Old Adversaries
11-16-2008, 11:27 AM
#31
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Good One!!
Cliffy:
Good one, and I'm amazed you have one to show...
For everyone else, it's an Anti-Erosion Cap----prevents raindrops from destroying the tip of the radome (and then the rest of the radome) when you fly through rain or other precip at 500 kts or better.
Good one, and I'm amazed you have one to show...
For everyone else, it's an Anti-Erosion Cap----prevents raindrops from destroying the tip of the radome (and then the rest of the radome) when you fly through rain or other precip at 500 kts or better.
11-16-2008, 07:45 PM
#35
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Legit
Jungle:
I'm legit, but remember: I flew Es and Gs, and we had a pitot-tube sticking out of the front of the radome, not the Anti-Erosion cap of the short-nosed Rhinos!!
I always thought the back of the pitot tube held the drag-chute.
I flew tail 69-232 to the boneyard 26 Mar 1996. I wasn't even unstrapped and some AMARC guy was up the ladder and taking the mag-compass out (apparently lots of pilots took them as souveniers).
The day I parked there, there were 1700 F-4s in the boneyard. Very sad.
Cliffy, I can't read the fin-flash on 766---where were you based?
I'm legit, but remember: I flew Es and Gs, and we had a pitot-tube sticking out of the front of the radome, not the Anti-Erosion cap of the short-nosed Rhinos!!
I always thought the back of the pitot tube held the drag-chute.
I flew tail 69-232 to the boneyard 26 Mar 1996. I wasn't even unstrapped and some AMARC guy was up the ladder and taking the mag-compass out (apparently lots of pilots took them as souveniers).
The day I parked there, there were 1700 F-4s in the boneyard. Very sad.
Cliffy, I can't read the fin-flash on 766---where were you based?
11-19-2008, 10:07 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Back to the right side
Posts: 230
Pilotpip and MMaviator:
With 2300+ hours in the Phantom, allow me:
Jet engines don't like to swallow supersonic air. Jets that are in the Mach 2-category (theoretically), have variable-geometry intakes. The Phantom has the external splitter--the forward part is fixed, but the back half (or "ramp," as we called it) is what moves, counter-intuitively, to block some of the air, as you go really fast.
I did Functional Check Flights, and at 40-48000 ft, the ramps would start to move at 500 indicated, or about Mach 1.6-1.8 (depending on OAT).
The F-14, -15, and Super Hornet all have variable-geometry intakes. The F-22's moving intakes are hidden inside the obvious intake, so as to minimize radar reflections (stealth).
The F-16 and A/B/C/D-model Hornets are fixed-intakes, and as such, are limited in Mach. I don't know the exact figure, but I would guess in the 1.3-1.6 range.
The T-38 I fly now is (in theory) limited to Mach 1.3, but in reality, with its new larger intake, is so draggy it can barely crack Mach-1.
The original B-1A had VG Intakes, but to save cost, it was eliminated from the B-1B--and that is why top speed dropped to 1.3, and subsonic on the deck.
Ryan:
The original J-79s smoked, but I flew the J-79-17E/Gs....they were smokeless (I flew F-4Gs). No kidding, F-15s and F-16s smoked more than we did. But ironically, they burned about 3% more gas than the smokers.
And that is a bunch. At brake release on takeoff, we were burning 98,000 lbs an hour. By comparison, a 747-400 is burning about 60,000.
With 2300+ hours in the Phantom, allow me:
Jet engines don't like to swallow supersonic air. Jets that are in the Mach 2-category (theoretically), have variable-geometry intakes. The Phantom has the external splitter--the forward part is fixed, but the back half (or "ramp," as we called it) is what moves, counter-intuitively, to block some of the air, as you go really fast.
I did Functional Check Flights, and at 40-48000 ft, the ramps would start to move at 500 indicated, or about Mach 1.6-1.8 (depending on OAT).
The F-14, -15, and Super Hornet all have variable-geometry intakes. The F-22's moving intakes are hidden inside the obvious intake, so as to minimize radar reflections (stealth).
The F-16 and A/B/C/D-model Hornets are fixed-intakes, and as such, are limited in Mach. I don't know the exact figure, but I would guess in the 1.3-1.6 range.
The T-38 I fly now is (in theory) limited to Mach 1.3, but in reality, with its new larger intake, is so draggy it can barely crack Mach-1.
The original B-1A had VG Intakes, but to save cost, it was eliminated from the B-1B--and that is why top speed dropped to 1.3, and subsonic on the deck.
Ryan:
The original J-79s smoked, but I flew the J-79-17E/Gs....they were smokeless (I flew F-4Gs). No kidding, F-15s and F-16s smoked more than we did. But ironically, they burned about 3% more gas than the smokers.
And that is a bunch. At brake release on takeoff, we were burning 98,000 lbs an hour. By comparison, a 747-400 is burning about 60,000.
11-19-2008, 10:22 PM
#38
With The Resistance
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
I remember the fighter guys having to tickle the 'burner to stay in the refeuling hose when they were heavy. We would have to enter a slight descent to keep them from stalling because they couldn't keep flying at our straight and level 210 KIAS with a full bag. They must have been burning it as fast as we were passing it to them!
Tanking an F-4 off a C-130 usually required one engine in partial burner just to hang in the basket, with an aft CG and flying close to stall you had to be delicate. One of my squadron mates performed an accidental snap roll in the basket and ended up striking the thankfully empty basket on the opposite side with his canopy. The RIO said he had never been so happy to go straight down in his entire life.
11-20-2008, 07:38 AM
#40
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Thomas Edison
It was one helluva lightbulb......
GunnerV:
The F-4E and G I flew were the heaviest and draggiest of the Phantom Phamily. During Gulf War 1, we were refueling at FL280-300. It didn't like being up there.
As the jet got full, you had to put one in min AB to hang on. I learned from my flight lead (an old-school Weapons School guy) to tell the KC-135 to give us "4 pumps." Sometimes the boomers would protest, but it was what it took---we were burning it as fast as we took it with just 2 pumps.
Four pumps were normally used only with B-52s.
GunnerV:
The F-4E and G I flew were the heaviest and draggiest of the Phantom Phamily. During Gulf War 1, we were refueling at FL280-300. It didn't like being up there.
As the jet got full, you had to put one in min AB to hang on. I learned from my flight lead (an old-school Weapons School guy) to tell the KC-135 to give us "4 pumps." Sometimes the boomers would protest, but it was what it took---we were burning it as fast as we took it with just 2 pumps.
Four pumps were normally used only with B-52s.
