F-101 Voodoo
Brett Jaffee
I recently had the opportunity to fly in a light plane from the Camarillo
airport (North of Los Angeles). The civil airport used to be known, I think,
as Oxnard AFB, and it operated F-101's.
Anyway.......on seeing some pictures of F-101s on the wall of the airport
cafe, I got to wondering, did the voodoo distinguish itself in any way? Was
it used in Viet Nam? Did it ever get any AA kills? Why was it developed when
MacD had (or was going to have?) the F-4 (I'm assuimg they are from the same
era.
Is the F-101 doomed to obscurity?
__________________________________________________________________________
Brett Jaffee
http://www.earthlink.net/~jaffee
jaf...@earthlink.net
or hbac...@huey.csun.edu
__________________________________________________________________________
Weasel
jaf...@earthlink.net (Brett Jaffee) wrote:
>__________________________________________________________________________
>Brett Jaffee
>http://www.earthlink.net/~jaffee
>jaf...@earthlink.net
>or hbac...@huey.csun.edu
>__________________________________________________________________________
RF-101s flew recon in Viet Nam. I doubt if any F-101s served there,
though.
Weasel
Michael Williamson
Brett Jaffee wrote:
>
> I recently had the opportunity to fly in a light plane from the Camarillo
> airport (North of Los Angeles). The civil airport used to be known, I think,
> as Oxnard AFB, and it operated F-101's.
>
> Anyway.......on seeing some pictures of F-101s on the wall of the airport
> cafe, I got to wondering, did the voodoo distinguish itself in any way? Was
> it used in Viet Nam? Did it ever get any AA kills? Why was it developed when
> MacD had (or was going to have?) the F-4 (I'm assuimg they are from the same
> era.
>
F-110 in
the AF century series), originally seeing daylight as the XF-88 in June
1946.
This program was cancelled in 1950, but was resurrected in 1951 and the
official designation was changed on 30 Nov 1951 to F-101 due to the
significant
differences between the original and updated design.
F-101 deliveries to the Air Force began in August 1954, with the last
aircraft
deliveries in 1961. Some 800+ Voodoos were produced, including
prototypes of
the XF-88.
The RF-101A was the only Voodoo type to see combat in Vietnam,
performing
strike assessment and other duties from 1961 until 1970.
The McDonnell Aircraft corporation won a contract for a shipboard
attack
aircraft in 1954, designated AH-1. This attack aircraft became the F-4H
in
1955, and the F-4A in 1962. In March of 1962, a contract was let for
the
Air Force to receive the Navy's air superiority version, the F-4B. This
became
the F-4C, and was first flown on 27 May 1963.
As can be seen, the F-4 Phantom was about 10 years later than the
F-101, so
the two never competed as production aircraft. While 10 years is not a
long
time for a production run today (the F-15 began in the late 70's), back
then
airframe and powerplant technologies became outdated within such a time
period. The F-101 was in design and prototyping through the Korean war,
and
was surpassed by the march of technology by the time the F-4 came into
the
inventory. The two were almost a generation apart from a design and
technology point of view, as well as delivery dates.
Mike Williamson
Michael Williamson
Brett Jaffee wrote:
>
> I recently had the opportunity to fly in a light plane from the Camarillo
> airport (North of Los Angeles). The civil airport used to be known, I think,
> as Oxnard AFB, and it operated F-101's.
>
> Anyway.......on seeing some pictures of F-101s on the wall of the airport
> cafe, I got to wondering, did the voodoo distinguish itself in any way? Was
> it used in Viet Nam? Did it ever get any AA kills? Why was it developed when
> MacD had (or was going to have?) the F-4 (I'm assuimg they are from the same
> era.
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> Brett Jaffee
>
> http://www.earthlink.net/~jaffee
>
> jaf...@earthlink.net
> or hbac...@huey.csun.edu
> __________________________________________________________________________
Mike Kopack
Weasel wrote:
>
> jaf...@earthlink.net (Brett Jaffee) wrote:
>
> >I recently had the opportunity to fly in a light plane from the Camarillo
> >airport (North of Los Angeles). The civil airport used to be known, I think,
> >as Oxnard AFB, and it operated F-101's.
>
> >Anyway.......on seeing some pictures of F-101s on the wall of the airport
> >cafe, I got to wondering, did the voodoo distinguish itself in any way? Was
> >it used in Viet Nam? Did it ever get any AA kills? Why was it developed when
> >MacD had (or was going to have?) the F-4 (I'm assuimg they are from the same
> >era.
>
> >Is the F-101 doomed to obscurity?
>
> >__________________________________________________________________________
> >Brett Jaffee
>
> >http://www.earthlink.net/~jaffee
>
> >jaf...@earthlink.net
> >or hbac...@huey.csun.edu
> >__________________________________________________________________________
>
> though.
>
> Weasel
early 1980's
Al Sumrall
Brett Jaffee wrote:
>
> I recently had the opportunity to fly in a light plane from the Camarillo
> airport (North of Los Angeles). The civil airport used to be known, I think,
> as Oxnard AFB, and it operated F-101's.
>
> Anyway.......on seeing some pictures of F-101s on the wall of the airport
> cafe, I got to wondering, did the voodoo distinguish itself in any way? Was
> it used in Viet Nam? Did it ever get any AA kills? Why was it developed when
> MacD had (or was going to have?) the F-4 (I'm assuimg they are from the same
> era.
>
> Is the F-101 doomed to obscurity?
>
Yes, but its not totally forgotten. Although it was used in its single
seat version for photo recon in Nam, its performance became inadequate
for the job and it was replaced by F4's.
The 101's best U.S. service was with ADC, which it served into the
1980's in the ANG as a two seat interceptor. The Canadians used it for a
while longer in the same role. I participated in the recovery of a
derelict 101F at Ellington AFB in Houston and it is now on permanent
static display in Victoria, Texas. It can be seen at Foster Field
(Victoria Regional Airport) in Texas NG Markings. I was amazed how big
it was.
The 101 was originally designed as a long range penetration fighter
but it never saw service in that role. Although capable of 1,100 top
speed, I think the 101 was happiest in the subsonic speed range which
was certainly adequate for an interceptor. It was a 100% missle carrier
capable of carrying Genie Nuclear missiles or regular air to air missles
(Falcons?) in its rather interesting internal rotary weapons bay. It had
an interesting light on the side of the fuselage that could illuminate
aircraft that were flying beside it that it was intercepting. Have never
heard of it being used in anger though.
When I was going to law school in the late 1970's in Houston, the
sight of 101B's (and an occasional F which had dual flight controls but
was externally identical), usually in pairs, was quite common. To me, it
was always an awkward looking aircraft, but I began to like the design
once I got to work with one on the ground. Of course, I am sure that I
got attached to it due to the joy of bringing the aircraft back from
really ugly condition to near pristine external condition. Of course, as
the aircraft is on static display outside we have only postponed the
inevitable but perhaps we have given it a more dignified role than just
corroding away in some field.
AL
Matt
jaf...@earthlink.net (Brett Jaffee) wrote:
>I recently had the opportunity to fly in a light plane from the Camarillo
>airport (North of Los Angeles). The civil airport used to be known, I think,
>as Oxnard AFB, and it operated F-101's.
>Anyway.......on seeing some pictures of F-101s on the wall of the airport
>cafe, I got to wondering, did the voodoo distinguish itself in any way? Was
>it used in Viet Nam? Did it ever get any AA kills? Why was it developed when
>MacD had (or was going to have?) the F-4 (I'm assuimg they are from the same
>era.
>Is the F-101 doomed to obscurity?
Well, here in Canada we bought a couple hundred Voodoos and refered to
them as CF-101s. They were purchased as a partial replacement for
the Avro Arrow intercepter after the original replacement, i.e. Bomarc
missiles were junked.
Robert Baric
Brett Jaffee <jaf...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<5mr5pf$k...@ecuador.earthlink.net>...
> I recently had the opportunity to fly in a light plane from the Camarillo
> airport (North of Los Angeles). The civil airport used to be known, I
think,
> as Oxnard AFB, and it operated F-101's.
>
> Anyway.......on seeing some pictures of F-101s on the wall of the airport
> cafe, I got to wondering, did the voodoo distinguish itself in any way?
Was
> it used in Viet Nam? Did it ever get any AA kills? Why was it developed
when
> MacD had (or was going to have?) the F-4 (I'm assuimg they are from the
same
> era.
>
> Is the F-101 doomed to obscurity?
>
>
__________________________________________________________________________
> Brett Jaffee
>
> http://www.earthlink.net/~jaffee
>
> jaf...@earthlink.net
> or hbac...@huey.csun.edu
>
__________________________________________________________________________
>
Well, F-101, one of the "Century series" supersonic combat planes, had
interesting carieer. Designed as long range escort fighter, he became first
interceptor, and then reconnaissance aircrafi (in the last role F-101 was
used over the Southeast Asia, in Vietnam - 31 Voodoos was lost in combat:
also by Taiwanese pilots for recce flights over communist China; third user
was Royal Canadian Air Force, where CF-18 replaced Voodoo before 10 years).
He was developed before MDD F-4 Phantom II.
Yes, Voodoo was based at Oxnarde AFB, Calif. - F-101B/Fs from 437 FIS (Air
Defense Command).
Two good sources of information about F-101 are this books:
- Robert F. Dorr: McDonnell F-101 Voodoo, Osprey Air Combat; Osprey
Publishing Limited 1987 (distributor for USA was Motorbooks International)
- Bert Kinzey: Detail & Scale Vol.21 - F-101 Voodoo; TAB Books, 1986.
Robert Baric, Croatia
Matthew Hamer
In article <3391A8...@livingston.net>,
Al Sumrall <a...@livingston.net> wrote:
>Brett Jaffee wrote:
>>
>> I recently had the opportunity to fly in a light plane from the Camarillo
>> airport (North of Los Angeles). The civil airport used to be known, I
think,
>> as Oxnard AFB, and it operated F-101's.
>>
>> Anyway.......on seeing some pictures of F-101s on the wall of the airport
>> cafe, I got to wondering, did the voodoo distinguish itself in any way?
Was
>> it used in Viet Nam? Did it ever get any AA kills? Why was it developed
when
>> MacD had (or was going to have?) the F-4 (I'm assuimg they are from the
same
>> era.
>>
>> Is the F-101 doomed to obscurity?
One hopes not.
It lasted in CAF (Canadian Armed Forces) service until 1986, with the last
examples serving as EW platforms. The ADC versions were all retired by 1984,
I think. Taiwan AF also operated them into the 1980s as well.
Someone, somewhere, should get one into flying condition, the noise and smoke
from the "one-oh-wonder" will beat anything flying today!
Regards, Matt.
Cynthia Keeney
>Anyway.......on seeing some pictures of F-101s on the wall of the airport
>cafe, I got to wondering, did the voodoo distinguish itself in any way?
The Voodoo's photo recon version was an important asset for years. It made
very high speed very low passes over Cuba during the missile crises.
It also performed well over Vietnam in the recon role.
Seems to I've also heard that in the hands of the Nationalist Chinese it
flew missions over Communist China.
>Was it used in Viet Nam?
All anybody has been able to find records/memories of around here is the
recon version going to 'nam. However, I think I've got some tape around
her showing a Voodoo dropping nap' in close support of a firebase; I'm
going to have to dig for it one of these days.
> Did it ever get any AA kills?
Not that I know of.
> Why was it developed when
>MacD had (or was going to have?) the F-4 (I'm assuimg they are from the same
>era.
The F-101 is slighly older to considerably older depending on how you
count: the F-101's first order came in mid '53 and the Navy switched the
first Phantom order to a missile interceptor in '55 after ordering it as
an attack plane in late '54. Of course the F-101 is pretty much an
improved XF-88 which was first ordered in early '47.
The design goal for the Voodoo was a penetration fighter: an escort for
SAC's B-52s.
>Is the F-101 doomed to obscurity?
Pretty much.
I know of one Hollywood film where it has a bit part: in "The Russians Are
Coming" the two Air Force planes that buzz the Russian sub for a
minute or so at the very end are F-101s, ADC interceptors I think.
>__________________________________________________________________________
>Brett Jaffee
PS For those that aren't familier with the film "The Russians Are Coming"
it's a comedy about a Russian sub crew trying to get back underway after
running aground because the captain was trying to watch the girls on the
beach through the periscope.
StarVger
One thing other responders did not mention re: VooDoo service was their
daring daylight RECON flights over Cuba during the Missile Crisis. One
was shot down, and all of the flights came under fire during their blazing
overflights. During that critical period in our country's history, only
two dedicated spy aircraft were used to lay bare the Russian missiles in
Cuba - the U-2 and the "unforgettable" RF-101.
Sounded just crackin', too.
Gordon
Darrell A. Larose
Michael Williamson (spe...@azstarnet.com) writes:
> Brett Jaffee wrote:
>>
>> I recently had the opportunity to fly in a light plane from the Camarillo
>> airport (North of Los Angeles). The civil airport used to be known, I think,
>> as Oxnard AFB, and it operated F-101's.
>>
>> Anyway.......on seeing some pictures of F-101s on the wall of the airport
>> cafe, I got to wondering, did the voodoo distinguish itself in any way? Was
>> it used in Viet Nam? Did it ever get any AA kills? Why was it developed when
>> MacD had (or was going to have?) the F-4 (I'm assuimg they are from the same
>> era.
>>
Let's not forget the low level missions that RF-101's flew over Cuba
during the Cuban Missle Crisis...
Darrell Larose | http://livewire.newforce.ca/darrell | darrell@.newforce.ca
"Living at risk is jumping off the cliff
and building your wings on the way down" (Ray Bradbury)
José Herculano
> overflights. During that critical period in our country's history, only
> two dedicated spy aircraft were used to lay bare the Russian missiles in
> Cuba - the U-2 and the "unforgettable" RF-101.
Gordon, please duck... I've got my flame thrower out and I'm lighting the
fire. You've got 24 hours to put the RF-8 Crusader there and fast in
repentance for a day, otherwise you'll get barbecued.
--
José Herculano
José Herculano
> Yes, but its not totally forgotten. Although it was used in its single
> seat version for photo recon in Nam, its performance became inadequate
> for the job and it was replaced by F4's.
The RF-101C did a splendid job in Nam. It was not inadequate. Was
replaced latter by the RF-4 due to 2 main factors:
- Attrition
- Commonality
--
José Herculano
José Herculano
> The RF-101A was the only Voodoo type to see combat in Vietnam,
> performing
RF-101C, not A.
--
José Herculano
National Aero Safety
Brett Jaffee wrote:
>
> I recently had the opportunity to fly in a light plane from the Camarillo
> airport (North of Los Angeles). The civil airport used to be known, I think,
> as Oxnard AFB, and it operated F-101's.
>
> Anyway.......on seeing some pictures of F-101s on the wall of the airport
> cafe, I got to wondering, did the voodoo distinguish itself in any way? Was
> it used in Viet Nam? Did it ever get any AA kills? Why was it developed when
> MacD had (or was going to have?) the F-4 (I'm assuimg they are from the same
> era.
>
>
> Brett Jaffee
>
> http://www.earthlink.net/~jaffee
>
> jaf...@earthlink.net
> or hbac...@huey.csun.edu
> __________________________________________________________________________
Brett,
The Voodoo was a USAF Recon/interceptor designed to carry the Air-2A
Nuke, while the Phantom was a NAVY follow-on to the single engine
Banchee, a Fighter/interceptor.
The Voodoo distinguished itself in Viet Nam as the F-101A Photo/Recon
aircraft.
It seems that in those days the Navy was into practical and efficient
aircraft, while the USAF was doing the Cutis LaMay/Dr. Strangelove thing
for world dominance through nuclear distruction.
The F-101 was developed sometime before the F-4 as evidensed by the
J-57/F-101 vs the F-4/J-79. An interesting thing about the F-101 was
it's tendancy to get into a "pitch-up" condition if the pilot put in too
much angle of attack. In Pitch-up, the only way out was to deploy the
drag chute in flight and then release it, or Eject. The Air Force had a
special training film in that regard.
I was unfortunate enough to spent 2 1/2 years at Oxnard with the F-101's
and the F-106's that replaced them there. The Base closed for good in
1970.
Roswell
Jim Campbell
I think Canada liked this identification light feature as I believe it
is one of the mods that distinguish a CF-18 from a F/A-18.
Jim
Emmanuel.Gustin
Ralph Jones (rnj...@teal.csn.net) wrote:
: The F-101 was originally developed as a long-range fighter to escort the
: B-36. When the B-52 replaced the B-36, the F-101 became a continental
: air defense interceptor, and of course never flew any combat in that
: role.
That is skipping a few stages. The F-101A was pressed in the role of
long-range fighter bomber, armed with four 20mm cannon and (in wartime) a
nuclear bomb. The F-101C then became a specialized fighter-bomber,
stressed for the task.
Le May did not want them, so the few F-101 built became a football of
these service, tossed around. A (very brave) officer just put a model of
an F-101 on Le May's desk and forced him to make a decision. The fighters
where based on England. Their shooting ranges were in Tunesia, and story
has it that when flying over France to this destination, they always
cheerfully ignored the request of the French "escorts" to slow down,
leaving them far behind.
The F-101B two-seat interceptor was a very different aircraft, so much so
that the USAF originally considered calling it the F-109. For the USAF the
F-101B was merely a stopgap fighter, although its performance was
impressive. One problem was the pitch-up problem, which could put the
fightre out of control. For air-air combat, this was serious problem. An
important user of the F-101B was Canada. They received the first F-101Bs
in 1961 and replaced them with refurbished ones in 1970.
: There was a tactical fighter/bomber version which I believe saw action
: in Vietnam, and the RF-101 photorecon version was used in many places,
Only the RF-101C saw combat. There were 33 combat losses.
The F-101 was always a good performer, but it was a complex aircraft and
costly and difficult to maintain.
This site provides more detail:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/
Emmanuel Gustin
\ Emmanuel Gustin gus...@uia.ua.ac.be /
\ Physics Department, University of Antwerp, Belgium /
| FROM StdTxts IMPORT Disclaimer; |
/ http://nat-www.uia.ac.be/~gustin/ \
/ http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/ \
/ http://www.topedge.com/~gustin/ \
Ed Rasimus
jaf...@earthlink.net (Brett Jaffee) wrote:
>Anyway.......on seeing some pictures of F-101s on the wall of the airport
>cafe, I got to wondering, did the voodoo distinguish itself in any way?
It was distinguished for the decidedly unpleasant flight
characteristic of "pitch-up" during an attempt at high angle of attack
maneuver. With the proper (or improper) amount of back stick, the wing
would blank the horizontal tail surface resulting in a pitchup and
departure from controlled flight recoverable only be drag chute
deployment with sufficient attitude. After the initial problems the
aircraft was fitted with a pitch limiter device which provided partial
protection.
>Was
>it used in Viet Nam?
Retrofit of the A models into the RF-101 configuration with a recce
nose (all single seat aircraft) led to deployment in SEA where the
aircraft performed very well in photo recce. It did not have other
sensors which the RF-4C had.
The two seat B model remained in Air Defense Command interceptor
operations in the US during the period. After the war some of the B
models were configured for recce as (IIRC) "H" models flown by the
Reno ANG.
>Did it ever get any AA kills?
No.
> Why was it developed when
>MacD had (or was going to have?) the F-4 (I'm assuimg they are from the same
>era.
The Voodoo came at least twelve years before the production F-4s
rolled off the MacAir assembly line.
>Is the F-101 doomed to obscurity?
Hardly. You can't see any history of USAF jet recce for the cold war
years that doesn't highlight the F-101.
Ed Rasimus *** Peak Computing Magazine
Fighter Pilot (ret) *** (http://peak-computing.com)
*** Ziff-Davis Interactive
*** (http://www.zdnet.com)
Mike Kopack
Darrell A. Larose wrote:
>
> Michael Williamson (spe...@azstarnet.com) writes:
> > Brett Jaffee wrote:
> >>
> >> I recently had the opportunity to fly in a light plane from the Camarillo
> >> airport (North of Los Angeles). The civil airport used to be known, I think,
> >> as Oxnard AFB, and it operated F-101's.
> >>
> >> it used in Viet Nam? Did it ever get any AA kills? Why was it developed when
> >> MacD had (or was going to have?) the F-4 (I'm assuimg they are from the same
> >> era.
> >>
> during the Cuban Missle Crisis...
>
> Darrell Larose | http://livewire.newforce.ca/darrell | darrell@.newforce.ca
>
> "Living at risk is jumping off the cliff
> and building your wings on the way down" (Ray Bradbury)
Alouette's 4 ship demo? How about the BIZARRE scheme of "Lark 1", or
(almost) scraping the exhausts the length of the runway, during
aerodynamic braking? Luckily I got to see the last Black Night (EW) demo
at North Bay back in 86, and the last public Canuck demo at Hamilton a
few years previously. Ahh, those were the days...
Mike Kopack
Cynthia Keeney
From: [1]StarVger
>One thing other responders did not mention re: VooDoo service was their
>daring daylight RECON flights over Cuba during the Missile Crisis. One
>was shot down,
A U-2 was shot down, I don't recall anything about a RF-101 being downed.
> and all of the flights came under fire during their blazing
>overflights. During that critical period in our country's history, only
>two dedicated spy aircraft were used to lay bare the Russian missiles in
>Cuba - the U-2 and the "unforgettable" RF-101.
Recon Crusaders (F8U-1Ps / RF-8As) buzzed the island too.
>Sounded just crackin', too.
Ya' know, the Guard unit a few miles from here had RF-101s for the longest
time and the only thing I can remember about the sound is that they were
quiter than the RF-4s that replaced them, especially on approach.
>Gordon
Terry Martin
On Sun, 01 Jun 1997 06:41:28 GMT, jaf...@earthlink.net (Brett Jaffee)
wrote:
>Anyway.......on seeing some pictures of F-101s on the wall of the airport
>cafe, I got to wondering, did the voodoo distinguish itself in any way? Was
>it used in Viet Nam? Did it ever get any AA kills? Why was it developed when
>MacD had (or was going to have?) the F-4 (I'm assuimg they are from the same
>era.
>
>Is the F-101 doomed to obscurity?
Hopefully not, as long as people still like to talk about Century
series fighters, and certainly not in Canada.
The Voodoo and the F-104 Starfighter are both examples of US postwar
fighter designs that saw relatively limited service in the States
(more so in the case of the F-104), but were employed extensively by
the RCAF. Both, according to many accounts, were a real handful to
fly, and both had very distinctive sounds when heard from the ground.
The other thing they had in common was speed - both could go like a
scalded dog on a hot dusty country road, to quote a crusty old jock I
once spoke to.
As someone else pointed out, the Voodoo was proposed as a bomber
escort for SAC, but was never used in that role. So when the Air Force
fielded over 500 RF-4C in the photo-recon role, and with large numbers
of F-102 and F-106 in service for the continental air defence role,
that sealed the Voodoo's fate, even though it had distinguished itself
in those areas.
So while we may never again hear the sound of a Voodoo lighting 'em up
(Ba-TANG!), there are quite a few in museums and on display as gate
guards in North America, serving as a reminder of the skill and
sacrifices made by those who flew them...
Terry
Martin Sagara
Brett Jaffee (jaf...@earthlink.net) wrote:
<SNIP>
: Anyway.......on seeing some pictures of F-101s on the wall of the airport
: cafe, I got to wondering, did the voodoo distinguish itself in any way?
<SNIP>
: Is the F-101 doomed to obscurity?
It appears that the one MAJOR thing that has been overlooked in this
thread is that the F-101B interceptor helped to defend the North
American continent from airborne threats for a large portion of The
Cold War. Canadian and USAF F-101Bs were on 24-hour alert to
intercept any incoming aircraft threats and served Canada and
the U.S. well for many years. It is easily forgotten that this
mission was one of the direct results of the Japanese attack on
Pearl Harbor.
No, the F-101B is not doomed to obscurity if we remember that it
performed a vital mission very well. Part of the proof of this
is that it never had the need to fire a shot in anger.
Martin Sagara "Never before have so many,
Research Associate understood so little,
Wings Over The Rockies Air and Space Museum about so much"
Hangar No. 1, Old Lowry AFB
Denver, Colorado USA James Burke speaking about
(303) 360-5360 technology in "Connections"
msa...@rmii.com
Visit our web site at http://www.dimensional.com/~worm
Mike Tighe
On Mon, 02 Jun 1997 22:46:06 GMT, thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) wrote:
<snip>
>The Voodoo came at least twelve years before the production F-4s
>rolled off the MacAir assembly line.
>
There is at least one published photo of a Navy F-4 parked in front of
what is captioned as an F-101 production line. However, looking deep
in the background, there appear to be F3H Demons on a line beyond
that! The photo is dated April 1958 (Mcair neg 154800 - it has
appeared in a few books)
Can anyone explain? Were they conversion lines in the background
rather than new production?
Kuang-Chung Chao
In article <EB4x...@iglou.com>,
Cynthia Keeney <kee...@iglou1.iglou.com> wrote:
>
>The Voodoo's photo recon version was an important asset for years. It made
>very high speed very low passes over Cuba during the missile crises.
