Airspeed of military planes

On 29 Jan 2004 12:14:11 -0800, (WaltBJ) wrote:

Interesting fact: A DC10-30, no slats, no flaps, eats up more runway
than a Bone in the same configuration. Our Flight Manual stated it
could not be stopped on any commercial runway in the USA. Even more
interesting is that an F104A could be stopped in 3000 feet (using the
chute) if there was no crosswind (the ailerons were weak at 135 KIAS).
Walt BJ


There are many runways that a DC10-30 can land on with no slats, so
flaps.

The Vref / Vga / Vma speeds for example would be as follows:

Landing weight 290,000 lbs : 178 / 195 / 202
Landing weight 411,000 lbs : 211 / 232 / 241

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:54:38 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:
So far, it's been 50/50. The first high-speed low-level military
flight, that collided with a glider, was able to make it safely to its
original destination. Miraculously, the glider safely landed missing
several feet of wing and aileron! If I recall correctly, the NTSB
found the glider pilot to be at fault, despite the see-and-avoid
regulations!


Perhaps I'm daft, but how is a glider supposed to get out of the way of a
high-speed military craft? Was he flying in a area he wasn't supposed to
be?

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:58:40 -0600, S. Sampson wrote:

"Glenn Westfall" wrote
I'm an Air Force Air Traffic Controller and am currently working in
Okinawa, Japan. We have F-15's here at Kadena and it is not uncommon
for them to come back well above 400 Kts below 10,000. We usually
only worry about slowing them down if they are being sequenced to
follow another aircraft. Close to final, they will usually slow
themselves to 250 Kts or slower unless told otherwise.

I've heard that F-15's and Mig-29's are pigs below 400 knots :-)
The AOA is probably in the teens by 250 knots...

I'm certainly not an authority on this, but I thought dog fights normally
took place in the 300 - 400 knot range. If that's the case, I
doubt performance is pig-like below 400.

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:05:25 -0500, Greg Copeland
wrote in Message-Id: :

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:54:38 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:
So far, it's been 50/50. The first high-speed low-level military
flight, that collided with a glider, was able to make it safely to its
original destination. Miraculously, the glider safely landed missing
several feet of wing and aileron! If I recall correctly, the NTSB
found the glider pilot to be at fault, despite the see-and-avoid
regulations!


Perhaps I'm daft, but how is a glider supposed to get out of the way of a
high-speed military craft?

See 91.113:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....2.4.7&idno=14

A glider has the right of way over a powered aircraft. It is the
powered aircraft that regulations require avoid the glider, not the
other way round.

Was he flying in a area he wasn't supposed to
be?

The glider was in class G airspace as far as I can tell, albeit
apparently within a Military Training Route. It is my understanding
that aircraft operating there are still governed by the see-and-avoid
mandate.

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:36:05 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:05:25 -0500, Greg Copeland
wrote in Message-Id: :

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:54:38 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:
So far, it's been 50/50. The first high-speed low-level military
flight, that collided with a glider, was able to make it safely to its
original destination. Miraculously, the glider safely landed missing
several feet of wing and aileron! If I recall correctly, the NTSB
found the glider pilot to be at fault, despite the see-and-avoid
regulations!


Perhaps I'm daft, but how is a glider supposed to get out of the way of a
high-speed military craft?

See 91.113:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....2.4.7&idno=14

A glider has the right of way over a powered aircraft. It is the
powered aircraft that regulations require avoid the glider, not the
other way round.

Was he flying in a area he wasn't supposed to
be?

The glider was in class G airspace as far as I can tell, albeit
apparently within a Military Training Route. It is my understanding
that aircraft operating there are still governed by the see-and-avoid
mandate.

I understand that. And that was pretty much the basis of my question.
The glider had right of way. Yet, "found the glider pilot to be at
fault". To me, that says they expected a glider to get the heck out of
the way of a highspeed aircraft. Thusly, my paraphrased statement of,
"I'm crazy because I don't understand how they could expect that to happen."

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:54:17 -0500, Greg Copeland
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:36:05 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

The glider was in class G airspace as far as I can tell, albeit
apparently within a Military Training Route. It is my understanding
that aircraft operating there are still governed by the see-and-avoid
mandate.

I understand that. And that was pretty much the basis of my question.
The glider had right of way. Yet, "found the glider pilot to be at
fault". To me, that says they expected a glider to get the heck out of
the way of a highspeed aircraft. Thusly, my paraphrased statement of,
"I'm crazy because I don't understand how they could expect that to happen."

