, best sustained speed,
whatever was the altitude. And, that was more comfortable to fly the
french one than the Soviet one.
Mapomme
Paul F Austin
> Le Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:29:02 -0700, W.A. Baker a écrit :
>
>> On Mar 28, 2:35 pm, "Ken S. Tucker"<dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>>> 1) At full load at what speed does the 21 rotate for take-off? 2) Near
>>> empty what is the landing speed? By and large she seems to be a tame
>>> aircraft,
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21
>>>
>>> The unit is still in service, and the planform works. Revised and
>>> stealthed that little SOB could be a hazard. Ken
>>
>> At one point I was negotiating to buy a Porsche from an ex-test pilot
>> who flew ex-Sov. fighters on the airshow circuit. His main ride was a
>> Mig-19 but, IIRC, he sometimes leased a Mig-21 as well. Seemed to think
>> it was a hot little ship, although not that maneuverable.
>
> Due to the air intake, you had to deal with the Alpha, above 14°, just
> fly symetrical, DO NOT USE the rudders!!!
>
difference in high alpha flight? I'm no pilot, is it the blunt forebody
generating vortices that a pointed nose would not?
Paul
Ed Rasimus
Turbulent or disrupted airflow to the front frame of the engine. A
turbojet requires smooth and consistent sub-sonic airflow. The intake
ducts have a lot of magic sucking and blowing and converging and
diverging stuff happening to achieve that.
The significant thing about the cobra maneuver which you may have seen
me malign on many occasions as tactically absurd is that it
demonstrates engine technology that simply doesn't care how the air
gets delivered to the front of the engine. The fact that motor doesn't
choke or regurgitate is the miracle!
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
deem...@aol.com
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:54:38 -0400, Paul F Austin
>
>
>
>
>
> <pfaus...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On 4/11/2011 12:13 PM, Mapomme wrote:
But it looks really cool until the stall........
Paul F Austin
Thanks for clarifying, Ed. I was confused by Mapomme's reference to
rudder use at high alpha.
The Atar in Mirage IIIs is so old that I'm surprised that its stall
margin as installed is so much greater than the MiG-21 installation.
Paul
Paul
Jeff Crowell
> The significant thing about the cobra maneuver which you may have seen
> me malign on many occasions as tactically absurd is that it
> demonstrates engine technology that simply doesn't care how the air
> gets delivered to the front of the engine. The fact that motor doesn't
> choke or regurgitate is the miracle!
Yeah. And you can tell the former TF-30 engined Tomcat drivers
by the bitter tears of envy they weep at the sight of a Cobra
maneuver.
Jeff
--
"Other than that, Mrs. Kennedy, how did you like the parade?"
Mapomme
The rudder use induce non symetrical flight. At low speeds, you can use
either rudder or stick to turn. If your plane has spoilers, for instance,
it can be better to use rudder due to drag generated.
So about the air intake non-symetrical flight create the same troubles
than high alpha. If you combine the two of it...
There is nothing to say about the Atar, even if the 9B and 9C were
"officially" limited, there were very few incidents, you just had not to
touch the throttle. You leave it where it were, and 90% times it works.
For sure, if you were IAS 160, iddle, FL 330, and push it up full AB
pulling hard on the stick, you had some chance to finish riding a glider,
then wait 15000' before entering re-start sequence....
Mapomme
Ed Rasimus
Rudder use at high alpha is about more than engine intake airflow.
For high performance swept-wing aircraft it is more about adverse yaw.
Rolling an aircraft conventionally involves an up and down aileron on
opposite wings. Up aileron pushes wing down; down aileron raises wing
up--resultant is roll around longitudinal axis and the lift vector
angles you in the direction of turn.
But down aileron generates more drag than up aileron. The result is
adverse yaw or a swing of the nose in the opposite of the desired
direction of your turn. Correction is coordination with some rudder in
the direction of turn to keep all forces balanced.
This is all quite simple with straightwing aircraft. At high AOA any
aileron deflections can really get huge differentials in drag between
those deflected ailerons. That means for may designs (without
stability augmentation systems) you can get very violent reversals of
roll opposite the intended direction of aileron input.
The solution is that at high AOA, you don't use aileron to turn.
Aggressive application of rudder will yaw the aircraft in the
direction of turn, advancing the outboard wing to increase lift and
retreating the inboard wing to reduce lift and even provide partial
blanking of airflow over the wing by the fuselage. Result is very
rapid and effective roll maneuver totally by rudder and without any
aileron whatsoever.
Modern FBW systems and stability augmentation systems pretty much take
all of that out of the pilot's hands (and feet), but in the days of
aircraft like the F-100 a failure to use rudder at high AOA could get
you killed. Ditto for hard-wing F-4s.
Ed Rasimus
<jeff.crow...@hp.com> wrote:
>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> The significant thing about the cobra maneuver which you may have seen
>> me malign on many occasions as tactically absurd is that it
>> demonstrates engine technology that simply doesn't care how the air
>> gets delivered to the front of the engine. The fact that motor doesn't
>> choke or regurgitate is the miracle!
>
>Yeah. And you can tell the former TF-30 engined Tomcat drivers
>by the bitter tears of envy they weep at the sight of a Cobra
>maneuver.
>
>
>Jeff
Twenty-three years of tactical jet flying in a lot of corners of the
envelope and never experienced a single compressor stall. Not one.
Never an in-flight flamout either.
Always better to be lucky than good.
Paul F Austin
And there I was, sitting on the ground, first in Atlanta, then at
Colorado Springs when a cross-wind induced a compressor stall.
Apparently the stall margins on JT8Ds are very small.
The TF30 was, if I recall correctly, originally developed for the
Missileer, a definitely subsonic, not so much maneuvering application.
GD had lots of problems with the engine installation in F111s, going
through three or four inlet designs, yet as far as I know, the TF30s in
A7s were pretty viceless.
Paul
Jeff Crowell
Jeff Crowell wrote:
>> Yeah. And you can tell the former TF-30 engined Tomcat drivers
>> by the bitter tears of envy they weep at the sight of a Cobra
>> maneuver.
Ed Rasimus wrote:
> Twenty-three years of tactical jet flying in a lot of corners of the
> envelope and never experienced a single compressor stall. Not one.
> Never an in-flight flameout either.
>
> Always better to be lucky than good.
Yeah, the luck in this case maybe being not a pilot of a TF-30
Tomcat, maybe? :-D I truly wonder if anyone with
any significant level of Tomcat time could make that claim--the
restrictions placed on those guys for AOA and throttle movement
were just plain ridiculous. And the Plus and D-birds were so
immensely much better than the "A" models, by all I have seen.
Ii is just plain inexcusable that it took so long to get a
proper engine in that ship, especially in terms of the lives
and airframes lost due to TF-30-related problems.
In my 2 years of flying, I can report having come near to
muddying my flight suit due to chugs and stalls in a TA-4
with a tired fuel control--hardly the engine's fault.
Funny that the maintenance troops were not nearly so upset
about all that as I was....
Jeff
--
The early bird may get the worm, but it's the second mouse who gets the
cheese.
Paul F Austin
> On 4/12/2011 9:35 AM,
> Jeff Crowell wrote:
>>> Yeah. And you can tell the former TF-30 engined Tomcat drivers
>>> by the bitter tears of envy they weep at the sight of a Cobra
>>> maneuver.
>
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> Twenty-three years of tactical jet flying in a lot of corners of the
>> envelope and never experienced a single compressor stall. Not one.
>> Never an in-flight flameout either.
>>
>> Always better to be lucky than good.
>
> Yeah, the luck in this case maybe being not a pilot of a TF-30
> Tomcat, maybe? :-D I truly wonder if anyone with
> any significant level of Tomcat time could make that claim--the
> restrictions placed on those guys for AOA and throttle movement
> were just plain ridiculous. And the Plus and D-birds were so
> immensely much better than the "A" models, by all I have seen.
> Ii is just plain inexcusable that it took so long to get a
> proper engine in that ship, especially in terms of the lives
> and airframes lost due to TF-30-related problems.
>
>
the F401 installed. F401, whose development was stopped was a navalized
derivation of the F100. The F-14C was supposed to have been a
replacement for the tube/relay logic AWG-9.
What's grim is the A Plus and D's F101-400 isn't very different from the
F110-129 so you have to ask just how much changes were really needed to
insert an F100 in a Navy aircraft. Both the Navy and Air Force change
things they are forced to adopt from the other blue service, even if
it's a stock number change.
Paul
Paul
Ron
TF-30 was just supposed to be an interim engine, but the defense cuts
of the mid to late 70s ended that. It was not that great of a
combination with the F-14
Mapomme
Did you fly T-bird, F5? Never experienced compressor stall? I confirm you
are a lucky guy! I have the same amount of fast-jets flying, and I
started experiencing compressor stall on Fouga Magister, u had to be
gentle on the power before 17000 rpm, meaning that in case of an emerg go
around, u had to trust in god!!!I guess u had the same engines on the T37.
Then, I experienced it on Ajet, even if it were really harder to go to
the limits, but when u were flying above FL 250 and trying to decoy the
opponent, pulling then pushing, turning with rudder, getting out of the
envelopp to come back, God knows how, because you want to go behind him
and kill that "bastard" (ie ur FI), putting the stick upper right and the
rudder full left below 100 kts... u know what I mean!
Then, I learnt that there are ways to experience it during my carrer, on
various ships, like T2, Mig 21, F5, Mirage, MB339 etc...
Some times, u think u are in the domain, and the real temperature is not
the standard one, or the pressure... And you may have a motivating glider
experience even if it's not written on the curves you learnt.
Mapomme, probably luckier than Ed: I survived compressor stalls, and
engine flame out!
Ed Rasimus
<pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>What's grim is the A Plus and D's F101-400 isn't very different from the
>F110-129 so you have to ask just how much changes were really needed to
>insert an F100 in a Navy aircraft. Both the Navy and Air Force change
>things they are forced to adopt from the other blue service, even if
>it's a stock number change.
>
>Paul
Ain't that the truth! I got to spend a few days on Forrestal in the
Med as a guest of VF-11 Red Rippers. I figured I'd get a ride or two
in their F-4s, so I came prepared with my helmet, torso harness, LPU
and G-suit.
Not one piece of gear was compatible with the Navy F-4 and their
Martin-Baker seat.
Their oxygen hose fitting was reversed, the comm cord lead was
reversed so the helmet wouldn't fit.
Their Koch fittings to mate the torso harness to the parachute were
female to male, while USAF was male to female. No harness
compatibility.
Their life-preserver was integral to their harness and not a separate
(and hence optional) piece of gear.
Their G suit zipped from ankle to thigh while USAF version zipped
downward from thigh to ankle. Plug-in to aircraft was reversed.
Other than the life preserver mod, I can't think of a single
justification for any of the other changes.
But I did get some rides and am an authentic Tail-Hooker.
Ed Rasimus
I'll credit luck, but there might also be some maintenance factors
there.
I've only got two rides in the F-5B, but I've got more than 14 hours
in the AT-38, most of it as an IP for the instructor qualification
program for Fighter Lead-In Training so we were doing very extreme BFM
stuff. Never a belch or a burp by a J-85 no matter what I did.
I instructed in T-37s at pilot training for several years after my
F-105 experience and the J-69s were incredibly reliable. They did have
the slow acceleration and throttle response you mention but they
always ran and that includes the extensive normal and inverted spin
training we did in those days. But, the Tweet was a very short intake
throat as compared to the Fouga.
And about 1400 hours in F-4 C/D/E models. J-79s keep on trucking as
well.
Schiffner
SNIP
> I instructed in T-37s at pilot training for several years after my
> F-105 experience and the J-69s were incredibly reliable.
Was that at Vance? Went to school out there, used to take some IP's I
knew quail hunting when it was in season...still remember a T-38
blowing compressor blades and eating couple houses in the mid 80's.
(they almost made it out of town).
Dan
I can think of only a couple of compressor stalls during my time on
F-4E. One of which was CADC caused. It got my attention when doing an
engine run in Zaragossa. I think the guy on the comm cord almost came of
his skin. I know I wasn't too far behind him.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Dan
Don't you just love inter service compatibility? It's bad enough
trying to translate Navy into a known language.
Ed Rasimus
And, that should be 1400 not 14 hours in the AT-38B!
Some of the old F-100 guys tell amazing stories about compressor
stalls in the Hun blasting flames out of the front and back of the
engine at the same time and knocking their feet off the rudder pedals.
I guess that's why we get the extra pay!
Mapomme
Well, I flew F5 in Spain during exchange beetween my squad an a spanish
one, then with Switzerland, not a lot, rather 24h00, I guess I tried some
"out of domain stuff"...
>
> I instructed in T-37s at pilot training for several years after my F-105
> experience and the J-69s were incredibly reliable.
They were certainly the licensed variant of Marboré 6 wich was easier to
control.
A big difference with the Marboré 2 wich was limited when you were
pushing, you had to move the throttle at the speed the rpm needle ran
till you reached 17000 rpm, then you could go faster to mil.
> They did have the
> slow acceleration and throttle response you mention but they always ran
> and that includes the extensive normal and inverted spin training we did
> in those days. But, the Tweet was a very short intake throat as compared
> to the Fouga.
In fact if you did not touch the throttle, you could do what ever you
wanted with Fouga, including what we call "cloche" ("bell") wich is a
perfect vertical climb till you reach no speed, then you blocked the
stick, wait a little, then started to glide on the tail and can see the
flames getting out of the air intake before the nose fall down .
>
> And about 1400 hours in F-4 C/D/E models. J-79s keep on trucking as
> well.
Maybe that was different with the british variant 'cause a friend of mine
former GB F4 pilot was not as confident in his engines, but I know that
there weren't the same and neither the fuselage, so...
Mapomme.
Dan
I don't recall what happened to my feet. I just remember my heart
coming out of my mouth. I had made up my mind I probably wouldn't have
been able to duplicate the malfunction so I was relaxing. Anticipating
the big bang wasn't something I enjoyed. I had never experienced a
compressor stall before so I could only go by others descriptions. The
old engine guy in the line truck apparently laughed when everyone reacted.
150flivver
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:21:34 -0400, Paul F Austin
>
It wasn't that long ago that USAF and NATO aircraft had HAVEQUICK
radios and could talk to each other but the USN didn't and couldn't.
Also Navy chaff and flares were round, while USAF's were square/
rectangular.
Ed Rasimus
This is fun! Swapping stories about airplanes and experiences from
different Air Forces. I spent four years in Spain at Torrejon where
we had three USAF F-4 squadrons and the Spanish had two. One of the
Spanish pilots was Joaquin Bobadilla, who was son of one of the
largest sherry producers in the country. Great guy and we had some fun
squadron parties with his bunch.
They ran a very relaxed operation and probably flew less than 20% as
much as we did which meant their jets were very low time and in great
condition.
Where were the SAF F-5s based? Moron or Alicante? I know the Mirage
IIIs were out of Valencia and they were very good in the interceptor
mission.
>
>
>>
>> I instructed in T-37s at pilot training for several years after my F-105
>> experience and the J-69s were incredibly reliable.
>
>They were certainly the licensed variant of Marboré 6 wich was easier to
>control.
>
>A big difference with the Marboré 2 wich was limited when you were
>pushing, you had to move the throttle at the speed the rpm needle ran
>till you reached 17000 rpm, then you could go faster to mil.
Same thing with the J-69. Keep the throttle with the the RPM, which
was always tough when you wanted to "save" a student's bad landing
effort.
>
>> They did have the
>> slow acceleration and throttle response you mention but they always ran
>> and that includes the extensive normal and inverted spin training we did
>> in those days. But, the Tweet was a very short intake throat as compared
>> to the Fouga.
>
>
>In fact if you did not touch the throttle, you could do what ever you
>wanted with Fouga, including what we call "cloche" ("bell") wich is a
>perfect vertical climb till you reach no speed, then you blocked the
>stick, wait a little, then started to glide on the tail and can see the
>flames getting out of the air intake before the nose fall down .
You could do that quite nicely in the T-38 but without the flames
coming forward. In fact you could do aileron rolls all the way to just
before the zero airspeed point and tail slide.
You could also do the vertical zero airspeed thing in the F-4 but any
aileron deflection could lead to a departure and a very wild ride. As
an IP doing advanced handling missions with younger pilots I always
kept my knees and hands "caging" the stick against lateral movements.
>
>>
>> And about 1400 hours in F-4 C/D/E models. J-79s keep on trucking as
>> well.
>
>Maybe that was different with the british variant 'cause a friend of mine
>former GB F4 pilot was not as confident in his engines, but I know that
>there weren't the same and neither the fuselage, so...
Absolutely! The RAF's F-4K had to have Rolls-Royce Spey engines and it
was never a very good match.
Schiffner
Well if you allow for Marines and SEALS every other navy member I met
was a contrary so and so. Good drinking buddies though, even if I had
to carry them home more than once.
Jeff Crowell
>> Ain't that the truth! I got to spend a few days on Forrestal in the
>> Med as a guest of VF-11 Red Rippers. I figured I'd get a ride or two
>> in their F-4s, so I came prepared with my helmet, torso harness, LPU
>> and G-suit.
>>
>> Not one piece of gear was compatible with the Navy F-4 and their
>> Martin-Baker seat.
What year was that, Ed? In summer of '81, when I stashed at
Top Gun, the squadron operated both Navy (A-4) and Air Force-
rigged aircraft--single- and two-seat F-5s. This was about a
year prior to the F-16/79 experiment, dammit. Wouldn't mind
having that one in my logbook!
Anyway, all the guys maintained two seats of flight gear. Two
O-masks, not only different hose socket, the intercom plugs
were different, and you'd better remember which one you needed
or you had to haul ass back the paraloft to not be late to
start. MA-2 torso harness for the Scooter, and damned if I
can remember how the life preserver was managed for the Tiger,
must have been a separate piece; you carried out to the plane
a separate parachute for the USAF bird and it was integral to
the e-seat for Navy. (important tip to help you keep looking
good--do NOT use that shiny silver handle to hang the chute
from the tip launcher while you preflight! Pop the chute
accidentally and you have to buy the rigger a case of beer.
The big difference mechanically between the oxygen systems
was that normal mode of the Air Force mask proportionally
mixed aircraft oxygen with cockpit air; you had to manually
select 100% if you had smoke or fumes in the cockpit. The
Navy rig was 100% all the time (if you had the mask on,
anyway--it was fashionable at the time to improve your cool
factor by dropping the mask on one side as you whizzed along,
not safe but much better looking; a downside was that you
couldn't be understood on the radio with the mask off).
The Navy breathing stuff flowed through a min-regulator.
The mini-reg was designed to keep you breathing, via the
seatpan bailout bottle, even if you were under water, a
partially comforting thought if you had to deal with shroud
line entanglement after a water landing.
G-suit hookup was common for us.
>> Other than the life preserver mod, I can't think of a single
>> justification for any of the other changes.
Who was changed from whom? ;-) Maybe we were there first!
But they sure were different.
Off-thread but funny--when I went to flight school I got in
a modest argument with one of the (USN rated pilot) ground
school instructors--when he asked if anyone had prior jet
time, I raised my hand and told him that I had 20 hours
special crew time in two-seat F-5s. He stated flatly there
was no such thing. I grinned & let it go, realizing I should
have kept shut about it anyway, since it would sound like I
was bragging (well, I was). He never did connect
the dots. I shoulda asked him if he wanted to put a little
money on that statement.
I did end up wondering what he was flying that he didn't
know about Top Gun. Damn trash haulers anyway.
Jeff
--
The difference between theory and practice is less in theory than in
practice.
Ed Rasimus
I didn't like my brief experience with the Navy oxygen setup. It
wasn't the 100% aspect, but the fact that the USN system maintained
something like a two or three PSI over-pressure in the mask. The
concept was it kept the mask filled if you were submerged
(temporarily). The USAF was a "diluter-demand" regulator that
automatically varied the oxygen proportion as cockpit pressure
altitude went down until it went to 100% oxygen and then into positive
pressure for high altitude situations with an unpressurized cockpit.
>
>G-suit hookup was common for us.
It as the leg zippers that I remembered most. Top to ankle for AF,
ankle to top for Navy.
>
>
> >> Other than the life preserver mod, I can't think of a single
> >> justification for any of the other changes.
>
>Who was changed from whom? ;-) Maybe we were there first!
>But they sure were different.
Yours were salt-water sensitive they told me so that they
automatically deployed.
>
>
>Off-thread but funny--when I went to flight school I got in
>a modest argument with one of the (USN rated pilot) ground
>school instructors--when he asked if anyone had prior jet
>time, I raised my hand and told him that I had 20 hours
>special crew time in two-seat F-5s. He stated flatly there
>was no such thing. I grinned & let it go, realizing I should
>have kept shut about it anyway, since it would sound like I
>was bragging (well, I was). He never did connect
>the dots. I shoulda asked him if he wanted to put a little
>money on that statement.
>
>I did end up wondering what he was flying that he didn't
>know about Top Gun. Damn trash haulers anyway.
Multiple dumb-shit. The first generation F-5A had a parallel two-seat
B model and the F-5 on steroids, the F-5E had a two-seat F-5F version.
If he was really dumb and confused it with F-105, then he would be
overlooking the F-105F model, most of which were modified later to
F-105G. Still plenty of two-seat versions.
Peter Skelton
Did you mean 2 iwg (not enough) or .2 psi (a bit on the heavy side)? 2
psi over-pressure is lethal.
--
Peter
Ed Rasimus
Forgive a political science major ("I'm a doctor, Jim, not a bloody
engineer....") for not having a clue what "iwg" units are.
When I say 2 psi (not .2), I'm talking about delivery pressure to the
mask above ambient. We live at sea level under an atmospheric pressure
of approx 15 psi. If air pressure outside the mask is the same as
inside the mask, you've got stasis. Put mask and man under water then
15 psi inside the mask is overwhelmed by much heavier pressure from
the water and water flows around the edges and through the valves into
the mask.
The overpressure is not high enough to blow the edges of the mask away
from the face normally (although a USAF mask in a pressure breathing
situation most assuredly will!) The Navy mask will bubble out and keep
the mask itself full of oxygen during immersion.
I don't see how 2 psi over-pressure would be lethal. (Should I not go
swimming?)
Dan
> I don't see how 2 psi over-pressure would be lethal. (Should I not go
> swimming?)
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
One of the drawbacks to using over pressure to discuss two different
situations is it can be confusing. When one discusses effects of
explosions one term used is over pressure. 2 psi over pressure can be
fatal when the result of an explosion. 2 psi over pressure when SCUBA
diving is minor. It seems to be a function of impulse.
Ken S. Tucker
About 30' submerged is 1 extra atmosphere ~ 15psi.
1 psi / 2 feet , 2 psi ~ 4 feet deep.
An 'over-pressure' is unbalanced. A 2 psi 'impulse' on a
3 sq ft body (~ a person) is nearly a 1 ton impulse.
Ken
Jeff Crowell
>> The big difference mechanically between the oxygen systems
>> The Navy breathing stuff flowed through a min-regulator.
>> The mini-reg was designed to keep you breathing, via the
>> seatpan bailout bottle, even if you were under water, a
>> partially comforting thought if you had to deal with shroud
>> line entanglement after a water landing.
Ed Rasimus wrote:
> I didn't like my brief experience with the Navy oxygen setup. It
> wasn't the 100% aspect, but the fact that the USN system maintained
> something like a two or three PSI over-pressure in the mask. The
> concept was it kept the mask filled if you were submerged
> (temporarily). The USAF was a "diluter-demand" regulator that
> automatically varied the oxygen proportion as cockpit pressure
> altitude went down until it went to 100% oxygen and then into positive
> pressure for high altitude situations with an unpressurized cockpit.
The Navy brought out a vastly improved O-mask system about
the time I started. Effortless breathing, no work to
overcome the exhale valve spring, no apparent overpressure.
It was about like breathing with a well set-up SCUBA system.
But you did have to shut off the oxy when you dropped one
side of the mask, or you'd vent the whole LOX basketball into
the cockpit in flight. Everyone did ONCE the dumb thing of
hooking the loose side back up before turning on the oxy
again... you could literally suffocate inside the mask if
there was no supply of oxygen--and guys have over the years:
get knocked unconscious in an ejection, water landing, stay
unconscious but otherwise approximately healthy, run out of
your ten-minute bailout supply, get dead.
>>>> Other than the life preserver mod, I can't think of a single
>>>> justification for any of the other changes.
>>
>> Who was changed from whom? ;-) Maybe we were there first!
>> But they sure were different.
>
> Yours were salt-water sensitive they told me so that they
> automatically deployed.
Salt-water activated riser release and auto-inflate of
the LPA was after my time.
Jeff
--
Entropy isn't what is used to be.