request for fighter pilot statistic

Flown properly, however, with little or no aileron input any time there was
back-stick, the airplane was very competitive.

Almost sounds as if you'd lead the turn with the rudder in a high alpha
maneuver? Otherwise at low AOA the turn would be coordinated normally?

BTW what was the landing speed of the F104? (Walt?) F105? (Ed?)

wrote:
Flown properly, however, with little or no aileron input any time there was
back-stick, the airplane was very competitive.

Almost sounds as if you'd lead the turn with the rudder in a high alpha
maneuver? Otherwise at low AOA the turn would be coordinated normally?

BTW what was the landing speed of the F104? (Walt?) F105? (Ed?)

Actually, with any significant back-pressure you simply ruddered the
airplane and studiously avoided ANY aileron input. (Nervous WSOs and
prudent IPs often bracketed the stick on the left and right with hands
or knees to prevent a foolish newbie from cranking a lot of aileron in
during high AOA maneuvering.)

Swept wing aircraft will rudder roll quite nicely--and with more AOA,
the roll gets better and better.

Basic weight final approach for an F-105D model was 180 knots. And,
that was increased by 5 knots for every 1000 pounds above basic weight.
Typical landing fuel was usually 2000 pounds (that's 1000 above basic)
plus about 3000 pounds of various tanks, suspension gear, ECM pods and
you get a routine final approach of 200 KIAS.

Ed Rasimus wrote:
Basic weight final approach for an F-105D model was 180 knots. And,
that was increased by 5 knots for every 1000 pounds above basic weight.
Typical landing fuel was usually 2000 pounds (that's 1000 above basic)
plus about 3000 pounds of various tanks, suspension gear, ECM pods and
you get a routine final approach of 200 KIAS.


200 knots on approach? The only time I'd approach the ground at 200 knots would
be shortly after my wings came off.

200 knots... that's got to be an eye opener.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

Jack wrote:

You are right to an extent. Yes, the results would vary in that flying
fighters would be even more dangerous during war time. During peace time
it's only several orders of magnitude more dangerous than commuting.

I can echo Ed's comments to the extent that I have known more fighter
pilots who died in peacetime than I have commuters who are no longer
with us. War is a whole 'nother state beyond that. And you'll find that
the ratio was even worse in WW1 than in later wars.

Of course, if you are commuting on a motorcycle in heavy traffic, your
opportunities to match the modern peace time death rate among fighter
pilots are much improved.


Jack

Jack,

Spot on, flying combat military aircraft is considerably more dangerous
than many things. There are few of us in the business who don't have
friends that were killed in crashes. I am however constantly impressed
by the discipline, dedication and skill displayed by the aviators I fly
with. These fine Americans aren't the reckless adrenaline freaks
portrayed by Hollywood, but are top notch professionals! Its an honor
to serve and fly with them.

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Tester

I would think that the buff has been well tested, by now!

The B-52 will be part of the AF's arsenal for another 30 years if the
budget docs I read every day at work are correct. There's plenty of
life left in that airframe - there's an avionics upgrade currently
underway that includes the INS and DTUC systems that's funded through
FY06. If they ever get around to reengining those planes they'd
probably fly another 50 years until they were 100.

Wooly

"Michael Kelly" wrote

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Tester

Man, I would think you would be out of a job. I would think that the buff
has been well tested, by now! g
--
Jim in NC

wrote

The B-52 will be part of the AF's arsenal for another 30 years if the
budget docs I read every day at work are correct.

If they ever get around to reengining those planes they'd
probably fly another 50 years until they were 100.

I've often wondered why they don't bite the bullet and do that. Cut back to
4 engines, increase range and increase payload, probably.

I was joking about the flight testing crap, of course. I'll bet they have
more flight test hours than any plane ever built!

From what I have read, it sounds like they would do well to put in some more
comfortable crew seats, too! g
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"Michael Kelly" wrote


Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Tester


Man, I would think you would be out of a job. I would think that the buff
has been well tested, by now! g

Well tested the mighty BUFF is Morgans! To keep the old lady flying for
another 40 years we've put new computers and weapons on to bird, and
lucky young Lt's like me are able to fly on a jet my grandfather could
have flown on. We're ugly, slow and smoky but a hell of a lot of fun to
fly on. Its a privilege to be part of the BUFF community and I wouldn't
trade it for anything.

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Tester

"Michael Kelly" wrote

Well tested the mighty BUFF is Morgans! To keep the old lady flying for
another 40 years we've put new computers and weapons on to bird, and
lucky young Lt's like me are able to fly on a jet my grandfather could
have flown on. We're ugly, slow and smoky but a hell of a lot of fun to
fly on. Its a privilege to be part of the BUFF community and I wouldn't
trade it for anything.

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

You know, for all of the airshows and open houses at airbases I have been
to, (quite a few; certainly over what I can count on both hands) I still
have yet to see a buff in the air. Why is that?

You need to lobby your higher-ups, to let you (or someone) do some more
fly-bys at air shows.

One of these days, I hope I'll see one!
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Michael Kelly" wrote

Well tested the mighty BUFF is Morgans! To keep the old lady flying for
another 40 years we've put new computers and weapons on to bird, and
lucky young Lt's like me are able to fly on a jet my grandfather could
have flown on. We're ugly, slow and smoky but a hell of a lot of fun to
fly on. Its a privilege to be part of the BUFF community and I wouldn't
trade it for anything.

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

You know, for all of the airshows and open houses at airbases I have been
to, (quite a few; certainly over what I can count on both hands) I still
have yet to see a buff in the air. Why is that?

You need to lobby your higher-ups, to let you (or someone) do some more
fly-bys at air shows.

One of these days, I hope I'll see one!
--
Jim in NC

We had a BUFF fly by at the fall Atlanta race.

I swear the thing was below the level of the suites and had to cob the
throttles and make a last minute altitude adjustment to insure he cleared
the light towers.

I saved all the angles of all the fly bys from the second half of the NASCAR
season and burned them to DVD.

The unofficial NASCAR 2nd Half Fly By Roll Call:

- 2 B2s (Two Races)
- 1 B52
- 1 B1
- 2 B17s*
- 1 B24*
- 4 T38s
- 2 OV22 Osprey (Night Race at Richmond...their rotor/prop tips glow!!)
- 12 F/A 18s (Three Diff Races)
- 8 F15s (Two Races)
- 8 F16s (Two Races)
- 1 C5 (Dover...Go Figure...)
- 8 A/H64s (Two Races)
- 4 USCG Helos (The ones with the shrouded tail rotors...Dolphins?)

(*B17 "Yankee Lady" at Michigan and at Watkinds Glen, the Collings
Foundation birds flew over one day...not technically a Fly By, but they did
fly by if you know what I mean.)

Jay B