F-14 on the History Channel's "Modern Marvels"

[Brian J. McCann]

A couple of night ago the History Channel aired a program about the
F-14. During the promo it was stated that the Tomcat is the world's
fastest fighter. I dunno, every aviation book in my house puts it
clearly behind the F-15 and the MiG 25.

Also, the program stated that the Shah of Iran ordered a fly-off
between the F-14 and the F-15 in order to decide which one he was
gonna buy. But when the narrator was talking about the Eagle, they
showed footage of what was clearly an F-5.

So, what's going on here? Am I wrong, is the Tomcat actually faster
than the Eagle. And what's up with the F-5 footage? Did the US offer
the Shah F-5s or F-15s? Did the documentary show the wrong footage,
or did the narrator misread the copy, or was he given the wrong copy?
When I get confusing information from a documentary it makes me doubt
the validity of the entire work.

Did anyone else see the program, or can anyone give me some clear and
unimpeachable facts?

Thanks in advance,
Brian J. McCann

[Keith Willshaw]

"Brian J. McCann" > wrote in message
om...
> A couple of night ago the History Channel aired a program about the
> F-14. During the promo it was stated that the Tomcat is the world's
> fastest fighter. I dunno, every aviation book in my house puts it
> clearly behind the F-15 and the MiG 25.
>
> Also, the program stated that the Shah of Iran ordered a fly-off
> between the F-14 and the F-15 in order to decide which one he was
> gonna buy. But when the narrator was talking about the Eagle, they
> showed footage of what was clearly an F-5.
>
> So, what's going on here? Am I wrong, is the Tomcat actually faster
> than the Eagle. And what's up with the F-5 footage? Did the US offer
> the Shah F-5s or F-15s? Did the documentary show the wrong footage,
> or did the narrator misread the copy, or was he given the wrong copy?
> When I get confusing information from a documentary it makes me doubt
> the validity of the entire work.
>

Which is very wise, the history channel is 90% dreck IMHO

Keith

[Ogden Johnson III]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

>"Brian J. McCann" > wrote in message

>> A couple of night ago the History Channel aired a program about the
>> F-14. During the promo it was stated that the Tomcat is the world's
>> fastest fighter. I dunno, every aviation book in my house puts it
>> clearly behind the F-15 and the MiG 25.
>>
>> Also, the program stated that the Shah of Iran ordered a fly-off
>> between the F-14 and the F-15 in order to decide which one he was
>> gonna buy. But when the narrator was talking about the Eagle, they
>> showed footage of what was clearly an F-5.
>>
>> So, what's going on here? Am I wrong, is the Tomcat actually faster
>> than the Eagle. And what's up with the F-5 footage? Did the US offer
>> the Shah F-5s or F-15s? Did the documentary show the wrong footage,
>> or did the narrator misread the copy, or was he given the wrong copy?
>> When I get confusing information from a documentary it makes me doubt
>> the validity of the entire work.

>Which is very wise, the history channel is 90% dreck IMHO

To paraphrase [and bowdlerize] Theodore Sturgeon's famous quote from
the '50's, "90% of *everything* is dreck." It is the belief of many
that that number goes up to Ivory soap ranges [99 and 44/100ths
percent] when the subject under immediate discussion is television
programs, whether broadcast or cable network.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

[JD]

Actually if you were to compare the F14 with the F110 engines to the
F15, the acceleration at SL would be even from M0.5 to M0.9. This is
with the F14 wings set to "Auto". If the F14 wings were set to manual
and the wings set fully aft, the F14 would be a lot faster.

With a F14 with the TF30 engines, SL accleration at the same Mach,
would be a second slower than the F110.

The main advantange of the F14 is that can change its flight profile
or in this case, drag profile. Parasitic drag at 68 deg vs 45 deg
(F15) would be lower in the former. So with the said, going over
speeds over the Mach, the F14B/D will reach the goal quicker by
several seconds.

During the F14 v F15 fly off, I recall reading that the F14 camp let
the fuel burn fast as they were at a high idle (To increase the T:W)
while the F15's demo was in progress and that the F14 pilots took
account for the weather (wind) before their time was next. What this
knowledge was used for was the slow fly by in which it looked like the
aircraft was at a standstill since the aircraft was flying at 95KIAS
"dirty" as flew into the wind. During their demonstration, they hit
8Gs at in the mid 300kias range and performed touch and go's and
accelerated into the vertical. Their demonstration also showed that
the F14A took off and landed in a shorter distance than the F15.


Julian

[Elmshoot]

>A couple of night ago the History Channel aired a program about the
>F-14. During the promo it was stated that the Tomcat is the world's
>fastest fighter. I dunno, every aviation book in my house puts it
>clearly behind the F-15 and the MiG 25.

Brian,
I started Discovery wings about 1 year agao and the biggest disapointment was
all of the inacuracies they had in the programs. An F-5 isn't suprising, radial
engine sounds with a turdo prop taking off the wrong jet sounds for the A/C
pictured. The toper was the narator saying it took Lindy 17 hours to fly to
Paris from NY. Now when we watch it's a game to pick out the crap in the story.
I wonder how much is in the stores I don't anything about. The B-58 program I
liked but the creditability is always suspect.
The A-6 progam it is mentioned none had ever been shot down by another plane. I
understand that when VA-196 lost 4 planes on the raid up north they were jumped
by Migs and at least one was bagged in China while trying to avoid the air
threat.
It also mention they have no A/A capability I have many hours flying on
deploymemt carring an AIM-9N. That is more then the other bomber the AF refers
to the Stealth Fighter.
Sparky

[Andrew Toppan]

On 9 Oct 2003 22:17:57 -0700, (Brian J. McCann) wrote:

>Did anyone else see the program, or can anyone give me some clear and
>unimpeachable facts?

The program appears to be utter BS. The promo also said something about the
F-14 shooting down aircraft from 200 miles away, which is beyond silly.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Guy Alcala]

Ogden Johnson III wrote:

> To paraphrase [and bowdlerize] Theodore Sturgeon's famous quote from
> the '50's, "90% of *everything* is dreck."

He seems to have used "crud", which has been almost universally modified into
"crap," so you're really not bowdlerizing _him_. Whatever word you use, the
essential truth of his 'law' remains unassailable.

Guy

[Ogden Johnson III]

Guy Alcala > wrote:

>Ogden Johnson III wrote:

>> To paraphrase [and bowdlerize] Theodore Sturgeon's famous quote from
>> the '50's, "90% of *everything* is dreck."

>He seems to have used "crud", which has been almost universally modified into
>"crap," so you're really not bowdlerizing _him_. Whatever word you use, the
>essential truth of his 'law' remains unassailable.

I had always understood that the word he used was the one most
commonly used for excrement in impolite company.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

[Pechs1]

bjm-<< A couple of night ago the History Channel aired a program about the
F-14. During the promo it was stated that the Tomcat is the world's
fastest fighter. I dunno, every aviation book in my house puts it
clearly behind the F-15 and the MiG 25. >><BR><BR>

Must've been written by Grumman...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

JD-<< Actually if you were to compare the F14 with the F110 engines to the
F15, the acceleration at SL would be even from M0.5 to M0.9. This is
with the F14 wings set to "Auto". If the F14 wings were set to manual
and the wings set fully aft, the F14 would be a lot faster. >><BR><BR>

'A lot'??-manual aft, airsource off type acceleration?


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

[JD]

Pechs1,

I have read a statement by an F14 RIO that in the 90's that the F14
was known as the "world's fastest or quickest aircraft" this may have
changed since some of the aircraft had their engines changed. Mind
you, he was saying this when he was in the Bravo version.

jd

(Pechs1) wrote in message >...
> bjm-<< A couple of night ago the History Channel aired a program about the
> F-14. During the promo it was stated that the Tomcat is the world's
> fastest fighter. I dunno, every aviation book in my house puts it
> clearly behind the F-15 and the MiG 25. >><BR><BR>
>
> Must've been written by Grumman...
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[John Carrier]

Actually, the wings were programmed for best cruise which targets least drag
for current speed. A level acceleration closely hits those airspeed check
points ... there's no advantage to sweeping the wings on a level accel
because induced drag and trim drag will initially (at the starting speed of
the accel) increase significantly with the wing sweep. Unloaded (and
following optimum flight path for max PsubS) there's an advantage to
sweeping the wings. There are times when an unload is practical. There are
others when it is not.

Pete's right. airsource off helps.

R / John


"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> JD-<< Actually if you were to compare the F14 with the F110 engines to the
> F15, the acceleration at SL would be even from M0.5 to M0.9. This is
> with the F14 wings set to "Auto". If the F14 wings were set to manual
> and the wings set fully aft, the F14 would be a lot faster. >><BR><BR>
>
> 'A lot'??-manual aft, airsource off type acceleration?
>
>
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

[nafod40]

John Carrier wrote:
> Actually, the wings were programmed for best cruise which targets least drag
> for current speed.

Was it keyed off of airspeed, or AOA?

[Pechs1]

jdata-<< I have read a statement by an F14 RIO that in the 90's that the F14
was known as the "world's fastest or quickest aircraft" this may have
changed since some of the aircraft had their engines changed. Mind
you, he was saying this when he was in the Bravo version. >><BR><BR>

-110 engines did make a HUGE difference...but rmember the RIO was looking at
perhaps the last tactical seat available in the F-14 for NFOs, so I am sure a
lot of them really talked up the A/C..Good thing the F-18F came along or these
guys would be SOL...and may be 'soon' anyway, Isn't the USN JSF single seat??


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

[JD]

You have a very good point. Yes, the F35 is only a single seater
although LM does have a 2 seater "mockup".

