Anybody have any leads to reputable information about fighter pilot fatality
statistics?

For example, in terms of miles, is commuting more dangerous than flying a
fighter plane? (I say no, many say yes.)

Context: Can a Coward Become a Fighter Pilot? (Yeah, I know. That's so
2000.)

-chris
PP-ASEL-IA

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:18:36 GMT, "gatt"
> wrote in
>::

>Anybody have any leads to reputable information about fighter pilot fatality
>statistics?
>
>For example, in terms of miles, is commuting more dangerous than flying a
>fighter plane? (I say no, many say yes.)
>
>Context: Can a Coward Become a Fighter Pilot? (Yeah, I know. That's so
>2000.)

I'll bet lots of folks who frequent rec.aviation.military can respond
to your inquiry. I'll crosspost this followup there for you.

You can get statistics on each individual plane in terms of accidents
per hour.

http://afsafety.af.mil/ is the main page
You probably want this page
http://afsafety.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Flight/stats/aircraft_stats.html

This is the website where you file FOIAs to get crash information. Lots
of sleaze-bags on the net charge for this information.

Shrub flew the F-104. It is really an intercept aircraft, so it
wouldn't be likely to see a dog fight, especially in Alabama. In
Shrub's favor, while it would be the plane of choice to fly in the
theater if you didn't want to see action, the F-104 was a deathtrap
compared to other aircraft, strictly from an operational standpoint.

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:18:36 GMT, "gatt"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >Anybody have any leads to reputable information about fighter pilot fatality
> >statistics?
> >
> >For example, in terms of miles, is commuting more dangerous than flying a
> >fighter plane? (I say no, many say yes.)
> >
> >Context: Can a Coward Become a Fighter Pilot? (Yeah, I know. That's so
> >2000.)
>
> I'll bet lots of folks who frequent rec.aviation.military can respond
> to your inquiry. I'll crosspost this followup there for you.

Larry Dighera wrote:
>>For example, in terms of miles, is commuting more dangerous than flying a
>>fighter plane? (I say no, many say yes.)

What time period? The past ten years, the 1940s or since the beginning
of aviation? Your results would vary dramatically depending on the
range of events of the time, I think.



james

Whether the term of reference is "miles" or "hours", I'll only offer
that I don't personally know any daily commuters who have died in that
endeavor. I've known and flown with at least a hundred guys who died in
tactical fighters. That evidence is only anecdotal, but it works for
me.

As for "can a coward become a Fighter Pilot"? The clear answer is no. A
coward might become a pilot flying fighters, but would never be a
Fighter Pilot.

wrote:

> Shrub flew the F-104. It is really an intercept aircraft, so it
> wouldn't be likely to see a dog fight, especially in Alabama.....


Actually, he flew the obsolescent F-102 and he never flew anything in Alabama.
His flying was done in Texas and, if there was any dog fighting, it had to be
with the Mexican Air Farce out over the Gulf.

George Z.

I assume that "Shrub" is your intellectual colloquialism for the
President of the United States. If so, you should then have some
command of facts before spouting off.

The aircraft the President flew while in Texas Air National Guard
service was the F-102, NOT the F-104. He flew the Deuce in Texas, not
in Alabama. He flew AF jets for more than five years (more than twice
as long as John Kerry's military service).

The F-102 was a single-seat, single-engine delta winged interceptor.
Like all Century series single-seat, single-engine jets it could kill
you on any given day.

I've always heard that the F-104 was a superb aircraft for what it was
designed for (high speed, high altitude intercept), but by the time it was
operational the needs had changed, and the attempts to adapt it to the needs
of the time played to it's weaknesses.

It was freakin' fast (first plane capable of sustained Mach 2+), and held
records of the day for altitude and time to climb. I've seen a parked one
at the museum in Ottawa, Canada. Smallish in nature, but hot lines... a
looker and real "sports car."

The "missle with the man in it" is indeed an interesting, if not
particularly successful aircraft.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> You can get statistics on each individual plane in terms of accidents
> per hour.
>
> http://afsafety.af.mil/ is the main page
> You probably want this page
> http://afsafety.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Flight/stats/aircraft_stats.html
>
> This is the website where you file FOIAs to get crash information. Lots
> of sleaze-bags on the net charge for this information.
>
> Shrub flew the F-104. It is really an intercept aircraft, so it
> wouldn't be likely to see a dog fight, especially in Alabama. In
> Shrub's favor, while it would be the plane of choice to fly in the
> theater if you didn't want to see action, the F-104 was a deathtrap
> compared to other aircraft, strictly from an operational standpoint.
>
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:18:36 GMT, "gatt"
>> > wrote in
>> >::
>>
>> >Anybody have any leads to reputable information about fighter pilot
>> >fatality
>> >statistics?
>> >
>> >For example, in terms of miles, is commuting more dangerous than flying
>> >a
>> >fighter plane? (I say no, many say yes.)
>> >
>> >Context: Can a Coward Become a Fighter Pilot? (Yeah, I know. That's
>> >so
>> >2000.)
>>
>> I'll bet lots of folks who frequent rec.aviation.military can respond
>> to your inquiry. I'll crosspost this followup there for you.
>

I got the number wrong. However, I do recall comments about what Shrub
flew not being particularly safe.

Jase Vanover wrote:
> I've always heard that the F-104 was a superb aircraft for what it was
> designed for (high speed, high altitude intercept), but by the time it was
> operational the needs had changed, and the attempts to adapt it to the needs
> of the time played to it's weaknesses.
>
> It was freakin' fast (first plane capable of sustained Mach 2+), and held
> records of the day for altitude and time to climb. I've seen a parked one
> at the museum in Ottawa, Canada. Smallish in nature, but hot lines... a
> looker and real "sports car."
>
> The "missle with the man in it" is indeed an interesting, if not
> particularly successful aircraft.
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > You can get statistics on each individual plane in terms of accidents
> > per hour.
> >
> > http://afsafety.af.mil/ is the main page
> > You probably want this page
> > http://afsafety.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Flight/stats/aircraft_stats.html
> >
> > This is the website where you file FOIAs to get crash information. Lots
> > of sleaze-bags on the net charge for this information.
> >
> > Shrub flew the F-104. It is really an intercept aircraft, so it
> > wouldn't be likely to see a dog fight, especially in Alabama. In
> > Shrub's favor, while it would be the plane of choice to fly in the
> > theater if you didn't want to see action, the F-104 was a deathtrap
> > compared to other aircraft, strictly from an operational standpoint.
> >
> > Larry Dighera wrote:
> >> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:18:36 GMT, "gatt"
> >> > wrote in
> >> >::
> >>
> >> >Anybody have any leads to reputable information about fighter pilot
> >> >fatality
> >> >statistics?
> >> >
> >> >For example, in terms of miles, is commuting more dangerous than flying
> >> >a
> >> >fighter plane? (I say no, many say yes.)
> >> >
> >> >Context: Can a Coward Become a Fighter Pilot? (Yeah, I know. That's
> >> >so
> >> >2000.)
> >>
> >> I'll bet lots of folks who frequent rec.aviation.military can respond
> >> to your inquiry. I'll crosspost this followup there for you.
> >

