Civilian passenger ejected from fighter

Couldn't they be relocated closer to the root? The existing design has them a long way out there. Put external stores outboard.

 

Increased weight concentrated in a different location on the wing, increase in thrust, different flexing and flutter modes, complete redesign of the internal wing structure, complete redo of all the supporting systems like fuel and hydraulics etc, redo of the outboard wing after the removal of the struts and small engines. Completely different dynamics of the whole thing. Whip that out in the morning. I remember watching the outboard wing start to fly long before the inboard started to lift during the first B-52 takeoff. At first, we thought that it was a taxi test and then that honker actually started to fly. I'll never forget that day.

 

Brian- Much bigger change to do that. They looked at it but considering they already had fuel lines, eight throttles in the cockpit, wiring for PGMs etc, it was just easier and cheaper to replace the engines and not mess with everything else. Wings with anhedral helped the decision. There are some combat advantages to 8 engines as well, even if mathematically it increases the odds of having an engine problem. If you do, though, no big deal except the dreaded 7 engine approach and landing.

 

Absolutely terrifying.

 

Don't forget, Air Force runways are only like 22,000 feet long.

Landing at Austin Bergstrom the pilots often comment on how long a runway we have. The AF poured a lot of concrete out there. Funny though, it still floods. I would have thought Curtis LeMay or someone would have moved heaven and earth to fix that.

 

Probably has the IR signature of the sun.

 

Brian- The radar signature is huge, too, which is why they only penetrate in an air supremacy environment.

We came across a BUFF low level on one of the old OIL Burner low level routes in the 70s and our F-111D TFR actually saw it as terrain and climbed over it

 

Taz, your posts give us a look at the past aerial operations that we could never attain. Really appreciate it.

 

Bob- Most of us would have paid money to fly those aircraft, except we did not have much money.

 

A ring knocker friend who flew F14's told me that too. Not sure I believe him either. Actually another ex Navy pilot I knew was a maintenance test pilot at NAS Alameda for some time after they took him off the crispy Forrestal. Said that was the best job he ever had. Uncle Sam kept giving him planes with a full tank of gas to wring out over the Pacific. He said it beat getting shot at a lot.
Actually there must be something to what you say. I know a lot of ex military pilots who never set foot on a rudder pedal after they were out of the service.

 

Brian- I did Functional Check Flights (FCFs) on the F-111D, too. Got to see Mach 2.55 on one sortie and we got to practice emergency procedures for real many times. Most aircrew members never get to fully wring out their aircraft because it is unnecessary in training or combat flying. Mach 2.55 at 49,500' had very little to do with the combat missions flown by F-111s. The F-111D, though, did have a bunch of air to air upgrades, so they wanted it all checked out.

Our RAF Lakenheath chief FCF pilot convinced the wing CC to let him take an F-111F up to Mach 2 on an FCF. It took most of the paint off the rear of the aircraft and you could read the Mountain Home AFB markings from 6-10 or so years earlier. The F model could easily get up to Mach 2.6+ before the total temperature warning came on and you had to quit. When going Mach 2+, retarding the throttle from max AB to mil threw you forward into the harness pretty violently.