What is "Full Military Power"?
Michael Lindeburg, PE
I have an engineering document that refers to "full military power"
in the context of a gas turbine. I can deduce that it is higher than
"normal power" but short of afterburners. Is there a formal definition,
maybe some specific percentage of "normal power"?
Thank you.
--
Michael R. Lindeburg, PE, Publisher
Professional Publications, Inc., http://www.ppi2pass.com
Review for the NCEES EIT (FE), PE, LS, LSIT engineering exams;
NCARB ARE; and NCIDQ licensing & certification exam reviews
"Your comments, suggestions, and (ugh!) criticisms are always welcome."
Ross Dillon
>I have an engineering document that refers to "full military power"
>in the context of a gas turbine. I can deduce that it is higher than
>"normal power" but short of afterburners. Is there a formal definition,
>maybe some specific percentage of "normal power"?
>
>Thank you.
Full throttle without lighting the afterburners.
In heavies, there are often various levels of maximum power, defined
by how long one can run at that power. With the possible exception of
the B-1 (which has afterburners), no heavy that I know uses the term
"military power".
In fighters, on the other hand, there is one full throttle setting
short of engaging the 'blower - military power.
Roscoe
F-16 Flight Tester
------
To reply, please remove _no_spam from address
John Weiss
Michael Lindeburg, PE wrote:
>
> I have an engineering document that refers to "full military power"
> in the context of a gas turbine. I can deduce that it is higher than
> "normal power" but short of afterburners. Is there a formal definition,
> maybe some specific percentage of "normal power"?
In the Navy, it is full thrust without afterburner, limited to 30
minutes. After that time, a reduced "normal" rated power setting must
be used. Military thrust is usually limited by RPM and EGT.
--
John Weiss (John.R...@boeing.com -- remove *NOSPAM*. from reply
address)
737/757 Scientific Computing Development
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
Benjamin H. Schapiro
Strange that these terms still survive. While they may be RAF in origin
the earliest record I have for them is 1942 era USN Fighter Direction
Officer use. Then the terms were:
SAUNTER = cruise
LINER = unknown as to the exact meaning
BUSTER = Best sustainable speed
GATE = Maximum speed
ARROW = a true heading instead of magnetic.
EMERGENCY LIGHTS = instruction to activate a special feature of IFF to
make an IFF aircraft stand out in the crowd.
GUNS = warning to intercepting VF they are in range of TF's guns and to
break off chase.
John Monsarrat in ANGEL ON THE YARDARM mentions a number of the FDO terms
in context. As a FDO he had to know them all. Too bad he didn't include
them in an appendix.
Ben Schapiro
In article <9mhK9FA+...@aetherem.demon.co.uk>, Matt Clonfero
<Ma...@aetherem.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Gregg Germain <gr...@clark.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> > As you have read, Full Mil Power means full throttle, no afterburner.
> >
> > In addition, the USN (at least) uses code words to indicate whether
> >the pilot should fly to an intercept at full mil or AB.
> >
> >Buster = full mil
> >
> >Gate = ab
> >
> >origin of the terms comes from the British.
>
> I think you have these reversed - aircraft used to have a wire across
> the throttle travel (the gate), that indicated maximum continuous power.
> Beyond this level was `war emergency power,' and to obtain it you had to
> break, or bust, the gate. Hence the current usage is `gate' for full
> military power, and `buster' for atferburner.
>
> Aetherem Vincere
> Matt.
> --
>
================================================================================
> Matt Clonfero: Ma...@aetherem.demon.co.uk | To Err is Human
> My employers and I have a deal - They don't | To forgive is not Air
Force Policy
> speak for me, and I don't speak for them. | -- Anon, ETPS
--
Ben Schapiro
scha...@notis.nospam*.com The reply to: address has the obvious error of 'nospam*.'
The Annals of the Brewster Buffalo Association may be found at:
http://www.concentric.net/~danford/buff.htm
The URL for the new web page of the National Museum of Naval Aviation is: http://www.naval-air.org
Those who fail to study history are doomed to never get the joke.
hp...@mail.gte.net
Full military power is simply 100% throttle w/o using afterburners.
Usually, the throttle goes from 0 to 100 %, with a detent for
afterburner and a detent for reverse thrust (if so equipped)
Now, during WWII, they used WEP - War Emergency Power, which is a
higher than normal throttle setting (110% or something, if I recall)
"Michael Lindeburg, PE" <spdr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>I have an engineering document that refers to "full military power"
>in the context of a gas turbine. I can deduce that it is higher than
>"normal power" but short of afterburners. Is there a formal definition,
>maybe some specific percentage of "normal power"?
>
Gregg Germain
Benjamin H. Schapiro (scha...@notis.nospam.com) wrote:
: Strange that these terms still survive. While they may be RAF in origin
: the earliest record I have for them is 1942 era USN Fighter Direction
: Officer use. Then the terms were:
: BUSTER = Best sustainable speed
: GATE = Maximum speed
This is how I understand them as well:
props: Buster means full power up to the wire gate
Gate - push past the gate into WEP
ab jets: Buster: Mil power
gate: afterburner.
--- Gregg
"I don't want to die, baby.
gr...@head-cfa.harvard.edu but if I gotta die......
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-7237 I'm gonna die last." Robert Mitchum
Gregg Germain
Jim Harler (jha...@imagicgames.com) wrote:
: Gregg Germain wrote:
: >
: > : I think you have these reversed - aircraft used to have a wire across
: > : the throttle travel (the gate), that indicated maximum continuous power.
: > : Beyond this level was `war emergency power,' and to obtain it you had to
: > : break, or bust, the gate. Hence the current usage is `gate' for full
: > : military power, and `buster' for atferburner.
: >
: > : Aetherem Vincere
Jim watch out for your attributions as it gets confusing: I didn't
write the above paragraph, Aetherem Vincere did. ;^)
J.D. Baldwin
>I think you have these reversed - aircraft used to have a wire across
>the throttle travel (the gate), that indicated maximum continuous
>power. Beyond this level was `war emergency power,' and to obtain it
>you had to break, or bust, the gate. Hence the current usage is `gate'
>for full military power, and `buster' for atferburner.
When I was Air Operations Watch Officer in USS Nimitz, I told pilots
to "buster" about two or three times a day. I only told one guy
*ever* to "gate, if possible." I think someone would have mentioned
it if I'd been mixing the terms up.
--
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tarver Engineering
On Thu, 7 Aug 1997 13:43:16 GMT, bal...@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
wrote:
>In article <9mhK9FA+...@aetherem.demon.co.uk>, Matt Clonfero
><Ma...@aetherem.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>I think you have these reversed - aircraft used to have a wire across
>>the throttle travel (the gate), that indicated maximum continuous
>>power. Beyond this level was `war emergency power,' and to obtain it
>>you had to break, or bust, the gate. Hence the current usage is `gate'
>>for full military power, and `buster' for atferburner.
>
>When I was Air Operations Watch Officer in USS Nimitz, I told pilots
>to "buster" about two or three times a day. I only told one guy
>*ever* to "gate, if possible." I think someone would have mentioned
>it if I'd been mixing the terms up.
Jet engine thrust is controlled by a fuel controller. The throttle
has a switch at 80%, below which the afterburner can not be engaged.
The full thrust setting is done at engine trim. Pushing the throttle
past 100% does nothing.
John
Matt Clonfero
"J.D. Baldwin" <bal...@netcom.com> wrote:
>When I was Air Operations Watch Officer in USS Nimitz, I told pilots
>to "buster" about two or three times a day. I only told one guy
>*ever* to "gate, if possible." I think someone would have mentioned
>it if I'd been mixing the terms up.
Hmm. I remember reading this a long time ago. I'll defer to your better
knowledge and see if I can find it in writing.
Tarver Engineering
On Thu, 07 Aug 1997 19:32:04 GMT, Tos...@aol.com (Charles S. Krin, DO
FAAFP) wrote:
>On 5 Aug 97 19:05:19 GMT, gr...@clark.harvard.edu (Gregg Germain)
>wrote:
>snip
>>Buster = full mil
>>
>>Gate = ab
>>
>>origin of the terms comes from the British.
>>
>While I don't know the origin for "Buster," I think that you will find
>that the term "Gate" refers to the fact that to get to the Afterburner
>setting on the throttle control, you have to pass a detent or "gate"
>that prevents accidental passage.
>
>So to "pass the gate" would be to go into AB.
The gate is a lockout for AB below 80% thrust. It is not posible to
engage the AB below that throttle setting. On some throttles there
are .020 lockwire holes at 80%. Full mil power refers to engine
thrust without AB. (ie 100% thrust)
I remember hearing news reports on CNN during the Gulf War where
pilots were thrilled to actually get to use thier AB.
John
Mike Tighe
>On 5 Aug 97 19:05:19 GMT, gr...@clark.harvard.edu (Gregg Germain)
>wrote:
>snip
>>Buster = full mil
>>
>>Gate = ab
>>
>>origin of the terms comes from the British.
>>
>While I don't know the origin for "Buster," I think that you will find
>that the term "Gate" refers to the fact that to get to the Afterburner
>setting on the throttle control, you have to pass a detent or "gate"
>that prevents accidental passage.
>
>So to "pass the gate" would be to go into AB.
>
Sorry if I am confusing things, but I am sure that 'Buster' and 'Gate'
have their origins in RAF 1940's r/t practices. (Wasn't there also
'Liner' for maximum endurance, or something like that?) So I think AB
is later usage that has developed, although operationally it may mean
the same thing (see below).
I know there are a few people out there with a slight down on Bill
Gunston at the moment, (but hey, if your output is vast, there are
bound to be a few mistakes, so give him a break), but the relevant
definition he gives for 'Gate' in Jane's Aerospace Dictionary is in
the form of a quotation:
5 In air intercept: ''Fly at maximum possible speed for limited
period'' (DoD)
He quotes 'Buster' as 'fly at maximum continuous power'.
The definitions are definitely in quotation marks, with one attributed
to the DoD. So does anyone know which DoD document is the source he
used for the definitions.
Mike Tighe -
Striving steadily towards a 4,000 hour
mean time between sense of humour failures!
Tarver Engineering
On Tue, 12 Aug 1997 10:22:14 -0700, Darrell Schmidt
<sch...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
>> Jet engine thrust is controlled by a fuel controller. The throttle
>> has a switch at 80%, below which the afterburner can not be engaged.
>> The full thrust setting is done at engine trim. Pushing the throttle
>> past 100% does nothing.
>>
>> John
>
>Well, John, that depends on what Jet Engines you're talking about. The
>4 J-79s on the B-58 developed full military power (100%) at full
>throttle (without lifting). Then you lifted any or all of the throttles
>and moved them further forward which lit the afterburners. We had about
>3-4 inches of variable afterburner throttle settings unless the RAT got
>to a certain level. Above a certain RAT (I can't remember) the RPM
>range control was automatic. You could always achieve full overspeed
>RPM by raising the throttles again and placing them in overspeed or,
>with the throttles at full burner (but not in overspeed range), the
>engine control automatically selected overspeed under certain RAT
>temperature conditions.
I get user unknown when I answer your email. I say you are full of
shit. Moving the throttle only changes an input to the fuel
controller. Overspeeding J-79s creates a catastrophgic failure in
short order.
What video game were you playing when you did this?
John
Darrell Schmidt
Tarver Engineering wrote:
> Jet engine thrust is controlled by a fuel controller. The throttle
> has a switch at 80%, below which the afterburner can not be engaged.
> The full thrust setting is done at engine trim. Pushing the throttle
> past 100% does nothing.
>
> John
Well, John, that depends on what Jet Engines you're talking about. The
4 J-79s on the B-58 developed full military power (100%) at full
throttle (without lifting). Then you lifted any or all of the throttles
and moved them further forward which lit the afterburners. We had about
3-4 inches of variable afterburner throttle settings unless the RAT got
to a certain level. Above a certain RAT (I can't remember) the RPM
range control was automatic. You could always achieve full overspeed
RPM by raising the throttles again and placing them in overspeed or,
with the throttles at full burner (but not in overspeed range), the
engine control automatically selected overspeed under certain RAT
temperature conditions.
"Gasoline and alcohol DO mix - but it tastes awful!"
--
My automatic return address may have X in it to stop SPAM.
-If so, delete the X so it reads: sch...@pacbell.net
-Or... simply click on: mailto:sch...@pacbell.net
Erik Shilling
I have a question for all of you who talk about FULL Military Power.
On the Recip engine there was no such thing as FULL Military Power. It
was listed in the engine power chart only as Military power.
Speaking of the Recip engine:
If you use the term Full why then isn't there a setting called partial
military power. There was only one setting for Military power. Other
setting were call - War Emergency / Take off Power / Military Power /
Climb Power / Cruise Power. Is the term FULL used when speaking of the
Jet engine. If so apparently this may be a term used for Jet engines
only, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Erik Shilling
Jim Harler
Erik,
The only reasoning I can come up with for the jet engines is that there
are various setting based on exhaust gas temperatures for them. In the
A6 we had Max Continuous which was the power (limited by EGT) we could
run as long as we needed. Sometimes that was less than 100% rpm. As
long as we didn't exceed the maximum allowable EGT we could always run
100% for up to 30 mins.
FWIW
Jim
Darrell Schmidt
Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> >Well, John, that depends on what Jet Engines you're talking about. The
> >4 J-79s on the B-58 developed full military power (100%) at full
> >throttle (without lifting). Then you lifted any or all of the throttles
> >and moved them further forward which lit the afterburners. We had about
> >3-4 inches of variable afterburner throttle settings unless the RAT got
> >to a certain level. Above a certain RAT (I can't remember) the RPM
> >range control was automatic. You could always achieve full overspeed
> >RPM by raising the throttles again and placing them in overspeed or,
> >with the throttles at full burner (but not in overspeed range), the
> >engine control automatically selected overspeed under certain RAT
> >temperature conditions.
>
> shit. Moving the throttle only changes an input to the fuel
> controller. Overspeeding J-79s creates a catastrophgic failure in
> short order.
>
> What video game were you playing when you did this?
>
> John
John, I was a pilot in the B-58 at Little Rock AFB from 1966 until we
scrapped them in 1970. I was an instructor in B-58 CCTS when we
scrapped them. By then they all had either the J79-GE-5A or J79-GE-5B
engines with nacelle mounted supersonic intake and articulating spikes.
It's been a long time but it seems the overspeed was to somewhere
between 102-106%. I have an appointment now but I'll ask other members
of the B-58 Ass'n if they have the exact data. In the meantime you can
get some info off my home page at http://home.pacbell.net/schmidt/
There you'll find a picture of the 58 and some good links for other
data on it and other military aircraft.
"Open mouth, insert foot, echo internationally."
Note: the reason you didn't reach me is you didn't read below!
Benjamin Charles Ferguson
In article <5sqrmk$4...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> eri...@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling) writes:
>From: eri...@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling)
>Subject: Re: What is "Full Military Power"?
>Date: 12 Aug 1997 23:30:28 GMT
>I have a question for all of you who talk about FULL Military Power.
One of my relatives (I forget which one) was involved in the maintinance of
RR engines from spitfires in the second world war. He told me a couple of
years ago that once the throttle had been pushed through the gate (as it has
already been mentioned this was a thin piece of wire) the engine was removed
from the plane and stripped and checked over, once the plane had returned.
Generally the reason was when a pilot got into a sticky situation in a
dogfight and in trying to get out of it pushed the throttle through the gate.
He never mentioned anything about "buster" though, which leads me to think
that it wasn't a term used back then.
Well that was my $15 worth (sorry the exchange rate is crap at present)
Bengy
Bill Worthy
I say you are full of
> shit. Moving the throttle only changes an input to the fuel
> controller. Overspeeding J-79s creates a catastrophgic failure in
> short order.
>
> What video game were you playing when you did this?
>
> John
>
John
Better not get too uppity when you don't know what you are talking
about. The J-79 and at least a few other jet engines I have flown
develop what is called "full military power" at 100% RPM but before the A/B
is lit. When you "go around the horn" or "lift the throttle" and enter
the afterburner range you put raw full into the area after the main engine
and , while you don't change the RPM, you get a significant increase in
power. In the CF-104 for example, you went from about 10000 lbs of thrust
to about 15800 lbs. In addition to controlling the extra fuel this
movement also controlled the nozzles at the aft end of the tailpipe.
Check it out, before you lash out.
Bill Worthy.
F 94C
Benjamin H. Schapiro wrote:
>Strange that these terms still survive. While they may be RAF
>in origin the earliest record I have for them is 1942 era USN
>Fighter Direction Officer use. Then the terms were:
>
>LINER = unknown as to the exact meaning
>GATE = Maximum speed
In USAF jet ops
SAUNTER = max endurance power setting (loitering)
LINER = normal cruise, max range power setting
BUSTER = max power without afterburner
GATE = max power with afterburner
The difference of power versus speed is significant. For
instance on a scramble they would specify "climb gate"
if they (GCI) wanted it. That did not mean max speed.
With SAGE radar sites, their computer would have
projected results with various options selected. a/c
performance was programmed and computer would
command military power (buster) climb unless it
figured it needed a gate climb to make the intercept
where/when they wanted.
I think I once encountered a GCI controller who read the
Navy definition of GATE = max speed rather than max engine
power and didn't think any farther.
Flying out of Pinecastle AFB, Orlando, Florida on a rocket
firing mission out west over Gulf of Mexico. While being
vectored for another pass I told controller I was running short
on fuel and had to break it off. I requested vector for
"home plate" (home base). Went something like:
Cont.: "Roger, turn starboard to 040 go GATE!".
Me: Negative GATE, I'm low on fuel.
Cont. I know. I'm trying to get you home fast.
Me: I won't make it if I go GATE. Wastes fuel.
Normal cruise will do nicely and get me home safely.
Cont.: Roger
This was covered more thoriughly in debriefing.
Will
AK F15E
There is no such term as "full military power" with respect to jet
engines. We are either at xx%, MIL, or Min AB up to Full AB.
Butch Bennett
LesB
kedzierski wrote:
>Then why do so many books and magazines and technical publucations use
>the term?
Probably because its such a cool phrase. ;-)
LesB
F sub N
>There is no such term as "full military power" with respect to jet
>engines. We are either at xx%, MIL, or Min AB up to Full AB.
>Butch Bennett
Hey, judging from your ID, you fly the big engined Mud Eagles. I'll bet
the big dog eats when that jet is at MIL or above.
funkraum
>na...@Glue.umd.edu (David Hyde) wrote:
[...]
>Worth noting? The Jaguar uses two Adours with burners. To get a little
>bit better engine response in the pattern they've got selectable 'partial
>throttle reheat' - flip two switches and you get modulated afterburner at
>less than MIL power.
>
Trotti in 'Phantom over Vietnam' describes how the F-4<mumble>
would be set to min burner to clean up the smoky exhaust trials to
procede over target but I can`t remember whether this was at
military power or not.
I have retrieved the book from the #2 bookcase at last but now
can`t find the notes.
R. G. Arm
Min burner is precisely that. It's the throttle position just ahead of the
full mil power position, into the AB range but at the most rearward portion
of it. On the F-4 throttles, once you reach full mil power the throttles
appear to be at a forward stop. You move the throttles outboard slightly,
then you can advance them further forward into afterburner. There were
only, as I recall, 4 stages of afterburner on the J-79 engine, so it wasn't
exactly "throttleable"; you would feel a distinct kick as each stage was
added. Said another way, within the AB range you could move the throttles
some distance and achieve no change in thrust, then suddenly the next stage
would be added.
Newer engines are more smooth between stages. The F-22 will be fully
"throttleable" throughout the AB range. This will be really nice for heavy
weight refueling, but then it achieves so much of its total thrust in mil
that AB might never be necessary for refueling.
R. G. Arm
f1...@comland.com
In article <5uickt$8fc$1...@gte2.gte.net>,
"R. G. Arm" <f22...@aol.com> wrote:
> Min burner is precisely that. It's the throttle position just ahead of the
> full mil power position, into the AB range but at the most rearward portion
> of it. On the F-4 throttles, once you reach full mil power the throttles
> appear to be at a forward stop. You move the throttles outboard slightly,
> then you can advance them further forward into afterburner. There were
> only, as I recall, 4 stages of afterburner on the J-79 engine, so it wasn't
> exactly "throttleable"; you would feel a distinct kick as each stage was
> added. Said another way, within the AB range you could move the throttles
> some distance and achieve no change in thrust, then suddenly the next stage
> would be added.
A fellow Mt. Home recce WSO who came out of B-58s (DSO)at Bunker Hill in
late '69 told me (B-58 guys feel free to jump in here) that, at the
precontact position, his AC would pull One and Four back to idle and
modulate the inboards in min burner throughout the refueling.
Phil Brandt
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
F 94C
AK F15E puts foot in mouth and says:
>There is no such term as "full military power" with
>respect to jet engines. We are either at xx%, MIL,
>or Min AB up to Full AB.
>Butch Bennett
A very broad and incorrect statement. Don't know who the
"we" is but it doesn't include thousands of present and
former USAF jet fighter pilots for last 50 or so years.
Maybe you should just say you are one person who hasn't
heard or used the term.
Having considerable experience flying several different
jet fighters over the years in USAF I can tell you "full military",
"full military power", etc was part of their vocabulary and used
routinely. Anyone having to communicate with them also was
familiar with the term. I'm thinking of other operational personnel
to include factory reps and engineers.
I don't know origin but I'd guess it was related to "full throttle"
equals "military" power early on in jets. 'Full Military' can give
a better sense of what's to be/being done.
I'm sure there are terms used in different types (cargo,
helicopter, transport, bomber, etc) USAF/USN/USMC/USCG
as well as foreign a/c that you may not be familiar with. Even
between USAF Commands/Wings/Groups/Squadrons terms vary.
I quote from T.O. F-106A-,1 30 Apr 1985, page1-42, 1-43
"After the button has been depressed, the audible warning
system is not reactivated until the throttle is advanced to the
FULL MIL POWER position, approximately 220 KCAS is...."
Will
Darrell Schmidt
f1...@comland.com wrote: A fellow Mt. Home recce WSO who came out of B-58s
(DSO)at Bunker Hill in
> late '69 told me (B-58 guys feel free to jump in here) that, at the
> precontact position, his AC would pull One and Four back to idle and
> modulate the inboards in min burner throughout the refueling.
>
> Phil Brandt
>
I guess you could, Phil, but generally we refueled out of burner. At max gross
weight refuelings (166,000#),we DID become power limited. But you always made
sure you advised the tanker's boom operator prior to lighting an afterburner.
Especially at night. Or the boomer might see the flame coming out of the engine,
think it was an engine fire and call a BREAKAWAY!
The way I was taught and found it easiest to do was to wait until I was
approaching an outer limit and then put one inboard throttle into afterburner and
quickly retarding the other 3 slightly to maintain position. Then you could work
with just the 3 not in burner to "fly the boom". One throttle in afterburner
always provided me with enough power to manuever, even at max gross weights.
Then when you finished refueling and broke off left or right to accelerate, if
you wanted to show off you could light all 4 burners to leave the tanker in the
dust. (But you throttled back out of burner before you went transonic.) You
didn't just "go" supersonic in the B-58. The CG envelopes supersonic vs subsonic
just barely overlapped. You'd set the CG to near the aft limit subsonic so that
when you went super you were near the forward supersonic limit and could then
move your CG further aft. A balance fuel tank in the tail was available to move
fuel to/from to change CG. Each 1,000# of fuel moved the CG about 1%. The fuel
panel had a CG gage that you could set an adjustable pointer on, switch to Auto
CG and it would automatically move fuel to give you the requested CG.
"Gasoline and alcohol DO mix - but it tastes awful!"
funkraum
>"R. G. Arm" <f22...@aol.com> wrote:
> [...]
>>Trotti in 'Phantom over Vietnam' describes how the F-4<mumble>
>>would be set to min burner to clean up the smoky exhaust trials to
>>procede over target but I can`t remember whether this was at
>>military power or not.
>>
>>I have retrieved the book from the #2 bookcase at last but now
>>can`t find the notes.
>
>Min burner is precisely that. It's the throttle position just ahead of the
>full mil power position, into the AB range but at the most rearward portion
>of it.
[...]
Yes now I recall. Trotti describes how the excess speed was
scrubbed off the the speed brakes in order to maintain desired
speed over the target.
Rodrigo J. S. Oliveira
Hi everybody,
Can anyone point me to a site where I can find high resolution images
of various fighter aircrafts (f-15, f-14, f-16, etc..). I need side,
top, bottom, front, back views preferably for a 3d animation project.
Thanks a lot.
Rodrigo
rod...@unisys.com.br
CClinker
>Can anyone point me to a site where I can find high resolution images
>of various fighter aircrafts
Check out the Information Now! site at http://people.delphi.com/todd3205.
The guy sells military photos on CD for scale modelers. Or e-mail him at
todd...@delphi.com. He might have what you need.
Mark Kallio
>>Can anyone point me to a site where I can find high resolution images
>>of various fighter aircrafts
Email me. I might have what your looking for, be specific on the
subject please ;-)
Mark.......
