Re: Aviation photography website (Reno Air Races, Duxford Flying Legends and more ...)

[Red Rider]

"dth" > wrote in message ...

Delta Sierra! You don't post binaries on this newsgroup.

[Pechs1]

Yowser-for you guys that know, how come no jets in unlimited air racing, like a
converted/clip wing T-2 or something...Seems like it would do well...even with
tip tanks they thing could do 350 kts w/o too much trouble...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

Thomas-<< Cause "unlimited" doesn't really mean unlimited. The class rules are
"any
piston-engined prop plane capable of 6-G or better." But 350 kts isn't
going to cut it anyway -- the unlimiteds are pushing 500 kts on the
straights. >><BR><BR>

Got it and thanks..but a T-2, after the tip tanks are removed, with a little
engine work, could probably do 450kts+...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[John Carrier]

> Got it and thanks..but a T-2, after the tip tanks are removed, with a
little
> engine work, could probably do 450kts+...

IIRC, there was an unlimited project that was going to use T-2 wings.
Compared to WW2 vintage A/C, the T-2 wings are pretty slick. The current
T-2C, with engines producing about 2/3's of their advertised thrust, will
exceed 400 knots level. Get some low-time J-85's and 450 with tips is a
pretty reasonable expectation. And that's knots, not mph. Translate that
to Reno altitudes and I think the Trusty Tubbyjet would outperform the
unlimiteds.

Now the A-4 SuperFox is a whole new ballgame. Finest non-a/b jet of all
time IMO.

R / John

[John R Weiss]

"John Carrier" > wrote...
>
> IIRC, there was an unlimited project that was going to use T-2 wings.
> Compared to WW2 vintage A/C, the T-2 wings are pretty slick. The current
> T-2C, with engines producing about 2/3's of their advertised thrust, will
> exceed 400 knots level. Get some low-time J-85's and 450 with tips is a
> pretty reasonable expectation. And that's knots, not mph. Translate that
> to Reno altitudes and I think the Trusty Tubbyjet would outperform the
> unlimiteds.
>
> Now the A-4 SuperFox is a whole new ballgame. Finest non-a/b jet of all
> time IMO.

Hmmm... Are you talking 450 KIAS or 450 KTAS?

I doubt the T-2 will do 450 KIAS level in any configuration. Getting another 50
KIAS would likely require more thrust than any pair of J-85s could produce.

The A-4 is, as you say, a whole new ballgame. IIRC, the A-4C, which was a very
clean machine, supposedly could do 540 KIAS. The SuperFox would likely go
faster if the dorsal hump was absent. I'm not sure how much drag the hump adds.
The A-4M, with the larger hump and bubble canopy, would likely be slower even
with the -408 engine.

[John Carrier]

> Hmmm... Are you talking 450 KIAS or 450 KTAS?
>
> I doubt the T-2 will do 450 KIAS level in any configuration. Getting
another 50
> KIAS would likely require more thrust than any pair of J-85s could
produce.

I was thinking unlimited racing environment where KIAS and KTAS are
essentially the same. Pechs may be right, the tips might have to go. The
current rode-hard-put-away-wet aircraft will hit 400 at sea level (well
okay, break altitude). I can assure you the aircraft that's flying now and
that was flying when I instructed (late 80's) is NOT the jet that rolled off
the production line performance wise.

> The A-4 is, as you say, a whole new ballgame. IIRC, the A-4C, which was a
very
> clean machine, supposedly could do 540 KIAS. The SuperFox would likely go
> faster if the dorsal hump was absent. I'm not sure how much drag the hump
adds.
> The A-4M, with the larger hump and bubble canopy, would likely be slower
even
> with the -408 engine.

The A-4 set a low altitude speed record (100km closed course IIRC) of 695
mph at Edwards back in 1954. I think that works out to right around 600
indicated. Yes the Super F's hump was a problem. Adversary and Blues
removed it for the performance increase. I've had A-4's in the high 500's
above 5K' (while watching the fighters escape with almost 200 knots
opening), mach tuck and all the trimmings.

Max IAS is usually obtained really low and frequently runs into real or
artificial limits (F-4 with centerline had a 600 limit, used to be a limit
on F-14 tanks). I never saw an attack aircraft that wasn't pretty well
dragged up even though the guys of my era used to LIVE in the weeds. Clean
F-104 could really scoot (812 or so indicated in the high desert for the
record runs ... at 60-70 feet!) and I've heard the 105 and 111 could really
haul the mail as well. Despite lots of stories, most folks don't truly find
out what Vmax(indicated) for their airframe really is (and that might be
just as well, check out the first Sageburner attempt films).

R / John

[Pechs1]

John-<< Now the A-4 SuperFox is a whole new ballgame. Finest non-a/b jet of
all
time IMO. >><BR><BR>

Agree....
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

jrweiss-<< Hmmm... Are you talking 450 KIAS or 450 KTAS?

I doubt the T-2 will do 450 KIAS level in any configuration. Getting another
50
KIAS would likely require more thrust than any pair of J-85s could produce.
>><BR><BR>

I donno...the max was 385KIAS(??, it was 10 years ago)...and that was pretty
easy...I think an extra 65 knots was in there somewhere...

<< IIRC, the A-4C, which was a very
clean machine, supposedly could do 540 KIAS. The SuperFox would likely go
faster if the dorsal hump was absent. >><BR><BR>

The hump made the jet a little more stable at really high speeds(less 'dog
walk')...I had 3 A-4Ms with a lot of the stuff removed, but still had the
hump...great self starting jet...Sat up higher in the cockpit tho, for some
stuff under the seat, not as comfy as the A-4E/F/F+

<< The A-4M, with the larger hump and bubble canopy, would likely be slower
even
with the -408 engine. >><BR><BR>

Faster than the straight F(-8 engine), felt more sluggish than all of them,
slower than the F+...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

John-<< Despite lots of stories, most folks don't truly find
out what Vmax(indicated) for their airframe really is (and that might be
just as well, check out the first Sageburner attempt films). >><BR><BR>

Saw the airspeed indicator climb rapidly thru 800 kts on a F-16N(canopy limit
is 800) at Yuma range, popped up, broke a 'few' windows in Yuma..didn't catch
the F-14 I was chasing...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Mary Shafer]

On 17 Aug 2003 13:57:45 GMT, (Pechs1) wrote:

> jrweiss-<< Hmmm... Are you talking 450 KIAS or 450 KTAS?
>
> I doubt the T-2 will do 450 KIAS level in any configuration. Getting another
> 50
> KIAS would likely require more thrust than any pair of J-85s could produce.
> >><BR><BR>
>
> I donno...the max was 385KIAS(??, it was 10 years ago)...and that was pretty
> easy...I think an extra 65 knots was in there somewhere...

This is the T-2 with the Hershey-bar wing, isn't it? Roughly the same
airplane as the T-33 Shooting Star?

I hate to sound pessimistic, but I don't think you could get 450 KIAS
out of that airplane going downhill with the wind at your back. Drag
counts R us.

Those early jets weren't designed to go very fast. They were still
too much like the heavy-metal prop planes that had preceded them.
Designers were still fiddling around, leery of shock travel and
control reversal. If you look at some of the early jets, you'll see
that the optimization hadn't started yet. Antennas were big, noses
were blunt or rounded instead of pointy, wings weren't swept,
cross-sectional area changed abruptly, and so on.

Heinemann's Hotrod, the A-4, was one of the early operational aircraft
to look like a 'modern' jet airplane. Pointy nose, area rule, good
forebody flow, delta wing, good drag count reduction. Everyone was
working toward the same goals, of course, and a lot of aircraft of the
period had all those features. I don't know what made Heinemann's
design so good, but I've always suspected it had something to do with
the limitations inherent in the airplane being relatively small.

I was at a symposium where Heinemann and Kelly Johnson talked about
their aircraft and their design process. Both of them had been real
fans of the NACA, using the latest research results in their designs,
but they both said it took them a while to believe the new design
concepts. They both said that good airplanes looked _good_, but what
looked good changed. This was about the time of the F-14 and F-15
became operational, maybe five years later, and square inlets still
looked odd to many of us.

> << IIRC, the A-4C, which was a very
> clean machine, supposedly could do 540 KIAS. The SuperFox would likely go
> faster if the dorsal hump was absent. >><BR><BR>
>
> The hump made the jet a little more stable at really high speeds(less 'dog
> walk')...I had 3 A-4Ms with a lot of the stuff removed, but still had the
> hump...great self starting jet...Sat up higher in the cockpit tho, for some
> stuff under the seat, not as comfy as the A-4E/F/F+

It's good to know that design really works. We don't want you pilots
to have to compensate for a loose airplane, particularly at high
speeds. That can be dangerous, even. Directional stability is
important.

Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[John R Weiss]

"Robert Moore" > wrote...
> When the great a/c re-designation occured,
> they became the T-1, and the newer, twin engined Buckeye became
> the T-2.

More accurately, the single-engined T-2A and twin-engined T-2B and T-2C
Buckeyes...

[Pechs1]

Mary-<< This is the T-2 with the Hershey-bar wing, isn't it? Roughly the same
airplane as the T-33 Shooting Star? >><BR><BR>

Very roughly, i would say but I never flew the T-33..


P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer