User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/12/2022 10:27:17 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've heard a similar story. It sounded a bit odd. They didn't push the machinery hard enough to damage anything though. Basically a routine patrol flight got canceled. You had 2 F-16s that had just come off a tanker, the flight lead decided to try to dock his plane to the ISS. They got really high until the wingman said that they were above the Armstrong Limit at which point the lead cut his afterburner and they went home. The wingman told me it looked and felt really weird up there. The F-16 is not a suitable aircraft for flying at those altitudes. Single engine and the wing is small. A couple NWA pilots in an CRJ ferry flight tried something similar to that. They died.  How these Pilots Crashed their Plane While Having Fun | A Thrill at 41,000 Feet |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2022 10:31:15 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That was exactly why they stopped climbing. The other guy said that they were either above or getting close to the Armstrong Line without pressure suits. Been awhile since I heard the story. I think they topped out around 53,000 feet. Armstrong is around 60k I think? Doesn't sound too outrageous to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2022 10:44:28 PM EDT
[#3]
Not sure if it was in the rules at the time of these stories being told, but during my time if you wanted to go higher than FL500 you needed to have a pressure suit on.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2022 10:45:36 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah this was the part of the story that didn't ring true for me. No fighter pilot is intentionally going to get to such a low fuel state AND keep the aircraft in afterburner. That's total theatrical BS but if true the guy should have his wings ripped off. I got to Mach 2 in an RF-4C (slick configuration) over the Pacific in 1987. I actually did it several times. The first time we climbed the jet up to 53000 feet (max for the F-4 was supposed to be 55K and we were wallowing around and couldn't push the altitude any further) and we were in full afterburner for 15 minutes before we pushed the nose over. The jet was at around 1.6 Mach when we started the dive and we pushed over to 45º nose low. We went through Mach 2 at around 29000 feet but the aircraft was shuddering petty badly and we experienced a violent jolt at one point (turned out we had ripped a piece of the underbelly paneling off the jet - my Squadron CO was not pleased). We decided to rethink our strategy because pointing the aircraft at the ground didn't seem to be the best way to do things. We rememebered that in F-4 flight training that an aircraft will max accelerate under unloaded/Zero-G conditions. Our next attempt we got to 53K altitude and when we were at 1.6M and the aircraft would not accelerate any more we gently pushed the nose over until we were at Zero-G and we were light in the seat. This resulted in max acceleration in a gentle arc instead of a suicide run for the ground! The jet broke Mach 2 aound 40K feet (no shuddering this time) and top speed on that flight according to the Mach meter was 2.2M. After that just about all the guys in my squadron made their own successful attempts at breaking Mach 2. We even had special patches made up to commemorate the feat that we wore for a while until the commander told us to stop wearing them. Good times. The F-4 was a beast! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 2 min of fuel left? Yeah this was the part of the story that didn't ring true for me. No fighter pilot is intentionally going to get to such a low fuel state AND keep the aircraft in afterburner. That's total theatrical BS but if true the guy should have his wings ripped off. I got to Mach 2 in an RF-4C (slick configuration) over the Pacific in 1987. I actually did it several times. The first time we climbed the jet up to 53000 feet (max for the F-4 was supposed to be 55K and we were wallowing around and couldn't push the altitude any further) and we were in full afterburner for 15 minutes before we pushed the nose over. The jet was at around 1.6 Mach when we started the dive and we pushed over to 45º nose low. We went through Mach 2 at around 29000 feet but the aircraft was shuddering petty badly and we experienced a violent jolt at one point (turned out we had ripped a piece of the underbelly paneling off the jet - my Squadron CO was not pleased). We decided to rethink our strategy because pointing the aircraft at the ground didn't seem to be the best way to do things. We rememebered that in F-4 flight training that an aircraft will max accelerate under unloaded/Zero-G conditions. Our next attempt we got to 53K altitude and when we were at 1.6M and the aircraft would not accelerate any more we gently pushed the nose over until we were at Zero-G and we were light in the seat. This resulted in max acceleration in a gentle arc instead of a suicide run for the ground! The jet broke Mach 2 aound 40K feet (no shuddering this time) and top speed on that flight according to the Mach meter was 2.2M. After that just about all the guys in my squadron made their own successful attempts at breaking Mach 2. We even had special patches made up to commemorate the feat that we wore for a while until the commander told us to stop wearing them. Good times. The F-4 was a beast! The F4 would be my pick if I got to take a ride in anything I wanted. There are faster and more aerobatic aircraft, but the Phantom is just perfect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2022 10:50:41 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In my next life I want to be a F-4 drivers Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yeah this was the part of the story that didn't ring true for me. No fighter pilot is intentionally going to get to such a low fuel state AND keep the aircraft in afterburner. That's total theatrical BS but if true the guy should have his wings ripped off. I got to Mach 2 in an RF-4C (slick configuration) over the Pacific in 1987. I actually did it several times. The first time we climbed the jet up to 53000 feet (max for the F-4 was supposed to be 55K and we were wallowing around and couldn't push the altitude any further) and we were in full afterburner for 15 minutes before we pushed the nose over. The jet was at around 1.6 Mach when we started the dive and we pushed over to 45º nose low. We went through Mach 2 at around 29000 feet but the aircraft was shuddering petty badly and we experienced a violent jolt at one point (turned out we had ripped a piece of the underbelly paneling off the jet - my Squadron CO was not pleased). We decided to rethink our strategy because pointing the aircraft at the ground didn't seem to be the best way to do things. We rememebered that in F-4 flight training that an aircraft will max accelerate under unloaded/Zero-G conditions. Our next attempt we got to 53K altitude and when we were at 1.6M and the aircraft would not accelerate any more we gently pushed the nose over until we were at Zero-G and we were light in the seat. This resulted in max acceleration in a gentle arc instead of a suicide run for the ground! The jet broke Mach 2 aound 40K feet (no shuddering this time) and top speed on that flight according to the Mach meter was 2.2M. After that just about all the guys in my squadron made their own successful attempts at breaking Mach 2. We even had special patches made up to commemorate the feat that we wore for a while until the commander told us to stop wearing them. Good times. The F-4 was a beast! In my next life I want to be a F-4 drivers Everyone says they’re ugly. I think its a great looking airplane |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2022 10:53:40 PM EDT
[#6]
Got to sit in an F4 a couple of times at an air museum.
