The Airplane Thread

[cfm56d7b]

Originally Posted by Llarry

As time went by, the program expanded and Topgun's aircraft inventory expanded with it; over the years, that inventory included T-38As, F-5E/Fs, F-16s of several sub-types, F-18s and even a few F-14 Tomcats. In 1996 the Naval Air Station Miramar was transformed into a Marine Corps Air Station and Topgun moved to the Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada, which provided an opportunity for expansion. Navy E-2 airborne warning and control training was also located at Fallon and Fallon has turned into a center for air wing training across the full spectrum of functions.

Here's a teaser as to the rest of the story: A photo of a Topgun F-14A Tomcat. There's plenty more to tell...

This particular F-14 appears to be painted as an aggressor aircraft. Thanks for sharing!

The biggest threat to F-14 Tomcat were - unfortunately - its own TF30 engines, originally designed for F-111B. F-111B is a bomber platform with a requirement to carry heavy payloads at high speeds and different flight envelope than a fighter.

TF30 was poorly suited for 2 conditions of air combat: operating at high angles of attack, or when the pilot adjusing the throttle position very quickly. End result: TF30 engines were prone to compressor stalls. Some even called the Tomcat, “a nice aircraft powered by two pieces of junk.”

In 1984, Capt. Lee Tillotson, coordinator for US Navy F14 program said, "From the very start you essentially teach the pilots to fly the engine as a priority over flying the airplane".

40 F-14 Tomcats were lost as a result.

The transition to GE F110 engine was too slow, hindered by changing budget priorities.

By 1996, or 9 years after the GE F110 was installed in the first F-14, the F-14 Tomcat fleet featured only 126 Tomcats with the new GE F110 engines. The other
212 F-14 Tomcats were still flying with troublesome TF30 engines.

Super Tomcat: a plane that should have been built but wasn't.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...changer-207851

[Llarry]

Ukraine has announced that their F-16 fighters are now operational, although details have not been released.

A number of NATO countries have previously pledged to transfer F-16s to the Ukrainian Air Force and training has been underway for quite some time.

The photo is a CGI.

[Llarry]

The father of Topgun was the USN's Fleet Air Gunnery Unit, a relatively small unit based at the Naval Auxiliary Air Station El Centro, California, east of San Diego. FAGU was established in 1952 to improve Navy air combat proficiency and was disestablished in 1958. During that brief six-year period, FAGU flew a variety of tactical jet aircraft and trained fleet pilots in air-to-air combat.

FAGU aircraft included North American FJ-3 and -4 Furies, Douglas F4D-1 Skyrays and A4D Skyhawks and Vought F8U Crusaders. Photos are scarce. I've included a photo of a model of a sea blue FJ-3 from the early era, a lineup of FAGU (and other units) F4D-1s and a photo of a warbird FJ-4B that flew in the 2010s.

In 1958, the Navy established Replacement Air Groups on both coasts which had a formal training mission to train pilots destined for fleet squadrons and the FAGU mission was folded into the RAG curriculum.

[Llarry]

During the period of emphasis on counterinsurgency in the early/mid 1960s -- driven largely by the Vietnam War -- North American developed a relatively lightweight armed observation aircraft, the OV-10 Bronco. Both the Air Force and the Marines bought OV-10As; in the end some 360 aircraft were built for the U.S. and other nations.

The OV-10 was a STOL (short takeoff and landing) aircraft and in Marine Corps service operated from helicopter carriers without the use of catapults or arresting gear.

Both the Air Force and the Marines used the OV-10 as a forward air control aircraft to mark targets for faster/larger aircraft during the Vietnam War. The Air Force, concerned about the vulnerability of the relatively slow OV-10, phased it out of service by the 1980s, while the Marine Corps retained OV-10As -- and modified OV-10Ds for night operations -- through the Gulf War in 1991 before finally retiring the aircraft in the early 1990s.

The Navy got into the act, too, with a single squadron of OV-10As borrowed from the Marines and active in the Mekong Delta area of South Vietnam from 1969 to 1972.

Foreign users included Germany, who used OV-10s as target tugs and several Latin American nations, some of which used the Bronco in counter-narcotic roles. A few OV-10s are still active in the Philippine Air Force.

[Llarry]

Work quietly continues on the two Boeing 747-800i aircraft scheduled to replace the current U.S. Air Force presidential transports. The replacement VC-25Bs have been undergoing modification for some years now and are scheduled to replace the existing VC-25As in 2027-2028. (The VC-25As entered service in 1990.)

The new VC-25Bs will be considerable larger than the outgoing As, with an estimated max takeoff weight of 987,000 pounds (instead of the present 833,000), a slightly higher cruise speed and a range increase of about a thousand miles (from 6,735 to 7,730 nautical miles).

