As I mentioned next week in my talk on reversible time... (08/01/90)
From: "As I mentioned next week in my talk on reversible time..."
I'd like to add my $.02 worth to the discussion of the designations. My two
pennies are marked with ***
From: wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
[...]
P38: Lightning, Lockheed. Maybe also thank you Kelly Johnson??????
Twin boom "boomer" that the Germans called the "fork tailed
devil". HEAVILY armed; in the pacific was the aircraft
that shot down Adm. Yamamoto's plane.
*** Also the plane that Richard Bong flew. He was the US top Ace of WWII.
P39: Airacobra, Bell Aircraft. Sold lots to the Soviet Union during
WWII. Unique design, never horridly impressive.
*** Heh, heh. This was an interesting one. Had it's engine in the middle if
*** the plane and a long propellor shaft through the cockpit. Was turbo-?
*** at first until the government got a hold of it, i think. The gov't was
*** also responsible for moving the engine back behind the pilot. not good
*** if something blows. See Saburo Sakai's description of one in "Samurai!"
*** He wasn't impressed. The Soviets, however, bought it in shiploads
*** (pardon the pun :-) Was made all the way up to the P-39Q in 1944 or so.
P40: Warhawk, Kittyhawk, Tomahawk; Curtiss, methinks. Lots of these
built in several different flavors. Generally inferior
to its opponents but given good pilots and appropriate
tactics, the Flying Tigers held their own against Japanese
Zeros until better aircraft could be delivered. Methinks
the only American fighters to see action over Pearl Harbor
(or nearby...) were of this type.
*** Yep. Two P-40's got off the ground from a field (Which one? it is the
*** field a few miles away from Pearl. Begins with a W...) and shot down
*** two or three Japanese fighters. The P-40 had a very heavy nose, and
*** made a beautiful dive-fighter. The Flying Tigers were taught by Gen.
*** Claire. E. Chennault not to engage the Zero in it's own terms, but to
*** Dive from above, fire off a few shots, scream through at a steep
*** angle through the formations, climb back up and do it again. This
*** tactic made the most of the plane's advantages, and even turned some of
*** it's disadvantages into advantages, ie. the heavy nose. There are
*** several books on this plane, most deal with the Flying Tigers, AVG,
*** and 14th Air Force (same thing, different names.) AVG is the American
*** Volunteer Group for the Chinese Army, led by Gen. Chennault and
*** Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek (spelling?).
[...]
P47: Thunderbolt, Republic (formerly Seversky) Known to some as "the jug"
due to it's shape. A heavy, powerful bird that excelled in
the ground attack role in late WWII.
*** Republic made two versions of this plane: one with the bubble canopy,
*** and another with a "razorback." It was ugly, and pilots hated it at
*** first, but they learned how to use it, and kicked butt with it. it's
*** main advantage was the proliferation of armor. One poor pilot was
*** flying a sortie over Germany and got separated from the rest of his
*** group. He had two German birds empty their guns into the plane, and
*** one even tried to ram him (he downed himself with this move...) He made
*** it back to England where the ground crew counted a couple hundred
*** bullet holes plus the spot where the 109 tried to ram him. He was
*** given credit for the "kill." Can't find the reference, so if I got it
*** mixed up, flame me. I'd deserve it if I did. :-)
[...]
P61: Black Widow, Northrop.
*** Know why it was called the Black Widow? it was so hard to fly. I think
*** it was an attempt at a night fighter.
[mod.note: I've heard that the maneuverability of this aircraft
was phenomenal, comparable to (for the time) modern single-engine
fighters. Can anyone confirm or deny this ? - Bill ]
P/F80: Shooting Star, Lockheed. Thank you Kelly Johnson.
More people have probably seen a T33, the two seat trainer
based upon the F80 and affectionately known as the T-bird.
Many still flying; including one just seen flying at the
Dayton Airshow.
*** It was also the first Jet that the Thunderbirds flew. Commissioned at
*** the end of WWII, I don't remember it ever seeing combat until Korea.
*** Anybody know any better? Educate me.
[...]
F84: Thunderjet/Thunderstreak/Thunderflash, Republic Aviation. First
jet to carry a Tactical Nuke, If memory serves correctly.
*** Second jet the Thunderbirds flew.
[...]
F100: Super Sabre, North American. Nasty airplane at first but once
the bugs were worked out, our first fighter to go supersonic
in level flight became a very good aircraft.
*** Another well made jet for the Thunderbirds. They knew how to use
*** this one to its best advantage.
[...]
F102: Delta Dagger? (I get this and the F106 backwards sometimes) and
I think Convair made this one. Delta wing.
*** Yep. You got it straight. NASA is currently using one to study
*** lightning. They fly it into a storm and dare lightning to strike. It's
*** got marks all over it from strikes. They test avionics this way, but
*** have insulated backups in case of a failure.
F104: Starfighter, Lockheed. Thank You again, Kelly Johnson. Known
as the "missile with the man in it" While never achieving
great acceptance with the USAF, foreign countries gobbled them
up by the s***loads. I could be wrong, but I think this was
produced until the 1980's after having been built since the
early 60's. Held several speed and altitude records until
the Blackbirds came around and blew everybody away.....
*** Also had a 25 foot wingspan! "Rocket with a man in it" indeed...
F105: Thunderchief, Republic. BIG bird, used more commonly in Vietnam
for precision bomb strikes, although I have seen film of
big groups of them (15+) dropping iron in a fairly
indiscriminate pattern.
*** This was supposed to haave been developed as a nuclear strike bomber.
*** Was a b**ch to fly, and if I remember, the Thunderbirds had one of
*** their worst accidents in this bird due to its unforgiving nature.
[...]
F111: Now that's funny...I can't remember the name of this thing to save
my life OR who built it. Now known as the FB111 and used
as a "fighter/bomber" (ask the Libyans....). There is
an EF111 Raven Electronics Jammer plane. Original swing-wing
for the US.
*** Called the Aardvark. Very versatile... used as fighter, bomber, recon,
*** fighter/bomber, and I believe nuke bomber.
F117: Name more or less not set. Nighthawk is the leading contender.
Stealth fighter. Very secret until recently.
*** Call it the Batplane... :-)
=======================================================================
>Please keep in mind that I am sitting at work doing this from memory.
>I really don't have good access form home, and I don't feel like dragging
>all the reference works in to my rather crowded office. :-)
*** So am I. Corrections welcome, but don't flame my mixed-up brain. :-)
*** My brain hurts too.. how 'bout a beer?
>The original Mk. I Spitfire had a two blade, fixed propeller. All war variants
>had 3 blade propellers with variable pitch. Late model (post-war) Griffon
>engined Spitfires may have had more blades.
I've never seen or heard of a Spitfire with more than three blades. If you find
one, send me a picture. :-)
If you want to see something with a lot of blades, check out the
next-generation of civvie transports with the counter-rotating blades out the
wazoo! Supposedly works great though... Popular Science had several articles a
few years back about this.
Larry
AYDLETT@UNCG.BITNET
AYDLETT@STEFFI.ACC.UNCG.EDUwb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) (08/01/90)
From: wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) >>From: eachus@linus.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) >In article <1990Jul27.015630.22235@cbnews.att.com> wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) writes: >F111: Now that's funny...I can't remember the name of this thing to save >my life OR who built it. >That's easy. TFX did have a name assigned, but the only one that >stuck to the F111A was McNamara's Folly. Built by General Dynamics in >LBJ's home state of Texas. GD is a defense contractor much more >famous for its ships and submarines... Robert, this was a wonderfully funny post! Can you imagine an Airshow announcer calling out, "look to your right as the F111 McNamara's Folly passes the flight line...." Nobody would see the plane 'cause they'd all be on the ground laughing! BTW, General Dynamics can claim the F16 Fighting Falcon as a major aviation success - got to have something to counteract the F111. :-) I recall reading a book that indicated the F111 was supposed to be a more modern, economical and effective (role-wise) replacement for the B58 Hustler. Why it got an "F" designation is beyond me...I don't recall that it ever had any use as a fighter but it does appear to have some uses in the precision bombing role. Duane
wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) (08/01/90)
From: wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) >>From: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (and others) >In article <1990Jul27.015630.22235@cbnews.att.com>, Duane P Mantick writes: [stuff deleted] I wave the white flag over my head! Thanks for all the commentary related to my posting. Please note that I *did* say at the end of the post that I was winging this (sorry about the pun) from memory without the benefit of books. Bill has asked for someone to post a decent master list so perhaps rather than shooting holes in my memory, it would be well to do just that. I just saw one go by that seemed fairly definative with only a few points that could be debated (doggone it what was his name.....Joe Baugher), perhaps that could be used as the base list. Duane
Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z1.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson) (08/05/90)
From: Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z1.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson)
AI> *** Also the plane that Richard Bong flew. He was the US
AI> top Ace of WWII.
It was also the aircraft that first started getting close to the sound
barrier. It killed several pilots and scared the hell out of more until it
was fixed during the -J model, I think.
AI> P61: Black Widow, Northrop.
AI> *** Know why it was called the Black Widow? it was so hard
AI> to fly. I think *** it was an attempt at a night fighter.
AI> [mod.note: I've heard that the maneuverability of this
AI> aircraft was phenomenal, comparable to (for the time) modern
AI> single-engine fighters. Can anyone confirm or deny this ? -
AI> Bill ]
The first aircraft designed to be an exclusive night fighter. VERY
heavily armed (4 .50cal in one dorsal turret, 4 20mm fixed in the belly) and
armored. The plane itself had armor plating designed to deflect bullets. It
was about the size of a B-25, but could indeed manuver with most of the
single engined fighters of its time, thanks to one of the first applications
of top-wing spoilers. Unfortunately, radar technology advanced past this
wonderful plane-- it became far more practicle to mount the radar on
existing fighters than to build special birds. Anybody know any good books
on the subject?
AI> F100: Super Sabre, North American. Nasty airplane at first but
AI> once the bugs were worked out, our first fighter to go
AI> supersonic in level flight became a very good aircraft.
AI> *** Another well made jet for the Thunderbirds. They knew
AI> how to use *** this one to its best advantage.
In his first book, Chuck Yeager has some choice comments about why the
airplane was nasty at first.
AI> F104: Starfighter, Lockheed. Thank You again, Kelly Johnson.
AI> Known as the "missile with the man in it" While never
AI> achieving great acceptance with the USAF, foreign
AI> *** Also had a 25 foot wingspan! "Rocket with a man in it"
AI> indeed...
The leading edge of that wing was so sharp it was covered on the ground
to prevent injury to the ground crew. Lockeed's sales tactics with the 104
have been widely criticised in the last 20 years over this bird.Steve.Bridges@Dayton.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges) (08/05/90)
From: Steve.Bridges@Dayton.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges) [some stuff about various AAF/USAF fighters deleted...] }P38: Lightning, Lockheed. Maybe also thank you Kelly Johnson?????? } Twin boom "boomer" that the Germans called the "fork tailed } devil". HEAVILY armed; in the pacific was the aircraft } that shot down Adm. Yamamoto's plane. }*** Also the plane that Richard Bong flew. He was the US top Ace of WWII. Also beset by compressibility. The solution was a dive flap. When Lockheed's P-80 suffered similer problems (member of the T-33 family), the dive flap was the answer. }P39: Airacobra, Bell Aircraft. Sold lots to the Soviet Union during } WWII. Unique design, never horridly impressive. }*** Heh, heh. This was an interesting one. Had it's engine in the middle if }*** the plane and a long propellor shaft through the cockpit. Was turbo-? }*** at first until the government got a hold of it, i think. The gov't was }*** also responsible for moving the engine back behind the pilot. not good }*** if something blows. See Saburo Sakai's description of one in "Samurai!" }*** He wasn't impressed. The Soviets, however, bought it in shiploads }*** (pardon the pun :-) Was made all the way up to the P-39Q in 1944 or so. Early version weren't turbocharged, not even a blower. Poor altitude performance. }P61: Black Widow, Northrop. }*** Know why it was called the Black Widow? it was so hard to fly. I think }*** it was an attempt at a night fighter. } [mod.note: I've heard that the maneuverability of this aircraft } was phenomenal, comparable to (for the time) modern single-engine } fighters. Can anyone confirm or deny this ? - Bill ] I've read several references to the performance of the P-61 that said it was better than most WW-II era fighters. No ailerons on this baby. Used full span spoilers. -- Steve Bridges | NCR - USG Product Marketing and Support OLS Steve.Bridges@Dayton.NCR.COM | Phone:(513)-445-4182 622-4182 (Voice Plus) ..!ncrlnk!usglnk!uspm650!steve | AOPA #916233 ..!uunet!ncrlnk!usglnk!uspm650!steve| PP-ASEL, AMEL
pspod@kira.lerc.nasa.gov (Steve Podleski) (08/05/90)
From: pspod@kira.lerc.nasa.gov (Steve Podleski)
In article <1990Jul31.223607.6367@cbnews.att.com> As I mentioned next week in my talk on reversible time... writes:
:
:From: wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
:
:[...]
:
:P38: Lightning, Lockheed. Maybe also thank you Kelly Johnson??????
: Twin boom "boomer" that the Germans called the "fork tailed
: devil". HEAVILY armed; in the pacific was the aircraft
HEAVILY compared to what? The P38 had 4 50's and one 20mm. The P47
had 8 50's! The P38 may be considered heavily armed when compared to
some early Jap fighters but not to later Axis and Allied fighters.
:
:P39: Airacobra, Bell Aircraft. Sold lots to the Soviet Union during
: WWII. Unique design, never horridly impressive.
:
:*** Heh, heh. This was an interesting one. Had it's engine in the middle if
:*** the plane and a long propellor shaft through the cockpit. Was turbo-?
:*** at first until the government got a hold of it, i think. The gov't was
:*** also responsible for moving the engine back behind the pilot. not good
:*** if something blows. See Saburo Sakai's description of one in "Samurai!"
:*** He wasn't impressed. The Soviets, however, bought it in shiploads
:*** (pardon the pun :-) Was made all the way up to the P-39Q in 1944 or so.
The Germans on the eastern front were impressed since many of the top Russian
pilots built up their score with the P39 (into the dozens of victories). THe
problem with the P39 was poor high altitude performance due to lack of a
turbo supercharger overwhich the B17 had priority. But at low altitude the
P39 had very good maneuverability and speed along with heavy firepower.
:P40: Warhawk, Kittyhawk, Tomahawk; Curtiss, methinks. Lots of these
: built in several different flavors. Generally inferior
: to its opponents but given good pilots and appropriate
: tactics, the Flying Tigers held their own against Japanese
: Zeros until better aircraft could be delivered. Methinks
: the only American fighters to see action over Pearl Harbor
: (or nearby...) were of this type.
:
:*** Yep. Two P-40's got off the ground from a field (Which one? it is the
:*** field a few miles away from Pearl. Begins with a W...) and shot down
:*** two or three Japanese fighters. The P-40 had a very heavy nose, and
:*** made a beautiful dive-fighter. The Flying Tigers were taught by Gen.
:*** Claire. E. Chennault not to engage the Zero in it's own terms, but to
:*** Dive from above, fire off a few shots, scream through at a steep
:*** angle through the formations, climb back up and do it again. This
:*** tactic made the most of the plane's advantages, and even turned some of
:*** it's disadvantages into advantages, ie. the heavy nose. There are
:*** several books on this plane, most deal with the Flying Tigers, AVG,
:*** and 14th Air Force (same thing, different names.) AVG is the American
:*** Volunteer Group for the Chinese Army, led by Gen. Chennault and
:*** Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek (spelling?).
I doubt that the Chinese or the AVG saw many Zeros since it was the Japanese
Army airforce that fought in the skies. What they fought against were Nates
and maybe Oscars if they were unlucky. The Nate is a fixed gear monoplane that
was very maneuverable but certainly was no Zero. The Oscar was the Army
counterpart to the Navy Zero but more maneuverable. The confusion may be
due to the Zero notoriety among Allied airman and is analagous to the land
battles in Western Europe where every German tank encountered was a Tiger!
Also where do you get the idea that the P40 was nose heavy. It may look
heavy because of the large cowl that housed the cooler but I don't think
that it was nose heavy.
:
:
:[...]
:
:P47: Thunderbolt, Republic (formerly Seversky) Known to some as "the jug"
: due to it's shape. A heavy, powerful bird that excelled in
: the ground attack role in late WWII.
:
:*** Republic made two versions of this plane: one with the bubble canopy,
:*** and another with a "razorback." It was ugly, and pilots hated it at
:*** first, but they learned how to use it, and kicked butt with it. it's
:*** main advantage was the proliferation of armor. One poor pilot was
:*** flying a sortie over Germany and got separated from the rest of his
:*** group. He had two German birds empty their guns into the plane, and
:*** one even tried to ram him (he downed himself with this move...) He made
:*** it back to England where the ground crew counted a couple hundred
:*** bullet holes plus the spot where the 109 tried to ram him. He was
:*** given credit for the "kill." Can't find the reference, so if I got it
:*** mixed up, flame me. I'd deserve it if I did. :-)
I think the pilot in question was Johnson, one the top pilot of the European
front. There was one FW 190 who had run out of cannon shells in an earlier
fight and tried to down the defenseless Johnson (he had little aircraft control
due to earlier battle damage) with MG's. The German tried this on
Johnson 6 o'clock position since he did not want to kill Johnson himself
(who said chivalry in WW II was dead!). He tried this 3 times and each time
he flew next to Johnson to survey the damage. On his last try (maybe he out
of ammo or fuel) he shook his head in wonderment and waved good bye.henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/05/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >F100: Super Sabre, North American. Nasty airplane at first but once > the bugs were worked out, our first fighter to go supersonic > in level flight became a very good aircraft. As an attack aircraft, rather than a fighter, however! The F-100 (this is not a Navy aircraft, the hyphen is mandatory :-)) was designed just a little bit before it became clear that fighters absolutely needed their own radar, and its nose was so full of air intake that no way could be found to add any long-range radar. It did have a tiny gun-ranging radar, only a few inches across, and even that made quite a noticeable bump on top of the nose. >F102: Delta Dagger? (I get this and the F106 backwards sometimes) ... >*** Yep. You got it straight. NASA is currently using one to study >*** lightning. They fly it into a storm and dare lightning to strike... Sorry, slight misidentification here. The NASA lightning-research fighter (it does other jobs too, including aerodynamics work on highly-swept wings) is an F-106. I think it's specifically an F-106B, the two-man trainer version. It is scheduled to be retired before too very long, as the costs of operation and maintenance are starting to be very high now that it's a one-of-a-kind aircraft. They chose it for the job primarily because it is a high-performance jet fighter with 100% non-electronic controls -- it's old enough to be all hydraulics etc. Not an easy thing to find nowadays; I'm not sure what the replacement will be. >F104: Starfighter, Lockheed.... While never achieving > great acceptance with the USAF, foreign countries gobbled them > up by the s***loads... A real triumph of marketing over common sense. The F-104 was designed as a completely uncompromised light air-superiority fighter, and converting it to a low-altitude strike aircraft with a heavy payload and sophisticated electronics produced a very marginal aircraft. Lockheed put enormous efforts into marketing and managed to sell it to a lot of NATO countries that should have known better. :-) Its safety problems have been somewhat exaggerated, and had a lot more to do with maintenance difficulties than with inherent aircraft flaws, but it was a hot, unforgiving aircraft with rather limited range and payload. >F111: Now that's funny...I can't remember the name of this thing... >*** Called the Aardvark. Very versatile... used as fighter, bomber, recon, >*** fighter/bomber, and I believe nuke bomber. Except for the EF-111 variant, it never had an official name; names were out of fashion at the time. The attempt to produce a fairly hefty aircraft that would nevertheless fit on Navy carrier elevators gave a short and stocky airframe, which caused problems with the USAF's absolute demand that it be supersonic at low altitude. (It would have cost much less, and probably been more successful, if they'd been willing to settle for high subsonic speed at low altitude, but the whole F-111 story is full of non-negotiable demands that the poor aircraft builders had to try to meet...) Since the USAF and Navy aircraft had to have different noses anyway, due to different radars, the obvious way to improve the USAF version's "fineness ratio" (roughly, how slim it is, which turns out to be an important number for supersonic performance) was to make its nose longer. And longer. And longer. Hence "Aardvark". Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
geoffm@EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) (08/05/90)
From: geoffm@EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) In article <1990Jul31.223607.6367@cbnews.att.com> As I mentioned next week in my talk on reversible time... writes: >P39: Airacobra, Bell Aircraft. Sold lots to the Soviet Union during > WWII. Unique design, never horridly impressive. > >*** Heh, heh. This was an interesting one. Had it's engine in the middle if >*** the plane and a long propellor shaft through the cockpit. Was turbo-? >*** at first until the government got a hold of it, i think. The gov't was >*** also responsible for moving the engine back behind the pilot. not good >*** if something blows. Why not? I'd think that would be an advantage, since no oil, smoke, etc. would be blown over the windshield and canopy. ----- >P40: Warhawk, Kittyhawk, Tomahawk; Curtiss, methinks. >*** Yep. Two P-40's got off the ground from a field (Which one? it is the >*** field a few miles away from Pearl. Begins with a W...) and shot down You're thinking of Wheeler Field, outside the town of Wahiawa. There were lots of P-40s lined up in neat rows when the Japanese attacked, but I believe that the two planes that managed to get airborne were from Dillingham, an outlying airfield near Haleiwa on the North Shore. ----- >F102: Delta Dagger? (I get this and the F106 backwards sometimes) and > I think Convair made this one. Delta wing. >*** Yep. You got it straight. NASA is currently using one to study >*** lightning. They fly it into a storm and dare lightning to strike. It's >*** got marks all over it from strikes. They test avionics this way, but >*** have insulated backups in case of a failure. NASA is using an F-106 (a two-seat B model) for the lightning studies, not a 102. I don't believe that there are any airworthy F-102s left. :-( Geoff -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems geoffm@purplehaze.sun.com + + + + + + + + Milpitas, California -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z1.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson) (08/05/90)
From: Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z1.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson)
DP> I recall reading a book that indicated the F111 was
DP> supposed to be a more modern, economical and effective
DP> (role-wise) replacement for the B58 Hustler. Why it got an
DP> "F" designation is beyond me...
Its beyond many people. It has been said (and I agree) that if they had
just called it the A-111 all the mess with congress and the Navy and all that
would have been completely avoided. Now that they have finally gotten all the
bugs worked out of it, the F-111 is an extremely capable weapons platform.phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) (08/07/90)
From: phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) >F104: Starfighter, Lockheed. Thank You again, Kelly Johnson. Known > as the "missile with the man in it" While never achieving > great acceptance with the USAF, foreign countries gobbled them > up by the s***loads. I could be wrong, but I think this was > produced until the 1980's after having been built since the > early 60's. Held several speed and altitude records until > the Blackbirds came around and blew everybody away..... > >*** Also had a 25 foot wingspan! "Rocket with a man in it" indeed... The biggest customer was West Germany. In the 60's and 70's there were multiple scandals about its accident rate. One problem was its ejection system. Most modern fighters have "zero- altitude" ejection seats -- the ejection cannon shoots the pilot high enough that he can eject more or less safely while the plane is on the ground. This is handy for malfuntions on takeoff and approach. The F-104 ejection seat fired _down_, making this difficult. I've heard undocumented stories of desperate pilots in damaged, low-flying F-104's flipping inverted to eject upward, but not surviving. Yuck. -- | phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG | Phil Gustafson | (ames|pyramid|vsi1)!zorch!phil | UNIX/Graphics Consultant | | 1550 Martin Ave., San Jose CA 95126 | | 408/286-1749
gharris@oiscola.Columbia.NCR.COM (George Harris) (08/07/90)
From: gharris@oiscola.Columbia.NCR.COM (George Harris) In article <1990Jul31.223607.6367@cbnews.att.com> As I mentioned next week in my talk on reversible time... writes: >From: wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) >[...] >P38: Lightning, Lockheed. Maybe also thank you Kelly Johnson?????? > Twin boom "boomer" that the Germans called the "fork tailed > devil". HEAVILY armed; in the pacific was the aircraft > that shot down Adm. Yamamoto's plane. > >*** Also the plane that Richard Bong flew. He was the US top Ace of WWII. > I saw an interesting interview on TV (One of the A&E, Discovery, or Public TV specials) with the pilot that shot down the plane with Adm. Yamamoto. The Japanese plane was making a pass in front of him, and he decided to clear his guns to make sure that they would not jam when he tried to take a shot. This clearing burst was the burst that actually shot down the plane. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ! Georgia Tech Basketball - 1990 ACC Champs, 1990 Final Four, 1990 TSN PotY ! ! Georgia Tech Football - 1990 ! ! gharris@oiscola.Columbia.NCR.COM (George Harris) Go Jackets !
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (08/07/90)
From: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty)
this is going to be a little hard to follow.
Duane Mantick originally wrote stuff which is indented with
* <duane's text here>
"As I mentioned next week in my talk on reversible time..."
(no name given) then responded with stuff which is indented with
**** <his stuff here>
In article <1990Jul31.223607.6367@cbnews.att.com>, As I mentioned next writes:
*From: wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
*
*P38: Lightning, Lockheed. Maybe also thank you Kelly Johnson??????
* Twin boom "boomer" that the Germans called the "fork tailed
* devil". HEAVILY armed; in the pacific was the aircraft
* that shot down Adm. Yamamoto's plane.
**** Also the plane that Richard Bong flew. He was the US top Ace of WWII.
much more highly regarded in the Pacific than in the ETO; they developed
a better grasp on how to use it in the Pacific, where its long range
and its durability/reliability were important. it might have been useful
for long range bomber escort in europe, but they developed a bias against
it early.
*P39: Airacobra, Bell Aircraft. Sold lots to the Soviet Union during
* WWII. Unique design, never horridly impressive.
**** Heh, heh. This was an interesting one. Had it's engine in the middle if
**** the plane and a long propellor shaft through the cockpit. Was turbo-?
**** at first until the government got a hold of it, i think.
now i remember; it is Chuck Yeager who still defends the P-39 as having been
a good aircraft that got a bad rep early. the russians got decent versions
of it, and really liked it a lot. the P400 versions that got used by the
Cactus Air Force on Guadalcanal were hurting aircraft, though, due to the
turbocharger omission in early export versions.
*P61: Black Widow, Northrop.
**** Know why it was called the Black Widow? it was so hard to fly. I think
**** it was an attempt at a night fighter.
it was a night fighter, and a moderately successful one at that.
*P/F80: Shooting Star, Lockheed. Thank you Kelly Johnson.
**** It was also the first Jet that the Thunderbirds flew. Commissioned at
**** the end of WWII, I don't remember it ever seeing combat until Korea.
**** Anybody know any better? Educate me.
there were a very small number in Europe in 1945; they never encountered
the ME262. according to Chuck Yeager, the ME262 and the P-80A had nearly
identical flight characteristics, and they would have been very, very
evenly matched if they'd ever met in combat.
*F100: Super Sabre, North American. Nasty airplane at first but once
* the bugs were worked out, our first fighter to go supersonic
* in level flight became a very good aircraft.
the bug was that the vertical tail wasn't tall enough, causing
instability problems with high angles of attack, as i recall.
*F105: Thunderchief, Republic.
**** This was supposed to haave been developed as a nuclear strike bomber.
**** Was a b**ch to fly, and if I remember, the Thunderbirds had one of
**** their worst accidents in this bird due to its unforgiving nature.
as i reported in this group once before, the Thunderbirds/F105 accident
was due to a gross screwup by a maintenence depot; the F105 that failed
had been involved in a horrid mid-air refueling accident, and had
suffered MAJOR structural damage to a wing. the paperwork got separated
from the aircraft, which should have been retired for parts, and the
aircraft got issued to the Thunderbirds instead. it was only a matter
of time till the wing came off. this story is related by Jack Broughton
in _Going Downtown_.
richard
--
richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com ...!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty
``Don't close your eyes for the crash; you'll miss the best part''
-- Bruce MacInnes, Skip Barber Driving School instructorfiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (08/07/90)
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) > From: "As I mentioned next week in my talk on reversible time..." > From: wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) > > P61: Black Widow, Northrop. > > *** Know why it was called the Black Widow? it was so hard to fly. I think > *** it was an attempt at a night fighter. It was black. It was deadly. It ate the guys who tangled with it. > [mod.note: I've heard that the maneuverability of this aircraft > was phenomenal, comparable to (for the time) modern single-engine > fighters. Can anyone confirm or deny this ? - Bill ] The P-61 was one of the first aircraft to use spoilers for roll control. It roll rate was higher than that of a P-51. It was very fast on the level, too. In a dogfight, it probably shouldn't try to out-turn a smaller fighter, but it would be hard to hit if its pilot knew about an opponent. (The twin turreted 20mm cannon probably wouldn't have made it a patsy, either.) [mod.note: The turret contained 4 guns, not 2, and they were .50 cal MG's, the four 20mm cannon were in the belly. The turret was apparently only fitted on about half of the production aircraft. - Bill ] > F102: Delta Dagger? (I get this and the F106 backwards sometimes) and > I think Convair made this one. Delta wing. > > *** Yep. You got it straight. NASA is currently using one to study > *** lightning. They fly it into a storm and dare lightning to strike. It's > *** got marks all over it from strikes. They test avionics this way, but > *** have insulated backups in case of a failure. The NASA lightning-strike test plane is an F-106. Looks similar. The last F-102's in service, I think, are all QF-102 drones. > F105: Thunderchief, Republic. BIG bird, used more commonly in Vietnam > > *** This was supposed to haave been developed as a nuclear strike bomber. > *** Was a b**ch to fly, and if I remember, the Thunderbirds had one of > *** their worst accidents in this bird due to its unforgiving nature. Their very high fuel-consumption rate made a good excuse to transition to some other type of aircraft. would have been loud, though. > >The original Mk. I Spitfire had a two blade, fixed propeller. All war variants > >had 3 blade propellers with variable pitch. Late model (post-war) Griffon > >engined Spitfires may have had more blades. > > I've never seen or heard of a Spitfire with more than three blades. If you find > one, send me a picture. :-) Lots of them. From the Mk-22 (and its recce variant) with counter-rotating props, to various Griffon-powered versions (Mk-XVI?) used for ground-support work with 5 or so blades. I used to work for a guy who flew Griffon-powered types with 485 (NZ) Squadron. They also flew Typhoons later on. Transitioned to Mustangs just before the war ended (he liked them). He's not from NZ, but would like to live there after retirement. ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
pspod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (08/08/90)
From: pspod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov
In article <1990Aug5.042539.28495@cbnews.att.com>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes...
:>F102: Delta Dagger? (I get this and the F106 backwards sometimes) ...
:>*** Yep. You got it straight. NASA is currently using one to study
:>*** lightning. They fly it into a storm and dare lightning to strike...
:
:Sorry, slight misidentification here. The NASA lightning-research fighter
:(it does other jobs too, including aerodynamics work on highly-swept wings)
:is an F-106. I think it's specifically an F-106B, the two-man trainer
:version. It is scheduled to be retired before too very long, as the costs
:of operation and maintenance are starting to be very high now that it's a
:one-of-a-kind aircraft. They chose it for the job primarily because it is
:a high-performance jet fighter with 100% non-electronic controls -- it's
:old enough to be all hydraulics etc. Not an easy thing to find nowadays;
:I'm not sure what the replacement will be.
I think the replacement is the F-16XL which is now being used to test
boundary layer control.fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (08/08/90)
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
: From: geoffm@EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
:
: In article <1990Jul31.223607.6367@cbnews.att.com> As I mentioned next week in my talk on reversible time... writes:
:
: >P39: Airacobra, Bell Aircraft. Sold lots to the Soviet Union during
: >
: >*** Heh, heh. This was an interesting one. Had it's engine in the middle if
: >*** the plane and a long propellor shaft through the cockpit. Was turbo-?
: >*** at first until the government got a hold of it, i think. The gov't was
: >*** also responsible for moving the engine back behind the pilot. not good
: >*** if something blows.
:
: Why not? I'd think that would be an advantage, since no oil, smoke, etc.
: would be blown over the windshield and canopy.
It apparently had quite nasty flat-spin characteristics. A fully-developed
spin went flat after a few turns, too. (May have depended on remaining fuel
weight.)
------------
The only drawback with morning is that it comes
at such an inconvenient time of day.
------------tobin@uunet.uu.net (Mike Tobin) (08/09/90)
From: osprey!tobin@uunet.uu.net (Mike Tobin) In article <1990Aug5.042539.28495@cbnews.att.com> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > > >>F102: Delta Dagger? (I get this and the F106 backwards sometimes) ... >>*** Yep. You got it straight. NASA is currently using one to study >>*** lightning. They fly it into a storm and dare lightning to strike... > >Sorry, slight misidentification here. The NASA lightning-research fighter >(it does other jobs too, including aerodynamics work on highly-swept wings) >is an F-106. I think it's specifically an F-106B, the two-man trainer >version. It is scheduled to be retired before too very long, as the costs Most of the AF's F-102s and F-106s ended their days as Q ships: QF-102/QF-106 (and QF-100 now that I think about it). Q being the designation for drone (but let's not get into a family history of those :-)). Essentially they were radio controlled (from the ground), high speed targets. Practice missile rounds have no warheads so the QFs would be used until somebody got a direct hit (it's the proximity fuse that often gets the job done). When the 100s were used up they went to the 102s and now to the 106s.
john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) (08/09/90)
From: newave!john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) > > The original Mk. I Spitfire had a two blade, fixed propeller. All war > > variants had 3 blade propellers with variable pitch. Late model (post-war) > > Griffon engined Spitfires may have had more blades. > I've never seen or heard of a Spitfire with more than three blades. If you > find one, send me a picture. :-) Next time you are in Minneapolis, stop at the "Planes Of Fame" museum in Eden Prairie. You will find a Spitfile Mk14 with a loud Rolls Royce engine and a 5 blade prop. According to a museum "expert", it was produced at the very end of WWII. According to the Complete Book of WWII Combat Aircraft, the Spitfire Mk1 prototypes and early production models had 2 blade wooden props. Most of the Mk1 production had 3 blade aluminum props. The Mk9 had 4 blades. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!bungia!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (08/10/90)
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) > From: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) > *P61: Black Widow, Northrop. > > **** Know why it was called the Black Widow? it was so hard to fly. I think > **** it was an attempt at a night fighter. > > it was a night fighter, and a moderately successful one at that. While there were several aircraft used as night fighters on both (all five?) sides, there are only two I know of who were both successful and designed to be night fighters from the beginning. The P-61 was one. The other was the Heinkel He-219 "Uhu" (Owl). It was a very good-performing night fighter, though not produced in very large quantities. One unique feature was in upward-firing 20mm cannon pack, called "Jazz Music" (Schragemusik?). That said, some other aircraft were turned into pretty good night fighters as well. The Mosquito and Ju-88 come to mind. (Is there any role that one flavor or other of the Ju-88 didn't fill?) ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z1.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson) (08/10/90)
From: Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z1.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson)
SP> HEAVILY compared to what? The P38 had 4 50's and one 20mm.
SP> The P47 had 8 50's! The P38 may be considered heavily armed
SP> when compared to some early Jap fighters but not to later
SP> Axis and Allied fighters. :
Yes, but those 8 50's were spread out along the wings, with the "lethal
zone" (the point where all 8 guns converge) at one specific distance in front
of the airplane. The P-38's, on the other hand, were concentrated in the
nose, and the "lethal zone" extended as far out as the ammo would reach. I
have seen pictures of nighttime boresighting of both types of aircraft, and
the P-38 is much more impressive with all that lead concentrated in a cone
not much more than 3' in diameter!HGERBER%UALTAVM.bitnet@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca (08/11/90)
From: HGERBER%UALTAVM.bitnet@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca In article <1990Aug5.042553.28554@cbnews.att.com>, geoffm@EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Mi > >NASA is using an F-106 (a two-seat B model) for the lightning studies, not a >102. I don't believe that there are any airworthy F-102s left. :-( > >Geoff Four years ago I saw one of the Delta birds at a local airshow. It was from the Montana Air National Guard. I'm not sure if it was a 102 or a 106. Perhaps it's worth investigating. Hjalmar Gerber
rdh@sli.com (Robert D. Houk) (08/13/90)
From: rdh@sli.com (Robert D. Houk) In article <1990Aug7.040812.6711@cbnews.att.com> phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) writes: >F104: Starfighter, Lockheed. Thank You again, Kelly Johnson. Known > as the "missile with the man in it" While never achieving ... One problem was its ejection system. Most modern fighters have "zero- altitude" ejection seats -- the ejection cannon shoots the pilot high enough that he can eject more or less safely while the plane is on the ground. This is handy for malfuntions on takeoff and approach. The F-104 ejection seat fired _down_, making this difficult. I've heard undocumented stories of desperate pilots in damaged, low-flying F-104's flipping inverted to eject upward, but not surviving. Yuck. This goes back far enough that I don't even know in which box to look for the book, but... The first F104s ejected upwards, "normally". Then they discovered a minor drawback of the high "T" tail vis-a-vis ejecting pilots, so they changed to a downward ejection. They then discovered that trying to eject on a aborted takeoff (e.g., an inconvenient flameout) was not so good, so trained the pilots to be sure to flip the plane over before ejecting on an aborted takeoff. The wings were also unusually "sharp" - you could literally cut yourself on an unprotected leading edge. Interesting plane... -RDH -- A buddhist nudist RDH@SLI.COM | uunet!sli!rdh practices yoga bare. Robert D. Houk Software Leverage, Inc. 485 Massachusetts Avenue Arlington, Mass. 02174
hamish@waikato.ac.nz (08/14/90)
From: hamish@waikato.ac.nz In article <1990Aug7.040812.6711@cbnews.att.com>, phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) writes: > One problem was its ejection system. Most modern fighters have "zero- > altitude" ejection seats -- the ejection cannon shoots the pilot high > enough that he can eject more or less safely while the plane is on > the ground. This is handy for malfuntions on takeoff and approach. > > The F-104 ejection seat fired _down_, making this difficult. I've > heard undocumented stories of desperate pilots in damaged, low-flying > F-104's flipping inverted to eject upward, but not surviving. Yuck. I have a book that mentions this and also mentions that the manufacturers originally wanted to install Martin Baker ejection seats, but the fact that they were British and the downward firing ones were American got the politicians into the act and it was blocked. Eventually the West Germans decided that enough pilots had been killed and refitted the planes with the British Martin Baker seats that fired upwards. Apparently the mortality rate shot downwards after that. ============================================================================== | Hamish Marson | Internet hamish@waikato.ac.nz | | Computer Support Person | Phone (071)562889 xt 8181 | | Computer Science Department | Amiga 3000 for ME! | | University of Waikato | | ============================================================================== |Disclaimer: Anything said in this message is the personal opinion of the | | finger hitting the keyboard & doesn't represent my employers | | opinion in any way. (ie we probably don't agree) | ==============================================================================
shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (08/14/90)
From: Mary Shafer <shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov>
Phil Gustafson writes, apropos the F-104 Starfighter:
One problem was its ejection system. Most modern fighters have "zero-
altitude" ejection seats -- the ejection cannon shoots the pilot high
enough that he can eject more or less safely while the plane is on
the ground. This is handy for malfuntions on takeoff and approach.
The F-104 ejection seat fired _down_, making this difficult. I've
heard undocumented stories of desperate pilots in damaged, low-flying
F-104's flipping inverted to eject upward, but not surviving. Yuck.
Only briefly did the F-104 e-seat fire downward. (Long enough to
kill Ivan Kinchloe, though.) They all fire upward and have since
some time before the mid-60s.
The reason for this downward firing was that the T-tail would cut
the ejector in half at speed if he were ejected upward. When better
seat rockets were developed, all Starfighters were converted.
At the time that the Starfighter was introduced, zero-zero seats were
not universal in other aircraft. We're talking the 50s here.
--
Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
Of course I don't speak for NASA
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all"--Unknown US fighter pilotzarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dr. Strangelove) (08/14/90)
From: zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dr. Strangelove) In article <1990Aug9.015912.8503@cbnews.att.com> osprey!tobin@uunet.uu.net (Mike Tobin) writes: >From: osprey!tobin@uunet.uu.net (Mike Tobin) >In article <1990Aug5.042539.28495@cbnews.att.com> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >>>F102: Delta Dagger? (I get this and the F106 backwards sometimes) ... >>>*** Yep. You got it straight. NASA is currently using one to study >>>*** lightning. They fly it into a storm and dare lightning to strike... >>Sorry, slight misidentification here. The NASA lightning-research fighter >>(it does other jobs too, including aerodynamics work on highly-swept wings) >>is an F-106. I think it's specifically an F-106B, the two-man trainer >>version. It is scheduled to be retired before too very long, as the costs > >Most of the AF's F-102s and F-106s ended their days as Q ships: >QF-102/QF-106 (and QF-100 now that I think about it). Q being the designation>for drone (but let's not get into a family history of those :-)). F-102's Were also sold for export to both Turkey and Greece. The last I heard Turkey was still using the F-102 but the book was unsure as to how many were still flying, due to lack of spares. Greece has retired her F-102's and I believe they were replaced by the Mirage F-1. So some of the F-102's may still be around. :-). . . -- Dr. Strangelove "Berlin is the testicles of the West. U.Wisconsin Milwaukee Each time I give them a yank, they Major: Political Science holler." -Khruschev Why that Alias? From the Movie Dr. Strangelove.
pspod@kira.lerc.nasa.gov (Steve Podleski) (08/15/90)
From: pspod@kira.lerc.nasa.gov (Steve Podleski) In article <1990Aug10.010748.29824@cbnews.att.com> Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z1.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson) writes: SP> HEAVILY compared to what? The P38 had 4 50's and one 20mm. SP> The P47 had 8 50's! > Yes, but those 8 50's were spread out along the wings, with the "lethal >zone" (the point where all 8 guns converge) at one specific distance in front >of the airplane. The P-38's, on the other hand, were concentrated in the >nose, and the "lethal zone" extended as far out as the ammo would reach. I >have seen pictures of nighttime boresighting of both types of aircraft, and >the P-38 is much more impressive with all that lead concentrated in a cone >not much more than 3' in diameter! True but having all the firepower concentrated in the nose demands some considerable shooting skill to hit your target. Wing guns, giving more of a spray effect, will allow an average pilot some chance in hitting his target. Galland in his book, First to Last(?), said that most of the German experts preferred the Me109F mainly because all the armaments were in the nose but most other German pilots preferred the FW 190 because of it wing cannons ( and it was easier to fly).
ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) (08/15/90)
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib)
<>:
<>: >P39: Airacobra, Bell Aircraft. Sold lots to the Soviet Union during
<>: >
>: >*** Heh, heh. This was an interesting one. Had it's engine in the middle if
<>: >*** the plane and a long propellor shaft through the cockpit. Was turbo-?
<>: >*** at first until the government got a hold of it, i think. The gov't was
<>: >*** also responsible for moving the engine back behind the pilot. not good
<>: >*** if something blows.
<>:
<>: Why not? I'd think that would be an advantage, since no oil, smoke, etc.
<>: would be blown over the windshield and canopy.
<>
<>It apparently had quite nasty flat-spin characteristics. A fully-developed
<>spin went flat after a few turns, too. (May have depended on remaining fuel
<>weight.)
It also couldn't turn with the ME-109s and FW-190s. The first
US squadron based in England after the US entered the war was
equipped with these and suffered terrible losses until they
were given something better. Pilots had to resort to the same
hit-and-run tactics that Messerschmidt pilots had to use against
Spitfires.
Some pilots reported another nasty characteristic: the airplane
could be made to do a forward somersault (the engine being so
close to the C/G, the moments of inertia were very small).
Was the p-63 Kingcobra an improvement of any sort?ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) (08/15/90)
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) In article <1990Aug12.214544.2818@cbnews.att.com> rdh@sli.com (Robert D. Houk) writes: > F104: Starfighter, Lockheed. Thank You again, Kelly Johnson. Known as the "missile with the man in it" While never achieving > ... How good a dogfighter was the F-104? The wing area is a tad small, but the airplane was supposedly pretty light. Could it turn with other fighters? Or was it simply a bom- ber interceptor? Any comments?
ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) (08/15/90)
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) >> >>>F102: Delta Dagger? (I get this and the F106 backwards sometimes) ... >>>*** Yep. You got it straight. NASA is currently using one to study >>>*** lightning. They fly it into a storm and dare lightning to strike... >> >>Sorry, slight misidentification here. The NASA lightning-research fighter >>(it does other jobs too, including aerodynamics work on highly-swept wings) >>is an F-106. I think it's specifically an F-106B, the two-man trainer >>version. It is scheduled to be retired before too very long, as the costs Wasn't there also a program to use the engines developed for the YF-12 in a Delta Dart airframe? The result was an airplane that was supposed to have outperformed the F-4. The project supposedly died when the YF-12 program was cancelled. Does anyone have any information on the F-12 project? What was the performance of this airplane supposed to be? What kind of armament was it supposed to have mounted? The project was supposed to produce a strategic bomber interceptor, and instead spawned the SR-71.
shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (08/16/90)
From: Mary Shafer <shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov>
About the F-106--Rockwell managed to get the last (in some sense--most
recently operational, last built, something) Air National Guard
F-106s, to use as chases for the B-1 production flight test. I saw
one shooting touch-and-goes at Plant 42 a couple of months ago. I
believe that these planes came from the North Dakota ANG, but am not
certain.
These planes probably still belong to the Air Force and are just
bailed to Rockwell.
The X-31 consortium (Rockwell, USN, and Germans) are using F-8Gs for
their chase planes. Same procedure, only Navy.
Let me explain production test flight. A company builds a military
plane and it's flown by a company test pilot for at least one flight
before the military accepts the plane and flies it away. The reason
for the pre-acceptance flights is to test that the wings are indeed
attached to the fuselage, the gear goes down as well as up, the
control surfaces move in the required directions, and other
airworthiness issues. The military wants any problems to happen to
the company's airplane, not the military's. The same procedure is
followed for civil aircraft.
--
Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
Of course I don't speak for NASA
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all"--Unknown US fighter pilotadrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) (08/22/90)
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk> In article <1990Aug15.031847.25309@cbnews.att.com> pspod@kira.lerc.nasa.gov (Steve Podleski) writes: > >In article <1990Aug10.010748.29824@cbnews.att.com> Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z1.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson) writes: > > SP> HEAVILY compared to what? The P38 had 4 50's and one 20mm. > SP> The P47 had 8 50's! Tsk, tsk, such lightly armed aircraft! Several aircraft had four 20mm cannon, backed up by a few MG's. For real firepower, there was the FW 190 with four 20mm cannon as standard. From the A-6 version onward, these were the MG-151 cannon, with a rate of fire equal to most light machine-guns, and at least 1 1/2 times that of other 20mm guns. Add to that the bolt-on packs for use against bombers; two MG-151's per pack, one pack under each wing. Total: eight fast-firing 20mm cannon. >True but having all the firepower concentrated in the nose demands some >considerable shooting skill to hit your target. Wing guns, giving more of >a spray effect, will allow an average pilot some chance in hitting his target. In the "633 Squadron" books, mention is made several times of German fighters having their guns angled up by about 2 degrees. The idea was to force pilots to fly under their targets, primarily bombers with less defensive firepower underneath than above. Of course, the "633 Squadron" series is fiction, but does anyone know if the Germans really did do this? "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk
Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z1.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson) (08/23/90)
From: Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z1.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson)
SP> True but having all the firepower concentrated in the nose
SP> demands some considerable shooting skill to hit your target.
SP> Wing guns, giving more of a spray effect, will allow an average
SP> pilot some chance in hitting his target.
Maybe that's why the two top-scoring pilots of the Uninted
States flew P-38's? Personally, I would rather have one hit take the
guy out rather than have to peck on him several times, allowing the
badguy to respond. This was also the attitude of the pilots themselves,
as the controversy over tracer bullets in fighters points out.
ron@uunet.UU.NET (Ron Joma) (08/28/90)
From: attcan!ron@uunet.UU.NET (Ron Joma) In article <1990Aug22.025006.15437@cbnews.att.com>, adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) writes: > > > In the "633 Squadron" books, mention is made several times of German fighters > having their guns angled up by about 2 degrees. The idea was to force pilots > to fly under their targets, primarily bombers with less defensive firepower > underneath than above. Of course, the "633 Squadron" series is fiction, but > does anyone know if the Germans really did do this? > There is mention of this technique being used by the Luftwaffe night fighters, the so called schragge musik, literally jazz music, where the gun was pointed up about 20 degrees, being mounted behind the pilot on ME 110's. The idea was to fly close and underneath an intruder and then fire away. Dangerous but effective when a target was aquired. There are a number of good references: Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe; Night Fighter amoungst others. I find that most of the WW2 books detailing this are out of print, with the possible exception of the Ballantine War Series, but that used book stores remain a good source. Gallands book (First and Last) though fairly tough to read - more of an essay than a memoir, does spend some time on tactics. I do not recall that mention is made of 2 degree up angle of guns amounting to anything. ****************************************************************************** * Ronald Joma * I speak to the masses through the media, * * AT&T - Montreal * And if you have anything to say to me * * attcan!cmtl01!ron * You can say it with CASH! * ******************************************************************************
jem3@bellcore.bellcore.com (John E McKillop) (08/28/90)
From: pyuxf!jem3@bellcore.bellcore.com (John E McKillop) >In article <1990Aug5.042553.28554@cbnews.att.com>, geoffm@EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Mi > > Four years ago I saw one of the Delta birds at a local airshow. It > was from the Montana Air National Guard. > > I'm not sure if it was a 102 or a 106. Perhaps it's worth investigating. It was an F-106. The Montana Air National Guard has traditionally served as an air defense unit and these units, including the 119th Fighter Interceptor Squadron of the New Jersey Air National Guard, used the F-106 until several years ago. These birds were about 25 years old when they were finally retired and replaced by F-16s.
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (08/30/90)
From: fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) > From: attcan!ron@uunet.UU.NET (Ron Joma) > adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) writes: > > In the "633 Squadron" books, mention is made several times of German fighters > > having their guns angled up by about 2 degrees. The idea was to force pilots > > to fly under their targets, primarily bombers with less defensive firepower > > underneath than above. Of course, the "633 Squadron" series is fiction, but > > does anyone know if the Germans really did do this? > > There is mention of this technique being used by the Luftwaffe night fighters, > the so called schragge musik, literally jazz music, where the gun was pointed > up about 20 degrees, being mounted behind the pilot on ME 110's. The idea > was to fly close and underneath an intruder and then fire away. Dangerous > but effective when a target was aquired. Schragemusik was designed into the He-219 "Uhu", which may have been the best purpose-built night fighter of the war. It also had four or so 20mm cannon installed under the nose in a pan for more punch. One variation on schragemusik was a photoelectric cell facing upward. When it found its light blocked, it triggered the cannon, or in some systems, air-to-air rockets. This is said to have had drastic effect on a number of innocent clouds. It doesn't seem to have seen major service. ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) (08/31/90)
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk> In article <1990Aug28.030941.22149@cbnews.att.com> attcan!ron@uunet.UU.NET (Ron Joma) writes: > >In article <1990Aug22.025006.15437@cbnews.att.com>, adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) writes: >> >> >> In the "633 Squadron" books, mention is made several times of German fighters >> having their guns angled up by about 2 degrees. The idea was to force pilots >> to fly under their targets, primarily bombers with less defensive firepower >> underneath than above. Of course, the "633 Squadron" series is fiction, but >> does anyone know if the Germans really did do this? >> > >There is mention of this technique being used by the Luftwaffe night fighters, >the so called schragge musik, literally jazz music, where the gun was pointed >up about 20 degrees, being mounted behind the pilot on ME 110's. I have heard of this system. I believe that some Ju 88 night fighters had it also; and the Japanese also did it with some of their twin-engined fighters. This was not what I meant, though. The book "633 Squadron", and one of its sequels, mentioned that FW 190's had their guns angled up by about 2 degrees (not 20) to force the pilot to fly below the bomber. It was mentioned when someone was being chased through a Norwegian fjord by such a fighter; he flew really low over a waterfall, the German pilot was concentrating too much on his target and not on where he was going, and flew into the waterfall. "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk