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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I also had a long phone conversation with an old squadron mate. He
mentioned he used to FCF F111s - and had one out to 2.7 in a shallow dive from 50 grand. And I believe him - know him well. Don't bother telling me it's past the red line; that's just a mark on a gauge. Walt BJ I also had a long phone conversation with an old squadron mate. He mentioned he used to FCF F111s - and had one out to 2.7 in a shallow dive from 50 grand. And I believe him - know him well. Don't bother telling me it's past the red line; that's just a mark on a gauge. Walt BJ I have heard rumors of ever faster on FCF, pushing 2.85.... Definitely had the power to do it, at least in the F model, and probably the D and E too, if they were clean, no racks.. Ron Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron" wrote in message ... Definitely had the power to do it, at least in the F model, and probably the D and E too, if they were clean, no racks.. Pretty funny. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
(WaltBJ) wrote:
I also had a long phone conversation with an old squadron mate. He mentioned he used to FCF F111s - and had one out to 2.7 in a shallow dive from 50 grand. And I believe him - know him well. Don't bother telling me it's past the red line; that's just a mark on a gauge. I read a diary of a flight (Airpower ?) that said the F-111 had a timer that assisted with avoiding over-temperature on the canopy, did older aircraft like the F-106 have anything similar, or was it all seat-of-the-pants ? ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Hmmm. According to the USAF aircraft database, F-106A 56-0467 was last
assigned to the 329th FIS at George AFB, Ca and was destroyed in a class A accident on 14 August 1961. The aircraft on display at USAFA is 58-0761. 0467 seems to have flown in squadron service for quite awhile after making its speed run - not bad for an aircraft that's rumored to have had its structure damaged. As far as F-111's go . . . in my years with them I heard all sorts of stories from the aircrews about amazing feats they'd accomplished in the aircraft - the stories got better after a few pints in Jandy's Pub. Had one guy in the 55th swore up and down that he'd flown TFR Manual inverted - pretty good considering that the LARAs would be pointing the wrong direction to tell him where the ground was - not to mention the TFR antennas. He became highly irate when I called him on it. Then there was the pair of Vark jocks that went into an apoplectic fit of cursing at me when I asked where their drop tanks were after a sortie. Blown ejector carts in the pylons, broken funny film on the tank jettison button, and aircraft forms entries notwithstanding, they claimed that they didn't have tanks loaded when they took off and refused to budge on their story. One of those "What are you going to believe? Your eyes or what I'm telling you?" Vygg WaltBJ wrote: That F106 was on display at the USAFA - the heat exposure am=nnealed the aluminum structure so it no longer possessed design strength and had to be grounded. I also heard the engine's RPM was cranked up way over tech order limits - interesting because a 1% increase on a dual spool engine can be a 5% increase in thrust. Supposedly went from 93% up to 97%. I also had a long phone conversation with an old squadron mate. He mentioned he used to FCF F111s - and had one out to 2.7 in a shallow dive from 50 grand. And I believe him - know him well. Don't bother telling me it's past the red line; that's just a mark on a gauge. Walt BJ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Vygg" wrote in message ... Hmmm. According to the USAF aircraft database, F-106A 56-0467 was last assigned to the 329th FIS at George AFB, Ca and was destroyed in a class A accident on 14 August 1961. The aircraft on display at USAFA is 58-0761. 0467 seems to have flown in squadron service for quite awhile after making its speed run - not bad for an aircraft that's rumored to have had its structure damaged. Mach 2.3 was normal operating speed in the squadron I worked for. Our people believed the F-106 was aerodynamicly limited to that speed. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Limiting factor for the Six was the EGT. In the left(?) MWW it had what
was called a "635 clock" that tracked both the consecutive and cumulative number of seconds that the engine operated above 635 degrees F in EGT. Don't remember the T.O. limits anymore, but if either counter read too high, then the engine was pulled and sent into the shop for teardown and inspection. The F-111 (I can only speak for the E's) had a Total Temperature gauge in the upper left quadrant of the pilot's front instrument panel. It measured the temperature of the windscreen and counted down the number of seconds (Sec To Go) before it would lose structural integrity. The face of the gauge had two tick marks on it: the first one started the clock; the second one basically said "Too late, Charley - I'm melting right now." I don't recall the actual temperature limits, but they weren't anywhere near as high as the legends suggest. IIRC the first tick mark was around 200 degrees F and the second around 240. I think that the total time allowed at the lower limit was on the order of five minutes - much less as the upper limit was approached. I've got an old GD engineering drawing in a box around here somewhere that shows the instrument panels in 1/4 scale with all of the gauge face marks on them. If I can find the thing, I'll update this post. In one of the flights that I took we hit 2.01M at 43k ft and the windscreen felt warm enough on my bare hand to get a cup of coffee to a drinkable temperature. Vygg John S. Shinal wrote: (WaltBJ) wrote: I also had a long phone conversation with an old squadron mate. He mentioned he used to FCF F111s - and had one out to 2.7 in a shallow dive from 50 grand. And I believe him - know him well. Don't bother telling me it's past the red line; that's just a mark on a gauge. I read a diary of a flight (Airpower ?) that said the F-111 had a timer that assisted with avoiding over-temperature on the canopy, did older aircraft like the F-106 have anything similar, or was it all seat-of-the-pants ? ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote Mach 2.3 was normal operating speed in the squadron I worked for. Our people believed the F-106 was aerodynamicly limited to that speed. "normal operating speed" Where was the normal AO? Pete |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Pete" wrote in message ... "Tarver Engineering" wrote Mach 2.3 was normal operating speed in the squadron I worked for. Our people believed the F-106 was aerodynamicly limited to that speed. "normal operating speed" Where was the normal AO? Going mach 2.3 in an F-106 does not harm the airplane. Going much faster than mach 2.3 is not an option in an intact F-106. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Vygg" wrote Then there was the pair of Vark jocks that went into an apoplectic fit of cursing at me when I asked where their drop tanks were after a sortie. Blown ejector carts in the pylons, broken funny film on the tank jettison button, and aircraft forms entries notwithstanding, they claimed that they didn't have tanks loaded when they took off and refused to budge on their story. One of those "What are you going to believe? Your eyes or what I'm telling you?" FYI, the classical formulation is "Who are you going to believe? Me or your own lying eyes." |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"ian maclure" wrote in message news On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:14:19 +0000, Pete wrote: "Tarver Engineering" wrote Mach 2.3 was normal operating speed in the squadron I worked for. Our people believed the F-106 was aerodynamicly limited to that speed. "normal operating speed" Where was the normal AO? Is that "aerodynamically limited" as in "It don't matter how much coal y'all pour on she ain't gonna go no faster" a la F-102, "aerodynamically limited" as in "goink faster and parts fallink off" a la Mig 25, or "aerodynamically limited" as in "we go anya faster ana the leadinga edges she's a gonna melt" a la F-104 ( not including the S version ) ( well technically it was thermally induced creep that was the problem ). I saw an F-106 at Plattsburgh in the mid 80's. The pilot was older than dirt and for some reason I'd always thought the 106 was a bigger airplane. Must have been one of the last in service. I was delivering 777s at Paine Field near where the B-52 was parked in 97 and I had always though it was a bigger airplane. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 1st 04 02:31 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | May 1st 04 07:29 PM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |
Edwards air show B-1 speed record attempt | Paul Hirose | Military Aviation | 146 | November 3rd 03 05:18 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 2nd 03 03:07 AM |