Julian

(Pechs1) wrote in message >...
> jdata-<< I have read a statement by an F14 RIO that in the 90's that the F14
> was known as the "world's fastest or quickest aircraft" this may have
> changed since some of the aircraft had their engines changed. Mind
> you, he was saying this when he was in the Bravo version. >><BR><BR>
>
> -110 engines did make a HUGE difference...but rmember the RIO was looking at
> perhaps the last tactical seat available in the F-14 for NFOs, so I am sure a
> lot of them really talked up the A/C..Good thing the F-18F came along or these
> guys would be SOL...and may be 'soon' anyway, Isn't the USN JSF single seat??
>
>
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[James Woody]

Yep - RIO (running into obsolesce). 2 pair of eyes was always better
than one.

Woody

Pechs1 wrote:
> jdata-<< I have read a statement by an F14 RIO that in the 90's that the F14
> was known as the "world's fastest or quickest aircraft" this may have
> changed since some of the aircraft had their engines changed. Mind
> you, he was saying this when he was in the Bravo version. >><BR><BR>
>
> -110 engines did make a HUGE difference...but rmember the RIO was looking at
> perhaps the last tactical seat available in the F-14 for NFOs, so I am sure a
> lot of them really talked up the A/C..Good thing the F-18F came along or these
> guys would be SOL...and may be 'soon' anyway, Isn't the USN JSF single seat??
>
>
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[José Herculano]

> You have a very good point. Yes, the F35 is only a single seater
> although LM does have a 2 seater "mockup".

Looking at what an F/A-22 (single seater) and a B-2 (twin-seater) can do, I
find it harder and harder to justify a thing like an F/A-18F....
_____________
José Herculano

[John Carrier]

IIRC mach # and altitude.

R / John

"nafod40" > wrote in message
...
> John Carrier wrote:
> > Actually, the wings were programmed for best cruise which targets least
drag
> > for current speed.
>
> Was it keyed off of airspeed, or AOA?
>

[gizmo-goddard]

"José Herculano" > wrote in message
...
> > You have a very good point. Yes, the F35 is only a single seater
> > although LM does have a 2 seater "mockup".
>
> Looking at what an F/A-22 (single seater) and a B-2 (twin-seater) can do,
I
> find it harder and harder to justify a thing like an F/A-18F....

Well for one thing, the US Navy can actuallly afford the F/A-18F. While it
doesn't really add any more capability than the F-14D has, it is far easier
to maintain :-)

__!_!__
Gizmo

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 11/4/03 12:37 PM, in article
, "James Woody"
> wrote:

> Yep - RIO (running into obsolesce). 2 pair of eyes was always better
> than one.
>
> Woody
>

Woody,

In the air-to-air arena, I've never found the two sets of eyes in the Tomcat
(or the Strike Eagle for that matter) to be an advantage against single-seat
fighters at the merge. Been there many times against Tomcats when the Toms
are tally 0 (red or blue) and the Hornets are tally all (blue or red). In
fact, I see "no joy's" out of Tomcats way more than out of Hornets.

Don't take that as NFO bashing. I've got a lot of respect for B/N's, WSO's,
and RIO's in the systems weapons and sensor supported weapons roles. It's
great to have one guy totally focused on target acq and weapons support
leaving the pilot to flying form and avoiding the threat.

I just think that their additional utility (given current technology) in the
air-to-air arena is limited.

I'm sure I'm going to get many responses from this one. Seriously, folks,
not a troll.

--Woody

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 11/4/03 5:37 PM, in article
, "gizmo-goddard"
> wrote:

> "José Herculano" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> You have a very good point. Yes, the F35 is only a single seater
>>> although LM does have a 2 seater "mockup".
>>
>> Looking at what an F/A-22 (single seater) and a B-2 (twin-seater) can do,
> I
>> find it harder and harder to justify a thing like an F/A-18F....
>
> Well for one thing, the US Navy can actuallly afford the F/A-18F. While it
> doesn't really add any more capability than the F-14D has, it is far easier
> to maintain :-)
>
> __!_!__
> Gizmo
>
>

Gizmo,

Far be it from me to be a Kool Aid drinker (despite my current VFA
association), but I disagree with you based on what I see the F/A-18F doing
these days with HMCS, ATFLIR, AESA, and AIM-9X.

There's much more growth potential based on architecture.

And that maintainability counts for a lot.

--Woody

[Mike Kanze]

José,

>Looking at what an F/A-22 (single seater) and a B-2 (twin-seater) can do, I
find it harder and harder to justify a thing like an F/A-18F....

I might agree with you if either were carrier-capable. <g>

--
Mike Kanze

436 Greenbrier Road
Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
USA

650-726-7890

"When you enter the voting booth, vote for the guy you think will go to jail
last!"

- Anonymous


"José Herculano" > wrote in message
...
> > You have a very good point. Yes, the F35 is only a single seater
> > although LM does have a 2 seater "mockup".
>
> Looking at what an F/A-22 (single seater) and a B-2 (twin-seater) can do,
I
> find it harder and harder to justify a thing like an F/A-18F....
> _____________
> José Herculano
>
>

[Thomas Schoene]

Pechs1 wrote:

> -110 engines did make a HUGE difference...but rmember the RIO was
> looking at perhaps the last tactical seat available in the F-14 for
> NFOs, so I am sure a lot of them really talked up the A/C..Good thing
> the F-18F came along or these guys would be SOL...and may be 'soon'
> anyway, Isn't the USN JSF single seat??

Yes, but the JSF will replace F/A-18Cs, also single-seaters, not the Es and
Fs.

The NFOs may have worries because there will only be one two-seat Super
Hornet squadron per air wing. But hasn't that already ahppened with the
F-14 anyway?

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[gizmo-goddard]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 11/4/03 5:37 PM, in article
> ,
"gizmo-goddard"
> > wrote:
>
> > "José Herculano" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>> You have a very good point. Yes, the F35 is only a single seater
> >>> although LM does have a 2 seater "mockup".
> >>
> >> Looking at what an F/A-22 (single seater) and a B-2 (twin-seater) can
do,
> > I
> >> find it harder and harder to justify a thing like an F/A-18F....
> >
> > Well for one thing, the US Navy can actuallly afford the F/A-18F. While
it
> > doesn't really add any more capability than the F-14D has, it is far
easier
> > to maintain :-)
> >
> > __!_!__
> > Gizmo
> >
> >
>
> Gizmo,
>
> Far be it from me to be a Kool Aid drinker (despite my current VFA
> association), but I disagree with you based on what I see the F/A-18F
doing
> these days with HMCS, ATFLIR, AESA, and AIM-9X.

Oh I don't doubt it one bit. I was speaking of general flight performance,
stuff like top-endspeed, range, that stuff. Certainly late nineties
technology is going to be much better than early to mid 70s and 80s
technology. I can imagine what the Tomcat could have done if it were
retrofitted with that technology, but realistically, that'll never happen.
At least the Navy isn't having to spend 200 million a copy for the darn
things. :-)

__!_!__
Gizmo

> There's much more growth potential based on architecture.
>
> And that maintainability counts for a lot.
>
> --Woody
>

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 11/4/03 9:26 PM, in article
, "gizmo-goddard"
> wrote:

> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 11/4/03 5:37 PM, in article
>> ,
> "gizmo-goddard"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "José Herculano" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>> You have a very good point. Yes, the F35 is only a single seater
>>>>> although LM does have a 2 seater "mockup".
>>>>
>>>> Looking at what an F/A-22 (single seater) and a B-2 (twin-seater) can
> do,
>>> I
>>>> find it harder and harder to justify a thing like an F/A-18F....
>>>
>>> Well for one thing, the US Navy can actuallly afford the F/A-18F. While
> it
>>> doesn't really add any more capability than the F-14D has, it is far
> easier
>>> to maintain :-)
>>>
>>> __!_!__
>>> Gizmo
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Gizmo,
>>
>> Far be it from me to be a Kool Aid drinker (despite my current VFA
>> association), but I disagree with you based on what I see the F/A-18F
> doing
>> these days with HMCS, ATFLIR, AESA, and AIM-9X.
>
> Oh I don't doubt it one bit. I was speaking of general flight performance,
> stuff like top-endspeed, range, that stuff. Certainly late nineties
> technology is going to be much better than early to mid 70s and 80s
> technology. I can imagine what the Tomcat could have done if it were
> retrofitted with that technology, but realistically, that'll never happen.
> At least the Navy isn't having to spend 200 million a copy for the darn
> things. :-)
>
> __!_!__
> Gizmo
>

And here's where I prove to you that I'm not a Kool Aid drinker when I agree
that the F-14D has much better performance numbers than the E/F--except in
turning fight performance.

--Woody

[Jake Donovan]

Lockmart F35 is a single seater. The motioned mock up is just that. A mock
up. There are no plans to build a 2 seater unless it is a limited training
version but that isn't in the works.

PAX isn't getting their 35's at STRIKE for 3 more years. 7 of them. 4 VSTOL
and 3 Carrier birds.

The Superbug F's NFO's are renamed back to WSO's. The only RIOs left are in
the F-14 community.

On a note of the Tomcat - We took a VERY clean A+ (now a B model) to mach
on mil thrust only in the re-engine flight test program. Pretty impressive
given it was in the 1980s.

For all you Hornet fans, and I have plenty of Hornet time, maintenance is a
big plus but you have to temper that with the fact that ALL of the F-14's
tooling was ordered destroyed by the DoD years ago. Thus, serious lack of
spare parts and a nightmare upkeep. Makes you wonder what a program like
the Superbug would have looked like if it had been the F14. Range, Load
out......

And if memory serves me right, (this should get a few rises) VF31 took home
the trophy for the Best ATTACK squadron in the Navy a couple of years ago.

The F22 has also been mention in this thread. The F22 is getting ready to
hit the reserves and Air Guard as soon as the AF's F35's go on line. The AF
is finding it hard to justify its existence with the 35 program in place.
Guys at the 325th Fighter Wing at Tyndall who have both F22s and F15s report
the F15's are a 3 to 1 favorite in a 1V1, 2V2 over the F22. Might be
experience, might not be.

The B-2 is a bomber and wouldn't stand a chance in any arena with any
fighter, F16, F14, F15, F18.....

Pete is right about that second pair of eyes. You hear a lot of talk about
it but in real life( mine) the 2nd pair of eyes were much better spent on
the scope and systems as it lessened my load.

Jake

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> jdata-<< I have read a statement by an F14 RIO that in the 90's that the
F14
> was known as the "world's fastest or quickest aircraft" this may have
> changed since some of the aircraft had their engines changed. Mind
> you, he was saying this when he was in the Bravo version. >><BR><BR>
>
> -110 engines did make a HUGE difference...but rmember the RIO was looking
at
> perhaps the last tactical seat available in the F-14 for NFOs, so I am
sure a
> lot of them really talked up the A/C..Good thing the F-18F came along or
these
> guys would be SOL...and may be 'soon' anyway, Isn't the USN JSF single
seat??
>
>
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

[José Herculano]

> >Looking at what an F/A-22 (single seater) and a B-2 (twin-seater) can do,
I
> find it harder and harder to justify a thing like an F/A-18F....
>
> I might agree with you if either were carrier-capable. <g>

Guess I was not literate enough on my point... what I meant is that I do not
believe on the advantages of the F/A-18F vs the F/A-18E. If such advanced
weapons systems as the two Air Force birds allow for a revolucionary fighter
to be flown by one, and a huge bomber just by two, there is no call for a
twin-seat Super-Bug.

And remember that the current squadrons deploying at sea with the F/A-18F
have rear cockpits that are barely different from the front ones... the
advanced rear cockpit is yet to fly operationaly. I don't believe the F can
turn a real advantage over the E.
_____________
José Herculano

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 11/5/03 2:19 AM, in article ,
"José Herculano" > wrote:

>>> Looking at what an F/A-22 (single seater) and a B-2 (twin-seater) can do,
> I
>> find it harder and harder to justify a thing like an F/A-18F....
>>
>> I might agree with you if either were carrier-capable. <g>
>
> Guess I was not literate enough on my point... what I meant is that I do not
> believe on the advantages of the F/A-18F vs the F/A-18E. If such advanced
> weapons systems as the two Air Force birds allow for a revolucionary fighter
> to be flown by one, and a huge bomber just by two, there is no call for a
> twin-seat Super-Bug.

Jose',

I'd agree with you all the way up to the air-to-air mission. Most of the
Tomcat converts I know claim that the RIO sucked SA away from the pilot...
BUT when AESA comes on line, and the folks at Boeing split up the cockpit,
the WSO in will have plenty to do that the pilot would never be able to
handle by himself.

--Woody

> And remember that the current squadrons deploying at sea with the F/A-18F
> have rear cockpits that are barely different from the front ones... the
> advanced rear cockpit is yet to fly operationaly. I don't believe the F can
> turn a real advantage over the E.
> _____________
> José Herculano
>
>

[nafod40]

Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:
>
> Don't take that as NFO bashing. I've got a lot of respect for B/N's, WSO's,
> and RIO's in the systems weapons and sensor supported weapons roles. It's
> great to have one guy totally focused on target acq and weapons support
> leaving the pilot to flying form and avoiding the threat.
>
> I just think that their additional utility (given current technology) in the
> air-to-air arena is limited.
>
> I'm sure I'm going to get many responses from this one. Seriously, folks,
> not a troll.

I think the real battle of the decade is going to be how many pilots
will remain in the cockpit. There's going to be some paradimg shifts
going on soon.

[John Penta]

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:50:10 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> wrote:


>I'd agree with you all the way up to the air-to-air mission. Most of the
>Tomcat converts I know claim that the RIO sucked SA away from the pilot...
>BUT when AESA comes on line, and the folks at Boeing split up the cockpit,
>the WSO in will have plenty to do that the pilot would never be able to
>handle by himself.
>
>--Woody

AESA?

Someone needs to write a FAQ for this group, if there isn't one
already...:-(

John

[Mike Kanze]

>paradimg shifts going on soon.

With the emergence of technologies like UAV, I can already hear gears
stripping. <g>

One thing is for sure - change will come in ways none of us will reasonably
anticipate. I wouldn't rule out a resurgence of cockpit opportunities for
BOTH the one and two-anchor communities.

--
Mike Kanze

436 Greenbrier Road
Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
USA

650-726-7890

"When you enter the voting booth, vote for the guy you think will go to jail
last!"

- Anonymous


"nafod40" > wrote in message
...
> Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:
> >
> > Don't take that as NFO bashing. I've got a lot of respect for B/N's,
WSO's,
> > and RIO's in the systems weapons and sensor supported weapons roles.
It's
> > great to have one guy totally focused on target acq and weapons support
> > leaving the pilot to flying form and avoiding the threat.
> >
> > I just think that their additional utility (given current technology) in
the
> > air-to-air arena is limited.
> >
> > I'm sure I'm going to get many responses from this one. Seriously,
folks,
> > not a troll.
>
> I think the real battle of the decade is going to be how many pilots
> will remain in the cockpit. There's going to be some paradimg shifts
> going on soon.
>

[nafod40]

Mike Kanze wrote:
>>paradigm shifts going on soon.
>
>
> With the emergence of technologies like UAV, I can already hear gears
> stripping. <g>
>
> One thing is for sure - change will come in ways none of us will reasonably
> anticipate. I wouldn't rule out a resurgence of cockpit opportunities for
> BOTH the one and two-anchor communities.

I can picture a largish jet with serious knots, legs, and loiter time
taking off to do battle, surrounded by a small flock of way-smart UAVs.
a mix seems to intuitively make sense.

[José Herculano]

> AESA?
>
> Someone needs to write a FAQ for this group, if there isn't one
> already...:-(

That's the bells&whistles version of the APG-79 radar, that does everything
from air-to-air to air-to-ground to jamming. Needs the ACS (advanced crew
stations) to be effective.
_____________
José Herculano

[Pechs1]

Jose-<< Looking at what an F/A-22 (single seater) and a B-2 (twin-seater) can
do, I
find it harder and harder to justify a thing like an F/A-18F. >><BR><BR>

But how ya gonna get that thing to sit off a coastline, no friendly airbase w/i
1000 miles and 'rattle the saber'???

Geeezzz, a squadron of B-2s(6) cost the same as a CV and airwing.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

Jose-<< And remember that the current squadrons deploying at sea with the
F/A-18F
have rear cockpits that are barely different from the front ones... the
advanced rear cockpit is yet to fly operationaly. I don't believe the F can
turn a real advantage over the E. >><BR><BR>

Kinda like the F-15E??? No?
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

Thomas-<< Yes, but the JSF will replace F/A-18Cs, also single-seaters, not the
Es and
Fs. >><BR><BR>

E's are going to replaced by JSF-no?

And something better replace the -F for night, AW strike...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Jose M. Alvarez]

AESA=Active Electronically Scanned Array

"John Penta" > escribió en el mensaje
...
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:50:10 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >I'd agree with you all the way up to the air-to-air mission. Most of the
> >Tomcat converts I know claim that the RIO sucked SA away from the
pilot...
> >BUT when AESA comes on line, and the folks at Boeing split up the
cockpit,
> >the WSO in will have plenty to do that the pilot would never be able to
> >handle by himself.
> >
> >--Woody
>
> AESA?
>
> Someone needs to write a FAQ for this group, if there isn't one
> already...:-(
>
> John

[Ralph Savelsberg]

José Herculano wrote:

>>AESA?
>>
>>Someone needs to write a FAQ for this group, if there isn't one
>>already...:-(
>>
>
> That's the bells&whistles version of the APG-79 radar, that does everything
> from air-to-air to air-to-ground to jamming. Needs the ACS (advanced crew
> stations) to be effective.
> _____________
> José Herculano
>
>
>

And more in general stands for Active Electronically Scanned Array,
which is the name for the type of antenna/emitter group. Instead of a
mechanically swivelling antenna (with complicated waveguides and a heavy
hydraulic system to move it around) this has a flat, fixed array
consisting of multiple emitter/receiver modules. The beam is controlled
electronically and at least in theory such a radar can use multiple
modes simultaneously. In the F/A-18F (with the ACS) this could mean that
for instance the pilot would have an air-to-air mode selected, while the
NFO in the back could be using a ground-mapping mode at the same time.
A small number of USAF F-15Cs (from the 3rd FW in Alaska if I'm not
mistaken) already fly with a radar with such an antenna: a modified
version of the regular APG-63(V)1 (unsurprisingly) called the APG-63(V)2 .
The first F/A-18F fitted with the APG-79 has already undertaken its
first flight.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

[José Herculano]

> E's are going to replaced by JSF-no?

Nope, only F/A-18A/B/C will be replaced by the F-35. Later, perhaps the
F/A-18D from the Marines as well. F/A-18E/F are to be flown in mixed
airwings with the F-35.

_____________
José Herculano

[José Herculano]

> But how ya gonna get that thing to sit off a coastline, no friendly
airbase w/i
> 1000 miles and 'rattle the saber'???

Hombre, I was playing the one-seater vs the two-seater. The Air Force birds
were for comparison in that.

