F-106 Speed record questions....

[David E. Powell]

OK, now this is really old information, but as a kid I recall reading
somewhere that the F-16 set a record for single-engine production fighters,
with a top speed of Mach 2.32, and that this was (at the time I heard) still
a record for single engine production fighters.

Is this true, or did it set a record when it first flew that was passed
later? I know that an F-16's top speed is lower, but....

Also, I have seen websites saying the -106 was phased out in 1988, but I
seem to recall the order being given around then, but the process taking a
while, with Atlantic City, NJ featuring them flying/on the ramp up until the
Desert Storm timeframe or soon thereafter....

What I wouldn't give for some of the books I read as a kid. The library in
town was full of books on the USAF written in the early 1960s. Truly a step
into a different perspective on things. Seeing the old school planes and
pressure suits, as well as the cheerful prose. (Especially the sections on
survival training, with USAF pilots cheerfully cooking alligators caught in
the Everglades.)

[Ron]

>OK, now this is really old information, but as a kid I recall reading
>somewhere that the F-16 set a record for single-engine production fighters,
>with a top speed of Mach 2.32, and that this was (at the time I heard) still
>a record for single engine production fighters.
>
>Is this true, or did it set a record when it first flew that was passed
>later? I know that an F-16's top speed is lower, but....
>

I think F-104, 105, 106 would all be faster than an F-16...

I seriously doubt an F-16 ever having a speed record, it just was not designed
with top speed in mind.
Boyds Fighter Mafia realized fighters rarely ever need to go that fast, but
energy maneuvering was important though.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[David E. Powell]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> >OK, now this is really old information, but as a kid I recall reading
> >somewhere that the F-16 set a record for single-engine production
fighters,
> >with a top speed of Mach 2.32, and that this was (at the time I heard)
still
> >a record for single engine production fighters.
> >
> >Is this true, or did it set a record when it first flew that was passed
> >later? I know that an F-16's top speed is lower, but....
> >
>
> I think F-104, 105, 106 would all be faster than an F-16...
>
> I seriously doubt an F-16 ever having a speed record, it just was not
designed
> with top speed in mind.
> Boyds Fighter Mafia realized fighters rarely ever need to go that fast,
but
> energy maneuvering was important though.
>
>
> Ron
> Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

Thank you, sir. I mistyped, though - I believe the 106 had the 2.32 Mach
speed. F-16 I think is around 1.8 Mach. I read somewhere that the 106's
speed was the top one for a production single engine fighter. Sounds pretty
good, regardless.

[Tarver Engineering]

"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
s.com...
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >OK, now this is really old information, but as a kid I recall reading
> > >somewhere that the F-16 set a record for single-engine production
> fighters,
> > >with a top speed of Mach 2.32, and that this was (at the time I heard)
> still
> > >a record for single engine production fighters.
> > >
> > >Is this true, or did it set a record when it first flew that was passed
> > >later? I know that an F-16's top speed is lower, but....
> > >
> >
> > I think F-104, 105, 106 would all be faster than an F-16...
> >
> > I seriously doubt an F-16 ever having a speed record, it just was not
> designed
> > with top speed in mind.
> > Boyds Fighter Mafia realized fighters rarely ever need to go that fast,
> but
> > energy maneuvering was important though.
> >
> >
> > Ron
> > Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
>
> Thank you, sir. I mistyped, though - I believe the 106 had the 2.32 Mach
> speed. F-16 I think is around 1.8 Mach. I read somewhere that the 106's
> speed was the top one for a production single engine fighter. Sounds
pretty
> good, regardless.

2.3 is what our ANG unit claimed for the F-106.

[Jack G]

From the list of official FAI Air Speed Records:

16 May 1958 Lockheed YF-104A 1404.01 MPH
31 Oct. 1959 Mikoyan E-66 1483.83 MPH
15 Dec. 1959 Convair F-106A 1525.94 MPH
22 Nov. 1961 Mc Donnell F4H-1F 1606.50 MPH

Go to http://www.speedrecordclub.com/records/outair.htm for a complete
history.

Jack



"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
s.com...
> OK, now this is really old information, but as a kid I recall reading
> somewhere that the F-16 set a record for single-engine production
fighters,
> with a top speed of Mach 2.32, and that this was (at the time I heard)
still
> a record for single engine production fighters.
>
> Is this true, or did it set a record when it first flew that was passed
> later? I know that an F-16's top speed is lower, but....
>
> Also, I have seen websites saying the -106 was phased out in 1988, but I
> seem to recall the order being given around then, but the process taking a
> while, with Atlantic City, NJ featuring them flying/on the ramp up until
the
> Desert Storm timeframe or soon thereafter....
>
> What I wouldn't give for some of the books I read as a kid. The library in
> town was full of books on the USAF written in the early 1960s. Truly a
step
> into a different perspective on things. Seeing the old school planes and
> pressure suits, as well as the cheerful prose. (Especially the sections on
> survival training, with USAF pilots cheerfully cooking alligators caught
in
> the Everglades.)
>
>

[John Carrier]

I think the Soviets beat the Phantom record with the one-off E-166 (looked
like a fat Mig-21 with a monster motor). Of course, Vought and the Navy
never tried it with the F-8U3 which was accelerating rapidly through 2.39
when the canopy started to overheat.

R / John

"Jack G" > wrote in message
...
>
> From the list of official FAI Air Speed Records:
>
> 16 May 1958 Lockheed YF-104A 1404.01 MPH
> 31 Oct. 1959 Mikoyan E-66 1483.83 MPH
> 15 Dec. 1959 Convair F-106A 1525.94 MPH
> 22 Nov. 1961 Mc Donnell F4H-1F 1606.50 MPH
>
> Go to http://www.speedrecordclub.com/records/outair.htm for a complete
> history.
>
> Jack
>
>
>
> "David E. Powell" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> > OK, now this is really old information, but as a kid I recall reading
> > somewhere that the F-16 set a record for single-engine production
> fighters,
> > with a top speed of Mach 2.32, and that this was (at the time I heard)
> still
> > a record for single engine production fighters.
> >
> > Is this true, or did it set a record when it first flew that was passed
> > later? I know that an F-16's top speed is lower, but....
> >
> > Also, I have seen websites saying the -106 was phased out in 1988, but I
> > seem to recall the order being given around then, but the process taking
a
> > while, with Atlantic City, NJ featuring them flying/on the ramp up until
> the
> > Desert Storm timeframe or soon thereafter....
> >
> > What I wouldn't give for some of the books I read as a kid. The library
in
> > town was full of books on the USAF written in the early 1960s. Truly a
> step
> > into a different perspective on things. Seeing the old school planes and
> > pressure suits, as well as the cheerful prose. (Especially the sections
on
> > survival training, with USAF pilots cheerfully cooking alligators caught
> in
> > the Everglades.)
> >
> >
>
>

[Scott Ferrin]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 06:55:57 -0600, "John Carrier" >
wrote:

>I think the Soviets beat the Phantom record with the one-off E-166 (looked
>like a fat Mig-21 with a monster motor). Of course, Vought and the Navy
>never tried it with the F-8U3 which was accelerating rapidly through 2.39
>when the canopy started to overheat.
>
>R / John

If you have access to "Soviet X-Planes" they have an article on the
E-166. ISTR it used the same engine as the Mig-25. Sukhoi also built
an E-166 look-alike and both supposedly reached M2.85.

[Vygg]

You can go here for the story on the speed record:

http://www.f-106deltadart.com/index1.htm

It should be noted that the aircraft that set the record was pre-PUP,
pre-Pacer Mower, and had the heavy canopy installed. It was identical to
those in squadron service and had nothing special done to it to improve
its speed (in fact, it was the spare and wasn't even intended to go for
the record). This was a production aircraft, not a one-off hybrid or
prototype of an MDS never produced.

The Six later earned the nickname "Last of the Sports Models".

Vygg

David E. Powell wrote:
> OK, now this is really old information, but as a kid I recall reading
> somewhere that the F-16 set a record for single-engine production fighters,
> with a top speed of Mach 2.32, and that this was (at the time I heard) still
> a record for single engine production fighters.
>
> Is this true, or did it set a record when it first flew that was passed
> later? I know that an F-16's top speed is lower, but....
>
> Also, I have seen websites saying the -106 was phased out in 1988, but I
> seem to recall the order being given around then, but the process taking a
> while, with Atlantic City, NJ featuring them flying/on the ramp up until the
> Desert Storm timeframe or soon thereafter....
>
> What I wouldn't give for some of the books I read as a kid. The library in
> town was full of books on the USAF written in the early 1960s. Truly a step
> into a different perspective on things. Seeing the old school planes and
> pressure suits, as well as the cheerful prose. (Especially the sections on
> survival training, with USAF pilots cheerfully cooking alligators caught in
> the Everglades.)
>
>

[WaltBJ]

That F106 was on display at the USAFA - the heat exposure am=nnealed
the aluminum structure so it no longer possessed design strength and
had to be grounded. I also heard the engine's RPM was cranked up way
over tech order limits - interesting because a 1% increase on a dual
spool engine can be a 5% increase in thrust. Supposedly went from 93%
up to 97%.
I also had a long phone conversation with an old squadron mate. He
mentioned he used to FCF F111s - and had one out to 2.7 in a shallow
dive from 50 grand. And I believe him - know him well. Don't bother
telling me it's past the red line; that's just a mark on a gauge.
Walt BJ

[Tarver Engineering]

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
> That F106 was on display at the USAFA - the heat exposure am=nnealed
> the aluminum structure so it no longer possessed design strength and
> had to be grounded. I also heard the engine's RPM was cranked up way
> over tech order limits - interesting because a 1% increase on a dual
> spool engine can be a 5% increase in thrust. Supposedly went from 93%
> up to 97%.

That would be a real nice gold plate motor to be running 100% thrust at 93%.

> I also had a long phone conversation with an old squadron mate. He
> mentioned he used to FCF F111s - and had one out to 2.7 in a shallow
> dive from 50 grand. And I believe him - know him well. Don't bother
> telling me it's past the red line; that's just a mark on a gauge.

It was believd around our F-106 squadron that the airframe was aerodynamicly
limited to 2.3.

[Ron]

>I also had a long phone conversation with an old squadron mate. He
>mentioned he used to FCF F111s - and had one out to 2.7 in a shallow
>dive from 50 grand. And I believe him - know him well. Don't bother
>telling me it's past the red line; that's just a mark on a gauge.
>Walt BJ

>I also had a long phone conversation with an old squadron mate. He
>mentioned he used to FCF F111s - and had one out to 2.7 in a shallow
>dive from 50 grand. And I believe him - know him well. Don't bother
>telling me it's past the red line; that's just a mark on a gauge.
>Walt BJ

I have heard rumors of ever faster on FCF, pushing 2.85....

Definitely had the power to do it, at least in the F model, and probably the D
and E too, if they were clean, no racks..


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...

>
> Definitely had the power to do it, at least in the F model, and probably
the D
> and E too, if they were clean, no racks..

Pretty funny.

[John S. Shinal]

(WaltBJ) wrote:
>I also had a long phone conversation with an old squadron mate. He
>mentioned he used to FCF F111s - and had one out to 2.7 in a shallow
>dive from 50 grand. And I believe him - know him well. Don't bother
>telling me it's past the red line; that's just a mark on a gauge.

I read a diary of a flight (Airpower ?) that said the F-111
had a timer that assisted with avoiding over-temperature on the
canopy, did older aircraft like the F-106 have anything similar, or
was it all seat-of-the-pants ?



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

[Vygg]

Hmmm. According to the USAF aircraft database, F-106A 56-0467 was last
assigned to the 329th FIS at George AFB, Ca and was destroyed in a class
A accident on 14 August 1961. The aircraft on display at USAFA is
58-0761. 0467 seems to have flown in squadron service for quite awhile
after making its speed run - not bad for an aircraft that's rumored to
have had its structure damaged.