>It also performed well over Vietnam in the recon role.
>Seems to I've also heard that in the hands of the Nationalist Chinese it
>flew missions over Communist China.
>
Taiwan had kept a flight of 4 RF-101 in service for a long time until
replaced by RF-104G in mid-80s. They replaced RF-100, which had a pretty
lousy record in Taiwan Air Force. Some RF-101 were lost over Mainland
China. One now is at the museum in Taipei's CKS Int'l Airport.
kc
--
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Kuang-Chung "K.C." Chao Tel: +1 (716) 691-5524
Dept. of Electrical and Computer Eng. kc...@acsu.buffalo.edu
State Univ. of NY at Buffalo http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~kchao
Ed Rasimus
"José Herculano" <herc...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
>The RF-101C did a splendid job in Nam. It was not inadequate. Was
>replaced latter by the RF-4 due to 2 main factors:
>
>- Attrition
>- Commonality
Well, it wouldn't be proper to say the RE-101 was inadequate. But it
would be correct to note that it was a camera only platform and the
replacement, RF-4C sported FLIR and SLAR as well, along with much
improved flash cart capability and inertial nav to provide better
navigation and positioning for targets.
Wei-bin Chang
In article <5n3etf$1...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu>, kc...@acsu.buffalo.edu (Kuang-Chung Chao) writes:
>
> Taiwan had kept a flight of 4 RF-101 in service for a long time until
> replaced by RF-104G in mid-80s. They replaced RF-100, which had a pretty
Much earlier than that!
> lousy record in Taiwan Air Force. Some RF-101 were lost over Mainland
> China. One now is at the museum in Taipei's CKS Int'l Airport.
--
---------------------------- Wei-Bin Chang --------------------------------
Have you checked out my homepages lately?
Military Aviation of ROC: http://www.engr.wisc.edu/~wei-bin/taiwan.html
Aviation Resources: http://www.engr.wisc.edu/~wei-bin/homepage.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Tighe
OK, I have a trivial question.
On the F-101 the identification lamp was on the right side, as usually
interceptions are carried out with the interceptor on the left hand
side of the target. (We are back to the 'what side does the captain
sit' thread here). The procedures are summarised in many advice
leaflets (for example the UK CAA issue 'General Aviation Safety Sense
No 11 - Interception Procedures) and flight planning documents.
On the CF-188, the lamp is on the left. If the CAF do use it to i/d
a target, are they breaking any international regulations?
<jcam...@trihedral.com> wrote:
Mike Tighe -
Striving steadily towards a 4,000 hour
mean time between sense of humour failures!
Mike Kopack
the intercepting acft on the right side?
Tom Naylor
jaf...@earthlink.net (Brett Jaffee) wrote:
>I recently had the opportunity to fly in a light plane from the Camarillo
>airport (North of Los Angeles). The civil airport used to be known, I think,
>as Oxnard AFB, and it operated F-101's.
>
>Anyway.......on seeing some pictures of F-101s on the wall of the airport
>cafe, I got to wondering, did the voodoo distinguish itself in any way? Was
>it used in Viet Nam? Did it ever get any AA kills? Why was it developed when
>MacD had (or was going to have?) the F-4 (I'm assuimg they are from the same
>era.
>
>Is the F-101 doomed to obscurity?
>
>__________________________________________________________________________
>Brett Jaffee
>
>http://www.earthlink.net/~jaffee
>
>jaf...@earthlink.net
>or hbac...@huey.csun.edu
>__________________________________________________________________________
As long as we are on the subject of teh F-101, I thought I would
correct an error that appears in a number of aviation books.
The F-101B and F-101F Interceptor versions had a rotary weapons bay
that carried 2 Hughes Falcon missiles (radar/IR) and 2 Genie unguided
nuclear rockets. The normal configuration for the rotary bay was for
the Genies inside and the Falcons retracted into the door on the
outside.
Several books state that the F-101B carried 3 Falcons on the rotary
door and 2 Genies on under wing or fuselage pylons.
I worked on the F-101B back in 1960 and never saw a 3 Falcon
configuration and never saw a Genie hanging on pylons. In fact, I
never saw any pylons except the ones the external fuel tanks were hung
on.
I read one book that said the 3 Falcon configuration was considered
but never implemented.
It was a potent bird!
Albert Sykes
Ed Rasimus (thu...@rmii.com) wrote:
: "José Herculano" <herc...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
: >The RF-101C did a splendid job in Nam. It was not inadequate. Was
: >replaced latter by the RF-4 due to 2 main factors:
: >- Attrition
: >- Commonality
: Well, it wouldn't be proper to say the RE-101 was inadequate. But it
: would be correct to note that it was a camera only platform and the
: replacement, RF-4C sported FLIR and SLAR as well, along with much
: improved flash cart capability and inertial nav to provide better
: navigation and positioning for targets.
Pretty close, but the RF-4C didn't have FLIR. It was a line scan IR
onto film. All weather/night capability derived from Terrain Following
radar, flown manually. Would you believe that the night photo-flash
cartridges were even used to suppress rocket attacks in the Saigon area.
Tallyho!
Alpha Kilo
Brian Jones
In article <5s8i4q$i...@news.inforamp.net>, kee...@inforamp.net
(Martin/Jennifer Keenan) wrote:
> The F-101 is actually from a little before the F-4. If you take a
> good look at them, there is a family resemblance between the two
> aircraft. BTW, the unit that used to operate Voodoos at Oxnard AFB
> was the 437th Fighter Interceptor Squadron of Air Defense Commande
>
A v nice response to the query. The F-101 was a v impressive aircraft,
seen quite often over here in the UK, too. There are some in US museums,
worth a look to see what could be done so many years ago.
--
Email jo...@vi.rl.ac.uk (Brian Jones)
Tom Naylor
kee...@inforamp.net (Martin/Jennifer Keenan) wrote:
>jaf...@earthlink.net (Brett Jaffee) wrote:
>
>>I recently had the opportunity to fly in a light plane from the Camarillo
>>airport (North of Los Angeles). The civil airport used to be known, I think,
>>as Oxnard AFB, and it operated F-101's.
>
>>Anyway.......on seeing some pictures of F-101s on the wall of the airport
>>cafe, I got to wondering, did the voodoo distinguish itself in any way? Was
>>it used in Viet Nam? Did it ever get any AA kills? Why was it developed when
>>MacD had (or was going to have?) the F-4 (I'm assuimg they are from the same
>>era.
>
>>Is the F-101 doomed to obscurity?
>
> The F-101 is actually from a little before the F-4. If you take a
>good look at them, there is a family resemblance between the two
>aircraft. BTW, the unit that used to operate Voodoos at Oxnard AFB
>was the 437th Fighter Interceptor Squadron of Air Defense Commande
>
> The F-101 started off as a supersonic escort fighter for SAC. Just as
>the first F-101A aircraft were being delivered for this role, SAC
>cancelled the requirement -- not really surprising, because no jet
>g\fighter was going to have the range necessary to escort a B-52 to
>target and back. The 116 orphaned F-101A and F-101C (definitive
>F-101A stressed to 7.33g instead of the 6.33g of the 'A' model)
>fighter models that were produced ended up serving as low level
>nuclear strike aircraft in Europe from 1958 to 1966.
>
> Many of the aircraft that were originally intended to be produced as
>F-101A and C fighter aircraft were modified after completion, or while
>still in assembly, to be RF-101A and C low level photorecon aircraft.
>This version served (unarmed) in a photorecon role in Vietnam, and
>also during the Cuban Missile crisis. Further photorecon aircraft
>were made from conversions of F-101As into RF-101Gs, F-101Cs into
>RF-101Hs, and F-101Bs into RF-101Bs, and these variants served with
>the Nevada, Arkansas, and Kentucky ANG into the mid-seventies.
>
> The most produced variant of the Voodoo was the F-101B/F two-seat
>interceptor version. (The F-101F [originally the TF-101B] was the
>trainer version with two sets of controls, while the 'B' version
>carried a 'Scope Wizard' in the back). This version came about as a
>backup to the USAF interceptor program that ultimately produced the
>F-106. 479 were built before the last were completed in 1959,
>bringing Voodoo production to a close. Armed with Falcon missiles and
>nuclear Genie rockets, they served with USAF and later with ANG
>interceptor units across the United States, and the last examples were
>not retired until 1983.
>
> Voodoo use outside the United States was restricted to an uncertain
>number of RF-101As supplied to Taiwan in the late fifties, apparently
>for photorecon activities over what was then known as "Red China", and
>to 132 interceptors supplied to Canada in two batches (+ 1 electronic
>warfare Voodoo leased later). The initial batch of 66 Voodoos was
>acquired after the cancellation of the well known Avro Arrow, when it
>became apparent that some kind of interceptor was going to be required
>to replace the aging CF-100s defending Canadian airspace. These
>aircraft served with 409, 410, 414 (briefly), 416 and 425 squadrons
>until the early seventies, and were then traded back to the U.S. for
>66 lower-time F-101B/Fs (known locally as CF-101B/Fs). The second
>batch served with 409, 410, 416, and 425 squadrons until replaced by
>the CF-18 Hornet in 1984-5.
>
> The last flying Voodoos of all were a one-off converted electronic
>warfare aircraft (known unoficially [?] as the EF-101B) (58-300 or
>101067) leased fron the USAF, and an F-101F from the second Canadian
>batch (101006), flying with 414 squadron in North Bay, Ontario. The
>EF-101 aircraft served as a high speed jamming aircraft for exercises
>(painted in a sinister all-black paint scheme), while the CF-101F was
>used to maintain pilot currency. These two aircraft served until
>April 1987, when both were retired. The delivery flight of the
>EF-101B to Minneapolis (to the Minnesota ANG museum, where it remains
>in its all-black markings) was the last ever flight of a Voodoo in the
>United States, and possibly the last Voodoo flight of all -- I'm still
>trying to find out if the delivery of 101006 to CFB Cornwallis was
>before or after this.
>
> In summation, the Voodoo never fired a weapon in anger, and never shot
>anything down. It earned a reputation for itself of being a tricky
>aircraft to fly, with some very unforgiving and downright dangerous
>foibles. Against this must be set the fact that it was an excellent
>photorecon aircraft, and a vital part of the air defense of North
>America for three decades. It was also a spectacular airshow exhibit,
>especially in terms of pure noise, and airshows haven't been quite the
>same since they were retired.
>
>
>Martin Keenan---------
>
The 101B/F models had a rotary weapons door just aft of the nose gear.
On the normally external side, they carried two Hughes Falcom guided
missiles (the same type as the F-102A wich carried 6 missiles) on
flush mounts. Short rails were extended from the door when the
missiles were launched. On the other side of the door, two nuclear
Genies were carried. These were very much larger than the Falcons.
When the Genies were to be fired, the door rotated about its
centerline.
It has been erroneously reported in numerous books, especially by Bill
Gunston, over the years that the 101B carried 3 Falcom missiles with
the Genies carried on under wing or under fuselage pylons. Not true on
either case. There was not enough room on the door for 3 Falcons.
So why did the F-101B, which carried fewer weapons, replace the
F-102A. Well, it was a much larger plane and carried a greater fuel
load so it had greater range. Also, it had two of the same engines
that the F-102A has only one of, sio it was a lot faster. The F-102A
was a beautiful machine in its day, but the Voodoo was a true monster.
David Tanner
Martin Keenan wrote:
>
> jaf...@earthlink.net (Brett Jaffee) wrote:
>
> >I recently had the opportunity to fly in a light plane from the Camarillo
> >airport (North of Los Angeles). The civil airport used to be known,
> I think, as Oxnard AFB, and it operated F-101's.
>
[snip of very complete reply]
> Voodoo use outside the United States was restricted to an uncertain
> number of RF-101As supplied to Taiwan in the late fifties, apparently
> for photorecon activities over what was then known as "Red China",
You can see one in Taiwan markings at the museum at Robbins AFB, sout of
Macon.
Ed Rasimus
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
> I was under the impression that these problems were limited to the A/C
>versions, and corrected in the (IMHO beautiful) C/F versions with the
>addition of a rather advanced SAS system. One pilot described the problem
>as the plane "wanting to switch ends", which is likely not accurate, but a
>description of some powerful dutch roll or perhaps some high speed effect
>I'm unaware of.
The Voodoo's aerodynamic "foible" was "pitch-up" which is drastically
different than "some powerful Dutch roll".
The high empennage, designed that way to clear the two engines, would
at high angle of attack be blanked by the turbulent airflow over the
wing. With the loss of horizontal tail counter-force, the wing
basically lifted the plane over its own tail--referred to
euphemistically as a "departure from controlled flight."
The solution was a "stick-kicker" or shaker that inhibited further aft
stick movement when high AOA was being approached.
