The Airplane Thread

[E92_William]

Our VIP 747-400, mainly for sports teams.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Sad news yesterday: Lt Col Oleksiy "Moonfish" Mes of the Ukrainian Air Force, one of only six qualified F-16 pilots (so far), was killed in a crash during a Russian missile attack. RIP, Colonel.

Originally Posted by Llarry

Terribly tragic! I suppose the Ukrainian forces are all still getting used to their new Western systems and errors can be fatal.

Isn't this getting political? Some of us aren't on the side others are on...

[Llarry]

77 years ago today, the Antonov An-2 made its first flight. Since then, many thousands have been produced. The An-2 remains in widespread use in many countries.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

Isn't this getting political? Some of us aren't on the side others are on...

You are correct that some posters -- notably Lady Jane and I in this case -- are taking sides on the Russia-Ukraine War and that tends to be political in nature. But NATO is firmly on one side in this war and our NATO countries are giving substantial military and humanitarian assistance to the Ukrainian side.

In other threads I have criticized the current North Korean regime and that could also be interpreted as political in nature. I've also posted about Korean War and World War II topics and tend to take sides on those as well. But my political comments have been indirect in nature and concentrate on aviation or naval matters.

Supporters of North Korea or Imperial Japan and those who support Russia in the current conflict are free to post in the Airplane or Navy threads with indirect critical comments about the West.

[Llarry]

The Grumman F7F Tigercat was a high-performance twin-engine Marine Corps fighter that *just* missed seeing combat in World War II, arriving in Okinawa in August of 1945.

The Navy originally contemplated equipping the larger Midway class carriers constructed during and just after WWII with F7F fighter squadrons. But the F7F's carrier suitability was doubtful for one important reason: the twin-engine layout. What would happen if an engine failed during the critical carrier landing phase of flight? The problem was exacerbated by the high power of the Tigercat; in an engine-out scenario, running the remaining engine at high power often led to a crash; the F7F lacked sufficient rudder authority to compensate for the asymmetric condition of a single-engine wave-off. The F7F did conduct carrier qualifications on several occasions; an F7F had a wing spar fail during one carrier landing -- catastrophe!

It was not until years later that this issue was satisfactorily resolved in the Grumman S2F (later S-2) through the use of a very large rudder with a double-acting system called a rudder trimmer (see attached illustration).

Given the F7F's poor carrier suitability, Marine Corps fighter squadrons transitioned to F7Fs starting in 1944. The relatively roomy F7F also became the basis for night fighter versions like the F7F-3N and -4N and in that form saw combat during the Korean War until replaced by higher-performance jet aircraft. The Tigercat also equipped Marine photo squadrons as the F7F-3P.

The F7F was much-loved by pilots despite the dangers in an engine-out situation. It handled beautifully and was fast. I once read that flying an F7F was like flying two F8Fs strapped together.

But like the F8F Bearcat and the late-model F4U Corsairs, the jet age caught up with Tigercat. It ended its days in the unglamorous work of carrying target drones in utility squadrons; the last attachment is of a model of a drone controller F7F-2D.

In the 1950s and early 1960s, some F7Fs found a second career as fire bombers -- see last photo. With all that power, they could carry a substantial load of fire retardant for the time.

[Llarry]

A quick introduction to aircraft external fuel tanks...

External fuel tanks for aircraft date back to at least the 1930s; the Boeing P-12 and F4B biplane fighters frequently used a supplemental 55-gallon fuel tank on the belly of the airplane. When used as a bomber, the fuel tank had to be removed.

During the late 1930s and World War II, most nations fighters used external fuel tanks; in a combat situation, these would be jettisoned, leading to the term "drop tank." But the tanks are typically not dropped unless needed for increased performance.

With the advent of jets and their thirst for jet fuel, the use of external fuel tanks increased. In the early 1950s, Douglas Aircraft designed a series of new more aerodynamic bombs in sizes from 250 to 2,000 pounds -- the Mark 80 series still in use today by the U.S. At the same time, they designed a very similarly shaped external fuel tank in 150-gallon and 300-gallon sizes. These became commonly used in U.S. Navy, Marine Corps and some Air Force aircraft. Later, an even larger similarly shaped 400-gallon tank was developed. It can be difficult to tell which tank one is looking at as the shape is all the same.

