The Swedish Model: How to build a jet fighter.

On Sat, 31 May 2008 12:00:40 -0700 (PDT), Ron
wrote:

On May 31, 8:53 am, Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:37:46 GMT, (Richard

It is my understanding that the thud was the fastest plane in the
world at low altitude, while the 104 was faster at high altitude. Nice
if you plan to run away, although there is never enough fuel to do the
supersonic bit for long.

Casady

Your understanding was correct. It didn't really take A/B to get going
really quickly on the deck. We often came down the last fifty miles to
a target at 540 indicated with a full load of eight 750 pound bombs
and did nuclear deliveries on the range with a 600 KIAS run-in, all
without burner. You could get supersonic quite easily with a short
blast of burner and it didn't take long to get clear of anything.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"www.thunderchief.org

Just imagine though what life would have been like though for the Navy
Spad pilots tasked with throwing some instant sunshine over their
shoulder.

It didn't make much difference. They delivered smaller yield weapons
and the margins were just as close for the faster jets hauling larger
bangs. The "safe separation" distance from your own blast was so
critical that when they painted the F-105s in camo they had to
recalculate all of the nuclear delivery parameters--the reflective
quality of the shiny aluminum was less heat absorbent than the dark
colors of the camo.

Ever ask the question of why a camo airplane should be white on the
underside?

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"
www.thunderchief.org

In message , Ed Rasimus
writes
Ever ask the question of why a camo airplane should be white on the
underside?

This was why RN Sea Harriers got repainted on their way south in 1982:
the gloss white underpinnings were unlikely to be required for that
particular conflict, and were likely to draw unfriendly eyes more than a
more subdued scheme might.

Why should delivering a "600lb Bomb, Medium Case" have been such a big
deal anyway?


--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

Dan wrote:
JR Weiss wrote:
"Douglas Eagleson" wrote:

A certain supesonic maneuver will generate a class of wake that
will always attack the trailing aircrafts ability to maintian
control.

ANY time a trailing aircraft crosses the wake vortex, full control
will momentarily be overridden by the vortex! Nothing new here,
and nothing unrecoverable!

Well, you see, there was this MOVIE...

Dan



"Maverick, eject, eject, there's a MiG-28 on your tail ....


.....and he's got Exocets...."




--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

JR Weiss wrote:
"Douglas Eagleson" wrote:

A certain supesonic maneuver will generate a class of wake that will always
attack the trailing aircrafts ability to maintian control.

ANY time a trailing aircraft crosses the wake vortex, full control will
momentarily be overridden by the vortex! Nothing new here, and nothing
unrecoverable!

Well, you see, there was this MOVIE...

Dan

On May 30, 6:37*pm, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 19:43:04 GMT, Ed Rasimus

wrote:
Been there, done that, in front of a MiG-17 who WAS firing from about
500 feet behind me. In an F-105D, at the western end of Phantom Ridge
where it spills out into the Red River Delta, starting the maneuver at
about 800 feet AGL. Worked as advertized, but wouldn't like to have
been there more than once in a lifetime! Wasted way too many
heartbeats.

It is my understanding that the thud was the fastest plane in the
world at low altitude, while the 104 was faster at high altitude. Nice
if you plan to run away, although there is never enough fuel to do the
supersonic bit for long.

I'm not sure that a Thud could outrun 37mm cannon shells, though.

On May 31, 12:06 pm, Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2008 12:00:40 -0700 (PDT), Ron
wrote:



On May 31, 8:53 am, Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:37:46 GMT, (Richard

It is my understanding that the thud was the fastest plane in the
world at low altitude, while the 104 was faster at high altitude. Nice
if you plan to run away, although there is never enough fuel to do the
supersonic bit for long.

Casady

Your understanding was correct. It didn't really take A/B to get going
really quickly on the deck. We often came down the last fifty miles to
a target at 540 indicated with a full load of eight 750 pound bombs
and did nuclear deliveries on the range with a 600 KIAS run-in, all
without burner. You could get supersonic quite easily with a short
blast of burner and it didn't take long to get clear of anything.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"www.thunderchief.org

Just imagine though what life would have been like though for the Navy
Spad pilots tasked with throwing some instant sunshine over their
shoulder.

It didn't make much difference. They delivered smaller yield weapons
and the margins were just as close for the faster jets hauling larger
bangs. The "safe separation" distance from your own blast was so
critical that when they painted the F-105s in camo they had to
recalculate all of the nuclear delivery parameters--the reflective
quality of the shiny aluminum was less heat absorbent than the dark
colors of the camo.

Ever ask the question of why a camo airplane should be white on the
underside?

My guess, don't fry the sperm.
Please do NOT confuse,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Bamba_(song)

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Palace Cobra"www.thunderchief.org
Cheers
Ken

On Thu, 29 May 2008 12:15:23 GMT, (Eugene
Griessel) wrote:

I wish somebody would change the header. Every time I see "Swedish
Model" I start salivating and panting at the prospect of seeing an
ash-blonde Nordic goddess. All I get is this inane banter .....

Somebody obviously likes Saabs much better than I do!

Richard Casady wrote:

On Fri, 30 May 2008 19:43:04 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

Been there, done that, in front of a MiG-17 who WAS firing from about
500 feet behind me. In an F-105D, at the western end of Phantom Ridge
where it spills out into the Red River Delta, starting the maneuver at
about 800 feet AGL. Worked as advertized, but wouldn't like to have
been there more than once in a lifetime! Wasted way too many
heartbeats.

It is my understanding that the thud was the fastest plane in the
world at low altitude, while the 104 was faster at high altitude. Nice
if you plan to run away, although there is never enough fuel to do the
supersonic bit for long.

In the midst of my unpacking, I've dredged up a paper copy of:
AIR COMBAT TACTICS EVALUATION F-100, F-104, F-105, F-4C VS MIG-15/17 TYPE
AC(F-86H),
Authored by the USAF Fighter Weapons School, Nellis AFB, May 1965.
Basically, lacking a sufficient number of MiG-17s at the time,
the USAF used ANG F-86Hs as MiG-equivalents, and turned them loose
against TAC F-100s, F-104s, F-105s, and F-4Cs to find the best tactics
to use when defensive (F-86s bouncing), and offensive.
In all cases, the best tactic against a gun attack by the F-86 was to extend
out, using AB and God's G, (0 G push - negating induced drag), breaking if
necessary to spoil a gun run, and to consider reattacking when supersonic.
Even at Mach 0.9 (Call it 600 Kts) it takes enough time for any of these
jets to pull out of gun range in level flight for the MiG to run out of
bullets.

The speed was there, but acceleration, impressive as it was, wasn't enough
to get you faster fast enough.

--
Pete Stickney
Any plan where you lose your hat is a bad plan

"The Horny Goat" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 May 2008 12:15:23 GMT, (Eugene
Griessel) wrote:

I wish somebody would change the header. Every time I see "Swedish
Model" I start salivating and panting at the prospect of seeing an
ash-blonde Nordic goddess. All I get is this inane banter .....

Somebody obviously likes Saabs much better than I do!

I thought he was talking about Volvo's, go figure.

cheers....Jeff

Jeffrey Hamilton wrote:
"The Horny Goat" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 May 2008 12:15:23 GMT, (Eugene
Griessel) wrote:

I wish somebody would change the header. Every time I see "Swedish
Model" I start salivating and panting at the prospect of seeing an
ash-blonde Nordic goddess. All I get is this inane banter .....
Somebody obviously likes Saabs much better than I do!

I thought he was talking about Volvo's, go figure.

cheers....Jeff


Well, women DO have Volvos.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired