? for the F-4B pilots

stobey- Correct me if I'm wrong, but, I don't believe the Blues ever flew the
F-4B.
If my memory serves me correctly they received brand new F-4Js when they
transitioned from F-11s to the Phantoms (early 1969?). BRBR

Not sure the F-4J was around in 1969 but the F-4s in 'Threshold' have -8
engines, not -10s found on the 'J'. No 'J' had -8 engines, AFAIK.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

"Pechs1" wrote:
stobey- Correct me if I'm wrong, but, I don't believe the Blues ever
flew the
F-4B.
If my memory serves me correctly they received brand new F-4Js when they
transitioned from F-11s to the Phantoms (early 1969?). BRBR

Not sure the F-4J was around in 1969

The first flight of the F-4J was in 1966 and it was being delivered to
operational squadrons by 1967 according to Francis Mason in Phantom. Several
sources state that VF-33 and VF-102 were equiped with F-4Js aboard USS
America in 1968. Those sources include this one:

http://www.ussamerica.org/Airwing.htm

but the F-4s in 'Threshold' have -8
engines, not -10s found on the 'J'. No 'J' had -8 engines, AFAIK.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

In article ,
(Pechs1) writes:
stobey- Correct me if I'm wrong, but, I don't believe the Blues ever flew the
F-4B.
If my memory serves me correctly they received brand new F-4Js when they
transitioned from F-11s to the Phantoms (early 1969?). BRBR

Not sure the F-4J was around in 1969 but the F-4s in 'Threshold' have -8
engines, not -10s found on the 'J'. No 'J' had -8 engines, AFAIK.

I've never flown an F-4, but I do happen to have NAVAIR NATOPS
01-245FDD-1 handy (The F-4J book, May '75 revision), just in case I
find one in a barn, or somebody leavis it to me in their will, or
something, and, when thumbing through it, I found this, which may
help.

Page 1-58:
"The airplane is powered by two General Electric J79 engines. Aircraft
153071z thru 153087aa have J79-GE-8 engines installed, with a thrust
rating of 10,900 pounds each. Afterburner operation increases the
maximum thrust to 17,000 pounds. Aircraft 153088aa and up have
J79-GE-10 engines installed, with a thrust rating of 11,870 pounds
each. Afterburner operation increases the maximum thrust to 17,900
pounds each."

The airplanes with the -8 engines would be the Block 26z and 27aa (Why
does the Navy have to have a different name for everything?)
airplanes, for a total of 18 ships.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Peter Stickney" wrote:
In article ,
(Pechs1) writes:
stobey- Correct me if I'm wrong, but, I don't believe the Blues ever
flew the
F-4B.
If my memory serves me correctly they received brand new F-4Js when they
transitioned from F-11s to the Phantoms (early 1969?). BRBR

Not sure the F-4J was around in 1969 but the F-4s in 'Threshold' have -8
engines, not -10s found on the 'J'. No 'J' had -8 engines, AFAIK.

I've never flown an F-4, but I do happen to have NAVAIR NATOPS
01-245FDD-1 handy (The F-4J book, May '75 revision), just in case I
find one in a barn, or somebody leavis it to me in their will, or
something, and, when thumbing through it, I found this, which may
help.

Page 1-58:
"The airplane is powered by two General Electric J79 engines. Aircraft
153071z thru 153087aa have J79-GE-8 engines installed, with a thrust
rating of 10,900 pounds each. Afterburner operation increases the
maximum thrust to 17,000 pounds. Aircraft 153088aa and up have
J79-GE-10 engines installed, with a thrust rating of 11,870 pounds
each. Afterburner operation increases the maximum thrust to 17,900
pounds each."

The airplanes with the -8 engines would be the Block 26z and 27aa (Why
does the Navy have to have a different name for everything?)
airplanes, for a total of 18 ships.

Guess what according to Joseph Baugher's web site those include aircraft
flown by the Blue Angels:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/thirdseries19.html

Brett- The airplane is powered by two General Electric J79 engines. Aircraft
153071z thru 153087aa have J79-GE-8 engines installed, with a thrust
rating of 10,900 pounds each. Afterburner operation increases the
maximum thrust to 17,000 pounds. Aircraft 153088aa and up have
J79-GE-10 engines installed, BRBR

There ya go, thanks..answers all my questions.


P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Page 1-58:
"The airplane is powered by two General Electric J79 engines. Aircraft
153071z thru 153087aa have J79-GE-8 engines installed, with a thrust
rating of 10,900 pounds each. Afterburner operation increases the
maximum thrust to 17,000 pounds. Aircraft 153088aa and up have
J79-GE-10 engines installed, with a thrust rating of 11,870 pounds
each. Afterburner operation increases the maximum thrust to 17,900
pounds each."

Seems strange that the -10 has only 2,000 more pounds thrust w/o burner and
only 900 pounds more with burner. I know that each aircraft has two engines
so that comes out to an additional 4,000 pounds thrust w/o burner.

Does that sound right?

"Joe Delphi" wrote in message link.net...

Page 1-58:
"The airplane is powered by two General Electric J79 engines. Aircraft
153071z thru 153087aa have J79-GE-8 engines installed, with a thrust
rating of 10,900 pounds each. Afterburner operation increases the
maximum thrust to 17,000 pounds. Aircraft 153088aa and up have
J79-GE-10 engines installed, with a thrust rating of 11,870 pounds
each. Afterburner operation increases the maximum thrust to 17,900
pounds each."

Seems strange that the -10 has only 2,000 more pounds thrust w/o burner and
only 900 pounds more with burner. I know that each aircraft has two engines
so that comes out to an additional 4,000 pounds thrust w/o burner.

Does that sound right?

Well, 11,870 - 10900 = 970, so _that_ part's not too close.

But it's really not too odd, one you look at the fundamentals.
I'm going to be simplifying a bit, for those who don't like
Thermodynamics.

Basically, a jet engine develops thrust by squirting hot air
out the back. The hotter the air, the more thrust for a given
amount of airflow. So far, that's pretty straightforward - you
pull in a bunch of air, squish it so that you can burn more fuel
in it, burn the fuel to heat it up. aand squirt it out the back.
However, making it work is a little more complicated. It takes
a lot of power to compress the air. The best way to get that
power is to stick a turbine in the hot gas comin out of the
burners, and use that to drive the compressor. So far, so good,
but the turbine blades can only get so hot before they deform and
fail. So, you can only heat the air up a certain amount.
(Using the turbine to extract energy from the hot gas also cools it
down quite a bit, too.) This maximum Turbine Entry Temperature is
basically what drives the amount of unaugmented Or, as its sometimes
called, Dry) thrust that a jet engine can produce.
One solution to get more thrust is to heat the air up after it has
flowed through the turbine. (Afterburning) The amount of heat that
can be added is much greater, being limited by either the tail pipe's
materiels, or by how much fuel you can pump in. As you can guess,
though, you end up burning an awful lot of fuel.

For an F-4J, sitting on the runway, is burning about 10,000#/hour/engine
at Military (Max. unaugmented) thrust, and pretty close to
36,000#/hour/engine with the Afterburners operating.

If you like, you can think of an afterburning turbojet as two engines:
The turbojet itself, and a ramjet downstream. The amount of thrust
produced by one is only indirectly related to the amount of thrust
produced by the other.

--
Pete Stickney

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
om...
"Joe Delphi" wrote in message
link.net...

Page 1-58:
"The airplane is powered by two General Electric J79 engines.
Aircraft
153071z thru 153087aa have J79-GE-8 engines installed, with a thrust
rating of 10,900 pounds each. Afterburner operation increases the
maximum thrust to 17,000 pounds. Aircraft 153088aa and up have
J79-GE-10 engines installed, with a thrust rating of 11,870 pounds
each. Afterburner operation increases the maximum thrust to 17,900
pounds each."

Seems strange that the -10 has only 2,000 more pounds thrust w/o burner
and
only 900 pounds more with burner. I know that each aircraft has two
engines
so that comes out to an additional 4,000 pounds thrust w/o burner.

Does that sound right?

Well, 11,870 - 10900 = 970, so _that_ part's not too close.

But it's really not too odd, one you look at the fundamentals.
I'm going to be simplifying a bit, for those who don't like
Thermodynamics.

Basically, a jet engine develops thrust by squirting hot air
out the back. The hotter the air, the more thrust for a given
amount of airflow. So far, that's pretty straightforward - you
pull in a bunch of air, squish it so that you can burn more fuel
in it, burn the fuel to heat it up. aand squirt it out the back.
However, making it work is a little more complicated. It takes
a lot of power to compress the air. The best way to get that
power is to stick a turbine in the hot gas comin out of the
burners, and use that to drive the compressor. So far, so good,
but the turbine blades can only get so hot before they deform and
fail. So, you can only heat the air up a certain amount.
(Using the turbine to extract energy from the hot gas also cools it
down quite a bit, too.) This maximum Turbine Entry Temperature is
basically what drives the amount of unaugmented Or, as its sometimes
called, Dry) thrust that a jet engine can produce.
One solution to get more thrust is to heat the air up after it has
flowed through the turbine. (Afterburning) The amount of heat that
can be added is much greater, being limited by either the tail pipe's
materiels, or by how much fuel you can pump in. As you can guess,
though, you end up burning an awful lot of fuel.

For an F-4J, sitting on the runway, is burning about 10,000#/hour/engine
at Military (Max. unaugmented) thrust, and pretty close to
36,000#/hour/engine with the Afterburners operating.

If you like, you can think of an afterburning turbojet as two engines:
The turbojet itself, and a ramjet downstream. The amount of thrust
produced by one is only indirectly related to the amount of thrust
produced by the other.

--
Pete Stickney

I know you are trying, but don't give up your day job. :-) There are some
problems and misconceptions with your simple explanation on how and why it
works.

Red Rider

"J" wrote in message . rr.com...
"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
I'm going to be simplifying a bit, for those who don't like
Thermodynamics.
I know you are trying, but don't give up your day job. :-) There are some
problems and misconceptions with your simple explanation on how and why it
works.

One of the dangers that comes from playing to the audience, RR.
I'd rather run the risk of over-simplicating for those who aren't
technically inclined, vs. drowning them with a firehose of Tech
Stuff. (Think of it as bait - we'll suck 'em in, get 'em hooked,
and then gaff 'em with the numbers.)

Why turn 'em off with a lot of True Stuff about Turbine Stresses,
Mass Flow, Pressure Ratios, Fuel/Air ratios, Compressor & Turbine
Efficiencies & suchlike, if it only makes their eyes glaze over?

(Oh, and as for an afterburning turbojet being considered 2 separate
engines, there have been engine installations that did just that.
The powerplant for the Republic XF-103 Mach 4 interceptor. (Cancelled
in the late '50s, but they'd cut metal for it, and the powerplant
had been tested at the N.A.C.A. tunnels and the tunnels at (I think)
Tullahoma. Basically, it was a Wright J67 (Bristol Olympus "fixed" by
Curtiss-Wright, just like they did to the Sapphire to get the J65,
with a big afterburner spaced way back in the tail. At low speeds,
it was pretty much a normal gas generator/AB combination, but as
speed picked up, and the gas generator output started decreasing,
somewhere around Mach 2, they'd divert the inlet flow around the
turbojet, shut the turbojet down, and keep going on just the AB,
using it as a ramjet.) It's just crazy enough to work.

--
Pete Stickney

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
om...
"J" wrote in message
. rr.com...
"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
I'm going to be simplifying a bit, for those who don't like
Thermodynamics.
I know you are trying, but don't give up your day job. :-) There are
some
problems and misconceptions with your simple explanation on how and why
it
works.

One of the dangers that comes from playing to the audience, RR.
I'd rather run the risk of over-simplicating for those who aren't
technically inclined, vs. drowning them with a firehose of Tech
Stuff. (Think of it as bait - we'll suck 'em in, get 'em hooked,
and then gaff 'em with the numbers.)

Why turn 'em off with a lot of True Stuff about Turbine Stresses,
Mass Flow, Pressure Ratios, Fuel/Air ratios, Compressor & Turbine
Efficiencies & suchlike, if it only makes their eyes glaze over?

(Oh, and as for an afterburning turbojet being considered 2 separate
engines, there have been engine installations that did just that.
The powerplant for the Republic XF-103 Mach 4 interceptor. (Cancelled
in the late '50s, but they'd cut metal for it, and the powerplant
had been tested at the N.A.C.A. tunnels and the tunnels at (I think)
Tullahoma. Basically, it was a Wright J67 (Bristol Olympus "fixed" by
Curtiss-Wright, just like they did to the Sapphire to get the J65,
with a big afterburner spaced way back in the tail. At low speeds,
it was pretty much a normal gas generator/AB combination, but as
speed picked up, and the gas generator output started decreasing,
somewhere around Mach 2, they'd divert the inlet flow around the
turbojet, shut the turbojet down, and keep going on just the AB,
using it as a ramjet.) It's just crazy enough to work.

--
Pete Stickney

Whoooooo! Don't include me in your post. I don't agree with you at all. You
are throwing a bunch of big words in there like you know what you are
talking about, which I don't think you do at all. Your statement of

"If you like, you can think of an afterburning turbojet as two engines: The
turbojet itself, and a ramjet downstream."

Is a crock. And the J-67 was a different concept. Enough said!

"PLONK"

Red Rider