Blue Angels F-18A Hornet on E-Bay

[Mr Smith]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3075250452&category=4672


What do you guys think ??

Legit or bogus ?

[Larry]

What's the BUNO? It's likely an old A-4 or older?

Not fair to display a pic of an F-18 when it is obviously not the bird up
for auction!




Larry
AECS (AW/SW/MTS)
Disabled Combat Veteran
USN 'Retired'
Can't call it 'retired' when the Feds steal my 'retirement' check through
the Disabled Veterans Tax (how cute- they call it 'offset'. It's really just
theft!)




"Mr Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3075250452&category=4672
>
>
> What do you guys think ??
>
> Legit or bogus ?
>
>
>

[Lynn in StLou]

Larry wrote:
> What's the BUNO? It's likely an old A-4 or older?
>
> Not fair to display a pic of an F-18 when it is obviously not the bird up
> for auction!
>
>
>
>
> Larry
> AECS (AW/SW/MTS)
> Disabled Combat Veteran
> USN 'Retired'
> Can't call it 'retired' when the Feds steal my 'retirement' check through
> the Disabled Veterans Tax (how cute- they call it 'offset'. It's really just
> theft!)
>
>
>
>
> "Mr Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3075250452&category=4672
>
>>
>>What do you guys think ??
>>
>>Legit or bogus ?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Per bureau number, it is an F-18 and is a former Blue Angel
aircraft.

http://cgibin.rcn.com/jeremy.k/cgi-bin/navySearch.pl?target=161973&series=3



--
Lynn in StLou
REMOVE anti-spam measure to reply

[Mike Lechnar]

The ad clearly says it's an F-18. I'm predicing that it's a hoax. The
"buy it now" price of $800,000 seems a bit low.

Namsman

Larry wrote:
>
> What's the BUNO? It's likely an old A-4 or older?
>
> Not fair to display a pic of an F-18 when it is obviously not the bird up
> for auction!
>
> Larry
> AECS (AW/SW/MTS)
> Disabled Combat Veteran
> USN 'Retired'
> Can't call it 'retired' when the Feds steal my 'retirement' check through
> the Disabled Veterans Tax (how cute- they call it 'offset'. It's really just
> theft!)
>
> "Mr Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3075250452&category=4672
> >
> >
> > What do you guys think ??
> >
> > Legit or bogus ?
> >
> >
> >

[Bob McKellar]

Mr Smith wrote:

> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3075250452&category=4672
>
> What do you guys think ??
>
> Legit or bogus ?

This is the entry from Joe Baugher's database:

161973 was Blue Angels aircraft. Offered for public sale by Air Capitol
Warbirds as of Feb 2002

This is the search site ( very handy for issues like this!):
http://users.rcn.com/jeremy.k/serialSearch.html

Bob McKellar

[Greasy Rider]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:47:56 -0500, Bob McKellar >
arranged phosphur particles on my screen with the following:

>
> 161973 was Blue Angels aircraft. Offered for public sale by Air Capitol
> Warbirds as of Feb 2002
>
>This is the search site ( very handy for issues like this!):
>http://users.rcn.com/jeremy.k/serialSearch.html
>
>Bob McKellar

Now that the issue has been settled I guess I'll put in my bid. <seg>

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Larry"
> wrote:

> What's the BUNO? It's likely an old A-4 or older?
>
> Not fair to display a pic of an F-18 when it is obviously not the bird up
> for auction!

?? The description on the ebay page states it's an F/A-18A; doesn't
say anything about being an A-4. Also gives the serno, although not
buno.
Why do you think it's bogus?

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[John]

Bob McKellar wrote:

> Mr Smith wrote:
> > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3075250452&category=4672
> >> What do you guys think ??
> >> Legit or bogus ?
> This is the entry from Joe Baugher's database:
>
> 161973 was Blue Angels aircraft. Offered for public sale by Air Capitol
> Warbirds as of Feb 2002
>
> This is the search site ( very handy for issues like this!):
> http://users.rcn.com/jeremy.k/serialSearch.html
>
> Bob McKellar

appears to be what they claim..

http://www.airwarbirds.com/f_a-18_pics.htm

However I doubt that the F-18 could be flyable.
their website sez that the aircraft is complete, but judging from the photos
it appears to be some "damage" may just be photo angle.
but since this company flies military aircraft, and is offering this
bird for such a low price, I'll bet that its not flyable, and would be good
for display or movie work only......

[Mr Smith]

I contacted the seller, he states the aircraft is not
airworthy at this time and he's not the actual owner,
just brokering the sale. It would need to be "gone
over" before it can fly.

He also stated it has not been de-mil'd. Were F-18A's
in the Blue Angel's mission capable (outside their PR
role) ? I can't see how it would be legal to sell an
untouched, strike capable aircraft.

One would presume export control laws would apply if
a buyer in say, Iran, wanted to bid on it.

The Buy-It-Now price does seem rather low.

It might reflect a "I-need-to-get-rid-of-this-because
I-can't-insure-it" dilemma the owner has.

All the Hornet drivers here, if I'm a Citation X pilot
with 4500+ hrs, how difficult is landing a Hornet ?
I imagine the ONLY place one can acquire training on
them is in the Navy (Marines included).



"Greasy Rider" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:47:56 -0500, Bob McKellar >
> arranged phosphur particles on my screen with the following:
>
> >
> > 161973 was Blue Angels aircraft. Offered for public sale by Air Capitol
> > Warbirds as of Feb 2002
> >
> >This is the search site ( very handy for issues like this!):
> >http://users.rcn.com/jeremy.k/serialSearch.html
> >
> >Bob McKellar
>
> Now that the issue has been settled I guess I'll put in my bid. <seg>
>
>

[Larry]

> Why do you think it's bogus?
The description is pretty vauge (at least to me) and the price seems pretty
low.

Besides, how many F-18's are available for sale anywhere else? I'm thinking
zero.

My 2 cents.


Larry
AECS (AW/SW/MTS)
Disabled Combat Veteran
USN 'Retired'
Can't call it 'retired' when the Feds steal my 'retirement' check through
the Disabled Veterans Tax (how cute- they call it 'offset'. It's really just
theft!)



