LOUD

(John S. Shinal) wrote in
:

(B2431) wrote:

The trim pad at Langley AFB was across the runway from main base as
was CBPO. The desk jockeys were most cross with us when we would start
water. It seems the prevailing winds made us aim the engines at them
and they really failed to see the humour in the situation.

What was it, the noise or the pall of black stuff ?

I'd have thought they'd be happy to have something to drown out the
racket from NASCAR events at the Speedway.

__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

Billy Beck wrote in message . ..
"The Raven" wrote:

Try living in a motel at the end of a SAC runway (for 3 months). Triple buff
takeoffs at 5am, full noise, about 200ft over your head.

By November of 1972, Barksdale was *too quiet* for me to sleep.

That was very wierd.


Billy

http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php

Read recently (in an article I cannot now find) about an
airplane designed and built in the '60s or '70s that had a turbojet
engine in the tail and a huge turboprop in the nose. Supposed to be a
fighter or fighter-bomber. Only two were built, and after one flight
the test pilots didn't want to fly them any more. They were LOUD in
the cockpit or anywhere else. It hurt bad. Very few test flights were
carried out. I imagine they were designed to defeat the enemy through
intimidation alone. Apparently most of the noise came from the prop
tips, which were running supersonic or transonic, even in static
runups.
One of the pilots lived ten miles from the airbase, and he could
hear the techs running it up, on the ground, all the way from his
home. That has to be pretty bad.
Anyone here remember what it was?

Dan

"Dan Thomas" wrote in message
Read recently (in an article I cannot now find) about an
airplane designed and built in the '60s or '70s that had a turbojet
engine in the tail and a huge turboprop in the nose. Supposed to be a
fighter or fighter-bomber. Only two were built, and after one flight
the test pilots didn't want to fly them any more. They were LOUD in
the cockpit or anywhere else. It hurt bad. Very few test flights were
carried out. I imagine they were designed to defeat the enemy through
intimidation alone. Apparently most of the noise came from the prop
tips, which were running supersonic or transonic, even in static
runups.
One of the pilots lived ten miles from the airbase, and he could
hear the techs running it up, on the ground, all the way from his
home. That has to be pretty bad.
Anyone here remember what it was?

Dan

You may have read about it in "Air and Space Magazine", if I remember
correctly. Not exactly sure if this is the aircraft in question but would
almost bet money on it. According to a senior curator I met at the Air
Force Museum when it was tested there it was painful to be anywhere near.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/resea...hter/f84sp.htm

Tex

In article ,
(Dan Thomas) wrote:

Billy Beck wrote in message
. ..
"The Raven" wrote:

Try living in a motel at the end of a SAC runway (for 3 months). Triple
buff
takeoffs at 5am, full noise, about 200ft over your head.

By November of 1972, Barksdale was *too quiet* for me to sleep.

That was very wierd.


Billy

http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php

Read recently (in an article I cannot now find) about an
airplane designed and built in the '60s or '70s that had a turbojet
engine in the tail and a huge turboprop in the nose. Supposed to be a
fighter or fighter-bomber. Only two were built, and after one flight
the test pilots didn't want to fly them any more. They were LOUD in
the cockpit or anywhere else. It hurt bad. Very few test flights were
carried out. I imagine they were designed to defeat the enemy through
intimidation alone. Apparently most of the noise came from the prop
tips, which were running supersonic or transonic, even in static
runups.
One of the pilots lived ten miles from the airbase, and he could
hear the techs running it up, on the ground, all the way from his
home. That has to be pretty bad.
Anyone here remember what it was?

Dan

I don't remember the airplane's designation, but I believe it was the
one with the 2 large contrarotating props. The noise from these setups
were very loud as attested to by our fighter pilot's who pulled up
alongside the 4 engine turboprop Soviet TU-95 Bear on intercept missions
during the Cold War and noted the noise. The Bear had 2 contrarotating
props per engine. (Pics at
http://www.pinetreeline.org/misc/other/misc8j.jpg,
http://www.pinetreeline.org/misc/other/misc8as.jpg)

Carl

"Dan Thomas" wrote in message
om...

Read recently (in an article I cannot now find) about an
airplane designed and built in the '60s or '70s that had a turbojet
engine in the tail and a huge turboprop in the nose. Supposed to be a
fighter or fighter-bomber. Only two were built, and after one flight
the test pilots didn't want to fly them any more. They were LOUD in
the cockpit or anywhere else. It hurt bad. Very few test flights were
carried out. I imagine they were designed to defeat the enemy through
intimidation alone. Apparently most of the noise came from the prop
tips, which were running supersonic or transonic, even in static
runups.
One of the pilots lived ten miles from the airbase, and he could
hear the techs running it up, on the ground, all the way from his
home. That has to be pretty bad.
Anyone here remember what it was?

Dan

IIRC, the Ryan "Fireball" was a prop up front and a jet out the rear...

But, I think it was built before the 60's/70's time frame...

FWIW...

"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:XZz5b.26099$S_.643@fed1read01...
Waaaaay before the 60's/70's...

Fireball Link:

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/projects/Fireball.html



The article on the XF-84H was in "Air and Space Magazine", pp 56-61 of the
July 2003 issue.

Tex

("Scott Lowrey" wrote)
snip
Today, though, what looked like an F-18 flew over. Wow. I haven't
seen too many fighters in my life (still have yet to see a "real" air
show).

September 20-21, 2003

http://www.duluthairshow.com/index2.htm

Duluth is only 150 mile straight up the freeway from MSP (Mpls/St. Paul)

We want to get up there for the Air Show.

--
Montblack

"Tex Houston" wrote in message ...
"Dan Thomas" wrote in message
Read recently (in an article I cannot now find) about an
airplane designed and built in the '60s or '70s that had a turbojet
engine in the tail and a huge turboprop in the nose. Supposed to be a
fighter or fighter-bomber. Only two were built, and after one flight
the test pilots didn't want to fly them any more. They were LOUD in
the cockpit or anywhere else. It hurt bad. Very few test flights were
carried out. I imagine they were designed to defeat the enemy through
intimidation alone. Apparently most of the noise came from the prop
tips, which were running supersonic or transonic, even in static
runups.
One of the pilots lived ten miles from the airbase, and he could
hear the techs running it up, on the ground, all the way from his
home. That has to be pretty bad.
Anyone here remember what it was?

Dan

You may have read about it in "Air and Space Magazine", if I remember
correctly. Not exactly sure if this is the aircraft in question but would
almost bet money on it. According to a senior curator I met at the Air
Force Museum when it was tested there it was painful to be anywhere near.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/resea...hter/f84sp.htm

Tex


That's the one. Thanks!

Dan

In article , Tex Houston
writes

"Dan Thomas" wrote in message
Read recently (in an article I cannot now find) about an
airplane designed and built in the '60s or '70s that had a turbojet
engine in the tail and a huge turboprop in the nose. Supposed to be a
fighter or fighter-bomber. Only two were built, and after one flight
the test pilots didn't want to fly them any more. They were LOUD in
the cockpit or anywhere else. It hurt bad. Very few test flights were
carried out. I imagine they were designed to defeat the enemy through
intimidation alone. Apparently most of the noise came from the prop
tips, which were running supersonic or transonic, even in static
runups.
One of the pilots lived ten miles from the airbase, and he could
hear the techs running it up, on the ground, all the way from his
home. That has to be pretty bad.
Anyone here remember what it was?

Dan

You may have read about it in "Air and Space Magazine", if I remember
correctly. Not exactly sure if this is the aircraft in question but would
almost bet money on it. According to a senior curator I met at the Air
Force Museum when it was tested there it was painful to be anywhere near.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/resea...hter/f84sp.htm

Tex




ISTR it was nicknamed "Thunderscreech" because of its awful noise, and
caused pain and severe nausea to ground personnel in the vicinity when
the prop was turning.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

In article ,
Peter Twydell wrote:

In article , Tex Houston
writes

You may have read about it in "Air and Space Magazine", if I remember
correctly. Not exactly sure if this is the aircraft in question but would
almost bet money on it. According to a senior curator I met at the Air
Force Museum when it was tested there it was painful to be anywhere near.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/resea...hter/f84sp.htm

ISTR it was nicknamed "Thunderscreech" because of its awful noise, and
caused pain and severe nausea to ground personnel in the vicinity when
the prop was turning.

I'd put an F-106 at takeoff up against almost anything. It was pretty
loud in general, but there were some godawful high harmonics in there
that made you feel like someone was ripping giant sheets of canvas *in*
your chest. When I worked F-4s, we had an ANG F-106 alert unit sitting
at the end of one runway, and when they took off, we'd go into the EOR
shack and hide for extra protection - after standing 100 feet away from
multiple F-4 launches on full afterburner all day...

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.