As far as F-111's go . . . in my years with them I heard all sorts of
stories from the aircrews about amazing feats they'd accomplished in the
aircraft - the stories got better after a few pints in Jandy's Pub. Had
one guy in the 55th swore up and down that he'd flown TFR Manual
inverted - pretty good considering that the LARAs would be pointing the
wrong direction to tell him where the ground was - not to mention the
TFR antennas. He became highly irate when I called him on it.

Then there was the pair of Vark jocks that went into an apoplectic fit
of cursing at me when I asked where their drop tanks were after a
sortie. Blown ejector carts in the pylons, broken funny film on the tank
jettison button, and aircraft forms entries notwithstanding, they
claimed that they didn't have tanks loaded when they took off and
refused to budge on their story. One of those "What are you going to
believe? Your eyes or what I'm telling you?"

Vygg


WaltBJ wrote:
> That F106 was on display at the USAFA - the heat exposure am=nnealed
> the aluminum structure so it no longer possessed design strength and
> had to be grounded. I also heard the engine's RPM was cranked up way
> over tech order limits - interesting because a 1% increase on a dual
> spool engine can be a 5% increase in thrust. Supposedly went from 93%
> up to 97%.
> I also had a long phone conversation with an old squadron mate. He
> mentioned he used to FCF F111s - and had one out to 2.7 in a shallow
> dive from 50 grand. And I believe him - know him well. Don't bother
> telling me it's past the red line; that's just a mark on a gauge.
> Walt BJ

[Tarver Engineering]

"Vygg" > wrote in message
...
> Hmmm. According to the USAF aircraft database, F-106A 56-0467 was last
> assigned to the 329th FIS at George AFB, Ca and was destroyed in a class
> A accident on 14 August 1961. The aircraft on display at USAFA is
> 58-0761. 0467 seems to have flown in squadron service for quite awhile
> after making its speed run - not bad for an aircraft that's rumored to
> have had its structure damaged.

Mach 2.3 was normal operating speed in the squadron I worked for. Our
people believed the F-106 was aerodynamicly limited to that speed.

[Vygg]

Limiting factor for the Six was the EGT. In the left(?) MWW it had what
was called a "635 clock" that tracked both the consecutive and
cumulative number of seconds that the engine operated above 635 degrees
F in EGT. Don't remember the T.O. limits anymore, but if either counter
read too high, then the engine was pulled and sent into the shop for
teardown and inspection.

The F-111 (I can only speak for the E's) had a Total Temperature gauge
in the upper left quadrant of the pilot's front instrument panel. It
measured the temperature of the windscreen and counted down the number
of seconds (Sec To Go) before it would lose structural integrity. The
face of the gauge had two tick marks on it: the first one started the
clock; the second one basically said "Too late, Charley - I'm melting
right now." I don't recall the actual temperature limits, but they
weren't anywhere near as high as the legends suggest. IIRC the first
tick mark was around 200 degrees F and the second around 240. I think
that the total time allowed at the lower limit was on the order of five
minutes - much less as the upper limit was approached.

I've got an old GD engineering drawing in a box around here somewhere
that shows the instrument panels in 1/4 scale with all of the gauge face
marks on them. If I can find the thing, I'll update this post. In one of
the flights that I took we hit 2.01M at 43k ft and the windscreen felt
warm enough on my bare hand to get a cup of coffee to a drinkable
temperature.

Vygg

John S. Shinal wrote:

> (WaltBJ) wrote:
>
>>I also had a long phone conversation with an old squadron mate. He
>>mentioned he used to FCF F111s - and had one out to 2.7 in a shallow
>>dive from 50 grand. And I believe him - know him well. Don't bother
>>telling me it's past the red line; that's just a mark on a gauge.
>
>
> I read a diary of a flight (Airpower ?) that said the F-111
> had a timer that assisted with avoiding over-temperature on the
> canopy, did older aircraft like the F-106 have anything similar, or
> was it all seat-of-the-pants ?
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Pete]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote

>
> Mach 2.3 was normal operating speed in the squadron I worked for. Our
> people believed the F-106 was aerodynamicly limited to that speed.

"normal operating speed"
Where was the normal AO?

Pete

[Tarver Engineering]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
>
> >
> > Mach 2.3 was normal operating speed in the squadron I worked for. Our
> > people believed the F-106 was aerodynamicly limited to that speed.
>
> "normal operating speed"
> Where was the normal AO?

Going mach 2.3 in an F-106 does not harm the airplane.

Going much faster than mach 2.3 is not an option in an intact F-106.

[Paul F Austin]

"Vygg" wrote
>
> Then there was the pair of Vark jocks that went into an apoplectic fit
> of cursing at me when I asked where their drop tanks were after a
> sortie. Blown ejector carts in the pylons, broken funny film on the tank
> jettison button, and aircraft forms entries notwithstanding, they
> claimed that they didn't have tanks loaded when they took off and
> refused to budge on their story. One of those "What are you going to
> believe? Your eyes or what I'm telling you?"

FYI, the classical formulation is "Who are you going to believe? Me or your
own lying eyes."

[Tarver Engineering]

"ian maclure" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:14:19 +0000, Pete wrote:
>
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> >
> >>
> >> Mach 2.3 was normal operating speed in the squadron I worked for. Our
> >> people believed the F-106 was aerodynamicly limited to that speed.
> >
> > "normal operating speed"
> > Where was the normal AO?
>
> Is that "aerodynamically limited" as in "It don't matter
> how much coal y'all pour on she ain't gonna go no faster"
> a la F-102, "aerodynamically limited" as in "goink faster
> and parts fallink off" a la Mig 25, or "aerodynamically
> limited" as in "we go anya faster ana the leadinga edges she's a
> gonna melt" a la F-104 ( not including the S version ) ( well
> technically it was thermally induced creep that was the problem ).
>
> I saw an F-106 at Plattsburgh in the mid 80's. The pilot was
> older than dirt and for some reason I'd always thought the 106
> was a bigger airplane. Must have been one of the last in service.

I was delivering 777s at Paine Field near where the B-52 was parked in 97
and I had always though it was a bigger airplane.

