LOUD

"Chris Hoffmann" wrote in message ...
Signature? Good grief....how many FBO's do they run? That's the FBO at
Mitchell Field in Milwaukee, too.

I had the same thought - Signature? - but for another reason: why would a
fighter be parked there and not over near the military hangars? Cheaper
fuel? : )

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm-

if you want loud, try the F-111.

It purrs compared to the Vulcan. Greatest device ever created for turning
fossil fuel into noise.
John

"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

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 16:45:23 GMT, "Scott Lowrey"
wrote:

"Neal" wrote in message ...
An F-15 can get pretty awesomely loud too, looks vaguely similar to an
F-18, to the layperson, in that it also has twin vertical
stabilizors/rudders but they're straight up instead of angled
outwards. F-15's wing is much larger, and somewhat delta-shaped too.

Good pics for comparison at:
http://www.rijskamp.com/KLu/photos/photo_50.html


That's an excellent shot, thanks. From my viewing angle and distance, I
really
didn't get a good enough look. All I caught were the twin verticals. Looks
like the key is the wing shape (and angle of verticals). Unfortunately the
roll
in my direction put the wings level with me, so couldn't see them.


I forgot to mention the F-14, it also has a twin tail, but it'd
probably be pretty rare to see one in Minnesota. I've never even seen
one in person myself, here in north Texas.

Here's a cute photo of a Tomcat.

http://www.rijskamp.com/KLu/photos/photo_66.html

Water skiing, anyone? :-)

Bob Noel wrote in message ...
In article , "Gerry
Caron" wrote:

if you want loud, try the F-111.

Ahh, but the 'varks are gone and so are the rhinos. :-(

even the EF's?

Yes

and what about the Australians? are theirs all gone too?


No, although there has been a recent suggestion to retire them soon
rather than keep them going for another 15-20 years.

One evening a couple of months ago I was with some friends when we
heard a loud jet. I looked over to the other person with an interest
in aviation, and we both said something like "that's not a modern
civil jet." The RNZAF B727s had just been retired, so they were out.
Then I remembered - "The F-111s are here on exercise this week. It'll
be one of them." Cue disbelief from some others in room that we could
ID an aircraft from sound alone.

snip
Cheers
Errol Cavit

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