I get the feeling you don't understand that a "Military Training
Route" is not ordinary see-and-avoid airspace. Rather, it's airspace
used in a special way, with military aircraft given exclusive use when
the airspace is active.

Other aircraft, including gliders, are supposed to stay out of the
route when it's active. This glider pilot didn't, and so was at
fault.

He was in an airspace forbidden to him then, an airspace dedicated at
that time to the use of high-speed aircraft. He wasn't expected to
dodge the fast-mover but to stay away from the airspace reserved for
that fast-mover. The reason the space is reserved is that it's hard
to get out of the way of a fast-mover, because there isn't enough time
between when you see it and when it's where you are for you to be
elsewhere. And the fast-mover doesn't have any more time to maneuver.
Maybe less, as gliders are smaller and, maybe, harder to see.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

F-15 pulling 7-8 Gs at 400kts at sealevel is hardly pig-like

--



Curiosity killed the cat, and I'm gonna find out why!
"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:58:40 -0600, S. Sampson wrote:

"Glenn Westfall" wrote
I'm an Air Force Air Traffic Controller and am currently working in
Okinawa, Japan. We have F-15's here at Kadena and it is not uncommon
for them to come back well above 400 Kts below 10,000. We usually
only worry about slowing them down if they are being sequenced to
follow another aircraft. Close to final, they will usually slow
themselves to 250 Kts or slower unless told otherwise.

I've heard that F-15's and Mig-29's are pigs below 400 knots :-)
The AOA is probably in the teens by 250 knots...

I'm certainly not an authority on this, but I thought dog fights normally
took place in the 300 - 400 knot range. If that's the case, I
doubt performance is pig-like below 400.

In article , Mary Shafer
wrote:

I get the feeling you don't understand that a "Military Training
Route" is not ordinary see-and-avoid airspace. Rather, it's airspace
used in a special way, with military aircraft given exclusive use when
the airspace is active.
Other aircraft, including gliders, are supposed to stay out of the
route when it's active. This glider pilot didn't, and so was at
fault.
He was in an airspace forbidden to him then, an airspace dedicated at
that time to the use of high-speed aircraft. He wasn't expected to
dodge the fast-mover but to stay away from the airspace reserved for
that fast-mover. The reason the space is reserved is that it's hard
to get out of the way of a fast-mover, because there isn't enough time
between when you see it and when it's where you are for you to be
elsewhere. And the fast-mover doesn't have any more time to maneuver.
Maybe less, as gliders are smaller and, maybe, harder to see.

What??? Who gave you the misinformation? Tell me where in the FARs it
describes MTRs as PROHIBITED or RESTRICTED or EXCLUSIVE or RESERVED
airspace.

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:54:17 -0500, Greg Copeland
wrote in Message-Id: :

I understand that. And that was pretty much the basis of my question.
The glider had right of way. Yet, "found the glider pilot to be at
fault". To me, that says they expected a glider to get the heck out of
the way of a highspeed aircraft. Thusly, my paraphrased statement of,
"I'm crazy because I don't understand how they could expect that to happen."


The Navy compensated the glider pilot for damages. But fortune was
smiling on him. He could have just as easily ended up splattered
across four acres of golf course as occurred in another military/civil
'mishap' November 16, 2000 in Florida.

In article , Mary Shafer wrote:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:54:17 -0500, Greg Copeland
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:36:05 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

The glider was in class G airspace as far as I can tell, albeit
apparently within a Military Training Route. It is my understanding
that aircraft operating there are still governed by the see-and-avoid
mandate.

I understand that. And that was pretty much the basis of my question.
The glider had right of way. Yet, "found the glider pilot to be at
fault". To me, that says they expected a glider to get the heck out of
the way of a highspeed aircraft. Thusly, my paraphrased statement of,
"I'm crazy because I don't understand how they could expect that to happen."

I get the feeling you don't understand that a "Military Training
Route" is not ordinary see-and-avoid airspace. Rather, it's airspace
used in a special way, with military aircraft given exclusive use when
the airspace is active.


Sorry, Mary, but you are wrong. You're thinking of
an MOA. The Airman's Information Manual has this to say about Military
Training Routes:

Nonparticipating aircraft are not prohibited from flying within an
MTR; however, extreme vigilance should be exercised when conducting
flight through or near these routes.

So, in the absence of other information, I assume he was found at fault
because he didn't "exercise extreme vigilance." And my suspicious
nature assumes because the FAA can't do anything to a military pilot
anyway. It would be interesting to know the altitude, because most
MTR traffic above 1500 AGL (I think) is IFR, which kind of guarantees
they won't be looking outside much.

Mike Beede