If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Dud:
Most of these items removed tended to shift the CG way forward; on some, just outside of the forward limit. Cavaliers were found to have lead bolted to the rear tail cone to fix the shift. As opposed to a full fuselage fuel tank, that moved the CG aft to the rear limit, the removal of the non-military items does the reverse. VL |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks Vlado.
Dud "MLenoch" wrote in message ... Dud: Most of these items removed tended to shift the CG way forward; on some, just outside of the forward limit. Cavaliers were found to have lead bolted to the rear tail cone to fix the shift. As opposed to a full fuselage fuel tank, that moved the CG aft to the rear limit, the removal of the non-military items does the reverse. VL |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Dudley
Never flew a light bird like yours and Lenoch's with all the crap removed. All my time was in a combat ready bird with guns and ammo. Got the fuselage tank down to 20 gallons which was supposed to give a neutral CG (or some such) before spinning or other extreme maneuvers. Max turns I made at one time was 6 and was winding up pretty good. Of course we weren't supposed to spin but in those days all us young ones thought we were invincible ). Of course a lot got bit in the bird when their luck ran out but that's the way it was. I'm assuming Lenoch is reading this posting and I wonder how much weight got taken out of the 'civilian' birds? I flew D-10's to D-30's. Each version got heavier and didn't fly as well in a dog fighting situation. If we were going to go up and rat race it behoved you to go and get one of the early (light) birds ) On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:40:25 GMT, "Dudley Henriques" wrote: "Big John" wrote in message .. . Dudley Understand. I on several occasions was sent around for some reason or another and after cleaning up bird was cleared for a closed pattern, close base and short final. My normal landing used the standard GUMP check and several transmissions of "Gear down and locked", the last turning final and with the change in procedure I almost landed wheels up a couple of times over the years because my concentration was broken.. Only didn't because of my 'double rubber' approach to things when I was flying on the edge with hard adherence to check lists. If your up in the air you can get away with a lot but low there is maybe only one shot so it better be a good one (or be lucky).. The TB accident has been covered pretty well so we should leave it and let it RIP. As you stated, those in the business will learn from what happened, but it was an expensive dollar wise teacher. New subject. Did you spin the '51 when you were flying it? I've spun it power off, but never with power on. Dudley |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Conversion to civilian configured Mustang:
Armor plate behind seat = 300 lbs Fuselage fuel tank= 90 lbs Radio=40 lbs 6 x .50 cal. with hardware=600 lbs Gunsight with hardware=40lbs 2 x Drop tanks-empty=250lbs These are 'guesstimates'...... VL |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"MLenoch" wrote in message ... Conversion to civilian configured Mustang: Armor plate behind seat = 300 lbs Fuselage fuel tank= 90 lbs Radio=40 lbs 6 x .50 cal. with hardware=600 lbs Gunsight with hardware=40lbs 2 x Drop tanks-empty=250lbs These are 'guesstimates'...... VL This would put Moonbeam at about 8K? Dud |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Big John" wrote in message ... Dudley Never flew a light bird like yours and Lenoch's with all the crap removed. All my time was in a combat ready bird with guns and ammo. Got the fuselage tank down to 20 gallons which was supposed to give a neutral CG (or some such) before spinning or other extreme maneuvers. Max turns I made at one time was 6 and was winding up pretty good. Of course we weren't supposed to spin but in those days all us young ones thought we were invincible ). Of course a lot got bit in the bird when their luck ran out but that's the way it was. I'm assuming Lenoch is reading this posting and I wonder how much weight got taken out of the 'civilian' birds? I flew D-10's to D-30's. Each version got heavier and didn't fly as well in a dog fighting situation. If we were going to go up and rat race it behoved you to go and get one of the early (light) birds ) You would have enjoyed the 51 at a light GW with minimum fuel. It was a joy to fly. I knew Douglas Bader fairly well. We used to run up our phone bills talking about fighter tactics during the war. We both agreed that the "dogfight era" came to a screeching halt during the Battle of Britain when just about everybody realized that the way to survive was to avoid the left side of the envelope. Ps wasn't a factor then in ACM theory as you know I'm sure. Boyd and Christie and Rutowski hadn't figured out the EM concept yet, but you guys were using it without realizing it "officially" :-) Actually, Chennault had it right way back in the late thirties if they had only listened to him. By the time you guys got in the fight, it was pretty well doctrine that the way to both survive and rack up a score was to keep the energy up; use one carefully flown pursuit pass, going through the angle off spectrum from lag to lead when in firing parameters; zeroing the ball and firing, then diving through a planned overshoot in the plane of the target's motion. ACM has come a long way since the early days hasn't it? Hell, now you don't even have to see the *******s!! :-)) Dudley |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net... "David Brooks" wrote in message ... IIRC, this discussion earlier revealed that the T-bird pilots have super-wizzo-thingummy altimeters that can indeed set QFE at high elevations. Granted, yours and mine can't. -- David Brooks Hi David; The Thunderbirds use a standard altimeter setting for the point of demonstration and do not use a 0 altimeter set. Their maneuver profiles are corrected to MSL altitudes. Stricklin unfortunately on the way up the front side of his maneuver mentally "corrected" his reverse top target gate to Nellis' elevation instead of where he was. This put the Viper way low of where it should have been at the top side commit. He missed his visual cues as well. The airplane simply didn't have the g available vs the altitude under it to cut the corner. Well, yes, I got that. I think that was fairly clear from the descriptions that erupted here a couple of months back. I was merely responding to the assertion that altimeters don't go down that low, and I learned in the earlier thread that the military ones do - not that they use this ability in the shows. I do seem to recall that the pilot makes a call at the top of his pattern to a safety officer - was it of his height AGL? That does seem to be a weak spot in the safety chain; if the pilot is calculating his elevation incorrectly, the call of what he thinks is the value is not much use as a crosscheck. -- David Brooks |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"David Brooks" wrote in message ... "Dudley Henriques" wrote in message ink.net... "David Brooks" wrote in message ... IIRC, this discussion earlier revealed that the T-bird pilots have super-wizzo-thingummy altimeters that can indeed set QFE at high elevations. Granted, yours and mine can't. -- David Brooks Hi David; The Thunderbirds use a standard altimeter setting for the point of demonstration and do not use a 0 altimeter set. Their maneuver profiles are corrected to MSL altitudes. Stricklin unfortunately on the way up the front side of his maneuver mentally "corrected" his reverse top target gate to Nellis' elevation instead of where he was. This put the Viper way low of where it should have been at the top side commit. He missed his visual cues as well. The airplane simply didn't have the g available vs the altitude under it to cut the corner. Well, yes, I got that. I think that was fairly clear from the descriptions that erupted here a couple of months back. I was merely responding to the assertion that altimeters don't go down that low, and I learned in the earlier thread that the military ones do - not that they use this ability in the shows. I do seem to recall that the pilot makes a call at the top of his pattern to a safety officer - was it of his height AGL? That does seem to be a weak spot in the safety chain; if the pilot is calculating his elevation incorrectly, the call of what he thinks is the value is not much use as a crosscheck. -- David Brooks All procedures are being examined internally by the team as a peripheral to the official AF accident investigation board and the final internal adjustments to the team's standard procedures will I'm sure reflect the combined recommendations of both reports. Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired For personal email, please replace the z's with e's. dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
MLenoch
The radio was a 4 channel VHF set, SCR-522, that sat on top just behind the armor plate and inside the canopy. The gun sight was the K-14 (semi computing). Did it weight 40 lbs??? I didn't like it for high angle shots as the sight would move back and forth with the variation in G's.Impossible to keep on target. Also with high G's the sight would end up pointing at nose of bird and the nose would cover up the target so you couldn't fire with any probability of hits You either had to get to a lower angle off or pull less G's which meant you were off target. Since most kills were at 20 degrees or less off the stern, the high angle problems didn't hurt much if any. I know a number who locked the gyro and flew with a fixed sight and did ok because they were outstanding pilots. I didn't think you would carry drop tanks in the acro mode? Did you pull the racks off the wings and the 'zero length' rocket launchers? Not a lot of weight but some drag. I make about 3 hours fuel cross country with no drop tanks and fuselage tank out. I can remember getting fuel flow back to about 55 gph at long range econ cruise. Of course air show you were probably burning 90 gph? Fly safe. BJ On 11 Mar 2004 14:08:06 GMT, (MLenoch) wrote: Conversion to civilian configured Mustang: Armor plate behind seat = 300 lbs Fuselage fuel tank= 90 lbs Radio=40 lbs 6 x .50 cal. with hardware=600 lbs Gunsight with hardware=40lbs 2 x Drop tanks-empty=250lbs These are 'guesstimates'...... VL |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Dudley
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:59:43 GMT, "Dudley Henriques" wrote: "Big John" wrote in message .. . Dudley ----clip---- You would have enjoyed the 51 at a light GW with minimum fuel. It was a joy to fly. I can imagine. Ever bird I ever flew where I got the weight down, flew so different and better. I knew Douglas Bader fairly well. We used to run up our phone bills talking about fighter tactics during the war. We both agreed that the "dogfight era" came to a screeching halt during the Battle of Britain when just about everybody realized that the way to survive was to avoid the left side of the envelope. Ps wasn't a factor then in ACM theory as you know I'm sure. Boyd and Christie and Rutowski hadn't figured out the EM concept yet, but you guys were using it without realizing it "officially" :-) When I came in Sq (newbe) I was told to"keep my airspeed up". We didn't have all the fancy acronyms for it, just get going fast and keep it going fast ) Best tactics were same as Chennault's, Make a sunrise attack with superior speed and keep speed and exit the 'fur ball'. When you had altitude on the fight pick your target and reenter or go home and come back and fight another day.. If you got in a turning contest again keep you airspeed up until you could break out and regain the dominate position. Tactics were essentially what is taught today but we had to watch our EM very close as any G's bled it off rapidly. Would love to fly a 15-16 where you can pull it in to 9 G's and accelerate instead of bleeding your energy down to the stall. I don't think EM is as important in today's birds as it was in the WWII birds? Actually, Chennault had it right way back in the late thirties if they had only listened to him. By the time you guys got in the fight, it was pretty well doctrine that the way to both survive and rack up a score was to keep the energy up; use one carefully flown pursuit pass, going through the angle off spectrum from lag to lead when in firing parameters; zeroing the ball and firing, then diving through a planned overshoot in the plane of the target's motion. ACM has come a long way since the early days hasn't it? Have a nice week end. BJ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Setting Up An Airport Trust Fund? | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 4 | February 24th 04 10:54 PM |
low altimeter and FL180 | Michael 182 | Piloting | 26 | October 31st 03 04:29 AM |
KAP140 Autopilot Details | News | Instrument Flight Rules | 27 | October 22nd 03 02:01 AM |
Prop bolt torque setting | Whunicut | Home Built | 2 | September 4th 03 12:12 PM |
WOT in cruise? | Roger Long | Owning | 10 | July 28th 03 08:00 AM |