User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 6:55:19 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The better question is which one would be more fun? I have no doubt I could kill myself in either fairly quickly. I think for me the P-51 would be a lot more fun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 7:05:32 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They let women fly F-15's so how hard can it be? Lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 8:04:39 PM EDT
[#3]
same here
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pretty sure I could get into a mustang and start it up and get off the runway just fine. Have no idea how to even begin prepping the f15 for flight lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 8:23:58 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
you have a much higher management workload with a P-51. you have to manage the throttle, the Prop, the Mixture, the waste gate for the charger, the movement of fuel between the various tanks, and still have situational awareness of what is going on around you. you have to be wary of shock cooling the cylinders in a dive. The only computer is you. I did not know you could shock cool a water cooled engine. Learn something new every day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 8:57:16 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The better question is which one would be more fun? I'd much rather ride in the F-15, but you can't just do that! A couple grand with several preservation groups will get you a ride in a P-51, which by the way I think would be awesome and I intend to do one day, just not as awesome as a fast jet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 9:01:49 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd much rather ride in the F-15, but you can't just do that! A couple grand with several preservation groups will get you a ride in a P-51, which by the way I think would be awesome and I intend to do one day, just not as awesome as a fast jet. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The better question is which one would be more fun? I'd much rather ride in the F-15, but you can't just do that! A couple grand with several preservation groups will get you a ride in a P-51, which by the way I think would be awesome and I intend to do one day, just not as awesome as a fast jet. I've been in Lear 24's doing rolls at 350kts and in several different prop planes (including mine) doing rolls and loops at 150mph.
They both seemed the same to me..... When I'm flying formation speed isn't even a factor - fun is! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 9:02:05 PM EDT
[#7]
Just thought I would stop by and say Superhornet is best jet and you're all racist.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 9:08:27 PM EDT
[#8]
F-15. IMHO
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 9:09:43 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I did not know you could shock cool a water cooled engine. Learn something new every day. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
you have a much higher management workload with a P-51. you have to manage the throttle, the Prop, the Mixture, the waste gate for the charger, the movement of fuel between the various tanks, and still have situational awareness of what is going on around you. you have to be wary of shock cooling the cylinders in a dive. The only computer is you. I did not know you could shock cool a water cooled engine. Learn something new every day. you're correct, forgot it was water cooled... gee what's that big radiator for.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 9:10:44 PM EDT
[#10]
Simply flying an airplane is the easy part. Employing a multi-ship formation as the lead is the extremely taxing part. Especially when the S hits the F
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 9:11:29 PM EDT
[#11]
P-51 probably. Having a HUD and a velocity vector, along with autopilot and autothrottles tends to help things like the Eagle has.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 9:12:24 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Simply flying an airplane is the easy part. Employing a multi-ship formation as the lead is the extremely taxing part. Especially when the S hits the F I've never been in the military but even in the civilian world, managing a division (four plane) takes an inordinate amount of mental concentration and forethought above simply flying the aircraft... Me in the lead!  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 9:12:29 PM EDT
[#13]
P51 because FW190 and ME109
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 9:15:22 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Women flew the P-51.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They let women fly F-15's so how hard can it be? Women flew the P-51. Eric Hartmann said that physical strength was very important in the bf-109 in dogfights. I imagne the P-51 was similar. I suspect in actual operational use a woman would be at a disadvantage in something like a P-51, with the F-15's fly by wire making that irrelevent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 9:21:18 PM EDT
[#15]
 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, but those WASP's knew how to drag their tails, They were taught to fly by "StearMEN". The USAF doesn't allow F-15/16 womenz to drag tail. The dragging of tail is no longer politically correct. The Merlin in the P-51 at high power settings produces an euphoric vibration that sometimes interferes with female pilot concentration. Things are different now since they have changed.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They let women fly F-15's so how hard can it be? Women flew the P-51. Yes, but those WASP's knew how to drag their tails, They were taught to fly by "StearMEN". The USAF doesn't allow F-15/16 womenz to drag tail. The dragging of tail is no longer politically correct. The Merlin in the P-51 at high power settings produces an euphoric vibration that sometimes interferes with female pilot concentration. Things are different now since they have changed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 9:23:09 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Eric Hartmann said that physical strength was very important in the bf-109 in dogfights. I imagne the P-51 was similar. I suspect in actual operational use a woman would be at a disadvantage in something like a P-51, with the F-15's fly by wire making that irrelevent. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: They let women fly F-15's so how hard can it be? Women flew the P-51. Eric Hartmann said that physical strength was very important in the bf-109 in dogfights. I imagne the P-51 was similar. I suspect in actual operational use a woman would be at a disadvantage in something like a P-51, with the F-15's fly by wire making that irrelevent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 9:24:10 PM EDT
[#17]
Everyone on GD is a fighter pilot with a 15 inch dick.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 9:25:01 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Everyone on GD is a fighter pilot with a 15 inch dick.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 9:26:44 PM EDT
[#19]
Although not a P-51, this vid may be of interest (P-61).........
P-61 Operating instructions......... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 9:29:06 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
wtf are you babbling bout? its not "automatic" you set the switches to which pump you want running. they only automatcally turn on when the mains are low Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't know fuck all about this shit but I know for a fact that if you don't do the bold in an F15, you are going to have a bad day. wtf are you babbling bout? Quoted:
The F-15 Fuel Transfer System (computers) did this automatically with the ability to manually over-ride. its not "automatic" you set the switches to which pump you want running. they only automatcally turn on when the mains are low Is there a reason it isn't full automated? Unrelated, here's a recent photo of SJ 501 on a VR in Virginia ... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 9:32:02 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is there a reason it isn't full automated? Unrelated, here's a recent photo of SJ 501 on a VR in Virginia ... http://i1186.photobucket.com/albums/z362/0471861731/Aero/_DSC0103Az_zpsgvhpmcuw.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know fuck all about this shit but I know for a fact that if you don't do the bold in an F15, you are going to have a bad day. wtf are you babbling bout? Quoted:
The F-15 Fuel Transfer System (computers) did this automatically with the ability to manually over-ride. its not "automatic" you set the switches to which pump you want running. they only automatcally turn on when the mains are low Is there a reason it isn't full automated? Unrelated, here's a recent photo of SJ 501 on a VR in Virginia ... http://i1186.photobucket.com/albums/z362/0471861731/Aero/_DSC0103Az_zpsgvhpmcuw.jpg I'm surprised to say the least. In the Superhornet you don't even think about it unless fuel isn't transferring on schedule or you get a drop tank that's not transferring. There is certainly no manual manipulation during an average flight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 9:57:02 PM EDT
[#22]
Speaking of F-15s, a four ship just went by on the VR. Tried to get video, but the end result was like giving Ray Charles the video camera.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:01:19 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm surprised to say the least. In the Superhornet you don't even think about it unless fuel isn't transferring on schedule or you get a drop tank that's not transferring. There is certainly no manual manipulation during an average flight. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know fuck all about this shit but I know for a fact that if you don't do the bold in an F15, you are going to have a bad day. wtf are you babbling bout? Quoted:
The F-15 Fuel Transfer System (computers) did this automatically with the ability to manually over-ride. its not "automatic" you set the switches to which pump you want running. they only automatcally turn on when the mains are low Is there a reason it isn't full automated? Unrelated, here's a recent photo of SJ 501 on a VR in Virginia ... http://i1186.photobucket.com/albums/z362/0471861731/Aero/_DSC0103Az_zpsgvhpmcuw.jpg I'm surprised to say the least. In the Superhornet you don't even think about it unless fuel isn't transferring on schedule or you get a drop tank that's not transferring. There is certainly no manual manipulation during an average flight. As long as things are working correctly, you just need to select whether to feed the fuel from the wing tanks or conformal fuel tanks first. Otherwise, it is automatic, but it requires monitoring in case some fuel is trapped or a pump stops working. From a stick and rudder perspective, I would certainly say that an F-15 is easier to fly and likely a lot more forgiving than a P-51, as long as there are not any malfunctions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:10:46 PM EDT
[#24]
External wing tank vs CFT depletion ... which could be a mission / situation dependent thing, thus making it a crew thing. Makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:11:08 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Remember? I showed more than one newbie that trick myself. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
P-51 would be my guess.... The advanced avionics in the F-15 prevent you from tearing the plane apart, if you black out and loose the controls will level the plane on autopilot, radar to prevent mid-air collisions, and Jet > Prop No, no and no. F-15s do NOT have over-G prevention so yes you CAN tear them apart. If you black out you will end up being a charred mess at the bottom of a very large smoking hole. Radar is used for weapons deliver only, there's no such thing as collision avoidance other than the pilot. Oh come on AL-BOB surely you remember the days of a crew chief taking a magnet and clearing that orange ball in the front gear ASP panel? 
AL-BOB is correct the F-15 over-G system consisted of Bitching Betty yelling "over-G" to the pilot and a little ball turning orange so we (ground people) would know the jet was over-G'd. Remember? I showed more than one newbie that trick myself. That shit just hides it on the ASP panel. You still need to clear it out of OWS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:13:39 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only thing better than that is telling the bubble chaser to change the Right Stab Actuator, if that doesn't fix it you'll need to change the Left Stab Actuator. FUCK YOU!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:17:23 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
External wing tank vs CFT depletion ... which could be a mission / situation dependent thing, thus making it a crew thing. Makes sense. By CFT, I assume you mean conformals? As far as external drop tanks, I can't think of any reason, combat or otherwise to ever have those full at the expense of fuel in the internals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:20:31 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have never flown a jet. I do have over 1500 hours of tail wheel time including J3, Stearman, PT-22, and T-6, and of course my RV-3. I feel comfortable flying the T-6, and every P-51 pilot I've talked to has told me that the T-6 is harder to fly than the P-51. Personally, I would feel more confident flying the P-51 than trying figure out how to even start the F15..... I have been in the back seat of three different P-51's though. I'm in the back seat of this one going over our shooting campsite.... http://m1.i.pbase.com/g3/72/325172/2/123374561.y9Aq426C.jpg Valle? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:22:38 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Valle? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I have never flown a jet. I do have over 1500 hours of tail wheel time including J3, Stearman, PT-22, and T-6, and of course my RV-3. I feel comfortable flying the T-6, and every P-51 pilot I've talked to has told me that the T-6 is harder to fly than the P-51. Personally, I would feel more confident flying the P-51 than trying figure out how to even start the F15..... I have been in the back seat of three different P-51's though. I'm in the back seat of this one going over our shooting campsite.... http://m1.i.pbase.com/g3/72/325172/2/123374561.y9Aq426C.jpg Valle? About three miles North of the Prescott HTF shoots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:22:57 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would say the F-15 would be easier to fly. Betcha anything a member will chime in that has had stick time in both aircraft that can give you a real assessment. This place amazes me sometimes. Is Chuck Yeager a member here? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:24:12 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL, how many times have you hit the merge and sustained 8-9Gs for 2 plus consecutive 360s? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They let women fly F-15's so how hard can it be? Women flew the P-51. Eric Hartmann said that physical strength was very important in the bf-109 in dogfights. I imagne the P-51 was similar. I suspect in actual operational use a woman would be at a disadvantage in something like a P-51, with the F-15's fly by wire making that irrelevent. About 87 times |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:28:03 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No shit story....My ex boss, an O6(full Colonel) was an F-15E pilot. Guessing only an O5 then. He was stationed at Seymour Johnson when the 1st Gulf war happened. He was a Sq commander at the time. He was one of the last guys to go through conversion training from F4s to F15s. He deployed soon after return from training. 1st day of the war the head guy, forget what position he was, Group commander or something, was shot down Col Ebberly. So the guy who would later be my boss took over his job. Fast forward....war ended and he returned home. His first sortie back home at Seymour Johnson was to give some incentive rides for someone. Normally he has a WSO in the back seat but because he was giving incentive rides he had unqualified people on the pit. On engine start he could not figure out how to turn on the radios. Too much GeeWiz electronic stuff that the WSO always handled. So while flying an F-15 might not seem so hard it's all the systems that take some time. Trust me there are a lot of buttons around the displays. The other issue with P-51 vs F-15 is speed and how fast things happen. At the faster speeds things happen rather quickly and the pilot has to think ahead of the jet. Seriously. I've flown basic 767-200's, updated/flat panel 757/767's, 717's and G550's. I was fucking BAFFLED by some flat panel, nav/com in the 172 I rented at the local airport. It wasn't a Garmin, just some upgraded avionics (nav and com radios) with the six-pack instruments. I could barely get the unicom freq to fly arou d the patch... 
My kingdom for a KX-170B!
TC |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:28:12 PM EDT
[#33]
Most fighter pilots I know say flying a fbw jet is easier than most common airplanes.. That being said, flying isn't the hard part of the fighter pilot job.
I have flown a little in my life. I have never piloted fighter jet though. But I have flown in many military professional simulators. (F-16C, F/A-18C, Tornado IDS) and they weren't difficult to fly, considering, Flying a PC-7 seemed more tricky |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:28:41 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. About three miles North of the Prescott HTF shoots. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have never flown a jet. I do have over 1500 hours of tail wheel time including J3, Stearman, PT-22, and T-6, and of course my RV-3. I feel comfortable flying the T-6, and every P-51 pilot I've talked to has told me that the T-6 is harder to fly than the P-51. Personally, I would feel more confident flying the P-51 than trying figure out how to even start the F15..... I have been in the back seat of three different P-51's though. I'm in the back seat of this one going over our shooting campsite.... http://m1.i.pbase.com/g3/72/325172/2/123374561.y9Aq426C.jpg Valle? Ok. I've photographed that Mustang at Valle, and the terrain looked similar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:28:43 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL, how many times have you hit the merge and sustained 8-9Gs for 2 plus consecutive 360s? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They let women fly F-15's so how hard can it be? Women flew the P-51. Eric Hartmann said that physical strength was very important in the bf-109 in dogfights. I imagne the P-51 was similar. I suspect in actual operational use a woman would be at a disadvantage in something like a P-51, with the F-15's fly by wire making that irrelevent. Who the hell wants to fight a Viper 2 circle. I'll see you at 30+ Alpha....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:30:05 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who the hell wants to fight a Viper 2 circle. I'll see you at 30+ Alpha....... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They let women fly F-15's so how hard can it be? Women flew the P-51. Eric Hartmann said that physical strength was very important in the bf-109 in dogfights. I imagne the P-51 was similar. I suspect in actual operational use a woman would be at a disadvantage in something like a P-51, with the F-15's fly by wire making that irrelevent. Who the hell wants to fight a Viper 2 circle. I'll see you at 30+ Alpha....... He wished he had the alpha of a hornet (dos gringos melody in the background....)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:31:12 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well....at least one of us is Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Everyone on GD is a fighter pilot with a 15 inch dick. Let's see your watch. 
TC |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:35:07 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
B-Shop for the WIN! "Excuse me, Mr Crew Chief, you say you defueld AND depuddled it? Sorry, that's not what I asked you to do. So now you'll need to fill it completely up then defuel it again, this time without the depuddle. Then, after I'm done doing the Low Calibration you'll need to refuel it again so I can do the High Calibration." Only thing better than that is telling the bubble chaser to change the Right Stab Actuator, if that doesn't fix it you'll need to change the Left Stab Actuator. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The F-15 Fuel Transfer System (computers) did this automatically with the ability to manually over-ride. http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/technology/fuel-system/90-internal-fuel-system This is one of the many reasons why the F-15 would be easier to fly than a P-51. hmmmmmmmmmmm. well you did it for a living (I assume), so I can't argue your point. I will simply state that every automatic system can fail at some point. I should send in my DD-214. As all electronic and mechanical systems of course they can fail but the FTS system on the F-15C/D (I never worked on a F-15E) was pretty robust. I did not work on the fuel transfer system directly but I did work on the FQI (Fuel Quantity Indicator) system which reported the amount of fuel in each tank to the computers and the cockpit indicator. I can only remember 1 failure with the Fuel Transfer System (but it was not my department so maybe I ignored them automatically). I remember many nights replacing the FQI sensors (or troubleshooting the wiring) however. B-Shop for the WIN! "Excuse me, Mr Crew Chief, you say you defueld AND depuddled it? Sorry, that's not what I asked you to do. So now you'll need to fill it completely up then defuel it again, this time without the depuddle. Then, after I'm done doing the Low Calibration you'll need to refuel it again so I can do the High Calibration." Only thing better than that is telling the bubble chaser to change the Right Stab Actuator, if that doesn't fix it you'll need to change the Left Stab Actuator. Back shop avionics type here. Somebody at Bitburg decided to try cross training a few of us, I ended up doing a stint on the flight line (avionics) and a stint in supply. Supply really sucked, flight line was cool, but all in all I preferred my air conditioned back shop job. And I have flown in the back seat of a B model, then another time in a D model. Sierra Hotel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:35:57 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes sylvan... What is the f15 boldface? The Dash One Manual (NATOPS in Navy / Marine speak) has bold faced procedures in the emergency section of the manual. Pilots / Aircrew must memorize the bold faced procedures and have them down cold so if need be they can be recalled and recited and performed word for word with no mistakes. He probably heard it on a TV show. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:38:10 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol also FPNI Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They let women fly F-15's so how hard can it be? Have you sat behind an F-15 with its blinker on for 50 miles? Lol also FPNI 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:40:42 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
By CFT, I assume you mean conformals? As far as external drop tanks, I can't think of any reason, combat or otherwise to ever have those full at the expense of fuel in the internals. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
External wing tank vs CFT depletion ... which could be a mission / situation dependent thing, thus making it a crew thing. Makes sense. By CFT, I assume you mean conformals? As far as external drop tanks, I can't think of any reason, combat or otherwise to ever have those full at the expense of fuel in the internals. The most common reason would be if one external wing tank didn't feed, you would probably keep fuel in the other to not create a large imbalance. I have met a few guys that would rather feed the conformal fuel first in a combat situation because that would give them the option to jettison 8000+lbs of weight if needed for a threat reaction vs 800lbs for empty tanks, though that would only make sense to me in some very specific situations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:45:43 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
By CFT, I assume you mean conformals? As far as external drop tanks, I can't think of any reason, combat or otherwise to ever have those full at the expense of fuel in the internals. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
External wing tank vs CFT depletion ... which could be a mission / situation dependent thing, thus making it a crew thing. Makes sense. By CFT, I assume you mean conformals? As far as external drop tanks, I can't think of any reason, combat or otherwise to ever have those full at the expense of fuel in the internals. The F-15E carries so much fuel, it's probably like "stack overflow" trying to keep track of it all. If it draws from the CFTs fist, and external wing tanks second, I suppose it could jettison externals and pretend to be and F-15C, and do cool F-15C stuff. Of course, if you take the simpler approach of always drawing from wing externals and then CFT, the pilot could just push the throttles to MAX and get rid of the pesky CFT fuel weight. It's an option, and options are good, unless there are too many. I dunno. I just sit at a desk and build pet rocks for military branch that wouldn't even exist if the Arfcom Star Chamber had its way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:47:28 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The most common reason would be if one external wing tank didn't feed, you would probably keep fuel in the other to not create a large imbalance. I have met a few guys that would rather feed the conformal fuel first in a combat situation because that would give them the option to jettison 8000+lbs of weight if needed for a threat reaction vs 800lbs for empty tanks, though that would only make sense to me in some very specific situations. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
External wing tank vs CFT depletion ... which could be a mission / situation dependent thing, thus making it a crew thing. Makes sense. By CFT, I assume you mean conformals? As far as external drop tanks, I can't think of any reason, combat or otherwise to ever have those full at the expense of fuel in the internals. The most common reason would be if one external wing tank didn't feed, you would probably keep fuel in the other to not create a large imbalance. I have met a few guys that would rather feed the conformal fuel first in a combat situation because that would give them the option to jettison 8000+lbs of weight if needed for a threat reaction vs 800lbs for empty tanks, though that would only make sense to me in some very specific situations. The asymmetrical load isn't a small thing but the MCs should help the pilot keep from doing some sort of over stress or departure inducing move. You'll walk to the jet knowing what you will jettison your drops for and likely any situation you describe will necessitate jettisoning those off. If training, you won't fight with that issue, you'll bring the jet back for maintenance. And if you're a Navy type on deployment, you're probably punching the tank into the water or diverting as a full external tank isn't CV recoverable. I'm sure test guys have some use for those types of experiments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:48:08 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you sat behind an F-15 with its blinker on for 50 miles? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They let women fly F-15's so how hard can it be? Have you sat behind an F-15 with its blinker on for 50 miles? Maybe... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:48:32 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The F-15E carries so much fuel, it's probably like "stack overflow" trying to keep track of it all. If it draws from the CFTs fist, and external wing tanks second, I suppose it could jettison externals and pretend to be and F-15C, and do cool F-15C stuff. Of course, if you take the simpler approach of always drawing from wing externals and then CFT, the pilot could just push the throttles to MAX and get rid of the pesky CFT fuel weight. It's an option, and options are good, unless there are too many. I dunno. I just sit at a desk and build pet rocks for military branch that wouldn't even exist if the Arfcom Star Chamber had its way. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
External wing tank vs CFT depletion ... which could be a mission / situation dependent thing, thus making it a crew thing. Makes sense. By CFT, I assume you mean conformals? As far as external drop tanks, I can't think of any reason, combat or otherwise to ever have those full at the expense of fuel in the internals. The F-15E carries so much fuel, it's probably like "stack overflow" trying to keep track of it all. If it draws from the CFTs fist, and external wing tanks second, I suppose it could jettison externals and pretend to be and F-15C, and do cool F-15C stuff. Of course, if you take the simpler approach of always drawing from wing externals and then CFT, the pilot could just push the throttles to MAX and get rid of the pesky CFT fuel weight. It's an option, and options are good, unless there are too many. I dunno. I just sit at a desk and build pet rocks for military branch that wouldn't even exist if the Arfcom Star Chamber had its way. I don't have much knowledge of conformal tanks other than I wish the Hornet had them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:49:35 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The F-15E carries so much fuel, it's probably like "stack overflow" trying to keep track of it all. If it draws from the CFTs fist, and external wing tanks second, I suppose it could jettison externals and pretend to be and F-15C, and do cool F-15C stuff. Of course, if you take the simpler approach of always drawing from wing externals and then CFT, the pilot could just push the throttles to MAX and get rid of the pesky CFT fuel weight. It's an option, and options are good, unless there are too many. I dunno. I just sit at a desk and build pet rocks for military branch that wouldn't even exist if the Arfcom Star Chamber had its way. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
External wing tank vs CFT depletion ... which could be a mission / situation dependent thing, thus making it a crew thing. Makes sense. By CFT, I assume you mean conformals? As far as external drop tanks, I can't think of any reason, combat or otherwise to ever have those full at the expense of fuel in the internals. The F-15E carries so much fuel, it's probably like "stack overflow" trying to keep track of it all. If it draws from the CFTs fist, and external wing tanks second, I suppose it could jettison externals and pretend to be and F-15C, and do cool F-15C stuff. Of course, if you take the simpler approach of always drawing from wing externals and then CFT, the pilot could just push the throttles to MAX and get rid of the pesky CFT fuel weight. It's an option, and options are good, unless there are too many. I dunno. I just sit at a desk and build pet rocks for military branch that wouldn't even exist if the Arfcom Star Chamber had its way. Interesting the conformals go before the externals......I'm sure there is a reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 10:58:18 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The asymmetrical load isn't a small thing but the MCs should help the pilot keep from doing some sort of over stress or departure inducing move. You'll walk to the jet knowing what you will jettison your drops for and likely any situation you describe will necessitate jettisoning those off. If training, you won't fight with that issue, you'll bring the jet back for maintenance. And if you're a Navy type on deployment, you're probably punching the tank into the water or diverting as a full external tank isn't CV recoverable. I'm sure test guys have some use for those types of experiments. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
External wing tank vs CFT depletion ... which could be a mission / situation dependent thing, thus making it a crew thing. Makes sense. By CFT, I assume you mean conformals? As far as external drop tanks, I can't think of any reason, combat or otherwise to ever have those full at the expense of fuel in the internals. The most common reason would be if one external wing tank didn't feed, you would probably keep fuel in the other to not create a large imbalance. I have met a few guys that would rather feed the conformal fuel first in a combat situation because that would give them the option to jettison 8000+lbs of weight if needed for a threat reaction vs 800lbs for empty tanks, though that would only make sense to me in some very specific situations. The asymmetrical load isn't a small thing but the MCs should help the pilot keep from doing some sort of over stress or departure inducing move. You'll walk to the jet knowing what you will jettison your drops for and likely any situation you describe will necessitate jettisoning those off. If training, you won't fight with that issue, you'll bring the jet back for maintenance. And if you're a Navy type on deployment, you're probably punching the tank into the water or diverting as a full external tank isn't CV recoverable. I'm sure test guys have some use for those types of experiments. There is definitely no flight control system that will limit any maneuvering in the event of an asymmetric loadout either. Fortunately, we don't have an issue bringing back full externals even with a combat load. Other than those two examples earlier, we always feed the externals out first due to AOA restrictions with fuel still in them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 11:00:56 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is definitely no flight control system that will limit any maneuvering in the event of an asymmetric loadout either. Fortunately, we don't have an issue bringing back full externals even with a combat load. Other than those two examples earlier, we always feed the externals out first due to AOA restrictions with fuel still in them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
External wing tank vs CFT depletion ... which could be a mission / situation dependent thing, thus making it a crew thing. Makes sense. By CFT, I assume you mean conformals? As far as external drop tanks, I can't think of any reason, combat or otherwise to ever have those full at the expense of fuel in the internals. The most common reason would be if one external wing tank didn't feed, you would probably keep fuel in the other to not create a large imbalance. I have met a few guys that would rather feed the conformal fuel first in a combat situation because that would give them the option to jettison 8000+lbs of weight if needed for a threat reaction vs 800lbs for empty tanks, though that would only make sense to me in some very specific situations. The asymmetrical load isn't a small thing but the MCs should help the pilot keep from doing some sort of over stress or departure inducing move. You'll walk to the jet knowing what you will jettison your drops for and likely any situation you describe will necessitate jettisoning those off. If training, you won't fight with that issue, you'll bring the jet back for maintenance. And if you're a Navy type on deployment, you're probably punching the tank into the water or diverting as a full external tank isn't CV recoverable. I'm sure test guys have some use for those types of experiments. There is definitely no flight control system that will limit any maneuvering in the event of an asymmetric loadout either. Fortunately, we don't have an issue bringing back full externals even with a combat load. Other than those two examples earlier, we always feed the externals out first due to AOA restrictions with fuel still in them. The Hornet will limit G available and AOA based on load out and weight. I'll have to dig to see if it does that with a fuel transfer problem( I've been out of the cockpit for two years, so I'm rusty). I mean, unless combat, it's irrelevant as you will just bring the jet back for the maintainers so it will make it's next sorties. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 11:01:28 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is Chuck Yeager a member here? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I would say the F-15 would be easier to fly. Betcha anything a member will chime in that has had stick time in both aircraft that can give you a real assessment. This place amazes me sometimes. Is Chuck Yeager a member here? Well he did stop at my booth (pretty cool to talk about how to zero the .50s on a Mustang) at the Dallas Safari Club Show so I guess I will chime in. F-15s on Kadena looked pretty easy to fly relatively. In other words they always seemed to land and take off very smoothly regardless of who was at the stick. So from a guy who once talked to Chuck and has seen 1000s of f-15s take off and land I think the F-15 is a relatively easy jet to fly. Fighting the F-15 might get a bit more taxing.
Didn't most WWII fighters have more guys killed in accidents than from enemy actions? I get the impression that those HiPo prop planes were pretty intense to fly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 11:06:19 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting the conformals go before the externals......I'm sure there is a reason. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
External wing tank vs CFT depletion ... which could be a mission / situation dependent thing, thus making it a crew thing. Makes sense. By CFT, I assume you mean conformals? As far as external drop tanks, I can't think of any reason, combat or otherwise to ever have those full at the expense of fuel in the internals. The F-15E carries so much fuel, it's probably like "stack overflow" trying to keep track of it all. If it draws from the CFTs fist, and external wing tanks second, I suppose it could jettison externals and pretend to be and F-15C, and do cool F-15C stuff. Of course, if you take the simpler approach of always drawing from wing externals and then CFT, the pilot could just push the throttles to MAX and get rid of the pesky CFT fuel weight. It's an option, and options are good, unless there are too many. I dunno. I just sit at a desk and build pet rocks for military branch that wouldn't even exist if the Arfcom Star Chamber had its way. Interesting the conformals go before the externals......I'm sure there is a reason. It seems to be just an option to do so. I think, like you said, most would prefer to always draw from wing externals first. In the pet rock I worked on, I gave the pilot like three or four different ways to be uncomfortably hot in the cockpit. None of these options could be considered cool, or comfortable, just different degrees of miserably hot. Cold, however, was always a viable option in the winter. The pilot had options. None of them particularly fun, but he had options. Fortunately, federal, state and local laws prevented the pilots from beating me. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
