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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
Why does the Navy have aircraft but the Air Force doesn't have ships?
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
Well, supersonic flight is not a trivial matter. I flew the F104A
equipped with the J79-19 engine. Minutes after takeoff the fuel was down to wehere the aircraft had a 1:1 thrust to weigth ratio. With 18,900 pounds of thrust (engine was later de-rated for longevity) the Zipper would exceed its thermal limit quite handily. The problem as I saw it was the windshield and canopy. M2.0 in the stratosphere in a standard atmosphere (-57F) gave us an inlet temperature of 100C. M2.0 was also the USAF limit of lateral stability. Yes, we went faster now and then - some went faster than others (I had a wife and 2 kids' 2.2 was enough for me). 2.4 is the limit for an aluminum-fuselaged aircraft - above that you risk de-tempering the alloy and subsequent loss of strength. The F106 on display at the USAF Air Academy is one such aircraft - it and its engine were expended to establish a speed record around (ISTR) M2.45. The idea of rebuilding an A10 to make a supersonic interceptor out of it is so far from being even remotely practical that only total unfamiliarity with what would be required could excuse such a concept. Sorry for the bluntness - but it's true. Walt BJ |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
They're too hard to taxi out of the parking spot on the ramp? Lousy
club? Not enough women? JO quarters substandard? BTW USAF did have ships - well, crash rescue launches. Later the USAF Sea Survival in Bscayne Bay (!) had an LCM and some 35 foot Bertrams. Tough duty, indeed. Good friend of mine, Al Brown, worked there for awhile. Walt BJ |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
"Cap'n Crunch" Cap'n@Scrambled Eggs.Org wrote:
:Why does the Navy have aircraft but the Air Force doesn't have ships? Because anybody can fly an airplane but not everyone can land one on a ship and take it back off again. -- "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. -- George Orwell |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
ANQUETIL wrote:
During WWII, Luftwaffe performed a consistent CAP overhead Kriegsmarine's last cruisers during their Channel crossing from Brest to homeland RAMILLE22 Yes they did, but there wasn't air-to-air refueling yet. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
"WaltBJ" wrote ... Well, supersonic flight is not a trivial matter. I flew the F104A equipped with the J79-19 engine. Minutes after takeoff the fuel was down to wehere the aircraft had a 1:1 thrust to weigth ratio. With 18,900 pounds of thrust (engine was later de-rated for longevity) the Zipper would exceed its thermal limit quite handily. The problem as I saw it was the windshield and canopy. M2.0 in the stratosphere in a standard atmosphere (-57F) gave us an inlet temperature of 100C. M2.0 was also the USAF limit of lateral stability. Yes, we went faster now and then - some went faster than others (I had a wife and 2 kids' 2.2 was enough for me). 2.4 is the limit for an aluminum-fuselaged aircraft - above that you risk de-tempering the alloy and subsequent loss of strength. The F106 on display at the USAF Air Academy is one such aircraft - it and its engine were expended to establish a speed record around (ISTR) M2.45. The idea of rebuilding an A10 to make a supersonic interceptor out of it is so far from being even remotely practical that only total unfamiliarity with what would be required could excuse such a concept. Sorry for the bluntness - but it's true. Walt BJ Thanks for a nice, readable explanation of the stresses, physical and thermal, of high speed operations. I didn't realize the F106 could achieve that sort of speed. The F92-102-106 lineage covered several decades, a lot of investment, and a mixed bag of results. Losing a high school friend as he was transitioning into 102s and later a younger neighbor in a 106 accident, I would be slow to belittle the avaiation skills of the current President who did successfully fly the birds, by some accounts statistically more hazardous than most military endeavors Douglas has now been briefed from a variety of perspectives as to the unsuitability and inoperability of hid projected "redesigned/re-engined" A10, "Wonder Wart Hog" to borrow from the cartoonist Gilbert Shelton and just as unrealistic as were Gilbert's cartoons, either from the Austin _Texas Ranger_ era or the later years in Hashbury. Somewhere in his lineage, Douglas's ancestors matched an obstinately pig-headed gene with one from the "Just Plain Stupid" family tree, and a "Do Not Replicate" (even for fun or at home) placard should have been attached to all offspring of the damnable conjoining, especially Douglas (who adds to the mangy mix the additional qualities of (a) being a few bricks short of a full load, (b) owning an elevator which stops well short of the top floor, and (c) possessing an ever-burning porch light when nobody's home). Having ridden into the fair city of smn perched in the back of a watermelon wagon, his departure huddled in the back of a turnip truck would bring joy to all (although admittedly, he has brought to us more amusement than most of his ilk). TMO |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
On 6 Feb 2006 08:41:38 -0800, "Douglas Eagleson"
wrote: Thats for a reasonable repy. My idea was for a rebuilt A-10, meaning the design goes back to the manufacturer. All the real professionals here need to complain of the lack of adequate fighter design, in my opinion. Several things problematic there, not the least of which is that the manufacturer of the A-10 is out of business. As for "lack of adequate fighter design", I think that F-22 and F-35 seem to refute that contention quite nicely. And that totally ignores the various competing aircraft that were developed in those two competitions and a whole gaggle of systems which came and went off drawing boards unseen by the general public. Supersonic critical airspeed appears a worrysome thing when in fact it is a simple airframe stress. Nothing drastic happens. An A-10 is a slow speed design and the basic idea was to do a cheap re-engine to get an plane suitable for a fighter pilot. You might want to visit a good library and pick up some aero texts regarding your contention about simplicity. Lots of things happen when an airframe is pushed through the mach with various shockwaves coming and going, various shifts of centers of lift and pressure, various losses and regainings (hopefully) of control effectiveness. Simply putting big engines on barn doors does not get you supersonic (experience with the F-4 notwithstanding.) Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
On 6 Feb 2006 18:59:34 -0800, "KDR" wrote:
Ed Rasimus wrote: When we exercised with Spanish air defense forces, which is apparently the closest mission to respond to your question, we would configure with three tanks, AIM-9s and AIM-7E. In that configuration on CAP, we could maintain station for slightly over two hours. If you translate that into distance, you could get one hour out at approx 500 kts ground speed, ten minutes of engagement time at altitude and one hour back: that defines a 500 nautical mile combat radius. That could be increased if you jettisoned tanks as they went dry to reduce drag. We were collocated in those days with the 98th Strat Wing, so we had tankers available at all times if the mission would require. Ed Rasimus An ex-ROKAF pilot who flew F-4D says 500NM is too far even with three tanks. He commented the 10-minute engagement should be done only using mil power to get back to base. Was there any massive difference in endurance between C and D models? The devil remains in the details. You would need to determine weapons configuration, altitude profile, speeds, weather divert requirements, etc. to avoid apples-to-oranges. There was no significant difference in endurance between C and D (and E model as well until the tanks were foamed in the mid '70s). Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Consistent CAP over a fleet from a land base
Douglas Eagleson wrote: Thats for a reasonable repy. My idea was for a rebuilt A-10, meaning the design goes back to the manufacturer. All the real professionals here need to complain of the lack of adequate fighter design, in my opinion. Supersonic critical airspeed appears a worrysome thing when in fact it is a simple airframe stress. Nothing drastic happens. An A-10 is a slow speed design and the basic idea was to do a cheap re-engine to get an plane suitable for a fighter pilot. I will comment here on the thread responses so far. A basic complaint of my idea is that at mach 1 the wings will fall off. I do not wonder very hard at the ingenuity of the designer of the A-10 because it is an over built and stressed aircraft. Taking some weight out of the wings just might be in order. So the angle of the wings as the deciding factor has to be decided. And it is a fact that as speed increases that angle of attack decreases. ANd the supersonic speed does not alter the rule. A single problem exists and the cause of unstable airframes is a large problem. And I think the original designer made sure the design was a nice stable nonvibrating one. And so the aerodynamical question becomes the higher speed stability in relation to the original design speed. So the person then needs to consult the aerodynamical type who warns of the means of stability control in mdern airframes. So the poster/commenter has to request the exact airframe beam to be examined. And it has beams for such stability reasons already. And inadequacy for a higher frequency of reduction is then the real question. Maybe it is going to have the tail fall off. But the wings will stay on. And the beams are designed for a complete failure of the additional beam. It literally has a durability unsurpasable in strength. And so the fact remains that making it a new aircraft is the question. I vote yes. And the typical commenter says the wings will fall off. I do not know the exact design issue, but have seen the drawings and it appears fine for re-engining. In fact new engines are going in. May be a subsonic missile platform is needed. A nice radar can be mounted on it. SO my claim is that it is just an idea, and it does not stink, because it is already getting new engines and maybe then it will be allowed to go to supersonic? And so the real issue the becomes the exact method of covering air defenses. Why not ask for 12 missles and radar on the S-3. Somebody made that comment. It is a lightweight design compared to the A-10. and I get to comment critically. ANd so the story goes to the provable necessity for the design to match the exact role. So pick the tactic for the available aircraft or request the new aircraft. I can then advise on the exact usage of the given aircraft. And the commenter then gets to advise why the mission is out to the critical distance and then a return. A certain real law of available contact duration is calculatable. And the exact cause of the pattern is to be discussed by the real commenter. So I changed my topic and the A-10 is a closed topic. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fleet Air Arm Carriers and Squadrons in the Korean War | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | October 5th 04 02:58 AM |
"New helicopters join fleet of airborne Border Patrol" | Mike | Rotorcraft | 1 | August 16th 04 09:37 PM |
Carrier strike groups test new Fleet Response Plan | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 18th 04 10:25 PM |
Fleet Air Arm | Tonka Dude | Military Aviation | 0 | November 22nd 03 09:28 PM |
Soviet Submarines Losses - WWII | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 4 | October 30th 03 03:09 AM |