[Pete]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pete" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> >
> > >
> > > Mach 2.3 was normal operating speed in the squadron I worked for. Our
> > > people believed the F-106 was aerodynamicly limited to that speed.
> >
> > "normal operating speed"
> > Where was the normal AO?
>
> Going mach 2.3 in an F-106 does not harm the airplane.
>
> Going much faster than mach 2.3 is not an option in an intact F-106.

I don't question the -106 speed, but rather where they were doing it as part
of "normal operations"

Pete

[Kevin Brooks]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Pete" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Mach 2.3 was normal operating speed in the squadron I worked for.
Our
> > > > people believed the F-106 was aerodynamicly limited to that speed.
> > >
> > > "normal operating speed"
> > > Where was the normal AO?
> >
> > Going mach 2.3 in an F-106 does not harm the airplane.
> >
> > Going much faster than mach 2.3 is not an option in an intact F-106.
>
> I don't question the -106 speed, but rather where they were doing it as
part
> of "normal operations"

Question anything the Tarvernaut spouts. While some sources indicate a max
speed at altitude for the F-106 as being M2.3, the 319th FIS association's
website indicates it was actually a little bit below that (M2.25). And that
is the *max* speed--so his assertion that the F-106 normally operated at its
absolute max is crap. Now is about the time the Tarvernaut comes forth with
his, "Our F-106's were actually tasked to perform nuclear strike missions
with "optical nukes", and carried the AIM-7 Sparrow...", etc. All of which
is complete and utter hogwash, of course. But I suspect you may already know
this, and are just engaged in a bit of tail-twisting-of-the-Tarvernaut
here...

Brooks

>
> Pete
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Pete" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Mach 2.3 was normal operating speed in the squadron I worked for.
Our
> > > > people believed the F-106 was aerodynamicly limited to that speed.
> > >
> > > "normal operating speed"
> > > Where was the normal AO?
> >
> > Going mach 2.3 in an F-106 does not harm the airplane.
> >
> > Going much faster than mach 2.3 is not an option in an intact F-106.
>
> I don't question the -106 speed, but rather where they were doing it as
part
> of "normal operations"

Our F-106s flew to Santa Barbara, air refueled, flew to 55,000 feet and then
headed for the Bearing Straight to meet their Soviet counterparts. Nose
down from 55,000 feet can make a lot of speed.

[[email protected]]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>Our F-106s flew to Santa Barbara, air refueled, flew to 55,000 feet and then
>headed for the Bearing Straight to meet their Soviet counterparts. Nose
>down from 55,000 feet can make a lot of speed.
>

Christ John!...it's Bering Strait...you sound so careless, aren't
you concerned with what people think of you?
--

-Gord.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Our F-106s flew to Santa Barbara, air refueled, flew to 55,000 feet and
then
> >headed for the Bearing Straight to meet their Soviet counterparts. Nose
> >down from 55,000 feet can make a lot of speed.
> >
>
> Christ John!...it's Bering Strait...you sound so careless, aren't
> you concerned with what people think of you?

Did you understand what I wrote Gord?

[B2431]

>From: "Gord Beaman"
>
>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
>>
>>Our F-106s flew to Santa Barbara, air refueled, flew to 55,000 feet and then
>>headed for the Bearing Straight to meet their Soviet counterparts. Nose
>>down from 55,000 feet can make a lot of speed.
>>
>
>Christ John!...it's Bering Strait...you sound so careless, aren't
>you concerned with what people think of you?
>--
>
>-Gord.
>
Just don't ask him why the California Guard sixes he was working on were
intercepting Soviet aircraft in Alaskan airpsace when there were aircraft in
Alaska just for that purpose.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Gord Beaman"
> >
> >"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Our F-106s flew to Santa Barbara, air refueled, flew to 55,000 feet and
then
> >>headed for the Bearing Straight to meet their Soviet counterparts. Nose
> >>down from 55,000 feet can make a lot of speed.
> >>
> >
> >Christ John!...it's Bering Strait...you sound so careless, aren't
> >you concerned with what people think of you?

I am a lazy engineer that does not care about spelling. That much effort is
someting I associate with work, not recreation.

> Just don't ask him why the California Guard sixes he was working on were
> intercepting Soviet aircraft in Alaskan airpsace when there were aircraft
in
> Alaska just for that purpose.

I believe it was we that were being intercepted.

Every now and then the pair of F-106s flight were not decoys and the big
glass eye would drop down and take their picture. All very funny, from a
LeMay perspective.

[Vygg]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> "Vygg" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Hmmm. According to the USAF aircraft database, F-106A 56-0467 was last
>>assigned to the 329th FIS at George AFB, Ca and was destroyed in a class
>>A accident on 14 August 1961. The aircraft on display at USAFA is
>>58-0761. 0467 seems to have flown in squadron service for quite awhile
>>after making its speed run - not bad for an aircraft that's rumored to
>>have had its structure damaged.
>
>
> Mach 2.3 was normal operating speed in the squadron I worked for. Our
> people believed the F-106 was aerodynamicly limited to that speed.
>
>
Tarver, you are brown-eyed. If you really were in the 194th you'll know
exactly what that means.

Vygg

[Tarver Engineering]

"Vygg" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > "Vygg" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Hmmm. According to the USAF aircraft database, F-106A 56-0467 was last
> >>assigned to the 329th FIS at George AFB, Ca and was destroyed in a class
> >>A accident on 14 August 1961. The aircraft on display at USAFA is
> >>58-0761. 0467 seems to have flown in squadron service for quite awhile
> >>after making its speed run - not bad for an aircraft that's rumored to
> >>have had its structure damaged.
> >
> >
> > Mach 2.3 was normal operating speed in the squadron I worked for. Our
> > people believed the F-106 was aerodynamicly limited to that speed.

> Tarver, you are brown-eyed. If you really were in the 194th you'll know
> exactly what that means.

I was at the 144th FIW.

My eyes are hazel.

[Yeff]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:28:52 GMT, Vygg wrote:

> Tarver, you are brown-eyed. If you really were in the 194th you'll know
> exactly what that means.

He's full of ****.

-Jeff B. (who was never in the 194th)
yeff at erols dot com

[Tarver Engineering]

"Yeff" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:28:52 GMT, Vygg wrote:
>
> > Tarver, you are brown-eyed. If you really were in the 194th you'll know
> > exactly what that means.
>
> He's full of ****.

WaltBJ is full of ****.

What I wrote is true. The trip home was often a lesson in energy management
for the wingman.

[David E. Powell]

ISTR Atlantic City-based 106s doing a lot of flying over the ocean, where
going to Mach 1+ was a normal occurence. Not sure if they passed 2 very
often, but it is possible. A lot of their flying was escorting Tu-95s and
other planes up the coast, which they often did in relays with other
National Guard squadrons.

Dave

[Michael Williamson]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

>>>>Our F-106s flew to Santa Barbara, air refueled, flew to 55,000 feet and
>>>
> then
>
>>>>headed for the Bearing Straight to meet their Soviet counterparts. Nose
>>>>down from 55,000 feet can make a lot of speed.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Christ John!...it's Bering Strait...you sound so careless, aren't
>>>you concerned with what people think of you?
>>
>
> I am a lazy engineer that does not care about spelling. That much effort is
> someting I associate with work, not recreation.
>

Well, hopefully accuracy is something else that you associate
only with work as well, because it hasn't ever seemed that you
associate it with recreation.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Michael Williamson" > wrote in
message ...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> >>>>Our F-106s flew to Santa Barbara, air refueled, flew to 55,000 feet
and
> >>>
> > then
> >
> >>>>headed for the Bearing Straight to meet their Soviet counterparts.
Nose
> >>>>down from 55,000 feet can make a lot of speed.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Christ John!...it's Bering Strait...you sound so careless, aren't
> >>>you concerned with what people think of you?
> >>
> >
> > I am a lazy engineer that does not care about spelling. That much
effort is
> > someting I associate with work, not recreation.
> >
>
> Well, hopefully accuracy is something else that you associate
> only with work as well, because it hasn't ever seemed that you
> associate it with recreation.

There is no problem with my accuracy.

[WaltBJ]

Santa Barbara to the Bering Straits - how many refuelings? And no
relief tube in the bird! Ouch!
Walt BJ

[B2431]

>From: (WaltBJ)
>
>
>Goodness gracious. Tarver, did it ever occur to you that I have
>relatives in California and visit them often? I just may drop in some
>time and see exactly what you look like. Now, be nice, or I'll
>complain to your Mommie.

Walt, do us all a favour and slap his mother for giving birth to him.

If he were my child I'd have drowned him before his eyes opened and sold the
milk.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
> Goodness gracious. Tarver, did it ever occur to you that I have
> relatives in California and visit them often? I just may drop in some
> time and see exactly what you look like. Now, be nice, or I'll
> complain to your Mommie.

Come on by Walt, you will be welcome.

> BTW Lockheed stated that on the F104A/J793b combination thrust crossed
> drag at 2.36 at the standard tropopause - temp minus 57F.
> Bye the bye the Mach limit for aluminum bodied aircraft is 2.4 max,
> 2.2 for 5 minutes. I got my info on the speedy 106 from a USAF film on
> the record trials.

Your initial post of 2.33 is from USAF speed trials, but your 2.7 claim
looks to have come from a bull**** session on a barstool. The airplane is
aerodynamicly limited to about 2.3.

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: (WaltBJ)
> >
> >
> >Goodness gracious. Tarver, did it ever occur to you that I have
> >relatives in California and visit them often? I just may drop in some
> >time and see exactly what you look like. Now, be nice, or I'll
> >complain to your Mommie.
>
> Walt, do us all a favour and slap his mother for giving birth to him.

Then Walt would have to die.

How about you come show me how it is, Dan.

[Tarver Engineering]

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
m...
> Santa Barbara to the Bering Straits - how many refuelings? And no
> relief tube in the bird! Ouch!

Oregon ran the Northern gas trucks back then.

[B2431]

>questions....
>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>Date: 2/20/2004 11:43 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: (WaltBJ)
>> >
>> >
>> >Goodness gracious. Tarver, did it ever occur to you that I have
>> >relatives in California and visit them often? I just may drop in some
>> >time and see exactly what you look like. Now, be nice, or I'll
>> >complain to your Mommie.
>>
>> Walt, do us all a favour and slap his mother for giving birth to him.
>
>Then Walt would have to die.
>
>How about you come show me how it is, Dan.
>
Send me the air fare. Round trip and first class, of course. I will also need
hotel and a car. If you would be so kind as to supply me with an oxygen
concentrator I would be thankful. The one I am hooked up to now weighs too much
to carry.

On second thought, I'd rather go by train. Make it a sleeper car. I will still
need the other things too.

I accept paypal.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Vygg]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> "Vygg" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>
>>>"Vygg" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hmmm. According to the USAF aircraft database, F-106A 56-0467 was last
>>>>assigned to the 329th FIS at George AFB, Ca and was destroyed in a class
>>>>A accident on 14 August 1961. The aircraft on display at USAFA is
>>>>58-0761. 0467 seems to have flown in squadron service for quite awhile
>>>>after making its speed run - not bad for an aircraft that's rumored to
>>>>have had its structure damaged.
>>>
>>>
>>>Mach 2.3 was normal operating speed in the squadron I worked for. Our
>>>people believed the F-106 was aerodynamicly limited to that speed.
>
>
>>Tarver, you are brown-eyed. If you really were in the 194th you'll know
>>exactly what that means.
>
>
> I was at the 144th FIW.
>
> My eyes are hazel.
>
You have verified my assertion.

[[email protected]]

(B2431) wrote:
> If you would be so kind as to supply me with an oxygen
>concentrator I would be thankful. The one I am hooked up to now weighs too much
>to carry.

>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I can think of things that I'd rather be doing eh Dan?.
--

-Gord.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Vygg" > wrote in message
...
\> >
> > I was at the 144th FIW.
> >
> > My eyes are hazel.
> >
> You have verified my assertion.

I am sorry you don't like the facts, Vygg.

Where did you work F-106s?

Or are you full of ****?

[Phil Miller]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:32:27 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 20:16:03 GMT, Vygg >
wrote:
>
>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>> "Vygg" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Vygg" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hmmm. According to the USAF aircraft database, F-106A 56-0467 was last
>>>>>>assigned to the 329th FIS at George AFB, Ca and was destroyed in a class
>>>>>>A accident on 14 August 1961. The aircraft on display at USAFA is
>>>>>>58-0761. 0467 seems to have flown in squadron service for quite awhile
>>>>>>after making its speed run - not bad for an aircraft that's rumored to
>>>>>>have had its structure damaged.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Mach 2.3 was normal operating speed in the squadron I worked for. Our
>>>>>people believed the F-106 was aerodynamicly limited to that speed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tarver, you are brown-eyed. If you really were in the 194th you'll know
>>>>exactly what that means.
>>>
>>>
>>> I was at the 144th FIW.
>>>
>>> My eyes are hazel.
>>>
>>You have verified my assertion.
>
>I am sorry you don't like the facts, Vygg.
>
>Where did you work F-106s?
>
>Or are you full of ****?

Ha! Talk about irony, Splappy.

Nice cut job you did there to try and change the context.

Phil
--
Great Tarverisms #1

> The Air Speed Indicator (ASI) shows

You made that up, didn't you?

The IAS indicator says IAS, not ASI.

Why do you come here pretending to know something
when you don't even know the words?

John

[Tarver Engineering]

"Vygg" > wrote in message
...
> Hmmm. According to the USAF aircraft database, F-106A 56-0467 was last
> assigned to the 329th FIS at George AFB, Ca and was destroyed in a class
> A accident on 14 August 1961. The aircraft on display at USAFA is
> 58-0761. 0467 seems to have flown in squadron service for quite awhile
> after making its speed run - not bad for an aircraft that's rumored to
> have had its structure damaged.

That is just another old wife's tail from SC Shafer believed at ram.

[Pete]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote

>
> There is no problem with my accuracy.

JT, the question we seem to be having revolves around your words "normal
operating speed".

No one doubts the F-106 at 2+Mach top speed. Exact cites vary slightly.

But that speed as "normal"? YGBSM

Pete

[B2431]

>From: "Gord Beaman" )
>Date: 2/20/2004 3:08 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(B2431) wrote:
>> If you would be so kind as to supply me with an oxygen
>>concentrator I would be thankful. The one I am hooked up to now weighs too
>much
>>to carry.
>
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>I can think of things that I'd rather be doing eh Dan?.
>--
>
>-Gord.
>

Hey, I am house bound most of the time. I could use the vacation. 'sides the
boy would chicken out if I showed.

As for what I'd rather be doing I'd love to find a B-9 and rebuild it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
>
> >
> > There is no problem with my accuracy.
>
> JT, the question we seem to be having revolves around your words "normal
> operating speed".

My comment as to mach 2.3 being normal operating speed goes to the assertion
that the airplane would have a problem with going that fast. Taking an
F-106 to mach 2.3 does not damage the airplane.

> No one doubts the F-106 at 2+Mach top speed. Exact cites vary slightly.
>
> But that speed as "normal"? YGBSM

Normal, as in probably every F-106 saw that speed somethime in it's
lifetime.

[Pete]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pete" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> >
> > >
> > > There is no problem with my accuracy.
> >
> > JT, the question we seem to be having revolves around your words "normal
> > operating speed".
>
> My comment as to mach 2.3 being normal operating speed goes to the
assertion
> that the airplane would have a problem with going that fast. Taking an
> F-106 to mach 2.3 does not damage the airplane.
>
> > No one doubts the F-106 at 2+Mach top speed. Exact cites vary slightly.
> >
> > But that speed as "normal"? YGBSM
>
> Normal, as in probably every F-106 saw that speed somethime in it's
> lifetime.

That's an interesting definition of the word "normal".

The "normal" operating speed of my old minivan is 105, since it did that
once in it's lifetime.

Pete

[Tarver Engineering]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Pete" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote
> > >
> > > >
> > > > There is no problem with my accuracy.
> > >
> > > JT, the question we seem to be having revolves around your words
"normal
> > > operating speed".
> >
> > My comment as to mach 2.3 being normal operating speed goes to the
> assertion
> > that the airplane would have a problem with going that fast. Taking an
> > F-106 to mach 2.3 does not damage the airplane.
> >
> > > No one doubts the F-106 at 2+Mach top speed. Exact cites vary
slightly.
> > >
> > > But that speed as "normal"? YGBSM
> >
> > Normal, as in probably every F-106 saw that speed somethime in it's
> > lifetime.
>
> That's an interesting definition of the word "normal".
>
> The "normal" operating speed of my old minivan is 105, since it did that
> once in it's lifetime.

If your F-105 is capable of doing something inside its flight envelope, it
is normal operation. You have to remember that I have been harrassed here
for years over claiming our F-106s were capable of mach 2.3 without damaging
the airplane.

An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the flight
controls are altered from normal operation.

[Pete]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote
>
> If your F-105 is capable of doing something inside its flight envelope, it
> is normal operation. You have to remember that I have been harrassed here
> for years over claiming our F-106s were capable of mach 2.3 without
damaging
> the airplane.
>
> An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the flight
> controls are altered from normal operation.

As I said...a very 'interesting' definition of the word normal.

Pete

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> If your F-105 is capable of doing something inside its flight envelope, it
> is normal operation.
>
> An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the flight
> controls are altered from normal operation.

How are the flight controls "altered from normal operation"?

What part of the cobra maneuver is outside the airplane's flight envelope?

How do you define "flight envelope" in context?

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:rXNZb.375545$na.567325@attbi_s04...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > If your F-105 is capable of doing something inside its flight envelope,
it
> > is normal operation.
> >
> > An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the flight
> > controls are altered from normal operation.
>
> How are the flight controls "altered from normal operation"?

The operator must disable the control system augmentation in order to do a
cobra manouver.

> What part of the cobra maneuver is outside the airplane's flight envelope?

The airplane will not do a cobra manouver with the control's augmentation
on.

> How do you define "flight envelope" in context?