All of which leads you to an airplane which couldn't effectively
perform high G maneuvers but which still had the potential to be an
excellent interceptor and reconnaisance platform.
D1chucky
Is it true that the F-101b carried only IR Falcons.--D1.
>you write-It has been erroneously reported in numerous >books, especially
Maury Markowitz
In article <33e934db...@news.mindspring.com>,
tomn...@mindspring.com wrote:
> It has been erroneously reported in numerous books, especially by Bill
> Gunston, over the years that the 101B carried 3 Falcom missiles with
> the Genies carried on under wing or under fuselage pylons. Not true on
> either case. There was not enough room on the door for 3 Falcons.
I could be wrong, but I believe I _saw_ three Falcons being launched
from a F-101 on Wings.
> So why did the F-101B, which carried fewer weapons, replace the
> F-102A. Well, it was a much larger plane and carried a greater fuel
> load so it had greater range. Also, it had two of the same engines
> that the F-102A has only one of, sio it was a lot faster.
The F-102's speed issues were not totally related to the engines. For
instance, the F-104 would easily outrun either of these planes, on a
single engine.
Maury
Cynthia Keeney
From: [1]Martin/Jennifer Keenan
> F-101Bs only ever used the centerline station for carrying extra fuel.
>I can find no evidence of any kind that any Voodoo ever carried wing
>pylons.
Did the "B" have an actual "centerline" station?
I'm fairly certain the Voodoos had two side-by-side fuselage stations (for
fuel).
John Keeney
--
Howard Austin
In article <EEL25...@iglou.com>, kee...@iglou1.iglou.com (Cynthia
Keeney) wrote:
The Voodoos that I flew had two stations for fuel tanks (450 gals) and a
centerline station for a small nuke (if there is such a thing)
Howard Austin.
Maury Markowitz
In article <5sdhle$f...@news.inforamp.net>, kee...@inforamp.net
(Martin/Jennifer Keenan) wrote:
> As far as I know, the (interceptor -- F-101B and F-101F) Voodoo only
> ever carried IR Falcons and Genie rockets. Two of each were installed
> on a rotating panel directly under the cockpit -- two Genies on one
> side of the panel, and two Falcons on the other. Apparently, a plan
> to equip the F-101B with three Falcons and rockets was never tested or
> adopted.
Well, like I said I _saw_ this happening - three Genie's being launched
- in the Wings footage (perhaps only in a test mind you).
> ...Coming soon (maybe?) -- The Voodoo hompage. Stay tuned.
Got any good info on the IRSAT? I'd love to see how it's information
was presented inside the cockpit.
Maury
Tom Naylor
d1ch...@aol.com (D1chucky) wrote:
>Is it true that the F-101b carried only IR Falcons.--D1.
>>you write-It has been erroneously reported in numerous >books, especially
>by Bill
>>Gunston, over the years that the 101B carried 3 Falcom >missiles with
>>the Genies carried on under wing or under fuselage pylons.
>
No - it could carry both the radar and ir Falcons. It had basically
the same weapons control system as the F-102A.
Tom Naylor
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
How did we get from 3 Falcons to 3 Genies????? The Genie was much
larger than the Falcon. There definitely was no place for 3 Genies!!!
Tom Naylor
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
>In article <5s8i4q$i...@news.inforamp.net>, kee...@inforamp.net
>(Martin/Jennifer Keenan) wrote:
>
>> In summation, the Voodoo never fired a weapon in anger, and never shot
>> anything down. It earned a reputation for itself of being a tricky
>> aircraft to fly, with some very unforgiving and downright dangerous
>> foibles.
>
> I was under the impression that these problems were limited to the A/C
>versions, and corrected in the (IMHO beautiful) C/F versions with the
>addition of a rather advanced SAS system. One pilot described the problem
>as the plane "wanting to switch ends", which is likely not accurate, but a
>description of some powerful dutch roll or perhaps some high speed effect
>I'm unaware of. I believe NASA operated some for a time, perhaps Mary
>will trip over this and fill us in.
>
>> America for three decades. It was also a spectacular airshow exhibit,
>> especially in terms of pure noise,
>
> Yup, certainly the loudest plane I've heard when on AB, although the
>Nimrod gets points for being almost as loud without!
>
>Maury
The problem with the 101, as well as the 104, was pitch up. At high
angles of attack, the horizontal T-tail lost airflow and the aircraft
would pitch up, sort of like the SU-27 Cobra maneuver without the
control. The recommended recovery procedure was
a) below 10,000 ft, eject
b) above 10,000 ft, pop the drag chute to bring the nose back down
then dive to regain airspeed.
We lost a plane with the pilot and RO because he thought he could
recover and was wrong. Whatever his altitude at pitch up, it was too
low and he dove into Lake Huron at full A/B trying to regain control.
Tom Naylor
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
>In article <33e934db...@news.mindspring.com>,
>tomn...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>> It has been erroneously reported in numerous books, especially by Bill
>> Gunston, over the years that the 101B carried 3 Falcom missiles with
>> the Genies carried on under wing or under fuselage pylons. Not true on
>> either case. There was not enough room on the door for 3 Falcons.
>
> I could be wrong, but I believe I _saw_ three Falcons being launched
>from a F-101 on Wings.
>
>> So why did the F-101B, which carried fewer weapons, replace the
>> F-102A. Well, it was a much larger plane and carried a greater fuel
>> load so it had greater range. Also, it had two of the same engines
>> that the F-102A has only one of, sio it was a lot faster.
>
> The F-102's speed issues were not totally related to the engines. For
>instance, the F-104 would easily outrun either of these planes, on a
>single engine.
>
>Maury
I can assure you that the Voodoo never carried 3 Falcons, despite some
drawings showing it with 3. There just wasn't enough room on the
weapons system door. I have never seen a Voodoo with 3 Falcons and I
have never seen a photo of one carrying or with launchers for 3.
The 104 was a very light plane with a high thrust to weight ratio. But
it wasn't much of a weapon platform compared to the 102. The 6 Falcons
carried by the 102 probably wieghed close to the 104 airframe without
engine.
Charles Holzer
Any of you guys happen to have earned a "Voodoo Medicine Man" patch? I've
still got mine. Chuck-VAY
F 94C
Maury Markowitz writes:
>I was under the impression that these problems were limited
>to the A/C versions, and corrected in the (IMHO beautiful)
>C/F versions with the addition of a rather advanced SAS
>system.
The only problem in the F-101B was the pitchup problem. You
may notice that prototype did not have the high T-Tail. When
testing F-101A, they found problem. McDonnell offered to
lower horizontal stabilizer ala F-4 to solve problem but USAF
said "Awww, forget it, we'll live with it. Right boys?".
"Boys"responded: "Right boss, we'll live and die with it.".
No other cure possible. Installed a PCS (Pitch Control System)
which had a horn first and at higher angle of attack a stick pusher.
The AFCS (Automatic Flight Control System = autopilot) if engaged
had a CSL (Control Stick Limiter) feature that prevented further aft
stick movement before horn trigger. (theoretically anyway)
Example: 30,000 lb F-101B, plus 6,000 lb (max internal fuel
13,000 lb) @ 40,000 ft @ 1.2 mach: If all goes well,
CSL activates at 3.35 g (+/- .20)
Horn activates at 3.70 g
Pusher activates at 3.95 g (+/- .20)
Will
F 94C
Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> The Voodoo's aerodynamic "foible" was "pitch-up" which is
>> drastically different than "some powerful Dutch roll".
>>
>> The high empennage, designed that way to clear the two
>> engines, would at high angle of attack be blanked by the
>> turbulent airflow over the wing.
Maury Markowitz asked:
> Wouldn't this be more properly termed "deep stall" then?
No. The F-101 will not stall, no way, no how. It pitches up
and tumbles with inboard portion of wing still "flying".
>> With the loss of horizontal tail counter-force, the wing
>> basically lifted the plane over its own tail--referred to
>> euphemistically as a "departure from controlled flight."
>Is the pitch up in this case similar to the effects from
>most swept wing planes, or is this some other effect
>unique to this one?
F-104 would do it and that's straight wing. It wasn't same
though in severity or envelope. If you lower the stabilizer
on F-101 you eliminate problem. The F-101 pitchup is
unique. I posted another message a little more technical
on what happens at onset. Most of it I think you know.
>I can't remember if the description had a speed range
>attached or not, it was about two years ago.
F-101 has pitchup, other airplanes have stalls. Any
condition you set up and say a stall will occur, the same
will be true for the F-101 except you substitute word "pitchup"
for "stall". Subsonic you get pre-stall buffet just as others.
Then if you yank, you're gone. If you maintain altitude and let
speed bleed off slowwwwly, the nose will start up. Counteract
with forward stick and you can fly right up to edge with a light
hand on stick. One thing that saved a lot of guys was the
axiom "You can't pitchup (or stall?) at zero "g" so make like
an arrow.".
Supersonic there is no buffet warning.
Will
F 94C
Tom Naylor writes re: F-101B:
>When the Genies were to be fired, the door rotated about its
>centerline.
And stopped hopefully; pilot's fingers crossed.
>It has been erroneously reported in numerous books,
>especially by Bill Gunston, over the years that the 101B
>carried 3 Falcom missiles with the Genies carried on
>under wing or under fuselage pylons. Not true on either
>case. There was not enough room on the door for 3 Falcons.
Right you are. Bill Gunston "speculates" 'Ah, I see the first
drawings show only 2.75 FFAR rockets for F-101B. But I
know they didn't do that. Hmmm, here it says McDonnell is
thinking about adding 3 Falcon missiles to the 2.75's. Hmmm,
he guesses, I'll bet they forget rockets, keep 3 missiles and
add that Genie unguided atomic warhead rocket on wings' So,
that wrong guess becomes "fact" for ever more to Bill Gunston
fans.
Enjoyed your message, Tom.
Will
F 94C
Brett Jaffee wrote:
>>I recently had the opportunity to fly in a light plane from the
>>Camarillo airport (North of Los Angeles). The civil airport used
>>to be known, I think, as Oxnard AFB, and it operated F-101's.
Martin Keenan posted an excellent condensed
history of F-101. Excerpts I wanted to comment on follow:
>BTW, the unit that used to operate Voodoos at Oxnard AFB was
>the 437th Fighter Interceptor Squadron of Air Defense Commande
Part of 414th Fighter Group headquartered at Oxnard AFB which
answered to LAADS (Los Angeles Air Defense Sector) and ADC.
>The most produced variant of the Voodoo was the F-101B/F
>two-seat interceptor version. (The F-101F [originally the TF-101B]
TF-101B's were the 50+ regular B's modified by adding a dual
control kit. F-101F were assembly line dual control F-101B's.
No external difference. Starting 1961, all duals were
designated F-101F.
>(The F-101F [originally the TF-101B] was the trainer version
>with two sets of controls, while the 'B' version
>carried a 'Scope Wizard' in the back).
"trainer version" is really a bit misleading. No difference from the "B"
except the added weight and capability of dual controls. Both had
'Scope Wizards' (=RO = Radar Observers) 99% of the time. Both
scheduled for missions armed alert etc. without any notice of whether
it was a "dual" or not. The RO's were usually only ones to notice
since they either hoped for a bit of stick time or regretted having the
stick and other controls get in their way. Occasionally there was a
need for a training or PR flight and a "dual" would be requested from
maintenance scheduling. Routinely "duals" were just another F-101B.
>backup to the USAF interceptor program that ultimately produced the
>F-106.
ADC (Air Defense Command) screamed in 1952 "Why can't
you get that !@&$!% F-102 lawn dagger/dart dud flying right?
Russkies are coming and we need an interceptor NOW! We
want the F-101!". USAF said "Sit tight with F-86D's while we
use a hot poker on those Convair guys." ADC insisted
"Russkies are coming! We need help NOW.
USAF caved in 1953. Took proposals. NA proposed F-100
interceptor, Northrop's "We can give you a better F-89" and
McDonnell said take our Voodoo. With F-102A/B "experiment"
looking like a new Bede venture, USAF ordered F-101B in
1955. ADC happy.
> 479 were built before the last were completed in 1959,
Make that 1st F-101B's delivered in 1959. Tail numbers 56-xxx
Last delivered 1961. Tail numbers 59-xxx
Don't go by fiscal year procurement date in tail number.
>In summation, the Voodoo never fired a weapon in anger,
>and never shot anything down.
Not even in SEA? Maybe before Gulf of Tonkin? Maybe Laos?
Just "talk" I heard or "someone read" stuff. Haven't looked it up.
>It earned a reputation for itself of being a tricky aircraft to fly,
>with some very unforgiving and downright dangerous foibles.
Mainly for "Bank and yank, kick the tires, light the fires" pilots.
With a landing touchdown speed in the 190-250 mph range
you have to keep your mind on business. Pitchup was only
unique hazard.
>Against this must be set the fact that it was an excellent
>photorecon aircraft, and a vital part of the air defense of North
>America for three decades.
>It was also a spectacular airshow exhibit, especially in terms of
>pure noise, and airshows haven't been quite the same since they
>were retired.
Only the F-104 could challenge F-101B acceleration and climb
capability in USAF in those days.
Will
F 94C
Ed Rasimus said:
>The Voodoo's aerodynamic "foible" was "pitch-up" which
>is drastically different than "some powerful Dutch roll".
Got that right ace. <g>
>The high empennage, designed that way to clear the two
>engines, would at high angle of attack be blanked by the
>turbulent airflow over the wing. With the loss of horizonta
>tail counter-force, the wing basically lifted the plane over
>its own tail
That's right but it didn't just jump up and bite you without
warning unless you weren't thinking or were a ham-handed
pilot. As the swept wing tips stall the wing is effectively
shortened and the center of lift moves forward trying to pitch
the nose up. Downwash from inboard wing and fuselage
hits tail. As long as stab has positive angle to downwash,
pilot can overcome pitch up tendency. A negative angle
adds to nose up tendency and puts you in what engineers
call the "negative stability envelope" and pilots call "oops!".
You can still stop it but if you wait, response to stick lessens
until ineffective and full pitchup occurs. Not recoverable
without a drag chute to deploy. Even then it's iffy.
>--referred to euphemistically as a "departure from
>controlled flight."
Back in those days pilots didnt use those big words. <g>
Just called it pitchup. "departure from controlled flight"
was when you cancelled and went VFR.
>The solution was a "stick-kicker" or shaker that
>inhibited further aft stick movement when high AOA
>was being approached.
Actually the PCS was a horn first then a pusher.
No shaking or limiting. Pilot could always pull right into
pitchup. (autopilot had limiting before horn). System
was an aid when it worked properly. Other times it's
up to pilot to know his a/c and his own capabilities.
>All of which leads you to an airplane which couldn't
>effectively perform high G maneuvers but which still had
>the potential to be an excellent interceptor and
>reconnaisance platform.
At low speed it can't pull a lot of g's but keep speed up and
you are talking 6.8 g's max which ain't hay. Envelope just
different. Wing loading at mtow for F-101B pretty heavy,
135 lb/sq.ft. F-106 is 63 lb/sq.ft. but under certain conditions,
Voodoo can pull more g's.
Will
F 94C
D1chucky asked:
>Is it true that the F-101b carried only IR Falcons.--D1.
It carried radar guided and IR guided Hughes Falcon
missiles. Originally GAR-1. Then I think GAR-2 and
GAR-2A. Later renamed as AIM-4A (radar) and
AIM-4C (IR). 133 lb. ea.
Also carried 2 ea. Douglas "Genie" MB-1 atomic warhead
rockets. Later renamed AIR-2A. 838 lb. ea.
Will
F 94C
D1chucky) wrote:
>>Is it true that the F-101b carried only IR Falcons.--D1.
Tom Naylor answered:
>No - it could carry both the radar and ir Falcons. It had basically
>the same weapons control system as the F-102A.
You're right that F-101B could use both radar guided and IR
missiles. The FCS of F-102 was supposed to be MA-1 but
it was too buggy so they put the MG-10 fire control system
in it. That had capability to figure attack geometry for Falcon
missiles and maybe even 2.75 FFAR.
The F-101B had the Hughes MG-13 FCS which was quite
different. Radar capability, geometry for Douglas atomic
warhead rocket with programmed snap-up, and other features.
Maybe you are thinking of F-89J which had same FCS
(Fire Control System) as F-101B. Even though same black
boxes, their radar performed better for some reason.
Will
F 94C
Tom Naylor) writes:
>The 104 was a very light plane with a high thrust to weight ratio
Using max thrust and empty weight a book I read says,
F-101B = 1lb thrust per .86 lb weight
F-104A/G = 1lb thrust per .90 lb weight
F-102A = 1lb thrust per 1.125 lb weight
>But it wasn't much of a weapon platform compared to the 102.
On paper only. In real life, even the F-89J performed the air
defense mission better than F-102. F-104 is still in service
by more than one nation's air force and in significant numbers.
F-104's swept the skies over Straits of Formosa of MiGs
because of superior performance (speed) and superior
armament (Sidewinder plus 20 mm cannon). Simplicty,
cheap, effective.
I wouldn't bet on the F-102 hitting a drone with a perfect setup
and ideal conditions. The Falcon missiles were unreliable,
especially the radar guided. They cost a fortune, came with
factory reps to baby them, had to have their own building for
test, repair, etc. Needed controlled climatic conditions for
storage etc. Box they came in probably cost more than
4 Sidewinders. All the king's horses and all the king's men
couldn't establish Falcon GAR reliability.
As one squadron C.O. put it: "Get rid of those pampered #@!$%&
Falcons and get me some Sidewinders (on F-101B). I can stack
the Sidewinders up outdoors in the snow like cord wood and when
I need one, wipe snow off, load it, fire, and get a kill.". Think of
cost saving. ADC wouldn't do it.
>The 6 Falcons carried by the 102 probably wieghed close to
>the 104 airframe without engine.
Let's see, 6 x 133 = 798 lbs. You must be confusing F-104
with Jim Bede's BD-10. <g>
Will
F 94C
Tom Naylor wrote:
>The problem with the 101, as well as the 104,
>was pitch up. At high angles of attack, the horizontal
>T-tail lost airflow and the aircraft would pitch up,
>sort of like the SU-27 Cobra maneuver without the
>control. The recommended recovery procedure was
>
>a) below 10,000 ft, eject
>
>b) above 10,000 ft, pop the drag chute to bring the nose back down
>then dive to regain airspeed.
The F-101B procedure was a bit different.
A. "If a fully developed pitchup occurs below 15,000 feet terrain
clearance, EJECT, as the possibility of dive recovery is
highly improbable. If pitchup is encountered and the airplane
is not under control by 15,000 feet terrain clearance, EJECT."
B. "PITCHUP RECOVERY
In the event pitchup is accidentally entered, perform the
following as soon as pitchup tendency is recognized:
1. CONTROL STICK - FULL FORWARD
2. RUDDER AND AILERONS - NEUTRALIZE
3. AFTERBURNERS - OFF
4. DRAG CHUTE - DEPLOY AT PEAK OF PITCHUP
5. CONTROL STICK - NEUTRALIZE AS
NEGATIVE 'G' IS SENSED
6. Dive recovery - INITIATE AT 350 KNOTS IAS
7. If aircraft is not under control at 15,000 feet
terrain clearance - EJECT"
" NOTE
The airplane feel system will tend to hold the stick full
forward until angle of attack is broken, at which time it
will tend to move the stick toward neutral as the
airplane recovers."
"The drag chute will break the pitchup maneuver
immediately and prevent the airplane from spinning.
However, the airplane may perform a roll during the
recovery after the angle of attack has been broken.
The roll, if encountered, will be fairly rapid and will stop
with no action required on the part of the pilot. The
airplane will be out of control during the pitchup
maneuver for approximately 4 to 8 seconds. After
recovery, slowly roll wings level, while maintaining
between 0 and +1 'g' to gain flying speed."
Don't jerk stick either way, don't try to pull out of
dive until reaching at least 350 kts IAS. Don't jettison
drag chute during recovery. At 230 - 250 kts IAS the
drag chute will fail and either tear away or stream
behind the airplane.
Will
F 94C
Maury Markowitz writes:
>I could be wrong, but I believe I _saw_ three Falcons being launched
>from a F-101 on Wings.
I wouldn't doubt it but it would have had to be an experiment.
Maybe film from when that was the plan. Build F-101B with
2.75 FFAR and 3 Falcon missiles. None of production
F-101B/F's had other than 2 Falcons on rails on armament door.
>The F-102's speed issues were not totally related to the
> engines. For instance, the F-104 would easily outrun either of
> these planes, on a single engine.
>Maury
Easily outrun F-102A. Who couldn't? <g>
Easily outrun F-101B. No. It would be a race. I think the
F-101B could win certain races in spite of F-104's top speed
advantage. Possibly a brake release to a VOR race where
I pick the locations and temps. <g>
Will
.
F 94C
Martin/Jennifer Keenan wrote:
>The 'aircraft wanting to switch ends' is probably a reference
> to the F-101s vicious 'pitch-up' problems. I don't recall all the
>particulars, but essentially, if a certain angle of attack was
>exceeded, the horizontal stabilizer was blanked by the wing,
>and the aircraft could 'pitch-up' very suddenly. My
>understanding is that this problem was smoothed out, but
>never entirely eliminated, along with troubles with the nose gear.
McDonnell offered to fix problem by putting F-4 type tail on
F-101B's. USAF said no. Pitchup remained same old pitchup.
Never heard about a nose gear problem. F-101B's didn't have it.
Tell me more.
>Another cute problem on earlier versions was the tendancy for the
>instrument panel to fall into the pilots lap on takeoff. This
>triggered the stick knocker (installed to kick the stick forward to
>prevent pitch-up), which forced the stick into the instrument panel...
>Lots of fun on takeoff.
F-101B's never had this problem Are you talking about a
defect or a human error? Like mechanic not securing
fasteners that hold instrument panel in place. This happens
on lots of planes because that's a typical instrument panel
design. Just depends on mechanics securing panel and pilots
checking it secure on preflight.
>One magazine article I read once quoted a Voodoo veteran
>describing the aircraft as one of the most difficult to fly
>aircraft that ever got into service with any Air Force.
Initially you had to have experience to get in F-101B squadron.
All checkouts in squadron. Then low timers were sent and still
no big problem. ADC decided to improve on 100% success by
creating a school and teaching the book (ala McDonnell
propaganda) methods and send checked out pilots to squadrons.
School set up at Tyndall AFB Florida. Now there were
problems.They must have raised the water level of the
Gulf of Mexico by several inches. Talk about pitchups!
When the graduates that survived got to the squadrons
it was hard to retrain the bad habits out of them.
>>Is it true that the F-101b carried only IR Falcons.--D1.
>As far as I know, the (interceptor -- F-101B and F-101F)
>Voodoo only ever carried IR Falcons and Genie rockets.
F-101B/F used both radar and IR missiles. Different attack
parameters. Crews trained regularly and had squares to
fill for radar missile, IR missile, and Genie rocket attacks
using FCS (Fire Control System). Also trained for manual
firing of Genie (MB-1 = AIR-2A) and IR Falcon missiles
using optical gunsight.
The IR FCS (Fire control system) was an add on. The IR
seek head replaced the refueling probe on nose just in
front of windscreen. It was done in 1960's as a/c rotated
through scheduled depot maintenance at Ogden AFB Utah.
>F-101Bs only ever used the centerline station for carrying
>extra fuel. I can find no evidence of any kind that any Voodoo
>ever carried wing pylons.
No centerline station used. Probably could add one. The external
fuel tanks were carried on the belly beneath each engine. Two
450 gal (3,000 lb) each droppable tanks. Each attached about 3 ft.
from a/c centerline giving 6 ft. between tank centerlines.
Sometimes flown with only one tank. Think of the yaw. Talk
about a squirrelly airplane! Rule of thumb carrying two tanks
was the 3,000 lb. fuel of one tank is needed to offset the drag
of the two tanks so you only get 3,000 lb. from other tank to
increase range or loiter on station.
McDonnell offered to provide a streamlined supersonic tank
for F-101B for a price. USAF decided they had plenty of old
450 gal. tanks around and they could do without. You may
have seen film of a test F-101 with that tank mounted on
centerline. I think it only carried 250 gal. so the 900 gal. from
two old fighter tanks gave better CAP time.
Will
Ed Rasimus
tomn...@mindspring.com (Tom Naylor) wrote:
>So why did the F-101B, which carried fewer weapons, replace the
>F-102A. Well, it was a much larger plane and carried a greater fuel
>load so it had greater range. Also, it had two of the same engines
>that the F-102A has only one of, sio it was a lot faster. The F-102A
>was a beautiful machine in its day, but the Voodoo was a true monster.
I can't speak with any authority on the weapons load of the 101s,
although I'm suspicious about the Genie carriage data.
As for size, the 101 wasn't significantly larger than the
Deuce--probably within a couple of feet greater in span and not much
different in length and undoubtedly a tad heavier.
Performance was better than the Deuce, with a higher dash speed, but
not anywhere near the turning performance. Range would have been only
negligibly greater since the two engines do a good job of consuming
the greater fuel load.
The primary reason for the preference would have been the ADC mission
and the two man crew. IMHO.
tha...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Still got mine.
152 TRG, Nevada Air National Guard.
David Taylor
> As for size, the 101 wasn't significantly larger than the
> Deuce--probably within a couple of feet greater in span and not much
> different in length and undoubtedly a tad heavier.
According to an old (1957) book I have, they compare as follows:
102A 101A
Wing Span 38 ft 39 ft 8 in
Length 52 ft 5 in 67 ft 4 in
Loaded wt. 25,750 lb 40,000 lbs
-- Dave
Martin Sagara
Ed Rasimus (thu...@rmii.com) wrote:
: tomn...@mindspring.com (Tom Naylor) wrote:
: >So why did the F-101B, which carried fewer weapons, replace the
: >F-102A. Well, it was a much larger plane and carried a greater fuel
: >load so it had greater range. Also, it had two of the same engines
: >that the F-102A has only one of, sio it was a lot faster. The F-102A
: >was a beautiful machine in its day, but the Voodoo was a true monster.
: As for size, the 101 wasn't significantly larger than the
: Deuce--probably within a couple of feet greater in span and not much
: different in length and undoubtedly a tad heavier.
I concur with Ed's comments about the size.
The F-101B and F-102A in our museum are displayed side-by-side.
Just looking at them both, the difference in size is not noticable.
The one thing that is evident from a casual glance is that the
F-101B seems to sit higher off the ground and has a "taller" fuselage
than the F-102A.
Martin Sagara "Never before have so many,
Research Associate understood so little,
Wings Over The Rockies Air and Space Museum about so much"
Hangar No. 1, Old Lowry AFB
Denver, Colorado USA James Burke speaking about
(303) 360-5360 technology in "Connections"
msa...@rmii.com
Visit our web site at http://www.dimensional.com/~worm
Agtabby
>As one squadron C.O. put it: "Get rid of those pampered #@!$%&
>Falcons and get me some Sidewinders (on F-101B). I can stack
>the Sidewinders up outdoors in the snow like cord wood and when
>I need one, wipe snow off, load it, fire, and get a kill.". Think of
>cost saving. ADC wouldn't do it.
there was a great article in the WSJ about ten years ago about the
sidewinder. it was developed in a secret by a crank inventor, and opposed
by the air force and contracters from day one.
Finally is was agreed to have a fly off. The radar guided missile was to
fired from a modern fighter (102?) and had a whole factory team supporting
it. The sidewinder was to be fired from an old Korean war plane (f86?)
and had little support. The head of the sidewinder team walked over to
the falcon hangar and asked for some test equipment. When they angrily
asked what he wanted, he asked for a flashlight and a ladder.
The sidewinder hit something like the 5/5 of the first drones, the falcon
missed time after time. To this day the heat seaker is still a great
technology.
Emmanuel.Gustin
Agtabby (agt...@aol.com) wrote:
: there was a great article in the WSJ about ten years ago about the
: sidewinder. it was developed in a secret by a crank inventor, and opposed
: by the air force and contracters from day one.
You have the essentials, but you missed one major point --- the Sidewinder
was a NAVY missile! Both Sidewinder and Sparrow originated from US Navy
projects.
In addition, Dr William B McLean, the 'inventor' of the Sidewinder, worked
for the Navy Bureau of Ordnance, while "official" missile development was
undertaken by the Bureau of Aeronautics. McLean was hardly a crank
inventor, but his work was highly unofficial. At one point it escaped
cancellation only because the project officially did not exist, and thus
could not be cancelled. McLean did some of the work in hos own garage.
Emmanuel Gustin
Maury Markowitz
> The primary reason for the preference would have been the ADC mission
> and the two man crew. IMHO.
Was the 101B "integrated" with SAGE like the 102/106?
Maury
Maury Markowitz
In article <19970810102...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, f9...@aol.com
(F 94C) wrote:
> No. The F-101 will not stall, no way, no how. It pitches up
> and tumbles with inboard portion of wing still "flying".
Ugggg. Now not that I'd like to try this, but I've talked to some
Challenger pilots who described the loss of elevator control in this
fashion as "deep stall" (it's a T as well). Is the term being improperly
used?
> F-101 has pitchup, other airplanes have stalls. Any
I think I'm being confused because a similar (identical?) term is used
to describe the problem with swept wings as the stall moves back on the
wing.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
In article <19970810102...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, f9...@aol.com
(F 94C) wrote:
> The IR FCS (Fire control system) was an add on. The IR
> seek head replaced the refueling probe on nose just in
> front of windscreen. It was done in 1960's as a/c rotated
> through scheduled depot maintenance at Ogden AFB Utah.
How did you use this? I assume it wasn't a scanning display, but some
sort of modification to a normal "seeker" type arrangement? Was there any
sort of display inside for the data from the seeker, or was it fed
directly to the FCS? Was it it's own FCS, or simply more data to the
"normal" one?
Maury
Maury Markowitz
> The only problem in the F-101B was the pitchup problem. You
> may notice that prototype did not have the high T-Tail. When
> testing F-101A, they found problem. McDonnell offered to
> lower horizontal stabilizer ala F-4
Ahhhhh, is that why the -4 has the anti-dihedral? To get the surface
below the region of the downward moving air?
> Pusher activates at 3.95 g (+/- .20)
How strong was the pusher?
Maury
Richard Caldwell
>>>> FROM ONE POST:
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
> I could be wrong, but I believe I _saw_ three Falcons being launched
>from a F-101 on Wings.
>>>> FROM A LATER POST:
In Article Re: F-101 Voodoo , Maury Markowitz <ma...@softarc.com> wrote:
> Well, like I said I _saw_ this happening - three Genie's being
launched
> - in the Wings footage (perhaps only in a test mind you).
>>>> END QUOTED POSTS
So, which was it, 3 Falcons or 3 Genies? Or, perhaps it was launching 3
'somethings'. Since it carried a total of 4 (2 falcons & 2 Genies), this
would be quite possible.
Maury, I'm surprised at you. You're usually not this loosey goosey about
your factoids. 8-]
Richard
Maury Markowitz
In article <19970810102...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, f9...@aol.com
(F 94C) wrote:
> Easily outrun F-101B. No. It would be a race. I think the
> F-101B could win certain races in spite of F-104's top speed
> advantage. Possibly a brake release to a VOR race where
> I pick the locations and temps. <g>
Yeah, but low down I'll take the 104 any day. Short wings _do_ have
some advantages after all!
I have a question, you've been talking about the various ADC planes from
the 50's, but it's hard to get a handle on the lineage in use, as opposed
to development. For instance, you've got the F-86D out there, then the
F-89, then the -94 and -101B and -102? And chance you could do a summary?
Maury
Maury Markowitz
In article <19970810102...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, f9...@aol.com
(F 94C) wrote:
> You're right that F-101B could use both radar guided and IR
> missiles. The FCS of F-102 was supposed to be MA-1 but
> it was too buggy so they put the MG-10 fire control system
> in it. That had capability to figure attack geometry for Falcon
> missiles and maybe even 2.75 FFAR.
Can I assume from the wording that the MA-1 was to be more "weapon neutral"?
Maury
Maury Markowitz
In article <19970810102...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, f9...@aol.com
(F 94C) wrote:
> That's right but it didn't just jump up and bite you without
> warning unless you weren't thinking or were a ham-handed
> pilot. As the swept wing tips stall the wing is effectively
> shortened and the center of lift moves forward trying to pitch
> the nose up.
I'm a little unclear on this part... is the tip stall being caused by
flow separation? Do fences or washout help?
> Downwash from inboard wing and fuselage
> hits tail. As long as stab has positive angle to downwash,
> pilot can overcome pitch up tendency. A negative angle
> adds to nose up tendency and puts you in what engineers
> call the "negative stability envelope" and pilots call "oops!".
Got it. Interesting, in a weird way.
Maury
SIRIUS
> Never heard about a nose gear problem. F-101B's didn't have it.
> Tell me more.
It was famous for it. This is covered in any of the F-101 books.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Disregard everything below, it is for address
> harvesters. Spam the spammers! Feel free to copy
> it and to add the addresses of jerks who spam you.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> For you automated e-mail spammers out there,
> here's the e-mail addresses of the current board of
> the Federal Communications Commission:
>
> Chairman Reed Hundt: rhu...@fcc.gov
> Commissioner James Quello: jqu...@fcc.gov
> Commissioner Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov
> Commissioner Rachelle Chong: rch...@fcc.gov
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Add these to your list - they are all bona fide
> spammers and love to send and receive junk mail!
> u...@ftc.gov afr...@irs.gov nf...@internetmci.com
> feed...@perfect-partners.com jimm...@hotmail.com
> mail2...@compuserve.com adul...@adultage.com
> cath...@ctynet.com vid...@hotmail.com
> emdi...@answerme.com emd...@hotmail.com
> bi...@zignzag.com ws...@usa.net
> the...@1stfamily.com clu...@aol.com
> powe...@financier.com ht...@rapidconnect.com
> sk...@lostvegas.com free...@nim.com
> Danner...@netsky.net imc...@hotmail.com
> st...@quantcom.com cybe...@nevwest.com
> ht...@mail-response.com al...@adultsights.com
> sim...@answerme.com pret...@hotmail.com
> hgl...@power-tech.net scan...@nevwest.com
> firstf...@sixteen.com sum...@internetmedia.com
> 40...@pyramus.com the...@1stfamily.com
> ro...@digmeup.com babb...@answerme.com
> r...@cybertime.net jam...@powerup.com.au
> jump...@hotmail.com bulk...@freeyellow.com
> ro...@no-taxes.com mega...@pcmatrix.com
> mai...@mail.cucamonga.com vir...@netwave.ca
> hfre...@pluto.skyweb.net hostm...@skyweb.net
> no...@adultsights.com hfre...@adultsights.com
> webm...@fsmc.woy.com a...@ourlocation.com
> Bow...@regulus.net day...@onramp.net
> start.spa...@first.amendment.rights.com
> not...@VNET.IBM.COM webm...@sailahead.com
> Fri...@public.com endin...@aol.com
> free...@hotmail.com al...@adultsights.com
> jgat...@hotmail.com acc...@webcruiser.com
> cust...@zauction.com m...@opkone.com
> ord...@answerme.com orde...@kwikmail.com
> ilike...@juzdoit.com ol...@1011.com
> bl...@kode.net i...@cyberip.net ham...@answerme.com
> guara...@hotmail.com cy...@cybertecpro.com
> tele...@aol.com in...@videofantasy.com
> la...@videofantasy.com ke...@videofantasy.com
> sha...@videofantasy.com webm...@supersuck.com
> in...@lcgm.com ca...@chasecash.com
> freed...@regulus.net free...@hotmail.com
> mary@goose. net x...@gate.net 3384...@earthlink.net
> suc...@mlmman.com geo...@dircon.co.uk
> ahf...@hkstar.com in...@electron28.com
> fu...@j.com Frees...@worldnet.att.net
> bsi...@hotmail.com Fred...@aol.com
> in...@submitking.com stop...@consumernet.com
Ed Rasimus
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
> Ahhhhh, is that why the -4 has the anti-dihedral? To get the surface
>below the region of the downward moving air?
>
Yep. The anhedral of the F-4 tail was designed to insure that at least
some portion of the tail would always be flying, even at high AOA.
Despite the tail the F-4 still displayed some poor flight
characteristics such as severe adverse yaw (not quite as bad as the
F-100) which lead to "departures" from controlled flight.
The LES of the later years cured much of the problem for the E models.
Ed Rasimus
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
>In article <19970810102...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, f9...@aol.com
>(F 94C) wrote:
>
>> The IR FCS (Fire control system) was an add on. The IR
>> seek head replaced the refueling probe on nose just in
>> front of windscreen. It was done in 1960's as a/c rotated
>> through scheduled depot maintenance at Ogden AFB Utah.
>
> How did you use this? I assume it wasn't a scanning display, but some
>sort of modification to a normal "seeker" type arrangement? Was there any
>sort of display inside for the data from the seeker, or was it fed
>directly to the FCS? Was it it's own FCS, or simply more data to the
>"normal" one?
The IR seekers of the period as used on the 101, 102, 106 and F-4C
were azimuth detectors (FWIW, so are the IRST systems used or
anticipated today).
The IR display was a horizontal band across the bottom of the radar
presentation (remember that intercept radars are generally B-sweep
scopes rather than PPI). The heat sources detected displayed as
"grass" or noise across the bottom of the screen. An IR source would
be a spike which would indicate an azimuth in which to concentrate a
radar search.
Ed Rasimus
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
>In article <19970810102...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, f9...@aol.com
>(F 94C) wrote:
>
>> No. The F-101 will not stall, no way, no how. It pitches up
>> and tumbles with inboard portion of wing still "flying".
>
> Ugggg. Now not that I'd like to try this, but I've talked to some
>Challenger pilots who described the loss of elevator control in this
>fashion as "deep stall" (it's a T as well). Is the term being improperly
>used?
>
>> F-101 has pitchup, other airplanes have stalls. Any
>
> I think I'm being confused because a similar (identical?) term is used
>to describe the problem with swept wings as the stall moves back on the
>wing.
I've got to disagree with F 94C, but I think it's purely a function of
terminology.
Any wing can stall--defined as the point on the curve where a further
increase in angle of attack results in more drag (induced) than lift.
Swept wings stall considerably differently than straight. Whereas on a
straight wing the drop off in lift for an increase in AOA is quite
abrupt, in swept wings the lift curve is shallower and with a flatter
peak. The result is that as AOA increases, drag goes up and the
aircraft develops a sink rate. For most swept wings the airplane can
be flown with the nose up, fully-stalled, with virtually normal roll
control and full aft stick--pitch-down ala straight wing never occurs.
A check of the VVI will show it pegged at more than 6000 fpm sink
rate.
Some swept wings don't like being in that regime and will "depart"
when the tail is blanked or when the slightest amount of adverse
yaw/cross-control is introduced.
Maury Markowitz
In article <33f06d9d...@news.rmi.net>, thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
wrote:
> Data-link was an integrated autopilot system in which the aircraft
> could receive electronic "pointers" to GCI targets. In full-auto mode
> the aircraft was autopilot flown IAW with ground controller
> instructions to a point at which the pilot would take over for the
> final intercept. In more common operation, the datalink provided
> steering cues on the flight instruments for an optimum intercept.
I understand the MiG-25 used a very similar system too, although I'm not
too sure if any of the other interceptors they had were similar (and boy
did they have a lot of models!).
> The 106 (and the F-105) were both equipped with "Flight Director"
> systems and taped instruments that presented datalink information.
Didn't this make it on the 102 as well?
> Whether the 101B was datalink capable or not, I can't answer
> authoritatively, but I would guess that it was.
It would make sense considering the time frame I suppose.
Maury
Walter Witherspoon
Maury Markowitz wrote:
>
> In article <19970810102...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, f9...@aol.com
> (F 94C) wrote:
>
> > No. The F-101 will not stall, no way, no how. It pitches up
> > and tumbles with inboard portion of wing still "flying".
>
> Ugggg. Now not that I'd like to try this, but I've talked to some
> Challenger pilots who described the loss of elevator control in this
> fashion as "deep stall" (it's a T as well). Is the term being improperly
> used?
>
> > F-101 has pitchup, other airplanes have stalls. Any
>
> I think I'm being confused because a similar (identical?) term is used
> to describe the problem with swept wings as the stall moves back on the
> wing.
>
Just info, the first Challenger was lost in 1980 when it got into a
deep stall and suffered a flameout during spin tests. The pilot
deployed the spin chute and recovered initially but the chute wouldn't
separate and the jet was unflyable. Pilot was killed but the other test
crewmen were able to bail out. The jet crashed northeast of it's test
base at Mojave Ca.
Walt W
Maury Markowitz
In article <33f16f3c...@news.rmi.net>, thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
wrote:
> The IR seekers of the period as used on the 101, 102, 106 and F-4C
> were azimuth detectors (FWIW, so are the IRST systems used or
> anticipated today).
Yeah, isn't there only one scanning type available currently? Swedish I
think.
> The IR display was a horizontal band across the bottom of the radar
> presentation (remember that intercept radars are generally B-sweep
> scopes rather than PPI)
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the term "B-sweep". Is this a short form
for band-sweep (ie, a fan shaped pattern of the beam)? If this is
correct, wouldn't ground clutter be a serious problem?
>. The heat sources detected displayed as
> "grass" or noise across the bottom of the screen. An IR source would
> be a spike which would indicate an azimuth in which to concentrate a
> radar search.
Wow, that's neat. Was the range of the system long enough to make it
useful for interception, or was the purpose primarily to reduce operator
workload when "fine tuning" the search pattern?
Now I'm somewhat curious about the mechanics of the device... if the
system was primarily for azimuth, how did they arrange the shutter? Oh, I
suppose it was some sort of "tape" running back and forth in front of the
device, or perhaps a circular ring that was spinning.
Does anyone know about the IRSAT in the MiG-29/Su-27? Is it a PPI like
device?
Maury
Ed Rasimus
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
If you mean was the 101B flown under the ADC/NORAD concept of
close-control GCI, then the answer is "absolutely."
If, OTOH, you mean was the Voodoo "data-link" capable, then I don't
know.
Data-link was an integrated autopilot system in which the aircraft
could receive electronic "pointers" to GCI targets. In full-auto mode
the aircraft was autopilot flown IAW with ground controller
instructions to a point at which the pilot would take over for the
final intercept. In more common operation, the datalink provided
steering cues on the flight instruments for an optimum intercept.
The 106 (and the F-105) were both equipped with "Flight Director"
systems and taped instruments that presented datalink information.
In interceptor brevity code the datalink was referred to as "Dolly."
Whether the 101B was datalink capable or not, I can't answer
authoritatively, but I would guess that it was.
BlackBeard
In article <33f2df50...@news.rmi.net>, thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) wrote:
>
> IR displays would generally not be a PPI display, since they only
> provide azimuth data. To gain range information you have to either
> integrate with an azimuth cut from a cooperating source; get data from
> a stand-off platform like AWACS; or possibly pulse along the IR
> defined azimuth with a LPI radar signal.
>
With some current MSI (multi-sensor integration) systems these days the
display you're talking about (yes, b-sweep one you described accurately),
is better defined as the attack format or some other variation. The
display remains the same and the only difference is extra symbology
indicating if you are receiving your data from the Radar, LINK, FLIR or
some of the other available sensors. Or any combination of the sensor
suite. You don't have to toggle through multiple displays except maybe
A/A, A/G, and SA.
And Ed, I know you've been out for a while, but ownship passive FLIR
ranging is a reality now days.
BlackBeard
Submarines once, Submarines twice...
Due to recent cutbacks, the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off until further notice...
Maury Markowitz
In article <33f37191...@news.rmi.net>, thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
wrote:
> Swept wings stall considerably differently than straight. Whereas on a
> straight wing the drop off in lift for an increase in AOA is quite
> abrupt, in swept wings the lift curve is shallower and with a flatter
> peak. The result is that as AOA increases, drag goes up and the
> aircraft develops a sink rate. For most swept wings the airplane can
> be flown with the nose up, fully-stalled, with virtually normal roll
> control and full aft stick--pitch-down ala straight wing never occurs.
> A check of the VVI will show it pegged at more than 6000 fpm sink
> rate.
That's interesting.
> Some swept wings don't like being in that regime and will "depart"
> when the tail is blanked or when the slightest amount of adverse
> yaw/cross-control is introduced.
But I thought there was an additional effect being caused by the sweep
in that the tips would tend to stall earlier (although I can't say why, I
haven't looked at this specifically) and thus the "rest of the wing" is
effectively more forward, the center of pressure moves forward and the
plane pitches up suddenly.
Was this not a part of your description of "Sabre Dance"?
Maury
Ed Rasimus
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
>In article <33f16f3c...@news.rmi.net>, thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
>wrote:
>
>> The IR display was a horizontal band across the bottom of the radar
>> presentation (remember that intercept radars are generally B-sweep
>> scopes rather than PPI)
>
> Sorry, I'm not familiar with the term "B-sweep". Is this a short form
>for band-sweep (ie, a fan shaped pattern of the beam)? If this is
>correct, wouldn't ground clutter be a serious problem?
Most radars use PPI (Plan Position Indicator) displays--that's what
you see in the movies, either a full 360 circle or for airborne
radars, a pie shaped wedge with the antenna in the apex. The problem
with that for an interceptor is that as you reach "end game" the
critical picture is in that tiny little wedge.
A "B-sweep" is a square picture with the antenna cursor as a vertical
line. The angular measurement left and right of centerline is
represented by vertical lines (10 degree, 20 degree, etc) each side of
the center. The distance from the antenna is measure base of scope to
top while azimuth is depicted horizontally. As the target gets closer,
the display doesn't narrow down.
It takes a while to get used to it, but in a fairly short time, the
interpretation is easy. Most US interceptors employed B-Sweep radar
scopes (the F-4 for example.)
>>. The heat sources detected displayed as
>> "grass" or noise across the bottom of the screen. An IR source would
>> be a spike which would indicate an azimuth in which to concentrate a
>> radar search.
>
> Wow, that's neat. Was the range of the system long enough to make it
>useful for interception, or was the purpose primarily to reduce operator
>workload when "fine tuning" the search pattern?
The system was unreliable and abandoned. The little chin turret on the
F-4 was used for other things and even eliminated on some aircraft.
>
IR displays would generally not be a PPI display, since they only
provide azimuth data. To gain range information you have to either
integrate with an azimuth cut from a cooperating source; get data from
a stand-off platform like AWACS; or possibly pulse along the IR
defined azimuth with a LPI radar signal.
SIRIUS
> Just info, the first Challenger was lost in 1980 when it got into a
> deep stall and suffered a flameout during spin tests. The pilot
> deployed the spin chute and recovered initially but the chute wouldn't
> separate and the jet was unflyable. Pilot was killed but the other test
> crewmen were able to bail out. The jet crashed northeast of it's test
> base at Mojave Ca.
The pilot actually got tangled up in the anti-spin parachute. A hell of a
way to go by any standard.
Maury Markowitz
In article <this-1208971639120001@edward_teach.chinalake.navy.mil>,
th...@reader.makes.me.doThis (BlackBeard) wrote:
> And Ed, I know you've been out for a while, but ownship passive FLIR
> ranging is a reality now days.
I'm intrigued, how?
Maury
Maury Markowitz
> Most radars use PPI (Plan Position Indicator) displays--that's what
> you see in the movies, either a full 360 circle or for airborne
> radars, a pie shaped wedge with the antenna in the apex. The problem
> with that for an interceptor is that as you reach "end game" the
> critical picture is in that tiny little wedge.
Right, that makes sense. PPI exists only because it's easy electronics.
> A "B-sweep" is a square picture with the antenna cursor as a vertical
> line. The angular measurement left and right of centerline is
> represented by vertical lines (10 degree, 20 degree, etc) each side of
> the center. The distance from the antenna is measure base of scope to
> top while azimuth is depicted horizontally. As the target gets closer,
> the display doesn't narrow down.
I believe something similar is used in the F-18? (fully digital in that
case though).
> It takes a while to get used to it, but in a fairly short time, the
> interpretation is easy. Most US interceptors employed B-Sweep radar
> scopes (the F-4 for example.)
Does _any_ plane offer a borescope type display?
> The system was unreliable and abandoned. The little chin turret on the
> F-4 was used for other things and even eliminated on some aircraft.
I didn't even know the F-4 had one!
> IR displays would generally not be a PPI display, since they only
> provide azimuth data. To gain range information you have to either
> integrate with an azimuth cut from a cooperating source; get data from
> a stand-off platform like AWACS; or possibly pulse along the IR
> defined azimuth with a LPI radar signal.
The last one wouldn't likely be all that hard, slaving the IR's shutter
motor to the scan hardware on the radar.
Maury
BlackBeard
In article <maury-13089...@199.166.204.230>, ma...@softarc.com
(Maury Markowitz) wrote:
The fact that it exists is not classified. Details of how it works and
performance specs are.
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au
In article <this-1308971441230001@edward_teach.chinalake.navy.mil>,
th...@reader.makes.me.doThis (BlackBeard) wrote:
>In article <maury-13089...@199.166.204.230>, ma...@softarc.com
>(Maury Markowitz) wrote:
>
>> In article <this-1208971639120001@edward_teach.chinalake.navy.mil>,
>> th...@reader.makes.me.doThis (BlackBeard) wrote:
>>
>> > And Ed, I know you've been out for a while, but ownship passive
FLIR
>> > ranging is a reality now days.
>>
>> I'm intrigued, how?
>>
>> Maury
>
>The fact that it exists is not classified. Details of how it works and
>performance specs are.
>
Can I hazard a guess? The computer would know the speed of the aircraft.
You have an object that you are interested in, you designate it, and the
included angle (or possibly antire solid angle) is calculated. Now, you
don't know the range, as you don't know the size of the thing. But you are
moving towards it at a known speed. The object will become larger and
larger as you approach it. The FLIR continues evaluating the angle (solid
angle) and is able to calculat from this increasing angle what the range
to the target is. That would be no real challenge.
I guess the challenge would be in the resolution of the optics, and in the
image processing (pattern recognition, particularly if aspect changes.
Dennis
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Tom Naylor
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
>In article <33eee9b8...@news.rmi.net>, thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) wrote:
>
>> The primary reason for the preference would have been the ADC mission
>> and the two man crew. IMHO.
>
> Was the 101B "integrated" with SAGE like the 102/106?
>
>Maury
Yeah - it was sort of. I was working on the F-102 and the F-101 when
the datalink equipment was being developed. The early equipment was
highly unreliable and required a lot of maintenance. In fact, the
datalink's 3 boxes were probably replaced more oftern than any other
equipment - at least up to the end of 1960.
Maury Markowitz
In article <this-1308971441230001@edward_teach.chinalake.navy.mil>,
th...@reader.makes.me.doThis (BlackBeard) wrote:
> The fact that it exists is not classified. Details of how it works and
> performance specs are.
I _really_really_ doubt the physics is at all classified.
I can make a few guesses. FLIR is imaging right? Ok, how about
something based on pixel size of the detector and estimated size of
target? I'll bet that would get it into a pretty good guestimate range.
Then you could carefully time the "blank period" between pixels over
successive passes and measure the change to arrive at another figure for
relative speed. I suppose you could do a reverse interferometry too, but
I'd have to think about that.
Maury
Tom Naylor
f9...@aol.com (F 94C) wrote:
>
>D1chucky) wrote:
>>>Is it true that the F-101b carried only IR Falcons.--D1.
>
>Tom Naylor answered:
>>No - it could carry both the radar and ir Falcons. It had basically
>>the same weapons control system as the F-102A.
>
>You're right that F-101B could use both radar guided and IR
>missiles. The FCS of F-102 was supposed to be MA-1 but
>it was too buggy so they put the MG-10 fire control system
>in it. That had capability to figure attack geometry for Falcon
>missiles and maybe even 2.75 FFAR.
>
>The F-101B had the Hughes MG-13 FCS which was quite
>different. Radar capability, geometry for Douglas atomic
>warhead rocket with programmed snap-up, and other features.
>
>Maybe you are thinking of F-89J which had same FCS
>(Fire Control System) as F-101B. Even though same black
>boxes, their radar performed better for some reason.
>
>Will
>
Actually the MG-10 and MG-13 were basically the same system. The
ballistic computer was different to handle the different performance
envelopes of teh F-102 and F-101. Most of the rest of the system, ie,
the radar receiver/transmitter, etc, were an evolutionary development
and were very similar, if not identical. I was trained on the
MG-3/10/13 FCS for about a year and worked on both the 10 and the 13.
Ed Rasimus
f9...@aol.com (F 94C) wrote:
>The F-101B procedure was a bit different.
>
>"The drag chute will break the pitchup maneuver
> immediately and prevent the airplane from spinning.
> However, the airplane may perform a roll during the
> recovery after the angle of attack has been broken.
>The roll, if encountered, will be fairly rapid and will stop
> with no action required on the part of the pilot. The
>airplane will be out of control during the pitchup
> maneuver for approximately 4 to 8 seconds. After
> recovery, slowly roll wings level, while maintaining
>between 0 and +1 'g' to gain flying speed."
>
>Don't jerk stick either way, don't try to pull out of
>dive until reaching at least 350 kts IAS. Don't jettison
>drag chute during recovery. At 230 - 250 kts IAS the
>drag chute will fail and either tear away or stream
>behind the airplane.
>
Reading those dash-one exerpts from the 101 and recalling the "flight
characteristics" chapters of various airplanes I've been involved with
over the years--as well as recalling some "undocumented"
characteristics I've encountered in some unusual corners of the flight
envelope makes me realize why they paid us the "big bucks."
And points out once again the differences between high performance
tactical aircraft and any other kind of air vehicle (particularly if
you want to compare safety records.)
Check 6.
Maury Markowitz
In article <33f56b7c...@news.rmi.net>, thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) wrote:
> Other posters have mentioned single source IR ranging accomplished
> through continual angle integration, which is certainly one of the
> options although the narrow angles and time for angular motion to
> generate accurate ranging can be restrictive--particularly in the most
> critical ranges directly on the nose.
Hmmm, doppler works just as well at IR freqs as it does at microwave,
but I'm not too sure if the detectors are that good. I'll have to look it
up. Wouldn't angle integration require speed estimates? Hmmm, it's been
too long since I looked at any of this.
Maury
Howard Austin
In article <33ea3752...@news.rmi.net>, thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
wrote:
> ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
>
> > I was under the impression that these problems were limited to the A/C
> >versions, and corrected in the (IMHO beautiful) C/F versions with the
> >addition of a rather advanced SAS system. One pilot described the problem
> >as the plane "wanting to switch ends", which is likely not accurate, but a
> >description of some powerful dutch roll or perhaps some high speed effect
> >I'm unaware of.
>
> The Voodoo's aerodynamic "foible" was "pitch-up" which is drastically
> different than "some powerful Dutch roll".
>
> The high empennage, designed that way to clear the two engines, would
> at high angle of attack be blanked by the turbulent airflow over the
> wing. With the loss of horizontal tail counter-force, the wing
> basically lifted the plane over its own tail--referred to
> euphemistically as a "departure from controlled flight."
>
> The solution was a "stick-kicker" or shaker that inhibited further aft
> stick movement when high AOA was being approached.
>
> All of which leads you to an airplane which couldn't effectively
> perform high G maneuvers but which still had the potential to be an
> excellent interceptor and reconnaisance platform.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus *** Peak Computing Magazine
> Fighter Pilot (ret) *** (http://peak-computing.com)
> *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
> *** (http://www.zdnet.com)
From one who spent four pleasant years in the cockpit of an RF-101C I
agree that it was not very good at high G, but we seldom needed high G. To
avoid intercept, just light the burners and hide in the grass.
Howard Austin
Ed Rasimus
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
>In article <33f2df50...@news.rmi.net>, thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) wrote:
>
>> It takes a while to get used to it, but in a fairly short time, the
>> interpretation is easy. Most US interceptors employed B-Sweep radar
>> scopes (the F-4 for example.)
>
> Does _any_ plane offer a borescope type display?
I'm not familiar with the terminology. If you mean "bore-sight," then
absolutely. Every A/A radar that I'm familiar with has a bore-sight
option that concentrates the radar output on the LCOSS sight line to
provide ranging input for either gun lead computation or missile data.
>
>> The system was unreliable and abandoned. The little chin turret on the
>> F-4 was used for other things and even eliminated on some aircraft.
>
> I didn't even know the F-4 had one!
F-4C did. Look for the little chin turret below the big radome.
>> IR displays would generally not be a PPI display, since they only
>> provide azimuth data. To gain range information you have to either
>> integrate with an azimuth cut from a cooperating source; get data from
>> a stand-off platform like AWACS; or possibly pulse along the IR
>> defined azimuth with a LPI radar signal.
>
> The last one wouldn't likely be all that hard, slaving the IR's shutter
>motor to the scan hardware on the radar.
Other posters have mentioned single source IR ranging accomplished
through continual angle integration, which is certainly one of the
options although the narrow angles and time for angular motion to
generate accurate ranging can be restrictive--particularly in the most
critical ranges directly on the nose. The computational capability for
small angle integration goes back as far as the doppler nav system we
had on the F-105 which took radar frequency shifts from a three
antenna "Janus" configuration of downward emitting CW radar to provide
lat/long, ground-speed, drift, etc.
Of course, if I tell you much more, I'll have to kill ya!
F 94C
Maury Markowitz asks:
> Was the 101B "integrated" with SAGE like the 102/106?
>Maury
Could you tell me what you mean by "integrated"
so I can get on same page?
Will
F 94C
Martin/Jennifer Keenan wrote about F-101's:
>>>My understanding is that this problem [pitchup] was
>>>smoothed out, but never entirely eliminated, along
>>>with troubles with the nose gear.
F 94C asked:
>> Never heard about a nose gear problem. F-101B's didn't have it.
>> Tell me more.
sirius volunteers:
>It was famous for it. This is covered in any of the F-101 books.
Are you sirious? It's not in any book I have. Could you sing (quote)
a few bars (lines) for me?
Thanks
Will
F 94C
F 94C wrote:
>> You're right that F-101B could use both radar guided and IR
>> missiles. The FCS of F-102 was supposed to be MA-1 but
>> it was too buggy so they put the MG-10 fire control system
>> in it. That had capability to figure attack geometry for Falcon
>> missiles and maybe even 2.75 FFAR.
Maury Markowitz asks:
>Can I assume from the wording that the MA-1 was to be
>more "weapon neutral"?
>Maury
I don't understand "weapon neutral", sorry.
MA-1 system is what was put in F-102B (later aka F-106A)
Will
F 94C
>(F 94C) wrote:
>> The only problem in the F-101B was the pitchup problem. You
>> may notice that prototype did not have the high T-Tail. When
>> testing F-101A, they found problem. McDonnell offered to
>> lower horizontal stabilizer ala F-4
Maury Markowitz writes:
>Ahhhhh, is that why the -4 has the anti-dihedral?
>To get the surface below the region of the downward moving air?
Gee, I was going to ask you. Aerodynamics was always a
weak subject for me and I don't remember hearing anything
about the negative dihedral. Just lowering it was enough. If
you take a look at XF-35A and XF-88 prototypes of F-101
and you'll see the lower horizontal stabilizer. It was low on
vertical stab and looks about level with top of canopy. The
prototypes dodn't pitchup. When F-101 was ordered, they
raised stab to high T-Tail. Then is when they discovered
the pitchup trait.
Remember the F-100 "Sabre dance" film you mentioned?
If you ever get to see the film of F-101 pitchup you'll
never forget it. Don Stuck (last name sp?) test pilot
extraordonaire got beat up bad. Afterwards looked like
one of those mummie wrapped guys in a horror movie
as I recall. He was lucky to eject.
>> Pusher activates at 3.95 g (+/- .20)
> How strong was the pusher?
>Maury
OH MY GOD!! You are never mentally prepared for it.
Just going from + 3 or 4 g's to 0 is a fast elevator ride
and you'd swear it pushed too far and it's going to
pitchup due to negative g's (angle of attack).
Will
Maury Markowitz
In article <19970816080...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, f9...@aol.com
(F 94C) wrote:
> Could you tell me what you mean by "integrated"
> so I can get on same page?
Datalinked basically. It's a hard term to use, because it's more than
just having a datalink, wasn't SAGE to be very ground-control centric like
the Soviet system used on the MiG-25? IE, when used with SAGE, wasn't the
pilot there basically to get the plane into the air, and back down again?
Maury
Maury Markowitz
In article <19970816080...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, f9...@aol.com
(F 94C) wrote:
> I don't understand "weapon neutral", sorry.
Could handle more types of weapons than the older fire control systems?
> MA-1 system is what was put in F-102B (later aka F-106A)
I'm confused though, in an earlier message you noted...
>> missiles. The FCS of F-102 was supposed to be MA-1 but
Do you mean the MA-1 made it into later versions of the 102, but not
earlier ones?
Maury
Maury Markowitz
In article <19970816080...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, f9...@aol.com
(F 94C) wrote:
> Gee, I was going to ask you. Aerodynamics was always a
> weak subject for me and I don't remember hearing anything
> about the negative dihedral.
Sadly I have no format training in it myself. I have picked up a _lot_
from threads that develop here though. For instance, I know a fair amount
about intake designs now.
> Just lowering it was enough.
Yeah, but I'm wondering if there was some interaction with the bent-up
outer wing panels. Or perhaps it has to do with the all-spoiler design.
Dunno.
> you take a look at XF-35A and XF-88 prototypes of F-101
> and you'll see the lower horizontal stabilizer. It was low on
> vertical stab and looks about level with top of canopy. The
> prototypes dodn't pitchup. When F-101 was ordered, they
> raised stab to high T-Tail.
Do you kno the logic behind the move? I know a lot of GA planes in the
70's moved to a T to make their designs look cooler, the Arrow IV is a
good example. Even at low speeds you have problems though, the Arrow has
much worse stall recovery now, because of the blanking.
> Remember the F-100 "Sabre dance" film you mentioned?
Hard to forget! Now the Sabre was low tailed, so I assume the dance was
just due to the stall effects, rather than tail blanking. I also remember
reading that the Germans were well aware of these issues, which is
interesting considering that they used a modified T for the Ta-184 (the
almost-produced MiG-15 class swept airplane).
> OH MY GOD!! You are never mentally prepared for it.
> Just going from + 3 or 4 g's to 0 is a fast elevator ride
> and you'd swear it pushed too far and it's going to
> pitchup due to negative g's (angle of attack).
Huh. Did it actually push the stick, or simply release pressure in the
actuator end?
Maury