Go Back   FerrariChat.com > The Ferrari Lifestyle > AviatorChat.com

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 03-20-2017, 06:19 PM
Wade's Avatar
F1 World Champ
Rossa Subscribed
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: East Central, FL
Full Name: Wade O.
Posts: 19,129
My Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by donv View Post
I believe the Swiss do it regularly. Or was it the Finns?
Here's the Finns:


But I think this might be a repost.

Last edited by Wade; 03-20-2017 at 06:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
Non-Sponsor Ads
  #22  
Old 03-21-2017, 04:44 AM
F1 Veteran
Silver Subscribed
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: FRANCE
Posts: 7,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wade View Post
The primary reason for the high-mounted engines.
Hmm...not wanting to contradict you for the sake of it, but I seem to recall from the A-10 program that the main reason for having high-mounted engines was to mask the heat signature from the engines to infra-red seakers from the ground with the tailplane?

Rgds
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-21-2017, 10:42 AM
Wade's Avatar
F1 World Champ
Rossa Subscribed
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: East Central, FL
Full Name: Wade O.
Posts: 19,129
My Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by nerofer View Post
Hmm...not wanting to contradict you for the sake of it, but I seem to recall from the A-10 program that the main reason for having high-mounted engines was to mask the heat signature from the engines to infra-red seakers from the ground with the tailplane?

Rgds
Could be. But there's very little heat from the high-bypass turbofans to begin with (with consideration to 70's technology and with comparison to other fighter/bombers of the day). Speaking of turbofans, A-10 engines have a huge radar cross section, and we were told that the their high-mounted position plus shielding from the wings helped reduced that from ground radar.

When I was assigned to an A-10 squadron in Korea, we spent more time with the Army than any other branch of service, including our own (forward operating and unconventional locations). Very rewarding experience overall.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-21-2017, 10:54 AM
F1 Veteran
Silver Subscribed
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: FRANCE
Posts: 7,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wade View Post
Could be. But there's very little heat from the high-bypass turbofans to begin with (with consideration to 70's technology and with comparison to other fighter/bombers of the day). Speaking of turbofans, A-10 engines have a huge radar cross section, and we were told that the their high-mounted position plus shielding from the wings helped reduced that from ground radar.

When I was assigned to an A-10 squadron in Korea, we spent more time with the Army than any other branch of service, including our own (forward operating and unconventional locations). Very rewarding experience overall.
Yes, it was - and still is - a very special aeroplane, and as the years pass by, it proved more and more very well suited to its task.
I'm not a US taxpayer, so I am rather detached from to maintenance cost question, but I would hate to see it go; I know it is about 40 years old now, so should be considered "vintage" (= entered service before the CDs...but at a time when music was much better!) but it still is an unique design, able to do what it was designed to do very well.

Rgds
Reply With Quote
Non-Sponsor Ads
  #25  
Old 03-21-2017, 11:09 AM
Wade's Avatar
F1 World Champ
Rossa Subscribed
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: East Central, FL
Full Name: Wade O.
Posts: 19,129
My Garage
Great music too

Quote:
Originally Posted by nerofer View Post
Yes, it was - and still is - a very special aeroplane, and as the years pass by, it proved more and more very well suited to its task.
I'm not a US taxpayer, so I am rather detached from to maintenance cost question, but I would hate to see it go; I know it is about 40 years old now, so should be considered "vintage" (= entered service before the CDs...but at a time when music was much better!) but it still is an unique design, able to do what it was designed to do very well.

Rgds
And the newest airframe is 25 years old.

Special indeed, and loved by many. I wish I took more photos...
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-21-2017, 11:24 AM
F1 Veteran
Silver Subscribed
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: FRANCE
Posts: 7,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wade View Post
And the newest airframe is 25 years old.

Special indeed, and loved by many. I wish I took more photos...
Are we really getting that old? I remember the first time I've sen one in flight, just above the French/German border, you could not mistake it for any other aeroplane for sure. It should have been 1979 or 1980. Oh my...

Rgds
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-21-2017, 12:39 PM
Wade's Avatar
F1 World Champ
Rossa Subscribed
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: East Central, FL
Full Name: Wade O.
Posts: 19,129
My Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by nerofer View Post
Are we really getting that old? I remember the first time I've sen one in flight, just above the French/German border, you could not mistake it for any other aeroplane for sure. It should have been 1979 or 1980. Oh my...

Rgds
Crazy, I know.

My first assignment, I arrived at MacDill AFB in Feb 1977. Many there had returned from Vietnam only a handful of years before. That same year, the Korean War ended 24 years before, and before I was born.

Fast forward; I returned from the Gulf War in 1991, most college kids today were born afterwards (26 years ago).

Our early lives are ancient history.

Last edited by Wade; 03-21-2017 at 12:51 PM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-21-2017, 02:44 PM
F1 Rookie
Not Subscribed
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Denver, Albuquerque
Posts: 3,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by nerofer View Post
... but I seem to recall from the A-10 program that the main reason for having high-mounted engines was to mask the heat signature from the engines to infra-red seakers from the ground with the tailplane?

Rgds
It was mostly to reduce FOD. Blowing up crap on the ground from really low altitude.

That's one of the reasons it was selected over the competition with low intake engines.

Overwing intakes = reduced FOD thrown up by wheels, too from unimproved runways.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-21-2017, 03:32 PM
F1 Veteran
Not Subscribed
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Denver, CO
Full Name: Rob Guess
Posts: 8,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by nerofer View Post
Yes, it was - and still is - a very special aeroplane, and as the years pass by, it proved more and more very well suited to its task.
I'm not a US taxpayer, so I am rather detached from to maintenance cost question, but I would hate to see it go; I know it is about 40 years old now, so should be considered "vintage" (= entered service before the CDs...but at a time when music was much better!) but it still is an unique design, able to do what it was designed to do very well.

Rgds
Thanks for making feel real old now... I remember seeing the F-15, F-16 and A-10 prototypes and the test pilots up close and personal as a kid growing up in Germany. Good times
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-21-2017, 04:05 PM
jcurry's Avatar
F1 Veteran
Silver Subscribed
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Lk Stevens, WA
Full Name: Jim
Posts: 6,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcar View Post
It was mostly to reduce FOD. Blowing up crap on the ground from really low altitude.
reference?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-21-2017, 05:11 PM
Wade's Avatar
F1 World Champ
Rossa Subscribed
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: East Central, FL
Full Name: Wade O.
Posts: 19,129
My Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcurry View Post
reference?
Not exactly concise:

"However, selecting a winner for the competition strictly on the basis of political pressure was crooked as well, and also not in the military's best interests over the long term. They needed the best weapon available for the troops in the field. Selecting the "best" in this case was troublesome, since the YA-9A was more maneuverable, while the YA-10A was easier to maintain and judged more survivable."
"The positioning of the engine pods above the rear fuselage helps improve the survivability of the machine, with the wing providing protection against ground fire and the twin fin tail masking the exhaust from heat-seeking surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) -- the fact that high-bypass turbofans like the TF34 have a relatively cool exhaust flow helps as well. The high position also protects the engines from foreign object ingestion while operating off of dirt strips. In addition, the engine placement reduces the impact of gun-gas ingestion, in which gases released by firing the cannon choke off airflow to the engines. Considering the armament of the A-10, gun gas ingestion was a major potential problem."
It's competitor, the Northrop YA-9A, had a high wing and low engine configuration.

Also:

"Incidentally, the A-10 is designed for short-field operation more than for rough-field operation. Its tricycle landing gear, all of which retracts forward, feature single wheels with low-pressure tires mounted on simple struts without shock-absorbing mechanisms. More serious "farm tractor" type landing gear would have increased cost and weight. The A-10 was intended to operate from relatively short strips of highway, runways that had been damaged by runway-dibber bombs, or leveled dirt or grass strips -- but not generally from an unprepared flat patch of ground."

[1.0] A-10: Development & Description
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-22-2017, 11:00 AM
Gatorrari's Avatar
F1 World Champ
Silver Subscribed
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Full Name: Jim Pernikoff
Posts: 10,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wade View Post
And the newest airframe is 25 years old.
So? The newest B-52 is 55 years old!
Reply With Quote
Non-Sponsor Ads
  #33  
Old 03-22-2017, 04:31 PM
Wade's Avatar
F1 World Champ
Rossa Subscribed
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: East Central, FL
Full Name: Wade O.
Posts: 19,129
My Garage
Oct 1962

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorrari View Post
So? The newest B-52 is 55 years old!
Old birds indeed!

B-52 Stratofortress > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display

NASA has 2 or 3 B-57 Canberras that are of the same vintage. One returned to flight after 41 years of inactivity.

NASA Martin B-57 Canberra makes its First Flight in 41 Years
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-23-2017, 04:00 AM
F1 Veteran
Silver Subscribed
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: FRANCE
Posts: 7,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorrari View Post
So? The newest B-52 is 55 years old!
Precisely...the pace of development in aviation has slowed a lot, as for airframe shapes and so on (not for IT, softwares, hardwares, etc...) and the costs have escalated a lot. So old designs are reaching service lives that were impossible to imagine fifty years ago.

What I mean is that fifty years ago, you could find pilots retiring who had flown, if they were americans, Boeing P-12 at the beginning of their career and Lockheed F-104 Starfighters at the end, which were visually "rather different", shall we say? And ditto for performance.

Another example could be found in the fast succession of the principal fighter planes, let's say for instance, of the US Navy: during the fifties they went through:
Mc Donnell F-2H "Banshee", then Grumman F9F "Panther" (and its derivative with swept wing the "Cougar"), then Vought F-7U "Cutlass", then North American "Fury", then Mc Donnell F-3H "Demon", then Douglas F-4D "Skyray", then Grumman F-11F "Tiger", then Vought F-8U "Crusader", then McDonnell F-4H "Phantom".

I may have even forgotten one design or two, but that's nine different fighters in ten years...(ten if we separate Panthers/Cougars)

Nowadays, a fighter plane design will serve for thirty years before replacement. As I wrote above, I remember very well the retirement of the F-104 in Europe; I was 25 in 1985 when the Canadians retired the CF-104 and the first CF-18 arrived. These are still in service, 32 yeras later, giving you the impression that those who witnessed the forties and fifties have seen changes in aviation that we didn't...I have witnessed the entry in service in the french Armée de l'Air of the Mirage III, then the Mirage F1, then the Mirage 2000 and finally the Rafale in 60 years; and will probably not see another fighter design entering service....

Rgds
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-19-2017, 07:44 AM
kylec's Avatar
F1 Rookie
Silver Subscribed
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 2,668
Highways that double as secret military airfields | Fox News
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-19-2017, 10:57 AM
F1 Rookie
Not Subscribed
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Denver, Albuquerque
Posts: 3,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorrari View Post
So? The newest B-52 is 55 years old!
I read an article several years ago about a B-52 pilot.

His father had been a B-52 pilot also.

...and, his grandfather had been a B-52 pilot too.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-19-2017, 11:37 PM
Bob Parks's Avatar
F1 Veteran
Consultant
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Shoreline,Washington
Full Name: Robert Parks
Posts: 5,369
My Garage
Long In the Tooth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcar View Post
I read an article several years ago about a B-52 pilot.

His father had been a B-52 pilot also.

...and, his grandfather had been a B-52 pilot too.
That is absolutely amazing. I came to Boeing in 1950 and worked on the B-52 in 1951. I saw the first flight in 1952 and worked on all Boeing designs that followed up to the 777. Here I am at almost 91 and that B-52 is still going ! I have the sinking feeling that it is going to out-live me. I worked on the KC-135 in 1955-60 and it is still going. I have a feeling that maybe we did a good job on those birds.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-23-2017, 03:53 PM
Formula Junior
Not Subscribed
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Finland, Helsinki
Full Name: Samuli S
Posts: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by donv View Post
I believe the Swiss do it regularly. Or was it the Finns?

Finnish army's normal routine. There is multiple road landing zones around Finland that can be used.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-23-2017, 04:32 PM
donv's Avatar
F1 World Champ
Rossa Subscribed
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Portland, Oregon
Full Name: Don
Posts: 15,845
You didn't do a good job-- you did a GREAT job!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Parks View Post
I have a feeling that maybe we did a good job on those birds.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-23-2017, 06:37 PM
WILLIAM H's Avatar
Three Time F1 World Champ
Silver Subscribed
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Victory Circle
Full Name: HUBBSTER
Posts: 34,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by RacerX_GTO View Post
Not without great risk to American fighter engines. FOD being sucked inside the intake issue.

What most Americans do not know is, Russian fighters are like the AK-47, you can drop them in mud and they will still fire without fail. Russian fighter engines are designed to suck in a certain amount of FOD whereas an American fighter and its precision tolerances, the engine is done. US fighters need super-clean, FOD-free runways.
US Navy carriers, before air ops, deck crews will "walk the FOD", shoulder to shoulder in a straight line looking for debris.
US fighter pilots like to say that Russia Vs US jets are like Fords vs Ferraris.

That battle didn't go too well for Ferrari.
Reply With Quote
Non-Sponsor Ads
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:40 AM.


FerrariChat.com has no association with Ferrari S.p.A.
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.