To Steal an F-86

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:44:19 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

(Peter Stickney) wrote:


Radiop Research, in Waterbury CT, has complete units listed in the
Thomas Register. And all sort of other neat toys. I'm saving up for
the MD-5 system (B-52 tail turret, including tboth th eradars and the
turret) myself.

But not the twenties Pete?...you disappoints me...

(picturing your turret mounted on your pickup truck with a B & W
just slashing in 10 feet behind you with lights and sirens
blaring and these twin 20's swinging around and depressing to
point right into his windscreen !!!... HooWee!...)

Might explain why his local police preordered the new "stealth" model
police cruisers.

In article ,
Blair Maynard writes:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:44:19 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

(Peter Stickney) wrote:


Radiop Research, in Waterbury CT, has complete units listed in the
Thomas Register. And all sort of other neat toys. I'm saving up for
the MD-5 system (B-52 tail turret, including tboth th eradars and the
turret) myself.

But not the twenties Pete?...you disappoints me...

You just wouldn't believe the paperwork involved. A .50 cal can be
done, but anything over that, and you enter Destructive Device
territory. Think of it as teh difference between a Secret and a Top
Secret Clearance.


(picturing your turret mounted on your pickup truck with a B & W
just slashing in 10 feet behind you with lights and sirens
blaring and these twin 20's swinging around and depressing to
point right into his windscreen !!!... HooWee!...)

Nah, we're all friendly folks down here. The big car chases only
happen in the movies. For that matter, they never gave me any flak
about the tanks - or when we registered an M20 Armored Scout Vehicle
as a 1943 Ford Convertable.

I woldn't mind one of those 1&1/2 ton Chevys with the Martin turret
that they used for gunnery training, though. with a lead-computing
gunsight and a pair of autofeeding 12-Gauges I might actually hit one
of those danged ducks. (Spent years shivering in the swamps - the only
duck I get I hit with the truck on the way home. He was executing a
missed approach while overgrossed & couldn't climb out of the way)

Might explain why his local police preordered the new "stealth" model
police cruisers.

Actually, I had the Chief LEO come by a couple of years back wanting
me to broker a deal for some Armo[u]red Cars. (Money to use, and
nifty toys, basically). I was able to talk him out of it, though by
pointing out that he'd never be able to afford the supporting infantry
he'd need to go with them. They were much better off spending teh
dough on communications gear.

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

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message

In article ,
Blair Maynard writes:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:44:19 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

(Peter Stickney) wrote:


Radiop Research, in Waterbury CT, has complete units listed in the
Thomas Register. And all sort of other neat toys. I'm saving up
for the MD-5 system (B-52 tail turret, including tboth th eradars
and the turret) myself.

But not the twenties Pete?...you disappoints me...

You just wouldn't believe the paperwork involved. A .50 cal can be
done, but anything over that, and you enter Destructive Device
territory. Think of it as teh difference between a Secret and a Top
Secret Clearance.


(picturing your turret mounted on your pickup truck with a B & W
just slashing in 10 feet behind you with lights and sirens
blaring and these twin 20's swinging around and depressing to
point right into his windscreen !!!... HooWee!...)

Nah, we're all friendly folks down here. The big car chases only
happen in the movies. For that matter, they never gave me any flak
about the tanks - or when we registered an M20 Armored Scout Vehicle
as a 1943 Ford Convertable.

You could get a flatbed deuce-and-a-half and do a Guntruck-workup ala the US
Army in Vietnam.

Some of those SOB's had 7.62 miniguns!

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...

Becasue fighter airplanes, especially Soviet-built fighter airplanes,
didn't carry ELINT gear. Panoramic receivers back then ere heavy and
complicated beasts that required very specially trained operators.

Certainly the fighters did not have the equipment, but I would think
that the Soviets would have flown ELINT missions, or perhaps a ground
station picking up the emissions.

They'd also have to be looking at those frequencies, as well. Soviet
stuff at that time tended to be on the lower end of the mifrowave
scale, with most sets being in the VHF & UHF bands, and a few AAA Fire
Control systems being as high as S band.

The Soviets knew we liked X band for aircraft radars - it was
available in small quantities on the surplus market at the time.

--
William Donzelli

According to something I saw on the History Channel yesterday,
the F-86 had an all-flying tail (though they used another term)
first developed for the X-1 (called XS-1). It enabled pitch control
in the transonic region, without which supersonic flight could not
have been achieved, and it made the F-86 a much better dogfighting
aircraft at transonic speeds.
Did the Soviets learn about the all-flying tail from the
captured F-86, and put it on their later fighters
------------------------------------------
Stephen Harding ) wrote:
: "Smithsonian Air and Space" has an interesting article describing Soviet
: attempts to get their hands on an F-86 during the Korean War.

: A first plan was developed to use specially trained pilots of MiG-15s to
: actually box in a candidate F-86 and force him down at a Communist base.

: The Russian CO of the Soviet AF unit actually fighting in Korea (USAF pilots
: had come to suspect they were fighting Russians rather than NKs or Chinese
: but there was still nothing official known about their presence), thought
: the plan idiocy, and this was proven with the gradual shoot down of many
: in the unit attempting to corral a Saber.

: But an F-86A eventually went down and was hauled off, barely making an
: escape from an attacking B-26. The aircraft was tested and quite a few
: features found their way into MiG-15 and 17.

: One of the most useful knowledge gains was with the radar controlled gunsight
: used on the F-86. Very accurate and helping tilt the balance of light
: weaponry of the F-86 (6 .50 MG) against the MiG (37 and 23mm cannon).

: The Soviets developed a reciever that listened specifically for the wavelength
: of the gunsight radar, thus giving the Soviet pilot some warning of
: approaching USAF Sabers. It was prone to give false readings, but was an
: overall invaluable feature. The life of its developer was probably saved
: by its success since he had the misfortune of being "politically incorrect"
: enough to be "denounced" at a time when it meant the Gulag or worse.

: This electronic device is standard part of any modern fighter aircraft
: indicating "radar lock" from targeting AAA/missiles.


: SMH

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

"Merlin Dorfman" wrote in message
...

Did the Soviets learn about the all-flying tail from the
captured F-86, and put it on their later fighters

The F-86A did not have the flying tail, this feature was
introduced by the F-86E. This model entered combat in
Korea in September 1951.

The first Soviet fighter with the flying tail appears to
have been the SM-9/2 prototype of the MiG-19, which
was built in 1954.

So it is quite likely that the Soviets were aware of the use
of a slab tailplane on the F-86E when they designed the
SM-9/2. On the other hand, NASA's adoption of the
'flying tail' appears to have been inspired by British
data.

There's a common misconception here. The "all-flying tail" on the
F-86E and F wasn't a slab, it was a movable stabilizer with
separate (but linked) elevator, as developed for the XS-1 (and
credited by Yeager with allowing the a/c to be controllable through
the Mach). The slab came in on the F-100, IIRR. From what I
recall, there'd come a Mach number when the shock wave from
compressibility would make the elevator ineffective (usually
leading to tuck under), but the stabilizer itself would then be
forward of the shock and retain its effectiveness. So the
stabilizer was made movable (i.e. trimmable like a Buff, but
directly connected to the joystick instead of just the trim switch)
and linked to the elevator around a center pivot. The two surfaces
were geared to move in a certain relationship to each other. I
don't know the specific details (whether it was based on IMN or
just a pure mechanical relationship). Hopefully Mary, Pete or
someone else can fill in the details.

F-86D/Ls and Hs had a one-piece slab.
The reason for th all-moving tails (dangit, no chalkboard again! Assume a
chalkboard, and a lot of Fighter-Pilot hand talking)
Think of the stabilizer/elevator combination as a wing (Wich, after
all, it is) At subsonic speeds, deflecting the elevator affects the
airflow over the entire surface, so that the entire are of the
stabilizer is used to control pitch. As the flow over the stabilizer
gets transonic, and the shockwaves form, elevator deflection begins t
only effect the flow over the elevators themselves, greatly reducing
effectiveness. The solution is to move the entire stab (stabilator),
which lets the entire surface develop whatever lift needs to be
created to counterbalance the wing. (It's early yat - I've only had 1
cuppa Coffee) Why doesn't every airplane use this? (The Wright
Brothers did) The problem is that once the stabilizer had to get
above a certain small size, it's danged hard to move manually, no
matter how much you balance it. It took the advent of powered
controls, (The electric screw jack on the XS-1, or the hydraulics on
the F-86E) to make it practical.

You can certainly fly a transonic or supersonic airplane without using
a slab, but what happens is that your pitch authority (Ability to
raise or lower the nose) decreases, and, depending on the
configuration, teh airplane may not be able to be trimmed at all.
(The pitchup of the F-84s, for example.)

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

Peter Stickney ) wrote:

....

: You can certainly fly a transonic or supersonic airplane without using
: a slab, but what happens is that your pitch authority (Ability to
: raise or lower the nose) decreases, and, depending on the
: configuration, teh airplane may not be able to be trimmed at all.
: (The pitchup of the F-84s, for example.)

Is this the "control reversal" at transonic speed mentioned in
the British film, "Breaking the Sound Barrier?" (I know that
opinions vary as to whether or not control reversal is real.)

"ian maclure" wrote:

In article , "Merlin Dorfman"
wrote:

Peter Stickney ) wrote:

...

: You can certainly fly a transonic or supersonic airplane without using
: a slab, but what happens is that your pitch authority (Ability to :
raise or lower the nose) decreases, and, depending on the :
configuration, teh airplane may not be able to be trimmed at all. : (The
pitchup of the F-84s, for example.)

Is this the "control reversal" at transonic speed mentioned in
the British film, "Breaking the Sound Barrier?" (I know that opinions
vary as to whether or not control reversal is real.)

Control reversal is a real aeroelastic effect.
Nothing mythical about it.
Basically moving the control surface bends the airfoil which overpowers
whatever effect the movibale control surface was supposed to provide.

IBM

But why wouldn't this merely reduce any intended effect?...IOW
you want 'that wing' up, you put 'that aileron' down but the
slipstream is so strong that the aileron moves only half as far
as you commanded and the wing flexes the opposite way to make up
the difference?...I think it has to do with the shock 'spike'
which moves erratically with small changes in transonic speeds
and this provides the actual reversal.
--

-Gord.

In article ,
Merlin Dorfman writes:
Peter Stickney ) wrote:

...

: You can certainly fly a transonic or supersonic airplane without using
: a slab, but what happens is that your pitch authority (Ability to
: raise or lower the nose) decreases, and, depending on the
: configuration, teh airplane may not be able to be trimmed at all.
: (The pitchup of the F-84s, for example.)

Is this the "control reversal" at transonic speed mentioned in
the British film, "Breaking the Sound Barrier?" (I know that
opinions vary as to whether or not control reversal is real.)

Well, the movie's a movie, and then, well, there's reality.
In the early days of flight into the transonic reagion, airplanes
would display all manner of behavior. Some would pitch down, (Meteor)
SOme would pitch up (F-84) Some would pitch down & then pitch up
(Canberra, IIRC), some would porpoise divergently, eventually risking
breaking up (Vampire), and soem would just keep right on going with
the pilot more passenger than director. (Venom). I suppose it would be
possible for an airplane to pitch up and then pitch down, but usually
the pitchup was so severe that it bled off a lot of speed, and bent
the airplane.
This was due to the various shifts of the Center of Moment of the
airfoil as shockwaves began to form and move along the wing and tail
surfaces. What gets felt in the cockpit is the change in trim force
as this happens, and the perceived feel of what's going on. For
ecample, you're hauling back in the stick, with nothing happening, and
then the airplane pitches up to the extent that holding the stick in
place feels like you're pushing it. Elevators don't work backwards,
or anything like that. It was possible to get situations where
aileron deflection at high speeds would bend the wing in the opposite
direction, reducing and eventually reversing roll control. B-47s were
quite prone to this, which led to the redline limit of 425 kts IAS.
F-86s were somewhat subject to it, and some of the thinner winged
transonic fighters like the FJ-4 Fury and F3H Demon could, it hey had
a tendency to roll a bit be "fixed" by slamming the stick hard over at
high IAS, bending the wings into rig. (Sort of like warping the
wingtip of a balsa glider to make it fly straight)
This concern about bending the wings is what led to the inboard
ailerons of the F-100 and F-8 Crusader.
Nowadays, (Post 1955 or so), we seem to have a handle on it, and
passing through the transonic range is a bit dull. All you notice is
a bit of change in the trim feel on some airplanes, the ASI jumps, and
the fuel goes away fast.

If you get a chance, go check out the NACA Technical
Reports Server, for teh period between 1943 and 1953. There's a lot
of stuff in there on the transonic behavior of a lot of airplanes,
ranging from dive tests of a glider P-51 to the pitchup tendencies of
various swept-wing jets. Most of it is, well, technical, (saves
changing the name), but the abstracts can be rather clear.

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

wrote:

Control reversal is a real aeroelastic effect.
Nothing mythical about it.
Basically moving the control surface bends the airfoil which overpowers
whatever effect the movibale control surface was supposed to provide.

IBM


But why wouldn't this merely reduce any intended effect?...IOW
you want 'that wing' up, you put 'that aileron' down but the
slipstream is so strong that the aileron moves only half as far
as you commanded and the wing flexes the opposite way to make up
the difference?

-Gord.


Depending upon the relative strength of the wing and its size,
it may or may not cause reversal (control reversal doesn't
happen with EVERY airfoil, and in some designs happens well
below the transonic range). But if the wing is weak enough,
then the aileron acts as a trim tab on an elevator or aileron,
and the overall effect is to reverse the results of the control
input.

Mike