The airframes are not newly produced -- the Boeing 747 is out of production -- but are modified from two airliners that were ordered but never delivered.

The cost of these two new VC-25Bs is mind-boggling, of course. I do not know the price and the total outlay to taxpayers is probably well-hidden in one way or another.

[Lady Jane]

The engine you see here is a Rolls-Royce Merlin Mark 724-1C that was built at the Hillingdon factory near Glasgow in 1949. It was bought in 2017 as a museum display piece – it had come from a company called Flying Enterprise owned by a Danish millionaire.

Flight Engineering of Leeds, England, rebuilt the engine over two year period. This was a complete nut and bolt restoration, returning the engine to full running condition.

The engine had originally been covered with an inhibiter (a grease like fluid), this prevented corrosion and preserved it for nearly 50 years in as-new condition. As a result, it was essentially a factory-fresh engine that just happened to be 75+ years old.

[BMWGUYinCO]

Video was needed!

[vreihen16]

Our local weather isn't looking great for this weekend's air show, with the remnants of hurricane Debby lingering around and dumping lots of rain.

I heard one of the teams come in around lunch time, but did not go outside to see if it was the USAF Thunderbirds or Frecce Tricolori.....

[Llarry]

What is the definition of a "fighter" anyway?

Some 40+ years ago, the Navy and Marines decided to designate its new tactical aircraft the F/A-18, indicating its capabilities in both air-to-air and air-to-surface regimes. The -18 indicated that it was in the fighter (air-to-air) category rather than the attack (air-to-surface) series. But it was destined to replace an attack aircraft (the A-7) in Navy service and both fighter (F-4) and attack (A-4 and A-6) aircraft in Marine Corps service. The problem was that the excellent performance of the F/A-18 came at the cost of range and endurance; The range of carrier-based attack was greatly reduced as the F/A-18 replace the A-7 on aircraft carriers. It was originally planned to designate the F/A-18 units as "fighter attack" squadrons, but sensitivity to this issue caused the Navy to use "strike fighter" for the transitioning VFA units in an attempt to avoid direct comparison. The Marines were not as sensitive to the loss in range and retained "fighter attack" for the F/A-18 VMFAs.

The fact is that fighters have almost without exception had significant attack (or strike) AND anti-air capabilities almost since the dawning of aerial warfare. There have been exceptions: The F-111 Aardvark was a high-performance attack or strike aircraft, for instance. The F-106 Delta Dart was strictly an interceptor without ground attack capability, as were the F-14 Tomcat and F-15 Eagle for the early period of service.

All this is a long-winded way of saying that the designations F/A-18 and now used by the Navy and Marines today is a bit silly. The aircraft are fighters and as fighters they have capabilities in more than one area. I will continue to refer to the F/A-18 as the F-18. Navy strike fighter squadrons (VFAs) and Marine fighter-attack squadrons (VMFAs), many of which are now flying F-35s, should be redesignated as fighter squadrons (VFs and VMFs).

The A-10 Warthog is a special case and is a specialized ground attack aircraft but is being phased out of service without direct replacement. It may be the last specialized attack aircraft in U.S. military service.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

...The F-111 Aardvark was a high-performance attack or strike aircraft, for instance....

Speaking of the F111...

Had a supervisor when I was at SLC turn an F111 onto the localizer, 2 miles from the FAF (final approach fix about 6 miles from the runway), something like 300 kts ground speed and 10Kish feet high (should be about 6300')! He descended so fast the computer couldn't keep up and instead of showing his altitude readout in his data-block, XXX was displayed. The computer caught up when he was on a 3 mile final, on the glideslope and 160ish GS (about 5K feet)! He must have thrown out the anchor! 'Twas impressive!

[vreihen16]

Frecce Tricolori has a flyover of Sully's runway, Manhattan, the Statue of Liberty, and Verrazano Bridge today. Their web site says 12 noon, but the NYC TV news talking heads said it would be 4:30 PM.

The weather in the region is not great, with Tropical Storm Debby still lingering to the south. Probably not the best photo-op for them.

I also have no idea if the USAF Thunderbirds will be flying along with them, to put on a big show like the RAF Red Arrows did five years ago:

Cockpit video from an F-35:

.

[Llarry]

Tomcat Thursday!

[Llarry]

The first of many F4U Corsairs...

The Vought XF4U-1 carrier fighter prototype got its photo taken before its first flight in May of 1940. In October of 1940, it set a speed record of 405 miles per hour, making it the fastest fighter in the world.

The XF4U-1 had fuel tanks in the wings, which were considered vulnerable to enemy fire. Production F4U-1s removed those wing tanks and placed a 237-gallon self-sealing fuel cell in front of the cockpit; at the same time the cockpit was moved back about three feet.

By the end of 1945, 11,484 Corsairs had been produced. Production continued into the postwar period, adding almost a thousand more F4Us.

