Old airframe, new engine

No jet ever made (or that ever will be made) had enough power.

Possible exception of the F/A-22 Raptor under current conditions...
_____________
José Herculano

HABU, HABU, HABU....



José Herculano wrote:
No jet ever made (or that ever will be made) had enough power.


Possible exception of the F/A-22 Raptor under current conditions...
_____________
José Herculano

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:41:47 +0100, "José Herculano"
wrote:

No jet ever made (or that ever will be made) had enough power.

Possible exception of the F/A-22 Raptor under current conditions...

How about the big black twin two-seater I used to work on? Whatever
its limitations, lack of thrust wasn't one.

It's not every airplane that can burn 85,000 lb of fuel in just over
an hour, you know.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Mary -
Is there any sensible reason why your airframe was retired from
service when it still seemed to be viable?

Was it only a money issue or is there more to it than that?

Regards,

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:10:02 -0700, Mary Shafer
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:41:47 +0100, "José Herculano"
wrote:

No jet ever made (or that ever will be made) had enough power.

Possible exception of the F/A-22 Raptor under current conditions...

How about the big black twin two-seater I used to work on? Whatever
its limitations, lack of thrust wasn't one.

It's not every airplane that can burn 85,000 lb of fuel in just over
an hour, you know.

Mary

Sorry Mary - the above posting is mine. I used a different posting
nym to try to solve a NG retrieval issue. My apologies.
Regards,

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:49:15 -0500, catsrus
wrote:

Mary -
Is there any sensible reason why your airframe was retired from
service when it still seemed to be viable?

Was it only a money issue or is there more to it than that?

Regards,

snipped...

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:49:15 -0500, catsrus
wrote:

Mary -
Is there any sensible reason why your airframe was retired from
service when it still seemed to be viable?

No agency mission. We didn't have any experiments that justified
keeping it going.

Was it only a money issue or is there more to it than that?

I suspect that money was part of the decision, since it usually is,
but it was probably more of an effect than a cause.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Mary Shafer wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:41:47 +0100, "José Herculano"
wrote:

No jet ever made (or that ever will be made) had enough power.

Possible exception of the F/A-22 Raptor under current conditions...

How about the big black twin two-seater I used to work on? Whatever
its limitations, lack of thrust wasn't one.

It's not every airplane that can burn 85,000 lb of fuel in just over
an hour, you know.

Mary

Come on, Mary; an F4 on the deck burns at the rate of 1500 a minute,
90,000 an hour, and even goes a lot faster than the 71 down there. Of
course, it'll be dry in about 7 minutes (clean), but it's a great ride
to bingo. Once I took an F4D up for a test hop for a rudder actuator
change. (Fly; if it's ok, land.)The original one had cracked and
leaked red fluid all over . . . . the crew chief asked me to get the
residual hydraulic fluid out of the aft section. Flat out around 750
KIAS at 100 ASL off shore of Kunsan Korea did a good job of blowing it
dry. The fuel state visibly reduces, too.
Walt BJ