jlc@milton.u.washington.edu (Jeffrey Casterline) (02/14/91)
From: Jeffrey Casterline <jlc@milton.u.washington.edu> As a mere observer, I have another set of questions about how the air operations really work. Excuse me, please, if these seem simple or stupid: a. Are aircraft assigned to only one pilot? I could see an advantage to having only one particular ground crew. But, with turnaround time being what it is and the rest requirements for pilots after extended missions, do they assign more than one pilot per plane to maximize efficiency for the use of the aircraft? b. I read and hear that thousands of sorties are flown each day and this has been continuing for weeks. How often to these high- tech, sophisticated, planes need a "complete overhaul." I assume that aircraft are being cycled in and out of service. But, are we reaching a point more progressively more aircraft will require extended downtime? c. Is the payload of one of the navy aircraft restricted when launched from a land base? On an aircraft carrier, the catapult aids the takeoff. With no such ground assist, do these planes carry less when they take off from a land base? Thanks to all who will help me understand. Jeff (jlc@milton.u.washington.edu)
chem001@hoss.unl.edu (Jonathan Skean) (02/14/91)
In <1991Feb13.221910.6268@cbnews.att.com> jlc@milton.u.washington.edu (Jeffrey Casterline) writes: > a. Are aircraft assigned to only one pilot? All this is based on my experience as enlisted flight deck crew 1969-1977, so more up-to-date comments would be appreciated. One pilot? Nope, available aircraft are assigned to available pilots. Often a more senior pilot will invoke rank to bump a junior out of a desirable ride. Each bird has a pilot's name on one side and the enlisted plane captain's name on the other. Both were only symbolic. > b. How often do these high-tech, sophisticated, planes need a complete overhaul." Complete overhauls are undertaken at special facilities at intervals of many months or a few years. Fairly serious repairs involving downtime of several days might strike at any time but scheduled maintenance usually doesn't take an aircraft out of service beyond a day or so. > c. Is the payload of one of the navy aircraft restricted >when launched from a land base? Not at all. The ancient F-8J's I worked on occasionally operated out of Danang when things where really desperate and they didn't need much of the available runway. The advantage of operations ashore is mainly the extra space. The overwhelming characteristic of life aboard a carrier is always being crowded. When I visited a DE (now a frigate, I suppose) I was amazed at the vast space per capita. -- Jonathan Skean U of Nebr Chem CHEM001@HOSS.UNL.EDU JSKEAN@UNLCDC2.BITNET _INFINITI_ "Wi maik karz az gud az wi spel!"
adh@doc.ic.ac.uk (Adam Hebblewhite) (02/15/91)
From: Adam Hebblewhite <adh@doc.ic.ac.uk>
In article <1991Feb13.221910.6268@cbnews.att.com> jlc@milton.u.washington.edu (Jeffrey Casterline) writes:
c. Is the payload of one of the navy aircraft restricted
when launched from a land base? On an aircraft carrier, the catapult
aids the takeoff. With no such ground assist, do these planes carry
less when they take off from a land base?
The catapult assists the take-off because the carrier has a shorter
'runway', than conventional land-based airfields. In land-based
operations, you have more runway length, so a catapult is not needed.
I very much doubt whether there is any reduction in payload necessary
when taking off from a land base.
Adam
--
Adam Hebblewhite adh@doc.ic.ac.uk
Department of Computing, Imperial College, London SW7 2BZ
Disclaimer: All opinions mine unless explicitly stated otherwise.
"Welcome to the jungle, it gets wilder every day..."mullermb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Mark Muller) (02/19/91)
From: mullermb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Mark Muller) In article <1991Feb18.053845.10992@cbnews.att.com> dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes: >I have three questions of my own for the experts of sci.military: > >2. I am aware of air-to-air refueling as a way to increase combat >range, but do the air services use it as a way to increase payload? >I.e., do planes ever take off with a full bombload and partial >fuel load, and then rendezvous with a tanker to top their tanks >once aloft? > I have not heard of this particular manuever done by strike aircraft, but it is a common procedure for C-5 Transports. They often take off with as much cargo as possible, and only enough fuel to get off the ground and to a nearby tanker. This allows them to carry more than their maximum takeoff weight would normally allow for. Mark Muller Undergraduate Student Purdue University Aeronautics and Astronautics Engineering
gordon@meaddata.com (Gordon Edwards) (02/19/91)
From: gordon@meaddata.com (Gordon Edwards) In article <1991Feb18.053845.10992@cbnews.att.com>, dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes: [text deleted -gordon] |> |> 1. I noticed on the TV coverage of carrier ops that the F-14's |> were (apparently) shutting off their afterburners very soon after |> taking off from the flight deck. I.e., the orange glow in the |> tailpipes disappeared almost immediately after the planes took |> off. What is the usual length of afterburner "burn" for a |> high-performance jet fighter/bomber on take-off, and is it shorter |> for a carrier jet than for a land-based jet? The F-14A must use afterburner during a carrier launch. The Navy is retrofitting F-14As to the newer F-14A+ which has much more powerful engines and does not require the afterburner for a launch. Therefore, if you can get off the ground without using 'burner, that's great. -- Gordon (gordon@meaddata.com)
paj@gec-mrc.co.uk (paj) (02/20/91)
From: paj <paj@gec-mrc.co.uk> A.G.Poole@newcastle.ac.uk (Alex Poole) writes about aircraft in the Gulf having only one pilot/navigator team. I am puzzled, having seen on UK TV news programs that the planes have about 3 or 4 teams each, and are being turned round and sent out with a fresh team as fast as they can be refuelled, bombed up and checked over. There was even one shot of the fresh team greeting the returning team before getting in the plane. Maybe a bit of arithmetic: we are at about 2,000 sorties/day, with (from memory, Mr Moderator please correct me) 600 aircraft. That means about 4 hours per sortie average, which in turn implies a pretty fast turnaround. Paul.
dvlssd@cs.umu.se (Stefan Skoglund) (02/21/91)
From: dvlssd@cs.umu.se (Stefan Skoglund) >The F-14A must use afterburner during a carrier launch. The Navy is >retrofitting F-14As to the newer F-14A+ which has much more powerful >engines and does not require the afterburner for a launch. Therefore, >if you can get off the ground without using 'burner, that's great. Well, thoose TF-30 turbofans is a little sensitive for turbine-stall. It seems that it usually occurs then going from full-afterburner to Military. Not so nice. And then the Navy decided that all take-off's would be done on full afterburner ( :-) ). About shutting of the EBK. On afterburner you are burning up a lot of fuel so you don't want to have it running unnecessary ( :-) ). The only time then you are running afterburner for a longer time after take of is then the CAP needs some good help and the Wing Commander decids to scramble some help in other word then you are attecked unexpected. dvlssd@cs.umu.se Umea, Sweden
mhuang@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU ( * * Hunter * * ) (02/21/91)
From: mhuang@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU ( * * Hunter * * ) Once again, dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) declares... >1. I noticed on the TV coverage of carrier ops that the F-14's >were (apparently) shutting off their afterburners very soon after >taking off from the flight deck. I.e., the orange glow in the >tailpipes disappeared almost immediately after the planes took >off. What is the usual length of afterburner "burn" for a >high-performance jet fighter/bomber on take-off, and is it shorter >for a carrier jet than for a land-based jet? Some aircraft such as the A-7 Corsair do not have afterburners and consequently do not require them on a takeoff from a carrier catapult. Other aircraft such as the F/A-18 Hornet (I may be wrong about this), do not require afterburners on takeoff from carriers. The F-14 Tomcat, at least up to the "D" model, with the new, more powerful engines (like the GE F110's, flown on the Super-Tomcat), is an incredibly underpowered aircraft. Originally, the Tomcat was intended to fly an engine of the F110 class, but due to production/design problems, and a rush to get the Tomcat to the fleet, the P&W TF30-414A was used for the "A" model Tomcat. Due to the use of this underpowered engine in the "A" model Tomcat, it needs to use full afterburner on carrier takeoffs to get off the deck. There is undoubtedly some safety margin in this, but this is standard practice, at least with this model of aricraft. In the new "D" models, afterburner is not required for a carrier takeoff. As for the usuall length of afterburner "burn," there is usually minimal or no use of afterburner on land-based takeoffs to conserve fuel, wear and tear, etc. This usually increases takeoff roll, however, with land runways, there is usually less problem with this than with on board carriers... Some aircraft such as the Tomcat do use afterburner on takeoff, but not more than a couple of seconds after leaving the pavement. >2. I am aware of air-to-air refueling as a way to increase combat >range, but do the air services use it as a way to increase payload? >I.e., do planes ever take off with a full bombload and partial >fuel load, and then rendezvous with a tanker to top their tanks >once aloft? Yes. Hunter---> -- mhuang@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU=======Adm. Michael "Hunter" Huang, NCC-1736=======# mhuang@nike.CalPoly.EDU // Amiga: The Vision of Tomorrow mhuang@FubarSys.com $ \X/ Project: "SimStar: The Next Simulation" mhuang@caticsuf.cati.CSUFresno.EDU=="This project is so secret...Or it it?"==#
stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) (03/13/91)
From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) > In article <1991Feb15.071907.11518@cbnews.att.com> adh@doc.ic.ac.uk (Adam Hebblewhite) writes; [re: carrier aircraft launching from ground bases] > In fact, the plane could probably get away with a larger payload > from a land base, given that during carrier ops a larger safety factor > probably is necessary (in case the catapult partially loses power). No "probably" about it -- an aircraft can almost always takeoff at a higher gross weight from a long runway than from a carrier deck. The catapult has a limited weight capacity, as does the aircraft itself. A non-catapult launch puts a lot less strain on the aircraft for takeoff at any given weight. As for "safety factor", there ain't much. If the catapult fails during launch, the aircraft goes into the drink, and the crew must punch out. I've read of cat-shots where the speed at the end of the cat is a mere 8 knots above the stall speed of the aircraft. That's not much. > [...] What is the usual length of afterburner "burn" for a > high-performance jet fighter/bomber on take-off, and is it shorter > for a carrier jet than for a land-based jet? The length of afterburner use varies depending on the conditions (aircraft weight, density altitude, runway length, obstacles, need to get somewhere fast). It can be as short as no AB at all, to several minutes. The fuel burn with AB is incredible. Aviation Week reported that 30 seconds of AB on an F-14 consumes 20 minutes worth of cruise fuel. > 2. I am aware of air-to-air refueling as a way to increase combat > range, but do the air services use it as a way to increase payload? > I.e., do planes ever take off with a full bombload and partial > fuel load, and then rendezvous with a tanker to top their tanks > once aloft? Yes. B-52's routinely launch this way. Their max flight weight is above their max takeoff weight. In carrier ops, takeoff weight can be limited by low wind speed. In that case, there's an operational advantage to launching with reduced fuel load, then topping the tanks after takeoff. > How does the Navy cope with catapult failures? With redundancy. There are multiple catapults. If they all fail, the carrier is not able to operationally launch its attack aircraft. > And does the Navy have any way to transfer planes off a crippled > carrier to another carrier other than flying them off? They can be lifted off with cranes, like any other cargo. It may also be able to use the entire length of the carrier deck for non- catapult launches, but this'd be pretty dicey. Aircraft would likely have to launch at minimum weight (i.e., no armament, and limited fuel). It would still be necessary to steam to do this. If the carrier is dead in the water, the aircraft won't be going anywhere under their own power. Steve (the certified flying fanatic) stevenp@decwrl.dec.com