To 12 year old me it seemed preposterously big. Like a flying house. Some years ago I heard a story that someone got a gun kill in one while flying supersonic in Vietnam. Hearing the pilot tell that story in a documentary. It sounded like a Mac truck running over an empty beer can on the freeway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2022 10:53:41 PM EDT
[#7]
0.08 in a hyundai
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2022 10:55:09 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not sure if it was in the rules at the time of these stories being told, but during my time if you wanted to go higher than FL500 you needed to have a pressure suit on. Need is kind of fluid, especially single seat |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2022 11:04:43 PM EDT
[#9]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2022 11:13:59 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @FlyNavy75 When were you in Al Assad FlyNavy? Wonder if you were ever one of the FA-18s that would orbit my Platoon when we were hitting a place. Good feeling looking up on nods and seeing either you guys or an Air Force AC-130 covering our asses.  Hey man good to see you! We did a det there in August of 2006. Were there for a little less than a month since we had to still be night current on the boat without needing a FCLP. For me, Iraq in 2003, 2006, 2009, 2016 Afg was 2009, 2011-12, 2016 Loved working with SEALs when we had the chance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2022 11:14:30 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 500lb GBU? GBU38, delayed fuze |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2022 11:37:43 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hey man good to see you! We did a det there in August of 2006. Were there for a little less than a month since we had to still be night current on the boat without needing a FCLP. For me, Iraq in 2003, 2006, 2009, 2016 Afg was 2009, 2011-12, 2016 Loved working with SEALs when we had the chance. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: @FlyNavy75 When were you in Al Assad FlyNavy? Wonder if you were ever one of the FA-18s that would orbit my Platoon when we were hitting a place. Good feeling looking up on nods and seeing either you guys or an Air Force AC-130 covering our asses. Hey man good to see you! We did a det there in August of 2006. Were there for a little less than a month since we had to still be night current on the boat without needing a FCLP. For me, Iraq in 2003, 2006, 2009, 2016 Afg was 2009, 2011-12, 2016 Loved working with SEALs when we had the chance. Hmm. We may have just missed each other. Left there in April 2006, then back again from October of 2007 to April of 2008. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 12:14:07 AM EDT
[#13]
Nice read. I enjoyed it!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 12:14:26 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: IIRC, I believe that a member here once claimed that the Midway fastest carrier. Not with the added blisters on the hull... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 12:21:28 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He’s banned, unfortunately. Good dude seemed to be having a tough time. I did not know that.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 12:27:15 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Has the Navy came up with a plan or timeline for the Big E's disposal? Image Alt TextImage Alt TextDisposal of Decommissioned, Defueled Ex-Enterprise (CVN 65) and Its Associated Naval Reactor Plants EIS/OEIS https://carrierdisposaleis.com/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 1:50:06 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryYou beat me to it. The LA speed story. Puts a grin on my face.  The LA Speed Story (2020) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 5:00:53 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You beat me to it. The LA speed story. Puts a grin on my face.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3xaF1sT90UIts such a great story and so well told
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 10:37:07 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, the embedded heating element is more of a general and commercial aviation thing. Fighters accomplish this via the less elegant and far more deafening use of forced-air. The F-15 even has some defog nozzles on the outside of the canopy; I'm not an F-15 guy, so I don't know. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The air blowing along the inside of an F-16 canopy comes from ... the engine. The compressor and turbine I'm talking about aren't part of the engine, but part of a refrigeration system downstream of the compressor stages of the engine. The heat sink for this refrigeration cycle is basically the full stagnation temperature of the aerodynamic flow. The canopy sees this stagnation temperature only on a very limited region at the front of the canopy. The majority of the canopy, say 80%, sees roughly 7/10ths of this aerodynamic heating. And then, you have to factor in the thermal conduction and thermal capacitance of the polycarbonate canopy, the latter being rather significant. The most common issue with a high flying aircraft is that the canopy is cold soaked at altitude in subsonic flight, and when descending into air with higher moisture content at lower altitudes, the inside of the canopy can fog or ice up because of thermal lag and insufficient canopy heating on the inside, and outside for that matter. To overcome this thermal lag/capacitance, some aircraft will have heating elements embedded in the interior of the windscreen laminate. The 16 has no heating elements. It is all done via the ECS and there are vents on the glare shield along with the manually set defog lever on the side wall it directs airflow along the inside of the canopy. The F-16's lack of an external rain removal system was a surprise and a pain in the ass to me when I was stationed at Kusan, S. Korea. I supervised the end of runway crews that did the last look inspection and removed/installed the weapons safety pins during my 1 year assignment. We had a bunch of water filled fire extinguishers that we had to use a lot of times to spray canopy with to wash away most of the condensation so the pilot could see to taxi out onto the runway when they had the inside of the cockpit too cold for the defog system to keep up with. Summer time is hot and very humid at Kunsan. F-15's have a rain removal system that has air nozzles located at the front edge of the windscreen that blast hot air from the ECS across it that works real good as long as you don't leave if on too long. The hot air can damage the windscreen if left on too long. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 10:39:18 AM EDT
[#20]
That was a flight never to be forgotten.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 10:41:08 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mach 87 on my Harley So, you finally got a quiet ride? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 10:54:05 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The F-16's lack of an external rain removal system was a surprise and a pain in the ass to me when I was stationed at Kusan, S. Korea. I supervised the end of runway crews that did the last look inspection and removed/installed the weapons safety pins during my 1 year assignment. We had a bunch of water filled fire extinguishers that we had to use a lot of times to spray canopy with to wash away most of the condensation so the pilot could see to taxi out onto the runway when they had the inside of the cockpit too cold for the defog system to keep up with. Summer time is hot and very humid at Kunsan. F-15's have a rain removal system that has air nozzles located at the front edge of the windscreen that blast hot air from the ECS across it that works real good as long as you don't leave if on too long. The hot air can damage the windscreen if left on too long. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The air blowing along the inside of an F-16 canopy comes from ... the engine. The compressor and turbine I'm talking about aren't part of the engine, but part of a refrigeration system downstream of the compressor stages of the engine. The heat sink for this refrigeration cycle is basically the full stagnation temperature of the aerodynamic flow. The canopy sees this stagnation temperature only on a very limited region at the front of the canopy. The majority of the canopy, say 80%, sees roughly 7/10ths of this aerodynamic heating. And then, you have to factor in the thermal conduction and thermal capacitance of the polycarbonate canopy, the latter being rather significant. The most common issue with a high flying aircraft is that the canopy is cold soaked at altitude in subsonic flight, and when descending into air with higher moisture content at lower altitudes, the inside of the canopy can fog or ice up because of thermal lag and insufficient canopy heating on the inside, and outside for that matter. To overcome this thermal lag/capacitance, some aircraft will have heating elements embedded in the interior of the windscreen laminate. The 16 has no heating elements. It is all done via the ECS and there are vents on the glare shield along with the manually set defog lever on the side wall it directs airflow along the inside of the canopy. The F-16's lack of an external rain removal system was a surprise and a pain in the ass to me when I was stationed at Kusan, S. Korea. I supervised the end of runway crews that did the last look inspection and removed/installed the weapons safety pins during my 1 year assignment. We had a bunch of water filled fire extinguishers that we had to use a lot of times to spray canopy with to wash away most of the condensation so the pilot could see to taxi out onto the runway when they had the inside of the cockpit too cold for the defog system to keep up with. Summer time is hot and very humid at Kunsan. F-15's have a rain removal system that has air nozzles located at the front edge of the windscreen that blast hot air from the ECS across it that works real good as long as you don't leave if on too long. The hot air can damage the windscreen if left on too long. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 10:54:51 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The F-16's lack of an external rain removal system was a surprise and a pain in the ass to me when I was stationed at Kusan, S. Korea. I supervised the end of runway crews that did the last look inspection and removed/installed the weapons safety pins during my 1 year assignment. We had a bunch of water filled fire extinguishers that we had to use a lot of times to spray canopy with to wash away most of the condensation so the pilot could see to taxi out onto the runway when they had the inside of the cockpit too cold for the defog system to keep up with. Summer time is hot and very humid at Kunsan. F-15's have a rain removal system that has air nozzles located at the front edge of the windscreen that blast hot air from the ECS across it that works real good as long as you don't leave if on too long. The hot air can damage the windscreen if left on too long. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The air blowing along the inside of an F-16 canopy comes from ... the engine. The compressor and turbine I'm talking about aren't part of the engine, but part of a refrigeration system downstream of the compressor stages of the engine. The heat sink for this refrigeration cycle is basically the full stagnation temperature of the aerodynamic flow. The canopy sees this stagnation temperature only on a very limited region at the front of the canopy. The majority of the canopy, say 80%, sees roughly 7/10ths of this aerodynamic heating. And then, you have to factor in the thermal conduction and thermal capacitance of the polycarbonate canopy, the latter being rather significant. The most common issue with a high flying aircraft is that the canopy is cold soaked at altitude in subsonic flight, and when descending into air with higher moisture content at lower altitudes, the inside of the canopy can fog or ice up because of thermal lag and insufficient canopy heating on the inside, and outside for that matter. To overcome this thermal lag/capacitance, some aircraft will have heating elements embedded in the interior of the windscreen laminate. The 16 has no heating elements. It is all done via the ECS and there are vents on the glare shield along with the manually set defog lever on the side wall it directs airflow along the inside of the canopy. The F-16's lack of an external rain removal system was a surprise and a pain in the ass to me when I was stationed at Kusan, S. Korea. I supervised the end of runway crews that did the last look inspection and removed/installed the weapons safety pins during my 1 year assignment. We had a bunch of water filled fire extinguishers that we had to use a lot of times to spray canopy with to wash away most of the condensation so the pilot could see to taxi out onto the runway when they had the inside of the cockpit too cold for the defog system to keep up with. Summer time is hot and very humid at Kunsan. F-15's have a rain removal system that has air nozzles located at the front edge of the windscreen that blast hot air from the ECS across it that works real good as long as you don't leave if on too long. The hot air can damage the windscreen if left on too long. I never used the rain removal system in 15 years. Not once. The technique was if you turn it on, NEVER take your finger off the switch, because in 20 secs it was going to melt the canopy. Somethings as moranic as that, simply should be left off. If the rain is blocking your view, then push it up and go faster, that will get rid of the rain and if you can't go faster then just suck it up, and if you can't suck it up, find a different job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 10:59:26 AM EDT
[#24]
Cool thread. I just finished this which was an excellent book. Pretty crazy how they achieved the speeds they did back in the 70s.
https://www.audible.com/pd/Skunk-Works-Audiobook/B011LR4PW4 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 11:01:36 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've heard that some models of Mig-23 have very stringent speed limits set because of the risk of a canopy failure. If an F-16 canopy failed under pressure would it shatter? Or would it crumple in? Has such a thing ever happened? Just wondering, or would it go plastic and deform? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 11:04:50 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm assuming the forward critical viewing area remained clear, but the sides of the transparency were sweating? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The air blowing along the inside of an F-16 canopy comes from ... the engine. The compressor and turbine I'm talking about aren't part of the engine, but part of a refrigeration system downstream of the compressor stages of the engine. The heat sink for this refrigeration cycle is basically the full stagnation temperature of the aerodynamic flow. The canopy sees this stagnation temperature only on a very limited region at the front of the canopy. The majority of the canopy, say 80%, sees roughly 7/10ths of this aerodynamic heating. And then, you have to factor in the thermal conduction and thermal capacitance of the polycarbonate canopy, the latter being rather significant. The most common issue with a high flying aircraft is that the canopy is cold soaked at altitude in subsonic flight, and when descending into air with higher moisture content at lower altitudes, the inside of the canopy can fog or ice up because of thermal lag and insufficient canopy heating on the inside, and outside for that matter. To overcome this thermal lag/capacitance, some aircraft will have heating elements embedded in the interior of the windscreen laminate. The 16 has no heating elements. It is all done via the ECS and there are vents on the glare shield along with the manually set defog lever on the side wall it directs airflow along the inside of the canopy. The F-16's lack of an external rain removal system was a surprise and a pain in the ass to me when I was stationed at Kusan, S. Korea. I supervised the end of runway crews that did the last look inspection and removed/installed the weapons safety pins during my 1 year assignment. We had a bunch of water filled fire extinguishers that we had to use a lot of times to spray canopy with to wash away most of the condensation so the pilot could see to taxi out onto the runway when they had the inside of the cockpit too cold for the defog system to keep up with. Summer time is hot and very humid at Kunsan. F-15's have a rain removal system that has air nozzles located at the front edge of the windscreen that blast hot air from the ECS across it that works real good as long as you don't leave if on too long. The hot air can damage the windscreen if left on too long. Nope, the entire canopy would be covered. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 11:13:30 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I never used the rain removal system in 15 years. Not once. The technique was if you turn it on, NEVER take your finger off the switch, because in 20 secs it was going to melt the canopy. Somethings as moranic as that, simply should be left off. If the rain is blocking your view, then push it up and go faster, that will get rid of the rain and if you can't go faster then just suck it up, and if you can't suck it up, find a different job. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The air blowing along the inside of an F-16 canopy comes from ... the engine. The compressor and turbine I'm talking about aren't part of the engine, but part of a refrigeration system downstream of the compressor stages of the engine. The heat sink for this refrigeration cycle is basically the full stagnation temperature of the aerodynamic flow. The canopy sees this stagnation temperature only on a very limited region at the front of the canopy. The majority of the canopy, say 80%, sees roughly 7/10ths of this aerodynamic heating. And then, you have to factor in the thermal conduction and thermal capacitance of the polycarbonate canopy, the latter being rather significant. The most common issue with a high flying aircraft is that the canopy is cold soaked at altitude in subsonic flight, and when descending into air with higher moisture content at lower altitudes, the inside of the canopy can fog or ice up because of thermal lag and insufficient canopy heating on the inside, and outside for that matter. To overcome this thermal lag/capacitance, some aircraft will have heating elements embedded in the interior of the windscreen laminate. The 16 has no heating elements. It is all done via the ECS and there are vents on the glare shield along with the manually set defog lever on the side wall it directs airflow along the inside of the canopy. The F-16's lack of an external rain removal system was a surprise and a pain in the ass to me when I was stationed at Kusan, S. Korea. I supervised the end of runway crews that did the last look inspection and removed/installed the weapons safety pins during my 1 year assignment. We had a bunch of water filled fire extinguishers that we had to use a lot of times to spray canopy with to wash away most of the condensation so the pilot could see to taxi out onto the runway when they had the inside of the cockpit too cold for the defog system to keep up with. Summer time is hot and very humid at Kunsan. F-15's have a rain removal system that has air nozzles located at the front edge of the windscreen that blast hot air from the ECS across it that works real good as long as you don't leave if on too long. The hot air can damage the windscreen if left on too long. I never used the rain removal system in 15 years. Not once. The technique was if you turn it on, NEVER take your finger off the switch, because in 20 secs it was going to melt the canopy. Somethings as moranic as that, simply should be left off. If the rain is blocking your view, then push it up and go faster, that will get rid of the rain and if you can't go faster then just suck it up, and if you can't suck it up, find a different job. The condensation problem was on the ground prior to takeoff or after landing. You wouldn't have needed to use the rain removal system with any of my F-15s. I always kept my windscreen and canopy clean and rain repellant applied to the windscreen. And I would love to be able to get a hold of some of the rain repellant we used back then. The stuff worked a lot better on car windshields than Rain-X. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 11:16:09 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The condensation problem was on the ground prior to takeoff or after landing. You wouldn't have needed to use the rain removal system with any of my F-15s. I always kept my windscreen and canopy clean and rain repellant applied to the windscreen. And I would love to be able to get a hold of some of the rain repellant we used back then. The stuff worked a lot better on car windshields than Rain-X. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The air blowing along the inside of an F-16 canopy comes from ... the engine. The compressor and turbine I'm talking about aren't part of the engine, but part of a refrigeration system downstream of the compressor stages of the engine. The heat sink for this refrigeration cycle is basically the full stagnation temperature of the aerodynamic flow. The canopy sees this stagnation temperature only on a very limited region at the front of the canopy. The majority of the canopy, say 80%, sees roughly 7/10ths of this aerodynamic heating. And then, you have to factor in the thermal conduction and thermal capacitance of the polycarbonate canopy, the latter being rather significant. The most common issue with a high flying aircraft is that the canopy is cold soaked at altitude in subsonic flight, and when descending into air with higher moisture content at lower altitudes, the inside of the canopy can fog or ice up because of thermal lag and insufficient canopy heating on the inside, and outside for that matter. To overcome this thermal lag/capacitance, some aircraft will have heating elements embedded in the interior of the windscreen laminate. The 16 has no heating elements. It is all done via the ECS and there are vents on the glare shield along with the manually set defog lever on the side wall it directs airflow along the inside of the canopy. The F-16's lack of an external rain removal system was a surprise and a pain in the ass to me when I was stationed at Kusan, S. Korea. I supervised the end of runway crews that did the last look inspection and removed/installed the weapons safety pins during my 1 year assignment. We had a bunch of water filled fire extinguishers that we had to use a lot of times to spray canopy with to wash away most of the condensation so the pilot could see to taxi out onto the runway when they had the inside of the cockpit too cold for the defog system to keep up with. Summer time is hot and very humid at Kunsan. F-15's have a rain removal system that has air nozzles located at the front edge of the windscreen that blast hot air from the ECS across it that works real good as long as you don't leave if on too long. The hot air can damage the windscreen if left on too long. I never used the rain removal system in 15 years. Not once. The technique was if you turn it on, NEVER take your finger off the switch, because in 20 secs it was going to melt the canopy. Somethings as moranic as that, simply should be left off. If the rain is blocking your view, then push it up and go faster, that will get rid of the rain and if you can't go faster then just suck it up, and if you can't suck it up, find a different job. The condensation problem was on the ground prior to takeoff or after landing. You wouldn't have needed to use the rain removal system with any of my F-15s. I always kept my windscreen and canopy clean and rain repellant applied to the windscreen. And I would love to be able to get a hold of some of the rain repellant we used back then. The stuff worked a lot better on car windshields than Rain-X. I am pretty sure ( though it has been a very long time ) that the use of the rain removal system was prohibited on the ground. and airborne, the canopy was always hot to the touch. I never saw a cold soaked canopy due to high altitude. The window heat in an airliner is to make it more pliable below 10,000 feet in case of bird impact, has nothing to do with cold soaked windows at altitude. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 11:22:23 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am pretty sure ( though it has been a very long time ) that the use of the rain removal system was prohibited on the ground. and airborne, the canopy was always hot to the touch. I never saw a cold soaked canopy due to high altitude. The window heat in an airliner is to make it more pliable below 10,000 feet in case of bird impact, has nothing to do with cold soaked windows at altitude. We used it on the ground the the Superhornet. Only time it was needed. I’d be surprised if the Eagle prohibited it but who knows. You’d get a windshield hot caution if you left it on too long. Or maybe that was something else. Old age is getting to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 11:26:41 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: such drama. I had the Eagle at 1.8 at 55,000 feet there was no drama, it just went fast like it is supposed to do, no shaking, no noises, just going fast. PSA. Bailing out at 600 knots or mach 2 isn't going to make much of a difference, your pretty much dead no matter what, same if you hit the ground, or the thing comes apart. It's a risky game, either enjoy it or get the fuck out. Do you remember how the acft was configured? Pylons and any external tanks? When I is was at SJ we would send our E models (P&W -220 engines) to Robins for depot completely stripped clean of anything hanging off of them. I got to go down to Robins once to inspect my jet prior to depot paneling it back up when they were close to finishing their maintenance on it. To my surprise I discovered a write up in the forms by the pilot that flew it there for a fuel caution/warning light coming on at mach 2.3 and then going out once he slowed down to mach 2.0. I was surprised it went that fast because we were having problems getting our E models to go fast enough (1.5) to test the rudder limiter during OCFs with CFTs and wing pylons installed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 11:30:11 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: F-15's have a rain removal system that has air nozzles located at the front edge of the windscreen that blast hot air from the ECS across it that works real good as long as you don't leave if on too long. The hot air can damage the windscreen if left on too long. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 11:37:12 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am pretty sure ( though it has been a very long time ) that the use of the rain removal system was prohibited on the ground. and airborne, the canopy was always hot to the touch. I never saw a cold soaked canopy due to high altitude. The window heat in an airliner is to make it more pliable below 10,000 feet in case of bird impact, has nothing to do with cold soaked windows at altitude. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The air blowing along the inside of an F-16 canopy comes from ... the engine. The compressor and turbine I'm talking about aren't part of the engine, but part of a refrigeration system downstream of the compressor stages of the engine. The heat sink for this refrigeration cycle is basically the full stagnation temperature of the aerodynamic flow. The canopy sees this stagnation temperature only on a very limited region at the front of the canopy. The majority of the canopy, say 80%, sees roughly 7/10ths of this aerodynamic heating. And then, you have to factor in the thermal conduction and thermal capacitance of the polycarbonate canopy, the latter being rather significant. The most common issue with a high flying aircraft is that the canopy is cold soaked at altitude in subsonic flight, and when descending into air with higher moisture content at lower altitudes, the inside of the canopy can fog or ice up because of thermal lag and insufficient canopy heating on the inside, and outside for that matter. To overcome this thermal lag/capacitance, some aircraft will have heating elements embedded in the interior of the windscreen laminate. The 16 has no heating elements. It is all done via the ECS and there are vents on the glare shield along with the manually set defog lever on the side wall it directs airflow along the inside of the canopy. The F-16's lack of an external rain removal system was a surprise and a pain in the ass to me when I was stationed at Kusan, S. Korea. I supervised the end of runway crews that did the last look inspection and removed/installed the weapons safety pins during my 1 year assignment. We had a bunch of water filled fire extinguishers that we had to use a lot of times to spray canopy with to wash away most of the condensation so the pilot could see to taxi out onto the runway when they had the inside of the cockpit too cold for the defog system to keep up with. Summer time is hot and very humid at Kunsan. F-15's have a rain removal system that has air nozzles located at the front edge of the windscreen that blast hot air from the ECS across it that works real good as long as you don't leave if on too long. The hot air can damage the windscreen if left on too long. I never used the rain removal system in 15 years. Not once. The technique was if you turn it on, NEVER take your finger off the switch, because in 20 secs it was going to melt the canopy. Somethings as moranic as that, simply should be left off. If the rain is blocking your view, then push it up and go faster, that will get rid of the rain and if you can't go faster then just suck it up, and if you can't suck it up, find a different job. The condensation problem was on the ground prior to takeoff or after landing. You wouldn't have needed to use the rain removal system with any of my F-15s. I always kept my windscreen and canopy clean and rain repellant applied to the windscreen. And I would love to be able to get a hold of some of the rain repellant we used back then. The stuff worked a lot better on car windshields than Rain-X. I am pretty sure ( though it has been a very long time ) that the use of the rain removal system was prohibited on the ground. and airborne, the canopy was always hot to the touch. I never saw a cold soaked canopy due to high altitude. The window heat in an airliner is to make it more pliable below 10,000 feet in case of bird impact, has nothing to do with cold soaked windows at altitude. The system might be different between C/D and E models. I remember pilots only using it for short bursts on the ground to clear the windscreen while taxiing. E models have a windshield hot caution light like FlyNavy75 said about Superhornets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 11:49:00 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ... and airborne, the canopy was always hot to the touch. I never saw a cold soaked canopy due to high altitude. ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 11:55:22 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The condensation problem was on the ground prior to takeoff or after landing. You wouldn't have needed to use the rain removal system with any of my F-15s. I always kept my windscreen and canopy clean and rain repellant applied to the windscreen. And I would love to be able to get a hold of some of the rain repellant we used back then. The stuff worked a lot better on car windshields than Rain-X. No idea if the J's still have them, but the older H and U-model gunships had a huge plexiglass bubble (it was probably three feet in diameter and two feet deep) on the ramp that allowed an "observer" to scream bloody murder into the intercom if he saw anything fast and smokey coming up from the ground. They were ungodly thick...like 3/4", and as a consequence were very heavy. When they became unserviceable the fab shop would weld up a circular support with legs, and they'd go to a deserving squadron for a picnic beer cooler. I think several may have made their way off-base, as well... Anyway, the crew chiefs had to polish and apply rain repellant all the time, which they hated, but you're right, whatever they used was good stuff. No idea what it was, but the MSDS probably made sure it was never commercially available. Had a hard time finding a picture. If you look just behind and under the DIRCM in this photo you can see one on the bottom of the ramp. Looks like a blister.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 11:56:16 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sounds like straight conditioned bleed air? And no tempering from ACM cold air like there would be with the internal defog array? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: F-15's have a rain removal system that has air nozzles located at the front edge of the windscreen that blast hot air from the ECS across it that works real good as long as you don't leave if on too long. The hot air can damage the windscreen if left on too long. I don't remember exactly how the bleed air was sourced, it has been a long time since working F-15s and the ECS wasn't a system I worked on. F-15s have 2 primary bleed air heat exchangers near each engine that send air to secondary heat exchanger behind the cockpit that conditions before sending it to the cockpit and avionics. The air used in the rain removal system could be some that hasn't been through the secondary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 11:56:44 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I never used the rain removal system in 15 years. Not once. The technique was if you turn it on, NEVER take your finger off the switch, because in 20 secs it was going to melt the canopy. Somethings as moranic as that, simply should be left off. If the rain is blocking your view, then push it up and go faster, that will get rid of the rain and if you can't go faster then just suck it up, and if you can't suck it up, find a different job. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The air blowing along the inside of an F-16 canopy comes from ... the engine. The compressor and turbine I'm talking about aren't part of the engine, but part of a refrigeration system downstream of the compressor stages of the engine. The heat sink for this refrigeration cycle is basically the full stagnation temperature of the aerodynamic flow. The canopy sees this stagnation temperature only on a very limited region at the front of the canopy. The majority of the canopy, say 80%, sees roughly 7/10ths of this aerodynamic heating. And then, you have to factor in the thermal conduction and thermal capacitance of the polycarbonate canopy, the latter being rather significant. The most common issue with a high flying aircraft is that the canopy is cold soaked at altitude in subsonic flight, and when descending into air with higher moisture content at lower altitudes, the inside of the canopy can fog or ice up because of thermal lag and insufficient canopy heating on the inside, and outside for that matter. To overcome this thermal lag/capacitance, some aircraft will have heating elements embedded in the interior of the windscreen laminate. The 16 has no heating elements. It is all done via the ECS and there are vents on the glare shield along with the manually set defog lever on the side wall it directs airflow along the inside of the canopy. The F-16's lack of an external rain removal system was a surprise and a pain in the ass to me when I was stationed at Kusan, S. Korea. I supervised the end of runway crews that did the last look inspection and removed/installed the weapons safety pins during my 1 year assignment. We had a bunch of water filled fire extinguishers that we had to use a lot of times to spray canopy with to wash away most of the condensation so the pilot could see to taxi out onto the runway when they had the inside of the cockpit too cold for the defog system to keep up with. Summer time is hot and very humid at Kunsan. F-15's have a rain removal system that has air nozzles located at the front edge of the windscreen that blast hot air from the ECS across it that works real good as long as you don't leave if on too long. The hot air can damage the windscreen if left on too long. I never used the rain removal system in 15 years. Not once. The technique was if you turn it on, NEVER take your finger off the switch, because in 20 secs it was going to melt the canopy. Somethings as moranic as that, simply should be left off. If the rain is blocking your view, then push it up and go faster, that will get rid of the rain and if you can't go faster then just suck it up, and if you can't suck it up, find a different job. Sounded to me that he was saying it was an issue while taxiing on the ground. None of your solutions would work in that instance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 12:09:42 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't remember exactly how the bleed air was sourced, it has been a long time since working F-15s and the ECS wasn't a system I worked on. F-15s have 2 primary bleed air heat exchangers near each engine that send air to secondary heat exchanger behind the cockpit that conditions before sending it to the cockpit and avionics. The air used in the rain removal system could be some that hasn't been through the secondary. I was an ECS troop, but not a fighter guy...from what I remember of our upgrade/promotion training stuff (which was generic, and pulled from a lot of different airframes) the fighters used an ACM (air cycle machine...small, incredibly fast turbine that turns high pressure bleed air that had passed through one or more heat exchangers into cold, conditioned air via rapid expansion) just like most other aircraft. The bleed air needed for heat applications was tapped off somewhere prior to the ACM, for the heat, obviously, but moreso because that's where the pressure was still high enough to form a clear boundary layer on the windshield/canopy. Bleed air ducting is almost all inconel and steel. The hair on my knuckles was permanently removed from years of cauterization. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 12:12:52 PM EDT
[#38]
I bet his pupils were the size of dinner plates. Has to be an amazing feeling
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 12:14:50 PM EDT
[#39]
I have used spray water in the same way.