"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Larry"
> > wrote:
>
> > What's the BUNO? It's likely an old A-4 or older?
> >
> > Not fair to display a pic of an F-18 when it is obviously not the bird
up
> > for auction!
>
> ?? The description on the ebay page states it's an F/A-18A; doesn't
> say anything about being an A-4. Also gives the serno, although not
> buno.
> Why do you think it's bogus?
>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

[ABH3]

According to
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/thirdseries21.html

The BuNo 161973 a Legit F/A-18 Hornet that at one time flew with the
Blue Angels Naval Flight Team... Also.. More pictures of Said Aircraft
is at this website...

http://www.blueangels.org/Aircraft/Stick/FA18/973/973.htm

Hope i was of some help...

-Damien
ABH3 US Navy (Active)


"Mr Smith" > wrote in message >...
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3075250452&category=4672
>
>
> What do you guys think ??
>
> Legit or bogus ?

[ABH3]

According to
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/thirdseries21.html

The BuNo 161973 a Legit F/A-18 Hornet that at one time flew with the
Blue Angels Naval Flight Team... Also.. More pictures of Said Aircraft
is at this website...

http://www.blueangels.org/Aircraft/Stick/FA18/973/973.htm

Hope i was of some help...

-Damien
ABH3 US Navy (Active)


"Mr Smith" > wrote in message >...
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3075250452&category=4672
>
>
> What do you guys think ??
>
> Legit or bogus ?

[Joe Delphi]

>
> http://www.blueangels.org/Aircraft/Stick/FA18/973/973.htm
>

From the photos it appears that the wings have been cut off and the canopy
removed. Also looks like nose landing gear is missing. It definitely
looks like it needs more than a "once over" to me.

JD

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 2/6/04 12:04 AM, in article
. net, "Joe Delphi"
> wrote:

>
>>
>> http://www.blueangels.org/Aircraft/Stick/FA18/973/973.htm
>>
>
> From the photos it appears that the wings have been cut off and the canopy
> removed. Also looks like nose landing gear is missing. It definitely
> looks like it needs more than a "once over" to me.
>
> JD
>
>
>

Lot 6... Probably needs a lot of work with regard to engineering support and
depot-level mods depending on when it flew last.

I've seen a few jets-turned-private... and the more complex the jet, the
more I wonder how these folks truly maintain them. In the case of the
F/A-18, it's a pretty complex game.

--Woody

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 2/5/04 3:54 PM, in article , "Mr Smith"
> wrote:

>
> I contacted the seller, he states the aircraft is not
> airworthy at this time and he's not the actual owner,
> just brokering the sale. It would need to be "gone
> over" before it can fly.
>
> He also stated it has not been de-mil'd. Were F-18A's
> in the Blue Angel's mission capable (outside their PR
> role) ? I can't see how it would be legal to sell an
> untouched, strike capable aircraft.
>
> One would presume export control laws would apply if
> a buyer in say, Iran, wanted to bid on it.
>
> The Buy-It-Now price does seem rather low.
>
> It might reflect a "I-need-to-get-rid-of-this-because
> I-can't-insure-it" dilemma the owner has.
>
> All the Hornet drivers here, if I'm a Citation X pilot
> with 4500+ hrs, how difficult is landing a Hornet ?
> I imagine the ONLY place one can acquire training on
> them is in the Navy (Marines included).
>
>

There are a couple of "gotchas" in just flying the thing, but nothing a few
flights wouldn't iron out.

If you've never experienced flight gear, that would be a new treat (helmet,
mask, torso harness, g-suit).

Since the motors are way in the back (35 or so feet behind you), you'd have
to get used to the "detached" sensation of flying the jet. There is no air
noise or airframe feedback with regard to airspeed or engine power setting
whatsoever. The airplane feels the same flying at 180 kts at 30000 feet as
it does at 550 kts at 500 feet. A good instrument scan is a must.

WRT landings, the HUD makes them pretty easy. On this Lot 6, you may find
single chamber struts which means CV type landing is probably not a good
idea (max trap for single chamber struts was 30,500 lbs vice the 33k UNR or
34K Restricted for the current F/A-18). Pretty simple stuff to flare a
landing in the Hornet though. I have taken guests into the simulator, and
the ones with some flight time do fairly well at getting it on the runway.

The biggest landing obstacle would be encouraging you NOT using a forward
slip as a crosswind correction--makes the airplane do the funky chicken on
the runway. OBTW, no localizer, ILS, VOR. Either fly TACAN approaches or
PAR in the weather (if you want a precision approach).

--Woody

[John Carrier]

> All the Hornet drivers here, if I'm a Citation X pilot
> with 4500+ hrs, how difficult is landing a Hornet ?
> I imagine the ONLY place one can acquire training on
> them is in the Navy (Marines included).

The F-18 has perhaps the most benign flying qualities of any high
performance jet aircraft. X-wind landings require a particular technique
(as Woody states). Otherwise, it's difficult to hurt yourself if you honor
its envelope, know your procedures, and have a well-maintained airframe.

The big issue with any high performance military jet is getting it airworthy
and keeping it airworthy. Warbirds can be had for ridiculously low prices
(particularly compared to small corporate jets), but getting them up and
keeping them up makes even Travolta's 707 toy look like a relative bargain.
Of course, 1300 gallons give-or-take of JP per sortie (often a particularly
SHORT sortie) makes it pricey as well.

I wonder how difficult it would be to retrofit a nice modern GPS-based nav
system and ILS (not many airports .... any? ... have an operational
TRN-28)?\

R / John

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "John Carrier"
> wrote:

> > All the Hornet drivers here, if I'm a Citation X pilot
> > with 4500+ hrs, how difficult is landing a Hornet ?
> > I imagine the ONLY place one can acquire training on
> > them is in the Navy (Marines included).
>
> The F-18 has perhaps the most benign flying qualities of any high
> performance jet aircraft. X-wind landings require a particular technique
> (as Woody states). Otherwise, it's difficult to hurt yourself if you honor
> its envelope, know your procedures, and have a well-maintained airframe.
>
> The big issue with any high performance military jet is getting it airworthy
> and keeping it airworthy. Warbirds can be had for ridiculously low prices
> (particularly compared to small corporate jets), but getting them up and
> keeping them up makes even Travolta's 707 toy look like a relative bargain.
> Of course, 1300 gallons give-or-take of JP per sortie (often a particularly
> SHORT sortie) makes it pricey as well.
>
> I wonder how difficult it would be to retrofit a nice modern GPS-based nav
> system and ILS (not many airports .... any? ... have an operational