Fatalities per hour
F102: 75 /2606799=2.9e-5
F16D: 32 /710960=4.5e-5

Eh, not so dangerous after all. Maybe Shrub isn't all that dumbya after
all.



Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:18:36 GMT, "gatt"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >Anybody have any leads to reputable information about fighter pilot fatality
> >statistics?
> >
> >For example, in terms of miles, is commuting more dangerous than flying a
> >fighter plane? (I say no, many say yes.)
> >
> >Context: Can a Coward Become a Fighter Pilot? (Yeah, I know. That's so
> >2000.)
>
> I'll bet lots of folks who frequent rec.aviation.military can respond
> to your inquiry. I'll crosspost this followup there for you.

Well, troops, I flew both the F102A (1500 hours) and the F104A (730
hours). Both could hack the mission. The USAF brass didn't like the
F104 because it couldn't work in thick clouds. (Thin clouds, okay). The
104 was stationed at Homestead Florida because of Cuba's 125 MiG 21s
down there. As for the two birds being 'safe', that's a relative term.
I lost one (1) friend in the 102 in 6 years and I lost 5 in the 3 1/2
years i was in the 319th FIS flying the 104. Like Ed, I have lost many
more friends than those mentioned since I spent most of my 22 years
flying fighters in fighter squadrons. Some of the guys were lost in
peacetime, others in Vietnam. Now as far as GWB goes the 102 was an
honest airplane, having only one weird kink - it could develop a
hellacious rate of sink slow and nose-high that could only be
alleviated by diving for speed since even full afterburner could be
insufficient to break the rate of descent. Do this under say 2000 AGL
and you were in deep serious. I flew the Deuce while at Kansas city and
at Thule. We lost one guy at KC. On rotation his flashlight slid off
teh glareshiekld and fell into the stick well forward of the stick.
(The well mantling was missing.) He couldn't get the stick forward and
the bird nosed up, losing speed rapidly. He ejected but the Deuce never
ever had a zerozero seat and he hit the ground with a partially
deployed chute and was killed by impact. I know of one guy the TANG
lost in a Deuce back in the early 70s, ISTR. Weird accident. He was
flying with the lap belt loose (a lot of guys did this so they could
look around better) and hit jet wash coming up initial. He was bounced
up, the stick moved sharply, the survival kit he was sitting upon
popped out and jammed the stick forward and that was all she wrote. The
Zipper, OTH, was also an honest airplane; it told you what was going
on. You had to know its good and bad points and be ready to act now now
now. You also had to know when to quit trying to save the bird; I lost
two friends at once because they tried to dead-stick a two seater heavy
on fuel and hit hard and broke up. One friend died because his canopy
came open on takeoff and the pubs, etc, lunched the engine. One died
because his fuel gauge was reading 600 pounds too high and the engine
quit on short final. The resuklting fire was about 2 feet in diameter.
Another, we think, was an oxygen problem. He went in, without a word
about trouble, from 48,000 and 1.7M. Another had a split flap on
downwind and went right in upside down. Lost a friend in an F4 when the
outer wing panel broke off doing a max performance reversal. Yet
another backseater I'd flown combat with when the aft canopy came off
during an ACM go and he was yanked out of his seat at .95M when his
chute bloomed in the airstream. Lost a very close friend in a 105 at
McConnell on a low-level bomb pass when the fins came off lead's
hi-drag and hit his airplane at speed. I worked with the DCANG in the
late 70s; they lost a pilot when his 105 lost a wing in the pitch-out.
Two more (separate accidents) went into the water off Okinawa at night.
Another pressed his dive bomb pass and hit the ground right after his
bombs, again at night. SAMs and flak got a couple dozen. Not too much
flak or missiles on the Interstate, are there . . . Of course, we all
faced the same problem driving - high spirits, booze and idiots sharing
the road. The guy I flew one of my most memorable missions with was
erased by a French semi wiping out his VW van; killed him and his wife.
The old USAF joke is in my favor - I logged about 5000 hours in
fighters with 150 'counter' missions and lived to collect my retainer
pay. I could take some time out, starting with the guy killed in a T33
in AvCadets (Homer Hess) and list all the names I can recall - but just
read 'The Right Stuff' and see what Tom Wolfe found out. And Ed's right
- cowards can and have flown fighters - but they're not fighter pilots
and never will be. There were a couple of these guys during Vietnam -
just couldn't bring themselves to go over there and get shot at 'with
intent'. The one I couldn't understand at all was the Buff pilot who
was ready to nuke a couple million people but had strong reservations
about bombing the North Vietnamese with iron bombs. Guess he privately
felt he was never going to have to do his 'deterrent' mission and was
happy with the peacetime routine. So - why did we do it? Hard to
explain. You'd have to ride in one to see why, and maybe even then you
wouldn't understand it, unless you enjoy fast horses, fast bikes, fast
cars and fast women more than playing it safe.
Walt BJ

> The USAF brass didn't like the
> F104 because it couldn't work in thick clouds. (Thin clouds, okay).

Why couldn't it work in thick clouds?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
>> The USAF brass didn't like the
>> F104 because it couldn't work in thick clouds. (Thin clouds, okay).
>
>
> Why couldn't it work in thick clouds?

No all-weather capability, targets had to be acquired visually - the
F104 was an Kelly Johnson's "lightweight fighter". The later F-104G and
F-104S were all-weather, but not flown by the USAF.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> You can get statistics on each individual plane in terms of accidents
> per hour.
>
> http://afsafety.af.mil/ is the main page
> You probably want this page
> http://afsafety.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Flight/stats/aircraft_stats.html
>
> This is the website where you file FOIAs to get crash information. Lots
> of sleaze-bags on the net charge for this information.
>
> Shrub flew the F-104. It is really an intercept aircraft, so it
> wouldn't be likely to see a dog fight, especially in Alabama. In
> Shrub's favor, while it would be the plane of choice to fly in the
> theater if you didn't want to see action, the F-104 was a deathtrap
> compared to other aircraft, strictly from an operational standpoint.

SNIP

As stated elsewhere, the Pres flew deuces, not zippers.

I don't think any of the century series or their Navy contemporaries could
be considered a deathtrap. Perhaps the most notorious jet of the 50's -
60's was the F-7 Cutlass which combined peculiar flying qualities with
unreliable systems (electrical and hydraulic).

The Navy had a particularly tough time with operational accidents when they
flew relatively underpowered jets off straight deck carriers (more mishap
than combat losses in Korea). Angled decks and the next generation of
aircraft helped there, although the F-8 was particularly unforgiving around
the blunt end of the boat and had the distinction of the highest mishap rate
of any aircraft in the angled deck era.

As to the issue of timidity or cowardice, it can be found in any avocation
or profession. Frequently the individual is unaware of his/her (it's a coed
world these days) shortcoming until the pressure is on. As an example,
while Duke Cunningham was doing his thing on May 10, 1972 another squadron
aircraft was making a beeline for feet wet.

R / John

james cho wrote:


> What time period? The past ten years, the 1940s or since the beginning
> of aviation? Your results would vary dramatically depending on the
> range of events of the time, I think.
> james

And whether or not there was a war going on.

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments,
Restoration of my 1919 Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat, and
Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/index.html

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>I got the number wrong. However, I do recall comments about what Shrub
> flew not being particularly safe.
>
And intercept missions, due to the profiles at the time (late 60's) were
essentially suicide missions.

Partially true. The F-104A was originally a high altitude interceptor,
but in the hands of the 435th TFW/479th TFW, it was a very capable
air-to-air day fighter. They developed a lot of the modern mutual
support, split-plane maneuvering modern tactics for low-aspect
air-to-air.

The greatest production of the F-104 was the F-104G model and variants
of that version operated by allied AFs world-wide for more than 40
years. A very capable nuclear strike platform as well as a pretty
competitive A/A fighter, particularly in versions like the Italian
F-104S model that had Sparrow capability.

I'd say a very successful aircraft.

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Partially true. The F-104A was originally a high altitude interceptor,
> but in the hands of the 435th TFW/479th TFW, it was a very capable
> air-to-air day fighter. They developed a lot of the modern mutual
> support, split-plane maneuvering modern tactics for low-aspect
> air-to-air.
>
> The greatest production of the F-104 was the F-104G model and variants
> of that version operated by allied AFs world-wide for more than 40
> years. A very capable nuclear strike platform as well as a pretty
> competitive A/A fighter, particularly in versions like the Italian
> F-104S model that had Sparrow capability.
>
> I'd say a very successful aircraft.

Not disagreeing with you, but I have a hard time (my own limitation)
imagining the F-104 as a dogfighter.

The F-104 was a very competent dogfighter. The key, with any aircraft,
is to get the adversary to your best operating envelope rather than for
you to visit his. Flown at high speed and preferably at high altitude,
the Zipper could do a very good job. When enhanced by modern element
tactics, the airplane got very competitive.

Similarly, the F-105D could be a pretty reasonable dogfighter if you
were careful to keep your energy high and your altitude low. Venturing
into the vertical was a recipe for disaster.

MiG-17 was a great dogfighter...unless you forced him to come up to the
400 KIAS++ region where he couldn't maintain closure and couldn't
overcome the high stick forces.

All of matter of fighting your own best fight.

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The F-104 was a very competent dogfighter. The key, with any aircraft,
> is to get the adversary to your best operating envelope rather than for
> you to visit his. Flown at high speed and preferably at high altitude,
> the Zipper could do a very good job. When enhanced by modern element
> tactics, the airplane got very competitive.
>
> Similarly, the F-105D could be a pretty reasonable dogfighter if you
> were careful to keep your energy high and your altitude low. Venturing
> into the vertical was a recipe for disaster.
>
> MiG-17 was a great dogfighter...unless you forced him to come up to the
> 400 KIAS++ region where he couldn't maintain closure and couldn't
> overcome the high stick forces.
>
> All of matter of fighting your own best fight.
>
Thanks for the info!!!

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> Partially true. The F-104A was originally a high altitude interceptor,
> but in the hands of the 435th TFW/479th TFW, it was a very capable
> air-to-air day fighter. They developed a lot of the modern mutual
> support, split-plane maneuvering modern tactics for low-aspect
> air-to-air.
>
> The greatest production of the F-104 was the F-104G model and variants
> of that version operated by allied AFs world-wide for more than 40
> years. A very capable nuclear strike platform as well as a pretty
> competitive A/A fighter, particularly in versions like the Italian
> F-104S model that had Sparrow capability.
>
> I'd say a very successful aircraft.

I wonder how the 104G rated in Boyd's energy maneuverability analysis, and
to what extent tactics mitigates such an analysis.

Gregg
Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments,
Restoration of my 1919 Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat, and
Steambending FAQ with photos:
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/index.html

On 11 Nov 2005 18:40:35 -0800, wrote:

>Fatalities per hour
>F102: 75 /2606799=2.9e-5
>F16D: 32 /710960=4.5e-5
23 of the F-16D fatalities listed there were on a C-141 that got hit
on the ground by an F-16D after it's pilots ejected, following a
midair with a C-130 at Pope AFB in March, 1994. Take those away and
you get 9/710960=1.3e-5.

I'd take the F-16D destroyed aircraft rate of 3.8 per 100,000 hours
versus the F-102 of 9.9 as well.
--Rolf

gregg wrote:

> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
> > Partially true. The F-104A was originally a high altitude interceptor,
> > but in the hands of the 435th TFW/479th TFW, it was a very capable
> > air-to-air day fighter. They developed a lot of the modern mutual
> > support, split-plane maneuvering modern tactics for low-aspect
> > air-to-air.
> >
> > The greatest production of the F-104 was the F-104G model and variants
> > of that version operated by allied AFs world-wide for more than 40
> > years. A very capable nuclear strike platform as well as a pretty
> > competitive A/A fighter, particularly in versions like the Italian
> > F-104S model that had Sparrow capability.
> >
> > I'd say a very successful aircraft.
>
> I wonder how the 104G rated in Boyd's energy maneuverability analysis, and
> to what extent tactics mitigates such an analysis.

