A couple night ago A friend and I were looking up atbthe sky above
Whidbey Island. It was late dusk but still enough light to see a
contrail forming behind a jet that was way high. Then, to our
astonishment, two big glowing lights appeared behind the jet and the
contrail disappeared. It traveled that way until out of sight. I think
we must have been seeing afterburners. It was cool.
ERS

"Eric R Snow" wrote in message
...
| A couple night ago A friend and I were looking up atbthe sky above
| Whidbey Island. It was late dusk but still enough light to see a
| contrail forming behind a jet that was way high. Then, to our
| astonishment, two big glowing lights appeared behind the jet and the
| contrail disappeared. It traveled that way until out of sight. I think
| we must have been seeing afterburners. It was cool.
| ERS

When I was stationed in Japan some time ago, while RF-4B's were still in
use (RF-4B being a F-4 modified to do recon duty) I used to go out to the
end of the runway on the perimeter road after work in the evening and be
there when they took off for their patrols. You could see them light off
the afterburners halfway down the runway but wouldn't hear it until they
passed less than 100 feet overhead. Quite the rush! The pressure wave that
hit you at the same time the sound did is very hard to describe, but it
naturally takes your breath away, not just in the sheer display of
incredible fuel guzzling raw power. At the time F-4's, along with EA-6B's,
were the loudest thing in the Navy/Marine Corps fleet, and it was a trip
being up close. The EA-6B's were about as loud, but not nearly as fast, so
you didn't get quite the same effect.

F-4...Proof that with enough power, you can make a brick fly!

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:51:44 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:

===F-4...Proof that with enough power, you can make a brick fly!
===
I am an old Phantom II Phixer myself. Great old airplane....Worked on
RF-4C, F4-D, F4-Cs.....They were an awesome aircraft for night time
takeoffs for sure. They would hit that runway on takeoff roll and you
could see each stage of the AB kick in, then they started to rotate,
and thos ehuge long flames from the tailpipe would still be scorching
the runway a long ways back.....

IMHO they were the neatest airplane the Thunderbirds flew......lots of
smoke and noise and their size making seeing and hearing them very
easy.

We later transitioned to F-16C's and from a pilots perspective it was
a vast improvement, but from a mechanics point it was a nightmare and
was a never ending chore keeping the FMC rate up. You can never see
daylight with F-16's but there was always light at the end of the
tunnel in the old F-4 days. The F-4 was a good all around airplane,
not economoical though for fuel, but the F-16 burns almost as much
fuel but its only a great airplane for pilots and not most mechanic
types. Heck the pilot has little to do as the computers do it all for
him anymore.....


==============================================
Put some color in your cheeks...garden naked!
"The original frugal ponder"
~~~~ }((((o ~~~~~~ }{{{{o ~~~~~~~ }(((((o

What always amazed me was the number of maintenance hours per flight hour.
Can you imagine if it was like that for cars?


"Roy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:51:44 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:

===F-4...Proof that with enough power, you can make a brick fly!
===
I am an old Phantom II Phixer myself. Great old airplane....Worked on
RF-4C, F4-D, F4-Cs.....They were an awesome aircraft for night time
takeoffs for sure. They would hit that runway on takeoff roll and you
could see each stage of the AB kick in, then they started to rotate,
and thos ehuge long flames from the tailpipe would still be scorching
the runway a long ways back.....

IMHO they were the neatest airplane the Thunderbirds flew......lots of
smoke and noise and their size making seeing and hearing them very
easy.

We later transitioned to F-16C's and from a pilots perspective it was
a vast improvement, but from a mechanics point it was a nightmare and
was a never ending chore keeping the FMC rate up. You can never see
daylight with F-16's but there was always light at the end of the
tunnel in the old F-4 days. The F-4 was a good all around airplane,
not economoical though for fuel, but the F-16 burns almost as much
fuel but its only a great airplane for pilots and not most mechanic
types. Heck the pilot has little to do as the computers do it all for
him anymore.....


==============================================
Put some color in your cheeks...garden naked!
"The original frugal ponder"
~~~~ }((((o ~~~~~~ }{{{{o ~~~~~~~ }(((((o

Eric's just north of Seattle, maybe it was one of those damn Blue Angels that
have been clogging up traffic. When I was a kid they did NOT close highways
because of the Blue Angels! What a nightmare.

Tom, you're right but a car can't fly in kick your ass and be gone within a
couple of seconds the way a modern fighter aircraft can. :-)

GWE

Tom Gardner wrote:

What always amazed me was the number of maintenance hours per flight hour.
Can you imagine if it was like that for cars?


"Roy" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:51:44 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:


===F-4...Proof that with enough power, you can make a brick fly!
===

I am an old Phantom II Phixer myself. Great old airplane....Worked on
RF-4C, F4-D, F4-Cs.....They were an awesome aircraft for night time
takeoffs for sure. They would hit that runway on takeoff roll and you
could see each stage of the AB kick in, then they started to rotate,
and thos ehuge long flames from the tailpipe would still be scorching
the runway a long ways back.....

IMHO they were the neatest airplane the Thunderbirds flew......lots of
smoke and noise and their size making seeing and hearing them very
easy.

We later transitioned to F-16C's and from a pilots perspective it was
a vast improvement, but from a mechanics point it was a nightmare and
was a never ending chore keeping the FMC rate up. You can never see
daylight with F-16's but there was always light at the end of the
tunnel in the old F-4 days. The F-4 was a good all around airplane,
not economoical though for fuel, but the F-16 burns almost as much
fuel but its only a great airplane for pilots and not most mechanic
types. Heck the pilot has little to do as the computers do it all for
him anymore.....


==============================================
Put some color in your cheeks...garden naked!
"The original frugal ponder"
~~~~ }((((o ~~~~~~ }{{{{o ~~~~~~~ }(((((o

Eric R Snow wrote:
A couple night ago A friend and I were looking up atbthe sky above
Whidbey Island. It was late dusk but still enough light to see a
contrail forming behind a jet that was way high. Then, to our
astonishment, two big glowing lights appeared behind the jet and the
contrail disappeared. It traveled that way until out of sight. I think
we must have been seeing afterburners. It was cool.

I was down at the Fleet Air Arm Museum at Yeovilton here in the UK a
couple of months ago and got to look over one of the prototype
Concordes. The wing is sufficiently low for you to be able to stick your
head more or less into the rear of the Olympus engines. I was looking at
this strange ring of what looked like standard half-inch (15mm over
here) copper pipe with holes drilled in it when it occurred to me that
this thing was an afterburner. Looked as if it had been installed by a
plumber.

jd

--

John Daragon
argv[0] limited (Asterisk implementation & consultancy)
Lambs Lawn Cottage, Staple Fitzpaine, Taunton, TA3 5SL, UK
v +44 (0) 1460 234068 f +44 (0) 1460 234069 m +44 (0) 7836 576127

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:51:44 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:

F-4...Proof that with enough power, you can make a brick fly!


I think that the F-104 takes that prize. We went to a museum a while
back and my daughter asked me where the rest of the wing was. :-)

Wayne Cook
Shamrock, TX
http://members.dslextreme.com/users/waynecook/index.htm

Starfighters rule.... truely a "manned missile"
The ultimate in the concept of wrapping a bit of sheet metal around a
real big engine...and let 'er rip.

al in colorado

ps...But NOTHING ....absolutely NOTHING is as impressive as being near
an SR-71 Blackbird when the "Sled-Driver" slips the sticks into full AB.

Eric R Snow wrote:
... two big glowing lights appeared behind the jet and the
contrail disappeared. ... I think
we must have been seeing afterburners. ...

Hmmm ... I wonder why the contrail disappeared. With all that much more
fuel being burned and water vapor being created, I would think that the
contrail would get even bigger. Anybody know? Bob

Eric R Snow wrote:
... two big glowing lights appeared behind the jet and the
contrail disappeared. ... I think
we must have been seeing afterburners. ...

Hmmm ... I wonder why the contrail disappeared. With all that much more
fuel being burned and water vapor being created, I would think that the
contrail would get even bigger. Anybody know? Bob
That amount of heat probably got rid of the moisture....?.....?
Ken.

In the early '70's, me and the buds used to go down to Boeing Field,
sneak in next to 13R (31L), get drunk and wait for 747s to land. We were
Less than 50' off the runway in the scrub. VERY impressive.
JR
Dweller in the cellar

Eric R Snow wrote:
A couple night ago A friend and I were looking up atbthe sky above
Whidbey Island. It was late dusk but still enough light to see a
contrail forming behind a jet that was way high. Then, to our
astonishment, two big glowing lights appeared behind the jet and the
contrail disappeared. It traveled that way until out of sight. I think
we must have been seeing afterburners. It was cool.
ERS


--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home Page: http://www.seanet.com/~jasonrnorth
If you're not the lead dog, the view never changes
Doubt yourself, and the real world will eat you alive
The world doesn't revolve around you, it revolves around me
No skeletons in the closet; just decomposing corpses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dependence is Vulnerability:
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Open the Pod Bay Doors please, Hal"
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.."

I beleive there are still a fair number of Starfighters in use around the
world with small air forces.


wrote in message
ups.com...
Starfighters rule.... truely a "manned missile"
The ultimate in the concept of wrapping a bit of sheet metal around a
real big engine...and let 'er rip.

al in colorado

ps...But NOTHING ....absolutely NOTHING is as impressive as being near
an SR-71 Blackbird when the "Sled-Driver" slips the sticks into full AB.

In article ,
Bob Engelhardt wrote:

Eric R Snow wrote:
... two big glowing lights appeared behind the jet and the
contrail disappeared. ... I think
we must have been seeing afterburners. ...

Hmmm ... I wonder why the contrail disappeared. With all that much more
fuel being burned and water vapor being created, I would think that the
contrail would get even bigger. Anybody know? Bob

Seems I remember hearing somewhere about a chemical that could be
introduced into the exhaust that would suppress and/or eliminate vapor
trails. IIRC something was/is particularly nasty about it, toxic,
corrosive or some such. It was for the cloak and dagger types, recon,
stealth and all that.

Just Googled around for a second, take a look at this...

http://www.google.com/search?q=paten...=Google+Search

Erik

Tom Gardner wrote:
What always amazed me was the number of maintenance hours per flight hour.
Can you imagine if it was like that for cars?


Well, I had a Fiat once..

"JR North" wrote in message
...
In the early '70's, me and the buds used to go down to Boeing Field,
sneak in next to 13R (31L), get drunk and wait for 747s to land. We were
Less than 50' off the runway in the scrub. VERY impressive.
JR
Dweller in the cellar

Eric R Snow wrote:
A couple night ago A friend and I were looking up atbthe sky above
Whidbey Island. It was late dusk but still enough light to see a
contrail forming behind a jet that was way high. Then, to our
astonishment, two big glowing lights appeared behind the jet and the
contrail disappeared. It traveled that way until out of sight. I think
we must have been seeing afterburners. It was cool.
ERS


--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home Page: http://www.seanet.com/~jasonrnorth
If you're not the lead dog, the view never changes
Doubt yourself, and the real world will eat you alive
The world doesn't revolve around you, it revolves around me
No skeletons in the closet; just decomposing corpses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dependence is Vulnerability:
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Open the Pod Bay Doors please, Hal"
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.."

I was on board the USS ENTERPRISE during the Viet-Nam war. One miserably
hot night in the Tonkin Gulf, a sailor found a "cool" place to sleep. Most
of the flight deck is surrounded by catwalks. But the areas where there are
no catwalks are protected by safety nets to catch people who fall off the
edge of the flight deck and save them from a rather unpleasant swim. One
such area is the forward edge of the deck. Our hero slipped down over the
deck edge and sacked out in the net. He was sleeping real good when, about
2 AM, the ship started to launch F-4's. Other than the afterburners giving
him a haircut that exceeded Marine Corps specs, he didn't end up toooo much
the worse for wear....

Jerry

"Bob Engelhardt" wrote in message
...
| Eric R Snow wrote:
| ... two big glowing lights appeared behind the jet and the
| contrail disappeared. ... I think
| we must have been seeing afterburners. ...
|
| Hmmm ... I wonder why the contrail disappeared. With all that much more
| fuel being burned and water vapor being created, I would think that the
| contrail would get even bigger. Anybody know? Bob

At that altitude the pressure change of the air passing around and
through the engine is pretty intense, and the shock wave compresses the air.
Compressed air tends to have the moisture vapor "fall out" or condenses into
the form of tiny droplets. Those who stand in fog (a very low cloud) can
actually see them suspended in the air. All of us with compressors
understand this process all to well, but likely never applied it to those
things up in the sky. The AB puts out so much heat it revaporizes the fine
droplets which we would ordinarily see as a cloud or contrails. When the
tiny droplets gather together enough to make bigger droplets, we get rain,
and as the droplets start to fall, they pick up other droplets and grow. At
least that's how I understand it. Oh, and to those who have seen the shock
wave around airplanes as they pass through the sound barrier? Exact same
thing.

"Jerry Foster" wrote in message
. ..

|
| I was on board the USS ENTERPRISE during the Viet-Nam war. One miserably
| hot night in the Tonkin Gulf, a sailor found a "cool" place to sleep.
Most
| of the flight deck is surrounded by catwalks. But the areas where there
are
| no catwalks are protected by safety nets to catch people who fall off the
| edge of the flight deck and save them from a rather unpleasant swim. One
| such area is the forward edge of the deck. Our hero slipped down over
the
| deck edge and sacked out in the net. He was sleeping real good when,
about
| 2 AM, the ship started to launch F-4's. Other than the afterburners
giving
| him a haircut that exceeded Marine Corps specs, he didn't end up toooo
much
| the worse for wear....
|
| Jerry

Oh, dat's funny rot there fer sure! Thanks for the laugh. I wonder if
they could smell the burning hair over the rest of the flight deck since the
ship was turned into the wind? Just thinking about _that_ makes me laugh
again!

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 04:30:26 GMT, "Jerry Foster"
wrote:

.."

I was on board the USS ENTERPRISE during the Viet-Nam war. One miserably
hot night in the Tonkin Gulf, a sailor found a "cool" place to sleep. Most
of the flight deck is surrounded by catwalks. But the areas where there are
no catwalks are protected by safety nets to catch people who fall off the
edge of the flight deck and save them from a rather unpleasant swim. One
such area is the forward edge of the deck. Our hero slipped down over the
deck edge and sacked out in the net. He was sleeping real good when, about
2 AM, the ship started to launch F-4's. Other than the afterburners giving
him a haircut that exceeded Marine Corps specs, he didn't end up toooo much
the worse for wear....

Jerry



While on a tincan in that era that plane guarded those bird farms I
remember the ABs on launch-pretty impressive sight for a farm kid.
I remember while on the bridge one night on the 12 to 4 the ood
getting via semaphore the order for plane guard and having to remember
which way to manuver in the dark (no running lights) in a 8 ship
formation without getting runover... that collage kid was sweating
bullets but did fine.. We could hardly keep up on launch with a nuke
carrier man they were fast.



DE

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

The only remaining starfighters in use are those that are in the USA
and owned by private individuals........I had the opportunity to work
for such a company and parts overall were extremely hard to get. The
company I worked for bought 8 from Jordan, which were FMS when parked
for over 10 years at that time at a far end of a taxiway and covered
in sand...we had to use dozers and much hand labvor to get them out,
but two of them were put back in flying condition. The best one the
company got was a F-104K which came from Norway, and delivered by the
Norwegian AF dissmantled in a C-130........It too was removed from
flying condition and shipped and once reassembled it had many many
more flight hours put on it.....Talk about a transition. The chielf
pilots n the company were former U S Army and Marine pilots who only
ever flew Cobra and Apache helicopters and small civil aviation
aircraft, now they made the leap to high performance jet
aircraft......we (company) had a total of 12 Starfighters, 1 MIG-15, 3
Hawker Hunters (both 1 and two seaters) as well as a Mitsubishi
support aircraft (looks like a miniature C-130 but with 2 engines
nstead of 4) as well as a host of other Beech and Cessna's. The
company used to be called NOrthern Lights and its main office wa in
Wisconsin, however its aircraft and support facilites were in
Alabama......We used to fly a lot of spin tests and other missions for
the U S Navy with the Hunters, up at Pauxatant River, Va. (sp?) as
well as Tyndoll AFB usiing the F-104's as enemy aircraft.....also did
quite a few airshows.....Company eventually went bankrupt due to a
power struggle, and the F-104's were sold to a fellow named Cliff
Robertson, and the another company in Vermont......The Hawker Hunters
went to the Vermont company as well (Vintage Aircraft Inc) and the
only 2 seater in existence later crashed when it bingoed on fuel right
at the end of the runway, bellied in and the pilot killed, but the
plane was able to be flown again after repairs.........

The last countries to use the Starfighter was Canada, and Germany and
Norway.It also uses the same basic engine as the F-4, a General
Electric J-79 GE-15 (if I remember correctly) which was mainly just
the augmentor(afterburner assembly) assembly and a few other little
odds and ends, but the core engine was the same. I have quite a few
hours in a F-104K in the back seat, as well as quite a few hours
flight time in the RF and F-4 aircraft......My unit used to fly wrench
benders in the back seat all the time to go cross country to fix the
ones that broke down at various bases, and of course n weekends, most
pilots wanted to do a cross country, and a lot of times the back seat
was vacant and needing an occupant to fill it, so going along for the
ride and a trip to another base for a weekend was pretty easy to get.
Of course this was a National Guard unit, and they play by a different
set of rules than the regular airforce does........The airforce calls
these rides "incentive rides" the guard called them filling an empty
seat.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 02:16:39 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:

===I beleive there are still a fair number of Starfighters in use around the
===world with small air forces.
===
===
wrote in message
glegroups.com...
=== Starfighters rule.... truely a "manned missile"
=== The ultimate in the concept of wrapping a bit of sheet metal around a
=== real big engine...and let 'er rip.
===
=== al in colorado
===
=== ps...But NOTHING ....absolutely NOTHING is as impressive as being near
=== an SR-71 Blackbird when the "Sled-Driver" slips the sticks into full AB.
===
===


==============================================
Put some color in your cheeks...garden naked!
"The original frugal ponder"
~~~~ }((((o ~~~~~~ }{{{{o ~~~~~~~ }(((((o

There was a "Wings" or such show featuring the 104s and they looked so
natural with the big German Iron Cross on them. The show stated that many
were still flying but I don't know when it was shot. Still, one of my
favorite aircraft! Got a ride in an Ardvark when I was young, a friend of
the family designed the crew module.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 15:52:23 +0000, Roy wrote:

The Hawker Hunters
went to the Vermont company as well (Vintage Aircraft Inc) and the only
2 seater in existence later crashed when it bingoed on fuel right at the
end of the runway, bellied in and the pilot killed, but the plane was
able to be flown again after repairs.........

Are you talking about Hawker Hunter XL614/N614XL, that crashed in PA in
2003? See
http://www.airengineers.org/index.ht...html~mainFrame

(you might have to stitch that link together, story at the bottom of the
page, or just google "hawker hunter" xl614)

I thought that plane was destroyed. I know the former owner,
who sold it in 2002 (I think). He doesn't talk about it. He also owned
another Hunter, a single seater, sold at/about the same time.

--
Ron DeBlock N2JSO
If God had meant for Man to see the sunrise,
He would have scheduled it later in the day.

Nope It was aircraft 745, which was originally a single seat that we
had removed the forward cockpit section from and installed a 2 seat
(side by side) cockpit section on, to convert if from a F Mk 50
(fighter) to a T Mk 8...(trainer) .It happened in 1998 in Manchester,
New Hampshire. Pilots name wa John Childress.
Plane essentially flamed out on approach duruiing a series of touch
and goes and some other low altitude manuvers the pilot wa doing, and
came in as a pancake landing......IIRC there really was minimal damage
overall to the aircraft, and it was his delay in ejecting and
reliance on his training (trust your instruments etc) that cost him
his life..... His drouge chute on his canopy was deployed but the
seat never left the aircraft as he pulled too late. He was a teriffic
pilot, and at one time flew as a member of the Thunderbird's, as well
as later being the OIC in charge of the USAF demostration team in
F4's. The USAF demonstration team is not the same thing as a
Thunderbird member, as its usually one pilot that takes a single ship
to a base to demo its capability to a new gaining unit to get their
adrenalin pumping etc......He used to be regular USAF, then joined the
Alabama Air NAtional guard as a Recce and later a fighter pilot, in
addition to being a Captain for either Delta or American Airlines, and
later on he was transferred by the ALA NAt Guard to a position in
Washington DC as a National Guard Liason Officer to the USAF, where he
still moon lighted as a commercial airlines captain as well as chielf
pilot for the company that bought the aircraft from Northern Lights
when it went out of Business.

The link detaining all investigation of this accident is below.
The aircraft you mentioned also at one time belonged to Northern
Lights and was acquired later on after acft 745 IIRC and it came from
Ruwanda S.A . Air Force IIRC....


http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...FA129& akey=1



==============================================
Put some color in your cheeks...garden naked!
"The original frugal ponder"
~~~~ }((((o ~~~~~~ }{{{{o ~~~~~~~ }(((((o

The aircraft I mentioned was a two-seater, I'm nearly positive that the
seats were tandem (one behind the other), not side-by-side. I was in the
thing, and I can't remember for sure (gettin' old, I guess). Dunno if it
was built that way or converted.

The guy that owned the Hunters is British, and had flown for the RAF in
Africa. He kept them at Wilkes-Barre/Scranton airport in PA before he
sold them. Some guys get the really cool toys, though I imagine they
weren't cheap (I didn't ask what they cost).

--
Ron DeBlock N2JSO
If God had meant for Man to see the sunrise,
He would have scheduled it later in the day.

I am not aware of any tanden seat Hawker Hunters.......Spent 3 weeks
in England with the folks in the know and we covered all aspects of
the hunters in anticipation of getting them for Northern Lights. The
fuselage section containing the cockpit and nose were interchangeable
from trainer to fighter aircraft, so it was not like it wa a major
modification being done, as it wa pretty common practice back when
Hunters were in there hey day to readly convert them between fighter /
trainers. The cockpit setup on the trainer type resembles that of a
A-37 Cessna or the T-37 Cessna aircraft...except not quite as wide.

, On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 19:41:13 GMT, Ron DeBlock
wrote:

===The aircraft I mentioned was a two-seater, I'm nearly positive that the
===seats were tandem (one behind the other), not side-by-side. I was in the
===thing, and I can't remember for sure (gettin' old, I guess). Dunno if it
===was built that way or converted.
===
===The guy that owned the Hunters is British, and had flown for the RAF in
===Africa. He kept them at Wilkes-Barre/Scranton airport in PA before he
===sold them. Some guys get the really cool toys, though I imagine they
===weren't cheap (I didn't ask what they cost).


==============================================
Put some color in your cheeks...garden naked!
"The original frugal ponder"
~~~~ }((((o ~~~~~~ }{{{{o ~~~~~~~ }(((((o

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 16:27:28 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:

There was a "Wings" or such show featuring the 104s and they looked so
natural with the big German Iron Cross on them. The show stated that many
were still flying but I don't know when it was shot. Still, one of my
favorite aircraft! Got a ride in an Ardvark when I was young, a friend of
the family designed the crew module.


I saw many of them when I was stationed in Germany. Of course this
was in the mid 80's and from what I read on one site that was about
the time they where being transitioned out. Since the base I was on
had F-16's I saw many of them. But the 104's where the only German
plane I ever saw use the runway (that I can recall anyway).

They did look rather natural in the air or from a distance in the
German paint scheme. But I'd never been close to one till the museum
and while I knew it had small wings the exact scale of the difference
hadn't hit home till I got up close. I mean the wings aren't large
enough for a decent hang glider much less this jet plane that looked
to be 10' dia and 30' long.

The most spectacular take offs I saw was when the C-130's where
doing touch and goes but with a twist. They used rocket assist.
Watching a plane like the C-130 do a take off from the end of the
runway at about the same angle the F-16's used was rather awe
inspiring. Especially considering the F-16 pilots liked to take off at
a rather steep angle.


Wayne Cook
Shamrock, TX
http://members.dslextreme.com/users/waynecook/index.htm

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 20:48:50 +0000, Roy wrote:



I am not aware of any tanden seat Hawker Hunters.......Spent 3 weeks
in England with the folks in the know and we covered all aspects of
the hunters in anticipation of getting them for Northern Lights. The
fuselage section containing the cockpit and nose were interchangeable
from trainer to fighter aircraft, so it was not like it wa a major
modification being done, as it wa pretty common practice back when
Hunters were in there hey day to readly convert them between fighter /
trainers. The cockpit setup on the trainer type resembles that of a
A-37 Cessna or the T-37 Cessna aircraft...except not quite as wide.


I'm sure you are correct, Roy, and the seats were side-by-side. I'm
about as far as you can get from being an expert on aircraft, and I'm just
going by some fuzzy memories. I was only in the two-seater once (on the
ground, not flying), and that was an air show setup day, where I looked at
many other aircraft. That's my excuse, anyway ;-)

--
Ron DeBlock N2JSO
If God had meant for Man to see the sunrise,
He would have scheduled it later in the day.

What is the aircraft similar to the Hawker Hunter that has
two engines vertically located in the tail? I thought it was
the Hunter but I took a look at a few websites and saw a
overhaul page and it definitely doesn't have two engines.

I thought I remembered a show on the Wings channel talking
about these aircraft and others in South Africa as it was
the only place they could legally fly them anymore.

Can anyone help me with the aircraft I'm thinking of? Seems
one of the Brit jets crashed near me at Williams Air Force
Base (now Williams Gateway Airport) for similar fuel
exhaustion problems.

You just can't get too far if you only have 1 hour usuable
fuel no matter how fast you go! Now if you had a spare 707
to convert to your private refueler you might get better
range. (SMILE!!)

Bart

Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.

Remove -nospam to reply via email.

Ron DeBlock wrote:
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 20:48:50 +0000, Roy wrote:



I am not aware of any tanden seat Hawker Hunters.......Spent 3 weeks
in England with the folks in the know and we covered all aspects of
the hunters in anticipation of getting them for Northern Lights. The
fuselage section containing the cockpit and nose were interchangeable
from trainer to fighter aircraft, so it was not like it wa a major
modification being done, as it wa pretty common practice back when
Hunters were in there hey day to readly convert them between fighter /
trainers. The cockpit setup on the trainer type resembles that of a
A-37 Cessna or the T-37 Cessna aircraft...except not quite as wide.



I'm sure you are correct, Roy, and the seats were side-by-side. I'm
about as far as you can get from being an expert on aircraft, and I'm just
going by some fuzzy memories. I was only in the two-seater once (on the
ground, not flying), and that was an air show setup day, where I looked at
many other aircraft. That's my excuse, anyway ;-)

Vertically mounted engines in the tail and an English aircraft would
have to be the "BAe Lightning" Kind of weird aircraft but they were
rather hi tech in their day......A lot of Arab countries flew them
like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or most original British colonies at one
time flew them..........When I was in the Kuwait after Desert Storm,
they had them on pedestals all over the place like stops signs would
be in america. Capable of MACH II
Check out below link if this is aircraft your thinking of.

http://www.museumofaviation.org/airc...rs/19-mk53.htm


On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 20:47:36 -0700, "Bart D. Hull"
wrote:

===What is the aircraft similar to the Hawker Hunter that has
===two engines vertically located in the tail? I thought it was
===the Hunter but I took a look at a few websites and saw a
===overhaul page and it definitely doesn't have two engines.
===
===I thought I remembered a show on the Wings channel talking
===about these aircraft and others in South Africa as it was
===the only place they could legally fly them anymore.
===
===Can anyone help me with the aircraft I'm thinking of? Seems
===one of the Brit jets crashed near me at Williams Air Force
===Base (now Williams Gateway Airport) for similar fuel
===exhaustion problems.
===
===You just can't get too far if you only have 1 hour usuable
===fuel no matter how fast you go! Now if you had a spare 707
===to convert to your private refueler you might get better
===range. (SMILE!!)
===
===Bart
===
===Bart D. Hull

===Tempe, Arizona
===
===Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
===for my Subaru Engine Conversion
===Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
===for Tango II I'm building.
===
===Remove -nospam to reply via email.
===
===Ron DeBlock wrote:
=== On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 20:48:50 +0000, Roy wrote:
===
===
===
===I am not aware of any tanden seat Hawker Hunters.......Spent 3 weeks
===in England with the folks in the know and we covered all aspects of
===the hunters in anticipation of getting them for Northern Lights. The
===fuselage section containing the cockpit and nose were interchangeable
===from trainer to fighter aircraft, so it was not like it wa a major
===modification being done, as it wa pretty common practice back when
===Hunters were in there hey day to readly convert them between fighter /
===trainers. The cockpit setup on the trainer type resembles that of a
===A-37 Cessna or the T-37 Cessna aircraft...except not quite as wide.
===
===
===
=== I'm sure you are correct, Roy, and the seats were side-by-side. I'm
=== about as far as you can get from being an expert on aircraft, and I'm just
=== going by some fuzzy memories. I was only in the two-seater once (on the
=== ground, not flying), and that was an air show setup day, where I looked at
=== many other aircraft. That's my excuse, anyway ;-)
===


==============================================
Put some color in your cheeks...garden naked!
"The original frugal ponder"
~~~~ }((((o ~~~~~~ }{{{{o ~~~~~~~ }(((((o

(Roy) wrote in
:

Vertically mounted engines in the tail and an English aircraft would
have to be the "BAe Lightning" Kind of weird aircraft but they were
rather hi tech in their day......A lot of Arab countries flew them
like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or most original British colonies at one
time flew them..........When I was in the Kuwait after Desert Storm,
they had them on pedestals all over the place like stops signs would
be in america. Capable of MACH II
Check out below link if this is aircraft your thinking of.

http://www.museumofaviation.org/airc...rs/19-mk53.htm



The English Electric (later BAe)Lightning, known as the frightening by
new pilots, was an interesting plane. Its two engines where actually
'over and under' and one behind the other so giving two engines in the x
section of 1. In clean configuration could climb vertical and exceed mach
without AB, with AB there was some dispute - mach 2 was the official
speed but the russians listed it as 2.4. Was the the first 'supercruise'
fighter, broke most speed records in the late fifties and still holds
some time to height records. As a kid growing up in Scotland I used to
see them taking off to intercept Russians, they roll off three abreast,
stay low over the runway with gear up and when up to speed went vertical
with Ab on. All the grass was dead for about two hundred yards around the
end of the runway from the unburnt fuel. traing aircraft had a side by
side cockpit like the training hunters.. Still some flying in South
Africa.

The problem with the lightning was it had less than 800 miles fuel so the
pilots where practicing fuel management even before it got off the ground
and an interception flight needed refueling every 30 minuites.

"mike" wrote in message
...
SNIP|
| The English Electric (later BAe)Lightning, known as the frightening by
| new pilots, was an interesting plane. Its two engines where actually
| 'over and under' and one behind the other so giving two engines in the x
| section of 1. In clean configuration could climb vertical and exceed mach
| without AB, with AB there was some dispute - mach 2 was the official
| speed but the russians listed it as 2.4. Was the the first 'supercruise'
| fighter, broke most speed records in the late fifties and still holds
| some time to height records.

If I recall properly, the F-4 "has" a classified top speed. Sort of,
I've learned. The truth of the matter is that the airplane will run out of
gas way before it finishes accelerating. There's lots of rocks with engines
attached, and that one was so impressive that when the US started phasing
them out, they sold the stripped airframes to the Israelis who refitted them
their way, making them way better than the original ones, and likely a
little more fuel efficient.
It was kinda weird when I was stationed in MCAS Cherry Point, NC where
the NARF (now NADEP) overhauled F-4's, C-130's, AV-8's, and CH-47's. You'd
see halves of aircraft rolling around the depot when I had reason to be over
there. Seeing the F4 fuselages roll by with no wings on it was almost sad.
I really like that plane, and knowing it was getting stripped for spares
helped me realize the depot was making a living providing the rest of the
world with spare parts, it wasn't like there was many left in the US
inventory.

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 02:57:51 GMT, "carl mciver"
wrote:

===
==="mike" wrote in message
.11...
===SNIP|
snip
===
=== If I recall properly, the F-4 "has" a classified top speed. Sort of,
===I've learned. The truth of the matter is that the airplane will run out of
===gas way before it finishes accelerating. There's lots of rocks with engines
===attached, and that one was so impressive that when the US started phasing
===them out, they sold the stripped airframes to the Israelis who refitted them
===their way, making them way better than the original ones, and likely a
===little more fuel efficient.
=== It was kinda weird when I was stationed in MCAS Cherry Point, NC where
===the NARF (now NADEP) overhauled F-4's, C-130's, AV-8's, and CH-47's. You'd
===see halves of aircraft rolling around the depot when I had reason to be over
===there. Seeing the F4 fuselages roll by with no wings on it was almost sad.
===I really like that plane, and knowing it was getting stripped for spares
===helped me realize the depot was making a living providing the rest of the
===world with spare parts, it wasn't like there was many left in the US
===inventory.


IMHO whats worse at least for me wa we had what was called ABDR
(Aircraft Battle Damage Repair) of which at our unit I was NCOIC. It
was our mission to be able to do what ever was necessary to any battle
damaged aircraft just to milk one more sortie out of it just in
case.......We had lots of practice on 55 gal drums, old car bodies,
and old removed aircraft part, but never a real aircraft except at
school where we used F-105 and T-33's for battle damaged aircraft,
which they would literallay chop, nbow and punch holes through which
we would have to evaluate and repair somehow or other, in other words
do a McGiver if necessary just make it fly and drop bombs
etc.....After much complaining we got an ABDR aircraft .......which
turned out to be an F-4C which was destined for the boneyard anyhow,
as all units were converting over to F-16 or other aircraft then
anyhow so F-4's were a dime a dozen.....I for the life of me could not
bring myself to go out there with a fire axe and pick and punch holes
in that aircraft........The F-4 meant a great deal to me and it wa
like taking a club to your buddy.......We managed to turn the aircraft
in with just some minor damages to it, and got an A-7 in its
place.........

Now all those RF-4C and F-4 (x)'s are being converted to drones and
shot down on a pretty routine schedule at Edwards, and Tyndoll
AFB.....At least it went down doing what it was meant to do and that
was fly and train folks, and not wind up as a soda can or aluminum
skillet......

I had an article on an Israel AF project. They were trying to see if
they could remove the keel section and fit in one single large engine
inplace of the two GE's........Dunno if they wver got anywhere with
it, but that would have had to be a major undertaking.

==============================================
Put some color in your cheeks...garden naked!
"The original frugal ponder"
~~~~ }((((o ~~~~~~ }{{{{o ~~~~~~~ }(((((o

carl mciver wrote:.
If I recall properly, the F-4 "has" a classified top speed. Sort of,
I've learned. The truth of the matter is that the airplane will run out of
gas way before it finishes accelerating.

There are so many aspects of this "top speed" issue that for a fighter
plane it is almost a meaningless question. Another gotcha on the F-4
was airframe heating.

One big factor is that ever since 20s, the max speed of a plane depends
on altitude in complex ways, and some planes are faster at certain
altitudes, others at other altitudes. This is true whether plane is jet
or prop. Now, a fighter is best if its performance peaks at a useful
altitude, where a lot of operations occur, but this is often not the case.

It is interesting that the top speed in an absolute sense- fastest it
will go at any altitude- has seemed to have peaked, and most new
fighters are not as fast in such a "top speed" as earlier aircraft.
There used to be several planes with max speed in the M2.5-2.9 region,
while most newer ones are in the 2.0-2.5 region.

Tom Gardner wrote:
What always amazed me was the number of maintenance hours per flight hour.
Can you imagine if it was like that for cars?

I can, because I have such a car.
Everytime I take it to the track, I have to change the engine first.


"Roy" wrote in message

I am an old Phantom II Phixer myself. Great old airplane....Worked on
RF-4C, F4-D, F4-Cs.....They were an awesome aircraft for night time
takeoffs for sure. They would hit that runway on takeoff roll and you
could see each stage of the AB kick in, then they started to rotate,
and thos ehuge long flames from the tailpipe would still be scorching
the runway a long ways back.....

IMHO they were the neatest airplane the Thunderbirds flew......lots of
smoke and noise and their size making seeing and hearing them very
easy.

We later transitioned to F-16C's and from a pilots perspective it was
a vast improvement, but from a mechanics point it was a nightmare and
was a never ending chore keeping the FMC rate up. You can never see
daylight with F-16's but there was always light at the end of the
tunnel in the old F-4 days. The F-4 was a good all around airplane,
not economoical though for fuel, but the F-16 burns almost as much
fuel but its only a great airplane for pilots and not most mechanic
types. Heck the pilot has little to do as the computers do it all for
him anymore.....


==============================================
Put some color in your cheeks...garden naked!
"The original frugal ponder"
~~~~ }((((o ~~~~~~ }{{{{o ~~~~~~~ }(((((o

Pardon the intrusion and off-topic post, Folks!

I was following your posts when I ran across the name 'Ken Sterling' above.

Would that be 'Ken Sterling, USN, stationed @ NTCC Hampton Roads in 1990' ???

If so, I'd love to talk with you!

Arcanum / Coree
Arcanum3d((at))mail.com