Although I wouldn't mind seeing a navalized F/A-22, but I believe that will
happen, as it is said here, in the afternoon of St Never's day.
_____________
José Herculano

[Jim]

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> Jose-<< Looking at what an F/A-22 (single seater) and a B-2 (twin-seater)
can
> do, I
> find it harder and harder to justify a thing like an F/A-18F. >><BR><BR>
>
> But how ya gonna get that thing to sit off a coastline, no friendly
airbase w/i
> 1000 miles and 'rattle the saber'???
>
> Geeezzz, a squadron of B-2s(6) cost the same as a CV and airwing.
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

Not to mention Show the flag, and project power... How does a stealh bomber
show the flag,
If you don't know it is there how does it project power? Oh How many months
can the B-2 remain on station Ready to answer the bell.




Jim

[Harry Andreas]

In article <%X_pb.2467$0d2.956@lakeread06>, "Jake Donovan"
> wrote:

> For all you Hornet fans, and I have plenty of Hornet time, maintenance is a
> big plus but you have to temper that with the fact that ALL of the F-14's
> tooling was ordered destroyed by the DoD years ago. Thus, serious lack of
> spare parts and a nightmare upkeep. Makes you wonder what a program like
> the Superbug would have looked like if it had been the F14. Range, Load
> out......

Just to avoid all the conspiracy theorists....

I think it is more accurate to say that the DoD, when presented with the
continuing bill by Grumman for preserving the F-14 tooling, declined to fund
it, and as a result, Grumman scrapped the tooling.

That's a little different from saying it was ordered destroyed.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "José Herculano"
> wrote:

> > AESA?
> >
> > Someone needs to write a FAQ for this group, if there isn't one
> > already...:-(
>
> That's the bells&whistles version of the APG-79 radar, that does everything
> from air-to-air to air-to-ground to jamming. Needs the ACS (advanced crew
> stations) to be effective.

José,
the APG-79 radar IS the AESA radar. Same thing, not a version.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, Ralph Savelsberg
> wrote:

> And more in general stands for Active Electronically Scanned Array,
> which is the name for the type of antenna/emitter group. Instead of a
> mechanically swivelling antenna (with complicated waveguides and a heavy
> hydraulic system to move it around) this has a flat, fixed array

Instead it has a liquid cooling system. Still, a lot more reliable than
hydraulics. To keep this in the naval vein, it needs to be mentioned
that the APG-65 and APG-73 antennas use electric motors to drive
the antenna, not hydraulics. But of course, the response time of any
mechanical system is much slower than electronic steeting.


> consisting of multiple emitter/receiver modules. The beam is controlled
> electronically and at least in theory such a radar can use multiple
> modes simultaneously. In the F/A-18F (with the ACS) this could mean that
> for instance the pilot would have an air-to-air mode selected, while the
> NFO in the back could be using a ground-mapping mode at the same time.
> A small number of USAF F-15Cs (from the 3rd FW in Alaska if I'm not
> mistaken) already fly with a radar with such an antenna: a modified
> version of the regular APG-63(V)1 (unsurprisingly) called the APG-63(V)2 .

The APG-79 is a newer generation.
USAF is looking into a fleet-wide retrofit of F-15C's and E's with AESA
based on the extremely positive results of the (V)2. This would also be
newer generation.
APG-63(V)2 is the world's first production AESA radar.

> The first F/A-18F fitted with the APG-79 has already undertaken its
> first flight.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Jim Calpin]

You NFO-hating ******* troll!!

Just kidding. I'll grant you the "at the merge" utility as being
marginal, but does the addition of an extra set of eyes/ears/digits
pre-merge significantly reduce the potential for task saturation and
therefore increase overall mission effectiveness? (Especially if the
RIO is minding the store on other aspects of the mission?) My guess is
"probably", but we'll have to wait to see what the F-model experience
base builds.

I think the real crux of the question (and here's the real troll) is how
many merges will we really see in the future? The old "end of
dogfighting?" issue, revisited yet again. Having heard countless CAGs
and NSAWC Overalls carp repeatedly about the need to clean up merges, I
know the need is there and that we train to it continuously - but let's
be realistic about an Adversary's skills needed to *make* it to the
merge, let alone clean it up to their own advantage. At night. In an EA
environment. That calls for some serious varsity-time training and
experience, and who in the world has it but us? <End troll>

-Jim C.

Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:
>

> I'm sure I'm going to get many responses from this one. Seriously, folks,
> not a troll.
>
> --Woody

[Mike Kanze]

John,

There isn't one, mainly because most of the folks contributing to this NG
"lived the life". I realize that this can be confusing to someone
unfamiliar with aviation and military acronyms, but that's how we learned to
communicate among one another. (No different than the "tongues" spoken
among technology professionals in Silicon Valley.)

For a very general dictionary of Naval aviation terms, go to
http://www.tailhook.org/AVSLANG.htm.

The above link won't answer your weapon-specific question, though.

--
Mike Kanze

436 Greenbrier Road
Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
USA

650-726-7890

"John Penta" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:50:10 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >I'd agree with you all the way up to the air-to-air mission. Most of the
> >Tomcat converts I know claim that the RIO sucked SA away from the
pilot...
> >BUT when AESA comes on line, and the folks at Boeing split up the
cockpit,
> >the WSO in will have plenty to do that the pilot would never be able to
> >handle by himself.
> >
> >--Woody
>
> AESA?
>
> Someone needs to write a FAQ for this group, if there isn't one
> already...:-(
>
> John

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 11/5/03 10:18 AM, in article ,
"José Herculano" > wrote:

>> AESA?
>>
>> Someone needs to write a FAQ for this group, if there isn't one
>> already...:-(
>
> That's the bells&whistles version of the APG-79 radar, that does everything
> from air-to-air to air-to-ground to jamming. Needs the ACS (advanced crew
> stations) to be effective.
> _____________
> José Herculano
>
>

José's right. Active Electronically Scanned Array. The jets off the line
right now (Lot 23, I think) already have ACS, they just haven't split the
cockpit functionality yet.

--Woody

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 11/5/03 5:35 PM, in article , "Jim Calpin"
> wrote:

> You NFO-hating ******* troll!!
>
> Just kidding. I'll grant you the "at the merge" utility as being
> marginal, but does the addition of an extra set of eyes/ears/digits
> pre-merge significantly reduce the potential for task saturation and
> therefore increase overall mission effectiveness? (Especially if the
> RIO is minding the store on other aspects of the mission?) My guess is
> "probably", but we'll have to wait to see what the F-model experience
> base builds.
>

Certainly does open up a can o' worms.

Never having flown a two-seat FIGHTER (I'm VA to VFA) I'm speaking out of
turn here, but stories relayed from my VF to VFA buddies indicate that it's
much easier (given the automation) to perform the fighter mission (and with
greater success) in the Hornet. All cite the single-seat configuration as
one of the major factors given:

1. All tactical decisions at range (Defend? Skate? Banzai? Shoot?
Crank?) become the responsibility of just one set of brain cells and don't
have to be communicated with another set before execution.

2. Easy to find the beam if defending because you're not depending on some
other guy to tell you where it is.

3. The tendency if you're talking on the radio to NOT miss radio calls as
opposed to if you're simply listening to the radio. This is the phenomenon
I see quite often... Heck, I even do it sometimes in my civilian job.

> I think the real crux of the question (and here's the real troll) is how
> many merges will we really see in the future? The old "end of
> dogfighting?" issue, revisited yet again. Having heard countless CAGs
> and NSAWC Overalls carp repeatedly about the need to clean up merges, I
> know the need is there and that we train to it continuously - but let's
> be realistic about an Adversary's skills needed to *make* it to the
> merge, let alone clean it up to their own advantage. At night. In an EA
> environment. That calls for some serious varsity-time training and
> experience, and who in the world has it but us? <End troll>
>
> -Jim C.

Great troll. We can plan on not cleaning up merges, but then what happens
if we find ourselves across the circle from a MiG without that training?

If you're DCA against marauding hordes of very simple North Korean airplanes
(for example), seeing a merge would be likely. When winchester
AMRAAM's/Phoeny-bombs/Sparrows, it'd be nice for our guys to know how to pop
the other jet in the can with a heater.

Do we really want to stop training to merge clean-up due to that
"un-likeliness" which is based on the last several third world conflicts
against poor air forces with meager numbers? Don't fight the last war.
Plan for the next one.

CAG's and NSAWC preach merge clean up because it's the current game. (Of
course, CAG wants his CVW to look good for lots of reasons.) It's a tough
skill to master, and thus requires some significant training time and
dollars. Of course, admirals want to stop training to it because it costs
money. I think it's worth the investment.

--Woody

[Mu]

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:41:54 +0100, Ralph Savelsberg
> wrote:
>
>And more in general stands for Active Electronically Scanned Array,
>which is the name for the type of antenna/emitter group. Instead of a
>mechanically swivelling antenna (with complicated waveguides and a heavy
>hydraulic system to move it around) this has a flat, fixed array
>consisting of multiple emitter/receiver modules. The beam is controlled
>electronically and at least in theory such a radar can use multiple
>modes simultaneously. In the F/A-18F (with the ACS) this could mean that
>for instance the pilot would have an air-to-air mode selected, while the
>NFO in the back could be using a ground-mapping mode at the same time.
>
>Regards,
>Ralph Savelsberg
>

Ave Ralph

Is this the phased array radar?
And if not,wthat's the difference?

Greetz Mu

[Jake Donovan]

"Just to avoid all the conspiracy theorists"

No Conspiracy here. Having flown 2 Grumman product Test Programs, 3 years
at DARPA and more time at DoD then I want to admit, worked under Barton
Strong at Air Warfare, Grumman was not asked, but was told, under
contractual agreement with the DoD to destroy the F-14 tooling.

Plane (no spelling error) and simple.

As an engineering raconteur, please give me a cost analysis on storing the
Tomcat tooling. Given the prevailing atmosphere at the time, the Tomcat was
not a dead issue. Grumman had some interesting and very potent ideas on the
drawing board. DoD made their choice and as it happens way too much in the
political arena, (Ask Northrop) decision makers do not like to be proven
wrong.

Wonder why the T45 took so long to get to the fleet? As an engineering
raconteur surely you know. The decision was made to go with an aircraft
that was never intended to land on carriers. It almost drove D J Venlet,
the Navy's T45 Program Lead Test Pilot to the nut house. The DoD told the
Navy to make it work, blamed the Navy for every failure, but hey, it's in
the fleet. Underpowered, squirrelly on carrier approach, can be even more
of a handful on a cat shot, but it's a done deal.

My resume? Undergrad degree in System Engineering and a Masters in
Mechanical Engineering, F4's, 2 years at MD in St Louis in 78 &79 as an
engineering officer on the original Hornet, (Ken Grubbs and Dick Richards
flew the program) F14's, TPS, exchange tour at Boscombe Down, DARPA, DoD
Test and Development, A stint at Crystal City watching programs that should
have progressed get cut and programs, as a test pilot knowing they were a
nightmare, get approved.

Played with some interesting test beds and test programs like the F15
ADVANCE and F18 HARV out of MD, new engine program for the F14 A+, (now
known as the B) flew the X-29 that is hanging in the Smithsonian. Joint test
program on the YF22 and the X35.

Been there, Seen it, Done that.

Still active AND flying after 30 years and have never been called a
conspiracy theorists in my career.

Jake

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article <%X_pb.2467$0d2.956@lakeread06>, "Jake Donovan"
> > wrote:
>
> > For all you Hornet fans, and I have plenty of Hornet time, maintenance
is a
> > big plus but you have to temper that with the fact that ALL of the
F-14's
> > tooling was ordered destroyed by the DoD years ago. Thus, serious lack
of
> > spare parts and a nightmare upkeep. Makes you wonder what a program
like
> > the Superbug would have looked like if it had been the F14. Range, Load
> > out......
>
> Just to avoid all the conspiracy theorists....
>
> I think it is more accurate to say that the DoD, when presented with the
> continuing bill by Grumman for preserving the F-14 tooling, declined to
fund
> it, and as a result, Grumman scrapped the tooling.
>
> That's a little different from saying it was ordered destroyed.
>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

[user]

Jake,
Is that the same RADM(LH) Venlet as the NAWCWD C.O. here at China
Lake? Check out this link, (hope it works) He's come a long way!
http://www.nawcwd.navy.mil/%7Epao/pg/Bios/CoWD.htm

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 23:04:58 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
> wrote:

>"Just to avoid all the conspiracy theorists"
>
>No Conspiracy here. Having flown 2 Grumman product Test Programs, 3 years
>at DARPA and more time at DoD then I want to admit, worked under Barton
>Strong at Air Warfare, Grumman was not asked, but was told, under
>contractual agreement with the DoD to destroy the F-14 tooling.
>
>Plane (no spelling error) and simple.
>
>As an engineering raconteur, please give me a cost analysis on storing the
>Tomcat tooling. Given the prevailing atmosphere at the time, the Tomcat was
>not a dead issue. Grumman had some interesting and very potent ideas on the
>drawing board. DoD made their choice and as it happens way too much in the
>political arena, (Ask Northrop) decision makers do not like to be proven
>wrong.
>
>Wonder why the T45 took so long to get to the fleet? As an engineering
>raconteur surely you know. The decision was made to go with an aircraft
>that was never intended to land on carriers. It almost drove D J Venlet,
>the Navy's T45 Program Lead Test Pilot to the nut house. The DoD told the
>Navy to make it work, blamed the Navy for every failure, but hey, it's in
>the fleet. Underpowered, squirrelly on carrier approach, can be even more
>of a handful on a cat shot, but it's a done deal.
>
>My resume? Undergrad degree in System Engineering and a Masters in
>Mechanical Engineering, F4's, 2 years at MD in St Louis in 78 &79 as an
>engineering officer on the original Hornet, (Ken Grubbs and Dick Richards
>flew the program) F14's, TPS, exchange tour at Boscombe Down, DARPA, DoD
>Test and Development, A stint at Crystal City watching programs that should
>have progressed get cut and programs, as a test pilot knowing they were a
>nightmare, get approved.
>
>Played with some interesting test beds and test programs like the F15
>ADVANCE and F18 HARV out of MD, new engine program for the F14 A+, (now
>known as the B) flew the X-29 that is hanging in the Smithsonian. Joint test
>program on the YF22 and the X35.
>
>Been there, Seen it, Done that.
>
>Still active AND flying after 30 years and have never been called a
>conspiracy theorists in my career.
>
>Jake
>
>"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
>> In article <%X_pb.2467$0d2.956@lakeread06>, "Jake Donovan"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > For all you Hornet fans, and I have plenty of Hornet time, maintenance
>is a
>> > big plus but you have to temper that with the fact that ALL of the
>F-14's
>> > tooling was ordered destroyed by the DoD years ago. Thus, serious lack
>of
>> > spare parts and a nightmare upkeep. Makes you wonder what a program
>like
>> > the Superbug would have looked like if it had been the F14. Range, Load
>> > out......
>>
>> Just to avoid all the conspiracy theorists....
>>
>> I think it is more accurate to say that the DoD, when presented with the
>> continuing bill by Grumman for preserving the F-14 tooling, declined to
>fund
>> it, and as a result, Grumman scrapped the tooling.
>>
>> That's a little different from saying it was ordered destroyed.
>>
>> --
>> Harry Andreas
>> Engineering raconteur
>

[Jake Donovan]

That would be one and the same. DJ. Was a RIO with VF41 and was riding
backseat to the skipper for the Fitter shoot down. Left the boat the next
day for Whiting Field and Pilot Training. Went back to the boat as a Pukin
Dog and then to TPS.

Not only a fine officer, but a great person.

Jake

"user" > wrote in message
...
> Jake,
> Is that the same RADM(LH) Venlet as the NAWCWD C.O. here at China
> Lake? Check out this link, (hope it works) He's come a long way!
> http://www.nawcwd.navy.mil/%7Epao/pg/Bios/CoWD.htm
>
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 23:04:58 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Just to avoid all the conspiracy theorists"
> >
> >No Conspiracy here. Having flown 2 Grumman product Test Programs, 3
years
> >at DARPA and more time at DoD then I want to admit, worked under Barton
> >Strong at Air Warfare, Grumman was not asked, but was told, under
> >contractual agreement with the DoD to destroy the F-14 tooling.
> >
> >Plane (no spelling error) and simple.
> >
> >As an engineering raconteur, please give me a cost analysis on storing
the
> >Tomcat tooling. Given the prevailing atmosphere at the time, the Tomcat
was
> >not a dead issue. Grumman had some interesting and very potent ideas on
the
> >drawing board. DoD made their choice and as it happens way too much in
the
> >political arena, (Ask Northrop) decision makers do not like to be proven
> >wrong.
> >
> >Wonder why the T45 took so long to get to the fleet? As an engineering
> >raconteur surely you know. The decision was made to go with an aircraft
> >that was never intended to land on carriers. It almost drove D J Venlet,
> >the Navy's T45 Program Lead Test Pilot to the nut house. The DoD told
the
> >Navy to make it work, blamed the Navy for every failure, but hey, it's
in
> >the fleet. Underpowered, squirrelly on carrier approach, can be even
more
> >of a handful on a cat shot, but it's a done deal.
> >
> >My resume? Undergrad degree in System Engineering and a Masters in
> >Mechanical Engineering, F4's, 2 years at MD in St Louis in 78 &79 as an
> >engineering officer on the original Hornet, (Ken Grubbs and Dick Richards
> >flew the program) F14's, TPS, exchange tour at Boscombe Down, DARPA, DoD
> >Test and Development, A stint at Crystal City watching programs that
should
> >have progressed get cut and programs, as a test pilot knowing they were a
> >nightmare, get approved.
> >
> >Played with some interesting test beds and test programs like the F15
> >ADVANCE and F18 HARV out of MD, new engine program for the F14 A+, (now
> >known as the B) flew the X-29 that is hanging in the Smithsonian. Joint
test
> >program on the YF22 and the X35.
> >
> >Been there, Seen it, Done that.
> >
> >Still active AND flying after 30 years and have never been called a
> >conspiracy theorists in my career.
> >
> >Jake
> >
> >"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article <%X_pb.2467$0d2.956@lakeread06>, "Jake Donovan"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > For all you Hornet fans, and I have plenty of Hornet time,
maintenance
> >is a
> >> > big plus but you have to temper that with the fact that ALL of the
> >F-14's
> >> > tooling was ordered destroyed by the DoD years ago. Thus, serious
lack
> >of
> >> > spare parts and a nightmare upkeep. Makes you wonder what a program
> >like
> >> > the Superbug would have looked like if it had been the F14. Range,
Load
> >> > out......
> >>
> >> Just to avoid all the conspiracy theorists....
> >>
> >> I think it is more accurate to say that the DoD, when presented with
the
> >> continuing bill by Grumman for preserving the F-14 tooling, declined to
> >fund
> >> it, and as a result, Grumman scrapped the tooling.
> >>
> >> That's a little different from saying it was ordered destroyed.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Harry Andreas
> >> Engineering raconteur
> >
>

[Jake Donovan]

PS -

Tell him Music and Amos send KUDOS


"user" > wrote in message
...
> Jake,
> Is that the same RADM(LH) Venlet as the NAWCWD C.O. here at China
> Lake? Check out this link, (hope it works) He's come a long way!
> http://www.nawcwd.navy.mil/%7Epao/pg/Bios/CoWD.htm
>
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 23:04:58 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Just to avoid all the conspiracy theorists"
> >
> >No Conspiracy here. Having flown 2 Grumman product Test Programs, 3
years
> >at DARPA and more time at DoD then I want to admit, worked under Barton
> >Strong at Air Warfare, Grumman was not asked, but was told, under
> >contractual agreement with the DoD to destroy the F-14 tooling.
> >
> >Plane (no spelling error) and simple.
> >
> >As an engineering raconteur, please give me a cost analysis on storing
the
> >Tomcat tooling. Given the prevailing atmosphere at the time, the Tomcat
was
> >not a dead issue. Grumman had some interesting and very potent ideas on
the
> >drawing board. DoD made their choice and as it happens way too much in
the
> >political arena, (Ask Northrop) decision makers do not like to be proven
> >wrong.
> >
> >Wonder why the T45 took so long to get to the fleet? As an engineering
> >raconteur surely you know. The decision was made to go with an aircraft
> >that was never intended to land on carriers. It almost drove D J Venlet,
> >the Navy's T45 Program Lead Test Pilot to the nut house. The DoD told
the
> >Navy to make it work, blamed the Navy for every failure, but hey, it's
in
> >the fleet. Underpowered, squirrelly on carrier approach, can be even
more
> >of a handful on a cat shot, but it's a done deal.
> >
> >My resume? Undergrad degree in System Engineering and a Masters in
> >Mechanical Engineering, F4's, 2 years at MD in St Louis in 78 &79 as an
> >engineering officer on the original Hornet, (Ken Grubbs and Dick Richards
> >flew the program) F14's, TPS, exchange tour at Boscombe Down, DARPA, DoD
> >Test and Development, A stint at Crystal City watching programs that
should
> >have progressed get cut and programs, as a test pilot knowing they were a
> >nightmare, get approved.
> >
> >Played with some interesting test beds and test programs like the F15
> >ADVANCE and F18 HARV out of MD, new engine program for the F14 A+, (now
> >known as the B) flew the X-29 that is hanging in the Smithsonian. Joint
test
> >program on the YF22 and the X35.
> >
> >Been there, Seen it, Done that.
> >
> >Still active AND flying after 30 years and have never been called a
> >conspiracy theorists in my career.
> >
> >Jake
> >
> >"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article <%X_pb.2467$0d2.956@lakeread06>, "Jake Donovan"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > For all you Hornet fans, and I have plenty of Hornet time,
maintenance
> >is a
> >> > big plus but you have to temper that with the fact that ALL of the
> >F-14's
> >> > tooling was ordered destroyed by the DoD years ago. Thus, serious
lack
> >of
> >> > spare parts and a nightmare upkeep. Makes you wonder what a program
> >like
> >> > the Superbug would have looked like if it had been the F14. Range,
Load
> >> > out......
> >>
> >> Just to avoid all the conspiracy theorists....
> >>
> >> I think it is more accurate to say that the DoD, when presented with
the
> >> continuing bill by Grumman for preserving the F-14 tooling, declined to
> >fund
> >> it, and as a result, Grumman scrapped the tooling.
> >>
> >> That's a little different from saying it was ordered destroyed.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Harry Andreas
> >> Engineering raconteur
> >
>

[José Herculano]

> Tell him Music and Amos send KUDOS

Is that THE Music from the Fitter shoot-down?
_____________
José Herculano

[Pechs1]

Jake-<< Tell him Music and Amos send KUDOS >><BR><BR>

What ever happened to Joe "I don't have any tone" Connelly,
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

calpin-<< I think the real crux of the question (and here's the real troll) is
how
many merges will we really see in the future? The old "end of
dogfighting?" issue, revisited yet again. >><BR><BR>

In the fog of war, with lots of jets around and suspect ID of which is which, a
VID will become more common, not less and there will be merges, like it or
don't.


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

[Pechs1]

doug-<< Never having flown a two-seat FIGHTER (I'm VA to VFA) I'm speaking out
of
turn here, but stories relayed from my VF to VFA buddies indicate that it's
much easier (given the automation) to perform the fighter mission (and with
greater success) in the Hornet. >><BR><BR>

My experience is somewhat 'jaded' as well but coming from all two seat VF to
Adversary, I found that single seat, even in the lowly Dog, paticularly in the
F-16N, was not hard. Situational awareness was not hard, knowing where most of
the 'bad guys' were was not hard,...in many v many scenarios. I think with the
advance of avionics and RHAW, with a very manuverable A/C, single seat will not
degrade the Pilots survival...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

Jose-<< Although I wouldn't mind seeing a navalized F/A-22, but I believe that
will
happen, as it is said here, in the afternoon of St Never's day. >><BR><BR>

Ya kinda are going to-with the JSF...kinda.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Ralph Savelsberg]

Mu wrote:

> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:41:54 +0100, Ralph Savelsberg
> > wrote:
>
>>And more in general stands for Active Electronically Scanned Array,
>>which is the name for the type of antenna/emitter group. Instead of a
>>mechanically swivelling antenna (with complicated waveguides and a heavy
>>hydraulic system to move it around) this has a flat, fixed array
>>consisting of multiple emitter/receiver modules. The beam is controlled
>>electronically and at least in theory such a radar can use multiple
>>modes simultaneously. In the F/A-18F (with the ACS) this could mean that
>>for instance the pilot would have an air-to-air mode selected, while the
>>NFO in the back could be using a ground-mapping mode at the same time.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Ralph Savelsberg
>>
>>
>
> Ave Ralph
>
> Is this the phased array radar?
> And if not,wthat's the difference?
>
> Greetz Mu
>
>

Technically the AESA is an active phased array radar whilst older phased
array radars (like the `Flash Dance' in the MiG-31 or the APQ-164 fitted
to the B-1B) are so-called passive phased array radars.

The latter (passive) has a single transmitter/receiver and somehow
applies a phase shift to the signals sent to various parts of the
antenna, depending on the location on the antenna, whilst the former
actually uses a large number of transmitter/receiver units that each
operate at a different phase and possibly in a different mode.
In both cases the `beam' is sent in a certain direction through
adjusting the phase across the antenna, enabling a far higher scan rate,
but the actively scanned array can actually generate multiple beams as
well.

I don't know the intricacies. Harry Andreas will probably be able to
give a much more detailed answer than I can.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

[Gordon]

>What ever happened to Joe "I don't have any tone"

<remove/replace "any" with appropriate Navy word>

:)

v/r
Gordon

[John S. Shinal]

"José Herculano" wrote:

>Guess I was not literate enough on my point... what I meant is that I do not
>believe on the advantages of the F/A-18F vs the F/A-18E. If such advanced
>weapons systems as the two Air Force birds allow for a revolucionary fighter
>to be flown by one, and a huge bomber just by two, there is no call for a
>twin-seat Super-Bug.

For Strike you are probably right. I think the F (and G) are
probably going to end up being SEAD/ESM tasked a lot though, much like
the TARPS trained crews are specialists now in the Tomcat squadrons.
They probably don't need the second seat to use the new PGW with the
systems as good as they are now.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Harry Andreas]

In article <VDkqb.3057$0d2.1939@lakeread06>, "Jake Donovan"
> wrote:

> "Just to avoid all the conspiracy theorists"
>
> No Conspiracy here. Having flown 2 Grumman product Test Programs, 3 years
> at DARPA and more time at DoD then I want to admit, worked under Barton
> Strong at Air Warfare, Grumman was not asked, but was told, under
> contractual agreement with the DoD to destroy the F-14 tooling.
>
> Plane (no spelling error) and simple.
>
> As an engineering raconteur, please give me a cost analysis on storing the
> Tomcat tooling. Given the prevailing atmosphere at the time, the Tomcat was
> not a dead issue. Grumman had some interesting and very potent ideas on the
> drawing board. DoD made their choice and as it happens way too much in the
> political arena, (Ask Northrop) decision makers do not like to be proven
> wrong.

Thanks for taking me to task.
Having been in this industry a very long time, and provided some of the
equipment
you've been lucky enough to operate and fly, I often see simple economic
decisions turned into some kind of nefarious plot by people who don't
know any better (Not you). If you've been on RAM and RAMN for some time
things like the decision to mothball the SR-71 come to mind.
Frankly Jake, I have not seen you post here until recently and of course have
no way of knowing your experience level. We get all levels here.
I am aware of some of Grumman's interesting and potent ideas, since I was
involved in some of them, but the economics as seen by others spoke
differently.
When dealing with contractual issues, I can easily see that the tooling could
be ordered destroyed. That doesn't make me wrong as to why, though.

BTW, I didn't call YOU a conspiracy theorist. I though my phrasing was clear.
Perhaps not.


regards

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[John Penta]

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:48:50 -0800, "Mike Kanze"
> wrote:

>John,
>
>There isn't one, mainly because most of the folks contributing to this NG
>"lived the life". I realize that this can be confusing to someone
>unfamiliar with aviation and military acronyms, but that's how we learned to
>communicate among one another. (No different than the "tongues" spoken
>among technology professionals in Silicon Valley.)
>
>For a very general dictionary of Naval aviation terms, go to
>http://www.tailhook.org/AVSLANG.htm.
>
>The above link won't answer your weapon-specific question, though.

Perfectly understandable.:-) I just feel really, really out of my
depth on RAM, RAMN, SMM, and SMN.:-) I swear, it's sometimes as if I'm
the only civilian on any of the newsgroups. Makes me feel extra stupid
when I have to stop and ask the...er....stupid questions. :-)

Thanks for the link, BTW.

John

[Ogden Johnson III]

John Penta > wrote:

>"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote:

>>I'd agree with you all the way up to the air-to-air mission. Most of the
>>Tomcat converts I know claim that the RIO sucked SA away from the pilot...
>>BUT when AESA comes on line, and the folks at Boeing split up the cockpit,
>>the WSO in will have plenty to do that the pilot would never be able to
>>handle by himself.

>AESA?
>
>Someone needs to write a FAQ for this group, if there isn't one
>already...:-(

It is humanly impossible for *anyone*, individually or severally, to
keep current with DoD, much less an entire government bureaucracy's,
acronyms and nLAs*. Add in those of foreign governments and agencies
and even Hercules would be loath to undertake the task.

[*nLAs = Two, Three, Four, Five, however-many, Letter Abbreviations]
[It is a base canard that a Presidential Medal of Freedom and a $100K
bonus await the first swivel servant to create a Twenty Letter
Abbreviation]
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

[Elmshoot]

>
>That would be one and the same. DJ. Was a RIO with VF41 and was riding
>backseat to the skipper for the Fitter shoot down. Left the boat the next
>day for Whiting Field and Pilot Training. Went back to the boat as a Pukin
>Dog and then to TPS.
>
>Not only a fine officer, but a great person.
>
>Jake

Yep,
I knew Dave when we were in Vt-4 as retreads. That was the NFO to Pilot
Transition program. On paper the program looked good but the execution was a
little weak... Just about all of us went through Pensacola VT-4. We refered to
it as a Program unblemished by success. Vt-4 was about the most messed up
squadron I was ever in. At that time they had both Basic jet (T-2) and Advance
Jet (TA-4). There was a lot of anamosity between the A-4/T-2 Instructors kind
of like the Junior Varsity vs the Varsity. Then the retreads early on had some
high rollers like O-5's and one would attend the department head meetings! So
that strained the relationships between Inst and stud's. The students RR had
more DFC's, Air Medals, Ejections and combat time than the instructors so there
was that as well.
It was a tough time and some of us actally made it through, there were quite a
few not so lucky some eliminated more for the wim of the instructor than for
substandard. performance. While I was there not one of the 3 S-3 NFO's that I
knew made it through. You would have thought they had the more NFO stick time
than any one else but that might have been there undoing as well.
I understand they have started the Retread program again. I hope someone looked
at previous lessons learned.

OBTW Dave was a class act, no question about it. Me? I stayed in the cockpit
until I retired after 18 years and now fly in the airlines.

Sparky

[Jake Donovan]

Harry,

Not a problem. I post here from time to time but my jobs kind of keep me
from posting too much. Active frowns on speaking too much unless it is
generic. There are a lot who post here know me professionally.

I have been called much worse and it rolled off my back.

No harm done.

Just caught me on a bad day. I was heading to the Blue Angel's Home Coming
show and the aircraft broke. Bad mood. I will arrive in P'cola early in
the Am before the show starts but with out a ride.

Pleasure to meet you.

Jake.

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article <VDkqb.3057$0d2.1939@lakeread06>, "Jake Donovan"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Just to avoid all the conspiracy theorists"
> >
> > No Conspiracy here. Having flown 2 Grumman product Test Programs, 3
years
> > at DARPA and more time at DoD then I want to admit, worked under Barton
> > Strong at Air Warfare, Grumman was not asked, but was told, under
> > contractual agreement with the DoD to destroy the F-14 tooling.
> >
> > Plane (no spelling error) and simple.
> >
> > As an engineering raconteur, please give me a cost analysis on storing
the
> > Tomcat tooling. Given the prevailing atmosphere at the time, the Tomcat
was
> > not a dead issue. Grumman had some interesting and very potent ideas on
the
> > drawing board. DoD made their choice and as it happens way too much in
the
> > political arena, (Ask Northrop) decision makers do not like to be proven
> > wrong.
>
> Thanks for taking me to task.
> Having been in this industry a very long time, and provided some of the
> equipment
> you've been lucky enough to operate and fly, I often see simple economic
> decisions turned into some kind of nefarious plot by people who don't
> know any better (Not you). If you've been on RAM and RAMN for some time
> things like the decision to mothball the SR-71 come to mind.
> Frankly Jake, I have not seen you post here until recently and of course
have
> no way of knowing your experience level. We get all levels here.
> I am aware of some of Grumman's interesting and potent ideas, since I was
> involved in some of them, but the economics as seen by others spoke
> differently.
> When dealing with contractual issues, I can easily see that the tooling
could
> be ordered destroyed. That doesn't make me wrong as to why, though.
>
> BTW, I didn't call YOU a conspiracy theorist. I though my phrasing was
clear.
> Perhaps not.
>
>
> regards
>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

[Mary Shafer]

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 23:04:58 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
> wrote:

> Played with some interesting test beds and test programs like the F15
> ADVANCE and F18 HARV out of MD, new engine program for the F14 A+, (now

HARV wasn't a McAir program, it was a NASA program. McAir provided
the usual airframe support that they provide for all our research and
support F-18s, but that was all.

> known as the B) flew the X-29 that is hanging in the Smithsonian. Joint test
> program on the YF22 and the X35.

No, you didn't. That's not a flight article. It's a mockup. Hanging
from the Smithsonian ceiling is probably higher off the ground than it
every got before.

> Been there, Seen it, Done that.

Sure.

I'll check tomorrow and see when you flew HARV and X-29, if the Ops
scheduler has time to look through the flight logs. Or maybe I'll
call the project test pilots.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Jake Donovan]

Mary

I know the HARV was a NASA program and the 29 at the Smithsonian is a mock
up. Read my post a litle more careful.

I do have time in the 29, my reference to one hanging in the Air and Space
Museum was just that - looking up at it brought back memories. (Poorly
worded)

As for the HARV, DARPA most definitely had input. I had quite a bit of
flight data from the HARV come across my desk. No where did I say I flew
the test program.

email me privately, (take out the nospam) and I will give you some contact
information if you like)

Jake


"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 23:04:58 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
> > wrote:
>
> > Played with some interesting test beds and test programs like the F15
> > ADVANCE and F18 HARV out of MD, new engine program for the F14 A+, (now
>
> HARV wasn't a McAir program, it was a NASA program. McAir provided
> the usual airframe support that they provide for all our research and
> support F-18s, but that was all.
>
> > known as the B) flew the X-29 that is hanging in the Smithsonian. Joint
test
> > program on the YF22 and the X35.
>
> No, you didn't. That's not a flight article. It's a mockup. Hanging
> from the Smithsonian ceiling is probably higher off the ground than it
> every got before.
>
> > Been there, Seen it, Done that.
>
> Sure.
>
> I'll check tomorrow and see when you flew HARV and X-29, if the Ops
> scheduler has time to look through the flight logs. Or maybe I'll
> call the project test pilots.
>
> Mary
>
> --
> Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
>

[Harry Andreas]

In article <f5Hqb.3709$0d2.2508@lakeread06>, "Jake Donovan"
> wrote:

> Harry,
>
> Not a problem. I post here from time to time but my jobs kind of keep me
> from posting too much. Active frowns on speaking too much unless it is
> generic. There are a lot who post here know me professionally.
>

I hear that. So many conversations here that I can't contribute to because
of security. Newsgroups are world-wide.
As you say, generic.

Pleasure to meet you too.

BTW, I was in Pax off and on in the late 70's early 80's supporting the
F/A-18 flight test program. Were you there then?

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Mary Shafer]

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 07:11:27 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
> wrote:

> I do have time in the 29, my reference to one hanging in the Air and Space
> Museum was just that - looking up at it brought back memories. (Poorly
> worded)

Not knowing that the model even existed, I was astounded to walk into
that gallery and see the model when I was at NASM back when I knew,
without a doubt, that both aircraft were at Dryden. Realistic, isn't
it? I think it was an antenna model, but that doesn't seem likely.
That's more something you do for production aircraft than for research
aircraft. But if not, what was it for?

For some authentic nostalgia, you should come to Dryden. We've got
one of the X-29s on a pad out in front of Dryden now; we've stopped
giving every plane we ever flew to someone else's museum. Of course,
it's kind of a motley collection, comprising two lifting bodies, one
LLRV, an X-29, an F-104G, an SR-71A, the X-1E, and two F-8s (one the
Digital Fly-By-Wire and the other the SuperCritical Wing). We've also
got the X-15 mock-up, which looks pretty good for being a complete
fake.

> As for the HARV, DARPA most definitely had input. I had quite a bit of
> flight data from the HARV come across my desk. No where did I say I flew
> the test program.

You're right--DARPA was definitely in the loop on HARV and I misread
what you wrote. Sorry. I knew we'd had a bunch of guest pilots at one
time and assumed you were one of them. It's too bad you didn't get to
fly it, as it was, I'm told, a lot of fun to fly. We sure did get a
lot out of that program, too, as you know from the masses of data you
saw. Ken did the S&C estimates on it, now that I think about it. I
spent some time advocating an HMD (not an HMS, because we weren't
supposed to do weapons system stuff, of course) but never got
anywhere. The airframe went back to the Navy about a year ago and I
don't know what they've done with it.

Weren't you involved with X-31? Fast Eddie thought you were, but
we're not sure.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Jake Donovan]

Mary,

I am about to triple dose myself with "C" and hit the rack.

Yes, I know fast Eddie and I was in on the 31

It was my distinct pleasure to chat with you on the phone today. I hope to
catch up with you in Lancaster.