I define it the same way as you would an F-18 in "cable actuated system"
mode.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Moose" > wrote in message
...
> >>Tarver, you are brown-eyed. If you really were in the 194th you'll know
> >>exactly what that means.
> >
> >
> > I was at the 144th FIW.
>
> Well John, if you were at the 144th FIW then 'YOU WERE" with the 194th
FIS.
>
> Did you go on TDY to Castle to pull alert duty in 1983 while the 318th FIS
> was converting to F-15's?

Nope, I was out in '80. I was in the CAMS squadron of the 144th FIW.

We did have to drag quite a bit of Castle's F-106 duty in the 1970's,
because their CAMS squadron crumbled. We were a top burner of JP-4 in USAF.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> If your F-105 is capable of doing something inside its flight envelope, it
>>> is normal operation.
>
>>> An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the flight
>>> controls are altered from normal operation.
>
>> How are the flight controls "altered from normal operation"?
>
> The operator must disable the control system augmentation in order to do a
> cobra manouver.
>
>> What part of the cobra maneuver is outside the airplane's flight envelope?
>
> The airplane will not do a cobra manouver with the control's augmentation
> on.
>
>> How do you define "flight envelope" in context?
>
> I define it the same way as you would an F-18 in "cable actuated system"
> mode.

I don't define "flight envelope" in any context with reference to any F-18
system mode...

So, what was the "normal operation" mode of the F-106 flight controls?

By your definition/description of "flight envelope," any maneuver or regime an
airplane can enter with any control input, using "normal" control authority is a
"normal operation."

Using that definition, any maneuvers prohibited by the Operator's Handbook or
other limitations would be considered "normal" if they were achievable using the
"normal" flight control mode. So, do you consider as "normal operation" any
departure from controlled flight, spin (even if entered inadvertently, in an
aircraft in which intentional spins are prohibited), or extended inverted flight
(even if it causes oil or fuel starvation to the engine)? Many airplanes can
enter these flight regimes with flight controls in "normal" configurations, but
few pilots would consider them "normal operations" in most airplanes.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:umUZb.378753$na.569282@attbi_s04...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >>> If your F-105 is capable of doing something inside its flight
envelope, it
> >>> is normal operation.
> >
> >>> An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the
flight
> >>> controls are altered from normal operation.
> >
> >> How are the flight controls "altered from normal operation"?
> >
> > The operator must disable the control system augmentation in order to do
a
> > cobra manouver.
> >
> >> What part of the cobra maneuver is outside the airplane's flight
envelope?
> >
> > The airplane will not do a cobra manouver with the control's
augmentation
> > on.
> >
> >> How do you define "flight envelope" in context?
> >
> > I define it the same way as you would an F-18 in "cable actuated system"
> > mode.
>
> I don't define "flight envelope" in any context with reference to any F-18
> system mode...

You should, the F-18 unaugmented is a real tail dragger and I don't mean a
wheel.

> So, what was the "normal operation" mode of the F-106 flight controls?

I never worked on the F-106's flight controls.

> By your definition/description of "flight envelope," any maneuver or
regime an
> airplane can enter with any control input, using "normal" control
authority is a
> "normal operation."
>
> Using that definition, any maneuvers prohibited by the Operator's Handbook
or
> other limitations would be considered "normal"

Nope, the operator's handbook describes the flight envelope.

Consider for a moment that you are a French pilot making a low slow pass
over a runway in an early A-320. The airplane has no such normal operation
for a low slow pass over a runway, but only to land, or go around.

[B2431]

>From: "John R Weiss"
>Date: 2/21/2004 8:21 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <umUZb.378753$na.569282@attbi_s04>
>
>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>> If your F-105 is capable of doing something inside its flight envelope,
>it
>>>> is normal operation.
>>
>>>> An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the flight
>>>> controls are altered from normal operation.
>>
>>> How are the flight controls "altered from normal operation"?
>>
>> The operator must disable the control system augmentation in order to do a
>> cobra manouver.
>>
>>> What part of the cobra maneuver is outside the airplane's flight envelope?
>>
>> The airplane will not do a cobra manouver with the control's augmentation
>> on.
>>
>>> How do you define "flight envelope" in context?
>>
>> I define it the same way as you would an F-18 in "cable actuated system"
>> mode.
>
>I don't define "flight envelope" in any context with reference to any F-18
>system mode...
>
>So, what was the "normal operation" mode of the F-106 flight controls?
>
>By your definition/description of "flight envelope," any maneuver or regime
>an
>airplane can enter with any control input, using "normal" control authority
>is a
>"normal operation."
>
>Using that definition, any maneuvers prohibited by the Operator's Handbook or
>other limitations would be considered "normal" if they were achievable using
>the
>"normal" flight control mode. So, do you consider as "normal operation" any
>departure from controlled flight, spin (even if entered inadvertently, in an
>aircraft in which intentional spins are prohibited), or extended inverted
>flight
>(even if it causes oil or fuel starvation to the engine)? Many airplanes can
>enter these flight regimes with flight controls in "normal" configurations,
>but
>few pilots would consider them "normal operations" in most airplanes.
>

You were expecting an honest, straight and/or knowledgable responce from
tarver?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[John R Weiss]

"B2431" > wrote...
>
> You were expecting an honest, straight and/or knowledgable responce from
> tarver?

No...

But I'm an incurable optimist, hoping for one eventually!

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
>>> If your F-105 is capable of doing something inside its flight envelope, it
>>> is normal operation.

>>> An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the flight
>>> controls are altered from normal operation.

>>> The operator must disable the control system augmentation in order to do a
>>> cobra manouver.

>>> The airplane will not do a cobra manouver with the control's augmentation
>>> on.

>>>> How do you define "flight envelope" in context?

>>> I define it the same way as you would an F-18 in "cable actuated system"
>>> mode.

>> So, what was the "normal operation" mode of the F-106 flight controls?
>
>> By your definition/description of "flight envelope," any maneuver or regime
an
>> airplane can enter with any control input, using "normal" control authority
is a
>> "normal operation."
>>
>> Using that definition, any maneuvers prohibited by the Operator's Handbook or
>> other limitations would be considered "normal"

> Nope, the operator's handbook describes the flight envelope.

But you just told us the flight envelope is described by the airplane's ability
to perform a maneuver or enter a flight regime using a "normal" control
configuration! Which is it -- defined by a control mode or defined by an
operator's handbook (I will assume that includes a "Dash-1" for USAF airplanes
and NATOPS for USN airplanes and FAA approved Flight Handbook [FHB} for
Transport category aircraft)?

If the operator's handbook, how is the "flight envelope" described? In the
General Limitations and Specifications" section or "Maximum Airspeed Limits
Chart" in the Limitations section of an FHB? Something else? Something more?

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:WPe_b.42094$4o.58808@attbi_s52...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> >>> If your F-105 is capable of doing something inside its flight
envelope, it
> >>> is normal operation.
>
> >>> An example of an abnormal operation is the cobra manouver, as the
flight
> >>> controls are altered from normal operation.
>
> >>> The operator must disable the control system augmentation in order to
do a
> >>> cobra manouver.
>
> >>> The airplane will not do a cobra manouver with the control's
augmentation
> >>> on.
>
> >>>> How do you define "flight envelope" in context?
>
> >>> I define it the same way as you would an F-18 in "cable actuated
system"
> >>> mode.
>
> >> So, what was the "normal operation" mode of the F-106 flight controls?
> >
> >> By your definition/description of "flight envelope," any maneuver or
regime
> an
> >> airplane can enter with any control input, using "normal" control
authority
> is a
> >> "normal operation."
> >>
> >> Using that definition, any maneuvers prohibited by the Operator's
Handbook or
> >> other limitations would be considered "normal"
>
> > Nope, the operator's handbook describes the flight envelope.
>
> But you just told us the flight envelope is described by the airplane's
ability
> to perform a maneuver or enter a flight regime using a "normal" control
> configuration!

Sure.

The POH is part of the Type Certificate.

Are you claiming the Dash 1 for an F-106 disagrees with a mach 2.3 F-106?

[B2431]

>From: "John R Weiss"
>Date: 2/22/2004 9:05 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <L5e_b.40667$Xp.182937@attbi_s54>
>
>"B2431" > wrote...
>>
>> You were expecting an honest, straight and/or knowledgable responce from
>> tarver?
>
>No...
>
>But I'm an incurable optimist, hoping for one eventually!
>
You have to stop using those big words. Not everyone knows an optimist is an
eye doctor.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "John R Weiss"
> >Date: 2/22/2004 9:05 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <L5e_b.40667$Xp.182937@attbi_s54>
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote...
> >>
> >> You were expecting an honest, straight and/or knowledgable responce
from
> >> tarver?

Giving Dan a straight answer is a waste of time. especially if you consider
the number of years it took him to see the paradox of the Knoyle archive
troll.

> >No...

Weiss just piped in to be a prick.

> >But I'm an incurable optimist, hoping for one eventually!

One you can understand?

> You have to stop using those big words. Not everyone knows an optimist is
an
> eye doctor.

How goes the slow death?

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>

>Giving Dan a straight answer is a waste of time. especially if you consider
>the number of years it took him to see the paradox of the Knoyle archive
>troll.
>

I never used Knoyle's archive, I used Googol and other search engines. You know
people in other newsgroups have similar archives, don't you?

How does it feel to have so many educated people see through your lies and
utter lack of manners?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >
>
> >Giving Dan a straight answer is a waste of time. especially if you
consider
> >the number of years it took him to see the paradox of the Knoyle archive
> >troll.
> >
>
> I never used Knoyle's archive,

You ran Knoyle's archive troll on me repeatedly, dumbass. You spent a year
in my killfile and even that did not slow down your insulting childish
behavior.

[[email protected]]

(B2431) wrote:

>>From: "John R Weiss"
>>Date: 2/22/2004 9:05 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: <L5e_b.40667$Xp.182937@attbi_s54>
>>
>>"B2431" > wrote...
>>>
>>> You were expecting an honest, straight and/or knowledgable responce from
>>> tarver?
>>
>>No...
>>
>>But I'm an incurable optimist, hoping for one eventually!
>>
>You have to stop using those big words. Not everyone knows an optimist is an
>eye doctor.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Eye doctor?...hell, I thought it was a window cleaner...
--

-Gord.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
>>> Nope, the operator's handbook describes the flight envelope.
>
>> But you just told us the flight envelope is described by the airplane's
ability
>> to perform a maneuver or enter a flight regime using a "normal" control
>> configuration!

> The POH is part of the Type Certificate.

Non sequitur. Military aircraft don't, in general, have type certificates. I'm
fairly certain the F-106 never had one.


> Are you claiming the Dash 1 for an F-106 disagrees with a mach 2.3 F-106?

I'm not claiming anything. I am questioning your basis for your multiple,
contradictory definitions and descriptions of "flight envelope" and "normal
operation."

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:x%s_b.249390$U%5.1719263@attbi_s03...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> >>> Nope, the operator's handbook describes the flight envelope.
> >
> >> But you just told us the flight envelope is described by the airplane's
ability
> >> to perform a maneuver or enter a flight regime using a "normal" control
> >> configuration!
>
> > The POH is part of the Type Certificate.
>
> Non sequitur. Military aircraft don't, in general, have type
certificates. I'm
> fairly certain the F-106 never had one.

You are the one that brought the POH into the discussion, Weiss.

Go play your childish silly game elsewhere.

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>> >
>>
>> >Giving Dan a straight answer is a waste of time. especially if you
>consider
>> >the number of years it took him to see the paradox of the Knoyle archive
>> >troll.
>> >
>>
>> I never used Knoyle's archive,
>
>You ran Knoyle's archive troll on me repeatedly, dumbass.

Prove it.

You spent a year
>in my killfile

Funny how you kept responding to me during that year.

>and even that did not slow down your insulting childish
>behavior.
>

Prove it. The only thing you perceived as insulting is when I proved you wrong.
Unlike you I never called you vulgar names nor directed personal insults at
you.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired