Back to the thread on pilots setting QNH for local acro work.

I was in the trusty Pawnee this weekend and checked the altimeter, I can
only select settings from 28.10 to 31.50, so.. following the others advice
of setting QNH. I could not.

I attempted to find this information in my personal library but could not
readily find a source.. so the best source available was to "go to the
instrument".

The lowest I could set at 28.10 still gave me 750ft MSL on the dial, and
obviously 2077 feet below the current terra firma, no way to set ZERO.

So, fly with the correct QFE and do the mental math, precompute your
altitudes required to give the terrain clearance you need.

BT

Sure you got that the right way around. QFE for ground level and QNH for
airfield elevation

sg
"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:nlK2c.16184$id3.9654@fed1read01...
> Back to the thread on pilots setting QNH for local acro work.
>
> I was in the trusty Pawnee this weekend and checked the altimeter, I can
> only select settings from 28.10 to 31.50, so.. following the others advice
> of setting QNH. I could not.
>
> I attempted to find this information in my personal library but could not
> readily find a source.. so the best source available was to "go to the
> instrument".
>
> The lowest I could set at 28.10 still gave me 750ft MSL on the dial, and
> obviously 2077 feet below the current terra firma, no way to set ZERO.
>
> So, fly with the correct QFE and do the mental math, precompute your
> altitudes required to give the terrain clearance you need.
>
> BT
>
>

ok.. I may be backwards... I don't normally define the use of Q settings..

The bottom line is, the discussion was brought up with the AF T-Bird doing
acro and not computing the altitude needed at the top of a maneuver to
safely pull out above ground level. Some argue to set the altimeter to zero
elevation before takeoff. It just can't be done in many places out west.

Many glider pilots along the coast use the same tactic, always knowing their
height above the local airport they departed from, but not the local ridges.
And if they are going cross country.. they are really going to be doing some
mental math.

Bottom Line? set the altimeter to local field elevation, not sea level

BT

"S Green" > wrote in message
...
> Sure you got that the right way around. QFE for ground level and QNH for
> airfield elevation
>
> sg
> "BTIZ" > wrote in message
> news:nlK2c.16184$id3.9654@fed1read01...
> > Back to the thread on pilots setting QNH for local acro work.
> >
> > I was in the trusty Pawnee this weekend and checked the altimeter, I can
> > only select settings from 28.10 to 31.50, so.. following the others
advice
> > of setting QNH. I could not.
> >
> > I attempted to find this information in my personal library but could
not
> > readily find a source.. so the best source available was to "go to the
> > instrument".
> >
> > The lowest I could set at 28.10 still gave me 750ft MSL on the dial, and
> > obviously 2077 feet below the current terra firma, no way to set ZERO.
> >
> > So, fly with the correct QFE and do the mental math, precompute your
> > altitudes required to give the terrain clearance you need.
> >
> > BT
> >
> >
>
>

BTIZ wrote:

> The bottom line is, the discussion was brought up with the AF T-Bird doing
> acro and not computing the altitude needed at the top of a maneuver to
> safely pull out above ground level. Some argue to set the altimeter to zero
> elevation before takeoff. It just can't be done in many places out west.

The problem is, you usually trainig acro at your home base. So you get
used to the "floor" altitude needed in that place. Chances are that you
get so accostomed to that altitude that you fall back to it even when
you fly at another place. Y This is eliminated by settinig the altimeter
to zero (i.e. QFE). And, btw, I've yet to see an altimeter that can't be
set to QFE even at 5000 ft elevation, but what do I know.

Stefan

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:srO2c.16250$id3.4338@fed1read01...
> ok.. I may be backwards... I don't normally define the use of Q settings..
>
> The bottom line is, the discussion was brought up with the AF T-Bird doing
> acro and not computing the altitude needed at the top of a maneuver to
> safely pull out above ground level. Some argue to set the altimeter to
zero
> elevation before takeoff. It just can't be done in many places out west.

IIRC, this discussion earlier revealed that the T-bird pilots have
super-wizzo-thingummy altimeters that can indeed set QFE at high elevations.
Granted, yours and mine can't.

-- David Brooks

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> "BTIZ" > wrote in message
> news:srO2c.16250$id3.4338@fed1read01...
> > ok.. I may be backwards... I don't normally define the use of Q
settings..
> >
> > The bottom line is, the discussion was brought up with the AF T-Bird
doing
> > acro and not computing the altitude needed at the top of a maneuver to
> > safely pull out above ground level. Some argue to set the altimeter to
> zero
> > elevation before takeoff. It just can't be done in many places out west.
>
> IIRC, this discussion earlier revealed that the T-bird pilots have
> super-wizzo-thingummy altimeters that can indeed set QFE at high
elevations.
> Granted, yours and mine can't.
>
> -- David Brooks

Hi David;

The Thunderbirds use a standard altimeter setting for the point of
demonstration and do not use a 0 altimeter set. Their maneuver profiles are
corrected to MSL altitudes. Stricklin unfortunately on the way up the front
side of his maneuver mentally "corrected" his reverse top target gate to
Nellis' elevation instead of where he was. This put the Viper way low of
where it should have been at the top side commit. He missed his visual cues
as well. The airplane simply didn't have the g available vs the altitude
under it to cut the corner.
Dudley

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message et>...
> This put the Viper way low of
> where it should have been at the top side commit. He missed his visual cues
> as well. The airplane simply didn't have the g available vs the altitude
> under it to cut the corner.

Hey Dudley,

I've notice that in several posts over the last few months regarding
the T-Birds, you refer to the planes as Vipers. Is there something
different about these F-16s that they have a different name?

Just wondering,

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

"John Galban" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
et>...
> > This put the Viper way low of
> > where it should have been at the top side commit. He missed his visual
cues
> > as well. The airplane simply didn't have the g available vs the altitude
> > under it to cut the corner.
>
> Hey Dudley,
>
> I've notice that in several posts over the last few months regarding
> the T-Birds, you refer to the planes as Vipers. Is there something
> different about these F-16s that they have a different name?
>
> Just wondering,
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Viper is the nickname that stuck for the F16 in the fighter community. Thank
God !!!!!!.....the girls weren't really all that impressed with "Lawn Dart"
:-))
And somehow, the name "Fighting Falcon" just never caught on either. It's
usually this way with our birds. The manufacturers' sales department has a
meeting one day and picks some terrible idiotic name that they think is in
character with the product......you know, the same way some people with dogs
like to name them. I can't remember the last time I ran into a two hundred
and ten pound Rotweiler named "Muffin" :-))))) It's usually something like
"Ripper! "
Then, when the airplane makes it out into the general fighter community, we
get a hold of it and rename it to suit ourselves. That's the name that
sticks. Hence the "Viper" tag!
Dudley

well... I've not seen an altimeter in US aircraft that can dial out 5000ft
of altitude.. that would mean the altimeter would have to be adjustable from
29.92 to 24.92, and mine only goes to 28.10

BT

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> BTIZ wrote:
>
> > The bottom line is, the discussion was brought up with the AF T-Bird
doing
> > acro and not computing the altitude needed at the top of a maneuver to
> > safely pull out above ground level. Some argue to set the altimeter to
zero
> > elevation before takeoff. It just can't be done in many places out west.
>
> The problem is, you usually trainig acro at your home base. So you get
> used to the "floor" altitude needed in that place. Chances are that you
> get so accostomed to that altitude that you fall back to it even when
> you fly at another place. Y This is eliminated by settinig the altimeter
> to zero (i.e. QFE). And, btw, I've yet to see an altimeter that can't be
> set to QFE even at 5000 ft elevation, but what do I know.
>
> Stefan
>

In 20yrs AF, I've never called an F-16 anything other than a Viper..

and don't go calling my plane by it's "official name" either... you'll be
targeted as a non-knowing person... it's a Bone... that's it..

BT

"John Galban" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
et>...
> > This put the Viper way low of
> > where it should have been at the top side commit. He missed his visual
cues
> > as well. The airplane simply didn't have the g available vs the altitude
> > under it to cut the corner.
>
> Hey Dudley,
>
> I've notice that in several posts over the last few months regarding
> the T-Birds, you refer to the planes as Vipers. Is there something
> different about these F-16s that they have a different name?
>
> Just wondering,
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

BTIZ wrote:

> well... I've not seen an altimeter in US aircraft that can dial out 5000ft
> of altitude.. that would mean the altimeter would have to be adjustable from
> 29.92 to 24.92, and mine only goes to 28.10

It may be a regional problem. In certain European contries, QFE setting
is common for approach. So the altimeters sold here are designed for this.

BTW, when doing acro, the scale range isn't a problem. Just turn the
knob before takeoff until the meter shows zero. No need to have a
calibrated kolman scale for this.

Stefan

Welcome back Dudley.

Do the Leader and Solo T-birds use 'crib' sheets showing the maneuvers
with entry airspeed and altitude normalized for field where they are
performing?

If not, that might be a 'cheap' and easy safety procedure.

See where next years team was formalized and have started working
together.

And a nice day to thee.

BJ
Pilot ROCAF


On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:37:29 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>
>"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>> "BTIZ" > wrote in message
>> news:srO2c.16250$id3.4338@fed1read01...
>> > ok.. I may be backwards... I don't normally define the use of Q
>settings..
>> >
>> > The bottom line is, the discussion was brought up with the AF T-Bird
>doing
>> > acro and not computing the altitude needed at the top of a maneuver to
>> > safely pull out above ground level. Some argue to set the altimeter to
>> zero
>> > elevation before takeoff. It just can't be done in many places out west.
>>
>> IIRC, this discussion earlier revealed that the T-bird pilots have
>> super-wizzo-thingummy altimeters that can indeed set QFE at high
>elevations.
>> Granted, yours and mine can't.
>>
>> -- David Brooks
>
>Hi David;
>
>The Thunderbirds use a standard altimeter setting for the point of
>demonstration and do not use a 0 altimeter set. Their maneuver profiles are
>corrected to MSL altitudes. Stricklin unfortunately on the way up the front
>side of his maneuver mentally "corrected" his reverse top target gate to
>Nellis' elevation instead of where he was. This put the Viper way low of
>where it should have been at the top side commit. He missed his visual cues
>as well. The airplane simply didn't have the g available vs the altitude
>under it to cut the corner.
>Dudley
>
>

Hi BJ;
Hope all is well with you these days.

Yes; you are correct about that John. I haven't talked with the new guys, as
my association with the team involves us "older" folks :-)) but the
procedure in both the official TB regulations for the team and the preflight
brief as far as I know haven't been changed through the years from using the
field elevation at the show sites as a MSL reference for both the Diamond
and solo maneuver target altitudes. The trick is remembering the targets!
What happens is very subtle and could bite anyone as it bit Stricklin.
When you practice day after day at the same location as the team does at
Indian Springs near Nellis, your subconscious can store this repetitious
data as a constant. Then you go to another location and fly a demonstration
there. You go through a normal brief and note the target properly as being
different naturally, because of the difference in field elevations between
the two points. Then you enter the front side of the maneuver knowing full
well the briefed top target and then something happens....a slight
distraction.....doesn't have to be much.....something breaks that intense
concentration you have going up....then suddenly the distraction's vanished
and you snap back immediately. Your eye catches the altimeter at exactly the
altitude your subconscious has stored and you react instinctively and
initiate the reverse. Nothing else is out of place and you haven't picked it
up yet as even a possible error. The result of this is that you miss the
visual cues as well that should be telling you you're a full thousand feet
lower in the reverse than you should be. Your airspeed is in the energy gate
parameters so absolutely nothing is caught that should be screaming at you
to exit out in roll and call a maneuver miss. Once you commit past the
inverted gate, you're dead already. This is exactly what happed to Strickin.
He had a brain fart on the frontside and missed every cue that he should
have caught.
The team is looking hard at the broken concentration issue. but I doubt if
the procedure for using field elevation for maneuver targets will change.
The final result will probably be a "head's up" official report stressing
the need for unbroken concentration at all times by all team members. Also,
in all preflight briefs, it's common practice to have each team member
answer a safety question given by the boss. I'm fairly certain that just
before the usual compulsory in cadence hand slapping on the desktops begins,
this "head's up" on concentration will be a required reminder by the boss to
each position. I'm looking for this is ALL teams as well...throughout the
world, as with something like this....EVERYBODY learns!!
Dudley


"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Welcome back Dudley.
>
> Do the Leader and Solo T-birds use 'crib' sheets showing the maneuvers
> with entry airspeed and altitude normalized for field where they are
> performing?
>
> If not, that might be a 'cheap' and easy safety procedure.
>
> See where next years team was formalized and have started working
> together.
>
> And a nice day to thee.
>
> BJ
> Pilot ROCAF
>
>
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:37:29 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"David Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "BTIZ" > wrote in message
> >> news:srO2c.16250$id3.4338@fed1read01...
> >> > ok.. I may be backwards... I don't normally define the use of Q
> >settings..
> >> >
> >> > The bottom line is, the discussion was brought up with the AF T-Bird
> >doing
> >> > acro and not computing the altitude needed at the top of a maneuver
to
> >> > safely pull out above ground level. Some argue to set the altimeter
to
> >> zero
> >> > elevation before takeoff. It just can't be done in many places out
west.
> >>
> >> IIRC, this discussion earlier revealed that the T-bird pilots have
> >> super-wizzo-thingummy altimeters that can indeed set QFE at high
> >elevations.
> >> Granted, yours and mine can't.
> >>
> >> -- David Brooks
> >
> >Hi David;
> >
> >The Thunderbirds use a standard altimeter setting for the point of
> >demonstration and do not use a 0 altimeter set. Their maneuver profiles
are
> >corrected to MSL altitudes. Stricklin unfortunately on the way up the
front
> >side of his maneuver mentally "corrected" his reverse top target gate to
> >Nellis' elevation instead of where he was. This put the Viper way low of
> >where it should have been at the top side commit. He missed his visual
cues
> >as well. The airplane simply didn't have the g available vs the altitude
> >under it to cut the corner.
> >Dudley
> >
> >
>

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message et>...
> Then, when the airplane makes it out into the general fighter community, we
> get a hold of it and rename it to suit ourselves. That's the name that
> sticks. Hence the "Viper" tag!

Thanks for the explanation. I was familiar with the renaming
process (i.e. Warthogs and Bones), but hadn't ever heard the "Viper"
tag.

Thanks,

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Dudley

Understand. I on several occasions was sent around for some reason or
another and after cleaning up bird was cleared for a closed pattern,
close base and short final.

My normal landing used the standard GUMP check and several
transmissions of "Gear down and locked", the last turning final and
with the change in procedure I almost landed wheels up a couple of
times over the years because my concentration was broken.. Only didn't
because of my 'double rubber' approach to things when I was flying on
the edge with hard adherence to check lists.

If your up in the air you can get away with a lot but low there is
maybe only one shot so it better be a good one (or be lucky)..

The TB accident has been covered pretty well so we should leave it and
let it RIP. As you stated, those in the business will learn from what
happened, but it was an expensive dollar wise teacher.

New subject. Did you spin the '51 when you were flying it?

May luck be with you.

Big John


On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 19:19:33 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>Hi BJ;
>Hope all is well with you these days.
>
>Yes; you are correct about that John. I haven't talked with the new guys, as
>my association with the team involves us "older" folks :-)) but the
>procedure in both the official TB regulations for the team and the preflight
>brief as far as I know haven't been changed through the years from using the
>field elevation at the show sites as a MSL reference for both the Diamond
>and solo maneuver target altitudes. The trick is remembering the targets!
>What happens is very subtle and could bite anyone as it bit Stricklin.
>When you practice day after day at the same location as the team does at
>Indian Springs near Nellis, your subconscious can store this repetitious
>data as a constant. Then you go to another location and fly a demonstration
>there. You go through a normal brief and note the target properly as being
>different naturally, because of the difference in field elevations between
>the two points. Then you enter the front side of the maneuver knowing full
>well the briefed top target and then something happens....a slight
>distraction.....doesn't have to be much.....something breaks that intense
>concentration you have going up....then suddenly the distraction's vanished
>and you snap back immediately. Your eye catches the altimeter at exactly the
>altitude your subconscious has stored and you react instinctively and
>initiate the reverse. Nothing else is out of place and you haven't picked it
>up yet as even a possible error. The result of this is that you miss the
>visual cues as well that should be telling you you're a full thousand feet
>lower in the reverse than you should be. Your airspeed is in the energy gate
>parameters so absolutely nothing is caught that should be screaming at you
>to exit out in roll and call a maneuver miss. Once you commit past the
>inverted gate, you're dead already. This is exactly what happed to Strickin.
>He had a brain fart on the frontside and missed every cue that he should
>have caught.
>The team is looking hard at the broken concentration issue. but I doubt if
>the procedure for using field elevation for maneuver targets will change.
>The final result will probably be a "head's up" official report stressing
>the need for unbroken concentration at all times by all team members. Also,
>in all preflight briefs, it's common practice to have each team member
>answer a safety question given by the boss. I'm fairly certain that just
>before the usual compulsory in cadence hand slapping on the desktops begins,
>this "head's up" on concentration will be a required reminder by the boss to
>each position. I'm looking for this is ALL teams as well...throughout the
>world, as with something like this....EVERYBODY learns!!
>Dudley
>
----clip----

>New subject. Did you spin the '51 when you were flying it?

Yes, very reliable recovery in the civilian configured airframes.
VL

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley
>
> Understand. I on several occasions was sent around for some reason or
> another and after cleaning up bird was cleared for a closed pattern,
> close base and short final.
>
> My normal landing used the standard GUMP check and several
> transmissions of "Gear down and locked", the last turning final and
> with the change in procedure I almost landed wheels up a couple of
> times over the years because my concentration was broken.. Only didn't
> because of my 'double rubber' approach to things when I was flying on
> the edge with hard adherence to check lists.
>
> If your up in the air you can get away with a lot but low there is
> maybe only one shot so it better be a good one (or be lucky)..
>
> The TB accident has been covered pretty well so we should leave it and
> let it RIP. As you stated, those in the business will learn from what
> happened, but it was an expensive dollar wise teacher.
>
> New subject. Did you spin the '51 when you were flying it?

I've spun it power off, but never with power on.
Dudley

"MLenoch" > wrote in message
...
> >New subject. Did you spin the '51 when you were flying it?
>
> Yes, very reliable recovery in the civilian configured airframes.
> VL

Vlado; if you ever get a free minute and have the data handy, can you whiz
me a list of the exact changes made from the straight military config ? I
had the data and lost it.
Thanks
Dudley

Dud:
Items deleted:
Guns, ammo feed belts, ammo tray, cockpit armor, old radio, battery relocated
to engine bay, rear fuel tank removed, canopy arch-brace, gunsight sometimes,
rear seat added, bomb racks sometimes.
One can estimate the weight reduction from the various items above. Not all
civilian Mustangs are exactly alike. Every owner has their favorite
flavor/configuration. The full up restorations handle differently than the
'stripped' civilian combinations.
Hope this helps,
VL

Was there a cutoff point in all these reductions where the cg changed to the
point where it affected the landing characteristics? I can't remember where
the Cavs came in with GW with all this trimming down going on . The cg had
to move around some and affect the trim on landing. For example, on your
bird, I take it you're light; are you critical on landing for trim use
perhaps, and if so, are you ok through the entire fuel range in the mains?
Dud

"MLenoch" > wrote in message
...
> Dud:
> Items deleted:
> Guns, ammo feed belts, ammo tray, cockpit armor, old radio, battery
relocated
> to engine bay, rear fuel tank removed, canopy arch-brace, gunsight
sometimes,
> rear seat added, bomb racks sometimes.
> One can estimate the weight reduction from the various items above. Not
all
> civilian Mustangs are exactly alike. Every owner has their favorite
> flavor/configuration. The full up restorations handle differently than the
> 'stripped' civilian combinations.
> Hope this helps,
> VL

Dud:
Most of these items removed tended to shift the CG way forward; on some, just
outside of the forward limit. Cavaliers were found to have lead bolted to the
rear tail cone to fix the shift.
As opposed to a full fuselage fuel tank, that moved the CG aft to the rear
limit, the removal of the non-military items does the reverse.
VL

Thanks Vlado.
Dud

"MLenoch" > wrote in message
...
> Dud:
> Most of these items removed tended to shift the CG way forward; on some,
just
> outside of the forward limit. Cavaliers were found to have lead bolted to
the
> rear tail cone to fix the shift.
> As opposed to a full fuselage fuel tank, that moved the CG aft to the rear
> limit, the removal of the non-military items does the reverse.
> VL

Dudley

Never flew a light bird like yours and Lenoch's with all the crap
removed. All my time was in a combat ready bird with guns and ammo.
Got the fuselage tank down to 20 gallons which was supposed to give a
neutral CG (or some such) before spinning or other extreme maneuvers.

Max turns I made at one time was 6 and was winding up pretty good.

Of course we weren't supposed to spin but in those days all us young
ones thought we were invincible :o). Of course a lot got bit in the
bird when their luck ran out but that's the way it was.

I'm assuming Lenoch is reading this posting and I wonder how much
weight got taken out of the 'civilian' birds?

I flew D-10's to D-30's. Each version got heavier and didn't fly as
well in a dog fighting situation. If we were going to go up and rat
race it behoved you to go and get one of the early (light) birds :o)



On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:40:25 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>
>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>> Dudley
>>
>> Understand. I on several occasions was sent around for some reason or
>> another and after cleaning up bird was cleared for a closed pattern,
>> close base and short final.
>>
>> My normal landing used the standard GUMP check and several
>> transmissions of "Gear down and locked", the last turning final and
>> with the change in procedure I almost landed wheels up a couple of
>> times over the years because my concentration was broken.. Only didn't
>> because of my 'double rubber' approach to things when I was flying on
>> the edge with hard adherence to check lists.
>>
>> If your up in the air you can get away with a lot but low there is
>> maybe only one shot so it better be a good one (or be lucky)..
>>
>> The TB accident has been covered pretty well so we should leave it and
>> let it RIP. As you stated, those in the business will learn from what
>> happened, but it was an expensive dollar wise teacher.
>>
>> New subject. Did you spin the '51 when you were flying it?
>
>I've spun it power off, but never with power on.
>Dudley
>

Conversion to civilian configured Mustang:
Armor plate behind seat = 300 lbs
Fuselage fuel tank= 90 lbs
Radio=40 lbs
6 x .50 cal. with hardware=600 lbs
Gunsight with hardware=40lbs
2 x Drop tanks-empty=250lbs
These are 'guesstimates'......
VL

"MLenoch" > wrote in message
...
> Conversion to civilian configured Mustang:
> Armor plate behind seat = 300 lbs
> Fuselage fuel tank= 90 lbs
> Radio=40 lbs
> 6 x .50 cal. with hardware=600 lbs
> Gunsight with hardware=40lbs
> 2 x Drop tanks-empty=250lbs
> These are 'guesstimates'......
> VL

This would put Moonbeam at about 8K?
Dud

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley
>
> Never flew a light bird like yours and Lenoch's with all the crap
> removed. All my time was in a combat ready bird with guns and ammo.
> Got the fuselage tank down to 20 gallons which was supposed to give a
> neutral CG (or some such) before spinning or other extreme maneuvers.
>
> Max turns I made at one time was 6 and was winding up pretty good.
>
> Of course we weren't supposed to spin but in those days all us young
> ones thought we were invincible :o). Of course a lot got bit in the
> bird when their luck ran out but that's the way it was.
>
> I'm assuming Lenoch is reading this posting and I wonder how much
> weight got taken out of the 'civilian' birds?
>
> I flew D-10's to D-30's. Each version got heavier and didn't fly as
> well in a dog fighting situation. If we were going to go up and rat
> race it behoved you to go and get one of the early (light) birds :o)

You would have enjoyed the 51 at a light GW with minimum fuel. It was a joy
to fly.
I knew Douglas Bader fairly well. We used to run up our phone bills talking
about fighter tactics during the war. We both agreed that the "dogfight era"
came to a screeching halt during the Battle of Britain when just about
everybody realized that the way to survive was to avoid the left side of the
envelope. Ps wasn't a factor then in ACM theory as you know I'm sure. Boyd
and Christie and Rutowski hadn't figured out the EM concept yet, but you
guys were using it without realizing it "officially" :-)
Actually, Chennault had it right way back in the late thirties if they had
only listened to him. By the time you guys got in the fight, it was pretty
well doctrine that the way to both survive and rack up a score was to keep
the energy up; use one carefully flown pursuit pass, going through the angle
off spectrum from lag to lead when in firing parameters; zeroing the ball
and firing, then diving through a planned overshoot in the plane of the
target's motion.
ACM has come a long way since the early days hasn't it? Hell, now you don't
even have to see the *******s!! :-))
Dudley

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "David Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...

> > IIRC, this discussion earlier revealed that the T-bird pilots have
> > super-wizzo-thingummy altimeters that can indeed set QFE at high
> elevations.
> > Granted, yours and mine can't.
> >
> > -- David Brooks
>
> Hi David;
>
> The Thunderbirds use a standard altimeter setting for the point of
> demonstration and do not use a 0 altimeter set. Their maneuver profiles
are
> corrected to MSL altitudes. Stricklin unfortunately on the way up the
front
> side of his maneuver mentally "corrected" his reverse top target gate to
> Nellis' elevation instead of where he was. This put the Viper way low of
> where it should have been at the top side commit. He missed his visual
cues
> as well. The airplane simply didn't have the g available vs the altitude
> under it to cut the corner.

Well, yes, I got that. I think that was fairly clear from the descriptions
that erupted here a couple of months back. I was merely responding to the
assertion that altimeters don't go down that low, and I learned in the
earlier thread that the military ones do - not that they use this ability in
the shows.

I do seem to recall that the pilot makes a call at the top of his pattern to
a safety officer - was it of his height AGL? That does seem to be a weak
spot in the safety chain; if the pilot is calculating his elevation
incorrectly, the call of what he thinks is the value is not much use as a
crosscheck.

-- David Brooks

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "David Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > IIRC, this discussion earlier revealed that the T-bird pilots have
> > > super-wizzo-thingummy altimeters that can indeed set QFE at high
> > elevations.
> > > Granted, yours and mine can't.
> > >
> > > -- David Brooks
> >
> > Hi David;
> >
> > The Thunderbirds use a standard altimeter setting for the point of
> > demonstration and do not use a 0 altimeter set. Their maneuver profiles
> are
> > corrected to MSL altitudes. Stricklin unfortunately on the way up the
> front
> > side of his maneuver mentally "corrected" his reverse top target gate to
> > Nellis' elevation instead of where he was. This put the Viper way low of
> > where it should have been at the top side commit. He missed his visual
> cues
> > as well. The airplane simply didn't have the g available vs the altitude
> > under it to cut the corner.
>
> Well, yes, I got that. I think that was fairly clear from the descriptions
> that erupted here a couple of months back. I was merely responding to the
> assertion that altimeters don't go down that low, and I learned in the
> earlier thread that the military ones do - not that they use this ability
in
> the shows.
>
> I do seem to recall that the pilot makes a call at the top of his pattern
to
> a safety officer - was it of his height AGL? That does seem to be a weak
> spot in the safety chain; if the pilot is calculating his elevation
> incorrectly, the call of what he thinks is the value is not much use as a
> crosscheck.
>
> -- David Brooks

All procedures are being examined internally by the team as a peripheral to
the official AF accident investigation board and the final internal
adjustments to the team's standard procedures will I'm sure reflect the
combined recommendations of both reports.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

MLenoch

The radio was a 4 channel VHF set, SCR-522, that sat on top just
behind the armor plate and inside the canopy.

The gun sight was the K-14 (semi computing). Did it weight 40 lbs??? I
didn't like it for high angle shots as the sight would move back and
forth with the variation in G's.Impossible to keep on target. Also
with high G's the sight would end up pointing at nose of bird and the
nose would cover up the target so you couldn't fire with any
probability of hits You either had to get to a lower angle off or
pull less G's which meant you were off target. Since most kills were
at 20 degrees or less off the stern, the high angle problems didn't
hurt much if any. I know a number who locked the gyro and flew with a
fixed sight and did ok because they were outstanding pilots.

I didn't think you would carry drop tanks in the acro mode? Did you
pull the racks off the wings and the 'zero length' rocket launchers?
Not a lot of weight but some drag.

I make about 3 hours fuel cross country with no drop tanks and
fuselage tank out. I can remember getting fuel flow back to about 55
gph at long range econ cruise. Of course air show you were probably
burning 90 gph?

Fly safe.

BJ


On 11 Mar 2004 14:08:06 GMT, (MLenoch) wrote:

>Conversion to civilian configured Mustang:
>Armor plate behind seat = 300 lbs
>Fuselage fuel tank= 90 lbs
>Radio=40 lbs
>6 x .50 cal. with hardware=600 lbs
>Gunsight with hardware=40lbs
>2 x Drop tanks-empty=250lbs
>These are 'guesstimates'......
>VL

Dudley

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:59:43 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>
>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>> Dudley

----clip----

>You would have enjoyed the 51 at a light GW with minimum fuel. It was a joy
>to fly.

I can imagine. Ever bird I ever flew where I got the weight down, flew
so different and better.

>I knew Douglas Bader fairly well. We used to run up our phone bills talking
>about fighter tactics during the war. We both agreed that the "dogfight era"
>came to a screeching halt during the Battle of Britain when just about
>everybody realized that the way to survive was to avoid the left side of the
>envelope. Ps wasn't a factor then in ACM theory as you know I'm sure. Boyd
>and Christie and Rutowski hadn't figured out the EM concept yet, but you
>guys were using it without realizing it "officially" :-)

When I came in Sq (newbe) I was told to"keep my airspeed up". We
didn't have all the fancy acronyms for it, just get going fast and
keep it going fast :o)

Best tactics were same as Chennault's, Make a sunrise attack with
superior speed and keep speed and exit the 'fur ball'. When you had
altitude on the fight pick your target and reenter or go home and come
back and fight another day..

If you got in a turning contest again keep you airspeed up until you
could break out and regain the dominate position.

Tactics were essentially what is taught today but we had to watch our
EM very close as any G's bled it off rapidly.

Would love to fly a 15-16 where you can pull it in to 9 G's and
accelerate instead of bleeding your energy down to the stall. I don't
think EM is as important in today's birds as it was in the WWII birds?

>Actually, Chennault had it right way back in the late thirties if they had
>only listened to him. By the time you guys got in the fight, it was pretty
>well doctrine that the way to both survive and rack up a score was to keep
>the energy up; use one carefully flown pursuit pass, going through the angle
>off spectrum from lag to lead when in firing parameters; zeroing the ball
>and firing, then diving through a planned overshoot in the plane of the
>target's motion.
>ACM has come a long way since the early days hasn't it?

Have a nice week end.

BJ

>This would put Moonbeam at about 8K?

I'll get back to you on that. I can't remember.........)*&*&%&%&
VL

>The gun sight was the K-14 (semi computing). Did it weight 40 lbs???

For the civie conversion, removing the gunsight also involved taking out the
wiring, gunsight bracket, gunsight controller, and power converter. All these
items might be around 40lbs.

>Also
>with high G's the sight would end up pointing at nose of bird and the
>nose would cover up the target so you couldn't fire with any
>probability of hits

Yes, very much a problem. I always wondered what was done in the field for
this. Going fixed sight is certainly a solution. Thx.

>I didn't think you would carry drop tanks in the acro mode? Did you
>pull the racks off the wings and the 'zero length' rocket launchers?

No tanks during Akro, but many folks leave their racks on for the more military
looking restoration. I hate flying with the tanks on, the a/c is so laterally
unstable (dutchroll airsickness *^&$^%$).


VL