![]() |
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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |