jet throttle question
Tarver Engineering
Nate Meier wrote in message <734h37$fbs$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...Hi to all of you pilots out there... To throttle the plane up to afterburner, is there a gate on the throttle or a button or some other kind of lock-off? Or do you just push it past military power?
John Kunkel
>
> Hi to all of you pilots out there... To throttle the plane up to
> afterburner, is there a gate on the throttle or a button or some other
> kind of lock-off? Or do you just push it past military power?
Several different systems have been used over the years. Some common
ones use toggles that form a detent at military power and minimum AB.
Some single engine applications have a gate at military which is passed
by moving the throttle lever sideways and forward to initiate AB.
I'm sure there are others but, in general, there must be some mechanism
in the throttle to differentiate mil power from AB.
John
Michael Williamson
Hi to all of you pilots out there... To throttle the plane up to afterburner, is there a gate on the throttle or a button or some other kind of lock-off? Or do you just push it past military power? Nate Meier [nme...@chat.carleton.ca]2nd year Aerospace EngineeringCarleton University
It varies depending upon the aircraft in question.
In the T-38 (for example), there is a detent between military power.
Moving the throttle past this (there is no stop, just a detent) will put
the engine into AB. On some aircraft, the throttle is moved to the
side, and need not be in mil power to do so, although there is almost certainly
a limited range of power settings over which this could be done.
Mike Williamson
KLTLKT
The F-4 uses a similar system but the WSO cannot initiate AB, has to ask the
pilot to do it and can then de-select AB. The F-15 throttles just go forward
and back with a detent between mil and AB. The WSO has full control. And in
the Tweet................ oh wait, never mind!.
Cheers.
IanDTurner
reheat ( if you talk English! )
There is also the facility to achieve partial throttle reheat by depressing a
totally seperate switch, allowing reheat at throttle settings other than 100%
Ian
Frits de Kiewit
that the throttle will move forward to milpower (100%) normally.
At the end of travel there is a detent, which may be passed by a
finger-lift mechanism. Then the throttle can go further and will activate
AB.
Frits
IanDTurner wrote in message <19981121115847...@ng65.aol.com>...
KLTLKT
>a
>>totally seperate switch, allowing reheat at throttle settings other than
>100%
>>
>>Ian
Sorry, earlier I abused the Queen's English by saying AB instead of reheat.
I'm curious though, what's the utility of going to reheat if you aren't already
at mil?
Mike Tighe
response to an earlier comment on the Jaguar's PTR system:
It's a Jaguar thing.... I don't recall of hearing of it being used
anywhere else.
It came in with one of the engine updates quite early on in the career
of the plane. I think the Jag was/(is still?) a bit underpowered, and
an engine shutdown made life much too interesting - in some conditions
there was not enough power from the other Adour engine without AB to
keep flying, and too much 'push' to make a safe approach. I also seem
to recall that in some tactical situations, there was some benefit
from holding the engines at about 80-85% and 'topping up' the required
thrust with AB.
If I get time, I will try and refresh my hazy recollections with some
firmer references, but if anyone wants to try for themselves, I would
suggest an early-eighties issue of 'Flight International' (I think a
journalist went on a mission during a Mallet Blow exercise...)
Mike Tighe
Speaking from the bottom left
hand corner of the big picture.
mark.j...@mindspring.com
KLTLKT wrote in message <
[snip]
>Sorry, earlier I abused the Queen's English by saying AB instead of reheat.
>I'm curious though, what's the utility of going to reheat if you aren't
already
>at mil?
The Adour engine in the Jaguar is the only engine I can think of off hand
which uses the PTR (part throttle reheat). It was really a band-aid fix to
the remarkably poor transient accel times of the engine. When the pilot
shoved the throttle forward, there was a dreadful pause before any increase
in thrust was developed. The solution was to allow the burner to light
before the engine reached mil power, this provided a more linear thrust
response.
The Aeronavale was intending to fly the Jaguar off of their carriers, but
the poor throttle response made it a bitch to fly on approach. One of the
prototypes was heavily damaged due to a hard landing which was due in part
to the pilot finding himself way out on the back side of the power curve due
to the slow response of the engine.
Most modern engines use a fully modulating afterburner which eliminates the
need for a PTR system.
Mark Johnston
mark.j...@mindspring.com
Tarver Engineering
Frits de Kiewit wrote in message ...
>My understanding of AB selection (amongst others in the F-15 and F-18) is
>that the throttle will move forward to milpower (100%) normally.
>At the end of travel there is a detent, which may be passed by a
>finger-lift mechanism. Then the throttle can go further and will activate
>AB.
The F/A-18 and F-106 have (had) a cutout switch at 80% of RPM and a pull up
switch to engage the AB. All the ABs I ever worked with (jet mech
1974-1980) worked from 80% of RPM, to Mil Power.
John
>Frits
>IanDTurner wrote in message <19981121115847...@ng65.aol.com>...
>>Jaguar has a detent lever on the throttles, which you must depress to go
>into
>>reheat ( if you talk English! )
>>
Ed Rasimus
>My understanding of AB selection (amongst others in the F-15 and F-18) is
>that the throttle will move forward to milpower (100%) normally.
>At the end of travel there is a detent, which may be passed by a
>finger-lift mechanism. Then the throttle can go further and will activate
>AB.
There are probably as many throttle configurations for AB selection as
there have been airplanes with the capability. Century series jets
which were, with the exception of the 101, all single engine had AB
selection made by moving the throttle outboard then forward. Engines
of the time (J-57 and J-75) had a single stage afterburner which was
"hard light" meaning it dumped fuel into the tailpipe until it cooked
off by a "hot streak" of exhaust gas from the main engine--there was
no igniter plug.
The AB could be selected in a range from 93 to 100% RPM which allowed
for maintaining a formation position during AB selection and the wait
for light (which could take 5-8 seconds). There was a push-pull
locking button on the throttle quadrant that could be depressed to
allow selection of "extended range" AB--once lit, the engine RPM could
be reduced as low as 85%. This was used for heavyweight high altitude
refueling where military power was inadequate to stay on the boom.
The F-4 had a straight ahead push into AB. From mil power you push the
throttles forward over a "hump" to select AB and then modulate power
within the AB range. The J-79 AB had an igniter plug and multiple
spray bar stages for reheat. In the "old days" it was common to
approach the merge in min AB to eliminate the classic smoke trail of
the Phantom.
Ed Rasimus *** Peak Computing Magazine
Fighter Pilot (ret) *** (http://peak-computing.com)
*** Ziff-Davis Interactive
*** (http://www.zdnet.com)
KLTLKT
>which uses the PTR (part throttle reheat). It was really a band-aid fix to
>the remarkably poor transient accel times of the engine. When the pilot
>shoved the throttle forward, there was a dreadful pause before any increase
>in thrust was developed. The solution was to allow the burner to light
>before the engine reached mil power, this provided a more linear thrust
>response.
>
>The Aeronavale was intending to fly the Jaguar off of their carriers, but
>the poor throttle response made it a bitch to fly on approach. One of the
>prototypes was heavily damaged due to a hard landing which was due in part
>to the pilot finding himself way out on the back side of the power curve due
>to the slow response of the engine.
>
>Most modern engines use a fully modulating afterburner which eliminates the
>need for a PTR system.
>
>Mark Johnston
>mark.j...@mindspring.com
That makes sense now. But what really would have more sense would have been to
put in a motor with goood throttle respnse!
Cheers
David Hyde
>The F/A-18 and F-106 have (had) a cutout switch at 80% of RPM and a pull up
>switch to engage the AB. All the ABs I ever worked with (jet mech
>1974-1980) worked from 80% of RPM, to Mil Power.
The Hornet does _not_ use finger lifts or any other type of 'pull-up
switch' to engage 'burner. There's a detent that you can easily push
through but requires no action other than a little firmer push on the
levers to pass thorugh. There are, however, finger lifts on the throttles
that you have to lift to _shut_down_ the engines - you get a little bit
different response from this than 'burner :)
80% to MIL for burners sounds like a pretty wide range to me - heck,
flight idle (as opposed to ground idle) isn't very far from 80% on the
F404. Staging may be scheduled here, but the engines are accelerating to
100%+ when anything above MIL is selected. Unless you've got PTR, like
the Jag, where you'll do _anything_ to improve accel times.
Dave 'slow burn' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
RAH15/?
Tarver Engineering
David Hyde wrote in message <739kbf$enl$1...@hecate.umd.edu>...
>Tarver Engineering (jta...@tminet.com) wrote:
>
>
>>The F/A-18 and F-106 have (had) a cutout switch at 80% of RPM and a pull
up
>>switch to engage the AB. All the ABs I ever worked with (jet mech
>>1974-1980) worked from 80% of RPM, to Mil Power.
>
>The Hornet does _not_ use finger lifts or any other type of 'pull-up
>switch' to engage 'burner.
Do you want me to post a picture for you?
John
Tarver Engineering
David Hyde wrote in message <73alg8$uqu$1...@hecate.umd.edu>...>I'm well aware of the finger lifts on the forward side of the throttle
>levers. On the F/A-18 they are lifted to pull the throttles to the
>shutdown position, not to engage A/B.
Bullshit.
>So to answer your question, "No,
>it's not necessary."
Then quit talking shit, I have the picture, and a lot more knowledge about
these two airplanes than you could ever hope to have.
John
David Hyde
>Do you want me to post a picture for you?
I'm well aware of the finger lifts on the forward side of the throttle
levers. On the F/A-18 they are lifted to pull the throttles to the
shutdown position, not to engage A/B. So to answer your question, "No,
it's not necessary."
Dave 'fair enough?' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
RAH15/?
David Hyde
>On the F/A-18 [finger lifts] are lifted to pull the throttles to the
>shutdown position, not to engage A/B.
JT responded:
>I have the picture,
I'm only speaking about the -18, not any other airplane, and I see where
some of out confusion might arise...with weight on or off wheels, you
_have_to_ lift the finger lifts (or press a fire light) to shut the engine
down. The _only_ time
the lifts _might_ be be raised to engage A/B is with weight ON wheels
(e.g. on the ground) AND the launch bar extended or the hook down. Even
with this, you don't HAVE to lift the lifts to select A/B, you can push
through the lockout to select 'burner without raising the lifts. With
weight off wheels, there's only a detent between MIL and min burner that
is an easy matter to push through. If the throttle friction is set high
enough or throttle boost is off, you might not even notice the detent -
it's happened.
Maybe at some point in the FSD program there were hard MIL stops and a
requirement to lift the lifts to stage 'burner, but it certainly isn't the
case now - I suggest you update your NATOPS. You do _have_ one, don't
you?
>and a lot more knowledge about
>these two airplanes than you could ever hope to have.
I like your sense of humor.
Dave 'I won't spoil it' hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
RAH15/?
Jeff Crowell
> The Hornet does _not_ use finger lifts or any other type of 'pull-up
> through but requires no action other than a little firmer push on the
> levers to pass thorugh. There are, however, finger lifts on the throttles
> that you have to lift to _shut_down_ the engines - you get a little bit
> different response from this than 'burner :)
Never been in a Hornet cockpit, but have seen numerous cockpit
layouts which indicated burner lifts on the throttles.
Ain't sayin' that's right, just saying somebody (several
somebodies, actually) clearly thought so.
Jeff
--
#######################################################
# Jeff Crowell | | #
# | _ | #
# _________|__( )__|_________ #
# WCD Materials Engineer x/ _| |( . )| |_ \x #
# (208) 396-6525 x |_| ---*|_| x #
# O x O #
# jcro...@hpbs3354.boi.hp.com #
#######################################################
David Hyde
>Never been in a Hornet cockpit, but have seen numerous cockpit
>layouts which indicated burner lifts on the throttles.
Never said there weren't. The Jaguar, in my limited experience, had
'em, and I know they're perfectly usable.
Dave 'hard light' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
RAH15/?
Ed Rasimus
>Tarver Engineering (jta...@tminet.com) wrote:
>
>>Do you want me to post a picture for you?
>
>I'm well aware of the finger lifts on the forward side of the throttle
>levers. On the F/A-18 they are lifted to pull the throttles to the
>shutdown position, not to engage A/B. So to answer your question, "No,
>it's not necessary."
>
Hard to believe that even after "kill-filing" some folks, their
fatuous insistence on erroneous information still bleeds through to
the comments of operators.
With regard to the J-75, Pratt & Whitney engine (F-105 and F-106),
there were no finger lifts. On the J-79 as well as J-85, and I assume
the 404, finger lifts are employed (as they are even on B-7x7
aircraft) to protect against inadvertent shutdown. No military cockpit
is going to benefit from the type of digital convolutions necessary to
manipulate finger lifts to get into AB.
As for J-75 specific allegations, as I mentioned in a previous post,
the AB "normal" engine RPM range was 93-100+ RPM. Lower RPM would
result in lower airflow through the tail pipe and possibility of
"blowback" or compressor stall on AB light. The push-pull detent
lockout was for extended AB operation (engine range from 85-93%) and
was only to be used for air refueling operations and then only after a
successful burner light-off in the normal operating range.
Insistence that finger-lifts were used for AB light, that the detent
was part of the AB light controls or that the AB operating range
extended down to the 80% engine RPM range are all incorrect.
Hang in there, Dave.
David Hyde
>Insistence that finger-lifts were used for AB light...
Well, there _are_ airplanes where finger lifts must be raised to select
MAX, and those big lifts do look like they oughtta do something fun :)
I can't help but wonder if he isn't basing his comments on one or more of
the pre-production airplanes at NASA. I can't remember what the SRA
(TF-18 #1) has, but the HARV (F-18A #6) has/had the old pull-to-actuate
fuel shutoff levers in the cockpit - I'm wondering if maybe the FSD
airplanes had a fingerlift setup for 'burner. The OPS Fact Sheet for
the HARV doesn't mention the lifts, but it doesn't mention the old-style
shutoffs either, so I can't tell for sure and I'm not going to dig out
the old Navy reports that are FOUO anyway.
The Jaguar has finger lifts like he's talking about...although I'm not sure
why it was implemented that way. Just another piece of fine attention to
detail, like something like 3 or 5 press-to-test switches just to check
cockpit warning lights and advisories.
Dave 'finger fire' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
RAH15/?
Tarver Engineering
Ed Rasimus wrote in message <36596a20....@news.rmi.net>...
>na...@Glue.umd.edu (David Hyde) wrote:
>
>>Tarver Engineering (jta...@tminet.com) wrote:
>>
>>>Do you want me to post a picture for you?
>>
>>I'm well aware of the finger lifts on the forward side of the throttle
>>levers. On the F/A-18 they are lifted to pull the throttles to the
>>shutdown position, not to engage A/B. So to answer your question, "No,
>>it's not necessary."
>>
>
>Hard to believe that even after "kill-filing" some folks, their
>fatuous insistence on erroneous information still bleeds through to
>the comments of operators.
>
>With regard to the J-75, Pratt & Whitney engine (F-105 and F-106),
>there were no finger lifts. On the J-79 as well as J-85, and I assume
>the 404, finger lifts are employed (as they are even on B-7x7
>aircraft) to protect against inadvertent shutdown. No military cockpit
>is going to benefit from the type of digital convolutions necessary to
>manipulate finger lifts to get into AB.
On the F-106 there was definately a finger lift, just like the F-18. I can
post a picture for you as well Ed. It is unbeleivable taht you could be
this senile.
John
Tarver Engineering
David Hyde wrote in message <73bq8t$8k$1...@hecate.umd.edu>...
>I wrote:
>
>>On the F/A-18 [finger lifts] are lifted to pull the throttles to the
>>shutdown position, not to engage A/B.
>
>
>>I have the picture,
>
>I'm only speaking about the -18, not any other airplane, and I see where
>some of out confusion might arise...with weight on or off wheels, you
>_have_to_ lift the finger lifts (or press a fire light) to shut the engine
>down. The _only_ time
Let me help you out here, just a little. I designed the HARV simulator,
with the throttles from Hornet #1. The wire I designed became the wire for
the Mc Donnell spin airplane (#6 and HARV) This was later replicated at Pax
River. For a fact there is a pull up to engage the AB.
>Maybe at some point in the FSD program there were hard MIL stops and a
>requirement to lift the lifts to stage 'burner, but it certainly isn't the
>case now - I suggest you update your NATOPS. You do _have_ one, don't
>you?
Nope, I just wired the airplane. There is only a single lift.
>>and a lot more knowledge about
>>these two airplanes than you could ever hope to have.
>
>I like your sense of humor.
Where did you learn what you think you know? Did you get it from a comic,
or real life experaince?
John
Tarver Engineering
Jeff Crowell wrote in message <36596F...@hp.com>...
>David Hyde wrote:
>> The Hornet does _not_ use finger lifts or any other type of 'pull-up
>> switch' to engage 'burner. There's a detent that you can easily push
>> through but requires no action other than a little firmer push on the
>> levers to pass thorugh. There are, however, finger lifts on the
throttles
>> that you have to lift to _shut_down_ the engines - you get a little bit
>> different response from this than 'burner :)
>
>layouts which indicated burner lifts on the throttles.
Been there done that, and I have pictures.
>Ain't sayin' that's right, just saying somebody (several
>somebodies, actually) clearly thought so.
Dryden and Pax River think so.
John
Tarver Engineering
David Hyde wrote in message <73bso2$p3j$1...@hecate.umd.edu>...
>Jeff Crowell (jeff_crow...@hp.com) wrote:
>
>>Never been in a Hornet cockpit, but have seen numerous cockpit
>>layouts which indicated burner lifts on the throttles.
>
>'em, and I know they're perfectly usable.
A Jaguar is not a Hornet.
John
Jeff Crowell
> >Never been in a Hornet cockpit, but have seen numerous cockpit
> >layouts which indicated burner lifts on the throttles.
David Hyde wrote:
> Never said there weren't. The Jaguar, in my limited experience, had
> 'em, and I know they're perfectly usable.
Dang it, Dave, can'tcha read between the lines better than that? ;-)
I was clearly implying that I was speaking of the F-18. Wasn't that
clear? Ol' dopey me...
I was just suggesting that might be a reason why folks might
think there are burner lifts on a Hornet. Having seen F-18 cockpit
layouts with throttle lifts marked as burner lockouts, I mean), I
was under the impression myself, little sense as it makes. I can
just see going around and around in a furball, trying to plug in
the burners and not quite making the reach.
However, comma, knowing something of your flying background, I wasn't
trying to argue the point.
Tarver Engineering
David Hyde wrote in message <73c17g$o32$1...@hecate.umd.edu>...
>Ed Rasimus (thu...@rmii.com) wrote:
>
>>Insistence that finger-lifts were used for AB light...
>
>Well, there _are_ airplanes where finger lifts must be raised to select
>MAX, and those big lifts do look like they oughtta do something fun :)
I think we need to take stock in Ed's claims about F-105s and F-106s. As he
does not even know the throttles in the airplane, he claims to have flown,
one could only surmise that Mr. Rasimus' fighter pilot claims are just more
usenet fantasy.
This explains why Ed continually posts on technical matters and video games,
but never about flying an airplane.
>The Jaguar has finger lifts like he's talking about...although I'm not sure
>why it was implemented that way. Just another piece of fine attention to
>detail, like something like 3 or 5 press-to-test switches just to check
>cockpit warning lights and advisories.
David Hyde
>with the throttles from Hornet #1. The wire I designed became the wire
>for the Mc Donnell spin airplane (#6 and HARV) This was later replicated
>at Pax River. For a fact there is a pull up to engage the AB.
If in fact there ever was a 'pull up' this feature is no longer required
in F/A-18 airplanes. It's only implemented with weight on wheels and
(launch bar extended or hook down), and even then there's no _requirement_
to use it, you can push right through the stop. You sound like someone
who should have easy access to a NATOPS - I encourage you get a current
one and see how the system's implemented on production-representative
airplanes these days. To make a general statement on F/A-18 systems
operation based on the F6/HARV configuration is a risky proposition.
>Nope, I just wired the airplane. There is only a single lift.
There are two lifts on the throttle quadrant, on the forward face of each
lever - side by side. These lifts _must_ be raised to place the throttles
in the OFF positions. They _may_ be raised to pass over the A/B lockout,
which as I've posted before, only engages on the deck.
and in another post...
>Dryden and Pax River think so.
*snicker, snort* You really _do_ have a sense of humor.
Dave 'not so old man river' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
RAH15/?
Tarver Engineering
David Hyde wrote in message <73cahj$dkl$1...@hecate.umd.edu>...
>>Let me help you out here, just a little. I designed the HARV simulator,
>>with the throttles from Hornet #1. The wire I designed became the wire
>>for the Mc Donnell spin airplane (#6 and HARV) This was later replicated
>>at Pax River. For a fact there is a pull up to engage the AB.
>
>If in fact there ever was a 'pull up' this feature is no longer required
>in F/A-18 airplanes. It's only implemented with weight on wheels and
>(launch bar extended or hook down), and even then there's no _requirement_
>to use it, you can push right through the stop. You sound like someone
>who should have easy access to a NATOPS - I encourage you get a current
>one and see how the system's implemented on production-representative
>airplanes these days. To make a general statement on F/A-18 systems
>operation based on the F6/HARV configuration is a risky proposition.
So, you are reading a comic book to me.
>>Nope, I just wired the airplane. There is only a single lift.
>
>There are two lifts on the throttle quadrant, on the forward face of each
>lever - side by side. These lifts _must_ be raised to place the throttles
>in the OFF positions. They _may_ be raised to pass over the A/B lockout,
>which as I've posted before, only engages on the deck.
To engage the AB you need to pull up on a single switch, the cuttoffs are a
completely different matter. You have already been notified that the switch
does in fact exist on the F/A-18, by Mr. Rankin-Lowe.
>and in another post...
>
>>Dryden and Pax River think so.
>
>*snicker, snort* You really _do_ have a sense of humor.
Been there done that home boy, what is your F/A-18 experiance? What you are
describing is consistent with a J-79, not an F-404, or J-75.
John
Jarmo Lindberg
>
> Never been in a Hornet cockpit, but have seen numerous cockpit
> layouts which indicated burner lifts on the throttles.
>
> somebodies, actually) clearly thought so.
I must say that I fully agree with Dave Hyde about the finger lifts -
they are only used to shut down the engines. I've flown
USN/USMC/RCAF/FAF Hornets from Lot 8 to Lot 18 and in everyone I've
flown the finger lifts have been used that way. To light the AB you just
have to push through the detent - no finger lift needed.
Dave, thanks for the departure demo in Finland, great job. Zambo
E-mailed me and told that he was selected to the astronaut program and
would go to Houston. Congratulations - we always knew that you were
smart guys.
Jarmo Lindberg
VFA-125 CATII 5-95
--
Jarmo Lindberg
Fighter Squadron 21: http://www.mil.fi/ftrsqn21/
Fighter Tactics Academy: http://www.sci.fi/~fta/welcome.htm
Mary Shafer
> >There is also the facility to achieve partial throttle reheat
> >by depressing a totally seperate switch, allowing reheat at
> >throttle settings other than 100%
> Sorry, earlier I abused the Queen's English by saying AB instead of
> reheat.
Some of us speak and write American English, some speak British
English, some Canadian English, some Australian English, and so on.
So long as the message is not so full of dialect, jargon, and local
usages as to be unintelligible, there's no profit in chipping at
posters for using their own version of the language.
Just as it's ill-bred to criticize posters for whom any version of
English is a second language (check the From and Organization lines,
as well as the signatures for clues that this is the case), so it's at
best distracting and at worst impolite to pounce on the differences in
usage between all those for whom some national version of English is a
first language. We all know that reheat and afterburner are the same;
after all, and using a "foreign" term would be but an affectation.
After all, it would be a box of birds to produce a posting written in
flawless WW II RAF slang. So what if it would look like duff gen to
most of the readers? (Guess who's reading Nevile Shute this week?)
My suggestion is that each poster should write in their own local
version of English, without attempting to adopt or correct another
country's usage.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@reseng.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
For personal messages, please use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com
Mary Shafer
> That makes sense now. But what really would have more sense would
> have been to put in a motor with goood throttle respnse!
I'm sure that was their intent. I greatly doubt that the designers
went through the specs of all possible engines, looking for one with
poor throttle response to built their airplane around.
The saying "there's many a slip twixt cup and lip" is a splendid
description of the production of a new aircraft engine, particularly
if it's coupled with the production of a new airframe. Look at the
X-3, for example, or ask McDonnell Aircraft about the F3H-1 Demon or
General Dynamics about the initial F-111s (although that was inlet
flow more than actual engine performance, but insufficient thrust is
insufficient thrust, whether it's the inlet or the engine). It's a
lot easier to reshape sheet metal than to remodel high-speed rotating
machinery, so aerodynamic deficiencies of the airframe are unlikely to
last the life of the airplane.
This engine was not selected in spite of its throttle response, I'm
sure. Rather, the poor throttle response was discovered in initial
flight testing, long after the airplane had been designed so that only
that engine would fit in it. The ability to go into afterburner in a
wider range of throttle settings than normal was probably quite a
reasonable fix--easy to implement, straightforward in design, and
giving the improvement needed. It was certainly superior to starting
over.
It's a great mistake to assume that aircraft designers are too stupid
to select a proper engine or design a perfect wing planform (F-15, for
example). It's safer to assume that the final design was the best
possible given all the information and testing possible and that
deficiencies are the result of the inadequacies of predicting
everything perfectly.
Al Bowers
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> writes:
> David Hyde wrote in message <73bq8t$8k$1...@hecate.umd.edu>...
> >I wrote:
> >>On the F/A-18 [finger lifts] are lifted to pull the throttles to the
> >>shutdown position, not to engage A/B.
> >JT responded:
> >I'm only speaking about the -18, not any other airplane, and I see where
> >some of out confusion might arise...with weight on or off wheels, you
> >_have_to_ lift the finger lifts (or press a fire light) to shut the engine
> >down. The _only_ time
> Let me help you out here, just a little. I designed the HARV simulator,
> with the throttles from Hornet #1. The wire I designed became the wire for
> the Mc Donnell spin airplane (#6 and HARV) This was later replicated at Pax
> River. For a fact there is a pull up to engage the AB.
> >Maybe at some point in the FSD program there were hard MIL stops and a
> >requirement to lift the lifts to stage 'burner, but it certainly isn't the
> >case now - I suggest you update your NATOPS. You do _have_ one, don't
> >you?
> Nope, I just wired the airplane. There is only a single lift.
In-flight, the finger lifts can be used to push through from mil to
AB, and there is no detent operated this way. Or you can simply push
through the detent from mil to AB (no figer lifts). To shut-down, it
is necessary to use the finger lifts. Throttles on F-18s (from FSD
through to current C/D models; I haven't been in an E/F yet, so I
can't comment on E/Fs) are all the same in this particular operation.
Older NATOPS reflect the same as current NATOPS WRT fingerlifts and
their operation (NATOPS A1-F18AA-NFM-000 Part 2 - Systems Figure 1-2
Throttle Grips). AB cannot be selected with WOW true UNLESS the
finger lifts are used, with WOW false (in-flight) the detents can be
pushed right through.
However, FSD airplanes had older style FSD throttles which were
unboosted. this results in most pilots commenting on their being too
"stiff" even with the throttle friction off. It also places the AB
selection further back (fewer degrees of PLA required for mil; I can
look up the numbers if you'd like) than current production throttles.
The current throttles are boosted making the throttle motion easy and
smooth. It helps alot in formation or refueling tasks. BTW, HARV
never upgraded to the current production boosted throttles.
As for the F-106, the AB was considerably different. The AB was
modulated by changing the engine RPM, with AB being selectable as low
as 80%. From 80% to mil, AB can be selected by simply slapping the
throttle outboard. The detent in the F-106 is to the outside (away
from the pilot's left thigh). The slot for the throttle got "wide" at
the point where AB could be selected. The slot is also "wide" in the
aft end for start and idle operation (T. O. 1F-106A-1 Figure 1-6; the
same figure in T. O. 1F-106A-1-3 for the QF-106A operation also). It
should be noted the B model was _slightly_ different than the A (the
AB detent was angled rather than square, and the aft cockpit was not
wide at the "off" end).
Al Bowers
Chief Engineer, NASA F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle Project
Chief Engineer, NASA QF-106A Eclipse Aero Tow Demonstration Project
Mary Shafer
> Maybe at some point in the FSD program there were hard MIL stops and a
> requirement to lift the lifts to stage 'burner, but it certainly isn't the
> case now - I suggest you update your NATOPS. You do _have_ one, don't
> you?
I don't know if John does, but I do and it corresponds exactly with
what you've written. So do the F/A-18 simulations I've flown at
Lemoore NAS, Patuxent River NAS, and Dryden. No fingerlifts to get to
burner in the air; just slam right through the detent.
The specific description is on page 1-6, but I'm one update behind and
this may be a page or two off. However, looking in the index under
"Engine controls and instruments" will produce the correct page.
Mary Shafer
> Ed Rasimus (thu...@rmii.com) wrote:
>
> >Insistence that finger-lifts were used for AB light...
>
> Well, there _are_ airplanes where finger lifts must be raised to select
> MAX, and those big lifts do look like they oughtta do something fun :)
> I can't help but wonder if he isn't basing his comments on one or more of
> the pre-production airplanes at NASA. I can't remember what the SRA
> (TF-18 #1) has, but the HARV (F-18A #6) has/had the old pull-to-actuate
> fuel shutoff levers in the cockpit - I'm wondering if maybe the FSD
> airplanes had a fingerlift setup for 'burner. The OPS Fact Sheet for
> the HARV doesn't mention the lifts, but it doesn't mention the old-style
> shutoffs either, so I can't tell for sure and I'm not going to dig out
> the old Navy reports that are FOUO anyway.
The project pilot at the end of the program assures me that there was
no fingerlift for burner in flight in HARV, which corresponds with the
simulator that I just went down and looked at. Since configuration
control required that these two be identical, I'd say there's just the
detent.
The primary controllers (HOTAS and rudder pedals) were, wherever
possible, brought up to fleet standards when we acquired the
pre-production aircraft. This was mostly for fleet uniformity. A few
things were left unmodified in HARV because it was a research
aircraft, with a fact sheet and placards to deal with non-standard
configurations. Fast Eddie confirms the non-standard fuel shutoff
levers, but insists that fingerlifts were not required in flight (he's
pretty sure they were required on the ground, but that the fact sheet
suggested not using burner on the ground--he says to ask the mech who
did the engine runs to be sure about ground use).
dmb...@my-dejanews.com
And a fruitcake is not an aviation expert.
David
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
David Hyde
>You sound like someone
>who should have easy access to a NATOPS - I encourage you get a current
>one...
Tarver responded:
>So, you are reading a comic book to me.
I've heard it called the big blue sleeping pill, but not a comic book.
Do you have one?
>To engage the AB you need to pull up on a single switch, the cuttoffs are
>a completely different matter.
In the Hornet? No way. I've been trying to figure out where this
misconception came from, and I can't for the life of me. Maybe you'd
better post a picture and we can determine exactly what you're talking
about. While you're doing that, review your NATOPS.
>Been there done that home boy, what is your F/A-18 experiance?
'Home boy'? I kinda like that. As for my experience, well, I'll let it
speak for itself.
Dave 'Homey' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
RAH15/?
Jeff Rankin-Lowe
Mary Shafer wrote:<snip>
> After all, it would be a box of birds to produce a posting written in
> flawless WW II RAF slang. So what if it would look like duff gen to
> most of the readers? (Guess who's reading Nevile Shute this week?)
This reminds me of the Monty Python sketch with the room full of WWII RAF
types who can't understand the lingo of the pilot who just entered the room.
Then there are the Biggles books... :-)
Jeff
Jeff Crowell
> This reminds me of the Monty Python sketch with the room full of WWII RAF
> types who can't understand the lingo of the pilot who just entered the room.
If this is the one I'm thinking of, the problem wasn't his choice
of words--he was mumbling, except for key parts of the presentation.
It went something like:
"It's important to remember mumblemumblemumble certain death.
Furthermore, mumblemumblemumblemumble invariably fatal." And
so on.
Or was that a different sketch?
mumble mumble mumble,
Eric M. Fesh
: The Aeronavale was intending to fly the Jaguar off of their carriers, but
: the poor throttle response made it a bitch to fly on approach. One of the
: prototypes was heavily damaged due to a hard landing which was due in part
: to the pilot finding himself way out on the back side of the power curve due
: to the slow response of the engine.
And here I was, led to believe that the French were just being jerks for
sticking with the Super Etendard... The source (from hazy memory) I
saw said nothing about the Jag's approach performance.
--
*************************************************************************
Eric M. Fesh: * "Napalm: nine out of ten Third-
em...@ra.msstate.edu * World children say it stings
* reeeeal bad." -Tim Hale
*************************************************************************
Check out my web page at http://www2.msstate.edu/~emf1 !!
*************************************************************************
Empirex
last evening when I raised the finger lifts and pushed the throttles to A/B
during the high pwr turn leak check....reheat is very neat.
Jeff Crowell wrote in message <365C5C...@hp.com>...
BlisterBoy
>Furthermore, mumblemumblemumblemumble invariably fatal." And
>so on.
>
>Or was that a different sketch?
Cabbage crates over the briney!
Jeff Rankin-Lowe
Jeff Crowell wrote:
> Jeff Rankin-Lowe wrote:
> > This reminds me of the Monty Python sketch with the room full of WWII RAF
> > types who can't understand the lingo of the pilot who just entered the room.
>
> If this is the one I'm thinking of, the problem wasn't his choice
> of words--he was mumbling, except for key parts of the presentation.
>
> It went something like:
>
> "It's important to remember mumblemumblemumble certain death.
> Furthermore, mumblemumblemumblemumble invariably fatal." And
> so on.
>
> Or was that a different sketch?
>
> mumble mumble mumble,
It was a different sketch. Eric Idle burst into the ready room and started with
"Bally Jerry bust a kite..." Graham Chapman kept asking him to repeat and to
explain and finally said, "Sorry, old chap, I don't speak your lingo." It was much
funnier than my description of it. :-)
Jeff
David Hyde
: I have followed this thread with much amusement, it really made me chuckle
: last evening when I raised the finger lifts and pushed the throttles to A/B
: during the high pwr turn leak check....reheat is very neat.
If you were in a Hornet, you didn't have to. If it was a high power
check, you had wieght on wheels, and the A/B lockout is in place, but you
can push through it with less than 50 lb of pressure on the throttle
levers. Ever done it like this airborne?
Dave 'MX' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
RAH15/?
Empirex
lifts and a check with the WOW box also. I've only sat in the front seat on
the deck, but have been back seat many times, and I don't even play on the
PGA tour.
David Hyde wrote in message <73jiuv$a8b$1...@hecate.umd.edu>...
Tarver Engineering
Empirex wrote in message ...
>The sop for single engine high pwr leak check in burner requires the finger
>lifts and a check with the WOW box also. I've only sat in the front seat on
>the deck, but have been back seat many times, and I don't even play on the
>PGA tour.
The lift is on the forward top of the F/A-18 inboard throttle.
John
David Hyde
: The lift is on the forward top of the F/A-18 inboard throttle.
Sounds like you're talking about the TDC (throttle designator controller),
which has _nothing_ to do with burners. The finger lifts the rest of us
are talking about are on the forward face of _both_ throttle levers, one
each, just
below where your fingertips fall when you rest your palm on the throttle
'tops'...and these don't have to be raised to select burner. They _can_
be raised, and the characteristics of throttle motion change when they
are, but raising them to select burner is not _required_, except for maybe
by administrative means (c.f. SOP).
Dave 'dead horse' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
RAH15/?
Tarver Engineering
David Hyde wrote in message <73uhfs$chf$1...@hecate.umd.edu>...
>Tarver Engineering (jta...@tminet.com) wrote:
>
>: The lift is on the forward top of the F/A-18 inboard throttle.
>
>Sounds like you're talking about the TDC (throttle designator controller),
>which has _nothing_ to do with burners. The finger lifts the rest of us
>are talking about are on the forward face of _both_ throttle levers, one
>each, just
I understand what you are saying, but the rest of you consists of our
resident fraud, 105 pilot, and others parroting a real B-58 pilot; that
hangs out here sometimes. If I had not trimmed F-106s for six years, I
might buy your arguements, but Ed never flew a 105. The Wall Street Journal
did an article on these resume' padders, with their phony war records.
>below where your fingertips fall when you rest your palm on the throttle
>'tops'...and these don't have to be raised to select burner.
Post a picture, or email it to me. My experiance is that the F/A-18
throttle has a pull up, identical to an F-106, that can engage the AB when
the throttle is above 80%. From a fuel economy standpiont this style of
throttle is far superior to the J-79 style throttle you have described.
I say again, what is your F/A-18 experiance?
John
David Hyde
> My experiance is that the F/A-18
> throttle has a pull up, identical to an F-106, that can engage the AB
> when the throttle is above 80%.
[snip]
> I say again, what is your F/A-18 experiance?
To use your words, my experience is that the F/A-18 has finger lifts, but
that they are not required to select burner. I'm not familiar with the
-106, so I can't say whether it's identical or the same, but I know that
F/A-18 burner staging is only available with the throttles positioned
ahead of the MIL stop - The engines may be below MIL RPM as they spool up
when burner is selected by moving the throttles to or through min AB, but
it's a transitory thing - there is no burner selection option below MIL
power ala part throttle reheat.
Dave 'EGT scheduled' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
RAH15/?
Tarver Engineering
David Hyde wrote in message <73uoq2$noe$1...@hecate.umd.edu>...
>Tarver Engineering (jta...@tminet.com) wrote:
>
>> My experiance is that the F/A-18
>> throttle has a pull up, identical to an F-106, that can engage the AB
>> when the throttle is above 80%.
>[snip]
>> I say again, what is your F/A-18 experiance?
>
>To use your words, my experience is that the F/A-18 has finger lifts, but
>that they are not required to select burner.
And as I pointed out, those finger lifts are cutt-off tabs and have nothing
to do with the AB.
> I'm not familiar with the
>-106, so I can't say whether it's identical or the same, but I know that
>F/A-18 burner staging is only available with the throttles positioned
>ahead of the MIL stop -
There is a micro switch at 80%, this does not light the AB. This
additionally is not mil stop, as that is full throttle.
> The engines may be below MIL RPM as they spool up
>when burner is selected by moving the throttles to or through min AB, but
>it's a transitory thing - there is no burner selection option below MIL
>power ala part throttle reheat.
The burner is selected on an F/A-18 in a manner identical to the F-106; by
lifting at AB switch with the throttles above 80%. Mil power is 100% of
thrust without reheat, and is not the minimum for AB engagement.
John
Joe Wilson
|>
|> David Hyde wrote in message <73uhfs$chf$1...@hecate.umd.edu>...
|> >Tarver Engineering (jta...@tminet.com) wrote:
|> >
|> >: The lift is on the forward top of the F/A-18 inboard throttle.
|> >
|> >Sounds like you're talking about the TDC (throttle designator controller),
|> >which has _nothing_ to do with burners. The finger lifts the rest of us
|> >are talking about are on the forward face of _both_ throttle levers, one
|> >each, just
|>
|> I understand what you are saying, but the rest of you consists of our
|> resident fraud, 105 pilot, and others parroting a real B-58 pilot; that
|> hangs out here sometimes. If I had not trimmed F-106s for six years, I
|> might buy your arguements, but Ed never flew a 105. The Wall Street Journal
|> did an article on these resume' padders, with their phony war records.
|>
|> >below where your fingertips fall when you rest your palm on the throttle
|> >'tops'...and these don't have to be raised to select burner.
|>
|> throttle has a pull up, identical to an F-106, that can engage the AB when
|> throttle is far superior to the J-79 style throttle you have described.
|>
|>
John:
David Hyde is too modest to talk about his background, so I will
list just a few of David`s F-18 qualifications for this news group.
First of all David is a graduate of the Navy Test Pilot School.
David has also presented papers on the F-18 at the Society of
Experimental Test Pilots Annual Symposium - amateurs or wanta-be's do
not qualify to give these presentations.
David is also the principal engineer on the following Navy F-18 programs
that I am aware of:
1. F-18 Departure and Spin Demonstration Program.
2. F-18 Falling Leaf Program.
3. Three different F-18 HARV flight test programs made by the Navy.
4. F-18 Production Support Flight Control Computer Program.
5. Joint Navy and NASA Langley F-18 program to define F-18 performance
at high angle of attack for pitch and roll.
Those are but a few, I am sure there are many more.
We here at NASA Dryden are always glad to work with, and talk to,
David. He is an outstanding engineer and is considered by our engineers
an authority, among others at PAX NAWC, concerning the F-18.
In his spare time he is also building an RV-4.
Oh, Davids description of the F-18 throttles is just exactly as described
in the Navy NATOPS manual. As I write this I have Ed Schneiders NATOP
manual in front of me. Ed Schneider was NASA Drydens Project Test Pilot
on the The HARV program and made 211 test flights in the plane.
I was in the cockpit of the NASA F-18 HARV, at Ed Schneider`s invitation,
on 18 Nov 98 for pictures. The throttles in the F-18 HARV are as described
in the Navy NATOPS manual, I checked to make sure.
--
R. Joe Wilson
F-18 HARV Controls Engineer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
jwi...@krypton.dfrc.nasa.gov
Tarver Engineering
Joe Wilson wrote in message <73usrv$fei$1...@nadia.dfrc.nasa.gov>...
>In article <73ukqa$886$1...@supernews.com>, "Tarver Engineering"
<jta...@tminet.com> writes:
>|>
>|> David Hyde wrote in message <73uhfs$chf$1...@hecate.umd.edu>...
>|> >Tarver Engineering (jta...@tminet.com) wrote:
>|> I say again, what is your F/A-18 experiance?
>John:
>David Hyde is too modest to talk about his background, so I will
>list just a few of David`s F-18 qualifications for this news group.
Thanks Joe. Dave should have said how he knows that Dryden's HARV and the
production airplanes are different. When he drops by with a group making
claims about F-106s, that are not true, it is difficult for me to accept
what he is saying about F-18s; without a picture.
John
Steve Hix
> Mr. Tarver owes me and those who listen to his tripe an apology.
Now *that* will be the day... :{
--
Do not argue with the forces of nature,
for you are small, insignificant,
and biodegradable.
Tarver Engineering
Ed Rasimus wrote in message <36634e4b...@news.rmi.net>...
>jwi...@krypton.dfrc.nasa.gov (Joe Wilson) wrote
>All of this is public record. One could also check the web page and
>roster of the Red River Valley Fighter Pilot's Assoc. (AKA River Rats)
>for further verification.
>
>Mr. Tarver owes me and those who listen to his tripe an apology.
You do not even know how the throttle works in the airplane you have lied
about, works. You are an ass beyond beleif Ed and I hope your lie brings
you
down. You are not the first caught in lies about their fighter record and
none of these people has made even the least effort to defend you.
John
David Hyde
: There is a micro switch at 80%, this does not light the AB. This
: additionally is not mil stop, as that is full throttle.
Is it your contention that this 'micro switch' is pilot-selectable through
some action other than moving the throttle levers? If so, it is incorrect
- A/B is selected ONLY by moving the throttles ahead of the MIL detent.
Again, no lifting of any switches, stops, or levers required (other than
throttle lever motion)
: The burner is selected on an F/A-18 in a manner identical to the F-106; by
: lifting at AB switch with the throttles above 80%.
See above. If it's your contention that the pilot has to select
afterburner through some means other than simply sliding the throttles
ahead of the MIL detent (finger lifts optional), then you are incorrect.
If you mean that A/B selection depends on actuating some switch buried in
the inner workings of the throttle quadrant or on some mechanism
transparent to the pilot, then state such.
If this is the way the -106 does it, rthen so be it. It ain't the way the
Hornet (F404-GE-400 or -402) works.
Dave 'EPE and beyond...' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
RAH15/?
David Hyde
: When he drops by with a group making
: claims about F-106s, that are not true, it is difficult for me to accept
: what he is saying about F-18s; without a picture.
Please repost for us all a direct quote where I made _any_ claim with
respect to the 106. Then please tell us more about this A/B engagement
switch you claim is in the Hornet.
Dave 'Hornet head' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
RAH15/?
Ed Rasimus
>In article <73ukqa$886$1...@supernews.com>, "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> writes:
>|> I understand what you are saying, but the rest of you consists of our
>|> resident fraud, 105 pilot, and others parroting a real B-58 pilot; that
>|> hangs out here sometimes. If I had not trimmed F-106s for six years, I
>|> might buy your arguements, but Ed never flew a 105. The Wall Street Journal
>|> did an article on these resume' padders, with their phony war records.
Mr. Tarver, knowing that I have declined to accept his postings, seems
to have become a bit more aggressive in his slanders, presumably
assuming that with my act of kill-filing him, they could now go
unchallenged and presumably accespted by readers of R.A.M.
I graduated from UPT Class 66-A on 8 July 1965 and entered F-105
training in the 4526 CCTS at Nellis in Sept 1965. I graduated in April
and along with Nels Running, Peter Foley, Karl Richter, Wayne Spelius,
Dick Hackford, Ken Hallmark, Ed Harvey and Bill Ricks was assigned to
Korat Thailand where the nine of us were split between the 421st and
469th TFS'. The nine of us were the only class of nine to all survive
the 100 mission tour (Richter was killed on his second 100 missions).
Most folks who have been in tactical aviation have had the opportunity
to see the documentary made of 105 operations out of Korat in Nov.
1966 called "There Is A Way" (it was nominated for an Academy Award in
1967 and was the AF-wide Commander's Call film for one month in '67).
The movie starts with Spelius, Ricks and I taxiing in from our 100th
mission.
Yep, I flew the 105. It was only for 404 hours, but they were pretty
exciting hours. During the process I got 10 Air Medals, 2 DFCs and a
Silver Star.
All of this is public record. One could also check the web page and
roster of the Red River Valley Fighter Pilot's Assoc. (AKA River Rats)
for further verification.
Mr. Tarver owes me and those who listen to his tripe an apology.
Ed Rasimus *** Peak Computing Magazine
Fighter Pilot (ret) *** (http://peak-computing.com)
*** Ziff-Davis Interactive
*** (http://www.zdnet.com)
Carlo Kopp
Ed, nobody on this NG doubts your credentials a single bit. Tarver is simply being the rude,
untruthful and disrespectful troll which he enjoys being.
There is no doubt that Tarver should make a public apology for his clearly libellous and
untrue statements wrt your operational flying record.
If he declines to do so then he is clearly choosing to place himself into the same category as
another poster on this NG, famous for making libellous and untrue statements about Art
Kramer's operational record.
BTW both Tarver and his buddy have also repeatedly chosen to tell untruths about my
publications record and professional activity as a defence analyst.
How do I best go about getting a copy of "There Is A Way" ?
With Best Regards,
Carlo
Carlo Kopp
> Ed Rasimus wrote in message <36634e4b...@news.rmi.net>...
> >jwi...@krypton.dfrc.nasa.gov (Joe Wilson) wrote
>
> >All of this is public record. One could also check the web page and
> >roster of the Red River Valley Fighter Pilot's Assoc. (AKA River Rats)
> >for further verification.
> >
> >Mr. Tarver owes me and those who listen to his tripe an apology.
>
> You do not even know how the throttle works in the airplane you have lied
> about, works. You are an ass beyond beleif Ed and I hope your lie brings
> you
> down. You are not the first caught in lies about their fighter record and
> none of these people has made even the least effort to defend you.
>
> John
John, why do you insist on looking _so_ silly ?
Why don't you simply apologise ? Surely it isn't that hard ?
Carlo
jourait
> >-106, so I can't say whether it's identical or the same, but I know that
> >F/A-18 burner staging is only available with the throttles positioned
> >ahead of the MIL stop -
> There is a micro switch at 80%, this does not light the AB. This
> additionally is not mil stop, as that is full throttle.
> > The engines may be below MIL RPM as they spool up
> >when burner is selected by moving the throttles to or through min AB, but
> >it's a transitory thing - there is no burner selection option below MIL
> >power ala part throttle reheat.
> The burner is selected on an F/A-18 in a manner identical to the F-106; by
> lifting at AB switch with the throttles above 80%. Mil power is 100% of
> thrust without reheat, and is not the minimum for AB engagement.
> John
Engine display shows 60-100% when in idle-MIL thrust, but what does it show
when afterburning? 100-110? Or is there other way to monitor that the
AB has lit?
jourait
dmb...@my-dejanews.com
>
> Mr. Tarver owes me and those who listen to his tripe an apology.
>
For what it's worth, Ed, I suspect I speak for most of us
when I say that I've never doubted your claims to have
been a real military pilot - it's clear from the quality
and authority of the posting you make.
Mr. Tarver clearly owes you an apology, but I'm afraid that
you're whistling in the wind if you actually expect one from
such a specimen.
José Herculano
>>|> resident fraud, 105 pilot, and others parroting a real B-58 pilot; that
>>|> hangs out here sometimes. If I had not trimmed F-106s for six years, I
>>|> might buy your arguements, but Ed never flew a 105. The Wall Street
Journal
>>|> did an article on these resume' padders, with their phony war records.
Well, Tarver, since you have been on my killfile for ages, I came across
this one as a quote. You always stroke me as some demented loner in a log
cabin somewhere, but now I think you're beyond that. You're a sick person
without honor, respect or self-respect.
José Herculano
_____________________________
http://www.almansur.com/aviation/
David Hyde
: Engine display shows 60-100% when in idle-MIL thrust, but what does it show
: when afterburning? 100-110?
RPM range is about 70%-104% (percent reference RPM). RPM limits don't
change in A/B. There is a 'thrust' indication on the engine page
(selectable on a DDI), but IIRC it's (the thrust value, not the page) not
available with weight-off-wheels. It's just an approximation of thrust
anyway and I don't know of anyone who regularly uses the engine page
operationally - the IFEI suffices.
: Or is there other way to monitor that the AB has lit?
Nozzle position, for one. They vary from full (or nearly full) open at
idle to closed in MIL, then open up again in burner. If you select A/B
(and we know how to do that, don't we?), the nozzles should start to open
up when the burners light - if not, either one didn't light or you've got
a stuck nozzle.
Dave 'converging-diverging' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
Gary Watson
David Hyde wrote in message <740kgk$53s$2...@hecate.umd.edu>...
Ed Rasimus
>How do I best go about getting a copy of "There Is A Way" ?
The film was made in two versions--a 26 min edition which used to fit
in a half hour TV slot and a longer 55 min version. Currently the long
version is available in video.
You might check the River Rats home page. The RRVA Country Store
offers a lot of memorabilia including a huge selection of books
written on the air war North. Follow the prompts from the home page at
http://www.eos.net/rrva/Frames/index.html. As I recall it was $29.95.
Ed Rasimus
>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>> You do not even know how the throttle works in the airplane you have lied
>> about, works.
As I've previously posted, the J-75 throttle on the F-105 allowed for
AB selection from 93% to mil power (100-103%). An extended range for
AB operation was controlled by a push-pull detent on the throttle
quadrant which allowed throttle movement back as low as 80%. This
selection could only be made after burner light-off and was only
authorized for use during air-refueling (which at high gross weight
could be a "back of the power curve" operation.)
The throttle was a "broomstick" style pole handle rather than a
T-handle and had no fingerlifts of any kind. Idle cut-off was around a
gated slot at the aft section and AB range was through movement
outboard into a wider section of the throttle track at the high RPM
range.
The throttle contained thumb actuated mic and speedbrake controls as
well as an index finger pushbutton on the top forward side which
controlled the range gate during A/A radar modes. Slewing of the range
cursor was accomplished by twisting the throttle.
The burner light required sequentially: speed brake streamlining (5-7
degrees opening); engine nozzle opening, AB fuel control actuation and
finally "hot streak" ignition. The process could take 5-8 seconds
which on one fateful day in August '66 was enough time for a MiG-17 to
choose me as the target "de jour".
Believe me, I know what the throttle of a 105 looks like.
S. Evans
snipped
> Mr. Tarver owes me and those who listen to his tripe an apology.
>
> Fighter Pilot (ret) *** (http://peak-computing.com)
> *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
> *** (http://www.zdnet.com)
One of our MIS people did a little trick to my computer so I don't get
to see any postings from Tarver Engin. Ed Rasimus is one of the main
reasons I even roam this news group. I don't think anyone would confuse
the rantings of Tarver Engin with reality. Ed's reputation would never
be questioned by anyone who has ever more than two of the Tarver Engin
"X files" postings.
Steve Evans
LesB
Ed has just posted a potted biog. Just as he, and around 80+ other
souls did, during the RAM Survey thread (end of May/begining of June
this year). In fact, most of us posted potted biographies at that
time, I still have them archived, and damned helpful they are too.
I've just looked through them again on a hunch, and guess what, Traver
didn't post one! His only post to that thread was a sly dig at Damien
Burke when Damien posted his biog.
I know it probably doesn't seem that big a deal, but when 80+ regulars
opened up, a notable few didn't. Draw your own conclusions.
>Mr. Tarver owes me and those who listen to his tripe an apology.
Concur
--
Smoke on. Go.
LesB
[take out one to mail]
Dweezil Dwarftosser
[ snipped a lot of engine specs; I have no knowledge of these ]
However, the following description of the F-105 throttle and radar
controls is right on:
>The throttle was a "broomstick" style pole handle rather than a
>T-handle and had no fingerlifts of any kind. Idle cut-off was around a
>gated slot at the aft section and AB range was through movement
>outboard into a wider section of the throttle track at the high RPM
>range.
>
>The throttle contained thumb actuated mic and speedbrake controls as
>well as an index finger pushbutton on the top forward side which
>controlled the range gate during A/A radar modes. Slewing of the range
>cursor was accomplished by twisting the throttle.
- John Tomany, former MSgt, USAF - and member of the 1st, 4th, 15th
36th, 50th, 56th, 86th, and 388th ( Korat Dive Toss )
Tactical Fighter Wings.
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3227
David Hyde
: I've just looked through them again on a hunch, and guess what, Traver
: didn't post one!
Nor did I, and my abstinence(sp?) was intentional.
: I know it probably doesn't seem that big a deal, but when 80+ regulars
: opened up, a notable few didn't. Draw your own conclusions.
Be careful, though. Just because I didn't think my bio was public
information doesn't mean I don't know what I'm posting about. Let my
posts, not my silence, speak for my knowlege and experience.
Dave 'bio hazard' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
RAH15/?
Gary Watson
control on the top and gated for idle cut-off and AB . The J79 (in the 104
anyway) was rigged with a 4 sector-burn A/B where it would lite-off a
little softer than an F100 or 101 but still give a good boot in the butt.
Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote in message
<36645bed...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net>...
Carlo Kopp
> Carlo Kopp <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
>
> >How do I best go about getting a copy of "There Is A Way" ?
>
> The film was made in two versions--a 26 min edition which used to fit
> in a half hour TV slot and a longer 55 min version. Currently the long
> version is available in video.
>
> You might check the River Rats home page. The RRVA Country Store
> offers a lot of memorabilia including a huge selection of books
> written on the air war North. Follow the prompts from the home page at
> http://www.eos.net/rrva/Frames/index.html. As I recall it was $29.95.
>
> Ed Rasimus *** Peak Computing Magazine
> Fighter Pilot (ret) *** (http://peak-computing.com)
> *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
> *** (http://www.zdnet.com)
Thanks, Ed, I'll put it on my shopping list !
Cheers,
Carlo
Carlo Kopp
I didn't bother with the bio since I have one up on the web, and indeed I
too prefer to let my posts be the measure of my worth on this NG.
Cheers,
Carlo
LesB
>Nor did I, and my abstinence(sp?) was intentional.
Point taken.
And if you want to intentionally refrain from taking alcohol that's OK
by me as well. ;-)
>Be careful, though. Just because I didn't think my bio was public
>information doesn't mean I don't know what I'm posting about. Let my
>posts, not my silence, speak for my knowlege and experience.
Again, point considered and taken. However, there are times when a
little background information and/or understanding of individuals can
be the mitigating factor in determining the value in a message.
As the Canberra didn't have afterburners, nor switches to "light" them
up, I can't relate to any of the arguments in this thread. But I can
see the inevitable degradation in the tenor of the posts - and that is
dismaying.
BUFDRVR
>AB has lit?
Been over 1000 hours since I've flown a jet with AB (T-38), but if I remember
right we looked for 2 good swings of the EGT and a jump in fuel flow. Anyone
with any -38 experience more recent than May'95 ?
BUFDRVR
"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
BUFDRVR
Two !
>As the Canberra didn't have afterburners, nor switches to "light" them
>up, I can't relate to any of the arguments in this thread.
If you ask me afterburners are for jets that that are 6 engines short :)
Tarver Engineering
Steve Hix wrote in message ...
>
No apology for you ED, you don't even know the throttle on an F-105. You
never flew the airplane.
John
Tarver Engineering
Ed Rasimus wrote in message <36650a8a...@news.rmi.net>...
>Carlo Kopp <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
>
>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
>>> You do not even know how the throttle works in the airplane you have
lied
>>> about, works.
>
>As I've previously posted, the J-75 throttle on the F-105 allowed for
>AB selection from 93% to mil power (100-103%).
And that is how I know for a fact that you never flew the airplane. You are
quoting Darrell Schmidt, and posting about the wrong airplane throttle.
John
Tarver Engineering
Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote in message
<36645bed...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net>...
>On Tue, 01 Dec 1998 15:33:53 GMT, thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) wrote:
>
> [ snipped a lot of engine specs; I have no knowledge of these ]
Neither does Ed.
>However, the following description of the F-105 throttle and radar
>controls is right on:
An excellent job of copying from a book.
John
John Carrier
lifts on the throttles disengage the idle detents so that the engines can be
shut down. They have nothing to do with A/B selection. The throttles run
in what amounts to straight slots. Military is indicated by a pressure
detent in throttle travel. Additional force overcomes the detent and the
throttles can be pushed forward into the A/B range.
Second, anybody who has really FLOWN tactical aircraft (as opposed to flown
teenie weenies, played with computer games, read magazines and books, pushed
paper for aviation contractors, and other wanabees) can recognize Ed Rasimus
as the genuine article. His posts are accurate, knowledgeable and have many
qualities which can only come from real "been there, done that" experience.
He's one of the few posters on this newsgroup whose opinions I respect and
accept as the best possible information.
To attack his character and impugn his record of service represents the
worst kind of newsgroup conduct. He, and this newsgroup, deserve an
apology.
R/ John
Ogden Johnson III
: Second, anybody who has really FLOWN tactical aircraft (as opposed to flown
: teenie weenies, played with computer games, read magazines and books, pushed
: paper for aviation contractors, and other wanabees) can recognize Ed Rasimus
: To attack his character and impugn his record of service represents the
: worst kind of newsgroup conduct. He, and this newsgroup, deserve an
: apology.
In your haste to engage in Tarver-bashing [an admirable pastime, I must
admit] you have put yourself in the position of impugning the characters
and records of service of many in this newsgroup. There are many of us
here who, despite never having flown tactical aircraft, and with a history
of having flown teenie weenies, or playing with computer games, or reading
magazines and books, or pushing paper for aviation contractors, can
recognize Ed Rasimus and respect his experience and knowledge.
I submit, sir, that such generalizations represent an equally
reprehensible form of newsgroup conduct, putting you in bed, so to speak,
with John Tarver in owing an apology to the newsgroup.
OJ III
[Just one of those 'other wannabe{s}' that has never 'really FLOWN
tactical aircraft']
[ObSheesh: Sheesh]
Ed Rasimus
>Been over 1000 hours since I've flown a jet with AB (T-38), but if I remember
>right we looked for 2 good swings of the EGT and a jump in fuel flow. Anyone
>with any -38 experience more recent than May'95 ?
"two good swings", yes, but EGT, no. The nozzles swing with burner
light, so you look to see the nozzle indicators go from about 85%
closed to around 40-50%. And, there won't be a jump in fuel flow since
AB fuel flow doesn't register on the FF gauges.
Watching nozzle swing was really important on the -38 since the AB
didn't give you the really noticeable boot in the butt that larger
engines have.
Darrell Schmidt
and know. We can all remember some pilot who really didn't fully
understand the equipment he flew, but.. somehow.. could still have been
an excellent pilot just due to his natural abilities.
Ogden Johnson III wrote:
>
> John Carrier (j...@netdoor.com) wrote:
>
> : Second, anybody who has really FLOWN tactical aircraft (as opposed to flown
> : teenie weenies, played with computer games, read magazines and books, pushed
> : paper for aviation contractors, and other wanabees) can recognize Ed Rasimus
> >
> In your haste to engage in Tarver-bashing [an admirable pastime, I must
> admit] you have put yourself in the position of impugning the characters
> and records of service of many in this newsgroup. There are many of us
> here who, despite never having flown tactical aircraft, and with a history
> of having flown teenie weenies, or playing with computer games, or reading
> magazines and books, or pushing paper for aviation contractors, can
> recognize Ed Rasimus and respect his experience and knowledge.
>
> I submit, sir, that such generalizations represent an equally
> reprehensible form of newsgroup conduct, putting you in bed, so to speak,
> with John Tarver in owing an apology to the newsgroup.
>
> OJ III
> [Just one of those 'other wannabe{s}' that has never 'really FLOWN
> tactical aircraft']
> [ObSheesh: Sheesh]
--
Home Page: "B-58 HUSTLER" http://members.home.net/dschmidt1/
Mary Shafer
> David Hyde wrote:
> >Be careful, though. Just because I didn't think my bio was public
> >information doesn't mean I don't know what I'm posting about. Let my
> >posts, not my silence, speak for my knowlege and experience.
> Again, point considered and taken. However, there are times when a
> little background information and/or understanding of individuals can
> be the mitigating factor in determining the value in a message.
It's for this reason that I tend to add personal details to my
postings, sometimes to make my direct involvement, or lack thereof,
apparent and sometimes to make it clear that I am not sure of when
something happened except in relation to other projects. Some people
talk about themselves, some don't, but we all talk about airplanes.
However, I would have assumed that every long-term reader of this
newsgroup would have realized how experienced and well-informed Dave
is, if only by the accuracy of his postings and their professional
tone. He's been posting here for many years, maybe five or so, and I
don't think he's ever been wrong.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@reseng.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
For personal messages, please use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com
Jeff Crowell
> > Again, point considered and taken. However, there are times when a
> > little background information and/or understanding of individuals can
> > be the mitigating factor in determining the value in a message.
Mary Shafer wrote:
> It's for this reason that I tend to add personal details to my
> postings, sometimes to make my direct involvement, or lack thereof,
> apparent and sometimes to make it clear that I am not sure of when
> something happened except in relation to other projects. Some people
> talk about themselves, some don't, but we all talk about airplanes.
Then there's folk like me, who are *very* opinionated and often comment,
but also want to make it known that they only was "there and doin' it"
briefly and in a limited fashion, picking up a couple of Exciting
Stories along the way. Ergo the bio.
I am often wrong, but *never* indecisive!
> However, I would have assumed that every long-term reader of this
> newsgroup would have realized how experienced and well-informed Dave
> is, if only by the accuracy of his postings and their professional
> tone. He's been posting here for many years, maybe five or so, and I
> don't think he's ever been wrong.
True words which also apply to Ed Rasimus and several others here.
My heartfelt thanks to all who have "seen the elephant" and have
enriched my days by posting here.
Apropos of nothing, isn't it interesting that combat vets as a group
tend to not get shrill and excited about 'most anything? There are
exceptions, to be sure. But in general, it reminds me of the Bill
Mauldin cartoon where Willie and Joe are sitting on an Italian
doorstep watching this guy march past with fists clenched, and one
(who can tell Willie from Joe?) says to the other "That can't be no
combat veteran, he's looking for a fight."
Jeff
--
#######################################################
# | | #
# Jeff Crowell | _ | #
# _________|__( )__|_________ #
# WCD Materials Engineer x/ _| |( . )| |_ \x #
# (208) 396-6525 x |_| ---*|_| x #
# jeff_c...@hp.com O x O #
#######################################################
Ed Rasimus
>Tarver Engineering (jta...@tminet.com) wrote:
>: The burner is selected on an F/A-18 in a manner identical to the F-106; by
>: lifting at AB switch with the throttles above 80%.
>
>See above. If it's your contention that the pilot has to select
>afterburner through some means other than simply sliding the throttles
>ahead of the MIL detent (finger lifts optional), then you are incorrect.
>If you mean that A/B selection depends on actuating some switch buried in
>the inner workings of the throttle quadrant or on some mechanism
>transparent to the pilot, then state such.
All this 80% talk caused me to dig out the F-105 -1 to see what it
said regarding AB operation. My previously cited numbers of about
NORMAL AB initiation in the 93-103% range remains correct. My
contention that the push-pull detent button on the throttle quadrant
allowed for EXTENDED RANGE AB operation from 85-93% ONLY AFTER NORMAL
RANGE AB light-off is also correct.
In fact, the Operating Limitations section further notes that it is
prohibited to attempt burner lights in the extended range as
"flame-out may occur". And that operation in the extended range
(85-93%) is not allowed below 15,000 feet.
All of this relates to the J-75's hard light burner which did not
employ igniter plugs but depended upon a "hot streak" of fuel created
by a sudden dumping of a main fuel control reservoir into the main
section of the engine generating a streak of hot gases into the AB
where it lit off the fuel air mixture behind the AB spray bars. At the
lower RPM of the extended range (and nowhere near as low as 80%) the
hard light could create sufficient backpressure to cause compressor
stall or flameout.
And, yep. I did look this up in a book.
Paul J. Adam
<j...@netdoor.com> writes
>Second, anybody who has really FLOWN tactical aircraft (as opposed to flown
>teenie weenies, played with computer games, read magazines and books, pushed
>paper for aviation contractors, and other wanabees)
You may one day wonder who designs and builds your aircraft, who designs
and builds the weapons it's intended to deliver, and whose taxes finance
the entire operation.
You might, were you less foolish, even think twice before dismissing
that entire caucus as 'wannabees'.
But... you didn't.
Oh, well.
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
wal...@oneimage.com
>Comment here on extended range AB. While in the 326FIS at RGAFB
KCMo a former squadron mate now on Navy exchange came in flying (?)
a McDonnell F3H Demon. This bird weighed about 14500 on approach
with about 7500# thrust in mil so it had an (extra?) AB switch
separate from the throttle for that instant thrust increment necessary
if one dropped low on final. He demo'ed its operation by going into AB
in idle - the AB fuel control was apparently smart enough to limit its
fuel flow appropriate to main fuel flow - the result looked somewhat like
a Bunsen burner turned down low.
BTW it might have saved his tail; he had a ramp strike later on but his
half of the Demon slid up the deck while the aft fell into the drink.
Walt Bj ftr plt ret
BUFDRVR
>light, so you look to see the nozzle indicators go from about 85%
>closed to around 40-50%.
Oh boy, its only been 4 years and I don't even remember nozzle indicators,
whats going to happen 4 years from now ?
>And, there won't be a jump in fuel flow since
>AB fuel flow doesn't register on the FF gauges.
That is familar, thanks Ed.
>Watching nozzle swing was really important on the -38 since the AB
>didn't give you the really noticeable boot in the butt that larger
>engines have.
Vance AFB in December you got a "gentle push" rather than a kick in the butt,
but that "gentle push" wouldnt tell you if one lit or both. I've been told
Reese AFB in summer that there was absolutly NO acceleration to sense. I've
even been told that during winter at Reese, AB performance was weak.
Jeff Crowell
> a McDonnell F3H Demon. This bird weighed about 14500 on approach
> with about 7500# thrust in mil so it had an (extra?) AB switch
> separate from the throttle for that instant thrust increment necessary
> if one dropped low on final.
Oooo, that must have been, ah, *interesting*, waiting for a
burner light as the ball went from yellow to blinking red...
Bletch. Makes me wonder how anyone survived those early jets.
Tarver Engineering
Darrell Schmidt wrote in message <36657A09...@home.com>...
>Good point, Ogden. It's too easy to say I'm right cause I've done it
>and know. We can all remember some pilot who really didn't fully
>understand the equipment he flew, but.. somehow.. could still have been
>an excellent pilot just due to his natural abilities.
To come here and parrot your explaination of a B-58 throttle, and attempt to
sell it as a J-75 throttle was at least poor judgement on Ed's part. Maybe
he is just too senile to remember, or more likely he is a fraud. The Wall
Street Journal ran a story about this resume' padding a few weeks ago, there
are a bunch of these guys making a living off someone else's past.
John
Tarver Engineering
David Hyde wrote in message <73ute1$k3j$1...@hecate.umd.edu>...
>Tarver Engineering (jta...@tminet.com) wrote:
>
>: There is a micro switch at 80%, this does not light the AB. This
>: additionally is not mil stop, as that is full throttle.
>
>Is it your contention that this 'micro switch' is pilot-selectable through
>some action other than moving the throttle levers?
No.
>: The burner is selected on an F/A-18 in a manner identical to the F-106;
by
>: lifting at AB switch with the throttles above 80%.
>
>See above. If it's your contention that the pilot has to select
>afterburner through some means other than simply sliding the throttles
>ahead of the MIL detent (finger lifts optional), then you are incorrect.
>If you mean that A/B selection depends on actuating some switch buried in
>the inner workings of the throttle quadrant or on some mechanism
>transparent to the pilot, then state such.
The pilot would very likely want to operate at 100% of thrust without
reheat, and do so in a manner familair to almost everyone at the time.
(1980)
>If this is the way the -106 does it, rthen so be it. It ain't the way the
>Hornet (F404-GE-400 or -402) works.
What year was first HOTAS installed? Isn't HOTAS a follow on to the NASA
F-15 vectored thrust program? (199x timeframe?)
John
(hint: there were airplanes before there was a David Hyde)
Tarver Engineering
John Carrier wrote in message ...
>First (and least) after consulting with my F-18 driver friends, the finger
>lifts on the throttles disengage the idle detents so that the engines can
be
>shut down.
Thanks Mr. Carrier, David has been having a real problem with this concept.
> They have nothing to do with A/B selection. The throttles run
>in what amounts to straight slots. Military is indicated by a pressure
>detent in throttle travel. Additional force overcomes the detent and the
>throttles can be pushed forward into the A/B range.
Right at 80%, as trimmed by your friendly jet engine mechanic.
>To attack his character and impugn his record of service represents the
>worst kind of newsgroup conduct. He, and this newsgroup, deserve an
>apology.
Do you mean Mr. Hyde, or our own 105 fraud?
John
Tarver Engineering
Paul J. Adam wrote in message ...
>In article <RQa92.2654$b53....@axe.netdoor.com>, John Carrier
><j...@netdoor.com> writes
>>Second, anybody who has really FLOWN tactical aircraft (as opposed to
flown
>>teenie weenies, played with computer games, read magazines and books,
pushed
>>paper for aviation contractors, and other wanabees)
>
>You may one day wonder who designs and builds your aircraft, who designs
>and builds the weapons it's intended to deliver, and whose taxes finance
>the entire operation.
How about we let the pilot fly an invisable airplane, that requires no such
ground support?
John
David Hyde
>>through some action other than moving the throttle levers?
>No.
Then we agree - simply moving the throttles above the MIL stop will select
A/B, no additional pilot action, such as flipping switches or pulling
levers required. Where've you _been_?
>What year was first HOTAS installed? Isn't HOTAS a follow on to the NASA
>F-15 vectored thrust program? (199x timeframe?)
HOTAS is Hands-On Throttle And Stick. The first F/A-18 to fly had HOTAS,
and current F/A-18's have HOTAS. Hornets were flying with HOTAS before
the -15 vectored thrust program.
And here the path gets tricky...DejaNews: Learn it, Live it.
John Carrier wrote in message <RQa92.2654$b53....@axe.netdoor.com>...
>First (and least) after consulting with my F-18 driver friends, the
>finger lifts on the throttles disengage the idle detents so that the
>engines can be shut down. They have nothing to do with A/B selection...Military
>is indicated by a pressure detent in throttle travel. Additional force
>overcomes the detent and the throttles can be pushed forward into the A/B
> range.
JT replies:
>Thanks Mr. Carrier, David has been having a real problem with this
>concept.
John, how do you resolve this statement with those from earlier in this
thread. To wit:
On 11/22/98, message ID <739fnn$1qb$1...@supernews.com> _you_ posted:
>The F/A-18 and F-106 have (had) a cutout switch at 80% of RPM and a pull
>up switch to engage the AB.
and in message ID <73ce74$9kv$1...@supernews.com>:
>To engage the AB you need to pull up on a single switch
I responded in message id <739kbf$enl$1...@hecate.umd.edu>, dated 1998/11/22:
>The Hornet does _not_ use finger lifts or any other type of 'pull-up
>switch' to engage 'burner...There are, however, finger lifts on the
>throttles that you have to lift to _shut_down_ the engines
and in message ID <73bq8t$8k$1...@hecate.umd.edu>
>I'm only speaking about the -18...you
>_have_to_ lift the finger lifts (or press a fire light) to shut
>the engine down.
and in message ID <73cahj$dkl$1...@hecate.umd.edu>
>These lifts _must_ be raised to place the throttles in the
>OFF positions.
Explain again who's having trouble with concepts and what those
concepts are. When you're done, refer us to a (released) photo of this
switch you're referring to INSTALLED IN AN F/A-18, and a reference that
describes the operation.
Nice maneuvering, by the way...but you're losing energy and options :)
Dave 'PI' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
RAH15/?
Mary Shafer
> wal...@oneimage.com wrote:
> > a McDonnell F3H Demon. This bird weighed about 14500 on approach
> > with about 7500# thrust in mil so it had an (extra?) AB switch
> > separate from the throttle for that instant thrust increment necessary
> > if one dropped low on final.
>
> Oooo, that must have been, ah, *interesting*, waiting for a
> burner light as the ball went from yellow to blinking red...
>
> Bletch. Makes me wonder how anyone survived those early jets.
The joys of depending on the projections of the engine designers when
picking a powerplant for a new airframe....
Some things are easier to predict than others, but the inevitable
weight gain and drag increase from the first drawings to the
operational airplane can sometimes make a marginal engine inadequate.
And then there's the F-111, where the problem was with the inlet and
they ended up sticking vortex generators and flow straighteners into
it to get good air to the front of the engine.
F sub N
Mary wrote:
>The joys of depending on the projections of the engine designers when
>picking a powerplant for a new airframe....
These days it is more likely the customer's requirements (provided to the
engine manufacturer with sufficient lead time to create the product) that end
up being changed (by cost or technology limitations) by the time the engine has
been developed.
>Some things are easier to predict than others, but the inevitable
>weight gain and drag increase from the first drawings to the
>operational airplane can sometimes make a marginal engine inadequate.
Yes, not to mention the toolbox and the kitchen sink that are bolted onto the
airframe after service introduction.
Tarver Engineering
David Hyde wrote in message <746mpc$rp5$1...@hecate.umd.edu>...
>>>Is it your contention that this 'micro switch' is pilot-selectable
>>>through some action other than moving the throttle levers?
>
>>No.
>
>Then we agree - simply moving the throttles above the MIL stop will select
>A/B, no additional pilot action, such as flipping switches or pulling
>levers required.
No.
> Where've you _been_?
Where have you been?
>>What year was first HOTAS installed? Isn't HOTAS a follow on to the NASA
>>F-15 vectored thrust program? (199x timeframe?)
>
>HOTAS is Hands-On Throttle And Stick. The first F/A-18 to fly had HOTAS,
>and current F/A-18's have HOTAS. Hornets were flying with HOTAS before
>the -15 vectored thrust program.
Give us a year Dave.
>And here the path gets tricky...DejaNews: Learn it, Live it.
>
>John Carrier wrote in message <RQa92.2654$b53....@axe.netdoor.com>...
>>First (and least) after consulting with my F-18 driver friends, the
>>finger lifts on the throttles disengage the idle detents so that the
>>engines can be shut down. They have nothing to do with A/B
selection...Military
>>is indicated by a pressure detent in throttle travel. Additional force
>>overcomes the detent and the throttles can be pushed forward into the A/B
>> range.
>
>JT replies:
>
>>Thanks Mr. Carrier, David has been having a real problem with this
>>concept.
>
>John, how do you resolve this statement with those from earlier in this
>thread. To wit:
The finger lifts cut-off the engines, not light the AB, just like I have
written all along.
John
David Hyde
:>Then we agree - simply moving the throttles above the MIL stop will select
:>A/B, no additional pilot action, such as flipping switches or pulling
:>levers required.
(note - I posted and subsequently cancelled an earlier version of this
that did not attribute the following quote to John - sorry for the
confusion):
Tarver responded:
: No.
Then you are (still) incorrect. Simply moving the throttles above the
MIL stop will select A/B, no additional pilot action, such as flipping
switches or pulling levers required. There IS no other way to select
'burner.
: Give us a year [for HOTAS] Dave.
I've got records that got back to August of '79 addressing specific
functions of switches on the stick and throttles - in line with what I've
been posting all along. Nothing I have addresses any PULL UP AB switch
anywhere in the cockpit.
As for a date when the airplane first flew with HOTAS
functions: 18 Nov 1978, which was, coincidentally, first flight of the
first F/A-18A.
: The finger lifts cut-off the engines, not light the AB, just like I have
: written all along.
OK, so we're straight on that one. Now tell us more about this
switch you insist the Hornet has for burner selection.
Dave 'break left!' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
RAH15/?
Jarmo Lindberg
>
> The finger lifts cut-off the engines, not light the AB, just like I have
> written all along.
Did I miss something or did you do a "180"
--
Jarmo Lindberg
Fighter Squadron 21: http://www.mil.fi/ftrsqn21/
Fighter Tactics Academy: http://www.sci.fi/~fta/welcome.htm