Jake


"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 07:11:27 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
> > wrote:
>
> > I do have time in the 29, my reference to one hanging in the Air and
Space
> > Museum was just that - looking up at it brought back memories. (Poorly
> > worded)
>
> Not knowing that the model even existed, I was astounded to walk into
> that gallery and see the model when I was at NASM back when I knew,
> without a doubt, that both aircraft were at Dryden. Realistic, isn't
> it? I think it was an antenna model, but that doesn't seem likely.
> That's more something you do for production aircraft than for research
> aircraft. But if not, what was it for?
>
> For some authentic nostalgia, you should come to Dryden. We've got
> one of the X-29s on a pad out in front of Dryden now; we've stopped
> giving every plane we ever flew to someone else's museum. Of course,
> it's kind of a motley collection, comprising two lifting bodies, one
> LLRV, an X-29, an F-104G, an SR-71A, the X-1E, and two F-8s (one the
> Digital Fly-By-Wire and the other the SuperCritical Wing). We've also
> got the X-15 mock-up, which looks pretty good for being a complete
> fake.
>
> > As for the HARV, DARPA most definitely had input. I had quite a bit of
> > flight data from the HARV come across my desk. No where did I say I
flew
> > the test program.
>
> You're right--DARPA was definitely in the loop on HARV and I misread
> what you wrote. Sorry. I knew we'd had a bunch of guest pilots at one
> time and assumed you were one of them. It's too bad you didn't get to
> fly it, as it was, I'm told, a lot of fun to fly. We sure did get a
> lot out of that program, too, as you know from the masses of data you
> saw. Ken did the S&C estimates on it, now that I think about it. I
> spent some time advocating an HMD (not an HMS, because we weren't
> supposed to do weapons system stuff, of course) but never got
> anywhere. The airframe went back to the Navy about a year ago and I
> don't know what they've done with it.
>
> Weren't you involved with X-31? Fast Eddie thought you were, but
> we're not sure.
>
> Mary
>
> --
> Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
>

[Jake Donovan]

Harry,

Went through Empire in the early eighties but came back to PAX for a couple
of programs. I still call PAX my home away from home as Andrews is a pain
(Navy guys know what I am talking about) and PAX is all of 30 minutes from
DC Greenline. (Yea, I drive fast)

We usually "borrow" aircraft there or over at Strike.

Jake

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article <f5Hqb.3709$0d2.2508@lakeread06>, "Jake Donovan"
> > wrote:
>
> > Harry,
> >
> > Not a problem. I post here from time to time but my jobs kind of keep
me
> > from posting too much. Active frowns on speaking too much unless it is
> > generic. There are a lot who post here know me professionally.
> >
>
> I hear that. So many conversations here that I can't contribute to because
> of security. Newsgroups are world-wide.
> As you say, generic.
>
> Pleasure to meet you too.
>
> BTW, I was in Pax off and on in the late 70's early 80's supporting the
> F/A-18 flight test program. Were you there then?
>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 11/7/03 6:19 PM, in article ,
"Mary Shafer" > wrote:

<SNIP>
>
> Weren't you involved with X-31? Fast Eddie thought you were, but
> we're not sure.
>
> Mary

Mary (or anyone else [Nauga?] that can provide a credible answer),

Question 1:
Do you know whether the 10.7 PROM that's becoming the standard on the
F/A-18A+/C/D and was introduced on E/F an ancestor or cousin of any of the
technology on the HARV?

Flew it for the first time yesterday. It sure makes some unnatural things
possible in the Hornet.

Question 2:
What's Fast Eddie doing these days?

--Woody

[user]

Fast Eddie might be reading his quarterly SSO brief??? I don't
know,,,have you read it? Not to be a smart ass, but theres some really
good stuff in there about posting to newsgroups and making yourself a
target with presumed knowledge of current and developing programs and
technology, just might wanta check it out, specially if you hold any
kind of clearance? hope no offence taken.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 03:14:13 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> wrote:

>On 11/7/03 6:19 PM, in article ,
>"Mary Shafer" > wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>>
>> Weren't you involved with X-31? Fast Eddie thought you were, but
>> we're not sure.
>>
>> Mary
>
>Mary (or anyone else [Nauga?] that can provide a credible answer),
>
>Question 1:
>Do you know whether the 10.7 PROM that's becoming the standard on the
>F/A-18A+/C/D and was introduced on E/F an ancestor or cousin of any of the
>technology on the HARV?
>
>Flew it for the first time yesterday. It sure makes some unnatural things
>possible in the Hornet.
>
>Question 2:
>What's Fast Eddie doing these days?
>
>--Woody

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 03:14:13 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> wrote:

> Question 1:
> Do you know whether the 10.7 PROM that's becoming the standard on the
> F/A-18A+/C/D and was introduced on E/F an ancestor or cousin of any of the
> technology on the HARV?
>
> Flew it for the first time yesterday. It sure makes some unnatural things
> possible in the Hornet.

I don't think they're direct descendants, because the HARV was mostly
about thrust vectoring and aerodynamics, but I'm pretty sure they're
at least kissing cousins. What they learned flying at higher alpha,
with HARV and ACTIVE (aka SMTP) and X-31 and MATV, has, I believe,
been translated into new ideas on how to fly airplanes. A lot of the
deal with HARV was the idea of carefree maneuvering throughout the
envelope, without having to worry about flight limits. I don't want
to get into the F-16 vs F-18 approaches discussion again, but I think
the new F-18 FCS has addressed that issue.

> Question 2:
> What's Fast Eddie doing these days?

Fast Eddie is in Texas, at JSC, where he's flying T-38s. He turns 55
this month and will retire on 3 Jan 04. They've bought a
fifth-wheeler and are going to return to SoCal via Florida and
Kentucky in January and February. They might stop by and see us in
Palm Desert on their way to San Diego. If so, I'll make Ed say a few
words in person.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 11/14/03 4:40 PM, in article ,
"Mary Shafer" > wrote:

> Fast Eddie is in Texas, at JSC, where he's flying T-38s. He turns 55
> this month and will retire on 3 Jan 04. They've bought a
> fifth-wheeler and are going to return to SoCal via Florida and
> Kentucky in January and February. They might stop by and see us in
> Palm Desert on their way to San Diego. If so, I'll make Ed say a few
> words in person.

Thanks for the update, Mary. Only knew him by phonecon and watching him (in
my rear-view mirror) trying to put the HARV's probe in my KA-6E's basket.
Quite comical, but understandably difficult--especially when I watched him
fly form too. That airplane was a handful--at least through the iteration
that I saw.

--Woody

[Mary Shafer]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 23:44:30 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> wrote:

> On 11/14/03 4:40 PM, in article ,
> "Mary Shafer" > wrote:
>
> > Fast Eddie is in Texas, at JSC, where he's flying T-38s. He turns 55
> > this month and will retire on 3 Jan 04. They've bought a
> > fifth-wheeler and are going to return to SoCal via Florida and
> > Kentucky in January and February. They might stop by and see us in
> > Palm Desert on their way to San Diego. If so, I'll make Ed say a few
> > words in person.
>
> Thanks for the update, Mary. Only knew him by phonecon and watching him (in
> my rear-view mirror) trying to put the HARV's probe in my KA-6E's basket.
> Quite comical, but understandably difficult--especially when I watched him
> fly form too. That airplane was a handful--at least through the iteration
> that I saw.

The deal with HARV was that it had all the thrust vane hardware
hanging off the tail and a big weight in the nose to keep it
statically stable and a flexible airplane in between. The mass model
could, without much of a stretch, be characterized as resembling a
dumbbell. Needless to say, the mass effects produced some very
peculiar flight dynamics, including during refueling.

Fast Eddie refueled the HARV first and it took him something like 31
minutes to get a good plug and actually transfer fuel. Then it was
Smoke's turn and about twenty minutes into his attempt, Eddie told him
that if he didn't hurry up and plug in, Mary (me) was going to make
this an HQ task and put it on all the flight cards. Uncontained mirth
all around, naturally. However, the threat worked, because Jim got
plugged in two minutes quicker than Eddie had.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Jake Donovan]

Wow! I guess everything DOES stay on the internet!

Any chance any of you are on this site? Pechs? Mary? Woody??

I love to hear from any of you! My last trip (work) into PAX was in 2008. I still get to fly fast every now and then!

Fly Navy!
Jake

PS Hey Pechs... I lost your Texas F4 landing newspaper clipping... got a copy?

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 23:44:30 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
wrote:

On 11/14/03 4:40 PM, in article ,
"Mary Shafer" wrote:

Fast Eddie is in Texas, at JSC, where he's flying T-38s. He turns 55
this month and will retire on 3 Jan 04. They've bought a
fifth-wheeler and are going to return to SoCal via Florida and
Kentucky in January and February. They might stop by and see us in
Palm Desert on their way to San Diego. If so, I'll make Ed say a few
words in person.

Thanks for the update, Mary. Only knew him by phonecon and watching him (in
my rear-view mirror) trying to put the HARV's probe in my KA-6E's basket.
Quite comical, but understandably difficult--especially when I watched him
fly form too. That airplane was a handful--at least through the iteration
that I saw.

The deal with HARV was that it had all the thrust vane hardware
hanging off the tail and a big weight in the nose to keep it
statically stable and a flexible airplane in between. The mass model
could, without much of a stretch, be characterized as resembling a
dumbbell. Needless to say, the mass effects produced some very
peculiar flight dynamics, including during refueling.

Fast Eddie refueled the HARV first and it took him something like 31
minutes to get a good plug and actually transfer fuel. Then it was
Smoke's turn and about twenty minutes into his attempt, Eddie told him
that if he didn't hurry up and plug in, Mary (me) was going to make
this an HQ task and put it on all the flight cards. Uncontained mirth
all around, naturally. However, the threat worked, because Jim got
plugged in two minutes quicker than Eddie had.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer