mil jet 'break' landing
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NATO standard break is 1000ft level onto the downwind leg.
Then there was the 'Canadian Break' which used to be favoured by the F4 fraternity - level at 1000ft, Derry turn onto the downwind leg. Like the mate at Leuchars some years ago who did it but got it wrong, departed controlled flight and both banged out.
Anybody out there still doing them?
Then there was the 'Canadian Break' which used to be favoured by the F4 fraternity - level at 1000ft, Derry turn onto the downwind leg. Like the mate at Leuchars some years ago who did it but got it wrong, departed controlled flight and both banged out.
Anybody out there still doing them?
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some Iranian F-4s had a sqn visit to Akrotiri back in 1970-ish. Their four-ship run & break was painful to watch with Lead breaking just over the threshold and the Number Four eventually breaking some 20sec later just off Episkopi. Sharp as a sausage.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that another reason for the break was that the pilot of a war-damaged aircraft could shut down his spluttering engine over the threshold but still have enough speed to fly the set pattern without having to rely on the engine again.
Regarding the NATO standard break, I'm not sure what the USAF called its breaks in the 70s but they were dangerous in most of the hardware they had at the time, such as F-4s and F-105s, which didn't handle well at low speed. They approached in echelon at 300 knots and 1000ft and flew a level turn at 5 seconds spacing onto downwind. During my USAF exchange I suggested that the squadron should try it RAF-style (battle formation, 250 ft, 420kt, all wrapped up in 20 seconds) for a while. After weeks of papers, letters, presentations and soul-searching, a trial was arranged but, unfortunately, the pilots weren't given enough time to get the hang of it and the breaks initially were rather shambolic. That was all the powers-that-be needed and with a joyous cry of 'We told you so' they stopped the trial, feeling that they had nothing to learn from the RAF anyway.
Regarding the NATO standard break, I'm not sure what the USAF called its breaks in the 70s but they were dangerous in most of the hardware they had at the time, such as F-4s and F-105s, which didn't handle well at low speed. They approached in echelon at 300 knots and 1000ft and flew a level turn at 5 seconds spacing onto downwind. During my USAF exchange I suggested that the squadron should try it RAF-style (battle formation, 250 ft, 420kt, all wrapped up in 20 seconds) for a while. After weeks of papers, letters, presentations and soul-searching, a trial was arranged but, unfortunately, the pilots weren't given enough time to get the hang of it and the breaks initially were rather shambolic. That was all the powers-that-be needed and with a joyous cry of 'We told you so' they stopped the trial, feeling that they had nothing to learn from the RAF anyway.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Oman
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Referring to the F4 Canadian break which ended in the loss of a departing aircraft it occurred at Wildenrath during the production (I believe) of a Man Alive TV programme. I take task, though, with Zoom who infers that breaks in an F4 were dangerous (only to those below who were covered in decibels and half burnt paraffin). Anyhow, 4 ship battle breaks from 420kts were not only manly but kept the exposure to a minimum when you realised you had pitched into Bruggen circuit and not Wildenrath's, by mistake, in the appalling vis that used to be known as "Brit VFR" in those days.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Al Herbs.. The Canadian Break accident happened at Leuchars. I know the plt concerned - initials JH. Got away with it because of inexperience on type. He was ex-V Force, recently converted to FJ.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Al Herbs
No, I didn't infer that all breaks in an F-4 were dangerous - only the USAF ones at 300kts and level.
Al Herbs & FJJP
You're both right about the Canadian Breaks (formerly known as the Raynham Break). The RAFG one took place from behind a camera-toting C-130 so it was probably initiated at 300kts or so (see above) and without enough nose-up. I knew the pilot from the Towers and Valley - a really good egg. He began life on Lightnings and, in this incident, possibly forgot momentarily that the F-4 just did not handle at low speed as well as the Lightning. Many of you will have seen the footage of this tragic moment as it has been used in various flight safety films. The Leuchars incident occurred shortly afterwards - I think they were practising for a show - and probably should not have been authorised so close to the earlier one.
No, I didn't infer that all breaks in an F-4 were dangerous - only the USAF ones at 300kts and level.
Al Herbs & FJJP
You're both right about the Canadian Breaks (formerly known as the Raynham Break). The RAFG one took place from behind a camera-toting C-130 so it was probably initiated at 300kts or so (see above) and without enough nose-up. I knew the pilot from the Towers and Valley - a really good egg. He began life on Lightnings and, in this incident, possibly forgot momentarily that the F-4 just did not handle at low speed as well as the Lightning. Many of you will have seen the footage of this tragic moment as it has been used in various flight safety films. The Leuchars incident occurred shortly afterwards - I think they were practising for a show - and probably should not have been authorised so close to the earlier one.
