A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

request for fighter pilot statistic



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 11th 05, 10:05 PM
james cho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default request for fighter pilot statistic

Larry Dighera wrote:
For example, in terms of miles, is commuting more dangerous than flying a
fighter plane? (I say no, many say yes.)


What time period? The past ten years, the 1940s or since the beginning
of aviation? Your results would vary dramatically depending on the
range of events of the time, I think.



james
  #2  
Old November 12th 05, 02:22 PM
gregg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default request for fighter pilot statistic

james cho wrote:


What time period? The past ten years, the 1940s or since the beginning
of aviation? Your results would vary dramatically depending on the
range of events of the time, I think.
james


And whether or not there was a war going on.

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments,
Restoration of my 1919 Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat, and
Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/index.html
  #3  
Old December 13th 05, 10:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.military
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default request for fighter pilot statistic

james cho wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:

For example, in terms of miles, is commuting more dangerous than
flying a fighter plane? (I say no, many say yes.)



What time period? The past ten years, the 1940s or since the beginning
of aviation? Your results would vary dramatically depending on the
range of events of the time, I think.


You are right to an extent. Yes, the results would vary in that flying
fighters would be even more dangerous during war time. During peace time
it's only several orders of magnitude more dangerous than commuting.

I can echo Ed's comments to the extent that I have known more fighter
pilots who died in peacetime than I have commuters who are no longer
with us. War is a whole 'nother state beyond that. And you'll find that
the ratio was even worse in WW1 than in later wars.

Of course, if you are commuting on a motorcycle in heavy traffic, your
opportunities to match the modern peace time death rate among fighter
pilots are much improved.


Jack
  #4  
Old December 14th 05, 05:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.military
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default request for fighter pilot statistic

I'm curious to know how the F-100 compared to the 104. I assume the
planes had different missions but being from the same era I lump them
together. I've heard/read about the Super Sabre being a handful but
comparing the wing on it to the 104's lack thereof you'd think it would
be tame by comparison. I figure any of the first-gen jets could be a
handful for a hamfisted pilot as high speed aerodynamics was a new
science then and quite unforgiving.

Would like to hear input from those who've "been there".

Wooly

  #5  
Old December 14th 05, 11:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.military
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default request for fighter pilot statistic

Well, I've flown neither the F-100 nor the 104. But, I've flown with a
lot of guys who've flown them. My experience was F-105 and F-4.

The F-100 was known for it's adverse yaw--the phenomenon of having the
airplane yaw away from the direction of intended turn when a lot of
aileron/stick is thrown in. Roll hard left and the airplane suddenly
flips over to the right. The issue is that the down aileron creates
much more drag than the up one--i.e. yaw away from the roll direction.
When that happens, suddenly the high wing gets a lot of blanking from
the yawed fuselage and the low wing is placed in a better lift
producing situation and you go the wrong way.

Throw in that the -100A model had no flaps and hence very high landing
speeds and a slow responding, relatively low power engine. That, of
course leads to the potential for the "Sabre Dance" where you get
behind the power curve, extremely nose high and the only way out is to
lose altitude which might not be available.

The F-104 really was only a problem because of high landing and
take-off speeds. (WaltBJ will undoubtedly offer greater insights into
the Zipper at this point.)

The F-105 had very few bad flying characteristics except for the high
wing loading and high TO/Landing speeds.

The "hard wing" F-4 (before leading edge slats were added to E-models)
had very similar adverse yaw characteristics as the F-100, but a lot
better thrust/weight and engine responsiveness. Boundary layer control
(blowing) reduced landing speeds as well.

  #6  
Old December 15th 05, 12:49 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.military
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default request for fighter pilot statistic

Ed Rasimus wrote:

The F-100 was known for it's adverse yaw--the phenomenon of having the
airplane yaw away from the direction of intended turn when a lot of
aileron/stick is thrown in. Roll hard left and the airplane suddenly
flips over to the right.


Only a problem at high angles of attack. But then why fly a fighter if
you are not going to pull g and turn? Rudder was our very best friend.


Jack
  #7  
Old December 15th 05, 02:09 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.military
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default request for fighter pilot statistic

Ain't no doubt about it. But, for folks who had grown up flying more
docile aircraft, the traditional application of flight controls--stick
to turn and rudder only to coordinate a bit--the serious adverse yaw
was a killer. The first generation of F-100 drivers were having a
difficult time and suffering a number of crashes until North American
started a serious training program to visit the various bases and demo
the airplane as well as provide details about how to control
it--particularly in the final turn. Can't remember right now whether it
was Chuck Yeager or Bob Hoover that was the star of the show.

Even when I went through F-4 checkout, there were a lot of IPs at Luke
who seemed very reluctant to get max performance out of the airplane.
The initial impression was of a not very agile platform. Flown
properly, however, with little or no aileron input any time there was
back-stick, the airplane was very competitive. As you say, rudder was
our very best--and most dependable--friend.

  #8  
Old December 15th 05, 03:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.military
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default request for fighter pilot statistic

Flown properly, however, with little or no aileron input any time there was
back-stick, the airplane was very competitive.

Almost sounds as if you'd lead the turn with the rudder in a high alpha
maneuver? Otherwise at low AOA the turn would be coordinated normally?

BTW what was the landing speed of the F104? (Walt?) F105? (Ed?)

  #9  
Old December 16th 05, 01:43 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.military
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default request for fighter pilot statistic

Jack wrote:

You are right to an extent. Yes, the results would vary in that flying
fighters would be even more dangerous during war time. During peace time
it's only several orders of magnitude more dangerous than commuting.

I can echo Ed's comments to the extent that I have known more fighter
pilots who died in peacetime than I have commuters who are no longer
with us. War is a whole 'nother state beyond that. And you'll find that
the ratio was even worse in WW1 than in later wars.

Of course, if you are commuting on a motorcycle in heavy traffic, your
opportunities to match the modern peace time death rate among fighter
pilots are much improved.


Jack


Jack,

Spot on, flying combat military aircraft is considerably more dangerous
than many things. There are few of us in the business who don't have
friends that were killed in crashes. I am however constantly impressed
by the discipline, dedication and skill displayed by the aviators I fly
with. These fine Americans aren't the reckless adrenaline freaks
portrayed by Hollywood, but are top notch professionals! Its an honor
to serve and fly with them.

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Tester

  #10  
Old December 16th 05, 04:37 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.military
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default request for fighter pilot statistic


"Michael Kelly" wrote

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Tester


Man, I would think you would be out of a job. I would think that the buff
has been well tested, by now! g
--
Jim in NC

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 02:26 PM
Most reliable homebuilt helicopter? tom pettit Home Built 35 September 29th 05 02:24 PM
AmeriFlight Crash C J Campbell Piloting 5 December 1st 03 02:13 PM
Single-Seat Accident Records (Was BD-5B) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 41 November 20th 03 05:39 AM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.