Jet fighters/interceptors of the sizzling 60's?

[Bill G.]

Captain Dunsel:

No, I did not know Curt Poorman.

I was in the 2019 Comm Sqdn. I worked up on SAC Hill. My equipment was in the same building as the SAC Command Post. I hope that helps.

It was a treat to watch the F-106s take off at dawn or dusk. The afterburner was something.

Back at Griffiss AFB I built a 1/72 scale F-106 in 49th Markings. I have the kit and decals to do a 1/48th one. I love that plane! The only thing is I want to do the tail number for the one at the Air Force Museum. That is the one that the pilot ejected from in Montana. And the pilotless plane recovered from the flat spin and landed with little damage in the snow!

Once I did go up to the Control Tower. I had a squadron friend, Steve Ford that worked there. Once when an SR-71 taxied next to the tower, he got out onto the catwalk to take a picture. He got the shot looking nearly straight down. He almost lost his balance. Anyways, that walk way in the hanger roof bothered me. I don't like heights like that. It took most of my courage to get there and back.

I did take three rides in the old T-29. Those were fun. Once we went to Grissom to pick up an inspection team. On the trip out there was just the four of us. We were getting ready to land. I started to go back to my seat for the landing. The flight engineer said no. He said I could stand behind him for the landing. And then he gave me his headset to listen in on the radio. That was neat listening to RAPCON guiding us in on a CAVU day.

Bill G.

 

[Murray B]

in service until 1988...debut in 1960

Well, Waynos, 28 years in service sounds good to me. What is sad is that there was not a follow up aircraft to the Lightning since the company seemed to be solving problems in rather unique ways. The upper engine was behind the lower one which meant a lower cross section because the inlet diameter is less than the overall diameter. Apparently it could go supersonic without reheat which was kind of rare back then. It looks like an exceptionally good aircraft to me.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

Bill G:

I remember SAC Hill quite well. We used to routinely make up charts for the alert birds, which Motorpool would deliver. For a while, we addressed our stuff to the SAC Command Post as "SAC CommPost", until our commander got a nasty call from someone up there!

I was in the ROS when one of those SR-71's launched. I walked down to only a about 200 feet from the runway, and when the '71 went by, the sound was incredible. I could physically feel the shock waves hitting my chest. I watched the aircraft shoot down to the end of the runway, then rotate and go vertical.

There was an altocumulus deck at around 10,000 feet that day. I watched the SR stay in a vertical climb right to the cloud base. A few seconds later, a dot came out of the top of the clouds and kept going vertically, out of sight.

Meanwhile, I didn't get my hearing back for at least another 10 minutes....

I know what you mean about that catwalk! It was really uncomfortable!

I never got to ride in a T-29. I did an orientation flight in a KC, and got to do some filming of a Buff refueling, though. Much later, when I was in Alaska, I got to do some galivanting around Alaska in C-130's and C-12's, though. Miss those days!


CD

 

[Waynos]

Well, Waynos, 28 years in service sounds good to me. What is sad is that there was not a follow up aircraft to the Lightning since the company seemed to be solving problems in rather unique ways. The upper engine was behind the lower one which meant a lower cross section because the inlet diameter is less than the overall diameter. Apparently it could go supersonic without reheat which was kind of rare back then. It looks like an exceptionally good aircraft to me.

Thanks for that Murray, I think it might have been on another thread where I said I didn't know why the vertical engines were an advantage in that respect. I also read that it gave a lower heat signature from below than with side by side, but I think that would only apply from directly below so I'm not sure its a real advantage.

EE did design many versions of the Lightning and many follow ups to it too, but our Govt thought that aircraft were a waste of time and money it seems so they were always denied the opportunity. There was even a Sea Lightning with swing wings designed but the mantra was 'we want American planes'. The TSR 2 bomber was designed by them and the former EE site at Warton was home to the British bits of the Jaguar, Tornado and Typhoon (with the basic design of the last two originating from Warton) too so there is actually quite a pedigree there.

 

[Sweb]

Even worse than the Starfighter!? Crikey! Why was that then, was it because it lacked flaps and most accidents happened at landing?

Hard to say - I know Denmark operated them and also lost many. I think it might of been training and the mission.

Ground effects. The F-100 was aerodynamically prone to it. If the nose was rotated slightly above "textbook" take-off restrictions it would float on a cushion of air it compressed between itself and the ground. Once there it was like rolling on a balloon and ultimately falling off. At that angle of attack the wing was not generating adequate lift nor was there enough power to horse it into flight.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOamnWpLtO8

 

[Seawitch]

I favour the Lightning aka 'Frightening' if only on looks, 8) .... range...I thought the primary job was to intercept incoming Bombers, and also to protect the V force bombers while they were rising to safe altitude, I don't think range was very important?

 

[Matt308]

Ground effects. The F-100 was aerodynamically prone to it. If the nose was rotated slightly above "textbook" take-off restrictions it would float on a cushion of air it compressed between itself and the ground. Once there it was like rolling on a balloon and ultimately falling off. At that angle of attack the wing was not generating adequate lift nor was there enough power to horse it into flight.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOamnWpLtO8

Sweb, I can't vouch for the authenticity of my statement, but it was told to me by a Nam vet who was a C130 driver. He claimed that video was from a maintenance SNAFU from improperly rigged ailerons. As the story went, he said the Huns original aileron rigging were equal length and they were cross-rigged. Post accident findings resulted in design guideline "best practices" to make all opposing flight control rigging of unequal length to prevent such Class A's from occuring in the future. If anyone has any info on the validity of this story, I would love to hear it. [FBJ?]

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Sweb, I can't vouch for the authenticity of my statement, but it was told to me by a Nam vet who was a C130 driver. He claimed that video was from a maintenance SNAFU from improperly rigged ailerons. As the story went, he said the Huns original aileron rigging were equal length and they were cross-rigged. Post accident findings resulted in design guideline "best practices" to make all opposing flight control rigging of unequal length to prevent such Class A's from occuring in the future. If anyone has any info on the validity of this story, I would love to hear it. [FBJ?]

Interesting info, never heard that but I wouldn't immediately dismiss it, I'll ask some old timers I know. I'll be in Ca next week by EDW.

 

[mkloby]

Ground effects. The F-100 was aerodynamically prone to it. If the nose was rotated slightly above "textbook" take-off restrictions it would float on a cushion of air it compressed between itself and the ground. Once there it was like rolling on a balloon and ultimately falling off. At that angle of attack the wing was not generating adequate lift nor was there enough power to horse it into flight.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOamnWpLtO8

I am not understanding this statement - all aircraft experience a boost in lift when approximately one wingspan of the ground, increasing as the distance to the ground is lower, due to the decrease in induced drag. This is not a phenomena peculiar to any single aircraft - you feel it in all aircraft.

 

[drgondog]

It was a treat to watch the F-106s take off at dawn or dusk. The afterburner was something.

Back at Griffiss AFB I built a 1/72 scale F-106 in 49th Markings. I have the kit and decals to do a 1/48th one. I love that plane! The only thing is I want to do the tail number for the one at the Air Force Museum. That is the one that the pilot ejected from in Montana. And the pilotless plane recovered from the flat spin and landed with little damage in the snow!


Bill G.

I used to think the SR-71 was the loudest ever - but after being around the F-22 in March I have to wonder. I would be interested in the Db level for both in AB.

The F-22 made the F-15 sound like a fan in comparison in both AB take off and flyby

 

[Butters]

The F-22's engines generate more than 35K lbs thrust each in AB. That's more than the static thrust of the SR-71's J-85's.

I've read that the ramjet-bypass system of the SR-71 generated more thrust than the J-58s themselves at high speed. Does this mean that the Blackbird had more than 64,000 lbs thrust on tap at M.3+? I can't seem to find anything specific in regards to this.

JL

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The F-22's engines generate more than 35K lbs thrust each in AB. That's more than the static thrust of the SR-71's J-85's.

I think you meant J-58's

I've read that the ramjet-bypass system of the SR-71 generated more thrust than the J-58s themselves at high speed. Does this mean that the Blackbird had more than 64,000 lbs thrust on tap at M.3+?

It did IMO.

I can't seem to find anything specific in regards to this.

JL

And you probably wont!

 

[Matt308]

The F-22 is exceptionally loud. In fact, the sound signature of the F-35 is being looked for a means of reducing it. The USAF has to address two major items regarding their latest stealth airframes:

First, being a good neighbor. Many US and foreign operating bases are surrounded by civvies that demand quiet. And the sound signatures of these aircraft are in the 190dB range.

Second, hearing problems with airmen are expensive in healthcare costs, unscheduled leave and funneling money to areas that would be more efficiently spent on the tip of the spear.

Regarding the J-58s, its turbine ramjet operation underlies it's limited dry thrust ratings. At ramjet speeds, it certainly was generating huge amounts of thrust that static operation of the turbine could never hope to achieve. I would love to hear a CFM quote of what volume of air is sucked into those engines per minute at Mach 3.6.

 

[Lucky13]

How did the Delta Dart and Delta Dagger stand in comparison back in the day?

 

[Lucky13]

Reading a book here about Draken. Now I wonder if not Luftwaffe and the Swiss airforces wouldn't have been better off with the upgraded Drakens....

 

[Matt308]

How did the Delta Dart and Delta Dagger stand in comparison back in the day?

From what I have read, very well. The F-106 apparently had state of the art avionics and weapon system. But I did read a report from a British flight test pilot on exchange during the early 1960s. He too claimed the avionics/weapon system was fantastic, but I recall him noting the windshield splitter severely hampered visibility and the performance/handling was not even remotely comparable to the English Electric Lightning. Bias? Perhaps. But probably not. The report was commissioned for the USAF.

 

[pbfoot]

could the Lightning go out into the CADIZ as far as the 106

 

[Matt308]

Different mission.

 

[pbfoot]

Different mission.

nope exactly the same mission Bear hunting over the pond.

 

[Matt308]

Lightning hunting MUCH closer in rapid-response intercept. Dagger hunting much further out with over twice the range.