Not that hard at all, as long as you don't mind re-wiring parts of the aircraft.
The old 1553 bus on the A's won't handle the data rate of more modern
GPS/nav systems.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 2/6/04 7:49 AM, in article , "John
Carrier" > wrote:

>> All the Hornet drivers here, if I'm a Citation X pilot
>> with 4500+ hrs, how difficult is landing a Hornet ?
>> I imagine the ONLY place one can acquire training on
>> them is in the Navy (Marines included).
>
> The F-18 has perhaps the most benign flying qualities of any high
> performance jet aircraft. X-wind landings require a particular technique
> (as Woody states). Otherwise, it's difficult to hurt yourself if you honor
> its envelope, know your procedures, and have a well-maintained airframe.
>
> The big issue with any high performance military jet is getting it airworthy
> and keeping it airworthy. Warbirds can be had for ridiculously low prices
> (particularly compared to small corporate jets), but getting them up and
> keeping them up makes even Travolta's 707 toy look like a relative bargain.
> Of course, 1300 gallons give-or-take of JP per sortie (often a particularly
> SHORT sortie) makes it pricey as well.
>
> I wonder how difficult it would be to retrofit a nice modern GPS-based nav
> system and ILS (not many airports .... any? ... have an operational
> TRN-28)?\
>
> R / John

Well put.

There are a few rubs in the flight instruments and systems areas to owning
your own F/A-18.

All the black boxes (circa 14 IIRC from my China Lake days) in the Hornet
are integrated. Some are more important to flight safety than others. For
instance, I'm pretty sure you could remove the radar without significant
penalty and fly the thing around lead-nosed using TCAS for traffic
deconfliction, but if you decided to remove the INS (for cost), you'd
severely degrade your primary flight instrument (which is the HUD)--unless
you could refit a cheap substitute (optical gyros and a GPS? AHRS only?).
But the INS and the ADC both feed the HUD, so you'd definitely degrade the
info on it.

Brings up another point. What FCC PROM is the jet running? My guess is
pre-10.7, but if you're running PROM 10.7, then there's a definite need for
an INS. There'd be some definite engineering and support issues all over.
Better have very deep pockets and be willing to pay a fairly large $/hour
cost. Fuel is probably the least of your worries given the team of folks it
would take to keep it airworthy.

--Woody

[John Miller]

Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
> Brings up another point. What FCC PROM is the jet running? My guess is
> pre-10.7, but if you're running PROM 10.7, then there's a definite need
> for
> an INS. There'd be some definite engineering and support issues all over.
> Better have very deep pockets and be willing to pay a fairly large $/hour
> cost. Fuel is probably the least of your worries given the team of folks
> it would take to keep it airworthy.

How many hours of ground maintenance per flight hour for the F-18?

I'd love to have it, but figure you can get 80% of its performance for about
20% of the operational cost. A4? MiG?

--
John Miller
My email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm

The mosquito is the state bird of New Jersey.
-Andy Warhol

[Joe Delphi]

>
> He also stated it has not been de-mil'd. Were F-18A's
> in the Blue Angel's mission capable (outside their PR
> role) ? I can't see how it would be legal to sell an
> untouched, strike capable aircraft.
>

The F/A-18s that the Blues fly are slightly different from Fleet F/A-18s.
I know that one difference is in the fuel system. The Blue Angel F/A-18s
have something in their fuel system that allows them to fly negative Gs
longer than the regular F/A-18. I guess its bad form to have your engine
conk out from fuel starvation in the middle of an airshow.

There are probably other mods to the BA F/A-18s that other people could
list.

JD

[fudog50]

NO!
Nobdy can buy any military aircraft that is still supported by FMS
without definitive approval from the State department PERIOD, it's
definitely a bogus ad.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:55:10 -0500, "Mr Smith"
> wrote:

>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3075250452&category=4672
>
>
>What do you guys think ??
>
>Legit or bogus ?
>
>

[fudog50]

Nice post John, now what is the FAA's definition of airworthy? LOL


On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 07:49:47 -0600, "John Carrier" >
wrote:

>> All the Hornet drivers here, if I'm a Citation X pilot
>> with 4500+ hrs, how difficult is landing a Hornet ?
>> I imagine the ONLY place one can acquire training on
>> them is in the Navy (Marines included).
>
>The F-18 has perhaps the most benign flying qualities of any high
>performance jet aircraft. X-wind landings require a particular technique
>(as Woody states). Otherwise, it's difficult to hurt yourself if you honor
>its envelope, know your procedures, and have a well-maintained airframe.
>
>The big issue with any high performance military jet is getting it airworthy
>and keeping it airworthy. Warbirds can be had for ridiculously low prices
>(particularly compared to small corporate jets), but getting them up and
>keeping them up makes even Travolta's 707 toy look like a relative bargain.
>Of course, 1300 gallons give-or-take of JP per sortie (often a particularly
>SHORT sortie) makes it pricey as well.
>
>I wonder how difficult it would be to retrofit a nice modern GPS-based nav
>system and ILS (not many airports .... any? ... have an operational
>TRN-28)?\
>
>R / John
>
>

[Pechs1]

Bogus-AFAIK, it is not legal to buy a current combat (or previous for that
matter) aircraft as these are owned by the US gov't and are leased to the
military, essentially.

This was an issue when some private buyers wanted to buy an F-8...had to get
it from France, not the US, when many were still at D-M...

Samo with the F-104 'what's his name' had...he bought it literally in pieces,
as in 'cut up'...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[John]

Mr Smith wrote:

> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3075250452&category=4672
>
> What do you guys think ??
>
> Legit or bogus ?

I say Legit,, However

appears to be what they claim..

http://www.airwarbirds.com/f_a-18_pics.htm

However I doubt that the F-18 could be flyable.
their website sez that the aircraft is complete, but judging from the photos
it appears to be some "damage" may just be photo angle.
but since this company flies military aircraft, and is offering this
bird for such a low price, I'll bet that its not flyable, and would be good
for display or movie work only...... OR IF it could be made flyable
for several millions invested past the purchase price.

[Jake Donovan]

Sorry, but that is false. There have been several privately owned A4's
(while the A4 was still in service) a handful of T-38's and 2 F-5's flying
today with private ownership. FAA registered. Not only are the T-38 and F-5
supersonic, they both could be loaded out with weapons. (That would not be
legal but the ability is there)

I had the opportunity to fly one of the F-5s and an A-37 so I know this is
factual. I personally know a gentleman who owns and flies an A-37
regularly. He has one the most impressive collections of military aircraft
one could own. T-34, T-28, P-51, F4U along with his A-37 and several
others.

If I had the time or inkling, I could go the FAA site and compile a list of
privately owned "current" US military fighter, attack and trainer aircraft.

Jake

PS - All CIA and NASA birds are registered civil aircraft and could be, if
these agencies so desired, sold to private concerns. I included the CIA as
many CIA aircraft used in SE Asia made their way back to the US in private
hands and are still being flown today. (Mary, I know some of the NASA birds
would NEVER be sold)



"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
> NO!
> Nobdy can buy any military aircraft that is still supported by FMS
> without definitive approval from the State department PERIOD, it's
> definitely a bogus ad.
>
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:55:10 -0500, "Mr Smith"
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3075250452&category=4672
> >
> >
> >What do you guys think ??
> >
> >Legit or bogus ?
> >
> >
>

[Matt Wiser]

(Pechs1) wrote:
> Bogus-AFAIK, it is not legal to buy a current
>combat (or previous for that
>matter) aircraft as these are owned by the US
>gov't and are leased to the
>military, essentially.
>
> This was an issue when some private buyers
>wanted to buy an F-8...had to get
>it from France, not the US, when many were still
>at D-M...
>
> Samo with the F-104 'what's his name' had...he
>bought it literally in pieces,
>as in 'cut up'...
>P. C. Chisholm
>CDR, USN(ret.)
>Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter
>and Combat Buckeye Phlyer
I seem to remember a U.S. News and World Report article in '98 about stuff
falling thru cracks in the system: they mentioned a retired USN A-6 pilot
who went to AMARC and left with an airworthy A-6E. Engines, starter cart,
etc. He didn't intend to fly it, he did put it up at the entrance to his
horse ranch as sort of a gate guard.

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

[nafod40]

Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:
> Brings up another point. What FCC PROM is the jet running? My guess is
> pre-10.7, but if you're running PROM 10.7, then there's a definite need for
> an INS.


The good news is with a PROM burner and a Mk I/Mod 0 PC you could write
your own flight control software.

[John Carrier]

> Nice post John, now what is the FAA's definition of airworthy? LOL

An excellent question and I have NO CLUE.

Wonder if I could find a nice low time F-8H with a J-57P420? A very sweet
machine if you avoided boats and short runways.

R / John

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 2/8/04 1:00 PM, in article , "nafod40"
> wrote:

> Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:
>> Brings up another point. What FCC PROM is the jet running? My guess is
>> pre-10.7, but if you're running PROM 10.7, then there's a definite need for
>> an INS.
>
>
> The good news is with a PROM burner and a Mk I/Mod 0 PC you could write
> your own flight control software.
>

No. I couldn't. I'm just a Mk 1/Mod 0 stick monkey.

[fudog50]

Nobody does! That is a serious point of contention, especially for us
maintenance guys. The word "airworthy" and it's inclusion in FAR's is
currently under scrutiny and review for a definitive definition by the
FAA. Thanks for being honest, John.

On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 13:02:55 -0600, "John Carrier" >
wrote:

>> Nice post John, now what is the FAA's definition of airworthy? LOL
>
>An excellent question and I have NO CLUE.
>
>Wonder if I could find a nice low time F-8H with a J-57P420? A very sweet
>machine if you avoided boats and short runways.
>
>R / John
>

[Pechs1]

John-<< Wonder if I could find a nice low time F-8H with a J-57P420? A very
sweet
machine if you avoided boats and short runways. >><BR><BR>

Great question to the group. If $ was no object, what A/C that you have
actually flown would you like to own? Just for the fun of flying it again, not
considering spares, parts availability, ease or diffuculty of maintaning,
etc...

I'm guessing a A-4F+ or a F-4N or S for me.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[nafod40]

Pechs1 wrote:
> John-<< Wonder if I could find a nice low time F-8H with a J-57P420? A very
> sweet
> machine if you avoided boats and short runways. >><BR><BR>
>
> Great question to the group. If $ was no object, what A/C that you have
> actually flown would you like to own? Just for the fun of flying it again, not
> considering spares, parts availability, ease or diffuculty of maintaning,
> etc...

I loved the Buckeye for its roominesss, tumblability, and low parts
count...nothing finer than a VFR day spent knocking off an OCF-3
followed by looping around clouds in the Chase MOA. This probably says
more about the lack of interesting planes I flew than anything else. Now
if it had a 1:1 thrust ratio...

But my purest aviation experiences have been in civilian gliders, oddly
enough. Roaring along in ridge lift, spiralling in a thermal, or taking
an elevator in wave have been the most pure flying experiences I've had.
Just me and my glass ship, in a reclining seat surrounded by plexiglas.

[B.C. MALLAM]

The T-28 B had to be one of the best at buzzing around buildups in the
Pensacola area. More fun in that machine than any other, good for chasing AF
100s too.

> From: nafod40 >
> Organization: Penn State University, Center for Academic Computing
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military.naval
> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 09:37:02 -0500
> Subject: Re: Blue Angels F-18A Hornet on E-Bay
>
> Pechs1 wrote:
>> John-<< Wonder if I could find a nice low time F-8H with a J-57P420? A very
>> sweet
>> machine if you avoided boats and short runways. >><BR><BR>
>>
>> Great question to the group. If $ was no object, what A/C that you have
>> actually flown would you like to own? Just for the fun of flying it again,
>> not
>> considering spares, parts availability, ease or diffuculty of maintaning,
>> etc...
>
> I loved the Buckeye for its roominesss, tumblability, and low parts
> count...nothing finer than a VFR day spent knocking off an OCF-3
> followed by looping around clouds in the Chase MOA. This probably says
> more about the lack of interesting planes I flew than anything else. Now
> if it had a 1:1 thrust ratio...
>
> But my purest aviation experiences have been in civilian gliders, oddly
> enough. Roaring along in ridge lift, spiralling in a thermal, or taking
> an elevator in wave have been the most pure flying experiences I've had.
> Just me and my glass ship, in a reclining seat surrounded by plexiglas.
>

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 2/9/04 8:22 AM, in article ,
"Pechs1" > wrote:

> John-<< Wonder if I could find a nice low time F-8H with a J-57P420? A very
> sweet
> machine if you avoided boats and short runways. >><BR><BR>
>
> Great question to the group. If $ was no object, what A/C that you have
> actually flown would you like to own? Just for the fun of flying it again, not
> considering spares, parts availability, ease or diffuculty of maintaning,
> etc...
>
> I'm guessing a A-4F+ or a F-4N or S for me.
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

If money was no object? F/A-18. Period. It's a very honest and fun plane
to fly.

Oh... And a 757 on the side to take my buddies on vacation in.

[Bill Kambic]

"Pechs1" wrote in message

> Great question to the group. If $ was no object, what A/C that you have
> actually flown would you like to own? Just for the fun of flying it again,
not
> considering spares, parts availability, ease or diffuculty of maintaning,
> etc...

T28B/C. A fun airplane that, if you respect it, won't "bite." While others
might also be fun (A1H, F7F, F4U) as my eyesight, hearing, and reflexes age
I must accept a level of realism, even in fantasy!<g>

Since I am being frugal in my choice, I should get a lagniappe. I would
pick a Shinmaywa US-1A Kai (four turboprop amphibian).

See at http://www10.plala.or.jp/strgzr/aircraft/us1/us1_e.html

Has a cruise speed around 300 kts. with decent legs. Fitted out as a flying
yacht I can travel from Artic to Antartic in comfort and style. It this
cool, or what?!?!?!?!?!

Bill Kambic

P.S. An alternative to the Kai would be that carrier that's up for auction.
Put a few T28C's on board and you have the World's Most Exclusive Flying
Club!<g>

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

[John Carrier]

Ah Woody, such blissful ignorance!

R / John

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 2/10/04 3:38 PM, in article , "John
Carrier" > wrote:

> Ah Woody, such blissful ignorance!
>
> R / John
>
>

I've spent enough time behind other airplanes in the Hornet to realize its
worth.

There are those that have drank the Kool-Aid and those who haven't. |:-)

If money were no object, it'd be nice to get a fleet of jets for all those
folks in this news group and hold a 1v1 derby. As a follow-on, anybody want
to predict the winner and his choice of platform?

--Woody

[nafod40]

Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:
>
> If money were no object, it'd be nice to get a fleet of jets for all those
> folks in this news group and hold a 1v1 derby. As a follow-on, anybody want
> to predict the winner and his choice of platform?

My ride would be a Patriot battery. I'd win, hands down.

Is there a market for scrap carbon fiber composites?

[Pechs1]

Doug-<< If money were no object, it'd be nice to get a fleet of jets for all
those
folks in this news group and hold a 1v1 derby. As a follow-on, anybody want
to predict the winner and his choice of platform? >><BR><BR>


A-4F+..visual, 1 mile abeam start..Guns only. I have been behind more than a
few 'cat 4(+) A/C in my trusty 'Dog'(even Hornuts)..I love it when they decide
to enter MY phonebooth.

Why the 'energy fight' was 'borrowed' from the Isrealis..do they still teach it
when vs. something like a Mig-29?
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[José Herculano]

> If money were no object, it'd be nice to get a fleet of jets for all those
> folks in this news group and hold a 1v1 derby. As a follow-on, anybody
want
> to predict the winner and his choice of platform?

Since I only flew on my dreams, I'll dream you one up, choose an F/A-22 ;-)

Honestly, if I was in the money, I'd buy a T-6A Texan II. Looks fun and
survivable for a newbie.
_____________
José Herculano

[John Carrier]

The Aluminum assassin. For the sheer joy of flying a jet, I don't think
anything else is close. It fits like a custom Oxxford blazer.

R / John


"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> Doug-<< If money were no object, it'd be nice to get a fleet of jets for
all
> those
> folks in this news group and hold a 1v1 derby. As a follow-on, anybody
want
> to predict the winner and his choice of platform? >><BR><BR>
>
>
> A-4F+..visual, 1 mile abeam start..Guns only. I have been behind more than
a
> few 'cat 4(+) A/C in my trusty 'Dog'(even Hornuts)..I love it when they
decide
> to enter MY phonebooth.
>
> Why the 'energy fight' was 'borrowed' from the Isrealis..do they still
teach it
> when vs. something like a Mig-29?
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

[Pechs1]

Does the F/A-22 have a gun??

How well does it fly slow? Is the pilot comfy at 50-60 kts? Will the 'puter
allow it to get that slow? or is it like a F-16/18/15 that is not great at slow
speed flat scissor type stuff/
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[nafod40]

Pechs1 wrote:
> Does the F/A-22 have a gun??

Speaking of guns, I think helicopter hunting in an A-10 would be fun.

[José Herculano]

> Does the F/A-22 have a gun??

It does. A slight variation of the good ol' 20mm Vulcan.

> How well does it fly slow? Is the pilot comfy at 50-60 kts? Will the
'puter
> allow it to get that slow? or is it like a F-16/18/15 that is not great at
slow
> speed flat scissor type stuff/

That thing is an aerodynamic wonder, with BIG engines AND thrust vectoring.
It reputedly has the best post-stall maneuvering capability this side of
civilization.
_____________
José Herculano

[José Herculano]

> Speaking of guns, I think helicopter hunting in an A-10 would be fun.

In Desert Storm they got two that way. Sole air-to-air gun kills of the
conflict. A Tomcat got an helo with a Sidewinder, and a Mudhen got another
on the hover with a GBU!
_____________
José Herculano

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 2/12/04 9:48 AM, in article ,
"Pechs1" > wrote:

> Does the F/A-22 have a gun??
>

Yes.

> How well does it fly slow? Is the pilot comfy at 50-60 kts? Will the 'puter
> allow it to get that slow? or is it like a F-16/18/15 that is not great at
> slow
> speed flat scissor type stuff/

WHAT!? You must have been fighting my father's F/A-18 (not that my dad was
a Naval aviator...)

I've flown against the A-4 (though it was a VC-8 jet, and I don't think they
had Super F's). Regardless, I had no trouble with him in a
slats-out/slow-speed/in-close fight, and no... I'm not necessarily the "ace
of the base."

HOWEVER: The newest flight control computer PROM on the Hornet would beat
the Steroid Scooter hands down. The enhanced FCC Hornet does unnatural
stuff at slow speeds now. Totally controllable nose.

