Flying Fast Jets...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Murica.
Age: 45
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Fast Jets...
I had an interesting conversation with a USAF fighter pilot the other day.
He was currently on the F-15, having started out on the F-16.
He said the F-16 was a good VFR machine..not talking fighting capabilities at all...just pure flying. He did not like it at all during IFR conditions, saying that the no-frame canopy made him feel uncomfortably "exposed"
The F-15 was better, and was a lot steadier on the ILS approach than the F-16, and with a better IFR cockpit layout.
He said the worst thing about flying fast jets was ferrying them across the Atlantic. Especially the F-16 with its single engine. They used to play Trivial Pursuit, organized by the boomer in the accompanying tanker, to make the hours pass.
Any similar comments about other fast jets out there??
He was currently on the F-15, having started out on the F-16.
He said the F-16 was a good VFR machine..not talking fighting capabilities at all...just pure flying. He did not like it at all during IFR conditions, saying that the no-frame canopy made him feel uncomfortably "exposed"
The F-15 was better, and was a lot steadier on the ILS approach than the F-16, and with a better IFR cockpit layout.
He said the worst thing about flying fast jets was ferrying them across the Atlantic. Especially the F-16 with its single engine. They used to play Trivial Pursuit, organized by the boomer in the accompanying tanker, to make the hours pass.
Any similar comments about other fast jets out there??
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: LGW
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reminds me of a time when I was flying kiwi A4's......
The RAAF hornets were planning the trip back to australia after an exercise in New Zealand. An aussie flying officer walks into the ops room, which is full of A4 drivers, and exclaims "good lord, there is an 80 mile leg in the middle of the tasman where if we lose an engine we can't make it back home"!
To which the obvious reply was "mate, there's a 1200 mile leg where if we lose an engine we can't make it"!
Priceless expression on the Fo's face as he relises his bafoonary and exits stage right!
The RAAF hornets were planning the trip back to australia after an exercise in New Zealand. An aussie flying officer walks into the ops room, which is full of A4 drivers, and exclaims "good lord, there is an 80 mile leg in the middle of the tasman where if we lose an engine we can't make it back home"!
To which the obvious reply was "mate, there's a 1200 mile leg where if we lose an engine we can't make it"!
Priceless expression on the Fo's face as he relises his bafoonary and exits stage right!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just remember the RAF Harrier pilots of 1(F) Sqn in the Falklands War. Wittering to Ascension Island, Ascension to the heaving South Atlantic ending with a vertical landing on a ship. One engine, AAR and no autopilot! Respec'!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: house
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[I]I had an interesting conversation with a USAF fighter pilot the other day.[/I]
I had an interesting conversation with a USAF fighter pilot the other day.
well someone had to one day!
well someone had to one day!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't flown any of the above but the F-4 was rather good IFR - despite the lack of a HUD - because you could crank the seat right down so that the instruments were slap-bang in front of you and you didn't have to look out at all. Mind you, it was a bit of a race to get the seat back up again for the round-out.
I never found the F-16 to be a problem at all during IFR conditions. As a matter of fact, I really didn't have any complaints at all with the aircraft. It has plenty of good instrumentation for IFR flight and instrument approaches, as long as you use it properly. If you rely entirely on the HUD during IFR you might have a bit of difficulty; sometimes raw data (or at least incorporating raw data into your crosscheck) can be your best friend on an IFR approach.
Regarding the bubble canopy -- IMHO it's one of the best assets of the aircraft, not a liability, and that applies for all phases and types of flight.
I'm not quite sure what your friend means about the "F-15 was a lot steadier on the ILS" ... ??? Both aircraft pretty much fly like a "hot knife through butter" -- they're both extremely responsive and stable. Am I perhaps misunderstanding his comment?
One final note -- remember that both aircraft were designed to win aerial battles and/or deliver weapons, not to win ILS competitions. And I honestly don't mean that as a condescending or sarcastic statement -- it's a very important and real distinction that separates "fast jets" from other aircraft. The real "work" of a fighter starts several minutes after takeoff, and ends several minutes before landing -- everything else (takeoffs, landings, etc.) are not where the emphasis is. Sure, you need to be able to land the aircraft, but that's not the "difficult" part, and you certainly don't need the latest-and-greatest IFR instrumentation to do so.
Regarding the bubble canopy -- IMHO it's one of the best assets of the aircraft, not a liability, and that applies for all phases and types of flight.
I'm not quite sure what your friend means about the "F-15 was a lot steadier on the ILS" ... ??? Both aircraft pretty much fly like a "hot knife through butter" -- they're both extremely responsive and stable. Am I perhaps misunderstanding his comment?
One final note -- remember that both aircraft were designed to win aerial battles and/or deliver weapons, not to win ILS competitions. And I honestly don't mean that as a condescending or sarcastic statement -- it's a very important and real distinction that separates "fast jets" from other aircraft. The real "work" of a fighter starts several minutes after takeoff, and ends several minutes before landing -- everything else (takeoffs, landings, etc.) are not where the emphasis is. Sure, you need to be able to land the aircraft, but that's not the "difficult" part, and you certainly don't need the latest-and-greatest IFR instrumentation to do so.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: East of Gibraltar
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zoom, motoring the seat up and down can sometimes bite back.
I flew Buccs many years ago and a certain short pilot on my sqn got bored on a transit and decided to see how much he could see out if he motored the seat all the way down. Not much as it happened (in fact, he could not see out at all!)
So he then motored it all the way up and discovered that he could see plenty but could not reach the rudder pedals and was having difficulty holding on to the stick!
As he motored it all the way down, he discovered the limitation of '2 full travels of seat motoring mechanism' which was in existance in the Release to Service and the Aircrew Manual. As the seat hit the bottom stops, the motor burnt out and he was unable to move it back up again. Remember, he could not now see out at all!
He managed to land the aircraft by a combination of loosening all the seat straps and practically standing up on the floor of the cockpit!
I flew Buccs many years ago and a certain short pilot on my sqn got bored on a transit and decided to see how much he could see out if he motored the seat all the way down. Not much as it happened (in fact, he could not see out at all!)
So he then motored it all the way up and discovered that he could see plenty but could not reach the rudder pedals and was having difficulty holding on to the stick!
As he motored it all the way down, he discovered the limitation of '2 full travels of seat motoring mechanism' which was in existance in the Release to Service and the Aircrew Manual. As the seat hit the bottom stops, the motor burnt out and he was unable to move it back up again. Remember, he could not now see out at all!
He managed to land the aircraft by a combination of loosening all the seat straps and practically standing up on the floor of the cockpit!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
soddim
'Greasers on Brick 1' most definitely 'on' in the good old F-4.
McD
I realise that you are referring to IMC flying but I have to dispute one point: the real 'work' of a fighter should start on take-off, not several minutes after, and end with the landing itself. Going back a few years to my time with the USAF (if that is your Air Force), particular bees in my bonnet were the close formation climb-outs in perfect weather and the 300 knot/1000 ft breaks on recovery in the same conditions. Fighter pilots (indeed, all pilots and their crews) have to be up-to-speed and on-the-ball from the word go, and have to think and fly tactically at all times, flying in formations and at speeds best-suited to the conditions. Military pilots should regard their aircraft as potential targets as much as anything else and therefore should fly defensively and offensively simultaneously, even if just for the practice. Those who have operated in the past from Wattisham, for example, will have encountered flights of USAF fighters taking off from Bentwaters and Woodbridge and climbing endlessly to the stars in close formation while the RAF jets locked them up, photographed them and generally blew raspberries at them without response. Vulnerable or what? Presentation seemed to be more important than tactical thinking. I tried to instigate some changes to this frame of mind when I served in the USA but they were not received too well; I just hope that someone else was more successful.
'Greasers on Brick 1' most definitely 'on' in the good old F-4.
McD
I realise that you are referring to IMC flying but I have to dispute one point: the real 'work' of a fighter should start on take-off, not several minutes after, and end with the landing itself. Going back a few years to my time with the USAF (if that is your Air Force), particular bees in my bonnet were the close formation climb-outs in perfect weather and the 300 knot/1000 ft breaks on recovery in the same conditions. Fighter pilots (indeed, all pilots and their crews) have to be up-to-speed and on-the-ball from the word go, and have to think and fly tactically at all times, flying in formations and at speeds best-suited to the conditions. Military pilots should regard their aircraft as potential targets as much as anything else and therefore should fly defensively and offensively simultaneously, even if just for the practice. Those who have operated in the past from Wattisham, for example, will have encountered flights of USAF fighters taking off from Bentwaters and Woodbridge and climbing endlessly to the stars in close formation while the RAF jets locked them up, photographed them and generally blew raspberries at them without response. Vulnerable or what? Presentation seemed to be more important than tactical thinking. I tried to instigate some changes to this frame of mind when I served in the USA but they were not received too well; I just hope that someone else was more successful.
Yes, fair points and all well taken, Zoom. You're absolutely correct that fighter pilots must think and fly tactically at all times, including the takeoff and landing portions. Your comments about vulnerability are spot-on.
However, my point (in my admittedly less-than-optimum statement) was to make an easy comparison to highlight how flying a fighter is different from flying most other aircraft: What makes a good fighter is not how well you fly an ILS, or how smoothly you land (as long as you are are able to do these safely and competently). Rather, it's how you do the tactical things. Therefore, that's where the priorities for the equipment are set.
However, my point (in my admittedly less-than-optimum statement) was to make an easy comparison to highlight how flying a fighter is different from flying most other aircraft: What makes a good fighter is not how well you fly an ILS, or how smoothly you land (as long as you are are able to do these safely and competently). Rather, it's how you do the tactical things. Therefore, that's where the priorities for the equipment are set.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know when you tried to educate the USAF, Zoom, but I was privileged to serve under Brig Gen Fred Heffner who introduced "Fred's Spread" at Luke AFB in 1975. Believe it or not, this was revolutionary in the USAF because it involved the use of battle formation into the pitch to land instead of the more accepted close echelon formation.
Nevertheless, speed was limited to 325 kts and even that was a FAA deviation because the Wing had F104s that needed to be that fast to stay airborne.
Who knows, after 9/11 maybe they're up for 500 kt breaks now!
Nevertheless, speed was limited to 325 kts and even that was a FAA deviation because the Wing had F104s that needed to be that fast to stay airborne.
Who knows, after 9/11 maybe they're up for 500 kt breaks now!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shortly after you, soddim. But 325kts - ooh, still uncomfortable. Even so, the good generals's teaching never reached my particular outpost - at least, not in my time. And, as you indicated, the FAA did have the major say in what went on in and around the airfield, usually to the detriment of tactical procedures. With luck, 9/11 will have changed the emphasis somewhat. Any Yanks care to confirm that? Speed is life, after all.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the world today, don't you think that pilots should be a tad more concerned about a monkey with an SA-14/16/18 sitting at the initial, than getting jumped by enemy fighters overhead home plate? I don't think zorching around at low altitudes with a hot tailpipe is the current tactic for minimizing the IR-SAM threat, regardless of the formation.
But when flying at home, I reckon it's in our own interest to make ATC's life as easy as possible, and minimise noise etc otherwise we're going to end up with the sort of restrictive airspace management that the US have. And flying close formation for the admin part of the sortie (probably arrow/fighting wing/root/deployed echelon is better as at least you can both look out for traffic) really isn't all that detrimental to a pilot's tactical proficiency, is it? I'm pretty sure that you won't see much close form in Bagram, Al Asad, Kandahar etc though.
Of course, Oggin, where you are right now, there aren't that many people to upset, so fill your boots. After all, that's part of the reason why we all love this job.
But when flying at home, I reckon it's in our own interest to make ATC's life as easy as possible, and minimise noise etc otherwise we're going to end up with the sort of restrictive airspace management that the US have. And flying close formation for the admin part of the sortie (probably arrow/fighting wing/root/deployed echelon is better as at least you can both look out for traffic) really isn't all that detrimental to a pilot's tactical proficiency, is it? I'm pretty sure that you won't see much close form in Bagram, Al Asad, Kandahar etc though.
Of course, Oggin, where you are right now, there aren't that many people to upset, so fill your boots. After all, that's part of the reason why we all love this job.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so fill your boots
Oggin
p.s. - Have you moved ?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: On the Edge
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Oggin,
I'm an 'oggin aviator' too, but mine has four jets and is considerably slower than yours.
Any time you get bored watching the view from the back seat, tip me a nod, and I'll gladly fill the seat !!
Cheers
I'm an 'oggin aviator' too, but mine has four jets and is considerably slower than yours.
Any time you get bored watching the view from the back seat, tip me a nod, and I'll gladly fill the seat !!
Cheers