Somewhere I've read a quote from Boyd (probably; otherwise, one of the other
members of the LWF Mafia) in a paper discussing energy maneuverability, in
which it is stated that there had been no increase in fighter Ps (in fact, a
decrease) since the F-104. The period of the report in question must have
been the late '60s or early '70s. Walt BJ flew the hottest F-104, the A model
retrofitted with the same J79-19 engine as in the Sparrow-armed F-104S, but
without all the avionics associated with the RHM capability. As Walt can tell
you, that bird was awesome. About the only fighter that was in the same
ballpark in that era performance-wise was the Lightning, but that had a pretty
poor weapon system for air combat (though better for interception than the
F-104A or C).

A now deceased friend of a friend flew virtually all models of the F-104,
including the G (he flew the C in combat), and liked the G the least. IIRC
(this is via my fading memory of what my friend said his friend had told him
whilediscussing the a/c), he said that it was relatively heavy and the Cg was
more forward (presumably owing to the more powerful radar and more complete
avionics), and he also didn't care for the bigger tail. Now, please note that
he was assessing it as a pure air superiority fighter, as opposed to the
multi-role fighter (nuke and conventional strike/recon/limited all-weather
interception/maritime strike) missions that the F-104G was required to
perform, where all the extra weight of avionics (and airframe beef-up) was
necessary.

Oh, one correction to a point Ed made in a post; the 104 usually had its
greatest Ps advantage fast and low, not fast and high. About the only time
F-8s (any other US fighter of the period was a grape against a smartly-flown
Zipper) could give them problems was at high altitude and low Mach, where
the104's skimpy wing was very unhappy.

Guy

miso

Duce didn't have a bad reputation. Only down for the A/C was that in
Squadrons it was not supersonic in level flight. J-57 was a good
reliable engine. Bird had a gear that was restricted to a 20mph cross
wind on landing so you had to watch that but how often do you have to
land in a cross wind component that high?

Follow on delta was the 106 which had the coke bottle fuselage drag
reduction and bigger engine (J-75) and was supersonic in level flight.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````

On 11 Nov 2005 18:34:15 -0800, wrote:

>I got the number wrong. However, I do recall comments about what Shrub
>flew not being particularly safe.
>
>Jase Vanover wrote:
>> I've always heard that the F-104 was a superb aircraft for what it was
>> designed for (high speed, high altitude intercept), but by the time it was
>> operational the needs had changed, and the attempts to adapt it to the needs
>> of the time played to it's weaknesses.
>>
>> It was freakin' fast (first plane capable of sustained Mach 2+), and held
>> records of the day for altitude and time to climb. I've seen a parked one
>> at the museum in Ottawa, Canada. Smallish in nature, but hot lines... a
>> looker and real "sports car."
>>
>> The "missle with the man in it" is indeed an interesting, if not
>> particularly successful aircraft.
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > You can get statistics on each individual plane in terms of accidents
>> > per hour.
>> >
>> > http://afsafety.af.mil/ is the main page
>> > You probably want this page
>> > http://afsafety.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Flight/stats/aircraft_stats.html
>> >
>> > This is the website where you file FOIAs to get crash information. Lots
>> > of sleaze-bags on the net charge for this information.
>> >
>> > Shrub flew the F-104. It is really an intercept aircraft, so it
>> > wouldn't be likely to see a dog fight, especially in Alabama. In
>> > Shrub's favor, while it would be the plane of choice to fly in the
>> > theater if you didn't want to see action, the F-104 was a deathtrap
>> > compared to other aircraft, strictly from an operational standpoint.
>> >
>> > Larry Dighera wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:18:36 GMT, "gatt"
>> >> > wrote in
>> >> >::
>> >>
>> >> >Anybody have any leads to reputable information about fighter pilot
>> >> >fatality
>> >> >statistics?
>> >> >
>> >> >For example, in terms of miles, is commuting more dangerous than flying
>> >> >a
>> >> >fighter plane? (I say no, many say yes.)
>> >> >
>> >> >Context: Can a Coward Become a Fighter Pilot? (Yeah, I know. That's
>> >> >so
>> >> >2000.)
>> >>
>> >> I'll bet lots of folks who frequent rec.aviation.military can respond
>> >> to your inquiry. I'll crosspost this followup there for you.
>> >

"gregg" > wrote in message
...
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>> Partially true. The F-104A was originally a high altitude interceptor,
>> but in the hands of the 435th TFW/479th TFW, it was a very capable
>> air-to-air day fighter. They developed a lot of the modern mutual
>> support, split-plane maneuvering modern tactics for low-aspect
>> air-to-air.
>>
>> The greatest production of the F-104 was the F-104G model and variants
>> of that version operated by allied AFs world-wide for more than 40
>> years. A very capable nuclear strike platform as well as a pretty
>> competitive A/A fighter, particularly in versions like the Italian
>> F-104S model that had Sparrow capability.
>>
>> I'd say a very successful aircraft.
>
> I wonder how the 104G rated in Boyd's energy maneuverability analysis, and
> to what extent tactics mitigates such an analysis.

"Nobody killed anybody with PsubS." Not sure who to attribute that too, but
it seems to be lurking in my old memories of a Top Gun lecture.

R / John

james cho wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>> For example, in terms of miles, is commuting more dangerous than
>>> flying a fighter plane? (I say no, many say yes.)
>
>
> What time period? The past ten years, the 1940s or since the beginning
> of aviation? Your results would vary dramatically depending on the
> range of events of the time, I think.

You are right to an extent. Yes, the results would vary in that flying
fighters would be even more dangerous during war time. During peace time
it's only several orders of magnitude more dangerous than commuting.

I can echo Ed's comments to the extent that I have known more fighter
pilots who died in peacetime than I have commuters who are no longer
with us. War is a whole 'nother state beyond that. And you'll find that
the ratio was even worse in WW1 than in later wars.

Of course, if you are commuting on a motorcycle in heavy traffic, your
opportunities to match the modern peace time death rate among fighter
pilots are much improved.


Jack

I'm curious to know how the F-100 compared to the 104. I assume the
planes had different missions but being from the same era I lump them
together. I've heard/read about the Super Sabre being a handful but
comparing the wing on it to the 104's lack thereof you'd think it would
be tame by comparison. I figure any of the first-gen jets could be a
handful for a hamfisted pilot as high speed aerodynamics was a new
science then and quite unforgiving.

Would like to hear input from those who've "been there".

Wooly

Well, I've flown neither the F-100 nor the 104. But, I've flown with a
lot of guys who've flown them. My experience was F-105 and F-4.

The F-100 was known for it's adverse yaw--the phenomenon of having the
airplane yaw away from the direction of intended turn when a lot of
aileron/stick is thrown in. Roll hard left and the airplane suddenly
flips over to the right. The issue is that the down aileron creates
much more drag than the up one--i.e. yaw away from the roll direction.
When that happens, suddenly the high wing gets a lot of blanking from
the yawed fuselage and the low wing is placed in a better lift
producing situation and you go the wrong way.

Throw in that the -100A model had no flaps and hence very high landing
speeds and a slow responding, relatively low power engine. That, of
course leads to the potential for the "Sabre Dance" where you get
behind the power curve, extremely nose high and the only way out is to
lose altitude which might not be available.

The F-104 really was only a problem because of high landing and
take-off speeds. (WaltBJ will undoubtedly offer greater insights into
the Zipper at this point.)

The F-105 had very few bad flying characteristics except for the high
wing loading and high TO/Landing speeds.

The "hard wing" F-4 (before leading edge slats were added to E-models)
had very similar adverse yaw characteristics as the F-100, but a lot
better thrust/weight and engine responsiveness. Boundary layer control
(blowing) reduced landing speeds as well.

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> The F-100 was known for it's adverse yaw--the phenomenon of having the
> airplane yaw away from the direction of intended turn when a lot of
> aileron/stick is thrown in. Roll hard left and the airplane suddenly
> flips over to the right.

Only a problem at high angles of attack. But then why fly a fighter if
you are not going to pull g and turn? Rudder was our very best friend.


Jack

Ain't no doubt about it. But, for folks who had grown up flying more
docile aircraft, the traditional application of flight controls--stick
to turn and rudder only to coordinate a bit--the serious adverse yaw
was a killer. The first generation of F-100 drivers were having a
difficult time and suffering a number of crashes until North American
started a serious training program to visit the various bases and demo
the airplane as well as provide details about how to control
it--particularly in the final turn. Can't remember right now whether it
was Chuck Yeager or Bob Hoover that was the star of the show.

Even when I went through F-4 checkout, there were a lot of IPs at Luke
who seemed very reluctant to get max performance out of the airplane.
The initial impression was of a not very agile platform. Flown
properly, however, with little or no aileron input any time there was
back-stick, the airplane was very competitive. As you say, rudder was
our very best--and most dependable--friend.

>>>Flown properly, however, with little or no aileron input any time there was
back-stick, the airplane was very competitive.<<<

Almost sounds as if you'd lead the turn with the rudder in a high alpha
maneuver? Otherwise at low AOA the turn would be coordinated normally?

BTW what was the landing speed of the F104? (Walt?) F105? (Ed?)

wrote:
> >>>Flown properly, however, with little or no aileron input any time there was
> back-stick, the airplane was very competitive.<<<
>
> Almost sounds as if you'd lead the turn with the rudder in a high alpha
> maneuver? Otherwise at low AOA the turn would be coordinated normally?
>
> BTW what was the landing speed of the F104? (Walt?) F105? (Ed?)

Actually, with any significant back-pressure you simply ruddered the
airplane and studiously avoided ANY aileron input. (Nervous WSOs and
prudent IPs often bracketed the stick on the left and right with hands
or knees to prevent a foolish newbie from cranking a lot of aileron in
during high AOA maneuvering.)

Swept wing aircraft will rudder roll quite nicely--and with more AOA,
the roll gets better and better.

Basic weight final approach for an F-105D model was 180 knots. And,
that was increased by 5 knots for every 1000 pounds above basic weight.
Typical landing fuel was usually 2000 pounds (that's 1000 above basic)
plus about 3000 pounds of various tanks, suspension gear, ECM pods and
you get a routine final approach of 200 KIAS.

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> Basic weight final approach for an F-105D model was 180 knots. And,
> that was increased by 5 knots for every 1000 pounds above basic weight.
> Typical landing fuel was usually 2000 pounds (that's 1000 above basic)
> plus about 3000 pounds of various tanks, suspension gear, ECM pods and
> you get a routine final approach of 200 KIAS.


200 knots on approach? The only time I'd approach the ground at 200 knots would
be shortly after my wings came off.

200 knots... that's got to be an eye opener.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Jack wrote:

> You are right to an extent. Yes, the results would vary in that flying
> fighters would be even more dangerous during war time. During peace time
> it's only several orders of magnitude more dangerous than commuting.
>
> I can echo Ed's comments to the extent that I have known more fighter
> pilots who died in peacetime than I have commuters who are no longer
> with us. War is a whole 'nother state beyond that. And you'll find that
> the ratio was even worse in WW1 than in later wars.
>
> Of course, if you are commuting on a motorcycle in heavy traffic, your
> opportunities to match the modern peace time death rate among fighter
> pilots are much improved.
>
>
> Jack

Jack,

Spot on, flying combat military aircraft is considerably more dangerous
than many things. There are few of us in the business who don't have
friends that were killed in crashes. I am however constantly impressed
by the discipline, dedication and skill displayed by the aviators I fly
with. These fine Americans aren't the reckless adrenaline freaks
portrayed by Hollywood, but are top notch professionals! Its an honor
to serve and fly with them.

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Tester

>>>>I would think that the buff has been well tested, by now!<<<<

The B-52 will be part of the AF's arsenal for another 30 years if the
budget docs I read every day at work are correct. There's plenty of
life left in that airframe - there's an avionics upgrade currently
underway that includes the INS and DTUC systems that's funded through
FY06. If they ever get around to reengining those planes they'd
probably fly another 50 years until they were 100.

Wooly

"Michael Kelly" > wrote

> Michael Kelly
> BUFF Flight Tester

Man, I would think you would be out of a job. I would think that the buff
has been well tested, by now! <g>
--
Jim in NC

> wrote

> The B-52 will be part of the AF's arsenal for another 30 years if the
> budget docs I read every day at work are correct.

> If they ever get around to reengining those planes they'd
> probably fly another 50 years until they were 100.

