WT Forums

Home | WT Forums | Hogpedia | Warthog blog | Hosted sites
It is currently 14 May 2025, 22:32

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2003, 09:22 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2002, 11:35
Posts: 293
Location: Arizona
I would just like to chime in first off MrMudd you need to get a clue on the mounts and the radar. I have seen uppers snap you pull the turttle pnl off and the damm thing jumps out at you and skate mounts crack with the motors laying on the doord. I have lit the candles off the T wheels with such force that I thought the compressors was coming out of the intake and the mounts held just fine that was a good one the pro super was about twenty feet from the bird in his truck and I almost knocked him out of the truck that was over in the sand the bird had an AB hard lite it turned out the be a no lite .It was High G both positive and or negitive (we are not going in to the Over G thing again) and what kind of mount it was(as far as steel or titanum or the beefed up skate or not and that is it and as far as the radar I am just going to let you talk. Sorrey dude nothing toward you the G model was, shall I over simplify just like the receiver on your tv that picks up the signal from you remote. I know that is much more than that but in a nut shell that is it.

live to wrench,wrench to live and 727's do truly suck

Edited by - goob on Mar 13 2003 10:58 AM

_________________
Press one for English, Press two to disconect untill you do.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2003, 10:55 
Offline

Joined: 28 Feb 2003, 00:18
Posts: 1157
Goob........What rock have you been hiding under? I havent seen you here for awhile, WB. Mudd knows his stuff however, just thought I would warn you before he unleashes.

As far as the JSF comparrison, the F-4 Phantom II served in the USN, USMC, USAF, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, at the same time. I am not even mentioning the Imperial Iranian Air Force, Israeli Air Force and so on........Nothing but the F-35 compares to that broadrange of procurement while it also served in a front line designation with the United States. Anybody have any information on the Rolls Royce Turbo Fan equiped British variants? (eg) rate of climb, loitering ability, the like.....Believe it was the F-4K?



If your not having fun, your not doing it right!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2003, 11:38 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2002, 11:35
Posts: 293
Location: Arizona
I have been told that the Brit birds could get off the ground quicker but the tob end was much less then the J79 but that is just what I have been told.

live to wrench,wrench to live and 727's do truly suck

_________________
Press one for English, Press two to disconect untill you do.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2003, 12:12 
Offline

Joined: 05 Oct 2002, 14:22
Posts: 5353
Location: Missouri
the F-4K had a special nose strut (like the F-5) that extended to a higher nose up attitude for takeoff. This was for carrier launches but I guess it helped for dry ground too.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2003, 12:22 
Offline

Joined: 23 Oct 2002, 20:45
Posts: 2802
Muwahahah. Its about time someone got some balls around here!!!

Show me the light Goob..hehehe

"<---Jesus Powers My Hotrod---<<<"

"My purpose in life does not include a hankering to charm society."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2003, 12:28 
Offline

Joined: 10 Mar 2003, 14:49
Posts: 426
[quote]

The F-4 receieved a real bad rap in Vietnam cause ROE tactics pitted the Rhino's weakness against the North Vietnamiese only strength (Mig-17/19/21's in a gunfight or ACM engagement----------

F-4 crews were trained for interception vice ACM. F-8s which had the best kill rate in Nam (18-1 or so), never went to a Top Gun type school because they always stayed on the bubble.

The famed Top Gun school was formed because the RAG didn't train them for ACM. Air Force never had a top gun type school during Nam. Col. Robin Olds went through the Navy school and wasn't impressed. Olds knew how to fight and lead aircrews.

Think it was Horrido discussing early Corsairs. Yeah it was funny the Limeys could land on the boat before we modded ours.

Jack


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2003, 12:29 
Offline

Joined: 05 Oct 2002, 14:22
Posts: 5353
Location: Missouri
Joe Baugher strikes again lol :

The most important difference between the F-4K and the F-4J was the replacement of the J79 turbojets of the F-4J with a pair of 12,250 lb.s.t. dry and 20,515 lb.s.t. with afterburning Rolls Royce RB.168-15R Spey 201 turbofans. The additional power offered by the Spey was thought to be essential in order to provide sufficient power to operate the Phantom safely from smaller British aircraft carriers. In addition, the Spey was able to provide more bleed air for the boundary layer control system, which would permit slower approach speeds. However, the increased power of these engines required that the air intake area be increased by twenty percent and that the lower portion of the aft fuselage be redesigned.

A double-extensible nose undercarriage leg was used to enable high angle of attack carrier launches to be made. The gear could be extended in length by as much as 40 inches. This arrangement was first tested on a Navy F-4B during trials aboard the USS Forrestal. In the interest of achieving slower carrier landing approach speeds, larger wing leading edge flaps were fitted and boundary layer control was applied. The amount of anhedral on the stabilator was reduced, and slats were provided on the stabilator leading edge. 16 1/2 degree drooped ailerons were fitted, which is a fancy way of saying that with gear and flaps down, the neutral position of the ailerons automatically changes to 16 1/2 degrees downward deflection.

The F-4M was the RAF version of F-4K with different electrics and none of the special mods for carrier launch(nose strut, droop ailernons etc.)


Specification of F-4M Phantom FGR.Mk. 2:
Engines: Two Rolls-Royce RB-168-25R Mk.202/203 Spey turbofans, 12,250 lb.s.t dry, 20,515 lb.s.t. with afterburner. Performance: Maximum speed 1386 mph at 40,000 feet (Mach 2.07), Inital climb rate 32,000 feet per minute. Service ceiling 60,000 feet. Combat range 1000 miles, maximum range 1750 miles with maximum external fuel. Dimensions: 31,000 pounds empty, 52,400 pounds loaded, 56,000 pounds maximum takeoff weight. Dimensions: Wingspan 38 feet 5 inches, wing area 530 square feet, length 57 feet 7 inches, height 16 feet 1 inches. Fuel: Maximum internal fuel in the fuselage tanks was 1347 US gallons. An additional 630 gallons of fuel could be carried in internal tanks inside the wings. Maximum external fuel load was 600 US gallons in a centerline tank that could be carried underneath the fuselage plus 370 US gallons in each of two tanks that could be carried underneath the outer underwing pylons, bringing total fuel load to 3317 US gallons. Armament: Armament consisted of four AIM-7 Sparrow semi-active radar homing air-to-air missiles in semi-recessed slots in the fuselage belly and two to four AIM-9 Sidewinder infra-red homing air-to-air missiles carried under the wings on the inboard pylons. A total offensive load of up to 16,000 pounds could be carried on the centerline and four underwing hardpoints.



"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2003, 12:56 
Offline

Joined: 28 Feb 2003, 00:18
Posts: 1157
So the F-4K was really the first operational fighter to make use of an afterburning Turbo Fan? I always was under the impression that the F-111 was first, with the TF-30. Interesting............

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2003, 13:01 
Offline

Joined: 28 Feb 2003, 00:18
Posts: 1157
I agree Jack.....
The F-4 without cannon armament, and the RAG intercept only syllabus was a MacNamara SNAFU. The F-4/AIM-7 combo was supposed to be the end all solution. for ACM.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2003, 14:47 
Offline

Joined: 10 Mar 2003, 14:49
Posts: 426
[quote]
I agree Jack.....
The F-4 without cannon armament, and the RAG intercept only syllabus was a MacNamara SNAFU. The F-4/AIM-7 combo was supposed to be the end all solution. for ACM.-------------

I blame Mac for many problems, but not in this case. It started back in the 50's the pure intercept role and only using AAM.

Naval doctrine both in subs and in the air has bit us on the ass. Pre WW2 sub skippers were taught one shot for a kill. Then they found out they had really bad torps and it took 2 years to fix torps. At the end of the War some skippers would surface engage and use their batteries.

As Nam wound up they finally sent in Phantoms without the proper training. Some folks did have tours without seeing any Migs too.

Phantom pilots weren't thrilled with having an attack bird either. It was built as an interceptor.

Am sure F-16 pilots are wondering what happened to their pure air to air role.

Jack


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2003, 17:32 
Offline

Joined: 28 Feb 2003, 00:18
Posts: 1157
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> I blame Mac for many problems, but not in this case. It started back in the 50's the pure intercept role and only using AAM.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes, you are very right............The Falcon, and later Sparrow were designed to make ACM obsolete, was not a MacNamara deal, but I despise his decesion making so much I tend to blame him with anything remotely associated with our failures in Vietnam.

What was your opinion of the F-8U3 Jack?


If your not having fun, your not doing it right!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2003, 21:22 
Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2003, 16:49
Posts: 970
Location: G-14 Classified
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I would just like to chime in first off MrMudd you need to get a clue on the mounts and the radar. I have seen uppers snap you pull the turttle pnl off and the damm thing jumps out at you and skate mounts crack with the motors laying on the doord. I have lit the candles off the T wheels with such force that I thought the compressors was coming out of the intake and the mounts held just fine that was a good one the pro super was about twenty feet from the bird in his truck and I almost knocked him out of the truck that was over in the sand the bird had an AB hard lite it turned out the be a no lite .It was High G both positive and or negitive (we are not going in to the Over G thing again) and what kind of mount it was(as far as steel or titanum or the beefed up skate or not and that is it and as far as the radar I am just going to let you talk. Sorrey dude nothing toward you the G model was, shall I over simplify just like the receiver on your tv that picks up the signal from you remote. I know that is much more than that but in a nut shell that is it.

live to wrench,wrench to live and 727's do truly suck

Edited by - goob on Mar 13 2003 10:58 AM
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


And this ladies and gentlemen is why you dont let Solidified old Fossils Drink Whisky before posting Bs out of his Spincter!!!!

_________________
\"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. \"

George S. Patton


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2003, 22:14 
Offline

Joined: 05 Oct 2002, 14:22
Posts: 5353
Location: Missouri
From a10stress, over in another thread :

I was checking out details of the F-4K as mentioned on another thread and came across this engine comparison. The J-79 (17 klbs thrust SLS) is a pure jet, and the Spey (20.5 klbs) is a low bypass turbofan (about .6 which means the flow through the fan is 60% of the flow through the core). The Spey weighs 200 lbs more and needs more space (6 inches more dia, but 5 in shorter).

"As compared to the General Electric J79-powered Phantom, the use of the Spey produced a ten percent increase in the operational radius and a 15 percent increase in ferry range. Better take-off, initial climb, and low-level acceleration figures were obtained. However, the Spey-powered Phantom had a lower maximum speed, a lower ceiling, and a generally poorer altitude performance."

This makes sense. Cruise fuel consumption and low speed accel is better but the fan loses thrust with speed, and it has more frontal area, so the max speed is less.

thanks stress

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2003, 22:29 
Offline

Joined: 05 Oct 2002, 14:22
Posts: 5353
Location: Missouri
chad, it looks like BOTH planes rolled out in 64, as to the engines themselves being designed and built I dont know, could find little info on that Spey

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2003, 09:20 
Offline

Joined: 10 Mar 2003, 14:49
Posts: 426
[quote]


What was your opinion of the F-8U3 Jack?


If your not having fun, your not doing it right!
--------------

If it's the Super Crusader it was a helluva of a bird. NASA picked up the 3 built. They use to jump the Pax River boys who were testing Phantoms and smoked them in ACM. Navy finally asked NASA to back off. They stretched it to Mach 2.6 with 3 possible.

Skunk works supposedly came out with some hot rod F-104, dunno if it was ever built. Long Lance maybe.

Jack


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2003, 11:54 
Offline

Joined: 05 Oct 2002, 14:22
Posts: 5353
Location: Missouri
I think they called that F-104 the Lancer, it supposedly could run rings around the F-15, but didnt have the systems.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2003, 12:27 
Offline

Joined: 13 Mar 2003, 23:00
Posts: 12
Hell the stock zipper............F-104 was damn impressive in the verticle, from what I have been told.

The F-15 is the shit though, its transonic geometry ability is unmatched, with the excpetion of the F-22.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2003, 13:07 
Offline

Joined: 13 Mar 2003, 23:00
Posts: 12
What was the radar/fire control setup of the F-8U-3? Didn't it not have BVR capability with the AIM-7?

I live for pooring hot tar on my oppressed French subjects!

Scortum Obscencus Vilis!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2003, 20:41 
Offline

Joined: 10 Mar 2003, 22:07
Posts: 92
Boomer even Sparticus knows that the F-104 was called the starfighter.......<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2003, 21:00 
Offline

Joined: 25 Jan 2003, 16:49
Posts: 970
Location: G-14 Classified
The F-104G was powered by the J-79 only 10'000 lbs thrust or 15,000 lbs thrust with After burner. It was one of the First Mach 2 Aircraft.

The F15C has Two P&W F100 turbofan engines in 29,000 lb (13,154 kg) thrust class with afterburning it can fly safely to Mach 2.5


The Sparrow was not a BVR "Beyond Visual range weapon" It was a Guided radiation 10nm Missile, Best kill scenario for wez is 7-8NM
the later versions are a Semi Active radiation and 15nm Max employment zone with some interesting features, Home on Jam and High PLF Flight.

The F16CG with 32,000 lbs of thrust Will out climb all of these babies <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle> It's truly the last of the sportsmodels<img src=icon_smile_evil.gif border=0 align=middle>

_________________
\"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. \"

George S. Patton


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2003, 22:54 
Offline

Joined: 05 Oct 2002, 14:22
Posts: 5353
Location: Missouri
you mock me sir!!


my buddy joe:

Lockheed CL-1200 Lancer
Last revised December 13, 199

The Lockheed CL-1200 Lancer was a late 1960s company-funded proposal for a new and improved Starfighter. It was intended for the export market and was in direct competition with the Northrop F-5E Tiger II.

The CL-1200 retained the basic F-104 fuselage but was fitted with a shoulder-mounted wing of larger area which was moved further aft. The new wing had a span of 29 feet and still featured leading- and trailing-edge flops plus inner strakes. The tailplane was moved from the tip of the vertical fin to the base of the rear fuselage. in order to avoid the downwash effects from the high set wings at high angles of attack and to eliminate the Starfighter's inherent pitch-up problems.

The first version was to be the CL-1200-1, still with the now well- proven J79-GE-19 engine. The more advanced CL-1200-2 was to have had a redesigned rear fuselage that could accommodate a modern turbofan engine rather than the J79 turbojet. This turbofan engine was to be either the Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-100 or the F100-P-100. These engines offered an increase of 60 percent in thrust at maximum power. The air intakes were located in the same place that they were on the F-104, but they incorporated translating shock cones with four-inch movement in place of the F-104's fixed cones.

The Lancer retained the 20-mm General Electric M-61A1 cannon as its primary built-in armament, although a 30-mm DEFA gun could be fitted as an alternative if the customer so desired. Nine weapons stations were provided, one under the fuselage, three under each wing, and one at each wingtip. Up to 12,000 pounds of ordinance could be carried.

The estimated gross weight was 35,000 pounds and a top speed of 1700 mph at 35,000 feet was envisaged. The takeoff run was 1450 feet in the intercept configuration, only 52 percent of that required for the F-104G. Kelly Johnson projected that the CL-1200-2 would be superior in air-to-air combat to any known fighter.

At one time, the USAF had considered acquiring one or more examples of the Lancer. The USAF planned to buy at least one experimental Lancer under the experimental designation X-27. The X-27 was to be similar in overall configuration to the Lancer but was to feature modified engine air intakes having a rectangular shape. However, the X-27 program was terminated due to lack of funds before anything could be built.

The CL-1200 was entered in the International Fighter Aircraft competition to find a replacement for the Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter in the international market. It was projected that CL-1200 deliveries could begin in 1974. However, in November 1970 the Northrop F-5-21 was named the winner of the competition, and the primary market for the Lancer was lost. The project was then terminated.

Another stillborn Starfighter derivative was the CL-704 VTOL strike and reconnaissance aircraft originally proposed in 1962. For VTOL operations, it was to have had seven vertically-mounted Rolls Royce RB.181s in each of the enlarged wingtip pods. The main forward propulsion was to have been provided by a fuselage-mounted Rolls Royce RB.168.

A larger-winged F-104 derivative was proposed as an alternative to the MRCA (Multi-Role Combat Aircraft) then being designed as a multi-national European project. Nothing ever emerged, and the MRCA eventually emerged as the Panavia Tornado.


Specification of the Lockheed CL-1200-2 Lancer:
Engine: One Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-100 turbofan, rated at 15,000 lb.s.t. dry and 25,000 lb.s.t. with afterburner. Performance: Maximum speed 1700 mph at 35,000 feet (Mach 2.57), 920 mph (Mach 1.21) at sea level. Initial climb rate 60,000+ feet per minute. 420 miles combat radius with 4000-pound bombload. Takeoff run was 1450 feet to liftoff, landing run was 2060 feet. Dimensions: length 57 feet 3 inches, wingspan 29 feet 2 inches, height 17 feet 2 inches, wing area 300 square feet. Weights: 16,640 pounds empty, 24,385 pounds normal loaded, 35,000 pounds maximum takeoff. Armament: One 20-mm General Electric M61A1 cannon with 725 rounds. An external offensive load of up to 12,000 pounds could be carried on nine external weapons hardpoints.


Sources:


Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, Steve Pace, Motorbooks International, 1992.


Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1987.


The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987.


Lancer, Air Enthusiast, September 1971.


Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, John Fricker, Wings of Fame, Vol 2, Aerospace Publications Ltd, 1996.




"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2003, 23:09 
Offline

Joined: 10 Mar 2003, 22:07
Posts: 92
Dont get your loin cloth in a bunch boomer, Sparticus was making sport of you. I must admit though you did a passable job of defending your position. Your research skills are impressive, but how are you with the "big assed sword"?



Edited by - Sparticus on Mar 14 2003 10:11 PM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2003, 23:15 
Offline

Joined: 23 Oct 2002, 20:45
Posts: 2802
Loin Cloth or Bedsheet, You Animal House Freaks crack me up!!!

"<---Jesus Powers My Hotrod---<<<"

"My purpose in life does not include a hankering to charm society."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 15 Mar 2003, 08:01 
Something tells me the Roman should stick to sling and spear.

Modern airpower is not his forte ;)

"We shall leave no man behind"


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 15 Mar 2003, 09:46 
Offline

Joined: 10 Mar 2003, 22:07
Posts: 92
Sparticus knows more about modern airpower than you might think. Sometimes the old ways are better. It takes a REAL man to stick a sword in someone when you are eye to eye.......<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

"Insert trite message here"


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group