Question on F101 Voodoo
Judge
what was its service years?
It seems a monster of a fighter, not at all agile looking like the
100, 102, or 104.
thanks,
Judge
tim gueguen
Judge <remove_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q2s9nsko230i8eq42...@4ax.com...
> What was the mission/purpose of this bird?
around bomber operations changed the Voodoo was recast as a tactical fighter
bomber, with A and C versions being built for that role. They were
eventually converted to unarmed reconnaisance models for the Air National
Guard, joining purpose built RF101A and Cs that had been used in Vietnam.
The B model was introduced as a two seat interceptor and was used by both
USAF Air Defense Command and the Canadian Armed Forces, with the Air
National Guard eventually taking over the remaining USAF Bs. The first A
models entered USAF service in 1957, and the Air National Guard paid off the
last of its RF101s in 1980. The Canadian Armed Forces used its CF101Bs in
the interceptor role until they were replaced by the CF18 in 1984, while
several more remained in service for electronic warfare training purposes
until 1987. The Republic of China Air Force(Taiwanese Air Force) flew
RF101s but I have no idea when the last left service.
tim gueguen 101867
K129000
>eventually converted to unarmed reconnaisance models for the Air National
>Guard, joining purpose built RF101A and Cs that had been used in Vietnam.
I believe they flew some low level recon flights over Cuba during the missile
crisis..
K-129
John Keeney
The original design goal was for an escort fighter, you know, go in
with the bombers on doomsday.
That mission was dropped. The range just wasn't there.
So they built two seaters for Air Defense Command (blow they
other guys bombers out of the air on doomsday).
A pretty good number of recon versions for high speed low altitude
work.
Some singleseaters for general TAC fighter bomber use.
The VooDoo isn't that much bigger than some of the other century fighters...
Dweezil Dwarftosser
>
> The VooDoo isn't that much bigger than some of the other century fighters...
Lessee... the F-105 was almost as tall (but not as long); the F-111 was
about the same length, but not as tall. Everything else was smaller in
every dimension. (The F-101 was literally bigger than a B-57 or B-66
- even in fuselage diameter - and considerably taller.)
The U-2 had a greater wingspan, of course!
- John T.
Kim Pateman
of me cannot see how McDonnell's came to arrive at the F15. Is the F-15
derived from anything or was it a 'clean sheet' design?
(kim)
Ron
But you sure could see how the F-16 was derived from the F-111, and those
two less in common.
Ron Chambless
Pilot PA-34 Seneca II
"Strange Situations, Wild Occupations. Living my life like a song"
Steven P. McNicoll
"Ron " <ms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000729204516...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
>
> But you sure could see how the F-16 was derived from the F-111, and those
> two less in common.
>
I don't see it.
Ralph Savelsberg
> I can see the family resemblance between the F-101 and F-4 but for the life
> of me cannot see how McDonnell's came to arrive at the F15. Is the F-15
> derived from anything or was it a 'clean sheet' design?
>
> (kim)
Do a little research. It might not be 'derived' from any aircraft in
particular, but it does have commonalities with other earlier aircraft. Just
one example: In the late fifties North American aviation built the supersonic
Vigilante strike aircraft for the navy. To my knowledge it was the first
aircraft to feature sharply raked intakes. These intakes featured a number of
hinged ramps to adapt the flow entering the intakes at diferent speeds and
altitudes. This itself was nothing new, since almost every aircraft supersonic
designed to fly Mach 2 powered by jet engines had some variable intake
geometry, but the Vigilante's overall intake geometry was. Similar intakes
later showed up on the F-14, F-15, MiG-25, MiG-29 and Su-27.
The F-15s wing design isn't all that differnt from that of the F-4 by the way.
Both aircraft also have two engines lying close together inside the fuselage.
You're not likely to see any family resemblance between many fighters built
consecuitively by the same manufacturer. For instance the F-14 Tomcat looks
nothing like the F-11F Tiger. The F-16 looks nothing like an F-111. The YF-23
looked nothing like the YF-17 etc.
Ralph
Kim Pateman
You came dangerously close recently to posting genuinely useful replies to
serious questions. I guess old habits die hard.
(kim)
Ron
Awww come on..Well dont expect to get off that easy from saying the -16
was based on the Vark... =) After all, you did have an interesting history
of the F-16..Dont blame us for having some fun with it. Anybody else
who said something like that would get the same response. And you
do have some rather "interesting" statements to make at times.
And i was making a valid point regarding the lineage of each. The F-16
was not based on any other plane, and the F-15 wasnt really based
on the F-4, although i am sure lesson, data and research learned from
it were incorporated in it.
But seriously, the F-16 AND F-15 were both clean sheet designs, the -16
being the "cleanest" off all. One can find a lot more similarities between
the F-15 and earlier products of McD, than the 16 and earlier GD/Convair
products. And both incorporated a lot of lessons learned the hard way
over Vietnam.
g_al...@hotmail.com
The F-15 definitely incorporated many survivability features based on
F-4 loss data in Vietnam, as they had one of the largest databases
available (Fairchild Republic had the other one with the F-105, and
the lessons of that data went into the A-10. If Douglas, Grumman or
Vought had built any more combat a/c, they would have had good info to
work from too). GD undoubtedly got some of this info from the Air Force
and general knowledge, but given that the F-16 was originally designed
as a technology demonstrator, it appears that, unlike the F-15 and A-10,
survivability features weren't specified in the design. This may have
changed during the transition from YF-16 to F-16A, and almost certainly
survivability was enhanced from F-16A to F-16C. I'm not sure just when
it happened, but at some point the fuel tank inerting system was added.
There may have been other changes as well.
I do remember that one of the Israeli AF's top procurement men was
adamantly opposed to them buying F-16As, because of the survivability
issue. A few years later, after the a/c had gone through the 1982 war
with notable success, another officer asked him what he thought of the
F-16's survivability now? He replied something to the effect of "I said
that the a/c was a deathtrap if it got hit. Is it my fault that none of
them got hit?!"
That seems to be part of the tradeoff; the F-16 has probably avoided
getting hit more than other a/c, because of its smaller size and better
climb/acceleration performance (gets you out of the threat envelope
quicker), as well as weaponry that allows larger standoff ranges, and
tactics. Looking at the F-16's record in DS, it doesn't appear to be
significantly more vulnerable than the F-18 to damage, and the latter
was designed with much the same vulnerability info as the F-15. Three
F-16s were lost (in combat), two to Radar SAMs and one to AAA. Four were
damaged, one by a Radar SAM (SA-3), two by IR SAMs and one by an unknown
cause.
Two F-18s were lost (in combat), one to a MiG-25 and the other to an
unknown cause. Both were USN a/c. Eight were damaged: Six by IR SAMs,
one by a possible IR SAM, and one by small arms. All were USMC a/c,
which points out the danger of comparing loss rates directly, without
knowing what tactical differences might apply. Unlike the Navy and Air
Force, the Marines were allowed to go much lower and so so earlier in
the campaign, and were allowed to strafe. This put them in the
envelopes of numerous Manpads, as well as small arms fire. So, they got
hit a lot, but because Manpads have relatively small warheads and the
hits were typically in the nozzles (because the F-18s would be climbing
off the target in military or burner when they got hit), they were able
to bring the a/c back to base with a destroyed nozzle(s) but little
other damage. It's notable that both F-16s hit by IR SAMs also made it
back to base. The ones that went down got hit by Radar SAMs with much
larger warheads (except for the one AAA hit. I don't know the caliber
of that one).
Guy
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Holloway
<K...@ntscuser.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>I can see the family resemblance between the F-101 and F-4 but for the life
>of me cannot see how McDonnell's came to arrive at the F15. Is the F-15
>derived from anything or was it a 'clean sheet' design?
>
>(kim)
>
>
Ever hear of the Mig-25? Given that one of the -15s missions was to
counter the Foxbat (whose capabilities were greatly overesitmated),
the similarities in their configurations shouldn't be a coincidence.
"May you always have fair winds and following seas.."
Paul Holloway
Ron
>counter the Foxbat (whose capabilities were greatly overesitmated),
>the similarities in their configurations shouldn't be a coincidence.
And then the A-5 Vigilante was a strong influence on the Mig-25.....
Kim Pateman
> F-15 wasnt really based on the F-4,
I was curious in whether it incorporated internal McD features such as
having the engines bolted onto the wings. Externally, the F-15 looks more
like an NA Vigilante.
> But seriously, the F-16 AND F-15 were both clean sheet designs, the -16
> being the "cleanest" off all. One can find a lot more similarities
between
> the F-15 and earlier products of McD, than the 16 and earlier GD/Convair
> products. And both incorporated a lot of lessons learned the hard way
> over Vietnam.
Well here's two lessons that obvioulsy weren't learned
1) It's not a good idea to bail out over enemy territory
2) An accurate cannon is absolutely essential if politicians ban engagements
beyond the range of visual target confirmation. (F-16)
(kim)
Kim Pateman
news:3984326F...@vortex.phys.tue.nl...
> Do a little research.
I did very little else for many years.
> For instance the F-14 Tomcat looks nothing like the F-11F Tiger.
That's because it was based on a navalised version of the F-111 built-for
and paid-for by the British but never actually delivered due to spending
constraints.
(kim)
Ron
>
>I was curious in whether it incorporated internal McD features such as
>having the engines bolted onto the wings. Externally, the F-15 looks more
>like an NA Vigilante
Somehow I think you could look at an one at see that it does not.
>Externally, the F-15 looks more
>like an NA Vigilante.
Yes..A-5 to Mig-25, to F-15....
>Well here's two lessons that obvioulsy weren't learned
>
>1) It's not a good idea to bail out over enemy territory
Now think about that...Do you know of anybody that forgot it wasnt
good to bail out over enemy territory??? Do you think anyone does
that by choice? Show me someone that bailed out over enemy territory
and thought it was a good idea... That is the kind of statement which
explains why people dont take you seriously on here.
>
>2) An accurate cannon is absolutely essential if politicians ban engagements
>beyond the range of visual target confirmation. (F-16)
And what is wrong with the F-16s cannon? It is a time proven cannon and I
wouldnt not want to be on the recieving end. It has been used on everything
from the F-104, F-4, F-14, F-15, F-18. B-52, A-7..and probably others I cant
remember. I think it was as bad as you think, it would not still be used.
Ron
>
>That's because it was based on a navalised version of the F-111 built-for
>and paid-for by the British but never actually delivered due to spending
>constraints.
uhhhhhh here we go again.
the F-111 has given rise to all kinds of planes apparently (grin)..There
are some features common to the two but the F-14 is not based on any
kind of F-111. It shares the TF-30 engines (unfortunatly), Variable
Geometry wings, and I believe the weapons system that was meant for the
F-111B..
But other than that, they are completely different birds..
And I dont think the F-111B was built for the Brits. The RAF was going
to buy some normal 111s but that didnt work out. It was built for the
Navy who didnt want it at all. Robert McNamara (sec def) was
practically forcing it upon them.
bevnsag
Kim Pateman wrote:
>
> I can see the family resemblance between the F-101 and F-4 but for the life
> of me cannot see how McDonnell's came to arrive at the F15. Is the F-15
> derived from anything or was it a 'clean sheet' design?
>
Well, as some subsequent posts have suggested, the F-15 may well have
been influenced by the A-5 (especially if you compare the twin tail
design that was considered) but I suspect the MiG 25/F-15 chronology
doesn't quite match. But as likely is that it simply became a common
solution in general (not unlike the tube with holes at each end that
represented a fair number of early single engine jets or the aerodynamic
commonality of the F-14/MiG 29/Su 27 family)
TJ
Kim Pateman <K...@ntscuser.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8m7q5s$ts3$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Ralph Savelsberg" <ra...@vortex.phys.tue.nl> wrote in message
> news:3984326F...@vortex.phys.tue.nl...
>
> > Do a little research.
>
> I did very little else for many years.
>
>
> That's because it was based on a navalised version of the F-111 built-for
> and paid-for by the British but never actually delivered due to spending
> constraints.
>
Here we go again!!
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f111_13.html
"On February 1, 1967, the Royal Air Force ordered 46 F-111K strike fighters
and four TF-111K proficiency trainers. These were intended to fill the gap
left by the cancellation of the BAC TSR-2. The F-111Ks were assigned RAF
serials XV902/947, but they were also assigned the USAF serial numbers
68-0152/0158, 68-0181/0210, and 68-0229/0238. The TF-111Ks were assigned RAF
serials XV884/887, with equivalent USAF serials being 67-0149/0152.
However, the Royal Air Force order was cancelled at the beginning of 1968,
the reason being given that they were much too expensive.
When the RAF order was cancelled, two TF-111Ks were almost ready. They were
taken over by the USAF, which designated them YF-111A and intended to use
them for tests. Their serial numbers were 67-0149/0150. However, these
planes were never actually completed."
F-14 link:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/f014.html#RTFToC2
TJ
John Keeney
Kim Pateman <K...@ntscuser.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8m7q5s$ts3$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Ralph Savelsberg" <ra...@vortex.phys.tue.nl> wrote in message
> news:3984326F...@vortex.phys.tue.nl...
>
> > Do a little research.
>
> I did very little else for many years.
>
> > For instance the F-14 Tomcat looks nothing like the F-11F Tiger.
>
> That's because it was based on a navalised version of the F-111 built-for
> and paid-for by the British but never actually delivered due to spending
> constraints.
Tarver simply has nothing better to do than post sillyness.
What's your excuse?
Jörg Bihlmayr
Ron schrieb:
> >> F-15 wasnt really based on the F-4,
> >
> >I was curious in whether it incorporated internal McD features such as
> >having the engines bolted onto the wings. Externally, the F-15 looks more
> >like an NA Vigilante
>
> Somehow I think you could look at an one at see that it does not.
>
> >Externally, the F-15 looks more
> >like an NA Vigilante.
>
> Yes..A-5 to Mig-25, to F-15....
>
> >Well here's two lessons that obvioulsy weren't learned
> >
> >1) It's not a good idea to bail out over enemy territory
>
> Now think about that...Do you know of anybody that forgot it wasnt
> good to bail out over enemy territory??? Do you think anyone does
> that by choice? Show me someone that bailed out over enemy territory
> and thought it was a good idea... That is the kind of statement which
> explains why people dont take you seriously on here.
> >
> >2) An accurate cannon is absolutely essential if politicians ban engagements
> >beyond the range of visual target confirmation. (F-16)
>
> And what is wrong with the F-16s cannon? It is a time proven cannon and I
> wouldnt not want to be on the recieving end. It has been used on everything
> from the F-104, F-4, F-14, F-15, F-18. B-52, A-7..and probably others I cant
> remember.
CIWS Phalanx, ..............................
> I think it was as bad as you think, it would not still be used.
>
Holloway
<K...@ntscuser.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>"Ralph Savelsberg" <ra...@vortex.phys.tue.nl> wrote in message
>news:3984326F...@vortex.phys.tue.nl...
>
>> Do a little research.
>
>I did very little else for many years.
>
>> For instance the F-14 Tomcat looks nothing like the F-11F Tiger.
>
>That's because it was based on a navalised version of the F-111 built-for
>and paid-for by the British but never actually delivered due to spending
>constraints.
>
>(kim)
>
>
>
The commonality between the -14 and -111 is the weapons system,
armament, and variable-sweep geometry wings. It wasn't based on a
"navalised" version, because the -111 was designed from the outset as
a carrier-borne a/c. Oh, and I really , really, really, want you to
give me a cite from a reliable source as to how a navalised version of
the -111 was built for and paid for by the British.
Mary Shafer
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2000 01:31:47 +0100, "Kim Pateman"
> <K...@ntscuser.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >"Ralph Savelsberg" <ra...@vortex.phys.tue.nl> wrote in message
> >news:3984326F...@vortex.phys.tue.nl...
> >> For instance the F-14 Tomcat looks nothing like the F-11F Tiger.
>> That's because it was based on a navalised version of the F-111
>> built-for and paid-for by the British but never actually delivered
>> due to spending constraints.
> The commonality between the -14 and -111 is the weapons system,
> armament, and variable-sweep geometry wings.
Although both aircraft have variable-sweep wings, this was not
accomplished in the same manner in the two aircraft. The structures
are entirely different. There's no way to characterize the F-14
structure as being "based on" the F-111 structure.
--
Mary Shafer
sha...@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA
Senior Handling Qualities Research Engineer
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
For non-aerospace mail, use sha...@spdcc.com please
Ron
>"navalised" version, because the -111 was designed from the outset as
>a carrier-borne a/c. Oh, and I really , really, really, want you to
>give me a cite from a reliable source as to how a navalised version of
>the -111 was built for and paid for by the British.
>
Well there was a navalized version called the F-111B, which was an
adapted A. But the normal F-111 A,C,D,E,F, FB(G) were not designed
at all with carriers in mind.
Top Gun just wouldnt have been the same with an F-111B :) It could
have been called Top Pig
Holloway
<sha...@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>bmcs_h...@mydeja.com (Holloway) writes:
>
>> On Wed, 2 Aug 2000 01:31:47 +0100, "Kim Pateman"
>> <K...@ntscuser.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >"Ralph Savelsberg" <ra...@vortex.phys.tue.nl> wrote in message
>> >news:3984326F...@vortex.phys.tue.nl...
>
>> >> For instance the F-14 Tomcat looks nothing like the F-11F Tiger.
>
>>> That's because it was based on a navalised version of the F-111
>>> built-for and paid-for by the British but never actually delivered
>>> due to spending constraints.
>
>> The commonality between the -14 and -111 is the weapons system,
>> armament, and variable-sweep geometry wings.
>
>Although both aircraft have variable-sweep wings, this was not
>accomplished in the same manner in the two aircraft. The structures
>are entirely different. There's no way to characterize the F-14
>structure as being "based on" the F-111 structure.
>
Which is why I chose to use "commonality" instead of "based on",
"derived from", etc. They have sweep wings in common. A point I was
trying to make to Mr. Pateman.
>--
>Mary Shafer
>sha...@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA
>Senior Handling Qualities Research Engineer
>NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
>For non-aerospace mail, use sha...@spdcc.com please
"May you always have fair winds and following seas.."
Paul Holloway
Kim Pateman
> Now think about that...Do you know of anybody that forgot it wasnt
> good to bail out over enemy territory??? Do you think anyone does
> that by choice?
Hence the escape capsule of the F-111. I believe it can travel some distance
under its own power before landing?
> >2) An accurate cannon is absolutely essential if politicians ban
engagements
> >beyond the range of visual target confirmation. (F-16)
>
> And what is wrong with the F-16s cannon?
It's lob-sided and shoots off-centre. Also - even at the time of its
installation - there were compalints that it was incapable of penetrating
any but the softest skinned of vehicles.
(kim)
Kim Pateman
news:u07l9zh...@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov...
> Although both aircraft have variable-sweep wings, this was not
> accomplished in the same manner in the two aircraft. The structures
> are entirely different. There's no way to characterize the F-14
> structure as being "based on" the F-111 structure.
If you refer to my reply to your posting about the designation 'Phantom',
you will see that the RAF was looking for a Vari-G fighter with
look-down/shoot-down capability. After cancelling their order for the
F-111 - and forfeiting a deposit of £50m, a massive amount of money at the
time - the RAF and Fleet Air Arm had these features incorporated into its
own version of the F-4 Phantom. (F-4K/F-4M).
The US Navy then incorporated the look-down/shoot-down + four Sparrow
arrangement into the Grumman F-14.
(kim)
Kim Pateman
news:39877B3A...@home.com...
> Well, as some subsequent posts have suggested, the F-15 may well have
> been influenced by the A-5 (especially if you compare the twin tail
> design that was considered) but I suspect the MiG 25/F-15 chronology
> doesn't quite match.
For a long time I thought the F-15 was a twin boom design. That's because
the first example I saw still had its ferry tanks attached! I'm glad there
was no Usenet group in those days.
(kim)
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Hence the escape capsule of the F-111. I believe it can travel some
distance
> under its own power before landing?
>
No, it is unpowered, unless you're thinking of the rocket packs themselves.
Ron
>> good to bail out over enemy territory??? Do you think anyone does
>> that by choice?
>
>under its own power before landing?
Ohh where do I begin with this one. The Vark community would be rolling
in laughter with this.
It is just for escape purposes, you cant travel back to home
territory in it. Remember a vark was a penetrating interdiction aircraft
that would be striking well into the enemy territory, so you probably
arent going to be hit anywhere near your own territory. It justs
ejects then deploys the chutes. You cant just fly it back home :)
>It's lob-sided and shoots off-centre. Also - even at the time of its
>installation - there were compalints that it was incapable of penetrating
>any but the softest skinned of vehicles.
>
>(kim)
What is the "lob-sided" term you keep using?
What is wrong with it being off the centerline? I really dont think that means
anything, because it is a couple feet off the center. It is probably
mounted further off centerline in an F-15, but you never have mentioned
that one.
And no one has ever said its cannon is an anti-tank gun.
allenby
the only advantage it has in rate of fire. given that you only have a small
window in seconds at 500mph to shoot anything on or above the ground it puts
a high volume of shells on target. The 30mm Avenger just destroys anything
but the A-10 was designed for killing hard targets. The gun is boresighted
so location on the aircraft is not important. the 30mm Aden and deaf cannons
pack more punch but do not have a high rate of fire or carry large amounts
of ammo. I must have missed something in earlier postings because the F-101
was never designed as a dogfighter... but a mass bomber formation
interceptor, the genie rocket did not have to be close in nuclear form just
like a bomb, close counts. Ask anyone who flew a F101, Canadian Pilots found
out at High angles of Attack it departed normal flight, AKA Starfighter or
any other a/c where the tail was mounted high on the fin.
Steven P. McNicoll
"allenby" <all...@netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:Ru1i5.43304$qS3....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
>
> I must have missed something in earlier postings because the F-101
> was never designed as a dogfighter... but a mass bomber formation
> interceptor, the genie rocket did not have to be close in nuclear form
just
> like a bomb, close counts.
>
Actually, the F-101 was designed as an escort fighter.
John O'Farrell
Kim Pateman wrote:
> "Ron " <ms...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000801204714...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
>
> > Now think about that...Do you know of anybody that forgot it wasnt
> > good to bail out over enemy territory??? Do you think anyone does
> > that by choice?
>
> Hence the escape capsule of the F-111. I believe it can travel some distance
> under its own power before landing?
Amazing. I'm convinced that you just make this stuff up as you go along.
"If the escape capsule is so damn good, why don't you fly it instead of the
airplane?"
- A. Scott Crossfield
John O'Farrell
Jörg Bihlmayr
Kim Pateman schrieb:
> "Ron " <ms...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000801204714...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
>
> > Now think about that...Do you know of anybody that forgot it wasnt
> > good to bail out over enemy territory??? Do you think anyone does
> > that by choice?
>
> Hence the escape capsule of the F-111. I believe it can travel some distance
> under its own power before landing?
>
> > >2) An accurate cannon is absolutely essential if politicians ban
> engagements
> > >beyond the range of visual target confirmation. (F-16)
> >
> > And what is wrong with the F-16s cannon?
>
> It's lob-sided and shoots off-centre. Also - even at the time of its
> installation - there were compalints that it was incapable of penetrating
> any but the softest skinned of vehicles.
The F 16 uses the M 61 Vulcan cannon. A cannon which is in such a wide use on
different a/c's and in the CIWS Phalanx. If this gun is so ineffective as you
claim, why is it then used so much???
Jörg
>
>
> (kim)
TJ
Kim Pateman <K...@ntscuser.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8m9uq8$eb1$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> news:20000801204714...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
>
> > Now think about that...Do you know of anybody that forgot it wasnt
> > good to bail out over enemy territory??? Do you think anyone does
> > that by choice?
>
> Hence the escape capsule of the F-111. I believe it can travel some
distance
> under its own power before landing?
>
Yes Kim,
It's a classic airshow performer! After the F-111 lands after its air
display the crew then take off in the capsule to complete a marvellous
harrier type display including a bow to the the crowd. For a finale the crew
land their capsule then eject using the standard fitted ejection seats, do a
synchronised landing and then walk along the crowd line autographing
programmes, making women swoon and patting children on the head.
TJ
Holloway
<K...@ntscuser.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>"Ron " <ms...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000801204714...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
>
>> Now think about that...Do you know of anybody that forgot it wasnt
>> good to bail out over enemy territory??? Do you think anyone does
>> that by choice?
>
>Hence the escape capsule of the F-111. I believe it can travel some distance
>under its own power before landing?
>
No, the rockets are there to seperate it from the a/c, then chutes
deploy to bring it to Earth. No propulsion or steering capability.
>> >2) An accurate cannon is absolutely essential if politicians ban
>engagements
>> >beyond the range of visual target confirmation. (F-16)
>>
>> And what is wrong with the F-16s cannon?
>
>It's lob-sided and shoots off-centre. Also - even at the time of its
>installation - there were compalints that it was incapable of penetrating
>any but the softest skinned of vehicles.
>
>(kim)
>
>
>
>
Are you trying to say lop-sided? Yes, it is off centreline, but that
isn't any real big deal. And it's ability to penetrate vehicles is of
little import, it's not there primarily for strafing, but for air to
air purposes.
Holloway
The carriage of 4 Sparrows was definitely an atypical arrangement on
the F-14. A typical mission flying CAP would see 4 AIM-54, 2 AIM-7,
and 2 AIM-9. This was adjusted depending on fuel load, etc. Exactly
what the rest of that comment has to do with the previous discussion
I"m not sure.
>(kim)
Kim Pateman
> >Hence the escape capsule of the F-111. I believe it can travel some
distance
> >under its own power before landing?
>
> Ohh where do I begin with this one. The Vark community would be rolling
> in laughter with this.
I'm afraid this was just the sort of 'misinformation' that was prevailent
among US manufacturers around 1967. It was claimed at the time that the
escape capsule could travel some 60+ miles with the aid of a solid fuel
rocket, before landing. That would have been adequate for the type of
operation being undertaken in Vietnam at the time.
> What is the "lob-sided" term you keep using?
>
> What is wrong with it being off the centerline? I really dont think that
means
> anything, because it is a couple feet off the center.
I'm told it pulls the A/C to one side. Also it's hard enough aiming a centre
mounted gun without having to allow for offset.
> It is probably mounted further off centerline in an F-15, but you never
have mentioned
> that one.
I thought the F-15 had a Vulcan in _each_ wing root? The net effect of that
would be to maintain the fire dead centre. I vaguely remember the first F-15
I ever saw having a giant gattling gun suspended under the fuselage, but
that could have been a test prototype or trick of memory?
>
> And no one has ever said its cannon is an anti-tank gun.
or anti personnel carrier, or anti anti-A/C gun carrier, etc, etc.
(kim)
Kim Pateman
news:39895fe2...@news.exis.net...
> No, the rockets are there to seperate it from the a/c, then chutes
> deploy to bring it to Earth. No propulsion or steering capability.
A waste of time, in other words?
> Are you trying to say lop-sided? Yes, it is off centreline, but that
> isn't any real big deal. And it's ability to penetrate vehicles is of
> little import, it's not there primarily for strafing, but for air to
> air purposes.
Some of my pilots disagree, strongly.
(kim)
Drewe Manton
> I thought the F-15 had a Vulcan in _each_ wing root? The net effect of
that
> would be to maintain the fire dead centre. I vaguely remember the first
F-15
> I ever saw having a giant gattling gun suspended under the fuselage, but
> that could have been a test prototype or trick of memory?
You couldn't make this shit up could you? A vulcan in *EACH* wing
root?!?!? Try just the starboard wing root. Any yaw forces generated when
firing the cannon are automatically countered by a preset rudder deflection.
--
Regards
Drewe
"Summer's going fast, nights growing colder
Children growing up, old friends growing older
Freeze this moment a little bit longer
Make each sensation a little bit stronger
Experience slips away. . . "
Ron
>distance
>> under its own power before landing?
>>
>
>It's a classic airshow performer! After the F-111 lands after its air
>display the crew then take off in the capsule to complete a marvellous
>harrier type display including a bow to the the crowd. For a finale the crew
>land their capsule then eject using the standard fitted ejection seats, do a
>synchronised landing and then walk along the crowd line autographing
>programmes, making women swoon and patting children on the head.
>
And that is how we got the F-111 derived XF-16 aerobatic demonstrator.
The XF-16 is merely the F-111s ejection module :)
Ron
>among US manufacturers around 1967. It was claimed at the time that the
>escape capsule could travel some 60+ miles with the aid of a solid fuel
>rocket, before landing. That would have been adequate for the type of
>operation being undertaken in Vietnam at the time.
>
It wasnt that prevalent since no one else seems to have been heard about it.
60+ miles? hmmmm Is this another case of "blame someone elses
information"?? I think common sense would tell you 60 miles doesnt
sound right.
>I'm told it pulls the A/C to one side. Also it's hard enough aiming a centre
>mounted gun without having to allow for offset.
No..
.>I thought the F-15 had a Vulcan in _each_ wing root? The net effect of that
>would be to maintain the fire dead centre. I vaguely remember the first F-15
No, just one
>> And no one has ever said its cannon is an anti-tank gun.
>
>or anti personnel carrier, or anti anti-A/C gun carrier, etc, etc.
>
>(kim)
Its gun is meant more for other aircraft than anything else. Guns, AGM-65s,
rockets, and MK-80s will nicely dispose of those pesky APCs. And strafing
an AA gun, is not always the best idea. Takes balls the size of churchbells.
allenby
something???
Walter Bjorneby
times I can assure y'all that it takes about 2 seconds for the off-centerline
(it's hung under the belly) reaction force to drag the pipper off the target.
And the motion is easy enough to
counter with stick force. A gentle amount of back stick to keep the pipper
steady and then relax slowly as the airplane gets closer to the target and one
gets a nice spot concentration of fire on the target.
BTW most air-to-air shots are not long ones - the target won't hold still long
enough for that!
Walt BJ ftr plt ret
Holloway
<K...@ntscuser.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>"Ron " <ms...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000802171857...@ng-md1.aol.com...
>
>> >Hence the escape capsule of the F-111. I believe it can travel some
>distance
>> >under its own power before landing?
>>
>> Ohh where do I begin with this one. The Vark community would be rolling
>> in laughter with this.
>
>I'm afraid this was just the sort of 'misinformation' that was prevailent
>among US manufacturers around 1967. It was claimed at the time that the
>escape capsule could travel some 60+ miles with the aid of a solid fuel
>rocket, before landing. That would have been adequate for the type of
>operation being undertaken in Vietnam at the time.
>
>> What is the "lob-sided" term you keep using?
>>
>> What is wrong with it being off the centerline? I really dont think that
>means
>> anything, because it is a couple feet off the center.
>
>I'm told it pulls the A/C to one side. Also it's hard enough aiming a centre
>mounted gun without having to allow for offset.
>
>> It is probably mounted further off centerline in an F-15, but you never
>have mentioned
>> that one.
>
>I thought the F-15 had a Vulcan in _each_ wing root? The net effect of that
>would be to maintain the fire dead centre. I vaguely remember the first F-15
>I ever saw having a giant gattling gun suspended under the fuselage, but
>that could have been a test prototype or trick of memory?
>>
>> And no one has ever said its cannon is an anti-tank gun.
>
>or anti personnel carrier, or anti anti-A/C gun carrier, etc, etc.
>
>(kim)
>
>
>
You simply refuse to do any basic research on anything, don't you?
Holloway
<K...@ntscuser.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>"Holloway" <bmcs_h...@mydeja.com> wrote in message
>news:39895fe2...@news.exis.net...
>
>> No, the rockets are there to seperate it from the a/c, then chutes
>> deploy to bring it to Earth. No propulsion or steering capability.
>
>A waste of time, in other words?
Why is that a waste of time? You get to eject in an enclosed capsule,
that once you come back to terra firma can be used as a shelter. So
why is it a waste of time?
>
>> Are you trying to say lop-sided? Yes, it is off centreline, but that
>> isn't any real big deal. And it's ability to penetrate vehicles is of
>> little import, it's not there primarily for strafing, but for air to
>> air purposes.
>
>Some of my pilots disagree, strongly.
Disagree about what? The Vulcan is primarily there because of lessons
learned in Vietnam, that a fighter should always have a cannon.
>
>(kim)
Kim Pateman
> And that is how we got the F-111 derived XF-16 aerobatic demonstrator.
> The XF-16 is merely the F-111s ejection module :)
...and the McDonnell 'Goblin' is the escape module for a B-35 :o)
(kim)
Kim Pateman
> Why is that a waste of time? You get to eject in an enclosed capsule,
> that once you come back to terra firma can be used as a shelter.
With every enemy out hunting for it.
> Disagree about what? The Vulcan is primarily there because of lessons
> learned in Vietnam, that a fighter should always have a cannon.
But the prototype F-16 _didn't_ have a cannon!
(kim)
Shaber CJ
>>distance
>>> under its own power before landing?
>>>
More than one crew ended up with crushed spines as a result of the escape
capsule landing hard. Was this problem solved in later years?
Craig
Kim Pateman
news:20000804211854...@ng-cq1.aol.com...
>
> More than one crew ended up with crushed spines as a result of the escape
> capsule landing hard. Was this problem solved in later years?
My original understanding was that the capsule was able to travel a safe
distance horizontally due to its 'lifting-body' profile, the crew then blew
the canopy and ejected normally.
(kim)
Shaber CJ
>My original understanding was that the capsule was able to travel a safe
>distance horizontally due to its 'lifting-body' profile, the crew then blew
>the canopy and ejected normally.
>
Wrong.
Kim Pateman
That being the case, maybe you can suggest a better method by which crews
can evade both enemy capture and back injuries?
(kim)
Shaber CJ
>> >distance horizontally due to its 'lifting-body' profile, the crew then
>blew
>> >the canopy and ejected normally.
>> >
>>
>> Wrong.
>
>That being the case, maybe you can suggest a better method by which crews
>can evade both enemy capture and back injuries?
>
>(kim)
I am not a designer. Your "original understanding" is wrong. The escape
capsule was used instead of ejection seats. It could not travel any distance
and it did not have ejection seat within the capsule. It was supposed to
provide more protection for the crew when they ejected, but I know of at least
three accidents where the crew was paralyzed when the crew capsule land too
hard.
Does anyone know more information regarding the limitations of the crew capsule
and if the capsule had problems throughout the operational life of the
aircraft?
Craig
John Haggerty
intended to eliminate was injuries caused by parts of the body (legs, arms)
impacting the sides of the canopy during ejection in a normal ejection seat.
Arms and legs were frequently out of position due to centrifigal forces
during a spin. It also reduced injuries that were associated with
canopy/head impact, and sudden ejection at high speed into the slipstream.
Back injuries in the F-111 capsule, to the best of my knowledge, were caused
when one of the chutes didn't deploy correctly, and when the air bags
beneath the capsule didn't inflate properly. I don't know if there were more
injuries from the capsule system, or from normal ejection systems.
--
John Haggerty
"Kim Pateman" <K...@ntscuser.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8mjld4$7sa$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Shaber CJ" <shab...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000805130742...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
> > >
banister
> capsule was used instead of ejection seats. It could not travel any
distance
> and it did not have ejection seat within the capsule. It was supposed to
> provide more protection for the crew when they ejected, but I know of at
least
> three accidents where the crew was paralyzed when the crew capsule land
too
> hard.
>
> Does anyone know more information regarding the limitations of the crew
capsule
> and if the capsule had problems throughout the operational life of the
> aircraft?
One problem with normally functioning capsules was that the weight of the
capsule increased over the life of the aircraft, primarily due to mods to
the cockpit, etc., while the main chute was left the same. This resulted in
greater descent velocities, but was not normally a major problem if the crew
performed the landing procedure properly.
Unfortunately, the landing procedure was the opposite of what some had
learned in other aircraft. Since the rocket had relatively little "kick"
when compared to ejection seats, the seat position during ejection was not
particularly important. However, the "smack" on landing was quite hard, so
it was best to keep the seat as far forward (spine away from verticle) as
possible to spread the impact forces over a greater portion of the body .
OTOH, ejection seats (such as the F-4 Martin Baker) required the seat to be
as verticle as possible to reduce spinal injuries during ejection, and a
number of pilots I knew flew witht he f-111 seat in that position. This was
no big deal, if they repositioned the seat during the parachute fall, but
this could be forgotton. This was critical if the landing bags did not work
properly.
This is exactly what happened to Ernie Coleman at Mt. Home. He and his
right seater ejected and landed on some very hard Idaho desert ground. As I
remember, one of their bags did not deploy. Ernie did not reposition his
seat forward , but his right seater, Scott, did. Ernie had his spine
broken, while Scott had much more minor injuries and returned to flying
duties after a number of months convelescence.
Even if the bags deployed properly, it was still a good idea--in fact it was
a procedure--to reposition the seat. I never used the capsule, but everyone
I knew who did over land said it was impossible to describe how hard one
hit, even with a properly functioning capsule.
The F-111 community lobbied for a larger chute, with no effect.
-John
Holloway
And your point is? The prototype F-4 didn't have one either, and
after operations in Vietnam the -4E received one. Prototypes usually
don't carry the same avionics and armaments as production a/c, that's
why they're _prototypes_ !
Ron
>distance horizontally due to its 'lifting-body' profile, the crew then blew
>the canopy and ejected normally.
>
>
Now in a 200 ft ingress, how far is such an escape capsule going to be able to
travel,
even if it has a "lifting-body profile" (which you can look at a F-111 and it
is
obvious the escape system is not a lifting body aircraft with rocket propulsion
and with a way to turn back towards home)...Are there pop out control surfaces?
Honestly, I wonder where you hear these things..
Phil Brandt
wrote:
>This is exactly what happened to Ernie Coleman at Mt. Home. He and his
>right seater ejected and landed on some very hard Idaho desert ground. As I
>remember, one of their bags did not deploy. Ernie did not reposition his
>seat forward , but his right seater, Scott, did. Ernie had his spine
>broken, while Scott had much more minor injuries and returned to flying
>duties after a number of months convelescence.
Scott was a much younger guy--he lived on my cul-de-sac at MUO--as
well as very slim and trim. Ernie, being the Wing King, was at least
twenty years older. Ernie was truly a Good Guy, and his paralysis a
real tragedy.
They found seams failed on the attenuation bag, and an immediate check
of the fleet's capsules revealed other similar seam deterioration.
Almost every Vark crewmember I ever knew who stepped over the side
lost from one to two inches in height.
Phil Brandt
Vark WSO (Ret.)
Kim Pateman
> it is obvious the escape system is not a lifting body aircraft with rocket
propulsion
> and with a way to turn back towards home)...Are there pop out control
surfaces?
Its profile (I had a model of it in 1967) is remarkably similar to the
lifting bodies which NASA was experimenting with at the time. (I had a book
on those as well). I suspect the vehicle was put into production before it
had been fully developed. Another reason for using an ejectable cockpit
rather than seats would be to prevent the on-board avionics from falling
into enemy hands as happened quite often in Vietnam.
An alternative to a rocket motor - if starting from sufficient altitude -
would be a steerable parachute with which NASA was also experimenting at the
time.
(kim)
Kim Pateman
> And your point is? The prototype F-4 didn't have one either, and
> after operations in Vietnam the -4E received one. Prototypes usually
> don't carry the same avionics and armaments as production a/c, that's
> why they're _prototypes_ !
But the protoype F-16 wasn't designed until _after_ Vietnam yet supposedly
incorporated lessons learned from that conflict.
(kim)
banister
about 2 years. I don't know Ernie's age, but I imagine he was a bit of a
fast burner, so I'd gues mid 40's. He seemed to be in good physical shape.
BTW, weren't we in the 389th together back in 80-81?
-John Banister
"Phil Brandt" <f1...@prismnet.com> wrote in message
news:398f6efa...@news.prismnet.com...
Mike Tighe
<K...@ntscuser.freeserve.co.uk> wrote, as the thread veered away from
the Voodoo and towards talk of the F-111 escape capsule:
>"Ron " <ms...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000807165440...@ng-md1.aol.com...
>
>> it is obvious the escape system is not a lifting body aircraft with rocket
>propulsion
>> and with a way to turn back towards home)...Are there pop out control
>surfaces?
>
>Its profile (I had a model of it in 1967) is remarkably similar to the
>lifting bodies which NASA was experimenting with at the time. (I had a book
>on those as well). I suspect the vehicle was put into production before it
>had been fully developed...
<snip>
Lets see... Aerodynamics? Well, the sides and canopy/top decking is
straight off the F-111 - OK so far... But the front, back and
underneath?! For heaven's sake, it is just a box!
Even the vestigial 'wings' formed by the top decking aft of the canopy
weren't enough to keep it pointed in a straight line, and it needed a
drogue (which I understand was deployed while the rocket motor was
still burning) to supplement their effects and stop it pitching and
yawing.
<and back to>
>...Another reason for using an ejectable cockpit
>rather than seats would be to prevent the on-board avionics from falling
>into enemy hands as happened quite often in Vietnam.
You just plain lost me there - are you suggesting the crew ejects and
leaves the plane to fly itself out of enemy territory before crashing?
Or that the crew ejects in this fantasy free-flying capsule and takes
all the sensitive stuff with them as they fly off into the sunset?
The mission avionics are distributed all over the airframe, like most
modern combat aircraft. Surely you don't think.... Oh, no! I fell
for it again - look who I am replying to...
>An alternative to a rocket motor - if starting from sufficient altitude -
>would be a steerable parachute with which NASA was also experimenting at the
>time.
Well, we are veering dangerously close to the possible here! But it
wasn't done for the F-111, and nothing like it was implemented in that
escape capsule.
--
Mike Tighe
Speaking from the bottom left
hand corner of the big picture.
Mary Shafer
> >> Hence the escape capsule of the F-111. I believe it can travel some
> >>distance
> >>> under its own power before landing?
> More than one crew ended up with crushed spines as a result of the
> escape capsule landing hard. Was this problem solved in later
> years?
Not really. In fact, it got worse. Every time they'd add more weight
to the cockpit, the risk of injury would go up, as the compartment for
the chutes remained the same size, meaning that larger chutes couldn't
be used. With same-sized chutes and increased rate, impact speed has
to increase and, with it, injury rate.
We did a program for the USAF in the last days of the F-111, dropping
the capsule, with improved chutes, from the NB-52B. The results of
this program didn't lead to any changes. I once asked one of the BUF
pilots what he thought about the F-111 capsule safety and he just
shook his head and drew one finger across his throat, saying that if
he were offered an F-111 flight, he wouldn't be inclined to accept.
Now, as this pilot himself said, it always looks worse from above, but
still, it's an indication.
--
Mary Shafer
sha...@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA
Senior Handling Qualities Research Engineer
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
For non-aerospace mail, use sha...@spdcc.com please
Mary Shafer
> Does anyone know more information regarding the limitations of the
> crew capsule and if the capsule had problems throughout the
> operational life of the aircraft?
More an addendum than more information--when the F-111 was operated
over water, they put a life raft in the capsule. I think it went
under one of the two seats.
Greg Fieser
>
> More an addendum than more information--when the F-111 was operated
> over water, they put a life raft in the capsule. I think it went
> under one of the two seats.
I read somewhere that the escape capsule had flotation bags to right
itself if capsized in water, and that one of the controls (aux gear
down lever?) doubled as a bilge pump handle. Anyone recall this?
GregD
Mary Shafer
We flew a really early version (778) that had long before been
modified for test purposes, so we may not have been following the same
rules as the rest of the community, but the way the crew talked about
making sure the life raft was included if we went out over the Pacific
sure made it sound as if it was standard procedure. I didn't manage
to acquire a Dash-1, though, so I can't look it up.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Greg Fieser" <gdfi...@link.com> wrote in message
news:3990944D...@link.com...
>
> I read somewhere that the escape capsule had flotation bags to right
> itself if capsized in water, and that one of the controls (aux gear
> down lever?) doubled as a bilge pump handle. Anyone recall this?
>
Yes, but it was the pilot's control stick, as I recall.
Kim Pateman
news:3il0pso32hrjkg6l6...@4ax.com...
> Or that the crew ejects in this fantasy free-flying capsule and takes
> all the sensitive stuff with them as they fly off into the sunset?
We're talking a Vietnam scenario where the GRU made a point of downing the
avionic laden two-seaters to the exclusion of all else. Not one of the
electronics operators was ever seen again. There was a poor-taste joke in
the Pentagon in the shape of a rubber-stamp with the words 'Moscow Bound'
applied to the files of the missing airmen.
(kim)
TJ
> We're talking a Vietnam scenario where the GRU made a point of downing the
> avionic laden two-seaters to the exclusion of all else. Not one of the
> electronics operators was ever seen again. There was a poor-taste joke in
> the Pentagon in the shape of a rubber-stamp with the words 'Moscow Bound'
> applied to the files of the missing airmen.
>
> (kim)
>
>
Kim,
From the F-111s lost in combat during Vietnam two crew and two sets of
remains were repatriated. The F-111 crew released by the North Vietnamese in
1973 were Capt. Robert D. Sponeyberger and 1Lt. William W. Wilson. Kim are
you trying to tell us that none of the near 600 POWs repatriated were
"electronics operators?" There is an F-111A escape capsule in the Moscow
Aviation Institute. The F-111 escape capsule came via Vietnam and has been
analysed by DoD to determine which crew it carried (whether it was a crew
for which there has still been no accounting.)
TJ
Mac
>
>
> <and back to>
> >...Another reason for using an ejectable cockpit
> >rather than seats would be to prevent the on-board avionics from falling
> >into enemy hands as happened quite often in Vietnam.
>
> You just plain lost me there - are you suggesting the crew ejects and
> leaves the plane to fly itself out of enemy territory before crashing?
> Or that the crew ejects in this fantasy free-flying capsule and takes
> all the sensitive stuff with them as they fly off into the sunset?
Hehe, this baffled me at first too. It all became clear on 2nd reading
however. Its the bit where Kim says 'I had a model of it in 1967' .
Translated it means he devised new tactics for the plane in his bedroom
aged 10 when his squadron of toy F-111s took on the Zorbog master race
from the planet 'Thring' You wouldn't belive the things he was able to
get them to do. Sadly the USAF are still refusing to adopt Kim's novel
tactics - conspiracy ya see?
--
Mac.
Mac
>
> "Mike Tighe" <mik...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3il0pso32hrjkg6l6...@4ax.com...
>
> > all the sensitive stuff with them as they fly off into the sunset?
>
> avionic laden two-seaters to the exclusion of all else. Not one of the
> electronics operators was ever seen again.
But how does the escape-capsule prevent avionics falling into enemy
hands?
--
Mac .
Mac
> >
> > Hence the escape capsule of the F-111. I believe it can travel some
> distance
> > under its own power before landing?
> >
>
> Yes Kim,
> It's a classic airshow performer! After the F-111 lands after its air
> display the crew then take off in the capsule to complete a marvellous
> harrier type display including a bow to the the crowd. For a finale the crew
> land their capsule then eject using the standard fitted ejection seats, do a
> synchronised landing and then walk along the crowd line autographing
> programmes, making women swoon and patting children on the head.
>
Lol! Very good. I think this capsule might perhaps be a basis for a new
commuter personal transport?
--
Mac.
chris chow
<smoket...@bigfootTAKEOUT.com> wrote:
easy, when it lands and the pilot is safely out then he blows it up and
heads off looking for the border
sounds like a good idea to me to be honest
chris
g_al...@hotmail.com
Just to keep this particular part of the thread from remaining in
fantasy land, the YF-16's designed armament was two AIM-9s (option
for four) and an M61A1. The Lightweight Fighter Mafia wouldn't have had
it any other way, precisely because of the lessons of Vietnam.
Provision was made for the gun from the very beginning of design, and
looking at any photo of the two prototypes you'll see the usual hole on
the left side of the fuselage that covers the muzzles, plus the vent
slots.
Offhand, I couldn't say whether either of the prototypes actually had
the gun installed, but that's hardly unusual. Test a/c need extra space
for non-standard avionics, and not installing or removing some piece of
unnecessary equipment (unnecessary for the tests concerned) like the
gun or the radar, provides the necessary space. Looking at photos of
the two YF-17 prototypes, it appears that at least one of them lacked
the gun as well (I can't see any opening for the muzzles on top of
the nose). The protoypes were primarily intended to prove the flight
characteristics of the two designs.
Guy
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ron
>> all the sensitive stuff with them as they fly off into the sunset?
>
>We're talking a Vietnam scenario where the GRU made a point of downing the
>avionic laden two-seaters to the exclusion of all else. Not one of the
>the Pentagon in the shape of a rubber-stamp with the words 'Moscow Bound'
>applied to the files of the missing airmen.
>
>(kim)
>
Well Kim all the 'Varks are two seaters. I think they tried to down everything
they could, not just two seaters...
Ron
>From the F-111s lost in combat during Vietnam two crew and two sets of
>remains were repatriated. The F-111 crew released by the North Vietnamese in
>1973 were Capt. Robert D. Sponeyberger and 1Lt. William W. Wilson. Kim are
>you trying to tell us that none of the near 600 POWs repatriated were
>"electronics operators?" There is an F-111A escape capsule in the Moscow
>Aviation Institute. The F-111 escape capsule came via Vietnam and has been
>analysed by DoD to determine which crew it carried (whether it was a crew
>for which there has still been no accounting.)
>
Well to Kims defense, (yes strange as it sounds), I believe I read somewhere
that EWOs had really bad rate of crewmen repatriated compared to
those shot down. Now I dont have the stats to verify it, so I cant vouch
for the validity of it. But it does seem plausible though.
Ron
>the two YF-17 prototypes, it appears that at least one of them lacked
>the gun as well (I can't see any opening for the muzzles on top of
>the nose). The protoypes were primarily intended to prove the flight
>characteristics of the two designs.
No, the XYF-17 was designed to make an more maneuverable
aircraft, based on the Northrop F-5, that could also be an aerobatic
demonstrator for NASA, and be a x-series prototype too. They share
obvious lineage, such as both possessing tricycle landing gear, and
two engines.
They took the escape capsule out for the McD F/A-18 version though
since they forgot it was a bad idea to eject over enemy territory, so
they neglected that capsule with rocket propulsion, control surface,
etc, that could fly them back to the carrier.
Mary Shafer
> >Looking at photos of
> >the two YF-17 prototypes, it appears that at least one of them lacked
> >the gun as well (I can't see any opening for the muzzles on top of
> >the nose). The protoypes were primarily intended to prove the flight
> >characteristics of the two designs.
> No, the XYF-17 was designed to make an more maneuverable
> aircraft,
There is no such airplane as the XYF-17. There was a YF-17, though.
Ron
>> aircraft,
>
>There is no such airplane as the XYF-17. There was a YF-17, though.
>
Ahhh if you were only around 3 weeks ago you would have learned
the amazing saga of the XF-16....
g_al...@hotmail.com
Mary Shafer <sha...@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> ms...@aol.com (Ron ) writes:
>
> > >Looking at photos of
> > >the two YF-17 prototypes, it appears that at least one of them
lacked
> > >the gun as well (I can't see any opening for the muzzles on top of
> > >the nose). The protoypes were primarily intended to prove the
flight
> > >characteristics of the two designs.
>
> > aircraft,
>
> There is no such airplane as the XYF-17. There was a YF-17, though.
Mary, let's just say that Ron probably experienced some difficulty in
writing that post, owing to a rather large and undoubtedly painful bulge
in his cheek. He was summarizing Mr.Pateman's comments, which have
provided many hitherto unknown (to anyone involved in the aviation
community) 'facts' re various military a/c to the readers of this
newsgroup, many of which Ron included in his post. Indeed, in the
comparatively short period of only a few weeks, Mr. Pateman has
developed a reputation on r.a.m. for the depth, breadth, and accuracy of
his aviation knowledge which is nothing short of sensational. Not since
the heyday of Mr. Tarver has anyone so quickly established his or her
bonafides on so many topics.
Holloway
<K...@ntscuser.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>"Holloway" <bmcs_h...@mydeja.com> wrote in message
>news:398eda03...@news.exis.net...
>
>> And your point is? The prototype F-4 didn't have one either, and
>> after operations in Vietnam the -4E received one. Prototypes usually
>> don't carry the same avionics and armaments as production a/c, that's
>> why they're _prototypes_ !
>
>But the protoype F-16 wasn't designed until _after_ Vietnam yet supposedly
>incorporated lessons learned from that conflict.
>
>(kim)
>
>
>
Yes, it was designed after Vietnam, and yes it did incorporate lessons
learned. Which is why it was outfitted with the M61 Vulcan cannon.
Again, what is your point?
Kim Pateman
> Yes, it was designed after Vietnam, and yes it did incorporate lessons
> learned. Which is why it was outfitted with the M61 Vulcan cannon.
> Again, what is your point?
There was _no_ M61 in the YF-16 prototype.
(kim)
Kim Pateman
news:sp17gf...@corp.supernews.com...
> Yes, but it was the pilot's control stick, as I recall.
Did it have an outboard motor as well?
Kim :o)
Kim Pateman
> Well to Kims defense, (yes strange as it sounds), I believe I read
somewhere
> that EWOs had really bad rate of crewmen repatriated compared to
> those shot down. Now I dont have the stats to verify it, so I cant vouch
> for the validity of it. But it does seem plausible though.
During the 'Glasnost' era in Rusian politics, these stories came to the
attention of the Russian leaders. They are said to have opened their files
to American investigators but they did not contain the location of any
American prisoners said to still be "missing in action" as many of their
relatives believed.
(kim)
Kim Pateman
> Well Kim all the 'Varks are two seaters. I think they tried to down
everything
> they could, not just two seaters...
I heard this story from someone in the CIA: The Russians didn't actually
push the buttons themselves, but they told the Vietnamese: "Not this plane,
not this one, _this one_". The GRU operatives in Vietnam were far more
interested in recovering the latest technology from America than in limiting
the rate of Vietnamese casualties from American bombing.
(kim)
Ron
>> Yes, it was designed after Vietnam, and yes it did incorporate lessons
>> learned. Which is why it was outfitted with the M61 Vulcan cannon.
>> Again, what is your point?
>
>There was _no_ M61 in the YF-16 prototype.
>
>(kim)
>
>
As was posted, it was not installed, but it was designed to be in there.
Not every piece of intended equipment in always installed in the prototypes,
even though have already been designed for and will be equipped in the
production aircraft.
Nigel Whitaker
"Eject, Eject!". I've got a copy, but not immediataley to hand, but I do
recall a story from the book of an F111 crash/ejection, where the ejection
was very low level, and the crash site was on a slope, side of a hill,
whatever!
Anyway, the wind direction was such, that the capsule, including it's two
strapped in prisoners, landed upslope from the crash site. Guess what?
Yep, it started to roll back down towards where the rest of the aircraft was
burning strongly. Now this is not good, obviously.
It's been some time since I read the article in the book, but I seem to
remember that the crew deployed the flotation bags, which protruded outside
the capsule, and arrested the roll just short of the burning aircraft. I
also seem to remember that the roll finished with the capsule inverted, but
I don't recall how the crew got out of that one!
If you're really curious, email me and I'll look out the book and send the
whole article by return, probably Monday.
Nige
Mary Shafer <sha...@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:u04s4vs...@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov...
> shab...@aol.com (Shaber CJ) writes:
>
> > Does anyone know more information regarding the limitations of the
> > crew capsule and if the capsule had problems throughout the
> > operational life of the aircraft?
>
> More an addendum than more information--when the F-111 was operated
> over water, they put a life raft in the capsule. I think it went
> under one of the two seats.
>
Kim Pateman
> As was posted, it was not installed, but it was designed to be in there.
> Not every piece of intended equipment in always installed in the
prototypes,
> even though have already been designed for and will be equipped in the
> production aircraft.
So how was the USAF able to determine that the F-16 was better than the F-17
based on tests conducted without any gun being fitted?
(kim)
Ron
>based on tests conducted without any gun being fitted?
>
>(kim)
>
Kim???? You realized that you dont need a gun to know you were in firing
position dont you??
Do you think in Red Flag, Top Gun, that they actually fire at each other with
their guns?? A F-16 does not have to fire on an F-4 or MiG-21 to win
a simulated dogfight.
That is all you would need a real gun for. The rest can all be simulated.
Remember F-18s and F-16s, they use the same gun (M61 Vulcan).
Once you are in range, and the target is in front of you, the hardest
part is done. The hardest part is getting in shooting position with a
good aspect and range. Although some might say a Mig at ones 6
beats no Mig at all
g_al...@hotmail.com
"Kim Pateman" <K...@ntscuser.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> "Ron " <ms...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000811000319...@ng-md1.aol.com...
>
> > As was posted, it was not installed, but it was designed to be in
there.
> > Not every piece of intended equipment in always installed in the
> prototypes,
> > even though have already been designed for and will be equipped in
the
> > production aircraft.
>
the F-17
> based on tests conducted without any gun being fitted?
>
> (kim)
Because they were tests of flight performance. To be specific, the
YF-16 was superior in turn capability from Mach 0.8 up, horizontal
acceleration, roll acceleration, range, cost (purchase and operating),
and was also considered to be closer to a production standard a/c. The
YF-17 was better turning subsonically, and had higher Alpha limits.
Kim Pateman
> Kim???? You realized that you dont need a gun to know you were in firing
> position dont you??
Depends how accurate it is. In the case of the F-16's Vulcan; not very.
>
> Do you think in Red Flag, Top Gun, that they actually fire at each other
with
> their guns?? A F-16 does not have to fire on an F-4 or MiG-21 to win
> a simulated dogfight.
I've always been dubious about the advantages of 'simulated' actions.
>
> That is all you would need a real gun for. The rest can all be simulated.
> Remember F-18s and F-16s, they use the same gun (M61 Vulcan).
Wrong. I've seen film of F-16's firing at giant circular ground targets. it
gives the pilot at least come indication of where the shots will land.
> Once you are in range, and the target is in front of you, the hardest
> part is done.
Wanna bet?
> The hardest part is getting in shooting position with a good aspect and
range.
By which time you are in someone else's sights and range. the biggest
mistake ver made by novice pilots!
(kim)
Kim Pateman
> To be specific, the YF-16 was superior in turn capability from Mach 0.8
up, horizontal
> acceleration, roll acceleration, range,
...except when it blew up!
(kim)
Ron
>> position dont you??
>
>Depends how accurate it is. In the case of the F-16's Vulcan; not very.
>>
It is the same vulcan from many many other airplanes and ships. We have
already went through this.
>> Do you think in Red Flag, Top Gun, that they actually fire at each other
>with
>> their guns?? A F-16 does not have to fire on an F-4 or MiG-21 to win
>> a simulated dogfight.
>
>I've always been dubious about the advantages of 'simulated' actions.
Well got a better way they can practice ACM without shooting each other
down?
> That is all you would need a real gun for. The rest can all be simulated.
>> Remember F-18s and F-16s, they use the same gun (M61 Vulcan).
>
>Wrong. I've seen film of F-16's firing at giant circular ground targets. it
>gives the pilot at least come indication of where the shots will land.
>
Well I meant ACM, not air to ground. Of course you can use live rounds,
bombs, rockets, etc, because you are using a unmanned target.
>> Once you are in range, and the target is in front of you, the hardest
>> part is done.
>
>Wanna bet?
Granted it will depend, but I would think it is harder to go from the starting
the
fight and getting in a gun position, than it is to hold that position of
advantage.
Ed Rasimus
>"Ron " <ms...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> Kim???? You realized that you dont need a gun to know you were in firing
>> position dont you??
>
>Depends how accurate it is. In the case of the F-16's Vulcan; not very.
A gun is a gun. An M61 is an M61. The gun is exceedingly accurate (in
fact the barrels are intentionally splayed slightly to increase
dispersion) and even in installations which would be inherently
unstable, such as suspended pods they are capable of shooting
consistently 80-90% on controlled, electronically scored ranges.
>>
>> A F-16 does not have to fire on an F-4 or MiG-21 to win
>> a simulated dogfight.
>
>I've always been dubious about the advantages of 'simulated' actions.
Be as dubious as you wish, but with ACMI for accurate,
ground-referenced, spatially correct recreation of engagments it is
possible to declare outcomes with exceptional accuracy. Add GPS
enhancement for positioning and full audio/visual cockpit-HUD
recordings and you get some very remarkable accuracy.
>>
>> That is all you would need a real gun for. The rest can all be simulated.
>> Remember F-18s and F-16s, they use the same gun (M61 Vulcan).
>
>Wrong. I've seen film of F-16's firing at giant circular ground targets. it
>gives the pilot at least come indication of where the shots will land.
Wow, you've seen HUD video of range strafe. "Giant circular ground
targets" are usually salvage drag chutes and are only used to provide
a visual aimpoint. The scoring is done electronically by a gadget
called "Acousti-score" which counts the sonic boom of projectiles
passing through a miked threshold area. With counts of hits compared
to the rounds fired gleaned after landing from the rounds counter on
the gun (minus a pass-through factor for rounds not fired on
spool-up/down of the gun) and you can get a percentage of hits for a
score.
>
>> Once you are in range, and the target is in front of you, the hardest
>> part is done.
>
>Wanna bet?
How much?
>
>> The hardest part is getting in shooting position with a good aspect and
>range.
>
>By which time you are in someone else's sights and range. the biggest
>mistake ver made by novice pilots!
Today with all aspect, off-boresite weaponry, you don't have to saddle
up and tail-chase to win. And, tactically, you've already detected,
sorted, and allocated the players in the battle prior to the merge.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
*** Ziff-Davis Interactive
*** (http://www.zdnet.com)
Nigel Whitaker
The capsule has two modes of operation, low speed (300kts max plus or minus
30kts), wherein the capsule' rocket motors develop 2,500lb downward thrust
and 700lb forward thrust (aircraft level). In high speed mode, the rocket
motors produce 8,000lb downward force and 700lb rearwards, (propelling the
capsule forwards, presumably to ease the transition into descent?)
As for the question of a liferaft, I could find no mention of one in my
reference book, but mention is made of an integral flotation bag, which will
deploy regardless of water or land operations, but is designed to rupture
under certain force, in the manner of a shock absorber. The inference I get
from the article, is that the capsule should float without any bouyancy
aids, if intact. In addition to the main floatation bag, there are two
other crew operable flotation bags, designed to right the capsule if
inverted. Operation of these is by preset sequence, when activated, the
port bag operates first and turns the capsule sideways, then 75 seconds
later, the starboard one operates, righting the capsule.
Oh, and by the way, either or both of the control columns can be used as
bilge pumps, by way of a "simple operation on board the aircraft", not
specified what the simple op is though!
Hope this has been of use.
Nige
Greg Fieser <gdfi...@link.com> wrote in message
news:3990944D...@link.com...
> Mary Shafer wrote:
> >
> > More an addendum than more information--when the F-111 was operated
> > over water, they put a life raft in the capsule. I think it went
> > under one of the two seats.
>
> I read somewhere that the escape capsule had flotation bags to right
> itself if capsized in water, and that one of the controls (aux gear
> down lever?) doubled as a bilge pump handle. Anyone recall this?
>
> GregD
g_al...@hotmail.com
I don't know why I bother, but except when what blew up?
Drewe Manton
they both survived the test programme as far as I'm aware.
--
Regards
Drewe
"Summer's going fast, nights growing colder
Children growing up, old friends growing older
Freeze this moment a little bit longer
Make each sensation a little bit stronger
Experience slips away. . . "
<g_al...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8n755t$ms8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
g_al...@hotmail.com
>
> > Kim???? You realized that you dont need a gun to know you were in
firing
> > position dont you??
>
> Depends how accurate it is. In the case of the F-16's Vulcan; not
very.
I'd love to see your reasoning(?) for this statement. Walt (who was
squadron armament officer) has rather more experience of the M61A1
than you obviously do. He has posted that he was responsible for
boresighting them on both F-104s and F-4s, and has posted the
dispersions achieved on the various a/c fits, varying from 2.5 mils
on the F-104 up to 8-10, IIRR, for the SUU-23 pod. Maybe, though,
you're claiming that it's just the Vulcan installation on the F-16
that's very inaccurate? Well, let's see, shall we? Here's part of an
account of an A-7 v. F-16C-30 (2 v. 1) from a friend of mine, who flew
A-7s in the Navy and ANG before transitioning to the F-16C32/42. After
fight's on at the head-on merge (A-7s in Combat Spread), the F-16 killed
his wingman seconds in with a missile shot (simulated, of course). We
pick up immediately after that; My friend is "Pluto".
-----------------------------------------------------
As Pluto slices
still nose low through 240 degrees of turn Pluto reacquires
F-16 (having lost him at the pass) and sees that F-16 has
gone through 330 degrees of turn and already has a bead on
Pluto. Pluto goes defensive, and starts pre=emptive flares,
stopping turn and unloading with F-16 about 3/4 mile back at
right 5:30. Pluto thinks F-16s nose is dead on and not
pulling lead (true)...Pluto actually is pacing F-16 who has
bled all speed with high G circle and is no longer in
burner. Since Pluto is using manual preemptive flares, one
every two seconds, AIM-9 shots are denied. Since F-16 is
not closing, appears out of gun range, and is not pulling
lead, Pluto bides his time waiting for F-16 to commit to
guns. Pluto is unaware of fact that F-16 gun has 2.5 degree
nose up cant and thus F-16 doesn't need to pull lead. Pluto
is unaware that F-16 has full lock on, and since Pluto is
stabilized, co-speed with F-16 and not doing guns defense,
3/4 mile is an easy shot. In any case, Pluto is not familiar
with F-16 size and it is actually only 1/2 mile out, Pluto
is Guns dead, 5 seconds after deciding to bide my time and
unload. The post debrief Hud Tape with the bullet impact
training symbols showed a burst of 15 rounds on target out
of about 35, first bullet hit just aft of canopy and all 15
hits in or about cockpit area forward of wing root. The
rest were over or under canopy. Pluto turned into
strawberry spray and Pluto definitely would have been a dead
man had that been for real.
Notes: F-16 called missile shot inside of 12 seconds into
start of engagment, and guns shot 35 seconds or so into
engagement. F-16 completed 360 before A-7 at max AoA and
4-6 gees could do 210 degrees. F-16 dispatched both A-7s by
simply doing a max performance 360 degree turn, starting
from inside the combat spread of both A-7s. Neither A-7 had
time or ability to even bring nose anywhere close to F-16.
You had to see it to believe it.
Finally, After this exercise, I never ever entertained any
thought of surviving an engagement against a fourth
generation fighter with an A-7. My personal goal as an A-7
driver became, upon seeing an F-16 class airplane see me and
turn in - to dump everything (a mission kill) and pass the
F-16 nose to nose unloaded hoping he would be happy with the
mission kill and let me live. If he continued to prosecute
me I was going straight down for the deck with pre-emptive
flares. If he continued to pursue, I was going to jink 90,
go idle, speedbrakes, and then eject pre-emptively before or
after he shot anything at me. My only hope was that by
tying him up for 30 seconds or so, some of the other guys
would break through to the target. I figured that by
ejecting before being killed (like any good libyan pilot
would in the same situation) that I could at least tie up a
bunch of enemy troops on the ground for a few days ala Scott
Ogrady while they chased me through the woods. Not a very
brave plan but realistic given the pitiful performance of an
A-7 against that class of airplane.
------------------------------------------------
Yeah, real inaccurate gun. Of course, we could say that we can have the
computer be as accurate as we wish, that doesn't mean the rounds are
going to go the same place in real life. Unfortunately, that theory
doesn't hold up because live shoots on drone targets, and of course
combat, have yielded similar results.
> >
> > Do you think in Red Flag, Top Gun, that they actually fire at each
other
> with
> > their guns?? A F-16 does not have to fire on an F-4 or MiG-21 to
win
> > a simulated dogfight.
>
> I've always been dubious about the advantages of 'simulated' actions.
See above. Round ballistics are programmed into the FCS. You can argue
that missile sims have often been inaccurate in the past, and I wouldn't
disagree, but both the missiles and the sims have gotten a lot better.
Besides, the missile still has to continue to function correctly after
firing: all a 20mm round has to do is obey the laws of ballistics, and
they're quite happy to do so.
The Raven
"Nigel Whitaker" <nige...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:8n6otc$f8k$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
I recall many years ago an incident in which an Australian F111 went down in
the water (could be as far back as 80-82) and the crew "ejected". I clearly
recall that the capsule had it's own floatation and that the crew stayed in
the capsule until rescued (very soon after). IIRC the capsule was shown on
the news being lifted by crane (to a truck) and that exposed floatation bags
were visible.
The use of the control stick as a bilge pump seems to fit with the media
reports at the time but, we know how they tend to screw up technical
details.
--
The Raven
** Leanne: "I *am* sick ..... and no-one there [work]
** even knows what Usenet is!"
** Raven : "Oh, you work for Ozemail then?"