I've often wondered why they don't bite the bullet and do that. Cut back to
4 engines, increase range and increase payload, probably.

I was joking about the flight testing crap, of course. I'll bet they have
more flight test hours than any plane ever built!

From what I have read, it sounds like they would do well to put in some more
comfortable crew seats, too! <g>
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
> "Michael Kelly" > wrote
>
>
>>Michael Kelly
>>BUFF Flight Tester
>
>
> Man, I would think you would be out of a job. I would think that the buff
> has been well tested, by now! <g>

Well tested the mighty BUFF is Morgans! To keep the old lady flying for
another 40 years we've put new computers and weapons on to bird, and
lucky young Lt's like me are able to fly on a jet my grandfather could
have flown on. We're ugly, slow and smoky but a hell of a lot of fun to
fly on. Its a privilege to be part of the BUFF community and I wouldn't
trade it for anything.

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Tester

"Michael Kelly" > wrote

> Well tested the mighty BUFF is Morgans! To keep the old lady flying for
> another 40 years we've put new computers and weapons on to bird, and
> lucky young Lt's like me are able to fly on a jet my grandfather could
> have flown on. We're ugly, slow and smoky but a hell of a lot of fun to
> fly on. Its a privilege to be part of the BUFF community and I wouldn't
> trade it for anything.

******************************************

You know, for all of the airshows and open houses at airbases I have been
to, (quite a few; certainly over what I can count on both hands) I still
have yet to see a buff in the air. Why is that?

You need to lobby your higher-ups, to let you (or someone) do some more
fly-bys at air shows.

One of these days, I hope I'll see one!
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Kelly" > wrote
>
>> Well tested the mighty BUFF is Morgans! To keep the old lady flying for
>> another 40 years we've put new computers and weapons on to bird, and
>> lucky young Lt's like me are able to fly on a jet my grandfather could
>> have flown on. We're ugly, slow and smoky but a hell of a lot of fun to
>> fly on. Its a privilege to be part of the BUFF community and I wouldn't
>> trade it for anything.
>
> ******************************************
>
> You know, for all of the airshows and open houses at airbases I have been
> to, (quite a few; certainly over what I can count on both hands) I still
> have yet to see a buff in the air. Why is that?
>
> You need to lobby your higher-ups, to let you (or someone) do some more
> fly-bys at air shows.
>
> One of these days, I hope I'll see one!
> --
> Jim in NC

We had a BUFF fly by at the fall Atlanta race.

I swear the thing was below the level of the suites and had to cob the
throttles and make a last minute altitude adjustment to insure he cleared
the light towers.

I saved all the angles of all the fly bys from the second half of the NASCAR
season and burned them to DVD.

The unofficial NASCAR 2nd Half Fly By Roll Call:

- 2 B2s (Two Races)
- 1 B52
- 1 B1
- 2 B17s*
- 1 B24*
- 4 T38s
- 2 OV22 Osprey (Night Race at Richmond...their rotor/prop tips glow!!)
- 12 F/A 18s (Three Diff Races)
- 8 F15s (Two Races)
- 8 F16s (Two Races)
- 1 C5 (Dover...Go Figure...)
- 8 A/H64s (Two Races)
- 4 USCG Helos (The ones with the shrouded tail rotors...Dolphins?)

(*B17 "Yankee Lady" at Michigan and at Watkinds Glen, the Collings
Foundation birds flew over one day...not technically a Fly By, but they did
fly by if you know what I mean.)

Jay B

Morgans wrote:
> "Michael Kelly" > wrote
>
>
>>Well tested the mighty BUFF is Morgans! To keep the old lady flying for
>>another 40 years we've put new computers and weapons on to bird, and
>>lucky young Lt's like me are able to fly on a jet my grandfather could
>>have flown on. We're ugly, slow and smoky but a hell of a lot of fun to
>>fly on. Its a privilege to be part of the BUFF community and I wouldn't
>>trade it for anything.
>
>
> ******************************************
>
> You know, for all of the airshows and open houses at airbases I have been
> to, (quite a few; certainly over what I can count on both hands) I still
> have yet to see a buff in the air. Why is that?
>
> You need to lobby your higher-ups, to let you (or someone) do some more
> fly-bys at air shows.
>
> One of these days, I hope I'll see one!

About 20 (maybe 25?)years ago I was out cultivating corn just northwest
of Waterloo, IA and I swear a B52 rumbled right over my head.
Incredibly low and slow. Looked dangerous.

==bob

("Jay Beckman" wrote)
> - 2 OV22 Osprey (Night Race at Richmond...their rotor/prop tips glow!!)


As a long suffering Osprey taxpayer my question is, are they suppose to
glow? :-)


Montblack

I forgot what year it was, but it was before '96, I was a tin roofer
installing lead-coated copper standing deam roof on a tower in Quantico
Marine base when one of the Ospreys took a nose dive into the Potomac
River. I had clear view of it because I was on the tower roof.

Didn't a BUFF go down at at airshow? Thought I saw the video.

"Bob Matthews" > wrote

> About 20 (maybe 25?)years ago I was out cultivating corn just northwest
> of Waterloo, IA and I swear a B52 rumbled right over my head.
> Incredibly low and slow. Looked dangerous.

A couple of years ago, I heard a low rumble that I could not identify. It
kept getting louder, and I finally "had" to go outside and try to identify
what it was, or at least from what direction the sound was coming.

It lasted several minutes, and I made up my mind that it *must* be the sound
of big afterburners, and from how loud it was, more than two. I guessed it
must be a B-1 running the nearby gorge on a low level training run.

The next couple days, I asked around, and many had heard it. Finally, I
came across someone who lived out in the direction of the Lindville Gorge
that saw it come directly over his house.

That was 15 or more miles away, and it was unmistakable and different, and
had a deep rumble unlike anything I had ever heard. The next year I saw a
B-1 doing afterburner runs up close at an air show, and heard how loud they
were. Yep, that was it!

Still not a buff, though. :-)
--
Jim in NC

Flyingmonk wrote:
> Didn't a BUFF go down at at airshow? Thought I saw the video.

Fairchild AFB, early nineties in an air show practice. Basically, the
pilot involved didn't think the rules applied to him and was well know
for his unsafe flying. A number of aircrew flat out refused to fly with
him and finally a significant number of the wing staff thought there
could be a problem and decided to fly with him. Unfortunately for them
the flight they were on was the one that crashed in front of the
cameras. A book was written about the complete lack of leadership that
led up to this accident.

In at least one, if not more, preflight briefings I've been in various
aspects of this crash were discussed under the safety and EP portions of
the brief.

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Tester

Morgans wrote:

> "Bob Matthews" > wrote
>
>
>>About 20 (maybe 25?)years ago I was out cultivating corn just northwest
>>of Waterloo, IA and I swear a B52 rumbled right over my head.
>>Incredibly low and slow. Looked dangerous.
>
>
> A couple of years ago, I heard a low rumble that I could not identify. It
> kept getting louder, and I finally "had" to go outside and try to identify
> what it was, or at least from what direction the sound was coming.
>
> It lasted several minutes, and I made up my mind that it *must* be the sound
> of big afterburners, and from how loud it was, more than two. I guessed it
> must be a B-1 running the nearby gorge on a low level training run.
>
> The next couple days, I asked around, and many had heard it. Finally, I
> came across someone who lived out in the direction of the Lindville Gorge
> that saw it come directly over his house.
>
> That was 15 or more miles away, and it was unmistakable and different, and
> had a deep rumble unlike anything I had ever heard. The next year I saw a
> B-1 doing afterburner runs up close at an air show, and heard how loud they
> were. Yep, that was it!
>
> Still not a buff, though. :-)

Being in the flight path of a Bone low level in max aug is a truly
moving experience and double hearing protection is advised! The BUFF is
slower, uglier and more smoky not nearly as impressive a sight to
behold. The Bone emanates raw power and graceful lines. The BUFF is
the fat ugly lineman, sure its not as sexy as a quarterback, but it
grinds it out like that lineman and makes the mission happen.

My personal preference, the Bone is a hell of a lot more fun to fly.
Get real, if given the choice between a Ferrari and a pick up I'll
always pick the Ferrari as more fun to drive. The practical side of me
though acknowledges that the pickup is pretty useful, but some what less
sexy. I've only flown the Bone sim, but spent plenty of time in its
cockpit. I have flown in the BUFF and also spent a fair amount of time
in it. I'd rather spend a 20+ hour sortie in the BUFF, more room makes
a difference after the 6th or 7th hour of a flight.

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Tester (Former Bone Maintainer)

Morgans wrote:

> You know, for all of the airshows and open houses at airbases I have been
> to, (quite a few; certainly over what I can count on both hands) I still
> have yet to see a buff in the air. Why is that?
>
> You need to lobby your higher-ups, to let you (or someone) do some more
> fly-bys at air shows.
>
> One of these days, I hope I'll see one!

I don't know what to tell you bro. I've seen the BUFF in a couple of
air shows and even flown in one. I unfortunately can't lobby my higher
ups for air show performances as a.) we only own two aircraft b.) we are
AFMC and ACC owns the vast majority of BUFFs c.) I'm a Lt, who listens
to Lt's? Especially ones who are engineers?

Best I can offer you is to go to Andrews AFB air show, or Langley AFB
air show both will have a high probability of having BUFFs fly on the
East coast. Barksdale AFB or Minot AFB would be good bets for seeing a
BUFF in the middle of the country. Edwards AFB is your best bet on the
West coast. Don't know where you are, but chances are you'll need to
travel to see the might BUFF airborne.

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Tester

Do any of these fly out of Nellis? I was on the ground in the
northwestern Arizona boonies a few years ago when one flew over my
position very loud and low. I wouldn't want to guess how low, but I was
in awe.

Michael Kelly wrote:

>
> Best I can offer you is to go to Andrews AFB air show, or Langley AFB
> air show both will have a high probability of having BUFFs fly on the
> East coast. Barksdale AFB or Minot AFB would be good bets for seeing a
> BUFF in the middle of the country. Edwards AFB is your best bet on the
> West coast. Don't know where you are, but chances are you'll need to
> travel to see the might BUFF airborne.
>
> Michael Kelly
> BUFF Flight Tester
>

"RomeoMike" > wrote in message
...
> Do any of these fly out of Nellis? I was on the ground in the northwestern
> Arizona boonies a few years ago when one flew over my position very loud
> and low. I wouldn't want to guess how low, but I was in awe.
>

They do attend Red Flag cycles.

I've seen them come and go from Nellis when we are "across the street" at
the LV Motor Speedway covering the NASCAR weekend.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
AZ Cloudbusters
Chandler, AZ

RomeoMike wrote:
> Do any of these fly out of Nellis? I was on the ground in the
> northwestern Arizona boonies a few years ago when one flew over my
> position very loud and low. I wouldn't want to guess how low, but I was
> in awe.

BUFFs routinely fly out of Nellis for Red Flag and for their Weapons
School deployments. Unfortunately I think the only two units that still
regularly practice low level are Weapons School and us out at Edwards.
So, its a cool thing to be able to say I've flown low level in the BUFF!
There are quite a few of the younger aircrew out there who haven't.

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Tester

"Michael Kelly" > wrote

> So, its a cool thing to be able to say I've flown low level in the BUFF!
> There are quite a few of the younger aircrew out there who haven't.

So how low is low, and how high is still low? <g>
--
Jim in NC

> >>About 20 (maybe 25?)years ago I was out cultivating corn just northwest
> >>of Waterloo, IA and I swear a B52 rumbled right over my head.
> >>Incredibly low and slow. Looked dangerous.

In about 1979, I was searching in the mountains west of Fort
Collins, Colorado for a downed aircraft. I was flying in a Birddog
500' below the ridge line, and heard the most incredible rumbling.
It just kept getting louder and louder. We were jinking left and
right, trying to figure out what it was. Then, we saw a BUFF, 500'
below us and 300' AGL, flying UP the canyon. It climbed over the
canyon wall at the head of the canyon. We immediately climbed and
went over the ridge we were searching to that we would be WELL away
from the wing vortex(es), which would hit the canyon floor or the
canyon wall and CLIMB up the wall due to their rotation. We made
it, but the snow swirl as the wing vortex came over the canyon wall
made an impressive "horizontal snow tornado".

This was one of the BEST ways of turning taxpayer dollars into noise
that I have ever seen/heard! I am proud to be an American!

Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction/mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer<at>frii.com http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot BM218 HAM N0FZD 235 Young Eagles!

Morgans wrote:

> "Michael Kelly" > wrote
>
>
>>So, its a cool thing to be able to say I've flown low level in the BUFF!
>> There are quite a few of the younger aircrew out there who haven't.
>
>
> So how low is low, and how high is still low? <g>

Low is as low as the pilot wants to go... ;). Really the lower limit is
dictated by the Radar Nav and Nav's down firing ejection seats or by
having folks in the various jump seats wearing plain parachutes. If the
latter then you must be at least 500 ft AGL to give folks a chance to
bail out. If everyone is in a seat you can go lower.

How high is still low? If you go low in mountains you can crest some
ridges at 500 ft AGL and still be 12,000 ft MSL. Been there done that.

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Tester

>Basically, the pilot involved didn't think the rules applied to him and was well know for his unsafe flying.

How can a guy w/ questionable ethics or is considered 'unsafe' be
qualified or allowed to fly or even be on the demo team?

The Monk

Flyingmonk wrote:
>>Basically, the pilot involved didn't think the rules applied to him and was well know for his unsafe flying.
>
>
> How can a guy w/ questionable ethics or is considered 'unsafe' be
> qualified or allowed to fly or even be on the demo team?
>
> The Monk

That's the whole point about the book written on this incident. I'm
only informed around the edges of the story and from the deceased's
reputation within the BUFF community. There was a very bad break down
in leadership that allowed that pilot to continue flying. Again, I
haven't read the book, but every BUFF aircrew member I know supports the
point of view I originally posted.


Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Tester

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 03:35:41 GMT, Michael Kelly
> wrote:

>Flyingmonk wrote:
>>>Basically, the pilot involved didn't think the rules applied to him and was well know for his unsafe flying.
>>
>>
>> How can a guy w/ questionable ethics or is considered 'unsafe' be
>> qualified or allowed to fly or even be on the demo team?
>>
>> The Monk
>
>That's the whole point about the book written on this incident. I'm
>only informed around the edges of the story and from the deceased's
>reputation within the BUFF community. There was a very bad break down
>in leadership that allowed that pilot to continue flying. Again, I
>haven't read the book, but every BUFF aircrew member I know supports the
>point of view I originally posted.
>
>
>Michael Kelly
>BUFF Flight Tester
>

Are you talking about this article?

http://s92270093.onlinehome.us/CRM-Devel/resources/paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm
or is there also a book written about this case?

Greetz Mu

Mu wrote:
>
> Are you talking about this article?
>
> http://s92270093.onlinehome.us/CRM-Devel/resources/paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm
> or is there also a book written about this case?
>
> Greetz Mu

I beleive this is it. My fellow crew members called it a book, but I
think this paper is what they're referring to.

Reread it, its a well documented and damning indictment of the wing
leadership.

Thanks for finding the URL.

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Tester

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 05:49:08 GMT, Michael Kelly
> wrote:

>Mu wrote:
>>
>> Are you talking about this article?
>>
>> http://s92270093.onlinehome.us/CRM-Devel/resources/paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm
>> or is there also a book written about this case?
>>
>> Greetz Mu
>
>I beleive this is it. My fellow crew members called it a book, but I
>think this paper is what they're referring to.
>
>Reread it, its a well documented and damning indictment of the wing
>leadership.
>
>Thanks for finding the URL.
>
>Michael Kelly
>BUFF Flight Tester
>

Indeed quite an indictment to the leadership. Especially the part
about him keeping his job as Chief Stan Eval.
I've never been a pilot myself (damn my eyes), but I think it would
give me a very weird/awkward feeling to have a guy as my Stan Eval who
shows ..well.. how NOT to adhere to standards. Teaching/evaluating
people how to the job but not doing it yourself is not the way to get
your students listening to you.

Greetz Mu

Morgans wrote:
> "Michael Kelly" > wrote
>
>
>>I beleive
>
>
> i before e, except after c..... <g>
>
> It is good to know that test piliots can't spell sometimes, too. ;-)

Damn, I was typing fast and hit send before spell checking... But it
could be worse, when I got to engineering school I couldn't spell the
word engineer, now I are one ;) .

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Testers (Who's now turned on the auto spell check)

"Michael Kelly" > wrote

> I beleive

i before e, except after c..... <g>

It is good to know that test piliots can't spell sometimes, too. ;-)
--
Jim in NC

Mu wrote:

> Indeed quite an indictment to the leadership. Especially the part
> about him keeping his job as Chief Stan Eval.
> I've never been a pilot myself (damn my eyes), but I think it would
> give me a very weird/awkward feeling to have a guy as my Stan Eval who
> shows ..well.. how NOT to adhere to standards. Teaching/evaluating
> people how to the job but not doing it yourself is not the way to get
> your students listening to you.
>
> Greetz Mu

Very much so. It really ticked me off to see such an abject lack of
leadership, especially when younger officers started emulating Lt Col
Holland's example. I'm only a Flight Test Engineer and my aircrew
experience is limited, but standards and T.O. limits are there for
reasons and shouldn't be violated at the drop of a hat.

The thing that got to me the most was the OG and Wing leadership's
failure to hold Holland to the same standards the other pilots were
expected to adhere to. I spent my last assignment as a maintenance
officer and was twice a flight commander. While not the same level of
responsibility as those in this incident, I learned really quickly that
if I didn't walk the talk my 150 maintainers wouldn't either.
Additionally, I learned that not applying the standards equally would
lead to them not being followed.

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Tester

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:25:26 -0500, Morgans wrote:

> "Michael Kelly" > wrote
>
>> Damn, I was typing fast and hit send before spell checking... But it
>> could be worse, when I got to engineering school I couldn't spell the
>> word engineer, now I are one ;) .
>
> <chuckle> If you are using outlook express, there is a way to set it to
> check spelling before sending, automatically.

You have to have Microsoft Word on your system for it to work as OE uses
Word's spell-checker engine.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail dot fm

"Michael Kelly" > wrote

> Damn, I was typing fast and hit send before spell checking... But it
> could be worse, when I got to engineering school I couldn't spell the
> word engineer, now I are one ;) .

<chuckle> If you are using outlook express, there is a way to set it to
check spelling before sending, automatically.
--
Jim in NC

"Yeff" > wrote \
>
> You have to have Microsoft Word on your system for it to work as OE uses
> Word's spell-checker engine.

Not true. Google for something like "outlook express spell checker," or
"spell checker replacement," and you will find one to download that will
work just as well.
--
Jim in NC