The ultimate external fuel tank was probably that of the Air Force B-58A bomber, although the very large fuel tank also incorporated a nuclear bomb. The B-58 would use the external fuel to get to the target, drop the tank/bomb and return using internal fuel.

More recently, in the 1970s, the concept of a conformal fuel tank was developed. First used by the F-15, tanks attach to either side of the aircraft and can also incorporate weapons stations. The CFTs are now universally used by the F-15E version and can be used by other versions as well.

Not to be outdone, a CFT was developed for the F-16. In this case, it is above the wing and cannot be used for weapons.

Although most widely used by tactical aircraft, external tanks -- but not droppable -- are used by the B-52 heavy bomber. Many C-130 aircraft use external tanks as well.

EDIT: D'oh! Forgot one of the more interesting external fuel tank configurations of all: The English Electric (BAC) Lightning with external fuel tanks above the wing.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

A quick introduction to aircraft external fuel tanks...

Tech supply men unloading “papier-mâché” drop fuel tanks. They were cheap, light and saved precious aluminum.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/air...al%20resources.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

More recently, in the 1970s, the concept of a conformal fuel tank was developed. First used by the F-15, tanks attach to either side of the aircraft and can also incorporate weapons stations. The CFTs are now universally used by the F-15E version and can be used by other versions as well.

The F-15E is a rather extreme case of fuel capacity. The internal fuel capacity of an F-15E is 13,100 lbs, to which is normally added a pair of CFTs 22,600 lbs of fuel. In addition to all that, up to three external 600-gallon fuel tanks can be carried (the photo shows two). The grand total then becomes 5,355 gallons of jet fuel weighing about 34,500 lbs. With that much fuel, some care must be taken to avoid exceeding the aircraft's maximum gross weight of 81,000 lbs. with the weight of weapons.

[Lady Jane]

Based on a post made by JJ 911SC, I just had to find out what airplane Capt. Tucker was flying for Eastern Provincial Airways at the time of his purchase.

It looks like a Handley-Page Herald HPR-7: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Dart_Herald

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

Tech supply men unloading “papier-mâché” drop fuel tanks. They were cheap, light and saved precious aluminum.

I was amazed when I first heard of paper fuel tanks! It seems counter-intuitive, but they worked.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Llarry

I was amazed when I first heard of paper fuel tanks! It seems counter-intuitive, but they worked.

And?

It's not all you can do with a drop/belly tank.

R.

https://www.motortrend.com/features/belly-tank-racer/

[3.0L]

Built by my step-dad Alan Richards. I believe it had a 50cc engine and probably required a very small driver. I saw it in person while it was in his garage, before it went to a museum.

[Lady Jane]

The Antonov 225 Mriya giving birth to a Bombardier. That was before it was senselessly destroyed by the Russians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225_Mriya

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

And?

It's not all you can do with a drop/belly tank.

R.

I suspect that these many years later there are some salvaged fuel tanks that are serving as animal feeders/water containers or for other uses in Southeast Asia as a result of the Vietnam War.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Llarry

I suspect that these many years later there are some salvaged fuel tanks that are serving as animal feeders/water containers or for other uses in Southeast Asia as a result of the Vietnam War.

Or, as a hog trough in Europe somewhere.



R.

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by Llarry

I suspect that these many years later there are some salvaged fuel tanks that are serving as animal feeders/water containers or for other uses in Southeast Asia as a result of the Vietnam War.

I seem to recall seeing some drop tanks being used for showers, way back in ‘69.

[Llarry]

Tomcat Thursday!

[Llarry]

The story of the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark was initially a troubled one. The airplane initially was an attempt to make a single aircraft serve multiple purposes and the F-111 brought a couple of significant technological advancements. The first of these was variable-geometry wings that could be swept for high speed or unswept for low-speed flight. This innovation actually worked well. The second advancement was more problematic: the F-111 used a high-performance afterburning turbofan engine, the Pratt & Whitney TF30. The TF30 had a troubled road to maturity, including the design of the air intakes that could function well in both low- and high-speed flight.

I have covered the Navy version -- the F-111B (not pictured) -- previously. The B's problem was that it was an attempt to use a basic design for an Air Force tactical bomber for Navy fleet air defense duties. Only a few F-111Bs were produced and it ended up being cancelled. The silver lining was that the weapons system of the B ended up being used in the Grumman F-14A Tomcat.

I will focus on the non-Navy versions. The Air Force's F-111A became operational in 1967 in the middle of the Southeast Asia war and a small unit was committed to combat early on, suffered losses due to several factors, and was withdrawn. After further development, the F-111A was reintroduced to combat in 1972 and did well in the late war period.

The F-111 was chosen for use by two Commonwealth nations -- Australia and the UK. Australia's RAAF purchased 28 F-111Cs. Again, developmental difficulties delayed the C's operational debut until 1973 and thereafter the RAAF operated the F-111 with some affection, not retiring the type until 2010.

The UK Royal Air Force purchase of 50 F-111Ks was more troubled still. After being ordered in 1965, developmental difficulties and cost increases led to cancellation of the RAF order in 1968 and only partially completed F-111Ks were built; the aircraft never flew.

The USAF bought an improved version, the F-111D but high cost limited the number delivered. To reduce the cost, F-111Es were bought with simplified systems. Finally, the F-111F ultimate version was purchased. What the Air Force ended up with was one wing each of F-111A, F-111D, F-111E and F-111F aircraft, making for complication in support of the total force.

The USAF Strategic Air Command also got on the 111 bandwagon with the purchase of 76 FB-111A strategic bombers. These were of course shorter-ranged than the B-52s that made up the majority of SAC's bomber force. In 1989, SAC phased the FB-111A out of service and turned them over to Tactical Air Command, where they were redesignated as F-111Gs.

One of the most useful variants was an electronic warfare jamming version of the F-111. The EF-111A Raven was a conversion of F-111A airframes into tactical jammers; 42 were converted in the early 1980s and were the last serving 111s in the Air Force; with the retirement of the EF-111As in 1998, the USAF no longer had a high-performance tactical jamming platform and relied on Navy EW aircraft or pods mounted on their fighters and bombers.

USAF F-111s were retired by 1996 with the replacement being the F-15E Strike Eagle. That left Australia as the sole operator of the type, and the RAAF obtained some F-111As and F-111Gs to augment their small force of F-111Cs and provide spare parts. F-18Fs finally replaced the F-111C in 2010.

A total of 563 F-111s and 76 FB-111s were produced: although the type had a difficult start, it ended up serving well in the last years of the Vietnam War and in the Gulf War of 1991.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera...F-111_Aardvark

[Llarry]

The UK Royal Navy used Douglas Skyraider airborne early warning radar aircraft on their aircraft carriers for years, but wanted a more advanced aircraft. They adapted the antisubmarine Fairey Gannet to the task, equipping the Gannet with the same APS-20 belly-mounted radar as the AEW Skyraider and buying 44 Gannet AEW.3s.

The Gannet was an interesting design with twin turboprop engines driving contra-rotating props on the centerline. It first entered service on RN carriers in 1953 in ASW form and the AEW version followed in 1959. The Gannet AEW.3 was retired in 1978.

[Llarry]

The U.S. Navy tested a couple of Army Air Forces aircraft on an aircraft carrier in 1944. The P-51D Mustang and the PBJ-1H (Navy/Marine version of the B-25), both made by North American, were fitted with tail hooks and tested in carrier takeoffs and landings aboard the carrier Shangri-La. The PBJ trials were among the earliest carrier operations of a twin-engine aircraft by the Navy.

[sygazelle]

I went to an air museum during a recent trip and ran across this bad boy in a static display. I'll bet Llarry know the make and model. Anyone else?

Here are a couple of more pics.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by sygazelle

I'll bet Llarry know the make and model.

While I knew it was a MiG-23, I did not know which specific model. I think I've got a MiG book somewhere around here where I could've looked it up.

The -23, by the way, was the airplane that killed a USAF general who went to Nevada to fly it, and the plane got away from him. Three-star, if memory serves.

We are getting ready to move from our small llama farm to a house in town, so I will be getting dumb for a while.