Pechs, you're correct about the Viper and Eagle. They're not as good in the
visual arena--especially when beat down to slow speeds.

I know, Masher, you're reading this post and cringing right now, but I'm
telling the truth here.

--Woody

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

[Jake Donovan]

Pechs,

The load out on the F-22 is 2 Sidewinders, 6 AMRAAM. 2 1000lb JDAMs and a
20MM Gun.

It's speed envelope is pretty impressive from no after burner super-cruise
to thrust vectoring.

Interestingly, it looks bound for the Reserves and ANG as the F35 comes
online.

Jake

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> Does the F/A-22 have a gun??
>
> How well does it fly slow? Is the pilot comfy at 50-60 kts? Will the
'puter
> allow it to get that slow? or is it like a F-16/18/15 that is not great at
slow
> speed flat scissor type stuff/
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

[in2focus]

The Virginian-Pilot has noticed the sale on eBay and posted an article
with interesting info about the jet and seller. Here's the link:
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=66097&ran=47013

[Pechs1]

<< Does the F/A-22 have a gun??

It does. A slight variation of the good ol' 20mm Vulcan. >><BR><BR>

Hoooray, I was worried that the 'big boys' would make that mistake again.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

Doug-<< I've flown against the A-4 (though it was a VC-8 jet, and I don't think
they
had Super F's). Regardless, I had no trouble with him in a
slats-out/slow-speed/in-close fight, and no... I'm not necessarily the "ace
of the base." >><BR><BR>

Unless I'm wrong and not to dispariidge VC-8, but those were 'T' models,
probably with a -6 engine.

And I wonder how much ACM those boys got.

In a trusty F, I have had no problem with F-16/15/18 as well...Slow flat,
around 60-70 kts...going down at the time but still flyin'...

<Doug< HOWEVER: The newest flight control computer PROM on the Hornet would
beat
the Steroid Scooter hands down. The enhanced FCC Hornet does unnatural
stuff at slow speeds now. Totally controllable nose. >><BR><BR>

good....glad to hear it cuz the next A/C they may see 'may' be a
Flanker/Fulcrum/Mirage/Rafale..

Particularly the F-15 with a rigid, but shaped wing. great up high, poor low
and slow.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Mr Smith]

Thank you for the responses. It appears as if the aircraft
in question, is nowhere near flight worthy at this time.

Just curious though,

What's a typical Vref speed for landing ? (presuming all
ordnance has been expended). And are these numbers something
the pilot calculates himself, or is it given to him ?

Can ACLS be considered helpful at all ? (similar to perhaps
a Category III ILS auto land ?) Does any Hornet driver here
actually trust it ? (and why would you even use it?).

What is the crosswind technique alluded to below ? (in lieu
of the forward sideslip)?



"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...


> There are a couple of "gotchas" in just flying the thing, but nothing a
few
> flights wouldn't iron out.
>
> If you've never experienced flight gear, that would be a new treat
(helmet,
> mask, torso harness, g-suit).
>
> Since the motors are way in the back (35 or so feet behind you), you'd
have
> to get used to the "detached" sensation of flying the jet. There is no
air
> noise or airframe feedback with regard to airspeed or engine power setting
> whatsoever. The airplane feels the same flying at 180 kts at 30000 feet
as
> it does at 550 kts at 500 feet. A good instrument scan is a must.
>
> WRT landings, the HUD makes them pretty easy. On this Lot 6, you may find
> single chamber struts which means CV type landing is probably not a good
> idea (max trap for single chamber struts was 30,500 lbs vice the 33k UNR
or
> 34K Restricted for the current F/A-18). Pretty simple stuff to flare a
> landing in the Hornet though. I have taken guests into the simulator, and
> the ones with some flight time do fairly well at getting it on the runway.
>
> The biggest landing obstacle would be encouraging you NOT using a forward
> slip as a crosswind correction--makes the airplane do the funky chicken on
> the runway. OBTW, no localizer, ILS, VOR. Either fly TACAN approaches or
> PAR in the weather (if you want a precision approach).
>
> --Woody
>

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 2/14/04 4:13 PM, in article , "Mr Smith"
> wrote:

>
>
> Thank you for the responses. It appears as if the aircraft
> in question, is nowhere near flight worthy at this time.
>
> Just curious though,
>
> What's a typical Vref speed for landing ? (presuming all
> ordnance has been expended). And are these numbers something
> the pilot calculates himself, or is it given to him ?
>

Roughly 125 knots.

> Can ACLS be considered helpful at all ? (similar to perhaps
> a Category III ILS auto land ?) Does any Hornet driver here
> actually trust it ? (and why would you even use it?).
>

Nope. Lots of black boxes fighting to be sync-ed up with the ones on the
carrier. Not many NAS's have the SPN-46/48 (whatever) that is required to
conduct ACLS approaches at the field either. As I remember, Lemoore,
Oceana, and Whidbey have them... Not sure about the rest.

> What is the crosswind technique alluded to below ? (in lieu
> of the forward sideslip)?
>

Crab to land and kick out half the crab prior to touch down.

--Woody

>
>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>> There are a couple of "gotchas" in just flying the thing, but nothing a
> few
>> flights wouldn't iron out.
>>
>> If you've never experienced flight gear, that would be a new treat
> (helmet,
>> mask, torso harness, g-suit).
>>
>> Since the motors are way in the back (35 or so feet behind you), you'd
> have
>> to get used to the "detached" sensation of flying the jet. There is no
> air
>> noise or airframe feedback with regard to airspeed or engine power setting
>> whatsoever. The airplane feels the same flying at 180 kts at 30000 feet
> as
>> it does at 550 kts at 500 feet. A good instrument scan is a must.
>>
>> WRT landings, the HUD makes them pretty easy. On this Lot 6, you may find
>> single chamber struts which means CV type landing is probably not a good
>> idea (max trap for single chamber struts was 30,500 lbs vice the 33k UNR
> or
>> 34K Restricted for the current F/A-18). Pretty simple stuff to flare a
>> landing in the Hornet though. I have taken guests into the simulator, and
>> the ones with some flight time do fairly well at getting it on the runway.
>>
>> The biggest landing obstacle would be encouraging you NOT using a forward
>> slip as a crosswind correction--makes the airplane do the funky chicken on
>> the runway. OBTW, no localizer, ILS, VOR. Either fly TACAN approaches or
>> PAR in the weather (if you want a precision approach).
>>
>> --Woody
>>
>
>

[Pechs1]

Mr Smith-<< What's a typical Vref speed for landing ? (presuming all
ordnance has been expended). And are these numbers something
the pilot calculates himself, or is it given to him ? >><BR><BR>

You check airspeed for landing vs the AOA but you use 'onspeed AOA', where
airspeed varies with weight, for landings, always the same AOA..15 units for
the F-4.

smith<< Can ACLS be considered helpful at all ? (similar to perhaps
a Category III ILS auto land ?) Does any Hornet driver here
actually trust it ? (and why would you even use it?). >><BR><BR>

In the F-4 and Turkey, I have had Mode 1s to touchdown( I know a contradiction,
Mode 1s are always to touchdown) but they were an emergency procedure. I doubt
any modern aviator relies on this system.


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

[Elmshoot]

>In the F-4 and Turkey, I have had Mode 1s to touchdown( I know a
>contradiction,Mode 1s are always to touchdown) but they were an emergency
>procedure. I doubtany modern aviator relies on this system

I could never get auto throttles to work right in the A-6 in the Prowler they
were a little better. I tried to do a coupled approach on Sara (90-91) and
ended up with a bolter. The Hornets were doing them all the time they seemed to
have the system and ship tweeked up really well. I think it was mandentory for
the first Hornet down the chute to attempt a Mode 1 as I recall they flew a lot
of them maybe 25% were hooked up.
Sparky

[Yofuri]

I know A6 power control was problematic from development through fleet
introduction in 1969. The feedback loop with the ASN-54 APC was
inconsistent, and the kinesthetics were unacceptable to the pilot when the
system introduced purposeful glide slope deviations for self-check
monitoring purposes.

The RANGER/CVW-2 deployment in 1969 was the first in which all aircraft
aboard, including the C1A COD and the SH-3's were ACLS-equipped. Mode 1 was
not authorized at that time for any aircraft. The idea was to "get 'em home
safely on a dark and stormy night".

Do Hornets have yaw strings glued to the radome like F-4's did?

Rick

"Elmshoot" > wrote in message
...
> >In the F-4 and Turkey, I have had Mode 1s to touchdown( I know a
> >contradiction,Mode 1s are always to touchdown) but they were an emergency
> >procedure. I doubtany modern aviator relies on this system
>
> I could never get auto throttles to work right in the A-6 in the Prowler
they
> were a little better. I tried to do a coupled approach on Sara (90-91) and
> ended up with a bolter. The Hornets were doing them all the time they
seemed to
> have the system and ship tweeked up really well. I think it was mandentory
for
> the first Hornet down the chute to attempt a Mode 1 as I recall they flew
a lot
> of them maybe 25% were hooked up.
> Sparky




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[John R Weiss]

"Elmshoot" > wrote...
>
> I could never get auto throttles to work right in the A-6 in the Prowler they
> were a little better. I tried to do a coupled approach on Sara (90-91) and
> ended up with a bolter. The Hornets were doing them all the time they seemed
to
> have the system and ship tweeked up really well. I think it was mandentory for
> the first Hornet down the chute to attempt a Mode 1 as I recall they flew a
lot
> of them maybe 25% were hooked up.

I had a total of 4 successful Mode 1 approaches in my career -- 2 each to Kitty
Hawk and Nimitz.

"It's always something; if it's not one thing, it's another..." (Roseanne
Rosannadanna)

Autothrottle excursions, Beacon failure, and autopilot excursions were the 3
predominant failure modes...

[John Carrier]

Four more than I. While the Turkey had an excellent APCS, I was never
exposed to the "certified" ACLS model. As for the Phantom, got just past
tipover once ... then all hell broke loose.

The F-8 was worthy of a chuckle. The J's were retrofitted with bullseye
needles. To display CL and GS one had to flip a switch from "TACAN" to
"ACLS" ... it reconfigured the ID-249 for the approach. A really good
thing, but hardly ACLS.

R / John

[Mike Kanze]

Rick,

>I know A6 power control was problematic from development through fleet
introduction in 1969.

This was still the case when the Lizards (VA-95) went to sea in 1973 aboard
CORAL MARU. We never flew any "coupled" passes closer in than 1/4 mile.

--
Mike Kanze

"Asking what a pilot thinks about the FAA is like asking a fireplug what it
thinks about dogs."

- from Bill "Windmill" Young


"Yofuri" > wrote in message
...
> I know A6 power control was problematic from development through fleet
> introduction in 1969. The feedback loop with the ASN-54 APC was
> inconsistent, and the kinesthetics were unacceptable to the pilot when the
> system introduced purposeful glide slope deviations for self-check
> monitoring purposes.
>
> The RANGER/CVW-2 deployment in 1969 was the first in which all aircraft
> aboard, including the C1A COD and the SH-3's were ACLS-equipped. Mode 1
was
> not authorized at that time for any aircraft. The idea was to "get 'em
home
> safely on a dark and stormy night".
>
> Do Hornets have yaw strings glued to the radome like F-4's did?
>
> Rick
>
> "Elmshoot" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >In the F-4 and Turkey, I have had Mode 1s to touchdown( I know a
> > >contradiction,Mode 1s are always to touchdown) but they were an
emergency
> > >procedure. I doubtany modern aviator relies on this system
> >
> > I could never get auto throttles to work right in the A-6 in the Prowler
> they
> > were a little better. I tried to do a coupled approach on Sara (90-91)
and
> > ended up with a bolter. The Hornets were doing them all the time they
> seemed to
> > have the system and ship tweeked up really well. I think it was
mandentory
> for
> > the first Hornet down the chute to attempt a Mode 1 as I recall they
flew
> a lot
> > of them maybe 25% were hooked up.
> > Sparky
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Pechs1]

Spn-43(needles) and autothrottles, the way to go in VF-31, last cruise...a
'peek' is worth a thousand 'scans' tho...

Forrestal started asking people to try Mode 1s..Sometimes worked, sometimes an
automatic trip into the penalty box...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

dano-<< It seems to me that the A-4 might actually be a good candidate for
private ownership. It's relatively small and simple, mostly electrical,
electromechanical and hydraulic I assume (not of the complexity of the
60s, 70s, 80s), single engine >><BR><BR>

I think the only 'gotchas' would be slat rigging, which is certainly an art in
itself. A poorly rigged slat could spell disaster.

The other is the ejection seat in the 'E' model, which I would not ever sit in.
Bug Roach's seat failed in the 'E' he was flying, the rocket motor failed and
he hit the tail as he went out. A static test of 10 rocket motors in storage
had 7 failures. I grounded my 'E' models and refused to fly them after that.
Just wrapped them up, took them outta reporting and looked for ways to get them
to D-M.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[John Carrier]

> I think the only 'gotchas' would be slat rigging, which is certainly an
art in
> itself. A poorly rigged slat could spell disaster.

Not usually a problem if only called upon to do their job in 1 G level
flight. It's slat behavior in the flight regime at 300+KIAS that mark the
work of a capable airframes shop.

R / John

[Paul Michael Brown]

> A poorly rigged slat could spell disaster.
>
> Not usually a problem if only called upon to do their job in 1 G level
> flight. It's slat behavior in the flight regime at 300+KIAS that mark the
> work of a capable airframes shop.

OK, I've never been there, or done that. But it seems to me that the slats
are *really* simple. Obviously I'm missing something here. What is it
about the design and/or maintenance of the slats that requires "a capable
airframes shop?"

[MOUSSECLRK]

Been my experience that Mode 1's work great in the FA-18. In fact, have
probably done well over 20 of them on Lincoln, TR and Nimitz. Worked super
every time! Biggest mistake guys make is trying to "influence" corrections by
helping it out. As I like to say, "don't a touch a nothin'!"

[John Carrier]

The slats were intended to be used in the landing configuration. As AOA
increased beyond 12 units (not sure what that was in degrees) the
aerodynamic slats would deploy. Works great in 1 G flight. They will also
deploy at speed during maneuvering, something they were not specifically
designed for. A slightly misaligned and or binding slat track would hinder
deployment. One comes out, one doesn't and the pilot experiences a
significant roll. The effect can be anywhere from mildly annoying to quite
thrilling ... usually a function of airspeed, G and rate of G application.

Getting three tracks and sets of rollers to align perfectly, not just static
but in a dynamic environment, is tricky. Take a sticky dresser drawer and
how challenging that can be to get it "just right." Now cube it. There are
a lot of things mechanical that aren't rocket science, but still take a lot
of skill to do well.

R/ John

"Paul Michael Brown" > wrote in message
...
> > A poorly rigged slat could spell disaster.
> >
> > Not usually a problem if only called upon to do their job in 1 G level
> > flight. It's slat behavior in the flight regime at 300+KIAS that mark
the
> > work of a capable airframes shop.
>
> OK, I've never been there, or done that. But it seems to me that the slats
> are *really* simple. Obviously I'm missing something here. What is it
> about the design and/or maintenance of the slats that requires "a capable
> airframes shop?"

[Allen Epps]

In article >, Paul Michael Brown
> wrote:

> > A poorly rigged slat could spell disaster.
> >
> > Not usually a problem if only called upon to do their job in 1 G level
> > flight. It's slat behavior in the flight regime at 300+KIAS that mark the
> > work of a capable airframes shop.
>
> OK, I've never been there, or done that. But it seems to me that the slats
> are *really* simple. Obviously I'm missing something here. What is it
> about the design and/or maintenance of the slats that requires "a capable
> airframes shop?"

Yep, they are dirt simple until one of the rollers gets a bit sticky or
one of the slats gets a little bent then the devils's in the details.
As was noted, it doesn't make much of a difference in normal flight but
the first time you go into the merge and pitch hard and one sticks it's
a pretty damn violent effect that can range from simply a hard roll
away from the deployed side that corrects itself, to damn near tumbling
the airplane. The guys in my TRARON, who were civilian maint at the
time, did a pretty fair job of maintaining them to the point of
applying grease and such with Q-tips, they also had a gauge that looked
shop-made that they could push on the slats to measure how much force
it took to move and they tried to make the slats on each jet the same.


Pugs

[Pechs1]

John-<< Not usually a problem if only called upon to do their job in 1 G level
flight. It's slat behavior in the flight regime at 300+KIAS that mark the
work of a capable airframes shop. >><BR><BR>

Geeezzz, If I had an A-4...I would have to 'use' the slats to their
maximum...It would be fun to beat up other A/C...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Mary Shafer]

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 17:00:51 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
> wrote:

> PS - All CIA and NASA birds are registered civil aircraft and could be, if
> these agencies so desired, sold to private concerns. I included the CIA as
> many CIA aircraft used in SE Asia made their way back to the US in private
> hands and are still being flown today. (Mary, I know some of the NASA birds
> would NEVER be sold)

Well, sort of. We assign N-numbers to them, but we don't always
bother to tell the FAA which numbers go with which airplanes. I was
looking at the N8nnNA registrations one time and found that the only
two aircraft listed had been given to museums a while back.

We also really can't sell them, exactly. We have to put them on the
surplus list, the same way every other agency has to. The list is
circulated in-agency, within Federal agencies, and then to state,
county, etc, agencies in order. Only after every governmental agency
in the entire United States, including the Antelope Valley Mosquito
Abatement District, has failed to request the item can it be sold to
the public. And I think that GSA handles the actual sale.

We surplused the C-47 Gooneybird and a large public university in the
south picked it up. It was in flyable condition, too. In fact, we
made a mistake and sent the N-number with it and had to have them
re-number it because we didn't mean to include the N-number (we
couldn't, actually, because these aren't transferrable).

In case you're ever thinking of buying anything off the gov't surplus
lists, let me give you a little warning. Don't expect to get an
unappreciated treasure this way.

We usually don't surplus our aircraft because they're either research
aircraft, promised to a museum, or ex-military aircraft, with
restrictions on disposal (or both). Typically, the support aircraft
get turned into displays or gate guards. We gave the city of
Lancaster a clapped-out old F-18 for the baseball stadium; the stadium
is "The Hangar", where the Jet Hawks play, and the city fathers
thought that every hangar needs an airplane, I guess. A few years
later, the USAF gave the city an F-4D to put by the Metrolink station.

The KingAirs would probably be surplused, though, since they're just
stock airplanes, with FAA certifications and everything. They've been
maintained to FAA standards, too. But we'll fly them until they
really can't be operated properly because it's so hard to get
replacements.

Then there was the PA-30 Piper Twin Comanche....

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer