Ping: Ed Rasimus - F-106 question
CCBlack
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/April%202009/0409gary.aspx
In the report of this incident ... it states " So Curtis came at his
opponents in full afterburner, doing Mach 1.9 when they passed ".
Does that speed sound excessive to you for a training exercise around
Malmstrom AFB ?
I was having a discussion about this with my father ... and he seems
to think so. Not that the six was capable of that speed ... but that
speed would be excessive for an air combat training flight. Is it
possible that Malmstrom AFB had some airspace around the base where
supersonic speeds were allowed ?
Chris
Ed Rasimus
WaltBJ can probably offer better insight based on his F-102 time
regarding flying characteristics.
The pilot-less landing is well documented, but the article is filled
with inconsistencies and a bit of strange history. The 106 fixed most
of the problems of the Deuce, particularly the issue of area rule and
lack of power. The J-75 was the same engine as the F-105, while the
J-57 of the Deuce was F-100, F-101, etc. About 1/2 the thrust of the
-75.
It still had missiles only (until mid-'70s) and the V-shaped low-vis
canopy. It also still had the delta-wings classic high drag rise at
high AOA that caused huge energy loss under G and could lead to well
behind the power curve situations during approach.
I've got no doubt that there was plenty of supersonic airspace in Big
Sky country in those days. No problem there...but when it says he
entered the engagement at M1.9 and then zoomed straight up to 38,000
feet, I throw a BS flag. To get to 1.9, he would have needed to be at
or above 38k to start with and he would have been expending most of
his available fuel. There was no future in such an entry. It would
have been more than adequate to engage at .9 or if supersonic just
over the mach, knowing that you will be sub-sonic almost immediately
upon engagement.
The "departure from controlled flight" is the terminology used to
describe a "post-stall gyration" or what would be called a "spin" in a
conventional straight-wing aircraft. Nothing strange there. Recovery
came when the impulse of the ejection (equal and opposite reaction,
etc.) pushed the nose down out of the stall regime and allowed airsped
to rebuild.
The history part is that the supporting pilot is Jim Lowe, Korean War
ace as a 1/Lt with a reputation for poor discipline and leaving his
leader to get his own kills. Lowe was shot down over NVN and is one of
the 12 who took early release in violation of the Code of Conduct. He
is reviled by the ex-cons.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
Ken S. Tucker
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:06:57 -0800 (PST), CCBlack
>
>
>
> <ccblack...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >In reference to this link:
>
Yeah, this statement is ambiguous, quoting,
"So Curtis came at his opponents in full afterburner, doing Mach 1.9
when they passed. Then he took his opponents straight up to 38,000
feet."
I figured 1.9 must be closing speed.
Otherwise the physics get difficut to do a pitch-up to straight-up by
38k,
such as, where did the wings go ???
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com
Cheers.
Ken
CCBlack
> I've got no doubt that there was plenty of supersonic airspace in Big
> Sky country in those days. No problem there...but when it says he
> entered the engagement at M1.9 and then zoomed straight up to 38,000
> feet, I throw a BS flag. To get to 1.9, he would have needed to be at
> or above 38k to start with and he would have been expending most of
> his available fuel. There was no future in such an entry. It would
> have been more than adequate to engage at .9 or if supersonic just
> over the mach, knowing that you will be sub-sonic almost immediately
> upon engagement.
>
> The "departure from controlled flight" is the terminology used to
> describe a "post-stall gyration" or what would be called a "spin" in a
> conventional straight-wing aircraft. Nothing strange there. Recovery
> came when the impulse of the ejection (equal and opposite reaction,
> etc.) pushed the nose down out of the stall regime and allowed airsped
> to rebuild.
Yeah ... your statements are pretty much along the lines that my
father spoke about. He had a problem with the reported speed ... and
with the " post-stall gyration " stuff.
A year before this incident took place my father was flying F-101's
out of Klamath Falls, OR and took a few check out flights in a two-
seat F-106. His instructors pointed out the fact that if you didn't
keep the speed up on approach to landing, the controls would still
feel normal ... but you would be way behind the power curve with a
high sink rate. He thinks the Six wouldn't have had the violent
departure as depicted in the story.
> The history part is that the supporting pilot is Jim Lowe, Korean War
> ace as a 1/Lt with a reputation for poor discipline and leaving his
> leader to get his own kills. Lowe was shot down over NVN and is one of
> the 12 who took early release in violation of the Code of Conduct. He
> is reviled by the ex-cons.
Ouch !
If I'm not mistaken Ed ... I think you have the wrong Jim. Jim Low
was a Korean War ace ... and later became a supposed " rat fink " in
Vietnam. The Jim in this F-106 incident was ' Jim Lowe '. The print
is small ... but here is a link ... it's ' Lowe ' ... not ' Low ' :
http://www.456fis.org/THE%20F-106/mohawk_article[1].jpg
Chris
Ed Rasimus
I did have a second thought about that, but the rank and the position
all seem to fit the profile. If they were two different Low/Lowe guys,
then my apologies to the good guy.
Ken S. Tucker
> On Feb 14, 7:53 am, Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAML...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > I've got no doubt that there was plenty of supersonic airspace in Big
> > Sky country in those days. No problem there...but when it says he
> > entered the engagement at M1.9 and then zoomed straight up to 38,000
> > feet, I throw a BS flag. To get to 1.9, he would have needed to be at
> > or above 38k to start with and he would have been expending most of
> > his available fuel. There was no future in such an entry. It would
> > have been more than adequate to engage at .9 or if supersonic just
> > over the mach, knowing that you will be sub-sonic almost immediately
> > upon engagement.
> Yeah, this statement is ambiguous, quoting,
> "So Curtis came at his opponents in full afterburner, doing Mach 1.9
> when they passed. Then he took his opponents straight up to 38,000
> feet."
> I figured 1.9 must be closing speed.
> Otherwise the physics get difficut to do a pitch-up to straight-up by
> 38k,
> such as, where did the wings go ???
Did a bit of calculation.
http://phun.physics.virginia.edu/topics/centrifugal.html
Just round figures,
g's (centrifugal) = V^2/R , 1g = 32 (ft/sec^2), Mach1 ~ 1000'/
sec.
((V^2~10^6, 5g's~150, R ~ 6000' , in given units))
Turning radius of ~1 nautical mile pulls 5g's at Mach1.
Doable, but hard on the airframe.
Ken
WaltBJ
with what we heard at Richards-Gebaur AFB (KC, MO) in the 326FIS when
the accident happened. Never having flown the Six I can't address the
flat spin.
The 1.9 meeting speed for the Six sounds awful fast. Really really
fast if he's later going to zoom up to 38,000 because the IAS is going
to be very high. I say all this because .9 - .96 is much more like a
meeting speed and plenty fast for 38000 on down. I question 1.9 mainly
because the Six burns so much fuel getting there the ACM time is going
to be very short. Don't know the author's experience but I suggest he
made a mistake in his notes. (1.9 combined speeds sound more like -
both sides at .95 and eminently practical.)
A second comment is that if you pull into the vertical from 1.9 at
any altitude where the IAS is practical the peak altitude after
reaching level flight will be a hell of a lot higher than 38,000.
(1.9M at 25000 is about 750 CAS.) And that maneuver doesn't make much
sense.
However, an energy-conserving pitch up in afterburner to vertical
followed by a partial roll while vertical see what your oppo is doing
is handy sometimes if he's naive enough to keep coming around in a
tight horizontal turn. If he goes up with you, welcome to the vertical
rolling scissors uphill. Enjoy it - it won't last long. If he's
partially-naive you might be able to use the sun to dazzle him and
extend for energy while he blinks. If not, now you're in the rolling
scissors going downhull. Watch your altitude!
ISTR the Six recovery from a departure was power to 85%, hit
takeoff trim and - I forgot the rest - leave the stick alone, I
suppose.
The Deuce never departed for me, just spun gentlemanly-like and
recovered easily. BT, DT.
My money says that's 'another' Jim Lowe. We never heard any noise
about 'the' Jim Lowe being in the 5th FIS.
Walt BJ
Ken S. Tucker
> On Feb 14, 8:26 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 14, 7:53 am, Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAML...@verizon.net> wrote:
> ...
> > > I've got no doubt that there was plenty of supersonic airspace in Big
> > > Sky country in those days. No problem there...but when it says he
> > > entered the engagement at M1.9 and then zoomed straight up to 38,000
> > > feet, I throw a BS flag. To get to 1.9, he would have needed to be at
> > > or above 38k to start with and he would have been expending most of
> > > his available fuel. There was no future in such an entry. It would
> > > have been more than adequate to engage at .9 or if supersonic just
> > > over the mach, knowing that you will be sub-sonic almost immediately
> > > upon engagement.
> ...
> > Yeah, this statement is ambiguous, quoting,
> > "So Curtis came at his opponents in full afterburner, doing Mach 1.9
> > when they passed. Then he took his opponents straight up to 38,000
> > feet."
> > I figured 1.9 must be closing speed.
> > Otherwise the physics get difficut to do a pitch-up to straight-up by
> > 38k,
> > such as, where did the wings go ???
>
>
> Just round figures,
> g's (centrifugal) = V^2/R , 1g = 32 (ft/sec^2),
> Mach1 ~ 1000'/ sec.
>
> ((V^2~10^6, 5g's~150, R ~ 6000' , in given units))
>
> Turning radius of ~1 nautical mile pulls 5g's at Mach1.
>
> Doable, but hard on the airframe.
To think in time, using the above figures,
a 6000' radius (12000' dia) renders a rough circumference
of 40,000'. A 90 degree turn is 1/4 of that = 10,000' so it
takes 10 secs at 5g's at Mach1, (1000'/sec) to turn 90 degrees.
During that 10 second (90) 5g turn, the a/c weighs 5x 1g and
needs more lift and attendant induced drag.
A practical question for the experienced experts follows,
Can I put on 10 seconds of afterburner to compensate
using Thrust against induced Drag, to do that 90.
The reason I ask, is because I don't know if it's ok to go to
afterburner for a 10 second impulse.
So far, I think 5g's is a normal practical limit, and we have
a set of round figures that falls out of that g-spec.
(Sure we can go higher, but that's gets a bit hairy).
Regards
Ken
CCBlack
> The 1.9 meeting speed for the Six sounds awful fast. Really really
> fast if he's later going to zoom up to 38,000 because the IAS is going
> to be very high. I say all this because .9 - .96 is much more like a
> meeting speed and plenty fast for 38000 on down. I question 1.9 mainly
> because the Six burns so much fuel getting there the ACM time is going
> to be very short. Don't know the author's experience but I suggest he
> made a mistake in his notes. (1.9 combined speeds sound more like -
> both sides at .95 and eminently practical.)
> A second comment is that if you pull into the vertical from 1.9 at
> any altitude where the IAS is practical the peak altitude after
> reaching level flight will be a hell of a lot higher than 38,000.
> (1.9M at 25000 is about 750 CAS.) And that maneuver doesn't make much
> sense.
> However, an energy-conserving pitch up in afterburner to vertical
> followed by a partial roll while vertical see what your oppo is doing
> is handy sometimes if he's naive enough to keep coming around in a
> tight horizontal turn. If he goes up with you, welcome to the vertical
> rolling scissors uphill. Enjoy it - it won't last long. If he's
> partially-naive you might be able to use the sun to dazzle him and
> extend for energy while he blinks. If not, now you're in the rolling
> scissors going downhull. Watch your altitude!
Hey Walt ... and Ed. I have a question ( maybe a dumb one ).
What exactly is the purpose of practicing for a dog-fight ( ACM ) in
an F-106 ? Though the F-106 was a fine aircraft, it was a single
mission one, the interception of hostile aircraft ( meaning bombers ),
defending the continental North American airspace. i.e. ... take
off ... intercept a bomber force ... and lob a Genie at them. I
thought the Falcon missile was a piece of junk. Remember Robin Olds
ordered them removed from his F-4 squadrons in Vietnam. In the early
70's the F-106 was modified to carry a gun ... but it was really an
afterthought ... and how much was it used operationally I wonder.
So a Six pilot out maneuvers one of his squadron mates ... pulls in
for a " kill " and does what ? Say " I gotcha ". What's the point ?
Chris
Ed Rasimus
<ccbla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Hey Walt ... and Ed. I have a question ( maybe a dumb one ).
>
>What exactly is the purpose of practicing for a dog-fight ( ACM ) in
>an F-106 ? Though the F-106 was a fine aircraft, it was a single
>mission one, the interception of hostile aircraft ( meaning bombers ),
>defending the continental North American airspace. i.e. ... take
>off ... intercept a bomber force ... and lob a Genie at them. I
>thought the Falcon missile was a piece of junk. Remember Robin Olds
>ordered them removed from his F-4 squadrons in Vietnam. In the early
>70's the F-106 was modified to carry a gun ... but it was really an
>afterthought ... and how much was it used operationally I wonder.
>
>So a Six pilot out maneuvers one of his squadron mates ... pulls in
>for a " kill " and does what ? Say " I gotcha ". What's the point ?
>
>
>Chris
During most of its operational life the F-106 was an interceptor as
you note but keep in mind that most of the weapons of the period were
rear-aspect. Radar missiles could be fired from the forward quadrant,
but Pk went up considerably with lower aspect angles. IR missiles were
definitely low aspect until the AIM-9L.
So, keeping up with maneuvering skills was part of the training. And,
most interceptor pilots held a dim hope that some day they might
become REAL fighter pilots...;-)
In those days whether you were gun equipped or missiles, in training
engagements you called your "kill" on the radio. Fox 1 was brevity
code for radar missile, Fox 2 meant IR and Fox 3 or "guns" meant guns
kill. You confirmed shot validity during debrief with gun camera film.
(A misnomer actually because it was a gun-sight camera.)
By the late '70s we had introduced instrumented air/air training
ranges with the ACMI (Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation) system.
Four ground stations fed data into a central computer and mission
debrief facility. They got info from transponders carried by the
participating aircraft. The transponder was about the size of an AIM-9
and was carried on a standard missile rail.
Real-time monitor of the engagements was available and immediate
debrief after landing. All flight parameters were available and
relative positioning between aircraft could be replayed in
three-dimensional projection with ability to rotate, zoom, tilt and
pan to see the fight from any angles.
Shots called could be confirmed immediatly and there was usually a
"kill removal" procedure where a player that has been morted would
leave the fight and then could "regenerate" and return.
Real gee-whiz stuff and that was thirty years ago!
kirk....@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, you never know how you will be tasked - think of the F-102s
sitting alert in South Vietnam; if the threat had been greater, 106s
could have taken their place, and conceivably have to engage
Mig-21s...
In the late 70s, I participated in a Maple Flag up at CFB Cold lake
where the Red Air was Canadian CF-101s and ADC F-106s, against USAF
F-4s, Brit Harriers and Tornados, and Canadian F-104s (plus some other
odds and ends, probably). I distinctly remember taking a full system
AIM-7E shot at an F-106 at low altitude (we were just about to pop for
our bomb pass and had to fly up to get the missile off) as he tried to
convert and engage our wingman. Somewhere I had a great print from
our gun sight camera showing the F-106 down in the trees with a locked
on analog bar showing our range to him - he was down under 500' in our
turf, and we were closing for a heat shot.
We shot him, he morted out, and we proceeded to bomb our
target....doubt we got above 1000' agl until RTB.
Payback: a few missions later, at the mass debrief, the CF-101 red
air leader stood up and announced "Bad day for you chaps, you all died
on ingress - we nuked you!". Apparently they got tired of sucking up
AIM-7s and used a Genie on us!
Fun times....
Kirk
Matt Wiser
Honor Bound, which tells the story of the POW experience in SEA,
mentions a Major Jim Low who did take early release in '68. Two former
POWs (one was a USN sailor who fell off his ship and picked up by NVN
fishermen, the other was then-Maj. Larry Guarino) say that Low was
undisciplined, not too enamored of either the POWs' chain of command
or the NVN, and was eager to get out ASAP. This Low was a Korean War
ace, so this may be the guy Ed's referring to.
Jeff Crowell
> Two former
> POWs (one was a USN sailor who fell off his ship and picked up by NVN
> fishermen,
This would have been Doug Hegdahl who, if I recall correctly, chose a
bad moment to walk out onto the fantail of his destroyer, just as they
fired the guns. The blast knocked him overboard.
The NVN thought they had here an example of the downtrodden working
class, and gave him some freedoms not available to other cons.
According to some of the commissioned prisoners, Hegdahl was put to
work sweeping the compound, and he would work his way from place to
place, and when unobserved would pull little tricks like dumping
handfuls of sand into a truck's gas tank.
Hegdahl took early release by order of the senior prisoner, and came
out having memorized all the names of the prisoners. It was the
first solid knowledge gained of who was held there. I am told that
years later he could still recite all the names--he'd made it into
a rhyme or tune to help him remember.
Quite a feat for someone the NVN considered too stupid to know
anything!
Jeff
--
Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos;
what you do today may well burn your butt tomorrow.
CCBlack
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:21:21 -0800 (PST), CCBlack
> you note but keep in mind that most of the weapons of the period were
> rear-aspect. Radar missiles could be fired from the forward quadrant,
> but Pk went up considerably with lower aspect angles. IR missiles were
> definitely low aspect until the AIM-9L.
> So, keeping up with maneuvering skills was part of the training. And,
> most interceptor pilots held a dim hope that some day they might
> become REAL fighter pilots...;-)
I guess I can see the ' why ' they would train for ACM ... but I'm
still in the frame of mind that the airframe was awesome ... but the
weapon system was obsolete. Also ... that the MA-1 fire control
system utilized in the F-106 would set the aircraft up for a missile
shot during an interception. A much different scenario than a " knife
fight in a phone booth " dogfight situation. A Genie would obviously
be useless is such a situation ... and the parameters for setting up a
Falcon shot would also just about make that missile useless as well.
Chris
CCBlack
> Well, you never know how you will be tasked - think of the F-102s
> sitting alert in South Vietnam; if the threat had been greater, 106s
> could have taken their place, and conceivably have to engage
> Mig-21s...
I wonder if an F-102 ever even came close to shooting down a MiG in
Vietnam. I think a few 102's were shot down by ground fire over South
Vietnam ... and one was shot down by a MiG over the North. Am I wrong
to state that F-102's standing alert in Vietnam was a case of '
availability ' rather than ' capability ' ?
When 102's went out looking for ' action ' ... they were delegated to
firing 2.75 inch rockets at ground targets. And what did they do with
their Falcon missiles ? Fired them at ground targets as well !
The F-106 was considered for use in Vietnam ... but the F-4 stole that
show.
Chris
Ed Rasimus
The airframe wasn't particularly "awesome" in the context of the
times. It was very good and a marked improvement in terms of
performance over the Deuce. But the F-104 was pretty impressive as
well in terms of performance and the F-105 had great stats too.
Airplanes were designed to mission and weapons rather than "weapons
systems" were the more common view. Everything was aimed at the
arbitrary M-2 criterion and that meant a lot of design sacrifices.
Engines were still a long way from 1-to-1 T/W and airframes weren't
handling sustained G very well. Rapid drag rise at high AOA meant
when you pull a lot of G, the airspeed drops quickly and energy
recovery took a while.
The Six had a good radar and good integration with the ground
environment. Datalink was first generation however and SAGE was
designed for a decade earlier. Add the shift in emphasis for the
military as the Vietnam conflict cranked up and you get an orphan
system with very little priority for development.
Interestingly there were only two aircraft operational in the period
that didn't participate at any level or in any configuration in the
Vietnam war--the B-58 and the F-106. Everything else was modified to
play in the game.
Ed Rasimus
The Deuces were on alert in an air defense role. Since the NV didn't
really have much in the way of ground attack capability the bases were
pretty secure. The AOB for NV carried four IL-28 Beagles for most of
the war, but they never flew as far as I know.
Matt Wiser
That's him: I haven't read the book in a while. IIRC Ross Perot sent
him to Paris with a bunch of POW-MIA wives to talk to the NVN
delegation, and after his discharge, he was hired by the Navy as a
SERE instructor.
Dean
Ed, out of curiosity, what about B-47? Was this used in Vietnam as
the EB-47?
Dean
Ed Rasimus
frank
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:07:28 -0800 (PST), Dean <damark...@gmail.com>
Last B-47 I saw flying was at Clark in late 60s, think it was a
weather bird. There were a lot of weather birds that were B-57s also.
WB-57s flew out of Yokota until the 70s.
Steve Hix
Jeff Crowell <jeff.crow...@hp.com> wrote:
> Matt Wiser wrote:
> > Two former
> > POWs (one was a USN sailor who fell off his ship and picked up by NVN
> > fishermen,
>
> This would have been Doug Hegdahl who, if I recall correctly, chose a
> bad moment to walk out onto the fantail of his destroyer, just as they
> fired the guns. The blast knocked him overboard.
USS Canberra, CAG-2, being a guided missile cruiser at the time.
> The NVN thought they had here an example of the downtrodden working
> class, and gave him some freedoms not available to other cons.
> According to some of the commissioned prisoners, Hegdahl was put to
> work sweeping the compound, and he would work his way from place to
> place, and when unobserved would pull little tricks like dumping
> handfuls of sand into a truck's gas tank.
>
> Hegdahl took early release by order of the senior prisoner, and came
> out having memorized all the names of the prisoners. It was the
> first solid knowledge gained of who was held there. I am told that
> years later he could still recite all the names--he'd made it into
> a rhyme or tune to help him remember.
>
> Quite a feat for someone the NVN considered too stupid to know
> anything!
On top of that, he ended up dealing with NVN negotiating team as part of
an American delegation to the Paris peace talks. Catching the NVN team
trying to slip something or other past regarding American POWs
treatment, as he'd been there and knew better.
Sharp cookie.
Matt Wiser
> In article <hle6g0$i6...@usenet01.boi.hp.com>,
Which explains why the Navy hired him.
Matt Wiser
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:07:28 -0800 (PST), Dean <damark...@gmail.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
EB-47s? First I've heard of those. I take it these were standoff or
penetrating Jammer aircraft for SAC?
dump...@hotmail.com
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> EB-47s? First I've heard of those. I take it these were standoff or
> penetrating Jammer aircraft for SAC?
"From 1958 Det 4 used 3 specially modified Stratojets, known as
EB-47E’s (Tell Two), in Operation Iron Work to monitor Soviet missile
tests from Baikonur, Tyuratam and Kapustin Yar. The early EB-47E ‘Tell
Two’ was easily recognisable as the aircraft were equipped with 2
large telemetry pods attached to either side of the fuselage, just aft
of the nose, which intercepted data from Soviet data from missile
tests. A later version of the ‘Tell Two’ housed the telemetry pods
internally and had a streamlined nose. The USAF long range radar site
at Samsum in Turkey, on the south cost of the Black Sea, also assisted
in this activity."
Source:
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/rb47.htm
See also:
http://www.aero-web.org/specs/boeing/eb-47e.htm
For info on the ERB-47, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-47_Stratojet#RB-47E.2FRB-47H.2FERB-47H.2FRB-47K
CCBlack
>
> - Show quoted text -
My father ( at the time Capt. Jon D. Black - F-4D pilot ) after being
shot down over North Vietnam was captured by the NV and put in a cell
with Doug Hegdahl. It's just one of those odd things about his whole
crazy POW experience. When I was a kid growing up hearing about
it ... it was hard to believe. When Hegdahl told his story ( falling
off his ship ) to my father about how he had come to be a POW ... my
Dad just didn't believe him at first. He thought it was some sort of
trick by the NV for a while.
True story ... growing up my Dad always told me he thought Hegdahl was
pushed off his ship by fellow shipmates ... rather than accidentally
being blown overboard by one of the Canberra's 5 inch guns.
I saw a show on cable t.v. about POW's in Vietnam. Hegdahl was
interviewed. Turns out he's a pretty smart guy. And doing great work
at the Navy's SERE school.
Bless his heart.
Chris
CCBlack
>
> - Show quoted text -
It was " awesome " enough to used for a while by the Navy for "
dissimilar air combat training ( DACT ) " as an " aggressor ". I have
an ' Airpower/Wings ' magazine with a photo of such an event. There's
an F-14 and an F-106 preparing for takeoff in the photo.
" The Six was greatly admired by both service and aircrews alike. The
Dart was reliable, easy to maintain, and had outstanding performance.
Although delta winged aircraft tend to have long takeoff runs, are hot
on landing, and lose speed badly in turns, the F-106 had good handling
and was said to be surprisingly agile, its high power-to-weight ratio
allowing it to overcome a delta's limits on maneuverability. It had
few " funnies " and gave plenty of stall warning. "
The F-104 ? Come on Ed. It was short on everything. Short stubby
wings ... limited combat radius ... limited combat load ... short
service life with the USAF. Lockheed got a sweetheart deal with the
Europeans ... and a bunch of NATO pilots went " prang " in the thing.
The only thing good I've read about the F-104 was that in South
Vietnam USAF pilots praised it's ability to get airborne quickly and
to the target area fast after a distress call by grunts on the ground.
Chris
David E. Powell
Well, in the interceptor role the 106 stuck around to the 1980s. I
think that the missile system handicapped them.
Considering the negative experience Olds and other pilots had with the
Falcon missile in Vietnam, I wonder why they never added other
missiles to the 106's arsenal, like Sparrow or Sidewinder. I guess the
weapons bay was a set factor, and external weapons would have been
considered a drawback for interceptor duties. The 106 did have a 20mm
cannon added on though.
Perhaps if the 106 had been tweaked it would have been a bit more
deadly in fighter vs. fighter combat, but for anti-bomber interceptor
duties it stuck around a while even with the early generation
missiles. Of course they could carry GENIEs too.
It could have been the American Mirage but interceptor duties rather
than fighter battles were the lot of the 106.
CCBlack
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ed ... F-102's were also used to attack ground targets in South
Vietnam ... just like I described ( with rockets AND Falcons ) ... you
can read about it here :
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200112/ai_n9007941/?tag=content;col1
Chris
Ed Rasimus
<ccbla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 16, 11:50�am, Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAML...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:22:05 -0800 (PST), CCBlack
>> The airframe wasn't particularly "awesome" in the context of the
"Awesome" isn't a requirement for a DACT aircraft. Dissimilar is what
is needed. The Navy also used A-4s which are hardly an "awesome"
air/air platform. The AF initially used the T-38! It was only a slight
upgrade when the three squadrons of F-5Es destined for the Vietnamese
Air Force become available in 1975 with the fall of Saigon.
Even then the F-5 was hardly a match on paper for the F-15 or F-16s
they were training against.
Aggressors are trainers. They succeed through discipline in teaching
their lessons. They use tactics and doctrine of an expected adversary
and they fly their airplanes to emulate as closely as possible the
enemy.
>
>" The Six was greatly admired by both service and aircrews alike. The
>Dart was reliable, easy to maintain, and had outstanding performance.
>Although delta winged aircraft tend to have long takeoff runs, are hot
>on landing, and lose speed badly in turns, the F-106 had good handling
>and was said to be surprisingly agile, its high power-to-weight ratio
>allowing it to overcome a delta's limits on maneuverability. It had
>few " funnies " and gave plenty of stall warning. "
Delta's don't have long takeoff runs since the highlift wing will get
you airborne fairly quickly. The delta deals with high AOA fairly well
but suffers rapid drag rise, so the J-79 of the 106 was step up from
the J-57 of the Deuce.
>
>
>The F-104 ? Come on Ed. It was short on everything. Short stubby
>wings ... limited combat radius ... limited combat load ... short
>service life with the USAF. Lockheed got a sweetheart deal with the
>Europeans ... and a bunch of NATO pilots went " prang " in the thing.
Sorry, but wrong answer. It was very fast and formidable when flown
properly (WaltBJ has discussed that often.) While the US A-models and
C-models weren't that advance in terms of weapon system, the G-model
carried essentially the same avionics as an F-105. Later versions of
the G got an inertial to replace the doppler and also got refitted to
carry AIM-7E making them a true all-weather fighter.
Germany had problems in conversion. I've often attributed that to the
Luftwaffe policy of running candidates through USAF pilot training and
taking all graduates into F-104s. They had the same spread of talen we
had but typically only the top fifteen or so out of a graduating class
of 350 across eight bases would go to single seat fighters in the
USAF.
Germany, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark,
Norway, Japan, Taiwan and othe nations all flew the airplane and were
very pleased with it. The deal didn't favor Lockheed, it was a
co-production consortium that really favored the participating
nations.
>
>The only thing good I've read about the F-104 was that in South
>Vietnam USAF pilots praised it's ability to get airborne quickly and
>to the target area fast after a distress call by grunts on the ground.
Ptui! Nope. Not at all. Inaccurate, small pay-load, no loiter time.
That was F-104 C models and they deployed in very small numbers and
usually didn't stay in country very long.
Ed Rasimus
Yep. You've got to let them do something besides park in an alert
revetment for months at a time.
The aircraft was unsuited for the war, but deployed anyway.
Matt Wiser
>
> - Show quoted text -
He did do great work: he's retired now. I saw an article in Navy Times
about his retirement. One of the last things Jim Stockdale did before
his illness was to attend Doug's retirement ceremony at the Navy SERE
School at NAS North Island.
CCBlack
> "Awesome" isn't a requirement for a DACT aircraft. Dissimilar is what
> is needed. The Navy also used A-4s which are hardly an "awesome"
> air/air platform.
The Navy also used F-16N's. Would you describe an F-16 as " awesome "
or " ho hum " ? How about Israeli KFIR's which the Navy also leased ?
> The AF initially used the T-38! It was only a slight
> upgrade when the three squadrons of F-5Es destined for the Vietnamese
> Air Force become available in 1975 with the fall of Saigon.
> Even then the F-5 was hardly a match on paper for the F-15 or F-16s
> they were training against.
> Aggressors are trainers. They succeed through discipline in teaching
> their lessons. They use tactics and doctrine of an expected adversary
> and they fly their airplanes to emulate as closely as possible the
> enemy.
Good article in the 1994 Air&Space magazine. Seems the aggressors
were getting TOO aggressive sometimes.
Inside look at the downfall of the Air Forces elite enemy simulation
units:
http://www.reinapennington.com/RJP_Aggressors.pdf
> Delta's don't have long takeoff runs since the highlift wing will get
> you airborne fairly quickly. The delta deals with high AOA fairly well
> but suffers rapid drag rise, so the J-79 of the 106 was step up from
> the J-57 of the Deuce.
They require high landing and takeoff speeds and long takeoff and
landing runs ...
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/delta_wing/Tech10.htm
> Sorry, but wrong answer. It was very fast and formidable when flown
> properly (WaltBJ has discussed that often.) While the US A-models and
> C-models weren't that advance in terms of weapon system, the G-model
> carried essentially the same avionics as an F-105. Later versions of
> the G got an inertial to replace the doppler and also got refitted to
> carry AIM-7E making them a true all-weather fighter.
If it's the wrong answer, explain why the USAF procured only 296
Starfighters in one- and two-seat versions, and it quickly became
obsolete in Air Force inventory. The F-104A initially served briefly
with the USAF Air Defense Command / Aerospace Defense Command (ADC) as
an interceptor, although neither its range nor armament were well-
suited for that role. The USAF reduced their orders from 722
Starfighters to 155. After only one year of service these aircraft
were handed over to ADC-gained units of the Air National Guard.
The USAF was less than satisfied with the Starfighter. The
Starfighter was deemed inadequate for either the interceptor or
tactical fighter-bomber role, lacking both payload capability and
endurance compared to other USAF aircraft. Its U.S. service was
quickly wound down after 1965, and the last USAF Starfighters left
active service in 1969. It continued in use with the Puerto Rico Air
National Guard until 1975.
> Germany had problems in conversion. I've often attributed that to the
> Luftwaffe policy of running candidates through USAF pilot training and
> taking all graduates into F-104s. They had the same spread of talen we
> had but typically only the top fifteen or so out of a graduating class
> of 350 across eight bases would go to single seat fighters in the
> USAF.
> Germany, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark,
> Norway, Japan, Taiwan and othe nations all flew the airplane and were
> very pleased with it. The deal didn't favor Lockheed, it was a
> co-production consortium that really favored the participating
> nations.
In Germany, the minister of defence Franz Josef Strauss almost had to
resign because of the massive procurement of Starfighters and the
death of around 115 pilots in accidents ( allegations ranged from " a
purely political deal " to bribery ).
Lockheed bribery scandals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals
> >The only thing good I've read about the F-104 was that in South
> >Vietnam USAF pilots praised it's ability to get airborne quickly and
> >to the target area fast after a distress call by grunts on the ground.
>
> Ptui! Nope. Not at all. Inaccurate, small pay-load, no loiter time.
> That was F-104 C models and they deployed in very small numbers and
> usually didn't stay in country very long.
As the MiG threat abated, the 476th TFS was tasked with some weather
reconnaissance and ground attack missions. A few of these were against
targets in North Vietnam, but most of them were close air-support
missions against targets in the South under forward air controller
direction. The F-104s were fairly successful in this role, gaining a
reputation for accuracy in their cannon fire and their bombing and
capable of quite rapid reaction times in response to requests for air
support.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f104_9.html
Chris
CCBlack
> He did do great work: he's retired now. I saw an article in Navy Times
> about his retirement. One of the last things Jim Stockdale did before
> his illness was to attend Doug's retirement ceremony at the Navy SERE
> School at NAS North Island.
If you haven't read it ... here is an account of Hegdahl's " falling
off the ship " from a speech I believe by Dick Stratton :
http://talesofseasia.com/doug.html
Doug’s battle station was the aft ammunition handling room for the 5
inch guns, located aft in the bowels of the ship. One morning he had
the 0400 watch while Canberra was steaming down the coast of North
Vietnam firing its 8 inch guns against targets of opportunity
[ bicycles, water buffalo and occasional trucks ] on Highway 1. At
about 0330 he rolled out of the rack. Being a prudent farm boy he
locked all his valuables in his locker and then proceeded to go out on
deck for a breath of fresh air before manning his battle station.
Now there is a non repetitive exercise in the surface Navy called "
going out on deck when big guns are firing ". If the concussion does
not blow you over the side it will at least blow out your ear drums.
But Doug must have slept though that safety lecture. He doesn’t know
what happened. Either not being night adapted, or being without his
glasses, or concussion did it, he ended up going arse over teakettle
into the South China Sea about three miles off shore with no life
preserver, no identification, no nothing. Meanwhile he watched the
Love Boat merrily steaming over the horizon, firing at the coastline
and never missing him for two days.
H. Wilker
Ed Rasimus <rasimus...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 08:02:22 -0800 (PST), CCBlack
> <ccbla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
... snip ...
> >The F-104 ? Come on Ed. It was short on everything. Short stubby
> >wings ... limited combat radius ... limited combat load ... short
> >service life with the USAF. Lockheed got a sweetheart deal with the
> >Europeans ... and a bunch of NATO pilots went " prang " in the thing.
>
... snip ...
> Germany, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark,
> Norway, Japan, Taiwan and othe nations all flew the airplane and were
> very pleased with it. The deal didn't favor Lockheed, it was a
> co-production consortium that really favored the participating
> nations.
Interested parties may use this Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals
as a starting point for further research on whether Lookheed got "sweet
deals" or worked the market fair and square...
Regards
Helge
Ken S. Tucker
> They require high landing and takeoff speeds and long takeoff and
> landing runs ...
>
> http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/delta...
Chris, I'd be careful about contradicting guys like Ed (and WaltBG)
etc.
by cherry picking some article off the net, they're experts.
The word "high" is relative to what?
A heavy ladened 'Thud' needed some long runway, it's all about stall
speed and thrust/weight ratio where acceleration is concerned.
What's the stall speed of a loaded 106?
Let's work it out.
Ken
...
Ed Rasimus
<ccbla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> "Awesome" isn't a requirement for a DACT aircraft. Dissimilar is what
>> is needed. The Navy also used A-4s which are hardly an "awesome"
>> air/air platform.
>
>
>The Navy also used F-16N's. Would you describe an F-16 as " awesome "
>or " ho hum " ? How about Israeli KFIR's which the Navy also leased ?
The F-16 was an upgrade to replace aging A-4s and augment their F-5s.
It was recognition that technology continued to advance and so to did
the need for capable aggressor aircraft. But, dissimilar is still the
essential. It wasn't an F-14 or -18.>
>
>
>> The AF initially used the T-38! It was only a slight
>> upgrade when the three squadrons of F-5Es destined for the Vietnamese
>> Air Force become available in 1975 with the fall of Saigon.
>> Even then the F-5 was hardly a match on paper for the F-15 or F-16s
>> they were training against.
>> Aggressors are trainers. They succeed through discipline in teaching
>> their lessons. They use tactics and doctrine of an expected adversary
>> and they fly their airplanes to emulate as closely as possible the
>> enemy.
>
>
>Good article in the 1994 Air&Space magazine. Seems the aggressors
>were getting TOO aggressive sometimes.
>
>Inside look at the downfall of the Air Forces elite enemy simulation
>units:
>
>http://www.reinapennington.com/RJP_Aggressors.pdf
>
That's a good article and describes the mission and history very well.
The headline is a bit of hyperbole. There was never a "downfall" and
the text of the article really doesn't describe overwhelming evidence
of such.
Fighter pilots are ego driven. Show me a humble pilot and I'll show
you a mort. It is inevitable that they will compete hard and in an
arena that is high-g, high speed, totally random and with high
performance equipment you will get mishaps. The two RF-4 accidents
mentioned also indicate that the problem was poor qualification of the
crews and unfamiliarity with the ACM mission.
Overall the Aggressors were a training force. Some instructors will
always be better than others. There were periods and units of
Aggressors which were notorious for the beat-down approach. They were
usually reined in and reoriented quickly. Most were dedicated to
teaching operational crews the best way to fight the expected
adversary.
Aggressors usually won the fights because they did it twice a day
every day whereas the operational guy is handling a/g, intercepts,
deployments, alert, etc. He's happy to get ten ACM sorties in a
six-month period.
>
>
>> Delta's don't have long takeoff runs since the highlift wing will get
>> you airborne fairly quickly. The delta deals with high AOA fairly well
>> but suffers rapid drag rise, so the J-79 of the 106 was step up from
>> the J-57 of the Deuce.
>
>
>
>They require high landing and takeoff speeds and long takeoff and
>landing runs ...
>
>http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/delta_wing/Tech10.htm
>
>
>
>> Sorry, but wrong answer. It was very fast and formidable when flown
>> properly (WaltBJ has discussed that often.) While the US A-models and
>> C-models weren't that advance in terms of weapon system, the G-model
>> carried essentially the same avionics as an F-105. Later versions of
>> the G got an inertial to replace the doppler and also got refitted to
>> carry AIM-7E making them a true all-weather fighter.
>
>
>If it's the wrong answer, explain why the USAF procured only 296
>Starfighters in one- and two-seat versions, and it quickly became
>obsolete in Air Force inventory. The F-104A initially served briefly
>with the USAF Air Defense Command / Aerospace Defense Command (ADC) as
>an interceptor, although neither its range nor armament were well-
>suited for that role. The USAF reduced their orders from 722
>Starfighters to 155. After only one year of service these aircraft
>were handed over to ADC-gained units of the Air National Guard.
The explanation is simple. The doctrine of the USAF at that time was
for a world-wide deployable force capable of conducting a broad range
of missions but heavily grounded in the tactical nuclear penetration
role.
The F-105 and F-4 were much more flexible and capable in that regard.
The European and Asian nations doctrine was for point defense and
limited force projection. Very different in the requirements. They
don't typically deploy. They don't possess refueling. They don't
anticipate going to war alone but depended the US forces in-place and
follow-on to do the heavy lifting. The F-104 was impressive, dramatic
and very capable for their needs.
As already mentioned, the model bought in quantity was significantly
upgraded from what USAF bough eight years earlier.
The MiG threat abated because the much larger F-4 component did the
job better in the environment where it was required which was below
20,000 feet.
The F-104 attempted to do escort and CAP over NVN, but almost
immediately lost two aircraft in one 4-ship while escorting a Wild
Weasel flight. They were suspended from NVN ops until they could be
retrofitted with APR-25/26 RWR gear. They conducted limited operations
for the remainder of their deployment in 1966 in Route Pack I.
We used to fly what we called "Poor Man's Weasel" missions. A pair of
F-105s of which one must have APR-25/26 would orbit in Pack I to
support four flights of four F-104s, each armed with 2x750 bombs and a
ten minute TOT each. We would go in before them, stay while they
piddled their bombs and then spend about ten or fifteen minutes
ourselves in armed recce to drop our 8x750 loads each.
Been there, done that.
Jeff Crowell
> If you haven't read it ... here is an account of Hegdahl's " falling
> off the ship " from a speech I believe by Dick Stratton :
>
> http://talesofseasia.com/doug.html
Thanks, CC. Guess the ol' memory banks still work once in a while.
Dick Stratton was one of the ex-cons who came and spoke to my platoon,
one of the more unforgettable aspects of a very unforgettable summer
in 1977 at USNA.
There were about 4 of these former NVN POWs that individually came
and sat with us and talked about their experiences, an incredible
experience for this green-as-grass, wet-behind-the-ears country boy.
Talk about giving you a target to shoot for in your professional
life.
Jeff
--
When everything is coming your way, you're probably on the wrong side of
the road.
Paul J. Adam
<0e4c8235-7951-406e...@y33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
CCBlack <ccbla...@yahoo.com> writes
>> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> "Awesome" isn't a requirement for a DACT aircraft. Dissimilar is what
>> is needed. The Navy also used A-4s which are hardly an "awesome"
>> air/air platform.
>
>The Navy also used F-16N's. Would you describe an F-16 as " awesome "
>or " ho hum " ?
Pretty thoroughly "awesome" for their time (F-16As flown clean? Pretty
dramatic!) and the F-16Ns were flown hard enough that the wing roots
cracked up early: but the most important point is "not a USN aircraft,
available cheap, spares and support no problem".
The F-16A seems to have been the high water mark of "more Ps and T-W and
G means aircraft full of win and awesome" thinking: without any more
knowledge than a few magazine articles I wonder if the F-16N experience
contributed. Who stresses aircraft to do 9G with working warloads today?
If it made a difference, why not keep it?
>How about Israeli KFIR's which the Navy also leased ?
Passable for ACM with the usual tailless delta issues. Very dangerous if
the F-21 driver knows what he's doing and the USN opponent doesn't, less
so once you know its relative strengths and weaknesses.
I remember the Kfirs being acquired, but they don't seem to have lasted
long.
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
Paul J. Adam
CCBlack
> Chris, I'd be careful about contradicting guys like Ed (and WaltBG)
> etc. by cherry picking some article off the net, they're experts.
Cherry picking ... it's a two-way street in here ya know.
Of course I acknowledge Ed's expertise. Remember I started off asking
him a question about the Dart.
Chris
Ken S. Tucker
Within the equals below is the discussion I'll ref to, personally I
could
use more understanding of delta wing take-off and landings.
=====================================
> Delta's don't have long takeoff runs since the highlift wing will get
> you airborne fairly quickly. The delta deals with high AOA fairly well
> but suffers rapid drag rise, so the J-79 of the 106 was step up from
> the J-57 of the Deuce.
> Ed
They require high landing and takeoff speeds and long takeoff and
landing runs ...
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/delta...
Chris
====================================
What you did Chris is contradict Ed with a web article written by some
one who's qualifications are obscure.
Ed (Raz) is an acknowledged authority, and studies hard stuff,
likely watched a lot of delta's close to ground.
A delta develops a sort of cushion under it when close to ground,
either taking off or landing, the air sort of rolls under it, there is
a
term like 'ground effect lift'. It's tough aerodynamics, but I've seen
it flying model XB-70's, it will float.
Perhaps we could compare a 106 to a 105 with equal Thrust Weight
ratio and see who gets off the runway first, my moneys on 106.
Ken
CCBlack
> The F-16 was an upgrade to replace aging A-4s and augment their F-5s.
> It was recognition that technology continued to advance and so to did
> the need for capable aggressor aircraft. But, dissimilar is still the
> essential. It wasn't an F-14 or -18.
Do you mind if I say the F-20 Tigershark would have been an " awesome
" Navy aggressor.
But GD had to kill off the F-20 with the F-16N. Damn them !
> Fighter pilots are ego driven. Show me a humble pilot and I'll show
> you a mort.
You don't say Ed. I feel like I have to tip toe around for fear you
are going to bite my head off.
=]
> The explanation is simple. The doctrine of the USAF at that time was
> for a world-wide deployable force capable of conducting a broad range
> of missions but heavily grounded in the tactical nuclear penetration
> role.
The F-104 was a product of the Korean War. The encounters with the
MiG-15 in Korea caused a strong outcry among Air Force fighter pilots
for a cheap, lightweight, maneuverable, high-performance fighter to
confront future Soviet fighters. The result was the F-104, a fighter
that overemphasized rate of climb and brute speed. Intended as a point
defense interceptor, range was sacrificed for rate of climb.
Meaning in my opinion ... Kelly Johnson took the biggest engine he
could procure ... wrapped an airframe around it ... and called it the
Starfighter.
The Air Force went " oh ah " and said ... " we have to have some of
those ".
But once it was in operational use ... it was found to be lacking.
ADC didn't want it ... and TAC eventually didn't either. It was great
for breaking speed records and time to climb records ... and made a
great chase plane.
No ?
Chris
Matt Wiser
"CCBlack" <ccbla...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:31579a07-5f70-4f0b...@x22g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
> Matt Wiser wrote:
> He did do great work: he's retired now. I saw an article in Navy Times
> about his retirement. One of the last things Jim Stockdale did before
> his illness was to attend Doug's retirement ceremony at the Navy SERE
> School at NAS North Island.
If you haven't read it ... here is an account of Hegdahl's " falling
off the ship " from a speech I believe by Dick Stratton :
http://talesofseasia.com/doug.html
I've read the story in the Dick Strattion bio by Scott Blakely, John
Hubbell's P.O.W., and more recently, Honor Bound. Seems Dick had to convince
USAF Col. Ted Guy that Doug could do more for the POWs outside than if he
stayed in Hanoi, and Stratton eventually got his way.
Jeff Crowell
> A delta develops a sort of cushion under it when close to ground,
> either taking off or landing, the air sort of rolls under it, there is
> a
> term like 'ground effect lift'. It's tough aerodynamics, but I've seen
> it flying model XB-70's, it will float.
All wing shapes are influenced by ground effect. The way I've usually
seen it explained is that the nearness of the ground (generally, half a
wingspan) prevents the formation of wingtip vortices, and therefore
induced drag is greatly reduced. I've never seen it claimed that
different wing profiles are affected differently by ground effect.
Deltas (all swept wings, actually) do have their issues with spanwise
flow. Not sure how that feeds into vortex formation.
Wingtip vortices are caused by lateral movement of high-pressure air
under the wing into the low-pressure region above the wing. This
violent stirring of the air takes energy from the aircraft,
increasing the work it has to do to maintain speed.
Induced drag is so named because it is a function of lift. The
more lift the wing generates, the greater the induced drag. This
is in contrast to form drag, for example, which is a function of
speed.
If you have seen the second Transformer movie, when the C-17s are
about to drop the team in preparation for the big finale, as the
planes bank back and forth they are backlit against the sky and
the vortices are clearyl visible.
Jeff
--
It's God's job to forgive Bin Laden. It's our job to arrange the meeting.
--Special Forces bumper sticker
Ron
> > Ed Rasimus wrote:
> > The F-16 was an upgrade to replace aging A-4s and augment their F-5s.
> > It was recognition that technology continued to advance and so to did
> > the need for capable aggressor aircraft. But, dissimilar is still the
> > essential. It wasn't an F-14 or -18.
>
> Do you mind if I say the F-20 Tigershark would have been an " awesome
> " Navy aggressor.
>
> But GD had to kill off the F-20 with the F-16N. Damn them !
>
restrictions being lifted on F-16s.
Ken S. Tucker
Ok Jeff, I find the wing area needs to be factored in, that delta's
have.
My own primitive realistic experience supports what Ed wrote.
So I think a delta is good as any on T/O and landings.
Ken
Paul Saccani
<jeff.crow...@hp.com> wrote:
>
>Dick Stratton was one of the ex-cons who came and spoke to my platoon,
>one of the more unforgettable aspects of a very unforgettable summer
>in 1977 at USNA.
What's the story with you chaps calling PW convicts?
Cheers,
Paul Saccani,
Perth,
Western Australia
CCBlack
> What's the story with you chaps calling PW convicts?
It's just a term made in jest. A bit of humor. The North Vietnamese
called the U.S. airmen " Yankee Air Pirates ".
So why would a POW not consider oneself a " con ".
The POW's also jokingly called one of the prisons in Hanoi where they
were held the " Hanoi Hilton ".
There was all sorts of humerus " terms " used in Vietnam.
F-105 Thunderchief - the " Thud ".
Pilots who flew the Red River Valley in North Vietnam were known as
River Rats
" Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club " was a tongue-in-cheek nickname for the
United States Seventh Fleet during the Vietnam War.
I could go on ...
Chris
CCBlack
> > But GD had to kill off the F-20 with the F-16N. Damn them !
>
> The F-20 was killed off (and the F-16/79 for that matter) but export
> restrictions being lifted on F-16s.
A possibility for a U.S. F-20 purchase evolved in 1984 as a candidate
for a small number of " aggressor aircraft " for U.S. Navy dissimilar
air combat training. In January 1985 the Navy announced they had
selected a specially configured version of the F-16 for its aggressor
aircraft. The aircraft was rumored to have been sold at a loss just to
keep Northrop's F-20 out of the U.S. market.
Chris
Roger Conroy
Please do go on - this stuff is interesting and seldom heard of these days.
CCBlack
> Ok Jeff, I find the wing area needs to be factored in, that delta's
> have.
> My own primitive realistic experience supports what Ed wrote.
> So I think a delta is good as any on T/O and landings.
Well what about the Concorde for example. Because of the delta-wing
of the Condorde, the average takeoff speed was around 225 mph, or 195
kts. At rotation, Concorde would rise to a high angle of attack,
about 18 degrees. Unlike typical subsonic transport aircraft, prior to
rotation the Concorde wing generated almost no lift.
A Boeing 747 at twice the takeoff weight of a Concorde will have a
takeoff speed of around 155 kts.
Chris
Ed Rasimus
Pay attention to what Jeff has written. The rules of ground effect,
tip vortices and the relationship of lift creation to induced drag
apply to all wing shapes.
The wing area is not the item to be factored in, it is wing span.
Ground effect typically occurs within one half span of the ground.
It can be detected in almost any aircraft during landing. The result
is usually a reduction in AOA without pilot input because the lift
requirement for the trimmed airpseed is reduced slightly. The pilot
then reduces power and "rounds out" or flares. Failure to compensate
for the ground effect will result in failure to decelerate and a long
landing.
Ed Rasimus
<ccbla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> The F-16 was an upgrade to replace aging A-4s and augment their F-5s.
>> It was recognition that technology continued to advance and so to did
>> the need for capable aggressor aircraft. But, dissimilar is still the
>> essential. It wasn't an F-14 or -18.
>
>
>Do you mind if I say the F-20 Tigershark would have been an " awesome
>" Navy aggressor.
>
>But GD had to kill off the F-20 with the F-16N. Damn them !
The F-20 was killed off when Jimmy Carter changed the policy of
whether to sell first-line tactical aircraft to nations below the top
tier of NATO, Israel, etc. Until then the F-5 class was the Foreign
Military Sales leader. The F-20, F-16/79 and a modified A-7 were
proposals. Carter sold F-16As to several second-level nations and that
drove a stake in the heart of the FMS candidates.
>
>> Fighter pilots are ego driven. Show me a humble pilot and I'll show
>> you a mort.
>
>You don't say Ed. I feel like I have to tip toe around for fear you
>are going to bite my head off.
I haven't bitten any heads off in recent memory. I don't "suffer fools
gladly" but my violent tendencies are greatly eroded.
>
>> The explanation is simple. The doctrine of the USAF at that time was
>> for a world-wide deployable force capable of conducting a broad range
>> of missions but heavily grounded in the tactical nuclear penetration
>> role.
>
>
>The F-104 was a product of the Korean War. The encounters with the
>MiG-15 in Korea caused a strong outcry among Air Force fighter pilots
>for a cheap, lightweight, maneuverable, high-performance fighter to
>confront future Soviet fighters. The result was the F-104, a fighter
>that overemphasized rate of climb and brute speed. Intended as a point
>defense interceptor, range was sacrificed for rate of climb.
>
>Meaning in my opinion ... Kelly Johnson took the biggest engine he
>could procure ... wrapped an airframe around it ... and called it the
>Starfighter.
>
>The Air Force went " oh ah " and said ... " we have to have some of
>those ".
>
>But once it was in operational use ... it was found to be lacking.
>ADC didn't want it ... and TAC eventually didn't either. It was great
>for breaking speed records and time to climb records ... and made a
>great chase plane.
>
>No ?
Not really. The F-100 was the tactical fighter of choice after Korea,
along with a range of interceptors including F-89, F-94, F-101 and
F-102.
The 104, 105, 106 and some others that didn't see production were the
follow-on generation and the controlling criterion was Mach 2.
Tactics were still iron bombs dropped with a manually depressed
reticle, guns primary for A/A, low-level tactical nuclear strike, and
primarily daylight operations with only limited night and all-wx
capabiltiy.
Emphasis in design was a choice of the manufacturer. Contracts were
let to reward development and the force was not "single type" as it
would become in the late '60s with all F-4s.
The J-79 wasn't the "biggest" of the period. The P&W J-75 was.
CCBlack
> The F-20 was killed off when Jimmy Carter changed the policy of
> whether to sell first-line tactical aircraft to nations below the top
> tier of NATO, Israel, etc. Until then the F-5 class was the Foreign
> Military Sales leader. The F-20, F-16/79 and a modified A-7 were
> proposals. Carter sold F-16As to several second-level nations and that
> drove a stake in the heart of the FMS candidates.
Actually I think the flip-flop on the issue was in the Reagan
administration :
" Further complicating the support of both the FX and Northrop was an
uncertainty within the government about its true role in the arms
transfer arena. On one side was an effort to reduce the emphasis on
exporting military aircraft. On the other side, Deputy Secretary of
Defense Frank C. Carlucci was encouraging more sales. In the summer of
1982, Carlucci sent a memorandum to the Air Force and Navy charging
them to actively encourage potential foreign customers to procure FX
aircraft. Then, only four months after the first memo, Carlucci sent a
classified memo to the services abandoning the FX policy and opening
the door for the sale of front-line fighters to other countries. "
> Not really. The F-100 was the tactical fighter of choice after Korea,
> along with a range of interceptors including F-89, F-94, F-101 and
> F-102.
> The 104, 105, 106 and some others that didn't see production were the
> follow-on generation and the controlling criterion was Mach 2.
> Tactics were still iron bombs dropped with a manually depressed
> reticle, guns primary for A/A, low-level tactical nuclear strike, and
> primarily daylight operations with only limited night and all-wx
> capabiltiy.
> Emphasis in design was a choice of the manufacturer. Contracts were
> let to reward development and the force was not "single type" as it
> would become in the late '60s with all F-4s.
Clarence " Kelly " Johnson, the chief engineer at Lockheed's Skunk
Works, visited Korea in December 1951 and spoke with fighter pilots
about what sort of aircraft they wanted. At the time, the U.S. pilots
were confronting the MiG-15 with F-86 Sabres, and many of the American
pilots felt that the MiGs were superior to the larger and more complex
American design. The pilots requested a small and simple aircraft with
excellent performance. On his return to the United States, Johnson
immediately started the design of just such an aircraft. The design
was presented to the Air Force in November 1952, and they were
interested enough to create a new proposal and invite several
companies to participate.
In order to achieve the desired performance, Lockheed chose a
minimalist approach: a design that would achieve high performance by
wrapping the lightest, most aerodynamically efficient airframe
possible around a single powerful engine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-104_Starfighter
> The J-79 wasn't the "biggest" of the period. The P&W J-75 was.
I know it wasn't the biggest. What I meant was ... for the type and
size of fighter Kelly Johnson had in mind.
Chris
David E. Powell
I could see that, and the lack of US sales hurt the F-20 overseas
where quite a few countries might have picked it up.
Wonder whether the US military was in on a "hit" on Northrop, which
given that Northrop was doing the B-2 project seems quite insane.
Ken S. Tucker
Interesting comparison, the Concorde obviously was designed with
the task of going Mach 2 over a very long range, and had thrust to
weight to do it, it was a minimalistic design that consequently had
a high take-off speed.
To max acceleration at take-off, one wouldn't want nor need any
lift (and induced drag).
Why not compare that to a B-47 in which RATO was tried because
of problems with take-off.
Ken
Ken S. Tucker
Yes, let me provide a ref,
"The wing in ground effect is affected by numerous factors, including
the wing's area, its chord length"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_in_aircraft#Factors_affecting_Wing_in_Ground_effects
so everybodies right.
> The wing area is not the item to be factored in, it is wing span.
Well we find area is important, in theory and experiment, but also
planform.
> Ground effect typically occurs within one half span of the ground.
> It can be detected in almost any aircraft during landing. The result
> is usually a reduction in AOA without pilot input because the lift
> requirement for the trimmed airpseed is reduced slightly. The pilot
> then reduces power and "rounds out" or flares. Failure to compensate
> for the ground effect will result in failure to decelerate and a long
> landing.
Yes, our XB-70 model seriously demo'd that.
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com
Cheers
Ken
Ed Rasimus
The F-20 was originally called the F-5G indicating it was a follow-on
to the F-5 series which was a very successful foreign military sales
aircraft and which wasn't purchased operationally for the USAF. The
two squadrons of F-5A aircraft we had were for training of the
purchaser nation pilots and an operational evaluation in Vietnam named
Skoshi Tiger.
The design was funded in-house with R&D investment and proposed as a
third world FMS option. When F-16A aircraft were sold to several of
the target nations then all of the remaining customers demanded the
prestigious first line fighters.
The F-20 was oriented toward point defense interceptor operations and
featured a rapid alignment ring-gyro INS platform and a keyboard
intensive multi-function display (which I never did figure out when
flying the dome sim at Northrop which had an F-20 cockpit.) It's HUD
was nowhere near the sophistication of the F-16 and it's a/g weapons
suite was also less developed.
Two of the prototypes crashed in demonstration flights, which didn't
help either.
During the same period, as you note, the company was deep into B-2 as
well as competing in a fly-off with their A-9 against the A-10. They
also were doing Tacit Rainbow, various missile guidance systems,
satellite goodies and a briefcase full of "black" programs. They were
also doing construction of Boeing 747 fuselage sections and F-18 aft
sections at the Aircraft Division in Hawthorne.
They were a pretty big operation for a 'hit' to take out.
David E. Powell
I stand corrected.
Maybe the number of "black" Northrop projects at the time may have
bene a factor in two ways.
First, observers that didn't know how much money the company was
getting for other projects might consider the F-20 more of a make or
break project.
Second, as the F-16 became so successful the company might have had
more reason to drop the F-20 project and concentrate on other areas,
because they had more projects on their plate.
That said the F-20 is a beautiful aircraft.
Jeff Crowell
>> Dick Stratton was one of the ex-cons who came and spoke to my platoon,
>> one of the more unforgettable aspects of a very unforgettable summer
>> in 1977 at USNA.
Paul Saccani wrote:
> What's the story with you chaps calling PW convicts?
It's what they call themselves. A badge of honor, for my money....
Jeff
--
Murphy's Laws of the gunfight:
You cannot save the planet. You may be able to save yourself
and your family.
Matt Wiser
"Roger Conroy" <roger...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hlo9f1$8dq$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Some of the other POW lockups had similar names: Bat Bat (or Ap Lo) was
called Briarpatch for its rural location, Cu Loc was the Zoo, for as one POW
put it, "it's where the animals looked in at the people", though another POW
said the name stuck because of all the livestock and other critters living
on the prison grounds in the early days; A compound on Ly Nam De Street
across from the Ministry of National Defense Citadel was called Plantation
because the house (old residence for the French Mayor of Hanoi) was like the
big house on a plantation, and the POW buildings were slave quarters. And
for the real die-hards, an old French prison in the MND Citadel was called
Alcatraz-where the likes of Jim Stockdale, Jerry Denton, Bob Shumaker, Sam
Johnson, and several others were isolated from the rest of the POWs.
frank
wrote:
> "CCBlack" <ccblack...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I always thought the abbreviation of Long Binh Jail, the local lockup
in South Vietnam was a bit hilarious at the time. LBJ.
Interesting how jargon changes, navigators used to be 'scope dopes' at
one point.
MAC pilots were known as 'trash haulers'. At one point there were some
unofficial USAF type wings put together overseas with a garbage can in
place of the shield. Though the supplies flown in to a remote location
were always appreciated.
For a while when things broke or an operation or flight test wasn't
going as planned, it was 'tits up'. Sort of went away in the PC
environment. Bunch of guys in the room lots of stuff like that went
on. Start getting women engineers, officers, NCOs, enlisted around,
language usually cleaned up.
'Fighter mafia' was anybody who wanted to get rid of the bomber
force.
'Texas Lawn Dart' was the name for the F-16 until they got the wiring
harness fixed so the damn thing didn't kill the pilot.
'F-18 fix' was an arrow that showed up on the computer displays, in
the glass cockpit instead of a lot of dedicated displays of gauges
like all the old cockpit photos show (called steam gauges at times) ,
newer systems had displays that could be called up. Weapons delivery,
you saw everything on the aircraft, on some you could touch what you
wanted to drop. Or move a cursor. Or flip a switch. Whatever. It could
change to say terrain map. Or track say a tanker you were looking for.
Or lots of enemy blips. Anyway, something used to go awry and pilots
would forget to flip a switch. F-18 fix was a large red arrow that
pointed to the switch to pull when whatever it was that went wrong
happened. Navy pilots flipped the right switch as needed. Engineers
were happy. So if anything was incorporated like that in a system, it
was an F-18 fix.
'Head shed' was usually base headquarters.
'Tenants' were people on the base that weren't in the chain of
command. Say in the AF you were at a SAC base, they flew bombers had
nuclear weapons. There might be a fighter squadron assigned there with
a few aircraft that answered to TAC instead of SAC. Usually did things
independently of whoever owned the base.
'Transient' were aircraft that passed through. Say flying from
Washington DC to Los Angeles. If you stopped at Lincoln AFB in
Nebraska you would be a transient aircraft at base operations. They'd
make sure you had a place to stay, gas up the bird, make sure you knew
the pointed end of the aircraft went which way on the runway.
USAFAJC. United States Air Force Academy Junior College. Heard this
from one engineer who went to the Academy and figured it wasn't for
him. Academy graduates were called 'ring knockers' usually they had
large class rings. If they showed up at your desk and didn't get
prompt attention would knock the ring on it. Think of it as a portable
bell to be rung at a hotel to get the staff to help you. Same
attitude.
A lot of things like this change over time. Some could be specific to
a place and time. Some term used in one place could be picked up and
used as people moved on and became more wide spread. Some could be
specific to a branch in the AF. The terms could be disparaging, sort
of friendly, a way to get back at the 'powers that be'. Some show up
after an event.
Sometimes you got confused and had a real 'WTF' moment.
Paul Saccani
<ccbla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Paul Saccani wrote:
>> What's the story with you chaps calling PW convicts?
>
>
>It's just a term made in jest. A bit of humor. The North Vietnamese
>called the U.S. airmen " Yankee Air Pirates ".
>
>So why would a POW not consider oneself a " con ".
Thanks.
Paul Saccani
<jeff.crow...@hp.com> wrote:
> Paul Saccani wrote:
>> What's the story with you chaps calling PW convicts?
>
>It's what they call themselves. A badge of honor, for my money....
Thanks, very illuminating.
Dan
Some female staff sergeant at Hurlburt Field complained that "red
balls" was sexist and offensive so they changed the term for emergency
aircraft repair to "red streak."
Scope dope also applied to ground radar operators. Piss pumpers were
the people who refueled aircraft. AFCS was called power steering. People
killed by napalm were referred to as crispy critters after the ceral of
the same name.
Some things that are long gone are the FOD training flicks with
topless women, training slide shows with slides of nude women thrown in
to keep one awake etc. The old M16 comic book is now considered sexist
and racist.
Then again, some things are best left behind. I recall a C-130
familiarization flick with a tech sergeant (?) using hand gestures like
civilian stewardesses did when pointing out features.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Roger Conroy
"Dan" <B24...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:aY9gn.5315$ND2...@newsfe05.iad...
Back when South Africa was embroiled in lethal argument with Angola and Cuba
(70's & 80s') a C130 was a "Vomit Comet".
Summer turbulence over the dessert along the Pretoria -
Grootfontein(Namibia) route that many thousands of troops flew was
legendary.
Chicken stew was "landmine chicken" due to the rough way the pieces were
chopped with lots of bone splinters.
Medics were called "Tampon Tiffies" because of the tampons they were said to
use to plug a bullet hole in the chest (to keep air out so that the lungs
don't collapse). I don't know if this is actually true. "Tiffy" was the
label used for a variety of support personnel - chaplains were "Soul
Tiffies". The actual Tiffies were the Technical Service Corps people -
mechanics, electricians, etc. A signaller (radioman) was a "Jimmy". An
aircraft used for radio relay from the ground battle back to HQ (usually
"orbiting" somewhere near the battle area) was called "Telstar" - Cessna
185s were commonly used in that role.
Dan
Last night I heard an interesting comment about C-130 being insulated
to keep noise in.
CCBlack
> >> What's the story with you chaps calling PW convicts?
> >It's just a term made in jest. A bit of humor. The North Vietnamese
> >called the U.S. airmen " Yankee Air Pirates ".
>
> >So why would a POW not consider oneself a " con ".
>
> Thanks.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul Saccani,
> Perth,
> Western Australia
Obviously there is more to the story. Those are not just " ha ha "
funny terms. American airmen were brutally tortured in prisons in
North Vietnam.
The Hoa Lo Prison was merely one site used by the North Vietnamese
Army to house, torture and interrogate captured servicemen, mostly
American pilots shot down during bombing raids. Although North
Vietnam was a signatory of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 which
demanded " decent and humane treatment " of prisoners of war, severe
torture methods were employed, such as rope bindings, irons, beatings,
starvation diets and prolonged solitary confinement.
The government of Vietnam ( then and still to this day ) firmly holds
to the view that Hoa Lo was a prison for criminals, not POWs, and that
those held there were " pirates " and " bandits " who had attacked
Vietnam without authority.
In a twist of irony ... or maybe something lost in translation ... the
Vietnamese even cite the nickname for the Hoa Lo Prison, " Hanoi
Hilton " as proof that inmates found the accommodations comparable to
a hotel's. Former prisoners' published memoirs and oral histories
identify the the site of numerous acts of torture.
The prison was built in Hanoi by the French, in dates ranging from
1886–1889 when Vietnam was still part of French Indochina. It was
intended to hold Vietnamese prisoners, particularly political
prisoners agitating for independence who were often subject to torture
and execution. With its inmates held in subhuman conditions, it had
become a symbol of colonialist exploitation and of the bitterness of
the Vietnamese towards the French.
So you could imagine the shock and dismay of a healthy stocky American
airman who goes from partying and eating his meals in an officers club
at a base in Thailand, flying combat missions, shot down and bailing
out ... parachuting into the jungle. Captured by the NVA, and even
though he was possibly injured from his ejection, being beaten and
stabbed and placed in the back of a pick-up and driven possibly
hundreds of miles over rough terrain without any treatment for his
wounds. Once he arrives at the prison, he is further beaten and made
to sign a " confession " that he is a " criminal " or an " air pirate
" and is not a soldier involved in a war but a " criminal " who has
committed acts of piracy against the government of North Vietnam.
After his " interrogation " he's taken to a cell and placed in rusty
leg irons from a supposedly by-gone medieval era. He won't be
released from the leg irons for any reason, not to go to the bathroom,
or feed himself or treat his wounds. His legs immediately begin to
take on painful infections from the rusty sharp tightly bound leg
irons ... and a prisoner in the cell next to him makes contact with
him ... and says ... " welcome to the Hanoi Hilton buddy ".
Do you get it now ?
Chris
Andrew Chaplin
<snip>
> Medics were called "Tampon Tiffies" because of the tampons they were
> said to use to plug a bullet hole in the chest (to keep air out so
> that the lungs don't collapse). I don't know if this is actually true.
I doubt it. A sucking chest wound needs something impermeable, like the
wrapping of a shell dressing to keep the air out. AIRI, the shell
dressing is applied over the wrapping to keep it in place.
> "Tiffy" was the label used for a variety of support personnel -
> chaplains were "Soul Tiffies". The actual Tiffies were the Technical
> Service Corps people - mechanics, electricians, etc. A signaller
> (radioman) was a "Jimmy".
AIUI, "Jimmy" comes from the figure of Hermes on the badge of the various
Corps of Signals, R Signals, RCC of Signals, etc.
> An aircraft used for radio relay from the
> ground battle back to HQ (usually "orbiting" somewhere near the battle
> area) was called "Telstar" - Cessna 185s were commonly used in that
> role.
I believe "tiffy" is borrowed from the RN where, with the advent of
steam, came the Engine Room Artificer, shortened to "tiffy." The surgeon
lieutenant's assistants, "sick berth attendants," became "sick berth
tiffies." They may have borrowed it in turn from the Army, as armourers
were first called artificers and still are "tiffies" colloquially,
despite evolution of the trade system, and long predating the Technical
Corps of the various armies of the Empire.
I am intrigued by the traditional epithets that are hard to figure out
such as "bootie" for a Royal Marine or "jarhead" for a U.S. Marine. The
Royal Canadian Horse Artillery (almost all the Regular Force's field
artillery units) have been known since the Korean War as "the Herbies"
and no one knows why. The 25 pounder's rammer (a stout rod that the No. 1
used when the piece was in action) and appointment canes carried by RCHA
sergeants major are known as "herbie beaters." Any tiffy or other support
trades who serves with them is known as a "herbie helper," and that came
along because of marketing of Hamburger Helper here in North America.
(RCHA is on-topic in RAM because they had integral air defence sub-units
when I served with them--and one day may have again.)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Roger Conroy
"Andrew Chaplin" <ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D268E5876...@216.196.109.144...
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> "Andrew Chaplin" <ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9D268E5876...@216.196.109.144...
>
> > "Roger Conroy" <rogercon...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in
Partridge's Concise Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English
says
Tiffy An engine room artificer: nautical: from the late 1890s. F.T.
Bullen 1899 (OED) 2. Hence, any artificer or fitter: mechanics',
Blaker 3 Hence a carpenter's term of contempt for a botching
incompetent fellow-carpenter--i.e.one only fit to work with metals.
Heard ca. 1967 (R.S.)--4. A arificer of the Royal Army Ordinance
Corps; applied loosley to a gun-fitter of the Royal Artillery; Armyca.
1910 H&P 5.As Tiffy a Hawker Typhoon fighter aircraft: RAF: 1943+
I heard a similar use of the word "plumber" in the U.S. Navy for
someone who can't handle a simple job. Also have heard of "bulkhead
watch" for someone so incompetent that his sole assignments consisted
of standing on the other side of a bulkhead where welding was taking
place. He would sound a warning if the paint caught fire.
Dave Kearton
news:Xns9D268E5876...@216.196.109.144...
>
> I am intrigued by the traditional epithets that are hard to figure out
> such as "bootie" for a Royal Marine or "jarhead" for a U.S. Marine. The
> Royal Canadian Horse Artillery (almost all the Regular Force's field
> artillery units) have been known since the Korean War as "the Herbies"
> and no one knows why. The 25 pounder's rammer (a stout rod that the No. 1
> used when the piece was in action) and appointment canes carried by RCHA
> sergeants major are known as "herbie beaters." Any tiffy or other support
> trades who serves with them is known as a "herbie helper," and that came
> along because of marketing of Hamburger Helper here in North America.
> (RCHA is on-topic in RAM because they had integral air defence sub-units
> when I served with them--and one day may have again.)
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
Did the Herbies wear berets ?
The only time I've heard the term 'Herbie' used here was in reference to a
customer of Herbert Johnson. Their berets were much more stylish than the
standard issue headgear that we plebs would wear.
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
Supposed to be Afrikaans. Several google cites using Afrikaans quotes.
From Ar TIF icer
Jack Linthicum
>
> news:Xns9D268E5876...@216.196.109.144...
>
> > "Roger Conroy" <rogercon...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in
One of several explanations for "jarhead"
The term "jarhead" as referring to a Marine comes from the same thing
that gave them the nickname "leathernecks" -- the leather collars on
some of their uniforms.
Before rubber was commonly available, the rings used to seal canning
jars were made of leather. So the implication is that the Marine's
leather collar is akin to the leather sealing rings once used on
canning jars, making him, litterally, a "jar head."
Which also gives you an idea about how far back the term goes!
fatcabral: It's nice that you were able to add that the leather
collars helped protect from saber cuts. But it wasn't necessary to
answer the question. The key point is leather collars relating to the
leather rings once used in canning. Please remember to rate answers on
whether they answer the question that was actually asked.
I've seen reference to the company that made their helmets, the Mason
Jar Company, or the haircuts.
# Military slang for a member the United States Marine Corps, i.e, a
Marine. The slang originated during WWII when the Mason Jar Company
started making their helmets, and refers to the similarity that the
shape of the helmet shares with a jar as well as the typical haircut
new recruits are given.[citation needed]
[] shows the value of the cite.
vaughn
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eab0031c-dab3-43ba...@t42g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
>Also have heard of "bulkhead
>watch" for someone so incompetent that his sole assignments consisted
>of standing on the other side of a bulkhead where welding was taking
>place. He would sound a warning if the paint caught fire.
Actually, there was always at least one "fire watch" for each welder anytime
welding was happening aboard ship. If there were bulkheads involved, then there
were multiple "fire watches". I don't remember (it's been a long time though)
them ever being called "bulkhead watches", and I don't remember the term ever
being used in a derogatory manner. That said, "fire watch" was a job for the
lowest members of the crew.
On a submarine, the "lowest members" of a crew were not determined strictly by
rank. Your place in the pecking order was also defined by your "qual" status.
If you had not yet earned your dolphins, you were a lowly "unqual". It is
because of my (then) unqual status that I, then an E5, found myself assigned as
a fire watch for a simple engine room welding job. Moments after the job
started, I was not only a fire watch, I found myself watching a fire! I suppose
I dutifully reported the fire (something the welder could have done just as
well) but then stood there transfixed for a few seconds watching the flames
consume some pipe lagging. It took only moments of this for the senior MM to
cuss, jam a fire extinguisher in my hand (after first carefully determining that
it was a CO2 unit that would not make a mess) and tell me to "get with the
program". For the first and last time in my life, I got to actually extinguish
a real fire aboard a nuclear submarine.
Vaughn
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Roommate in Hawaii was XO of a fleet tug. I got this term from him.
They had a guy assigned to the ship who that dumb. But he was tall and
could play basketball. So they traded him to SubPac for a seaman deuce
and a coke machine.
Andrew Chaplin
news:1ohgn.53606$_W6....@newsfe30.ams2:
> "Andrew Chaplin" <ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D268E5876...@216.196.109.144...
>
>>
>> I am intrigued by the traditional epithets that are hard to figure
>> out such as "bootie" for a Royal Marine or "jarhead" for a U.S.
>> Marine. The Royal Canadian Horse Artillery (almost all the Regular
>> Force's field artillery units) have been known since the Korean War
>> as "the Herbies" and no one knows why. The 25 pounder's rammer (a
>> stout rod that the No. 1 used when the piece was in action) and
>> appointment canes carried by RCHA sergeants major are known as
>> "herbie beaters." Any tiffy or other support trades who serves with
>> them is known as a "herbie helper," and that came along because of
>> marketing of Hamburger Helper here in North America. (RCHA is
>> on-topic in RAM because they had integral air defence sub-units when
>> I served with them--and one day may have again.) --
>
> Did the Herbies wear berets ?
Yes.
> The only time I've heard the term 'Herbie' used here was in reference
> to a customer of Herbert Johnson. Their berets were much more
> stylish than the standard issue headgear that we plebs would wear.
Herbert Johnson is known as "Herbie J." in the Canadian Forces and his
wares were worn not just by us Herbies; I believe he was one of the
hatters to The Royal Canadian Regiment as well (of course, The RCR
already had a widely known and perfect usable nickname: "The Chicken
F******s"). Most Canadian berets were made by Dorothea Knitting Mills in
Toronto (now Parkhurst Knitwear). (My field beret is a Herbie J, as is my
khaki service dress cap with the red staff band I would wear if I were to
return to the School--it cost over 90 quid! Codeba in Belgium makes a
better beret than Herbie J.)
frank
wrote:
Way back in the dark ages, AF would assign new personnel to hang tape
in the computer room. Some couldn't handle that job.
frank
wrote:
I've heard it had to do with them screwing their hat on. oops. cover.
frank
wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
We dumped the halon system twice where I worked. After that it was
disconnected. I think it was something like $15,000 for the halon.
Though it did solve the problem of 'Can we survive when the halon is
discharged?'
Automatic system was turned into one that had a manual discharge.
Roger Conroy
=================================================
I'm a fluent Afrikaans speaker and that is definitely not true.
"Artificer" is definitely not a native Afrikaans word.
I believe Partridge's etymology - it most likely came into Afrikaans as a
consequence of the close relationship that existed between British and South
African military.
Matt Wiser
that would be Plantation (or Citadel on DIA's map), but since Doug was at
the Zoo (Cu Loc), they could've shared a lockup there as well (I have Honor
Bound, but it's packed away at the moment).news:d92b7f4c-9fca-4b2c...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
William Black
Tiffy An engine room artificer: nautical: from the late 1890s. F.T.
Bullen 1899 (OED) 2. Hence, any artificer or fitter:
----------------------------
Take it from me, if you describe an engine room artificer as a fitter
you're risking a smack in the mouth.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
William Black
The term "jarhead" as referring to a Marine comes from the same thing
that gave them the nickname "leathernecks" -- the leather collars on
some of their uniforms.
-----------------------------
Same origin as 'bootie' for a Royal Marine
They wore a leather stock to keep their head's straight when drilling.
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
But in the late 19th? "Fitter" probably a parallel for the USN's
"Plumber". Pre-Watergate by quite a few years.
William Black
On Feb 22, 8:04 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:eab0031c-dab3-43ba...@t42g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tiffy An engine room artificer: nautical: from the late 1890s. F.T.
> Bullen 1899 (OED) 2. Hence, any artificer or fitter:
>
> ----------------------------
>
> Take it from me, if you describe an engine room artificer as a fitter
> you're risking a smack in the mouth.
But in the late 19th? "Fitter" probably a parallel for the USN's
"Plumber". Pre-Watergate by quite a few years.
------------------------
By the late nineteenth century the British system of graduating skilled
craftsmen was institutionalised.
Fitters were semi skilled, they assisted craftsmen.
'Artificers were 'invented' because they needed something more highly than a
craftsman who wasn't a commissioned engineer officer after they started
commissioning engineering officers.
RN artificers usually hold degree level qualifications, and have done so
for a very long time.
Jeff Crowell
Quite a few years ago, now, I had the help of These Spaces in
compiling a slang dictionary. A very old (ca. 2003) version
is hosted at hazegray.org, and a much newer version (2007) is
hosted at Combat Magazine:
http://www.combat.ws/S4/SAILOR/SAILOR.HTM .
Both sites contain a plethora of other interesting and
useful information.
I still update the FAQ but do not currently have a hosting
site, ergo the 2007 date.
Jeff
--
YOU KNOW YOU'RE A REDNECK IF...
The dog catcher calls for backup when he's called to your house.
CCBlack
> Hey CC, where was your dad? I'd bet that since he was with Doug Hegdahl,
> that would be Plantation (or Citadel on DIA's map), but since Doug was at
> the Zoo (Cu Loc), they could've shared a lockup there as well (I have Honor
> Bound, but it's packed away at the moment
I think it was the Plantation ... but I'm not sure exactly which
prison(s) he was held in. He was in solitary for a while. Then I
think they put him with Hegdahl for a while. My father has never gone
into great detail about what prison he was held in. He has talked
about some details. When he was in solitary the NV would come into
his cell and read communist propaganda to him for hours on end in some
sort of brainwashing attempt.
In the book ' Honor bound ' Dick Stratton says he tried to contact my
father at the ' bath stall ' inside the prison and dissuade him from
accepting early release.
My father was released with David Matheny and Norris Overly ( Feb.
1968 ).
I was looking at the book online ... and page 376 has some interesting
things that were said about the " MOB " ( Matheny, Overly, Black )
release.
Chris
Jack Linthicum
I am saying the slang would be a putdown of the person involved. Like
some electricians are "wire-tyers", ie just capable of putting gear
together but often not able to troubleshoot if the stuff doesn't work.
Like the FCC engineer that didn't think Swiss electricity had
different standards from U.S. electricity. Fried a few computers and
subsidiary equipment.
Peter Twydell
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:489e2150-5f06-48d0...@o3g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>
>The term "jarhead" as referring to a Marine comes from the same thing
>that gave them the nickname "leathernecks" -- the leather collars on
>some of their uniforms.
>
>-----------------------------
>
>Same origin as 'bootie' for a Royal Marine
>
>They wore a leather stock to keep their head's straight when drilling.
>
--
Peter
Ying tong iddle-i po!
Peter Twydell
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:eaad12d5-f3e8-4a6b...@o26g2000vbd.googlegroups.com..>.
>On Feb 22, 8:04 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:eab0031c-dab3-43ba...@t42g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Tiffy An engine room artificer: nautical: from the late 1890s. F.T.
>> Bullen 1899 (OED) 2. Hence, any artificer or fitter:
>>
>> ----------------------------
>>
>> Take it from me, if you describe an engine room artificer as a fitter
>> you're risking a smack in the mouth.
>
>But in the late 19th? "Fitter" probably a parallel for the USN's
>"Plumber". Pre-Watergate by quite a few years.
>
>------------------------
>
>By the late nineteenth century the British system of graduating skilled
>craftsmen was institutionalised.
>
>Fitters were semi skilled, they assisted craftsmen.
>
That may have been true in the nineteenth century, but in the RAF
fitters (and riggers) were skilled tradesmen.
>'Artificers were 'invented' because they needed something more highly
>than a craftsman who wasn't a commissioned engineer officer after they
>started commissioning engineering officers.
>
>RN artificers usually hold degree level qualifications, and have done
>so for a very long time.
>
--
William Black
"Peter Twydell" <Pe...@twydell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Dr+DEbKh...@twydell.demon.co.uk...
>
> That may have been true in the nineteenth century, but in the RAF fitters
> (and riggers) were skilled tradesmen.
In fact ex RAF ground crew are considered not highly skilled enough to work
on civilian aircraft and usually take extra qualification just before
leaving the service.
I remember many years ago doing the old CGLI Master Craftsman's Certificate
(Industrial electronics) along with a selection of senior NCOs from RAF
Henlow coming up for retirement, there was even a US serviceman of some
sort from RAF Chicksands.
This rather odd attitude about servicemen's skills goes back to the
Restoration as Cromwell's soldiers were given specific permission to carry
on the trades in civilian life that they'd followed in the army, but on the
Restoration this right was stripped from them as a means of reducing them
from 'journeymen' (skilled craftsman paid by the day) to unemployable.
Jim Wilkins
> ...
> >By the late nineteenth century the British system of graduating skilled
> >craftsmen was institutionalised.
> >RN artificers usually hold degree level qualifications, and have done
> >so for a very long time.
I've been reading the Titanic inquiry testimony. The black gang were
Stokers, Firemen and Trimmers, and don't call them by the wrong
title! At full speed (which they weren't) they had to hand shovel
nearly 700 tons of coal a day from the bunkers into wheelbarrows and
then into the furnaces. The smaller, faster Lusitania burned 1000.
Except for the few who were dismissed as their duty stations flooded
they stayed below running the pumps and keeping the electricity on
until the ship broke in half around them.
The crewman up on the aft funnel was a "Greaser" who attended to the
generators. His boss decided the generators had a lifetime supply of
oil and sent him up the funnel ladder. He saw the ship split open
right under him, then was knocked out and later picked up by a
lifeboat.
(Had the ship's double bottom been punctured?)
Q: And where did that water come from?
A: From the ocean, I suppose.
jsw
Joe Osman
wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
While in the USMC, I always heard that "jarhead" came about because
the folds of skin on the sides of some bald/extremely short haired
people looked like threads to screw their cover (hat) on. The squids
(Navy guys) said that another slang term for Marine - "gyrene" was the
sound that squid shit makes when it bounces off a drum.
Joe
Joe Osman
wrote:
The US Army has dropped all its numbered Specialist grades but kept
the rank of "Specialist" for non-NCO E-4s, which are the majority of
E-4s in the Army. The Army also whines periodically about problems
with leadership in its lower ranks. Go figure.
Joe
Joe Osman
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Marine Tactical Data System (MTDS) computer geeks used to call us
radar guys "radar plumbers" all the time back in 1970-1972. They must
have noticed me torqueing waveguide for hours at a time whenever we
put our radar set back together on operations and exercises.
Joe
Jim Wilkins
> ...
> The US Army has dropped all its numbered Specialist grades but kept
> the rank of "Specialist" for non-NCO E-4s, which are the majority of
> E-4s in the Army. The Army also whines periodically about problems
> with leadership in its lower ranks. Go figure.
>
> Joe
Spec 5 was a problematical rank because we could be stuffed into
positions of authority for which we had no training. I had to learn
how to do Charge of Quarters and Sergeant of the Guard by asking
someone. Apparently it was the lowest rank that could be sent out on
solo missions to other sites without being messed with.
In joint-service electronics class at Fort Monmouth the zoomies
constantly ribbed us about how much better they had it, until we
grunts made E-4 with less than a year in service.
The Marines there thought that Jar-head came from the cylindrical
shape of their covers.
http://www20.brinkster.com/gunnyg/jarhead.html
Considering how long they cling to the few words they know, I wouldn't
be surprised if "gyrene" was an insult from Baron von Steuben.
jsw
Gordon
> Some things that are long gone are the FOD training flicks with
> topless women, training slide shows with slides of nude women thrown in
> to keep one awake etc. The old M16 comic book is now considered sexist
> and racist.
In mid- 1944, Gunthers' Lutzow and Rall were both a bit frustrated at
the low level of proficiency that newly-minted Nachwuchs (Tyros,
Sprogs, FNGs, etc) displayed in air combat. Many of these noobs
emptied their guns at 2,000 yards without so much as grazing the
bombers they were trying to attack. So, their solution was a
"Shooter's Bible", a small booklet of tactics and basic information on
how to survive your first combat mission against 800 B-17s with 600
P-47s and P-51 escorts. The booklet is pretty cool and very similar
to the M-16 care and cleaning manual - lots of nekkid babes and gentle
chides to hopefully get a little necessary information to sink in. My
favorite is an image of a Teutonic hottie at long distance, as seen
through a Revi 16 gunsight. Then, the artist drew the same woman five
rings closer and the erstwhile fighter jock can see she is a butt ugly
pig -- message: get close enough to verify your target before you
start your attack run. I think Lutzow did the cartoons, which
actually are not bad. (Udet was a far better cartoonist but he was
long gone by that point.)
v/r Gordon
Gordon
wrote:
> "Roger Conroy" <rogercon...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote innews:hlrivt$kog$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> <snip>
>
> > Medics were called "Tampon Tiffies" because of the tampons they were
> > said to use to plug a bullet hole in the chest (to keep air out so
> > that the lungs don't collapse). I don't know if this is actually true.
>
> I doubt it. A sucking chest wound needs something impermeable, like the
> wrapping of a shell dressing to keep the air out. AIRI, the shell
> dressing is applied over the wrapping to keep it in place.
Thought that was why we all smoked Lucky Strikes and Camels, so we
would have the plastic pack wrapper for exactly this reason.
Otherwise, I can't think of any possible reason why we smoked those
gawd awful things.
Matt Wiser
Did your dad ever say why the NVN released him? Was it just their coming to
his cell and saying "You are going to be released," or what? The fallout
from that first release meant that Doug Hegdahl spent another year and a
half at Plantation before AF Col. Ted Guy agreed with Stratton and OK'd Doug
to take an early release. Doug actually wanted to stay and come home with
the others, but Stratton ordered him to go, saying that with the list of POW
names in his head, he could do more for the others outside Hanoi than
sitting in a cell for who knew how long.