Old airframe, new engine

[Jim Strand]

Every year or so I post a similar version of this. Always nice to see
the comments. Seeing as how we have a few new faces around here now
lets have another go at it.

You are able to select any tactical jet airframe from the past. We'll
assume all engines would fit properly. What bird would you like to
fly again if it had modern engines and avionics as well?

My first tour of duty was at NKX when Fightertown meant F-4's and
F-8's. Always wondered what a new series engine would have done for
the Crusader.





***********************************************
ACC USN ret.
NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NIR
67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85
&
74-77

Co-founder of newsgroup - RAMN
Anti-spam measures in action.
For e-mail response delete "nospam"

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

[Matt Wiser]

Jim Strand > wrote:
>Every year or so I post a similar version of
>this. Always nice to see
>the comments. Seeing as how we have a few new
>faces around here now
>lets have another go at it.
>
>You are able to select any tactical jet airframe
>from the past. We'll
>assume all engines would fit properly. What
>bird would you like to
>fly again if it had modern engines and avionics
>as well?
>
>My first tour of duty was at NKX when Fightertown
>meant F-4's and
>F-8's. Always wondered what a new series engine
>would have done for
>the Crusader.
>
>
>
>
>
> ***********************************************
> ACC USN ret.
> NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NIR
> 67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85
> &
> 74-77
>
> Co-founder of newsgroup - RAMN
> Anti-spam measures in action.
> For e-mail response delete "nospam"
>
> ***********************************************
Here's mine:

1) A-6
2) F-4E
3) A-4
4) A-7


Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[R]

"Jim Strand" > wrote in message
...
> Every year or so I post a similar version of this. Always nice to see
> the comments. Seeing as how we have a few new faces around here now
> lets have another go at it.
>
> You are able to select any tactical jet airframe from the past. We'll
> assume all engines would fit properly. What bird would you like to
> fly again if it had modern engines and avionics as well?
>
> My first tour of duty was at NKX when Fightertown meant F-4's and
> F-8's. Always wondered what a new series engine would have done for
> the Crusader.

From my generation it would be the following,

Attack: I think it would have to be an A-4. An afterburner TF30-3 of about
18,000 lbs thrust would have made it an even better "Hot Rod". I didn't have
a lot of hours in it, but it was pure fun.

Fighter: The F-8/RF-8 would be my first choice. It needed an engine of about
5,000 lbs more thrust. I would have liked to fly the F104 though, just to
see what it would do. I think I would like a ride in an MIG-21 though. It
was the "boogie-man" for so many years it would be nice to see what it would
really do.

For hauling ass: The RA-5C with the dash 10 engines of course. Maybe another
couple 1000 lbs thrust and the ability to pull 4 or 5 G's. A strong second
would have to be the F-105. Although the B-58 that made the low level
supersonic flight from Texas to Calif and back was probably the all-time
champ.

From later generation aircraft: I guess the only one that excites me is the
F-16. Maybe low level ride in a B1B. I don't get turned on by the F-14,
F-15, F/A-18, or any of the others.

Yeah, I know the B-58 and the B1B were not tactical aircraft, but this is
make believe anyway.

For me the winner would be the F-8. You never forget your first love.
Whether it was climbing out of Key West after a Cuban MIG, doing a vertical
pass on a Bear, or flying under the power lines in southern California
trying to sneak up on Yuma it was great aircraft.

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 10/14/03 9:49 AM, in article 3f8c0d21$1@bg2., "Matt Wiser"
> wrote:

>
> Jim Strand > wrote:
>> Every year or so I post a similar version of
>> this. Always nice to see
>> the comments. Seeing as how we have a few new
>> faces around here now
>> lets have another go at it.
>>
>> You are able to select any tactical jet airframe
>> from the past. We'll
>> assume all engines would fit properly. What
>> bird would you like to
>> fly again if it had modern engines and avionics
>> as well?
>>
>> My first tour of duty was at NKX when Fightertown
>> meant F-4's and
>> F-8's. Always wondered what a new series engine
>> would have done for
>> the Crusader.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ***********************************************
>> ACC USN ret.
>> NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NIR
>> 67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85
>> &
>> 74-77
>>
>> Co-founder of newsgroup - RAMN
>> Anti-spam measures in action.
>> For e-mail response delete "nospam"
>>
>> ***********************************************
> Here's mine:
>
> 1) A-6
<SNIP>

Ditto.

A-6E (naturally) upgraded to the A-6F would have been good enough for me.
Unfortunately, the tail couldn't handle the normal shock from the 404.

I'd also love to see engines in the F/A-18 that would give it the T/W of the
Viper. Pipe dream.

--Woody

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 10/14/03 11:05 AM, in article
, "R" >
wrote:

>
> "Jim Strand" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Every year or so I post a similar version of this. Always nice to see
<SNIP>
>
> For me the winner would be the F-8. You never forget your first love.
> Whether it was climbing out of Key West after a Cuban MIG, doing a vertical
> pass on a Bear, or flying under the power lines in southern California

Something tells me that "under" the power lines was once an "over" but
became an "under" over time.

> trying to sneak up on Yuma it was great aircraft.
>
>

--Woody

[John Carrier]

> For me the winner would be the F-8. You never forget your first love.
> Whether it was climbing out of Key West after a Cuban MIG, doing a
vertical
> pass on a Bear, or flying under the power lines in southern California
> trying to sneak up on Yuma it was great aircraft.

Well, the F-8U3 had a J-75 tuned to 29,000 lbs of thrust ... that might have
granted your wish. Of course, it would have retained the Gator's endearing
flying qualities at the blunt end of the boat.

No jet ever made (or that ever will be made) had enough power.

R / John

[José Herculano]

> No jet ever made (or that ever will be made) had enough power.

Possible exception of the F/A-22 Raptor under current conditions...
_____________
José Herculano

[R]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 10/14/03 11:05 AM, in article
> , "R" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Jim Strand" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Every year or so I post a similar version of this. Always nice to see
> <SNIP>
> >
> > For me the winner would be the F-8. You never forget your first love.
> > Whether it was climbing out of Key West after a Cuban MIG, doing a
vertical
> > pass on a Bear, or flying under the power lines in southern California
>
> Something tells me that "under" the power lines was once an "over" but
> became an "under" over time.
>

Well it only happened once! I could have sworn that the power lines were a
couple miles on the other side of the Aqueduct.:-)

Heck, I was lucky, one F-8 driver put out the lights in SoCal, (actually it
was daylight, but never let the facts interfere with a good sea story.) Both
he and the aircraft survived, to face the wrath. It just proved that the
titanium intake was a good cable cutter.

> > trying to sneak up on Yuma it was great aircraft.
> >
> >
>
> --Woody

Besides if it didn't happen that way it should have.

Red

[R]

"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
> > For me the winner would be the F-8. You never forget your first love.
> > Whether it was climbing out of Key West after a Cuban MIG, doing a
> vertical
> > pass on a Bear, or flying under the power lines in southern California
> > trying to sneak up on Yuma it was great aircraft.
>
> Well, the F-8U3 had a J-75 tuned to 29,000 lbs of thrust ... that might
have
> granted your wish. Of course, it would have retained the Gator's
endearing
> flying qualities at the blunt end of the boat.
>
> No jet ever made (or that ever will be made) had enough power.
>
> R / John
>
>

Its been over 30 years, we don't remember how it was, only how it should
have been. The gator was perfect around the boat

Red

[KenG]

HABU, HABU, HABU....



José Herculano wrote:
>>No jet ever made (or that ever will be made) had enough power.
>
>
> Possible exception of the F/A-22 Raptor under current conditions...
> _____________
> José Herculano
>
>

[Mary Shafer]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:41:47 +0100, "José Herculano"
> wrote:

> > No jet ever made (or that ever will be made) had enough power.
>
> Possible exception of the F/A-22 Raptor under current conditions...

How about the big black twin two-seater I used to work on? Whatever
its limitations, lack of thrust wasn't one.

It's not every airplane that can burn 85,000 lb of fuel in just over
an hour, you know.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[John Carrier]

> Its been over 30 years, we don't remember how it was, only how it should
> have been. The gator was perfect around the boat

Perfectly unforgiving. It had the highest ramp strike rate of any tactical
aircraft that operated on angled deck carriers. There was a reason there
were no bad F-8 drivers.

R / John

[Jim Strand]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:05:49 GMT, "R" > wrote:

>
>For me the winner would be the F-8. You never forget your first love.
>Whether it was climbing out of Key West after a Cuban MIG, doing a vertical
>pass on a Bear, or flying under the power lines in southern California
>trying to sneak up on Yuma it was great aircraft.
>

Recalling the VFR days of the 60's did you ever fly the VFR High
Performance West departure out of NKX? Or the essentially same
SCAMP-1?

NKX was certainly a thrilling place to be a controller in those days.
Was amazed at how well pilots and controllers managed to mix the Atlas
entries with Mission Bay entries, avoiding MYF and radar traffic.



***********************************************
ACC USN ret.
NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NIR
67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85
&
74-77

Co-founder of newsgroup - RAMN
Anti-spam measures in action.
For e-mail response delete "nospam"

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

[John Carrier]

Only did it a couple times. By the time I got there, 1971, the scamp was
NOT encouraged.

R / John

"Jim Strand" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:05:49 GMT, "R" > wrote:
>
> >
> >For me the winner would be the F-8. You never forget your first love.
> >Whether it was climbing out of Key West after a Cuban MIG, doing a
vertical
> >pass on a Bear, or flying under the power lines in southern California
> >trying to sneak up on Yuma it was great aircraft.
> >
>
> Recalling the VFR days of the 60's did you ever fly the VFR High
> Performance West departure out of NKX? Or the essentially same
> SCAMP-1?
>
> NKX was certainly a thrilling place to be a controller in those days.
> Was amazed at how well pilots and controllers managed to mix the Atlas
> entries with Mission Bay entries, avoiding MYF and radar traffic.
>
>
>
> ***********************************************
> ACC USN ret.
> NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NIR
> 67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85
> &
> 74-77
>
> Co-founder of newsgroup - RAMN
> Anti-spam measures in action.
> For e-mail response delete "nospam"
>
> ***********************************************

[catsrus]

Mary -
Is there any sensible reason why your airframe was retired from
service when it still seemed to be viable?

Was it only a money issue or is there more to it than that?

Regards,

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:10:02 -0700, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:41:47 +0100, "José Herculano"
> wrote:
>
>> > No jet ever made (or that ever will be made) had enough power.
>>
>> Possible exception of the F/A-22 Raptor under current conditions...
>
>How about the big black twin two-seater I used to work on? Whatever
>its limitations, lack of thrust wasn't one.
>
>It's not every airplane that can burn 85,000 lb of fuel in just over
>an hour, you know.
>
>Mary

[Charlie Wolf]

Sorry Mary - the above posting is mine. I used a different posting
nym to try to solve a NG retrieval issue. My apologies.
Regards,

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:49:15 -0500, catsrus >
wrote:

>Mary -
>Is there any sensible reason why your airframe was retired from
>service when it still seemed to be viable?
>
>Was it only a money issue or is there more to it than that?
>
>Regards,
>
snipped...

[Mark Schaeffer]

An A3 (all 3 dead) NFO of my acquaintance called the Crusader the
"Ensign Eater." Sounds like a REALLY steep learning curve...

Mark

[mah]

Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
>
> On 10/14/03 11:05 AM, in article
> , "R" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Jim Strand" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Every year or so I post a similar version of this. Always nice to see
> <SNIP>
> >
> > For me the winner would be the F-8. You never forget your first love.
> > Whether it was climbing out of Key West after a Cuban MIG, doing a vertical
> > pass on a Bear, or flying under the power lines in southern California
>
> Something tells me that "under" the power lines was once an "over" but
> became an "under" over time.

Check out the F-4 at the Combat Air Museum in Toopeka KS. It is called
the Wichita Lineman since it came back from a mission streaming cable
from the vertical stabilizer.

MAH

[James Woody]

I did not see it listed on the web site.
http://www.combatairmuseum.org/aircraft.htm

Any other information on this bird?

Woody

mah wrote:
> Check out the F-4 at the Combat Air Museum in Toopeka KS. It is called
> the Wichita Lineman since it came back from a mission streaming cable
> from the vertical stabilizer.
>
> MAH

[mah]

James Woody wrote:
>
> I did not see it listed on the web site.
> http://www.combatairmuseum.org/aircraft.htm
>
> Any other information on this bird?
>
> Woody

The aircraft was there 3 years ago during my visit. I assume it is
still there. I'll look through my photos and see if I can dig up a tail
number.

MAH

[WaltBJ]

Mary Shafer > wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:41:47 +0100, "José Herculano"
> > wrote:
>
> > > No jet ever made (or that ever will be made) had enough power.
> >
> > Possible exception of the F/A-22 Raptor under current conditions...
>
> How about the big black twin two-seater I used to work on? Whatever
> its limitations, lack of thrust wasn't one.
>
> It's not every airplane that can burn 85,000 lb of fuel in just over
> an hour, you know.
>
> Mary

Come on, Mary; an F4 on the deck burns at the rate of 1500 a minute,
90,000 an hour, and even goes a lot faster than the 71 down there. Of
course, it'll be dry in about 7 minutes (clean), but it's a great ride
to bingo. Once I took an F4D up for a test hop for a rudder actuator
change. (Fly; if it's ok, land.)The original one had cracked and
leaked red fluid all over . . . . the crew chief asked me to get the
residual hydraulic fluid out of the aft section. Flat out around 750
KIAS at 100 ASL off shore of Kunsan Korea did a good job of blowing it
dry. The fuel state visibly reduces, too.
Walt BJ

[mah]

James Woody wrote:
>
> I did not see it listed on the web site.
> http://www.combatairmuseum.org/aircraft.htm
>
> Any other information on this bird?
>
> Woody
>
Dug through my photos from the trip. 66-268 looks to be a C/D with a
Mig kill on 12 Oct 1972. Left side painted as it was when assigned to
SEA, right side painted when assigned to KS ANG. The aircraft is decked
out for air defense with drop tanks, 4 x sidewinder, and 4 x sparrow.

Don't have access to binary groups through my ISP or I'd post photos.
If you are interested in photos, I can email them. (I remove the
NOTAT?)

MAH

[Mary Shafer]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:49:15 -0500, catsrus >
wrote:

> Mary -
> Is there any sensible reason why your airframe was retired from
> service when it still seemed to be viable?

No agency mission. We didn't have any experiments that justified
keeping it going.

> Was it only a money issue or is there more to it than that?

I suspect that money was part of the decision, since it usually is,
but it was probably more of an effect than a cause.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 10/20/03 3:06 PM, in article ,
"Mary Shafer" > wrote:

> I guess I should have written "can carry and burn", shouldn't I? The
> only thing that stopped the F-4 from burning 85,000 lb of fuel in just
> over an hour was insufficient tankage (or not enough hard points for
> all the drop tanks).
>
> Incidentally, most people know that the SR-71 used the dipsy-doodle to
> convert potential energy to kinetic energy (altitude to velocity)
> through the transonic region. Many people think it could only go
> supersonic if it dipsy-doodled, but that wasn't the case. It could
> get supersonic flying straight and level, too. However, as soon as it
> did, it pretty much had to slow down and go look for the tanker. This
> took a little longer than seven minutes, though.
>
> I don't have the numbers at hand, but I suspect Concorde was right up
> there with the SR-71 for fuel consumption, too.
>
> Mary
>

Mary,

Is the "dipsy doodle" what most fighter pilots refer to as the Ritowski
climb?

I would assume so since that's the recommended procedure for getting most
supersonic aircraft going high and fast quickly and without running out of
gas.

Please elaborate. And what were the specifics of the profile for the SR-71
(as long as it's not classified, of course)?

--Woody

[Mary Shafer]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:14:57 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> wrote:

> On 10/20/03 3:06 PM, in article ,
> "Mary Shafer" > wrote:

> > Incidentally, most people know that the SR-71 used the dipsy-doodle to
> > convert potential energy to kinetic energy (altitude to velocity)
> > through the transonic region. Many people think it could only go
> > supersonic if it dipsy-doodled, but that wasn't the case. It could
> > get supersonic flying straight and level, too. However, as soon as it
> > did, it pretty much had to slow down and go look for the tanker. This
> > took a little longer than seven minutes, though.

> Is the "dipsy doodle" what most fighter pilots refer to as the Ritowski
> climb?

I don't know, as I don't know exactly what the Ritowski climb is. I
think it is, though.

Essentially, the SR-71 climbs at constant qbar (400 KEAS) to Mach 0.9,
then descends at a constant rate to Mach 1.25 (450 KEAS at 30,000
feet), and then climbs again at a different constant qbar (450 KEAS)
to cruise.

> I would assume so since that's the recommended procedure for getting most
> supersonic aircraft going high and fast quickly and without running out of
> gas.

Seems reasonable to me that it would work generally, not just for the
SR-71.

> Please elaborate. And what were the specifics of the profile for the SR-71
> (as long as it's not classified, of course)?

Naturally, I'm here and my Dash-1 is there, so I can't produce the
exact numbers unless they're in the Researcher's Handbook. Let me go
look. OK, I'm wrong, I do have the Dash-1, which was hiding on the
wrong shelf.

I'll still going to look first in the Researcher's Handbook, except
that it doesn't have an index. An index won't help, though, because
"dipsy doodle" isn't exactly an official USAF term. Nada.

OK, here it is from the Dash-1. It's pretty long, but I thought you'd
prefer the exact description, not my briefer version of it. It's "a
climb-and-descent maneuver". You'll have to imagine the typography,
boxes, and indentation yourself, though.

TRANSONIC ACCELERATION PROCEDURE

Transonic acceleration is accomplished at either a level altitude or
during a climb-and-descent maneuver.

NOTE
The climb-and-descent acceleration is recommended for best specific
range (NM per pound of fuel used).

Level Acceleration

A level acceleration to intercept the supersonic climb speed schedule
can be made at refueling altitude, normally 25,000 feet. When ambient
temperatures are near or lower than standard, less time and distance
are required to intercept the climb speed schedule than the
climb-and-descent procedure. The total range penalty is small under
these conditions.

Start the acceleration with minimum afterburner. Complete course
changes while subsonic so that the additional power required for
turning will not diminish the power available for transonic
acceleration. Set maximum power at Mach 0.9. Gently increase pitch
to climb attitude near 430 KEAS. A smooth technique is required, as
450 KEAS is only slightly more than Mach 1.1 at 25,000 feet and is
still within the critical thrust/drag speed range which begins near
Mach 1.05.

WARNING

Airspeed may increase rapidly after Mach 1.1 is reached. Reduce power
(below Military, if necessary) to avoid high airspeeds. Do not use
excessive load factors to prevent exceeding 450 KEAS,

The procedure can be used at another altitude; however, when lower,
the transition to 450 KEAS climb attitude must be made in the
unfavorable speed range from Mach 1.05 to 1.10. At higher altitudes,
the transition through this speed range can be completed before
starting the climb, but less thrust is available. If ambient
temperature increases, thrust decreases and the time, fuel, and
distance penalty for using the level acceleration procedure is
greater.

Climb-And-Descent Acceleration

The climb-and-descent procedure requires less fuel to intercept the
climb speed schedule than the level acceleration when ambient
temperatures are warmer than standard.

NOTE

The climb-and-descent procedure is recommended for best specific range
(NM per pound of fuel used) at all temperatures.

WARNING

Although angle of attack increases during the subsonic climb, pitch
attitude must decrease to avoid dangerous flight conditions. Failure
to monitor and control attitude, speed, and angle of attack can result
in approach to pitch-up conditions.

Start the acceleration with minimum afterburner power. Intercept Mach
0.9. Set maximum afterburner at 30,000 feet for the remainder of the
acceleration, observing the 300 KEAS restriction. At 33,000 feet,
increase speed to at least Mach 0.95. This speed is slightly above
the start of the drag rise region. Make a smooth transition to
establish a 2500 to 3000 fpm rate of descent.

NOTE

Engine stalls during the subsonic climb may indicate a potentially
dangerous flight situation. Stalls can result from low CIP or high
distortion in the inlet associated with aircraft operating beyond
established flight limits. Refer to Subsonic Compressor Stalls,
Section III.

After establishing the descent rate, maintain attitude until
initiating climb. Avoid higher rates of descent since the usual
result is altitude penetration below 29,000 feet and high fuel
consumption. When using the climb-and-descent procedure, it is
important to exceed Mach 1.05 early in the descent, and to avoid
turning until the climb is established. Begin the transition to climb
near 435 KEAS so as to intercept 450 KEAS while climbing.

WARNING

- Airspeed may increase rapidly after Mach 1.1 is reached. Reduce
power (below Military, if necessary) to avoid high airspeeds. Do not
use excessive load factors to prevent exceeding 450 KEAS.
- In turbulence, reduce climb speed as specified in Section VII,
Operation in Turbulence.

This is just over a page, but the SUPERSONIC ACCELERATION PROCEDURE is
two and a third pages.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[John Carrier]

I'm curious why the 450 limit is such an issue ... your quote implies bad
things happen if it's exceeded. I realize the SR had a relatively low
q-limit, but I didn't believe it that low. Was another factor the issue?

R / John

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 10/20/03 9:42 PM, in article ,
"Mary Shafer" > wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:14:57 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> > wrote:
>
>> On 10/20/03 3:06 PM, in article ,
>> "Mary Shafer" > wrote:
>
>>> Incidentally, most people know that the SR-71 used the dipsy-doodle to
>>> convert potential energy to kinetic energy (altitude to velocity)
>>> through the transonic region. Many people think it could only go
>>> supersonic if it dipsy-doodled, but that wasn't the case. It could
>>> get supersonic flying straight and level, too. However, as soon as it
>>> did, it pretty much had to slow down and go look for the tanker. This
>>> took a little longer than seven minutes, though.
>
>> Is the "dipsy doodle" what most fighter pilots refer to as the Ritowski
>> climb?
>
> I don't know, as I don't know exactly what the Ritowski climb is. I
> think it is, though.
>
> Essentially, the SR-71 climbs at constant qbar (400 KEAS) to Mach 0.9,
> then descends at a constant rate to Mach 1.25 (450 KEAS at 30,000
> feet), and then climbs again at a different constant qbar (450 KEAS)
> to cruise.
>
>> I would assume so since that's the recommended procedure for getting most
>> supersonic aircraft going high and fast quickly and without running out of
>> gas.
>
> Seems reasonable to me that it would work generally, not just for the
> SR-71.
>
>> Please elaborate. And what were the specifics of the profile for the SR-71
>> (as long as it's not classified, of course)?
>
> Naturally, I'm here and my Dash-1 is there, so I can't produce the
> exact numbers unless they're in the Researcher's Handbook. Let me go
> look. OK, I'm wrong, I do have the Dash-1, which was hiding on the
> wrong shelf.
>
> I'll still going to look first in the Researcher's Handbook, except
> that it doesn't have an index. An index won't help, though, because
> "dipsy doodle" isn't exactly an official USAF term. Nada.
>
> OK, here it is from the Dash-1. It's pretty long, but I thought you'd
> prefer the exact description, not my briefer version of it. It's "a
> climb-and-descent maneuver". You'll have to imagine the typography,
> boxes, and indentation yourself, though.
>
> TRANSONIC ACCELERATION PROCEDURE
>
> Transonic acceleration is accomplished at either a level altitude or
> during a climb-and-descent maneuver.
>
> NOTE
> The climb-and-descent acceleration is recommended for best specific
> range (NM per pound of fuel used).
>
> Level Acceleration
>
> A level acceleration to intercept the supersonic climb speed schedule
> can be made at refueling altitude, normally 25,000 feet. When ambient
> temperatures are near or lower than standard, less time and distance
> are required to intercept the climb speed schedule than the
> climb-and-descent procedure. The total range penalty is small under
> these conditions.
>
> Start the acceleration with minimum afterburner. Complete course
> changes while subsonic so that the additional power required for
> turning will not diminish the power available for transonic
> acceleration. Set maximum power at Mach 0.9. Gently increase pitch
> to climb attitude near 430 KEAS. A smooth technique is required, as
> 450 KEAS is only slightly more than Mach 1.1 at 25,000 feet and is
> still within the critical thrust/drag speed range which begins near
> Mach 1.05.
>
> WARNING
>
> Airspeed may increase rapidly after Mach 1.1 is reached. Reduce power
> (below Military, if necessary) to avoid high airspeeds. Do not use
> excessive load factors to prevent exceeding 450 KEAS,
>
> The procedure can be used at another altitude; however, when lower,
> the transition to 450 KEAS climb attitude must be made in the
> unfavorable speed range from Mach 1.05 to 1.10. At higher altitudes,
> the transition through this speed range can be completed before
> starting the climb, but less thrust is available. If ambient
> temperature increases, thrust decreases and the time, fuel, and
> distance penalty for using the level acceleration procedure is
> greater.
>
> Climb-And-Descent Acceleration
>
> The climb-and-descent procedure requires less fuel to intercept the
> climb speed schedule than the level acceleration when ambient
> temperatures are warmer than standard.
>
> NOTE
>
> The climb-and-descent procedure is recommended for best specific range
> (NM per pound of fuel used) at all temperatures.
>
> WARNING
>
> Although angle of attack increases during the subsonic climb, pitch
> attitude must decrease to avoid dangerous flight conditions. Failure
> to monitor and control attitude, speed, and angle of attack can result
> in approach to pitch-up conditions.
>
> Start the acceleration with minimum afterburner power. Intercept Mach
> 0.9. Set maximum afterburner at 30,000 feet for the remainder of the
> acceleration, observing the 300 KEAS restriction. At 33,000 feet,
> increase speed to at least Mach 0.95. This speed is slightly above
> the start of the drag rise region. Make a smooth transition to
> establish a 2500 to 3000 fpm rate of descent.
>
> NOTE
>
> Engine stalls during the subsonic climb may indicate a potentially
> dangerous flight situation. Stalls can result from low CIP or high
> distortion in the inlet associated with aircraft operating beyond
> established flight limits. Refer to Subsonic Compressor Stalls,
> Section III.
>
> After establishing the descent rate, maintain attitude until
> initiating climb. Avoid higher rates of descent since the usual
> result is altitude penetration below 29,000 feet and high fuel
> consumption. When using the climb-and-descent procedure, it is
> important to exceed Mach 1.05 early in the descent, and to avoid
> turning until the climb is established. Begin the transition to climb
> near 435 KEAS so as to intercept 450 KEAS while climbing.
>
> WARNING
>
> - Airspeed may increase rapidly after Mach 1.1 is reached. Reduce
> power (below Military, if necessary) to avoid high airspeeds. Do not
> use excessive load factors to prevent exceeding 450 KEAS.
> - In turbulence, reduce climb speed as specified in Section VII,
> Operation in Turbulence.
>
> This is just over a page, but the SUPERSONIC ACCELERATION PROCEDURE is
> two and a third pages.
>
> Mary

Mary,

Thanks for the detailed response. Must come with the retirement. I'm
interested in the 450 KEAS limit and the "Do not use excessive load factors
to prevent exceeding..." comment. What is an excessive load factor in this
flight regime. 1.5G? 2.0G?

The Ritowski climb is essentially the same thing. I think that the numbers
are different for most aircraft, but for the Hornet, it's 400KCAS to .85 in
the mid 30's, push it over to exceed 1.0, and climb supersonic afterward.
Works great on FCF's for the mil lock-up procedure (above 1.23M).

--Woody

[John Carrier]

Just out of curiosity, Woody, what is the fastest you've had the Hornet in
KIAS and IMN? I had a TPS guy claim 800/1.8 for the C, but I think he was
feeding me pure unadulterated BS. In my brief exposure, I was astounded by
its LACK of speed.

R / John

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 10/21/03 2:35 PM, in article , "John
Carrier" > wrote:

> Just out of curiosity, Woody, what is the fastest you've had the Hornet in
> KIAS and IMN? I had a TPS guy claim 800/1.8 for the C, but I think he was
> feeding me pure unadulterated BS. In my brief exposure, I was astounded by
> its LACK of speed.
>
> R / John
>
>

John,

I've never seen that with my own eyes--and I doubt he has either unless the
jet was slick and new and he had a full tank allocated for just that
purpose. 800/1.8 are the "do not exceed" limits in the book.

I've never had a dedicated hop (or the desire) to make an attempt at them.

Fastest I've had the Hornet was doing the mil lockout test on an FCF about
2-3 years ago in W174C (Key West). I coaxed it to 1.46 at 35,000 in a 20
degree dive down from 45,000 before I got a R DUCT DR caution and had to
slow up. It was a slick jet, and I could have probably gotten it faster...
had it been working correctly.

Most I've ever seen in the HUD is 710 KCAS, but that was at approximately
1.06 at 200 AGL off shore San Diego making a supersonic low pass (combat
spread with my -2) on a Coast Guard cutter we were working with. It was a
LONG run-in for fun/show. As a section, we brought one jet down each side.
I had a slight advantage with the EPE motors. (We had finished a sea
surface search radar test early.) We were configured single centerline
tank, no pylons. I don't think it would have gone much faster than that.

I know you didn't ask, but being a chicken with regard to aviation
physiology, I've never climbed one over 53,000 @ 1.10--and that was circa
1994 out in the R2508 when I was a "Laker." It would have gone much higher
in my opinion.

Got any F-8 or Turkey personal experience numbers you want to share? I'd
assume they'd be much better.

--Woody

[WaltBJ]

Re the 'Rutowski' climb path. We got the word from Eglin AFB around
1965 and used it in the 104A with the old J79-3b engine. It worked
nicely but had to be flown precisely to avoid wasting fuel. When we
got the J79-19 it was such a thrust improvement (17900 vice 13850) we
didn't bother. One nifty climb profile was to accelerate to 600 KIAS
at say 1000 AGL after T/O (height optional as long as you didn't get
caught) about a mile or so off the end of the runway and then maintain
600 to crossover to M2.0. Made for quick intercepts and was quite
exhilirating! This was a real case of a new engine (F4E/S)in an old
(1956) airframe.
Walt BJ

[John Dallman]

In article >,
(Jim Strand) wrote:

> You are able to select any tactical jet airframe from the past. We'll
> assume all engines would fit properly. What bird would you like to
> fly again if it had modern engines and avionics as well?

Well, I'm not a pilot - but a Blackburn Buccaneer with the engines out of
the F/A-22 would surely have serious entertainment value.

---
John Dallman

[Aaron Holtzman]

Mary Shafer > wrote in message >...
>
> TRANSONIC ACCELERATION PROCEDURE
>
> Transonic acceleration is accomplished at either a level altitude or
> during a climb-and-descent maneuver.
>
*snip*

I suspect that the SR-71A-1 manual and your 'Dash-1' are one and the same.
By some miracle the former has been de-classified and is online. The page you
refer to can be found at:

http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/2/2-41.htm

*Warning* you may lose more than a few hours of your day if you follow the
above link.

cheers,
aaron

[Mary Shafer]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:03:05 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> wrote:

> On 10/20/03 9:42 PM, in article ,
> "Mary Shafer" > wrote:

> > Essentially, the SR-71 climbs at constant qbar (400 KEAS) to Mach 0.9,
> > then descends at a constant rate to Mach 1.25 (450 KEAS at 30,000
> > feet), and then climbs again at a different constant qbar (450 KEAS)
> > to cruise.

> Thanks for the detailed response. Must come with the retirement.

I thinned the list of newsgroups down so I have a little more time to
type. And I'm a very fast typist.

> I'm
> interested in the 450 KEAS limit and the "Do not use excessive load factors
> to prevent exceeding..." comment. What is an excessive load factor in this
> flight regime. 1.5G? 2.0G?

Definitely in that vicinity. Let's see, section 4, probably. Limit
Load Factor Diagram, Symmetrical, Turning, and Rolling Flight,
Transonic Penetration (climb or descent). Symmetrical is 2.0 g up to
Mach 1.80 and rolling is 1.6 g. The absolute most you can pull is 3.5
g symmetrically or 2.8 g rolling, below 50,000 ft, at airspeeds
between 310 and 450 KEAS, at a gross weight of 80,000 to 90,000 lb.
It's less above and below those weights.

And the maximum design qbar works out to 500 KEAS, but the limit
airspeed is 450 KEAS.

> The Ritowski climb is essentially the same thing. I think that the numbers
> are different for most aircraft, but for the Hornet, it's 400KCAS to .85 in
> the mid 30's, push it over to exceed 1.0, and climb supersonic afterward.
> Works great on FCF's for the mil lock-up procedure (above 1.23M).

I just didn't know it had a name. I remember this from the optimal
trajectory work done in the '60s, in fact.

Someone has posted the URL for the SR-71 Dash-1, by the way. That was
made from the exact same copy that Dryden copied all of its from, as
it's probably the only formally declassified and marked copy
around--the thing is four inches thick and there wasn't any point in
going through and marking out the classification stamps in more than
one copy, because it's just too much work.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Mary Shafer]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 06:47:05 -0500, "John Carrier" >
wrote:

> I'm curious why the 450 limit is such an issue ... your quote implies bad
> things happen if it's exceeded. I realize the SR had a relatively low
> q-limit, but I didn't believe it that low. Was another factor the issue?

No. The design limit is 500 KEAS.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Mary Shafer]

On 23 Oct 2003 20:11:35 -0700, (Aaron Holtzman)
wrote:

> Mary Shafer > wrote in message >...
> >
> > TRANSONIC ACCELERATION PROCEDURE
> >
> > Transonic acceleration is accomplished at either a level altitude or
> > during a climb-and-descent maneuver.
> >
> *snip*
>
> I suspect that the SR-71A-1 manual and your 'Dash-1' are one and the same.

Naturally. See, it's the SR-71A-1, SR-71A-dash-1. In the USAF
universe, every airplane has a series of publications designated by
the aircraft designation (SR-71A) followed by a dash and a number
telling what publication it is. SR-71A-1, the Dash-1, is the flight
manual for the SR-71. All USAF flight manuals are Dash-1s (they're
NATOPS manuals for the USN).

> By some miracle the former has been de-classified and is online.

It was no miracle that it was declassified. The USAF declassified the
airplane and everything about it, after removing the recce gear, so
that NASA could operate the airplane in a reasonable manner. The real
miracle was that they gave us three SR-71s, all the parts and support
equipment, and a big tank full of JP-7. Throwing in a Dash-1 was
fairly minor.

Putting it online is more a matter of boring scut work than miracle
and I'm sure many folks are grateful to the person who did that scut
work.

> http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/2/2-41.htm

I'm glad you posted this. It'll save me a lot of typing. Notice that
the URL ends in the section and page, i.e. /2/2-41.htm is section 2,
page 2-41.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[John Carrier]

> I suspect that the SR-71A-1 manual and your 'Dash-1' are one and the same.
> By some miracle the former has been de-classified and is online. The page
you
> refer to can be found at:
>
> http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/2/2-41.htm

Thanks for the link. They are the same. Navy calls it NATOPS, but their
format is virtually identical.

Usually there are one or more supplements for the weapons system and
tactical information. Usually there was a confidential manual and then a
secret supplement. The confidential manual had performance data in the form
of PsubS diagrams ... very useful if interpreted properly (I'd love to see
an SR's PsubS ... generally a low Q, hi energy airplane creates some
fascinating data).

R / John

[John Carrier]

> No. The design limit is 500 KEAS.

So the online dash one (looked it up from the former post) says. Lots of
jets have design limits versus "operational" limits (F-14 850 and 780). I'm
a bit surprised, I thought it would be a bit higher. It's actually somewhat
less than a Mig-25.

R / John

[Pechs1]

doug-<< Got any F-8 or Turkey personal experience numbers you want to share?
I'd
assume they'd be much better. >><BR><BR>

Got my Mach 2 pin in a clean F-4D...

Saw 800 KIAS in a F-16N, at 200 ft AGL over by Yuma...don't know the mach
number...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Mike Lechnar]

Aaron Holtzman wrote:
>
> Mary Shafer > wrote in message >...
> >
> > TRANSONIC ACCELERATION PROCEDURE
> >
> > Transonic acceleration is accomplished at either a level altitude or
> > during a climb-and-descent maneuver.
> >
> *snip*
>
> I suspect that the SR-71A-1 manual and your 'Dash-1' are one and the same.
> By some miracle the former has been de-classified and is online. The page you
> refer to can be found at:
>
> http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/2/2-41.htm
>
> *Warning* you may lose more than a few hours of your day if you follow the
> above link.
>
> cheers,
> aaron
Great link! Thanks for posting it. It's now a test of willpower
between work and reading the manual.

Mike Lechnar

[Pechs1]

Mark-<< of my acquaintance called the Crusader the
"Ensign Eater." Sounds like a REALLY steep learning curve.. >><BR><BR>

Cutlass...

F-8 drivers were some of the best I have ever seen, like Thud drivers, had to
be....
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[John Carrier]

> F-8 drivers were some of the best I have ever seen, like Thud drivers, had
to
> be....

Primarily because the bad ones all killed themselves. Darwinism at its
purest.

R / John

[WaltBJ]

USAF equivalent was the Zipper. Great and honest airplane - just don't screw up.
Walt BJ

[Pechs1]

Walt-<< USAF equivalent was the Zipper. >><BR><BR>

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

[Steve Tobey]

Also known as the Lockheed F-104; prime USAF version was the F-104C.

Steve

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> Walt-<< USAF equivalent was the Zipper. >><BR><BR>
>
> Zipper??
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

[R4tm4ster]

I seriously think that would frighten a few people.. good choice
but IMHO there are lots of Brit a/c that have scared the Americans so much that
the US corporate machine has had to pull all sorts of nasty tricks to get them
axed.

[Pechs1]

stobey-<< Also known as the Lockheed F-104; prime USAF version was the F-104C.
>><BR><BR>

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

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 06:44:58 -0500, mah > wrote:

>Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
>>
>> On 10/14/03 11:05 AM, in article
>> , "R" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Jim Strand" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Every year or so I post a similar version of this. Always nice to see
>> <SNIP>
>> >
>> > For me the winner would be the F-8. You never forget your first love.
>> > Whether it was climbing out of Key West after a Cuban MIG, doing a vertical
>> > pass on a Bear, or flying under the power lines in southern California
>>
>> Something tells me that "under" the power lines was once an "over" but
>> became an "under" over time.
>
>Check out the F-4 at the Combat Air Museum in Toopeka KS. It is called
>the Wichita Lineman since it came back from a mission streaming cable
>from the vertical stabilizer.
>
>MAH

There's an account of a Su-24 Fencer picking up a piece of fence at
the end of a runway in Afganistan and completing the mission with said
fence attached to the aircraft.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 13:06:38 -0700, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>On 19 Oct 2003 21:16:53 -0700, (WaltBJ) wrote:
>
>> Mary Shafer > wrote in message >...
>> > On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:41:47 +0100, "José Herculano"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > > > No jet ever made (or that ever will be made) had enough power.
>> > >
>> > > Possible exception of the F/A-22 Raptor under current conditions...
>> >
>> > How about the big black twin two-seater I used to work on? Whatever
>> > its limitations, lack of thrust wasn't one.
>> >
>> > It's not every airplane that can burn 85,000 lb of fuel in just over
>> > an hour, you know.
>
>> Come on, Mary; an F4 on the deck burns at the rate of 1500 a minute,
>> 90,000 an hour, and even goes a lot faster than the 71 down there. Of
>> course, it'll be dry in about 7 minutes (clean), but it's a great ride
>> to bingo.
>
>I guess I should have written "can carry and burn", shouldn't I? The
>only thing that stopped the F-4 from burning 85,000 lb of fuel in just
>over an hour was insufficient tankage (or not enough hard points for
>all the drop tanks).
>
>Incidentally, most people know that the SR-71 used the dipsy-doodle to
>convert potential energy to kinetic energy (altitude to velocity)
>through the transonic region. Many people think it could only go
>supersonic if it dipsy-doodled, but that wasn't the case. It could
>get supersonic flying straight and level, too. However, as soon as it
>did, it pretty much had to slow down and go look for the tanker. This
>took a little longer than seven minutes, though.
>
>I don't have the numbers at hand, but I suspect Concorde was right up
>there with the SR-71 for fuel consumption, too.
>
>Mary
>


XB-70 was probably up there too.

[WaltBJ]

(R4tm4ster) wrote in message >...
> I seriously think that would frighten a few people.. good choice
> but IMHO there are lots of Brit a/c that have scared the Americans so much that the US corporate machine has had to pull all sorts of nasty tricks to get them
> axed.

Your own Duncan Sandys did a proper job - he didn't need any help from
the USA.
Hawker, Saunders-Roe and English Electric all had good designs until
Sandys axed them with his infamous White Paper. The EE P6 turned out
fairly well but years too late. I would like to see a list of the
types you're thinking of, though.
Walt BJ

[WaltBJ]

Oops, sorry for using slang. FWIW the 83FIS had the F104A at Hamilton
AFB CA back in the mid fifties. They went through 18 airplanes in the
first year, including one with the CO in it who disappeared over San
Francisco Bay on GCA final. I knew a guy who bailed out of three of
them in about 18 months. This was before GE got the bugs out of the
J79 (oil leaks, IGVs going wide open and stalling the engine).
1964-1967 we lost 9 out of 30 aircraft and 7 pilots flying out of a
11500 foot runway in sunny Florida. 2 oxygen problems at high altitude
(2guys), one fuel starvation (gauge 500# high)(1 guy), one engine FOD
after liftoff (1 guy), one starter blowup (aircraft non-reparable -
fire)one comopressor stall airborne and crash on landing (two seater,
2 guys, 2 DFCs), one engine flat quit with successful ejection and
water pickup, one split flap in the pattern (1 guy), can't remember
the last one. And these were with mature aircraft and high-time pilots
- squadron average was about 2500 hours.
Walt BJ

[John Dallman]

In article >,
(R4tm4ster) wrote:

> IMHO there are lots of Brit a/c that have scared the Americans so
> much that the US corporate machine has had to pull all sorts of nasty
> tricks to get them axed.

Which ones are you thinking of? A couple of times we've produced something
that the USA had no reasonable match for, but then they've bought them, if
they had a mission for them. I'm thinking of Cambera and Harrier, of
course. One pre-Sandys, the other post- and justified by an initial
mission that missiles didn't look good for. And sadly, the Sandys cuts
were pretty much inevitable. We couldn't afford to buy so many planes.
"Missiles will do the job" was basically spin-doctoring, rather than the
actual reason.

I don't think we're produced any jet fighters that were all-round better.
The Lightning could outperform US fighters on some fronts, but the Phantom
was probably a better all-round aircraft. The Buccaneer couldn't carry as
much as the F-111, nor go so fast, although it could manage some
combinations better and it was carrier-compatible. But then, the F-111 was
so politically messed up the comparisons are invidious.

---
John Dallman

[Thomas Schoene]

John Dallman wrote:
> In article >,
> (R4tm4ster) wrote:
>
>> IMHO there are lots of Brit a/c that have scared the Americans so
>> much that the US corporate machine has had to pull all sorts of nasty
>> tricks to get them axed.
>
> Which ones are you thinking of? A couple of times we've produced
> something that the USA had no reasonable match for, but then they've
> bought them, if they had a mission for them.

I imagine he's thinking mainly about TSR.2. Nothing else comes to mind
immediately.

> I don't think we're produced any jet fighters that were all-round
> better. The Lightning could outperform US fighters on some fronts,
> but the Phantom was probably a better all-round aircraft.

Not in the same class, though. Compare with the F-104 instead; it's not
clear-cut which is better, I'd say.

The British never built a plane in the same clas as the F-4.

> The Buccaneer couldn't carry as much as the F-111, nor go so fast,
> although it could manage some combinations better and it was
> carrier-compatible.

Again, is this the fair comparison? The Buc is probably a closer equivalent
in role and missions (including carrier compatibility) to the A-6, against
which it matches up pretty well. The two are only about a year or two apart
in terms of entry into service; the F-111 came five or six years later.

--
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)

[John Dallman]

In article >,
(Thomas Schoene) wrote:

> > I don't think we're produced any jet fighters that were all-round
> > better. The Lightning could outperform US fighters on some fronts,
> > but the Phantom was probably a better all-round aircraft.
>
> Not in the same class, though. Compare with the F-104 instead; it's not
> clear-cut which is better, I'd say.

Yup, that's pretty fair. Incidentally, an explanation I picked up recently
of why the RAF stuck with the old Red Top missiles on the Lightning to the
end of its life: the capability was about the same as AIM-9, and
integrating Sidewinders would have been pretty simple. Apparently the RAF
reckoned there was little point in trading to a newer missile with a
smaller warhead. When you only have two missiles, the bigger bang is
worthwhile.

Was the F-104 as much of a maintenance nightmare?

> > The Buccaneer couldn't carry as much as the F-111, nor go so fast,
> > although it could manage some combinations better and it was
> > carrier-compatible.
>
> Again, is this the fair comparison? The Buc is probably a closer
> equivalent in role and missions (including carrier compatibility)
> to the A-6, against which it matches up pretty well. The two are
> only about a year or two apart in terms of entry into service; the
> F-111 came five or six years later.

Yup. The Buc didn't have anything as sophisticated as the DIANE, but what
it had was more reliable. Top speed was just about the same, but the Buc
had about twice the range: I bet that was because of the streamlining and
the internal weapons bay. Hadn't realised the A-6 was that old a design.


---
John Dallman