Thunderbird (and other "show" a/c) combat-capable?
Bill Silvey
literally EVERY military aircraft they could lay their hands on, would
they also pull the Thunderbird's squadron off of "show duty" or have
their a/c been modified to the point of uselessness in combat (ie, no
internal gun, no combat radar, no combat software loaded into the flight
systems etc.)?
Just curious.
Oh, and for that matter, could any of NASA's X-planes be made combat
capable? This I doubt but again, just curious.
--
Bill Silvey, Oathmaster, Clan Wolverine - Fuck the IDSA - Death to Apple
Computer
"I post to see what kind of responses I will get. I don't know of every
single facet of a subject I post on." - ATN082268's confession in
posting
<19980604050705...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
that it does in fact post in rec.games.mecha only to troll.
Spell 'yrtsinim' backwards to email me.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
wrote:
>Presuming a "worst case" scenario where the United States or NATO needed
>literally EVERY military aircraft they could lay their hands on, would
>they also pull the Thunderbird's squadron off of "show duty" or have
>their a/c been modified to the point of uselessness in combat (ie, no
>internal gun, no combat radar, no combat software loaded into the flight
>systems etc.)?
I don't know about the F-16s, T-38s or other little jets used in the
T-Birds, but back when they flew F-4Es, there was no way they could
have been made combat-capable without extensive modification and
parts.
The entire radar package and auxiliary systems ( LCOSS computer,
bombing computer, etc. ) had been removed to provide space for
aircrew baggage; the gun had been removed and oxygen/hydraulic
servicing equipment moved into the space for ease-of-use, and in
the cockpit, the front radar scope/sight system ( "HUD" ) had
been removed, leaving a huge, gaping hole, with the effect similar to
an automobile without its dashboard, speedometer, guages, etc.
There were countless other minor modifications as well: from the
oil-smoke tanks installed where #7 fuel cell used to be, to the
integral boarding ladder with the chromed tape over the struts and
the toe depressions in the side of the aircraft with reversed hinges,
so that the crew needn't scuff the shoeshine on the toes of their
boots!
During the "gas crisis" of 1973/4, the T-Birds switched to less
physically-impressive but fuel-efficient T-38s and the almost useless
T-Bird F-4s were painted to match the VN-era camo of other F-4s, then
sent to the Replacement Training Wing at MacDill. There, they could
be used for only "Basic Flight Manuevers" training of new students,
since they lacked the systems for any other phase of training.
IF the need arose, it would have been easier to make a "pickled" jet
from the boneyard "combat capable".
- John T.
Julius Lancer
>Presuming a "worst case" scenario where the United States or NATO needed
>literally EVERY military aircraft they could lay their hands on, would
>they also pull the Thunderbird's squadron off of "show duty" or have
>their a/c been modified to the point of uselessness in combat (ie, no
>internal gun, no combat radar, no combat software loaded into the flight
>systems etc.)?
>
>
I have read claims in newspaper stories about the Thunderbird's that the
are combat ready and basically just need a paint job. (I don't believe it for
a second.)
John - N8086N
Big brother is watching. Disable cookies in your web browser.
-------------------------------------------
Wise man says "Never use a bank with the initials F. U."
-------------------------------------------
Are you interested in a professional society or
guild for programmers? Want to fight section 1706?
See www.programmersguild.org
Newsgroup: us.issues.occupations.computer-programmers
EMail Address:
_m-i-a-n-o_@_c_o_l_o_s_s_e_u_m_b_u_i_l_d_e_r_s._c_o_m_
Bill Silvey
> On Tue, 01 Jun 1999 15:42:50 -0400, Bill Silvey <yrts...@mpinet.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Presuming a "worst case" scenario where the United States or NATO needed
> >literally EVERY military aircraft they could lay their hands on, would
> >they also pull the Thunderbird's squadron off of "show duty" or have
> >their a/c been modified to the point of uselessness in combat (ie, no
> >internal gun, no combat radar, no combat software loaded into the flight
> >systems etc.)?
>
Mm. I figured as much. I remember seeing the TBirds in ... oh, 78?ish at
the Airport near Gadsden, AL - they were using T38s then...
Anyway, back on topic, again, I figured as much. I suspect that the
collision warning system and Bitching Betty are gone, too? :-)
Wingedhoof
>literally EVERY military aircraft they could lay their hands on, would
>they also pull the Thunderbird's squadron off of "show duty" or have
>their a/c been modified to the point of uselessness in combat (ie, no
>internal gun, no combat radar, no combat software loaded into the flight
>systems etc.)?
Indeed, the F-16s can be returned to combat configuration relatively quickly.
Several have been converted over the years. The first was an A-model in 1987.
I have a photo of that one over my desk with ECM pod on the centerline, 6 GBUs
and 4 AIM 9s on the wings, and a full 20mm load. The ordnance was delivered in
a live fire test on the range from the red/white/blue jet.
The Thunderbirds used a force structure change to prove the claim about
converting back to combat configuration in 72 hours. They planned the event
ahead of time, and then started the clock. It actually took far less than 72
hours to do everything but the paint job. Besides the paint, the most
noticeable de-mods consisted of removing the smoke system and smoke oil tank,
reinstalling the gun and ammo storage, and replacing the JFS exhaust door which
is removed for Thunderbird use.
Jim Barr
the F-16 can be combat ready in 48 hrs. The pilots along with their TBird duties also have to
remain combat qualified.
Regards
Jim Barr
Julius Lancer wrote:
> In article <375437B9...@mpinet.net>, mini...@mpinet.net wrote:
> >Presuming a "worst case" scenario where the United States or NATO needed
> >literally EVERY military aircraft they could lay their hands on, would
> >they also pull the Thunderbird's squadron off of "show duty" or have
> >their a/c been modified to the point of uselessness in combat (ie, no
> >internal gun, no combat radar, no combat software loaded into the flight
> >systems etc.)?
> >
Krztalizer
aircraft must remain in a condition that will allow them to be deployable in
combat configuration in something like 48 hours...? The current BA F/A Teens
retain nearly all of their combat equipment, regardless of what color they are
painted.
v/r
Gordon
Mary Shafer
> Oh, and for that matter, could any of NASA's X-planes be made combat
> capable? This I doubt but again, just curious.
Good grief, no. It took a team of almost a hundred people, a C-5, and
a TM van just to take the X-31 to the Paris Air Show. Experimental
aircraft don't have weapons suites or hard points for pylons or sensor
suites, they're fragile and need a lot of maintainence, they've got no
endurance, they have to have a control room full of engineers backing
up the pilot, and they'd be worthless in combat.
An X-plane would be a liability, not an asset, in the combat arena.
--
Mary Shafer http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
sha...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA
Lead Handling Qualities Engineer, SR-71/LASRE
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
For non-aerospace mail, use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com please
Bill Silvey
> An X-plane would be a liability, not an asset, in the combat arena.
Oh I figured as much but I had to ask - the Janes' FS for the PC
"Fighter's Anthology" includes the option to "fly" the X-31 and -33 as
well as some other "X" type A/C in combat. I always thought it was kind
of silly, myself. Heh, in the custom mission design kit I built a Vietnam
Alpha Strke - the NVAF was flying MiG 29's, while the USN birds were all
X-31's :-)
David Lentz
Khreriov wrote:
<snip>
> The Thunderbirds' F-16s can be made combat ready in 72 hours or less, or at
> least that what the publicists say. They have not been stripped or extensively
> modified except by necessity. The pilots are also line pilots with tons of
> experience.
I believe the Thuderbirds fly a stock Air Force F-16 with a fancy
paint and an smoke system instead of the 20MM cannon. The
reconveraion process consists of an new paint job and
reinstalling the 20MM. I don't know if the team travels with the
guns as part of their support equipment.
At one show I noticed that one of the ground crew was designated
as armament. Funny for a plane with no weapons. It wasn't
Dweezil, as she was cute.
David
Khreriov
>literally EVERY military aircraft they could lay their hands on, would
>they also pull the Thunderbird's squadron off of "show duty" or have
>their a/c been modified to the point of uselessness in combat (ie, no
>internal gun, no combat radar, no combat software loaded into the flight
>systems etc.)?
>
least that what the publicists say. They have not been stripped or extensively
modified except by necessity. The pilots are also line pilots with tons of
experience.
>Oh, and for that matter, could any of NASA's X-planes be made combat
>capable? This I doubt but again, just curious.
Doubtful. X-planes have that designation for a good reason -- they're
experimental.
BShimp3003
AC are fully combat-capable.
We're all here 'cause we ain't all there!
EarlLWatki
>aircraft must remain in a condition that will allow them to be deployable in
>combat configuration in something like 48 hours...?
The Blue Angel F/A-18's are from the first production batch of F-18's and never
were full combat F/A-18's. (Not fully carrier qualified) They were for training
and testing at Pax River. When the Navy was done with them they were turned
over to the Blues. I believe that the team has access to all 22 of these
aircraft.
The Thunderbird F-16's are production F-16's and can be repainted and put back
into service within 72 hours or less. For the Thunderbird mission the Gun is
pulled and replaced with the smoke system.
In the case of the Thunderbird F-4E's they were so heavly modified for the
Thunderbirds that they would never be combat F-4's. (Those days are gone) These
were new F-4's built for the Tbirds. Modifacations to the F-4 included removal
of the gun, and radar and replacing them with ballast. The gun sight etc was
also removed. The fin cap of the slot aircraft was replaced by a steel one
because of the heat and buffiting from the lead aircraft. The afterburner was
modified to allow the selection of "burner" at 89% power insted of 100%
military power. The former Tbird F-4's wound up at Edwards for testing and
chase etc.
When the Tbirds traded in there F-16A's for F-16C's they wound up in the ANG
till all F-16A's were replaced by F-16C's (the only A's left are those
modified for intercept) They were the last active Air Force unit to upgrade to
F-16C's and D's. One of the Tbird F-16A's is now in the Air Force Museum at
WPAFB.
-Earl
MLenoch
>and testing at Pax River. When the Navy was done with them they were turned
>over to the Blues.
Funny, I saw a pix of Blue #1 catching the three wire on the USS Harry Truman
last fall. He did that TWICE. I wonder how the LSO scored him?
V. Lenoch
Ross Roscoe Dillon
>The Thunderbird F-16's are production F-16's and can be repainted and put back
>into service within 72 hours or less. For the Thunderbird mission the Gun is
>pulled and replaced with the smoke system.
>.....The former Tbird F-4's wound up at Edwards for testing and chase etc.
With the mystique of the Thunderbirds, I always wondered what would
have gone thru the minds of an Iraqi (or Serbian...) pilot who
stumbled across a flight of combat loaded T-birds still in their Red,
White and Blue livery? While the birds would obviously be painted for
survivability reasons, the psychological effect would have to be
incredible <grin>
As for the ex-T-bird jets, while at Edwards I flew the last remaining
T-Bird F-4E (S/N 329). I then ran a test shop at Kelly AFB where one
of our two test T-38s was an ex-T-Bird (S/N 68-8137). It still had
the chrome pitot tube and engine ejectors.
Roscoe
USAF Flight Tester
(B-1, B-2, T-38, T-37, C-5, QF-106, F-16, F-5...)
------
If replying by email, please remove _no_spam_ from address
Dweezil Dwarftosser
> In the case of the Thunderbird F-4E's they were so heavly modified for the
>Thunderbirds that they would never be combat F-4's. (Those days are gone) These
>were new F-4's built for the Tbirds. Modifacations to the F-4 included removal
>of the gun, and radar and replacing them with ballast. The gun sight etc was
>also removed.
The F-4 T-birds were all from the original 66-xxx and 67- series; most
of these were shipped to the initial units with ballast in place of
the APQ-120 radar package. Later, when sufficient numbers of radar
sets were available, Project Hole Fill backfilled the nose.
(1971-72 time-frame.) Though I can't be certain - the jets selected
for T-Bird use were already in place at Nellis - it is likely that
these jets NEVER had the radar installed at all.
The T-Bird F-4Es had a plastic "doghouse" installed in place of the
radar set or ballast. This served in place of travel pods for
baggage. The useless radome held a foam carrier for two of the
large engine starter cartridges; there was no ballast in the nose.
They were not new birds "manufactured" for the demonstration team -
though it is likely they returned to the factory for the extensive
mods. When these tail numbers rolled off the production line
(1968/69), the T-Birds were still flying F-100s.
- John T., former MSgt, USAF, and member of the 1st, 4th, 15th,
36th, 50th, 56th, 86th, and 388th ( Korat Dive Toss )
Tactical Fighter Wings
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3227
Dweezil Dwarftosser
>There is a Lockheed Martin video on the TBirds and the statement is that with a new paint job
>the F-16 can be combat ready in 48 hrs. The pilots along with their TBird duties also have to
>remain combat qualified.
Just to add a little reality check to this:
In the days of the F-4 T-birds, the same claims for 48-hour
"conversion" to a combat role was widely advertised...it was part of
the show.
Technically, they could have dropped bombs ( using direct ) and fired
AIM-9s with the installation of nothing more than a LCOSS site head,
mounted on the dummy radar scopes that were used on the original
"lead nosed" 66-models ( before the radar was installed).
No gun, though; no BVR missiles.
I guess that could qualify as "combat capability"...
Dweezil Dwarftosser
<dlen...@rochester.rr.com//NOSPAM//> wrote:
>At one show I noticed that one of the ground crew was designated
>as armament. Funny for a plane with no weapons. It wasn't
>Dweezil, as she was cute.
Yeah, but I was handsome back then.
It takes a load toad to arm/dearm the eject cartridges used in the
tanks. They've got a good union.
- John T.
Ed Rasimus
>The F-4 T-birds were all from the original 66-xxx and 67- series; most
>of these were shipped to the initial units with ballast in place of
>the APQ-120 radar package. Later, when sufficient numbers of radar
>sets were available, Project Hole Fill backfilled the nose.
>(1971-72 time-frame.) Though I can't be certain - the jets selected
>for T-Bird use were already in place at Nellis - it is likely that
>these jets NEVER had the radar installed at all.
>
>The T-Bird F-4Es had a plastic "doghouse" installed in place of the
>radar set or ballast. This served in place of travel pods for
>baggage. The useless radome held a foam carrier for two of the
>large engine starter cartridges; there was no ballast in the nose.
>
>They were not new birds "manufactured" for the demonstration team -
>though it is likely they returned to the factory for the extensive
>mods. When these tail numbers rolled off the production line
>(1968/69), the T-Birds were still flying F-100s.
That's strange, and not in consonance with what I recall, although you
were obviously a lot closer to the issue than I was. My recollection
was that after two training accidents in prep for the '67 or '68
season, one mid-air in which Mike Murphy was killed (do I recall
correctly that the other aircraft was "Tony" McPeake?) and one in
which Stan Musser tore the wings off doing the pullup and rolls
through the center of the bomb-burst--both over T-bird Lake, the
practice area just N. of Nellis, the decision was made to ground the
F-100Ds.
Shortly thereafter, the C-of-S, "Three-Finger" Jack Ryan determined
that the AF needed a team and that the best course to avoid further
fatigued aircraft accidents was to equip with new, straight off the
production line F-4Es. He called in then Major, later M/G Neil Eddins
to form a new F-4 team. Neil had been slot in F-100s about 8 years
earlier and had just completed his 100 mission F-105 tour at Korat.
Neil collected a couple of friends, most notably Mack Angel (F-105
Wild Weasel and later B/G), Tom Gibbs, (F-105 100 missions) and Musser
as the nucleus of the new team. IIRC he also retained Chris Paterakis
from the F-100 team.
The second year of operation, Eddins added Nels Running (F-105 100
missons and later M/G).
One concession to the accidents was the elimination of the opposing
solo portion of the show and for several years the team operated with
five rather than six aircraft.
But, part of the reconstitution was all new aircraft. At least that's
the story I heard. And, considering the F-105B experience and the
F-100D fatigue problems, along with the fact that the production line
was in full operation it seems like a reasonable and prudent course of
action.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
*** Ziff-Davis Interactive
*** (http://www.zdnet.com)
David Lentz
Thanks, It was a petty little thing but it had me puzzled.
Doesn't take much.
David
tj1...@my-deja.com
needed
> literally EVERY military aircraft they could lay their hands on, would
> they also pull the Thunderbird's squadron off of "show duty" or have
> their a/c been modified to the point of uselessness in combat (ie, no
> internal gun, no combat radar, no combat software loaded into the
flight
> systems etc.)?
>
>
> Oh, and for that matter, could any of NASA's X-planes be made combat
> capable? This I doubt but again, just curious.
The Red Arrows have a team strength of 13 Hawks in total. Seven of
these Hawks are T1A standard which can be fitted with 30mm centre-line
cannon and two Sidewinders can be carried on wing pylons. This dates
back to the mixed-fighter force concept, whereby Hawk T1A trainers would
be used for UK air defence alongside the then Phantoms (since retired)
and Tornados. Photographs exist of Red Arrows Hawks carrying
Sidewinders.
The Italian Frecce Tricolori (Italian Aerobatic Team) flying the MB.399A
(PAN) in displays accounts for only 50% of its workload. The rest is
taken up with training in the fighter-bomber role. The team trains in
co-operation with the Italian Army for use in the CAS(close air support
mission) especially in the mountain environment. An anti-helicopter role
is being developed. Conversion from aerobatic to operational
configuration takes about two hours. Two 30mm cannon can be carried in
pods on wing pylons and a wide variety of bombs and rocket pods can be
carried also.
The Blue Angels are one of only two existing jet teams whose aircraft
and pilots have flown in combat. The other being Yugoslav Air Force
'Flying Stars'. The Blue Angels flew F-9F Panthers during the Korean
War as a nucleus of VF-191. The Flying Stars (239th Fighter Bomber
Squadron, 172nd Air Brigade ) based at Podgorica-Titograd fly G-4 Super
Galebs. The Super Galebs were flown in action during the break-up of
Yugoslavia. The team was reformed in 1997 and did apply during 1998 to
fly on the UK airshow circuit. This was turned down due to events in
Kosovo. No doubt the Flying Stars Super Galebs have been hastily
camouflaged for combat usage from their very bright red, white and blue
colour scheme. More than likely some of them have been destroyed during
the NATO strikes or they have been hidden away under camouflage-nets in
wooded areas.
TJ1234.
>
> --
> Bill Silvey, Oathmaster, Clan Wolverine - Fuck the IDSA - Death to
Apple
> Computer
> "I post to see what kind of responses I will get. I don't know of
every
>
> single facet of a subject I post on." - ATN082268's confession in
> posting
> <19980604050705...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
> that it does in fact post in rec.games.mecha only to troll.
> Spell 'yrtsinim' backwards to email me.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
>wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:
>>They were not new birds "manufactured" for the demonstration team -
>>though it is likely they returned to the factory for the extensive
>>mods. When these tail numbers rolled off the production line
>>(1968/69), the T-Birds were still flying F-100s.
>
>That's strange, and not in consonance with what I recall, although you
>were obviously a lot closer to the issue than I was. My recollection
>was that after two training accidents in prep for the '67 or '68
>season, one mid-air in which Mike Murphy was killed (do I recall
>correctly that the other aircraft was "Tony" McPeake?) and one in
>which Stan Musser tore the wings off doing the pullup and rolls
>through the center of the bomb-burst--both over T-bird Lake, the
>practice area just N. of Nellis, the decision was made to ground the
>F-100Ds.
The first time I saw the T-Birds was in April of 1968, at Amarillo
AFB, where I was just completing basic training. They flew F-100s.
( Certain about the aircraft and date.) IIRC, McPeake became 9th AF/CC
somewhere around that time.
The next time I saw them was at MacDill, late in 1971; they flew F-4s.
The third time was at MacDill again in '74 or '75 - but this time
it was T-38s.
>
>Shortly thereafter, the C-of-S, "Three-Finger" Jack Ryan determined
>that the AF needed a team and that the best course to avoid further
>fatigued aircraft accidents was to equip with new, straight off the
>production line F-4Es.
I have no doubt that they were new aircraft; all of them were back
then ! ( 1986/69 ) It took a long time before 66-284 ( or was it
66-292 ? I forget) became the first "E" with a 1000 hours. ( It was
"favored" in the flying schedule very heavily to the exclusion of
newer jets, in the race to make that milestone...)
I'm just saying that the conversion process to T-Bird was basically a
subtractive one, with some components replaced by "demo" equipment.
(e.g. - the smoke oil dribbler.) I really don't think they came out
of St.Louis with zero airframe hours as T-Birds, though. The first
production was pretty much dedicated to replacing Ds with Es in the
two wings that had E's back then: MacDill and Eglin. ( Surely Edwards
had a couple - maybe Nellis, too - but MacDill had 120 of them, Eglin
about the same.)
Ed Rasimus
>On Wed, 02 Jun 1999 14:29:06 GMT, thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) wrote:
>
>>wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:
>
>>The first time I saw the T-Birds was in April of 1968, at Amarillo
>AFB, where I was just completing basic training. They flew F-100s.
>( Certain about the aircraft and date.) IIRC, McPeake became 9th AF/CC
>somewhere around that time.
If McPeake became 9th AF/CC in '68/'69 that would mean he must have
languished as a M/G for more than 20 years before being elevated to
C-of-S. Those dates don't work. Trust me, McPeake was a Captain flying
F-100D Thunderbirds in '67/'68.
You're probably right about April '68 in Sabres, that would make the
accidents and transition to Phantoms occur for the '69 or '70 season.
>
>The next time I saw them was at MacDill, late in 1971; they flew F-4s.
>The third time was at MacDill again in '74 or '75 - but this time
>it was T-38s.
The oil crisis of '73-'74 led to the switch to Talons and elimination
of the "gas guzzler" Phantoms. Also meant the team was no longer a
world-wide demo team but rather CONUS only.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
>>>wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:
>>
>>>The first time I saw the T-Birds was in April of 1968, at Amarillo
>>AFB, where I was just completing basic training. They flew F-100s.
>>( Certain about the aircraft and date.) IIRC, McPeake became 9th AF/CC
>>somewhere around that time.
>
>If McPeake became 9th AF/CC in '68/'69 that would mean he must have
>languished as a M/G for more than 20 years before being elevated to
>C-of-S. Those dates don't work. Trust me, McPeake was a Captain flying
>F-100D Thunderbirds in '67/'68.
Oh, I do. I am obviously wrong about that. Thanks for the
correction.
- John T.
Mary Shafer
> >.....The former Tbird F-4's wound up at Edwards for testing and chase etc.
> As for the ex-T-bird jets, while at Edwards I flew the last remaining
> T-Bird F-4E (S/N 329). I then ran a test shop at Kelly AFB where one
> of our two test T-38s was an ex-T-Bird (S/N 68-8137). It still had
> the chrome pitot tube and engine ejectors.
I flew in the next-to-last F-4E, 66-0284. It still had the smoker
system and inverted-flight fuel system in place (we didn't try the
smoker out, but they'd used it in occasional Open Houses). This
airplane had been modified for chasing cruise missiles and had a box
on the panel in the back seat for that purpose. I don't remember what
the markings on this were, but they weren't very informative
I think 329 is the one that they kept for the Doolittle Flight Test
Museum here at EDW, but it's been ages since I've been down the flight
line and I'm not certain. At any rate, they kept one of the ex-Tbird
F-4Es and it will eventually go on display.
Mary Shafer
> Mary Shafer wrote:
> > An X-plane would be a liability, not an asset, in the combat arena.
> Oh I figured as much but I had to ask - the Janes' FS for the PC
> "Fighter's Anthology" includes the option to "fly" the X-31 and -33
> as well as some other "X" type A/C in combat. I always thought it
> was kind of silly, myself.
This is an interpretation problem--the X-31 went through military
utility testing toward the end of the test program. Included in the
maneuvers were ACM, Air Combat Maneuvers, against the safety chase or
a target airplane. They also did simulated ground attack, using my
ATLAS ground-based handling qualities task. Weapons displays for
targeting were added to the HUD displays for these maneuvers. One of
the MIL UTIL pilots was a Marine test pilot recently out of the USAF
TPS who had flown F-18s in Desert Storm; he was selected for the
project because of his recent combat experience and test pilot
training.
So, yes, they have flown combat-type maneuvers with the X-31,
evaluating its utility in real military tasks as well as in flight
test and flight research tasks. However, the airplane was not armed.
I don't think it even had radar, but I wasn't close enough to the
project to be certain.
g_al...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> >
> >>wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:
> >
> >>The first time I saw the T-Birds was in April of 1968, at Amarillo
> >AFB, where I was just completing basic training. They flew F-100s.
> >( Certain about the aircraft and date.) IIRC, McPeake became 9th
AF/CC
> >somewhere around that time.
>
> If McPeake became 9th AF/CC in '68/'69 that would mean he must have
> languished as a M/G for more than 20 years before being elevated to
> C-of-S. Those dates don't work. Trust me, McPeake was a Captain flying
> F-100D Thunderbirds in '67/'68.
Yup, he sure was. I've got a photo in a book somewhere of Merrill
"Tony" McPeak (no 'e') on the ladder of his T-bird Hun, and he was a
Captain at the time. It also includes the cause of his crash, which I'll
check when I find it.
> You're probably right about April '68 in Sabres, that would make the
> accidents and transition to Phantoms occur for the '69 or '70 season.
Transitioned to the F-4 in 1969, according to one source to hand.
But, as John wrote, they used early F-4 a/c, from blocks 31, 32 and 33.
One of the a/c was 66-0286, the third production F-4E. Others appear to
have been 66-0289, -0290 (T-birds #8, crashed 20/1/71, but repaired)
[some possible discrepancy about 289 and 290; the source is
contradictory about which one was used], -0294 from block 31 ; Block 32s
66-0315 (#3), -0319 (#5), -0321 (#3, written off Andrews AFB 6/72),
-0329 (#7); Block 33s 66-0353 (team trainer), -0377.
Most of these a/c later served as flight test a/c or in training service
(AFFTC-AFSC, 35th TFW, 57th TTW, 57th FWW). One at least, 66-0319,
wound up on strength of the 4th TFW from 10/75. I don't know if it had
been brought up to combat standard, or was used for training only.
There may have been others. All info from F.K. Mason's book "Phantom: A
Legend in its Own Time"). So it seems John is correct that new a/c
weren't used, but rather those of a very early production standard,
often those delivered without radars.
Guy
Ross Roscoe Dillon
<sha...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>I think 329 is the one that they kept for the Doolittle Flight Test
>Museum here at EDW, but it's been ages since I've been down the flight
>line and I'm not certain. At any rate, they kept one of the ex-Tbird
>F-4Es and it will eventually go on display.
So they named the mythical museum to be after Doolittle? I always
admired him and really enjoyed his autobiography ("I Could Never Be So
Lucky Again"). For those not in the know, his grandson (JD III) was a
test pilot as well and for a while was the Commandant of the USAF Test
Pilot School. He was a member of the F-20 Test Team (among others).
Ross Roscoe Dillon
<sha...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>One of
>the MIL UTIL pilots was a Marine test pilot recently out of the USAF
>TPS who had flown F-18s in Desert Storm; he was selected for the
>project because of his recent combat experience and test pilot
>training.
Do you recall the name? That fits the description of a TPS classmate
of mine (Rick Sturckow) who is now an astronaut
Mary Shafer
> On 03 Jun 1999 09:32:18 -0700, Mary Shafer
> <sha...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> >One of
> >the MIL UTIL pilots was a Marine test pilot recently out of the USAF
> >TPS who had flown F-18s in Desert Storm; he was selected for the
> >project because of his recent combat experience and test pilot
> >training.
>
> Do you recall the name? That fits the description of a TPS classmate
> of mine (Rick Sturckow) who is now an astronaut
No, it doesn't. Rick didn't fly the X-31. But the Marine F-18 pilot
who did, after going to USAF Test Pilot School, is now an astronaut,
too. They might even have been selected in the same group, but I
think Rick went earlier. Anyway, The guy I'm talking about, who I met
when he was a student down at TPS, is Major Christopher J. "Gus"
Loria, USMC. I do a lot of work with the TPS on account of I have
lots of projects that they can support as senior projects and produce
useful data.
Mary Shafer
> On 03 Jun 1999 09:16:34 -0700, Mary Shafer
> <sha...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I think 329 is the one that they kept for the Doolittle Flight Test
> >Museum here at EDW, but it's been ages since I've been down the flight
> >line and I'm not certain. At any rate, they kept one of the ex-Tbird
> >F-4Es and it will eventually go on display.
>
> So they named the mythical museum to be after Doolittle? I always
> admired him and really enjoyed his autobiography ("I Could Never Be So
> Lucky Again"). For those not in the know, his grandson (JD III) was a
> test pilot as well and for a while was the Commandant of the USAF Test
> Pilot School. He was a member of the F-20 Test Team (among others).
I just heard last month that Jim (the grandson) has retired from the
USAF and gone to fly at one of the major US airlines. It might be
Delta, but I'm not sure (Taco went to United as a test pilot and Hoot
went to Delta as a line pilot, as did Steve Stowe, who was Jim's
deputy commandant, I think). I met him when he was the commandant of
the Test Pilot School, as I was working with some of his students on
their project. Really nice guy as well as a good pilot.
Dudley Henriques
Murphy....but strange thing here is that I had a close personal friend
leading the Blues; Skip Umstead. He was killed in a mid-air at Lakehurst
during an arrival show. The other airplane was flown by the Marine
member of the Blues, Mike Murphy! How strange it is!!!!
Dudley
Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
> wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:
>
> >The F-4 T-birds were all from the original 66-xxx and 67- series; most
> >of these were shipped to the initial units with ballast in place of
> >the APQ-120 radar package. Later, when sufficient numbers of radar
> >sets were available, Project Hole Fill backfilled the nose.
> >(1971-72 time-frame.) Though I can't be certain - the jets selected
> >for T-Bird use were already in place at Nellis - it is likely that
> >these jets NEVER had the radar installed at all.
> >
> >The T-Bird F-4Es had a plastic "doghouse" installed in place of the
> >radar set or ballast. This served in place of travel pods for
> >baggage. The useless radome held a foam carrier for two of the
> >large engine starter cartridges; there was no ballast in the nose.
> >
> >They were not new birds "manufactured" for the demonstration team -
> >though it is likely they returned to the factory for the extensive
> >mods. When these tail numbers rolled off the production line
> >(1968/69), the T-Birds were still flying F-100s.
>
> That's strange, and not in consonance with what I recall, although you
> were obviously a lot closer to the issue than I was. My recollection
> was that after two training accidents in prep for the '67 or '68
> season, one mid-air in which Mike Murphy was killed (do I recall
> correctly that the other aircraft was "Tony" McPeake?) and one in
> which Stan Musser tore the wings off doing the pullup and rolls
> through the center of the bomb-burst--both over T-bird Lake, the
> practice area just N. of Nellis, the decision was made to ground the
> F-100Ds.
>
> Shortly thereafter, the C-of-S, "Three-Finger" Jack Ryan determined
> that the AF needed a team and that the best course to avoid further
> fatigued aircraft accidents was to equip with new, straight off the
> production line F-4Es. He called in then Major, later M/G Neil Eddins
> to form a new F-4 team. Neil had been slot in F-100s about 8 years
> earlier and had just completed his 100 mission F-105 tour at Korat.
>
> Neil collected a couple of friends, most notably Mack Angel (F-105
> Wild Weasel and later B/G), Tom Gibbs, (F-105 100 missions) and Musser
> as the nucleus of the new team. IIRC he also retained Chris Paterakis
> from the F-100 team.
>
> The second year of operation, Eddins added Nels Running (F-105 100
> missons and later M/G).
>
> One concession to the accidents was the elimination of the opposing
> solo portion of the show and for several years the team operated with
> five rather than six aircraft.
>
> But, part of the reconstitution was all new aircraft. At least that's
> the story I heard. And, considering the F-105B experience and the
> F-100D fatigue problems, along with the fact that the production line
> was in full operation it seems like a reasonable and prudent course of
> action.
>
JSH517
"Roscoe" Dillon) writes:
>With the mystique of the Thunderbirds, I always wondered what would
>have gone thru the minds of an Iraqi (or Serbian...) pilot who
>stumbled across a flight of combat loaded T-birds still in their Red,
>White and Blue livery? While the birds would obviously be painted for
>survivability reasons, the psychological effect would have to be
>incredible <grin>
It would have either scared the hell out of the happless soul that ran into
them , or made them the biggest target in the air .
Beware the Fury of a Patient Man
Ed Rasimus
>Ed. I believe McPeak flew on the 66 team in 100's. I don't remember
>Murphy....but strange thing here is that I had a close personal friend
>leading the Blues; Skip Umstead. He was killed in a mid-air at Lakehurst
>during an arrival show. The other airplane was flown by the Marine
>member of the Blues, Mike Murphy! How strange it is!!!!
>
I had another email from a RAM reader who corrected my memory on
Murphy (could be Murphy's Law?) Apparently Murphy was a Blue who
morted around 1970. Upon further cogitation I decided the name had
been Miller--I sent the fellow a note to that effect and he replied
that Miller also was a Blue.
All of which leaves me stumbling for the name. My very vivid
recollection was that there was consistent alliteration among the
three accident pilots during that final two months of the F-100
Thunderbird era--McPeak, Musser and the third guy.
The RAM reader gave me a list of all the T-bird fatalities and the
name he offers is Jack Thurman, which I confess is unfamiliar to me.
He must have been a new team member for the coming season.
Strange also is the Skip Umstead name. While I was at Korat in '72-'73
flying F-4Es the wing/CC was Stan Umstead. He was replaced by Mele
Vojvodich (which is a name unlikely to be duplicated.)
Oh well, they tell me memory is the second thing to go as you get
older. I forget what they said was first....
g_al...@hotmail.com
Dudley Henriques <dhe...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> Ed. I believe McPeak flew on the 66 team in 100's. I don't remember
> Murphy....but strange thing here is that I had a close personal friend
> leading the Blues; Skip Umstead. He was killed in a mid-air at
Lakehurst
> during an arrival show. The other airplane was flown by the Marine
> member of the Blues, Mike Murphy! How strange it is!!!!
>
>
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
<snip>
> > That's strange, and not in consonance with what I recall, although
you
> > were obviously a lot closer to the issue than I was. My recollection
> > was that after two training accidents in prep for the '67 or '68
> > season, one mid-air in which Mike Murphy was killed (do I recall
> > correctly that the other aircraft was "Tony" McPeake?) and one in
> > which Stan Musser tore the wings off doing the pullup and rolls
> > through the center of the bomb-burst--both over T-bird Lake, the
> > practice area just N. of Nellis, the decision was made to ground the
> > F-100Ds.
Found the source I was looking for. It's in David Anderton's Osprey
book on the F-100. McPeak's accident was on 21 July 1967, during a show
at Laughlin AFB, Tx. As McPeak himself relates, he'd just made a high
speed solo pass, and was pulling up preparatory to doing aileron rolls
when the wing center section failed at 6.5g (determined by examination
of the wreckage). When that happened, the forward fuselage tank dumped
its fuel into the engine, which exploded blowing the first six feet or
so of the nose off the a/c (i.e. pretty much the whole intake).
McPeak's instantaneous thought when he felt the explosion was that he'd
had a compressor stall, and he'd started to ease off on the stick when
he realized that it warn't no stall. By this time the outer wings were
folding up, and he'd already started to eject.
Examination of the wing afterwards revealed about 40 fatigue cracks in
the structure, most spreading from bolt holes. F-100s were immediately
restricted to 4g while a temporary fix (external strengthening panels)
was made, and eventually the wing box itself was apparently modded at
much greater cost.
So, on his first practice flight flying in a fully-modded a/c, while he
was starting the inverted to inverted roll, the canopy blew off. His
first thought was "Oh, No, not again!" Fortunately, he was practicing
at about 500 feet at the time, higher than he would normally be in a
show, so he had time to think about the problem. He got his heart rate
back under control and landed it.
Apparently, when the ejection seat had been re-installed, the canopy
emergency jettison handle hadn't been fully seated. The negative g he
put on it while starting the maneuver was enough to activate it.
Mary Shafer
> x-no-archive: yes
> On 01 Jun 1999, Mary Shafer <sha...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> >An X-plane would be a liability, not an asset, in the combat arena.
>
> Did anyone ever do weapons separation tests on the AFTI F-16 ?
The AFTI/F-16 isn't an X-plane but a technology testbed. It's a
regular old F-16 airframe, so there's no need to do special weap-sep
testing, as the regular testing would apply.
Bill Silvey
> This is an interpretation problem--the X-31 went through military
> utility testing toward the end of the test program. Included in the
> maneuvers were ACM, Air Combat Maneuvers, against the safety chase or
> a target airplane. They also did simulated ground attack, using my
> ATLAS ground-based handling qualities task. Weapons displays for
> targeting were added to the HUD displays for these maneuvers. One of
> the MIL UTIL pilots was a Marine test pilot recently out of the USAF
> TPS who had flown F-18s in Desert Storm; he was selected for the
> project because of his recent combat experience and test pilot
> training.
>
> So, yes, they have flown combat-type maneuvers with the X-31,
> evaluating its utility in real military tasks as well as in flight
> test and flight research tasks. However, the airplane was not armed.
> I don't think it even had radar, but I wasn't close enough to the
> project to be certain.
<snip sig>
Hunh! Neat. Thanks for the info.
Dudley Henriques
get a second chance in the low altitude aerobatic business, let alone a
third. His canopy escapade brings back a sharp memory or two..........
I was performing in an air show at New castle AFB in Wilmington Delaware
back in 1962. The airplane was a privately owned P51. For several years
I had used a climbing three point hesitation rolling tactical break to a
360 overhead pattern to end the routine. It was simple enough...meto
power [46" 2700] and about 350 indicated on a flat low initial at about
150 feet. I crossed the threshold and began the first point with a
slight pull....everything ok there....went to the second point, inverted
at about 300 feet...the proverbial crap hit the fan. The seat, which had
been modified for a large negative g strap I had installed to augment
the regular belt and harness, slid up [or down in this case] the
adjustment rails and pinned my head against the top of the canopy. I
didn't know it at the time of course, but one of the seat pins was
missing. The other one sheared.
Talk about a "There I was" story.....
I couldn't pull the pressure off for the obvious reason that my rather
small body would have made a rather large hole in the ground about 2
seconds later; not to mention scratching the paint a bit on the old
Mustang. I had to hold forward pressure through the point which just
about broke my neck in the process. Completing the roll without the last
point, the damn seat now went to the extreme low position.
Now I'm a little guy fellas...about 5'8". In level flight in the 51
with the seat in the low position, my eyeballs were level with the area
right between the gyro compass and the turn and bank indicator.
That was how I managed to land the bird.
Anyway, in 1992 the neck thing finally caught up with me. Two operations
and the flying gig was done.
End of story...
Dudley