[Llarry]

How about a Navy F-104!? Yes, indeed, the Navy borrowed an F-104A for a while to use at the Naval Ordnance Test Station (later Naval Weapons Center) China Lake, California, for use in the development of the Sidewinder infrared-homing air-to-air-missile.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

How about a Navy F-104!?

At the same time the Navy was considering building carriers with two-mile-long decks with arresting cables every fifty feet. That's what my dad would have said.

[Llarry]

Speaking of the use of Air Force aircraft by the Navy, in the mid-1960s the USAF transferred two obsolescent Boeing EB-47E Stratojets to the Navy on indefinite loan. The Navy used them for electronic warfare training until 1977; they were the last B-47s of any type in service, as the last USAF -47s were retired in 1969.

The 1st photo depicts the two Navy EB-47Es at Naval Air Station Point Mugu, California. These ex-USAF airplanes were replaced by another ex-USAF type, the NKC-135A Stratotanker used for similar purposes. Two NKC-135As were used by the Fleet Electronic Warfare Support Group from 1977 to 1992. (2nd photo)

The Navy wanted a third NKC-135A but settled for a retired cargo-configured Douglas DC-8-54AF that was fitted about the same as the NKC-135As. Designated EC-24A, it was active until 1998. (3rd photo) To my knowledge, this was the only DC-8 flown by any U.S. military service.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

...

The Navy wanted a third NKC-135A but settled for a retired cargo-configured Douglas DC-8-54AF that was fitted about the same as the NKC-135As. Designated EC-24A, it was active until 1998. (3rd photo) To my knowledge, this was the only DC-8 flown by any U.S. military service.

Ahhh. the dirty engine DC8. Worked with a guy who was calling a DC8 traffic to follow. The in-trail pilot said all he could see was smoke. The controller told him to follow the smoke, there was a DC8 at the end (of the smoke trail). We use to get away with a LOT of stuff like that!

[Jbrown7403]

Interesting vintage instructional video….seems so easy….kidding! ��
.

[Llarry]

The Saunders-Roe SR.A/1 flying boat jet fighter was developed in World War II but did not fly until 1947. Only 3 were built.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saunders-Roe_SR.A/1

[Llarry]

There were floatplane fighters used in the 1920s before the advent of the aircraft carrier, but I think the general opinion after that was that a seaplane fighter had too much of a performance disadvantage to be effective.

World War II Japan disagreed and began development of a high-performance floatplane fighter in 1940. The process was protracted, and so Nakajima was instructed to adapt the standard Mitsubishi A6M2 type Zero carrier fighter (Allied code name Zeke) to floatplane use. (Nakajima was a second production source for the Mitsubishi aircraft.)

The Nakajima A6M2-N floatplane fighter (Allied code name Rufe) first flew in late 1941 and 327 examples were built. It was used in combat in the Solomon Islands and in the Aleutians, where it did not fare particularly well.

The main Japanese Navy effort was the Kawanishi N1K1 Kyofu floatplane fighter (Allies code name Rex) which was not an adaptation of a wheeled aircraft. The N1K1 did not fly until mid-1942 and suffered developmental problems. A total of 97 were built in 1943-1944 before production ceased due to the contraction of the Japanese Empire. The N1K1 saw combat only briefly in Borneo and then late in the war operating from a lake in defense of the Japanese homeland.

The Japanese "success" in developing floatplane fighters had some influence on the Allies, who were also concerned about air power around Pacific islands.

The Americans developed and tested a floatplane variant of the Grumman F4F Wildcat. The single F4F-3S demonstrated disappointing performance and was not pursued. And the very large number of aircraft carriers in the U.S. Navy in WWII also figured in that decision.

The UK developed a floatplane version of the Supermarine Spitfire, though somewhat earlier than the Americans. Early on, they were interested in operations from fjords in Norway and then later in Pacific operations. Although performance was rather good for the later conversions, the aircraft suffered excessive corrosion and the project was abandoned. A total of five floatplane Spitfires were tested.

Lastly, in the 1950s the U.S. Navy worked on the concept of a sea-based force of jet bombers and fighters. The fighter chosen was the Convair F2Y Sea Dart, which used retractable skis. Five prototypes were built but the project was finally cancelled and the whole concept of sea-based aircraft was abandoned.

[E92_William]

CJ805-23 turbofans designed for the Convair CV-990, fastest subsonic jetliner. This was partly achieved by putting the fan in the back of the engine instead of the front like every other turbofan, thus reducing the frontal area of the engine at transonic speeds.

[Lady Jane]

Although the Convair 990 Coronado was not a commercial success against the DC-8 and 707, it certainly was very distinctive with its anti shock wing bodies that allowed it to reach a speed of Mach 0.91.