Military Aircraft Pictures & Stories

[zipmart]

Originally Posted by FL420

......Two things I really liked about the A-4E Mongoose at TOPGUN was the slats were bolted up so they never came out asymmetrically in a high G pull and bounced my head off the canopy and it's stall and stall recovery characteristics were better than a Cessna 150's.
I never thought about when the slats on unmodified A-4s retracted at rotation right before liftoff until I saw them do that on the section takeoff in your video. Based on how quickly the aircraft rolls from the increased lift when one slat retracts before the other makes me now wonder what kind of wild ride would happen if only one slat failed to retract at liftoff. Good thing I didn't think of that before now.[emoji33] One more thing to worry about. Guess I would have preflighted the slats on the TA-4's much more carefully.....

Long before I got started in the adversary business, it was decided that the slats really added to the turning capabilities of the A-4 in a slow speed fight, so bolting them up wasn't done anymore. What was done was a serious study into the proper rigging of the slats and we had some excellent maintainers who were "specialists" in ensuring everything worked properly. The pilots were taught what to look for during preflight and before any ACM sortie, one of our airframe specialists was present with a pocket 6 inch rule to precisely measure any differences in the distance of the ends of the slat from the wing from one end to the other when fully retracted. Naturally we also checked for smooth movement with no binding. Once airborne and before commencement of any actual ACM, we would perform a slat check where we would commence a hard turn in both directions to get the slats to extend and check for any asymmetrical tendencies and make a mental note if any were detected, to take into account when maneuvering and for write-up after flight. And believe me, if you ever had a bad asymmetrical extension, it could bang your head against the canopy pretty hard.

In 14+ years and over 3000 hours of flying A-4's, I never remember experiencing any asymmetry during retraction during takeoff. A good preflight would detect binding which, if present, would be either quickly fixed before flight or grounds for downing the aircraft before flight.

[zipmart]

Originally Posted by FL420

......I just came across this excellent video of an "A-4 Skyhawk Walkaround." I learned a lot from it......
https://youtu.be/GlCRs-gINUY

That was very well done. I disagreed with a few of his explanations and thought there were some errors made, but I never flew the L model either, just the TA-4F/J, and E, F, and M models of the single seat A-4.

[FL420]

My interest in an asymmetric slat retraction close to the ground does have some background. A friend of mine was the Maintenance Officer of the VFP-63 detachment who had a RF-8A photo Crusader that had been a hangar queen that was okay to fly except one leading edge slat which couldn't be retracted due to lack of a part.
It was the end of the cruise flyoff and if it couldn't be flown off to its base at NAS Miramar it would have to ride the boat to its homeport in Alameda a day later. He decided to have the airframes guys bolt the slat down and he would fly it to Miramar with the wing up and the slats and flaps down.
When he took his cat shot he raised the landing gear then muscle memory and a well-established habit pattern took over and he lowered the variable-incidence wing. The same handle also raised the inboard trailing edge flaps and the leading edge slats except for the one that was mechanically locked down.
I didn't see it but as told to me it "slat rolled" quite rapidly at about 100' above the water before he could yank the handle back up to raise the wing and lower the flaps and slats.[emoji33]
The first pic is of an F-8 armed with 4 Colt 20mm cannons and two AIM-9 Sidewinder heat-seeking missiles(a real missile has a glass seeker head instead of a fiberglass nose cone.) The second pic is of the wing at its 7° UP setting, the leading edge slats at their 25° DOWN setting and the traling edge flaps at their 30° DOWN setting for takeoffs and landings.
The variable-incidence wing allowed the pilot to have better visibility over the nose and kept the long fuselage with its short landing gear from hitting or dragging the tail on the deck during rotation on takeoff and on landings. As it was it was a difficult airplane to land aboard the boat.
[emoji40]

[corn18]

Originally Posted by FL420

My interest in an asymmetric slat retraction close to the ground does have some background. A friend of mine was the Maintenance Officer of the VFP-63 detachment who had a RF-8A photo Crusader that had been a hangar queen that was okay to fly except one leading edge slat which couldn't be retracted due to lack of a part.
It was the end of the cruise flyoff and if it couldn't be flown off to its base at NAS Miramar it would have to ride the boat to it's homeport in Alameda a day later. He decided to have the airframes guys bolt the slat down and he would fly it to Miramar with the wing up and the slats and flaps down.
When he took his cat shot he raised the landing gear then muscle memory and a well-established habit pattern took over and he lowered the variable-incidence wing. The same handle also raised the inboard trailing edge flaps and the leading edge slats except for the one that was mechanically locked down.
I didn't see it but as told to me it "slat rolled" quite rapidly at about 100' above the water before he could yank the handle back up to raise the wing and lower the flaps and slats.
The first pic is of an F-8 armed with 4 Colt 20mm cannons and two AIM-9 Sidewinder heat-seeking missiles(a real missile has a glass seeker head instead of a fiberglass nose cone.) The second pic is of the wing at its 7° UP setting, the leading edge slats at their 25° DOWN setting and the traling edge flaps at their 30° DOWN setting for takeoffs and landings.
The variable-incidence wing allowed the pilot to have better visibility over the nose and kept the long fuselage with its short landing gear from hitting or dragging the tail on the deck during rotation on takeoff and on landings. As it was it was a difficult airplane to land aboard the boat.Attachment 315011Attachment 315012

I can't imagine the skill it took to land those aircraft on a carrier. The F-9 looks like a bear. And the A-3D. I got a ride in an S-3 once and it sounded like the pilot was at idle the entire time in the groove.

Landing the F/A-18 wasn't a cake walk, but with all the help we had from the HUD and computers, I don't think it was nearly as hard as those aircraft. I ended my career in the Super Hornet and that was even better than the legacy Hornet. I wonder what the F-35 is like around the boat?

My last cruise, I coupled up to the ACLS as much as possible. George could fly a much better pass than I could as long as the trons didn't try to kill me. That only happened once.

[FL420]

Originally Posted by corn18

I can't imagine the skill it took to land those aircraft on a carrier. The F-9 looks like a bear.......

Actually, the F-9 was a really nice flying machine in most environments. I carqualled on the USS Lexington in 1968 in the 2 seat TF-9J Cougar. Its main shortcoming was it was underpowered with a single centrifugal flow compressor engine. It had a stinger-type tailhook you had to crank out of the fuselage into the ready position by pulling repeatedly on a T handle attached to a cable. Two flight deck crewmen had to physically lift it off the deck and restow it so you could taxi out of the wires.
I had gone all through advanced training in the 2 seater and the single-seat AF-9J wondering about the purpose of the thick leather pad below the gunsight on top of the glareshield. I found out on my second trap after my first cat shot when I forgot to lock my shoulder harness after cranking out the tailhook.[emoji856]
It was the only aircraft I have ever flown which had a relief tube for each pilot. I never used it but I always checked that the end of the drain tube sticking out of the belly had the 45° angle on the tube wasn't facing into the wind. The gouge was that some disgruntled sailor might think it funny to turn the tube end around to face into the wind.[emoji15]

Originally Posted by corn18

.....I wonder what the F-35 is like around the boat?......

Toward the end of this article the author compares the placement of the hook on the F-35 to the F/A-18F.
http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/12/?m=1

Originally Posted by corn18

My last cruise, I coupled up to the ACLS as much as possible. George could fly a much better pass than I could as long as the trons didn't try to kill me. That only happened once.

When I was instructing in VF-121 we sometimes got new F-4s from St. Louis with new equipment installed with no information about what it did and how to use it. I always envied you test pilots who got to play with the new stuff. I wanted to play with it too. I tried to get permission to play with it but was told I couldn't because no one had been trained how to fix it.
Well, I just couldn't look at all the new toys like antiskid and especially the new data link bells and whistles and not play with them. I kinda self-taught myself by arranging with Beaver Control to hook me up with an AIC on a NTDS-equipped destroyer who wanted to practice flying a fighter on air-to-air intercepts by sending signals to my autopilot from his computer via one way datalink.
It was a real learning experience for both of us. His system only had a good fix on my position and the bogey's position every 7 seconds because that's how long it took his radar to make a 360° sweep. The rest of the time both targets were in coast and any course changes would confuse the computer until the radar got more information.
When you're trying to do a forward quarter radar-guided Sparrow attack with a rear quarter heat-seeking Sidewinder re-attack it was maddening to have the computer controlled autopilot turn you across the flight path of your intended victim in front of him. That and other weird stuff kept happening.
Not much later I got orders back to the fleet to the VF-92 Silverkings. During work ups on the USS Constellation they had the new to them and to me SPN-42 ACLS. I thought the aircraft I was in had the necessary equipment and hoped I could figure out how to turn it on and use it. It was a CAVU Chamber of Commerce day so I asked if I could try it and they said okay. So I did.
After getting the autopilot and the APC autothrottles hooked up down I came. My initial impression was that the stick was possessed by a devil. It was flailing all over the cockpit. I wasn't sure I could catch it to turn the autopilot OFF without getting my hand broken. The throttles were going back and forth a bit quieter but much faster and farther than I would have thought necessary. Amazingly, the aircraft was flying smoothly down the glideslope like it was on rails.
I was very apprehensive as I approached the ramp but I was on centerline and caught the 3 wire. I was impressed. The next approach was just like the first. I was thinking I was getting pretty good at this hands-off "stuff" and I was beginning to like it.
The third approach was just like the first two UNTIL I crossed (barely) the ramp. The bottom fell out and dumped me on the deck so fast I was nothing but a scared passenger. It was a loooong taxi to the 1 wire.[emoji33]
Even though the aircraft had a retractable corner reflector on the nose wheel door to give the SPN-42's radar a good target it apparently shifted lock at the last second to an engine intake, a wing root or a bomb rack.
I never flew an ACLS approach ever again.[emoji35]
[emoji40]

[corn18]

I was the dept head for carrier suitability at VX-23 in Pax River. We were tasked with certifying the launch/landing systems on all new carriers and any boats that came out of SLEP. When we were certifying the ACLS, we would do hundreds of coupled approaches. One thing we had to do was move the hook touch down point around so that we wouldn't wear a hole in the flight deck from the hook hitting the same spot over and over again. When it worked, ACLS was wicked good. But the radar was in a band that did not work well in rain or snow, so when you really needed it, it might not couple up.

Now they have JPALS which uses differential GPS (no radar). That is almost as accurate and works in bad weather.

[vito.a]

Originally Posted by corn18

Landing the F/A-18 wasn't a cake walk, but with all the help we had from the HUD and computers, I don't think it was nearly as hard as those aircraft. I ended my career in the Super Hornet and that was even better than the legacy Hornet. I wonder what the F-35 is like around the boat?

They tell me the F-35C is the easiest yet to land on a carrier. And the F-35B is much easier than the Harrier.

[FL420]

Originally Posted by vito.a

They tell me the F-35C is the easiest yet to land on a carrier. And the F-35B is much easier than the Harrier.

I would hope the F-35B cockpit is a lot better design than the Harrier which is a Human Factors Engineering nightmare picured below.
Does anybody know if the F-35B swivel nozzle makes up for its heavier weight in a knife fight against an A or C model?[emoji848]
[emoji40]

[corn18]

Originally Posted by FL420

I would hope the F-35B cockpit is a lot better design than the Harrier which is a Human Factors Engineering nightmare picured below.
Does anybody know if the F-35B swivel nozzle makes up for its heavier weight in a knife fight against an A or C model?[emoji848]
[emoji40]
Attachment 315193Attachment 315194

You can't swivel the nozzles in a knife fight, they are tied to the lift fan and are only used for takeoff and landing.

[FL420]

Originally Posted by corn18

You can't swivel the nozzles in a knife fight, they are tied to the lift fan and are only used for takeoff and landing.

Ahh. Thanks for the info. I'm guessing the B model would be at a disadvantage to a C but especially to an A.
Years ago 2 of us in TA-4s went to MCAS Yuma to play with some Harriers. I was hoping to see one just hover and rotate around to always point at me like they like to do at airshows but it didn't happen. We RTBed back to Miramar so no debrief. I still wonder if they didn't because they were too high to hover.[emoji848]
[emoji40]

[zipmart]

Originally Posted by FL420

Ahh. Thanks for the info. I'm guessing the B model would be at a disadvantage to a C but especially to an A.
Years ago 2 of us in TA-4s went to MCAS Yuma to play with some Harriers. I was hoping to see one just hover and rotate around to always point at me like they like to do at airshows but it didn't happen. We RTBed back to Miramar so no debrief. I still wonder if they didn't because they were too high to hover.[emoji848]
[emoji40]

Only fought Harriers once (out of Cherry Point) but I do remember them turning as well as anything out there and that we (A-4's) did not want to get into a knife fight with them.

[zipmart]

Originally Posted by corn18

Landing the F/A-18 wasn't a cake walk, but with all the help we had from the HUD and computers, I don't think it was nearly as hard as those aircraft.

Having flown the A-7E in the fleet, I know that not having a speed brake you could use with the gear down, resulted in a slower engine response time and a wave-off point much farther out than other aircraft because of that. For those that don't know, the A-7 speed brake was on the belly of the airframe and was designed for 90 degree angle bombing, ie. straight down, for great accuracy. However, in order to achieve this, one had to roll in from 40K' to be able to get the pipper on target, release the ordnance, and pull out at a safe altitude, not exactly an ideal scenario. It was like putting out a barn door and did a fantastic job of slowing the aircraft, but being on the belly, couldn't be used in landing to enable higher engine rpm's and greater response from the engine for wave-off purposes. But the E model had a fantastic HUD which partially made up for it.

[FastEagle]

Here are a couple of my file pictures of A7 aircraft flying with their speed brakes fully extended.

When fully extended the A7 speed brake surface area was approximately 25 sqft.

I have no idea why those A7-Ds have their tail hooks down. Their not going to land anywhere with those speed brakes extended.

[vito.a]

Originally Posted by FL420

Ahh.
I was hoping to see one just hover and rotate around to always point at me like they like to do at airshows but it didn't happen. [emoji848]
[emoji40]

The F-35 is not designed to engage in close in dogfighting. With stealth and a great sensor suite, they can rule the air from a distance.
Also, the F-35B (and the Harrier) can only perform hoover and vertical takeoffs at low density altitude and low gross weight.