Making sure you kept up on canopy mx and polishing can help. Kinda like rainx but not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 12:29:07 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 0.202 in the O-2A 0.188 in an Audi A6. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 12:50:21 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I was an ECS troop, but not a fighter guy...from what I remember of our upgrade/promotion training stuff (which was generic, and pulled from a lot of different airframes) the fighters used an ACM (air cycle machine...small, incredibly fast turbine that turns high pressure bleed air that had passed through one or more heat exchangers into cold, conditioned air via rapid expansion) just like most other aircraft. The bleed air needed for heat applications was tapped off somewhere prior to the ACM, for the heat, obviously, but moreso because that's where the pressure was still high enough to form a clear boundary layer on the windshield/canopy. Bleed air ducting is almost all inconel and steel. The hair on my knuckles was permanently removed from years of cauterization. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I don't remember exactly how the bleed air was sourced, it has been a long time since working F-15s and the ECS wasn't a system I worked on. F-15s have 2 primary bleed air heat exchangers near each engine that send air to secondary heat exchanger behind the cockpit that conditions before sending it to the cockpit and avionics. The air used in the rain removal system could be some that hasn't been through the secondary. I was an ECS troop, but not a fighter guy...from what I remember of our upgrade/promotion training stuff (which was generic, and pulled from a lot of different airframes) the fighters used an ACM (air cycle machine...small, incredibly fast turbine that turns high pressure bleed air that had passed through one or more heat exchangers into cold, conditioned air via rapid expansion) just like most other aircraft. The bleed air needed for heat applications was tapped off somewhere prior to the ACM, for the heat, obviously, but moreso because that's where the pressure was still high enough to form a clear boundary layer on the windshield/canopy. Bleed air ducting is almost all inconel and steel. The hair on my knuckles was permanently removed from years of cauterization. The ACM turbine is part of the secondary heater on a 15. The E&E troops assigned to the spec flight were the only specs us crew chiefs didn't talk shit to about how easy their job was. E&E work on an F-15E sucks and there is a lot of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 1:01:50 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I never used the rain removal system in 15 years. Not once. The technique was if you turn it on, NEVER take your finger off the switch, because in 20 secs it was going to melt the canopy. Somethings as moranic as that, simply should be left off. If the rain is blocking your view, then push it up and go faster, that will get rid of the rain and if you can't go faster then just suck it up, and if you can't suck it up, find a different job. A-7's had a pressurized can of "Rain-X" for the rain repellent system. Press a button and you got a 10-15 second shot of fluid. I never saw the system being serviced, a can of the Rain-X or heard of a pilot using it during the 5 years I worked on A-7's. They also had a rain removal system. It used hot pressurized bleed air. It blew from the bottom up and blasted away rain. The A-6 / EA-6B used pressurized air and methanol to remove rain and ice. Dumbasses would grab the first "white metal one gallon can" off the HAZMAT shelf and use it to service up the anti-ice tank only to find out AFTER they had serviced up a few jets that it was paint thinner or MEK. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 1:08:42 PM EDT
[#43]
The windscreen (not the canopy) on the F-18 Superhornet gets an application of 6850-00-139-5297 Rain Away Rain Repellent.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 1:17:52 PM EDT
[#44]
Cool thread.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 1:26:28 PM EDT
[#45]
1.52 in an F/A-18F...
... downhill with Max A/B ?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 1:35:15 PM EDT
[#46]
.185 in a Mustang. Ford Mustang.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 2:04:08 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The windscreen (not the canopy) on the F-18 Superhornet gets an application of 6850-00-139-5297 Rain Away Rain Repellent. That nomenclature sounds like the F16 stuff. Was it a plastic polish in a small white plastic bottle? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 2:18:52 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A-7's had a pressurized can of "Rain-X" for the rain repellent system. Press a button and you got a 10-15 second shot of fluid. I never saw the system being serviced, a can of the Rain-X or heard of a pilot using it during the 5 years I worked on A-7's. They also had a rain removal system. It used hot pressurized bleed air. It blew from the bottom up and blasted away rain. The A-6 / EA-6B used pressurized air and methanol to remove rain and ice. Dumbasses would grab the first "white metal one gallon can" off the HAZMAT shelf and use it to service up the anti-ice tank only to find out AFTER they had serviced up a few jets that it was paint thinner or MEK. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I never used the rain removal system in 15 years. Not once. The technique was if you turn it on, NEVER take your finger off the switch, because in 20 secs it was going to melt the canopy. Somethings as moranic as that, simply should be left off. If the rain is blocking your view, then push it up and go faster, that will get rid of the rain and if you can't go faster then just suck it up, and if you can't suck it up, find a different job. A-7's had a pressurized can of "Rain-X" for the rain repellent system. Press a button and you got a 10-15 second shot of fluid. I never saw the system being serviced, a can of the Rain-X or heard of a pilot using it during the 5 years I worked on A-7's. They also had a rain removal system. It used hot pressurized bleed air. It blew from the bottom up and blasted away rain. The A-6 / EA-6B used pressurized air and methanol to remove rain and ice. Dumbasses would grab the first "white metal one gallon can" off the HAZMAT shelf and use it to service up the anti-ice tank only to find out AFTER they had serviced up a few jets that it was paint thinner or MEK.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 4:24:40 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That nomenclature sounds like the F16 stuff. Was it a plastic polish in a small white plastic bottle?  It's not plastic polish, it's just like Rain-X. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2022 5:01:11 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I guess you could technically do it in an F-16, but you would be breaking all the rules, and if the jet breaks, you die. This chart stops at 60k, but I doubt the cockpit pressurization just stops working above that. Better make sure that single engine doesn't quit on you though... https://i.stack.imgur.com/NTyyv.png Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Anybody remember TAC Attack? They did a story, probably 20+ years ago, about a 1Lt who decided to see exactly how high his F-16 would climb. He got pretty close to the edge of space and started back down when he started losing control surface authority. It was his last ride...did a very expensive amount of damage to the motor. Tried searching with no joy. I know it happened, I was taking Human Factors with ERU at the time, and did a summary on it for the course. I've heard a similar story. It sounded a bit odd. They didn't push the machinery hard enough to damage anything though. Basically a routine patrol flight got canceled. You had 2 F-16s that had just come off a tanker, the flight lead decided to try to dock his plane to the ISS. They got really high until the wingman said that they were above the Armstrong Limit at which point the lead cut his afterburner and they went home. The wingman told me it looked and felt really weird up there. The F-16 is not a suitable aircraft for flying at those altitudes. Single engine and the wing is small. Without pressure suits? Bullshit. I guess you could technically do it in an F-16, but you would be breaking all the rules, and if the jet breaks, you die. This chart stops at 60k, but I doubt the cockpit pressurization just stops working above that. Better make sure that single engine doesn't quit on you though... https://i.stack.imgur.com/NTyyv.png We’ll, since charts are showing up, here’s one applicable to OP.  Attached File |
|
|
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.
