F-111 Stories
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-111 Stories
How about some reminiscences from aircrew (and groundies) re operating this aircraft.
I am intrigued about the difficulties of the night Pave Tac pitch, release, roll to 135degrees whilst pulling to reach egrees heading and altitude, all without a HUD (have I got it correct?). I recall it caused a fatal accident in Australia (Gyra) some years ago.
There must be quite a few stories out there thaat can now be told.
John
I am intrigued about the difficulties of the night Pave Tac pitch, release, roll to 135degrees whilst pulling to reach egrees heading and altitude, all without a HUD (have I got it correct?). I recall it caused a fatal accident in Australia (Gyra) some years ago.
There must be quite a few stories out there thaat can now be told.
John
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fliegensville, Gold Coast Australia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
rj - search for threads by a chap who went by the name 'Booger' if I recall correctly, a most entertaining read!!..Oh and the gentleman known as 'Milt', enjoy!
Gee Jindy, such kind words, are you hooking into the red again?? 
Putting the pressure on for a 'pig' tale. Hmmm...
Like the Bucc, we used to go on lone-rangers, but often as a singleton (as opposed to a 2-ship). One trip back in 1977 (A8-143) we went across to Ohakea in NZ (when the Kiwis had an air force) for almost a week of TF'ing around their beautiful scenery. While we were there, an airshow was on at Hamilton and we were invited over to display, as the RNZAF had refused to appear. Now we had not been auth'd to display and indeed hadn't worked up any sequence so the deal was we would just go in for the day for static, and depart late in the afternoon back to Ohakea. "Wings" magazine reported as:
"The Australians realised the embarrassment they were causing their country cousins and restricted their F-111C to static display on only one day. Its crew, too, was under strict instructions to maintain a low profile, but they found excuse to pull into a tight turn immediately on lift off and to return to barrel down the runway at about a million miles an hour!"
Well, not quite THAT fast as I think that would be supersonic, but a good departure. Ahh, those were the days.
Putting the pressure on for a 'pig' tale. Hmmm...
Like the Bucc, we used to go on lone-rangers, but often as a singleton (as opposed to a 2-ship). One trip back in 1977 (A8-143) we went across to Ohakea in NZ (when the Kiwis had an air force) for almost a week of TF'ing around their beautiful scenery. While we were there, an airshow was on at Hamilton and we were invited over to display, as the RNZAF had refused to appear. Now we had not been auth'd to display and indeed hadn't worked up any sequence so the deal was we would just go in for the day for static, and depart late in the afternoon back to Ohakea. "Wings" magazine reported as:
"The Australians realised the embarrassment they were causing their country cousins and restricted their F-111C to static display on only one day. Its crew, too, was under strict instructions to maintain a low profile, but they found excuse to pull into a tight turn immediately on lift off and to return to barrel down the runway at about a million miles an hour!"
Well, not quite THAT fast as I think that would be supersonic, but a good departure. Ahh, those were the days.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was sort of hoping not to restrict it to RAAF operation of this aircraft, so as to elicit both Australian and non Australian (read USAF) responses. As I said am patricularly (but not exclusively) interested in the night Pave Tac toss and evade manoeuvre.
John
John
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "Night Toss"
The 'Night-Toss' manoeuvre performed by F-111F (USAF) and the F-111C (RAAF) were basically similar, but had a number of varying techniques, performance 'gates', limits and currency requirements.
RAAF taught it on basic conversion course (as it was considered 'bread-and-butter') - USAF worked up after convex and was considered a 'qualification'
The AoB (110) for Pavetack / 135 for non PT deliveries was attained at different times during the manoeuvre.
For RAAF - Initially, 200' TF was used and the SCP remained at 200 during the delivery (RAAF SOP Later changed to select 1000' upon attaining 'Target Safety Altitude)
...Tornado GR-1 / GR-4 similar overall.....I have flown all four types in the night low level LGB role...F-111C F-111F GR-1 GR-4... (the GR-1 / 4 recovery was flown on the STBY Attitude indicator - even though it had a HUD)
Don't wish to go into specifics which involved the death of some very close friends..so please don't ask.
RAAF taught it on basic conversion course (as it was considered 'bread-and-butter') - USAF worked up after convex and was considered a 'qualification'
The AoB (110) for Pavetack / 135 for non PT deliveries was attained at different times during the manoeuvre.
For RAAF - Initially, 200' TF was used and the SCP remained at 200 during the delivery (RAAF SOP Later changed to select 1000' upon attaining 'Target Safety Altitude)
...Tornado GR-1 / GR-4 similar overall.....I have flown all four types in the night low level LGB role...F-111C F-111F GR-1 GR-4... (the GR-1 / 4 recovery was flown on the STBY Attitude indicator - even though it had a HUD)
Don't wish to go into specifics which involved the death of some very close friends..so please don't ask.
Yes, LJR has a lot of TF and night attack experience with RAAF, USAF and RAF.
I seem to recall back in our orginal days of operating F-111C, we would night TF at 500' TF, and the SCP was changed to 1000' passing the safety altitude. This obviously changed then between me leaving and LJR arriving (first as a nav?, mate, and later as a pilot/IP).
Also the "Target Safety Altitude" was a logical refinement after my time.
Now - to be strictly correct, both F-111 and Tornado did 'loft' (which is maintaining a constant climb angle until bomb release). Remember LJR, we did say 'CAD' as a common attack mode. Tornado, I believe did 'maxi loft' (25? degree climb) or mini-loft (10 degrees). Recovery on the pig of course was on head-down instruments, with constant cross-reference between the AI and the standby self-contained AI. I remember a nav once took over on the range one night when the student pilot was fixated on the AI and not cross-referencing. Nav, one of my neighbours now coincidently, saved the aircraft and got an AFC for that.
Now the Bucc - first aircraft with a HUD - did 'toss' attacks. 'Toss' in its purest term means you maintain a constant G (in the case of the Bucc 4G) for the manouevre. It was pretty basic as you would expect with "Mk 1 avionics" - profile would be rock in at 200', 550 kts, pull up on the cues and maintain HUD doughnut at the commanded 4G, bomb release typically at 1500' with about 45 degrees nose up. Recovery overbank to 135 degrees to stop ballooning, nose down to the horizon, wings level, let down safely.
I seem to recall back in our orginal days of operating F-111C, we would night TF at 500' TF, and the SCP was changed to 1000' passing the safety altitude. This obviously changed then between me leaving and LJR arriving (first as a nav?, mate, and later as a pilot/IP).
Also the "Target Safety Altitude" was a logical refinement after my time.
Now - to be strictly correct, both F-111 and Tornado did 'loft' (which is maintaining a constant climb angle until bomb release). Remember LJR, we did say 'CAD' as a common attack mode. Tornado, I believe did 'maxi loft' (25? degree climb) or mini-loft (10 degrees). Recovery on the pig of course was on head-down instruments, with constant cross-reference between the AI and the standby self-contained AI. I remember a nav once took over on the range one night when the student pilot was fixated on the AI and not cross-referencing. Nav, one of my neighbours now coincidently, saved the aircraft and got an AFC for that.
Now the Bucc - first aircraft with a HUD - did 'toss' attacks. 'Toss' in its purest term means you maintain a constant G (in the case of the Bucc 4G) for the manouevre. It was pretty basic as you would expect with "Mk 1 avionics" - profile would be rock in at 200', 550 kts, pull up on the cues and maintain HUD doughnut at the commanded 4G, bomb release typically at 1500' with about 45 degrees nose up. Recovery overbank to 135 degrees to stop ballooning, nose down to the horizon, wings level, let down safely.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...eeerrr. actually BB, the 'Toss' was a constant 4G in F-111 and Tornado. In my early days prior to LGB/PaveTack (Mid '80s), we did 'climb attacks' (Climb-Auto?? ISTR).
Fair enough if Termionology between documented Toss and Loft is an issue.
200' TF (Night IMC) flight was only on 'surveyed' routes in the 80s and 90s. Egress to 1000' SCP was implemented in 1987/88, and remained for RAAF, USAF and RAF.
....as for 'dumb' bomb loft - it was cool to roll to 180 AoB (after a particular safe-escape / safe separation altitude/attitude) and watch the bombs fly into the TGT.
How you recovered from that position was often a point of lively discussion at the time.
..recomended for daytime only.
Fair enough if Termionology between documented Toss and Loft is an issue.
200' TF (Night IMC) flight was only on 'surveyed' routes in the 80s and 90s. Egress to 1000' SCP was implemented in 1987/88, and remained for RAAF, USAF and RAF.
....as for 'dumb' bomb loft - it was cool to roll to 180 AoB (after a particular safe-escape / safe separation altitude/attitude) and watch the bombs fly into the TGT.
How you recovered from that position was often a point of lively discussion at the time.
..recomended for daytime only.
Yes LJR, my days on the Pig were pre-Pave Tack and LGBs, ie the climb Loft with dumb bombs. You know how to make a bloke feel old!!
Also my experience with Tornado was Pave Spiking for their LGBs (as they did in GW I), in which they did Loft. Probably Tornados too introduced Toss with the self-designation capability they then acquired in the early 90s.
Also my experience with Tornado was Pave Spiking for their LGBs (as they did in GW I), in which they did Loft. Probably Tornados too introduced Toss with the self-designation capability they then acquired in the early 90s.
Last edited by BBadanov; 9th Apr 2011 at 06:59.
