mkellytx

If 50+ bombs are dropped from one they'll all be plain dumb mk82's, not that the 28 byes are used that much anymore. Max smart bomb load is 48 GBU-38 on the twin carry rack on the rotaries. The 10 byes can carry 10 WCMD types, but only 7 GBU-38's as the fins won't fit in all spots, 10 byes are 14 in rack weapons only. Max 30 in rack weapons is 24, eight on each rotary, but some like the 2000lb mine the fins don't clear and you can only carry 12, they're dumbish (smart fuse, no guidance). Sniper implementation would be really interesting as the original fit, back when I did the test accel to integrate the pod, was laptop controlled with an F-15E WSO stick bolted into the offender's station. Yes, I did get to play with the kit, yes it was good stuff but other than Bubba's Master's thesis I haven't really seen much public source, so I won't comment beyond that.

You don't say... Originally that was a tail dragger with a 300 hp piston that swung a 82 in prop. What could go wrong with a nose gear, 700 hp Walter turboprop and a 100+ in prop? Power on stall recovery with flaps: break angle of attack, continue torque roll to wings level, recover from resulting dive. Dr. Smith's book is the one, more of an official history and does a pretty good job of telling the story, raising the issues of conducting DT flight test in a combat zone, the ending is more how leadership wanted things to be remembered, but that's far too off topic to discuss here.

Sure, it was a Comp Air 7SLX, kit built airplane that the UAE gifted to the Iraqi's after OIF. We got involved after 5 folks got killed flying one in 2005, thought we fixed the gremlins in the plane and then deployed to Kirkuk summer of 2006 to fix the rest. AFFTC wrote up an official history of the project, mentioned me once, and I wrote the test and safety plans and was the only FTE that deployed to test the aircraft in theater. Then again one of the project golden hands was Virgin Galactic's test pilot for Spaceship One when he retired, another is in the latest NASA video for X-59 as one of it's golden hands and one of the other FTE's went on to be the US astronaut on that aborted Soyuz launch in 2018... Just saying... Here's a picture of the thing: Yaw strings work great when there's no prop! The school house syllabus does a bunch of work up at Tehachapi on gliders, I never got a patch, but I did attend quite a few syllabus blocks where I got to do the glider rides.

Thanks Vulture for the explanation. BTW, no knock on grease pencil marks here, it was the difference for me between dynamic aircraft behavior and almost getting killed. The golden hand used the grease mark to control the yaw when we stall tested an Iraqi aircraft. The Marine used the turn slip ball, the Marine got us into a 5 turn fully developed flat spin. The golden had recovered the aircraft on the 4th attempt with pro spin control inputs, while arguing with the Marine... Yeah, grease marks work great!

Good your gut feels the same about that number as mine. It feels excessive, but who knows? A really clear day against a really big target maybe...

Thanks Vulture, good/scary/eye opening stuff.

Doesn't matter how far the laser goes if you can't position it accurately, or if the beam disperses too much or if the angular accuracy breaks down past a certain distance... The point being I did a quick search of the Dash 34 and there's a limitation very close to the 10 nm you brought up in the earlier post, your mileage may vary. Given the level of technology, 10 nm seems reasonable. Perhaps Vulture will correct or confirm, but I've only played with T-pods with 30 years more technological advancement, so can't offer more than a literature search.

See below from the Dash 34-1-1 for Pave Spike, 66,000 ft. is 10.86 nm. No comment on the newer pods, as I've been around both Sniper and Litening IRL.

Thanks Vulture. Sounds about right, forgot the book but I was reading something recently about the F-111 that stated as much. There was some good ODS footage from Varks low level lofting LGB's, but I think they were -24's which kind of proves your point. A ways back I saw something from a Block 40 Viper manual that had a GBU-24 delivery profile, but can't remember if I saved it. Based on your reply we shouldn't expect syllabus rides described in Sierra Hotel to be normal fare for line crews in a regular squadron, unless of course they're the gray patch crowd. SKÖT

Would love to hear your take on low level deliveries with either pod.

Could very well be, it's been about two years since I last read it. However, that sounds a lot more like the TTP for GBU-8/15 optical bombs with data link. ISTR that the GBU-10/12 delivery with Spike was lased and delivered from the loft because of the description of the WSO having to hold the crosshairs on the target while the pilot pulled back towards the ground. The Pave Knife deliveries in VN were primarily buddy lase, but both Knife and Spike 5 miles out would be inside of target defenses during the 70's. Either way it gives us a good reason to re-read the book or dig through the -34. Edit: And the good book states (TO 1F-4E-34-1-1, 1-87) Two automatic weapons release modes are available when the delivery mode selection knob is positioned to TGT FIND: WRCS AUTO and ROR (release-on-range), figure 1-33. Both release modes are selectable on the slant range indicator and use laser generated or computed slant range in the weapon release solution. (Refer to Slant Range Computation, Laser and Computed, in later pages.) The final phase of the bomb run is accomplished with the aid of the TV display and the displayed weapon release cue symbols (laser status), and/or the optical sight. Weapon release occurs when the release signal is generated if the bomb button is pressed. Both modes permit immediate evasive maneuvering after weapon release when delivering laser guided bombs (LGB). The WSO continues to track and illuminate the target until after weapon impact. The WRCS automatic release mode uses the dive toss equations to produce a release solution and generate a release signal. The WSO must set in a drag coefficient and target elevation of the WCRS panel. Figure 1-33 shows a Dive Toss Maneuver for the WRCS AUTO RELEASE MODE. One comment here, Sierra Hotel was about the weapons school so difficult was part of the job.

The book Sierra Hotel discussed how the Weapons School taught tosses from low level with Pave Spike for high threat environments, so there's at least one to use if we get it...

Surprised not to see Coral Sea mentioned yet, 6 Vietnam cruises plus one more cat than the Midway or FDR. It would be a phun Phantom carrier.

No worries, the new number is below the 5 min limit. M1.4 on the deck seems attainable in the F, if not advisable all the caveats about becoming a test pilot by exceeding T.O. limits blah blah blah

The Good Book, T.O. 1F-111F-1 states: Airspeed restrictions are presented in Figure 54. With wings swept between 16 and 49 °, the airspeed limits shown in Figure .5-4 coincide witldhe limits programmed into the Standard Central Air Data Computer (SCADC). Refer to Figures 5-7 thru5-l0 for additional wing sweep/airspeed limits. The maximum sustained speed is coincident with a total temperature of15'.3 ° C (308 ° F). Flight at speeds which result in a total temperatures greater than 153 °C (308 ° F) is limited to 300 seconds per flight. The maximum dash speed is coincident with a total temperature of214 QC (418 °F) or2.50 Mach, whichever is less. NOTE Speeds in excess .of Mach 2.2 will begin to blister external aircraft paint and may result in the partial delamination of honeycomb panels with pre-existing defects. Said chart lists the limitation at SL as M1.2, M1.4 is 8,000 ft. Given those charts are corrected to standard day, M1.4 could be attainable for non standard conditions. Also, that's the T.O. limit, the F had much more powerful engines than the other Varks, so it could probably go faster at the risk of airframe damage. Anyone have the stagnation temperature handy for M1.2 standard day at SL? The -1 for the D and G have the same chart with different flight test dates, my guess is that M1.2 limit is either heat or flutter or they just tested out to the % flutter margin and called it a day since the contract requirement was M1.2 at SL. FWIW here's the verbiage for the D AIRSPEED AND ALTITUDE OPERATIONAL LIMIT ENVELOPES. The airspeed limits shown in figure 5-4 coincide with the limits programmed into the MSMA. Airspeed limitations shown in figure 5-4 do not reflect operational limitations imposed by cg considerations. Refer to figure 5-10 for additional wing sweep/airspeed limits. The maximum sustained speed is coincident with a total temperature of 153 degrees C. (308 degrees F). The maximum dash speed is coincident with a total temperature of 214 degrees C. (418 degrees F) or Mach 2.50, whichever is less. Flight at speeds which result in total temperatures greater than 153 degrees C. (308 degrees F) is limited to 5 minutes per flight. Airspeed limits for carriage of external stores are defined for each authorized loading configuration, refer to "Stores Limitations," this section.

Don't forget Palace Cobra: A Fighter Pilot in the Vietnam Air War also by Ed Rasimus, which is his Phantom memoir. Also, Magnum! The Wild Weasels in Desert Storm - Eisel, Schreiner is a good read, granted it's the G, but it's the Phantom's last big USAF action. If data is more your thing Have Doughnut and Project Red Baron are good, not Phantom specific though.

Kev, it very well could be. The computers are as you say obsolete, but the technique and execution for how they derived an emitter's position very well may/are still used in platforms today. If they were to fully declassify the G, folks might be able to figure out how good those other currently used systems are. The way the G and the HTS work are different, HTS is less sensitive (classification wise), hence we have it modeled. Furthermore, early implementations of HTS were far less capable than the G, it took a while before the Blk 50 matched the airframe it replaced. Back when I was in the business the EW types were pretty squirrely and liked to spend their days in the vault. Now, if they could get the info I'd love to get a G as much as the next guy

Great book, it tells the story very well how the Capt's and Maj's at FWS played a key roles changing USAF culture for the better post VN. If you're looking for war stories, Palace Cobra and Fighter Pilot by Ed Rasimus are a good start. Ed has a great chapter about dive toss...

BN already said there are no plans to add NBC weapons. What others and I suggested with that in mind is to simulate the restrictions of the wearing the MOPP gear instead of the weapons. Nothing macabre about that, at least nothing more than simulating killing people with normal conventional weapons. A lot of time in real life blue forces wear/carry MOPP gear "just in case" or because they're hitting the bad guys cache of that stuff. Furthermore, if in the future we get any Cold War Germany/Europe maps, then MOPP gear is an absolute must. Even though the Geneva and Hague conventions banded chemical weapons before WWII, both Warpac and NATO had massive stockpiles. Not to mention, each was certain the other would use their stockpile, so everyone practiced fighting in MOPP4. Finally, the MOPP gear is a royal pain in the ass to wear, much less function at a high level and don't even remind me about summer exercises with 100+ temperatures... That's why some folks think simulating the MOPP gear would add some more realism to the sim.

Just an idea that might be of interest, instead of simulating the weapons how about simulating NBC protective gear and procedure? The aircrew ensemble would restrict peripheral vision, sort of like NVG's, except that there would be clear plastic to look through and rubber gasket around the sides. Procedure wise it would be decontaminate the jet before taxiing back to the ramp. Use of the body condom to exit the jet would be a bit much, but that's how crews do it in real life. This would be in line with the real world if the blue jets struck a bunker/plant/lab that was thought to have chemical or biological weapons these are the things the crew would do just to be safe.

The inclusion of maintenance and logistics would be great, but as others mentioned dynamic campaign is a prerequisite for it to be worth while. FWIW, before I joined the dark side as aircrew I was a maintenance officer on Bones. Typically back at home station for a 12 PAA squadron you had 13 aircraft and flew a four turn two/three, day in and day out, during a 16 hour flying day with 4-6 hour missions with 1-2 spares. The jets were happy doing that, fly more lines a day or longer sorties and things start to break more often and eventually availability really starts to suffer. It'd be great to see that Goldilocks behavior modeled where in a campaign you have to keep things "just right" or have a bunch of non mission capable metal on the ramp.

Love the bombers! The BUFF looks much better than the Bone (biased, BUFF FTE here), although the CEM -10/28 modules look good as does the rotary. As of 2008 when I left bombers the BUFF was Litening only and only the Bone had Sniper, so hopefully we'll get that model as well (Litening on BUFF). The HSAB's look good, they'll look better with bombs, just no GBU-38's on the bottom middle stations please. One nit to pick, the flaps, slats and spoilers would never be deployed with that much sweep on the wing. IIRC they were limited to 25 degrees for flaps/slats and inboard spoilers locked out with more sweep.

All depends on the conditions when the handles are pulled. Fifteen years ago I completed water survival, water landings aren't nearly as bad as the ones on a hard surface, but still, "Feet and knees together eyes on the horizon..." It's actually kind of fun, except for manually inflation of the single man raft. IRL all ejection seat kits had a one man raft, and when we flew over water inflatable life vests were worn. Now, if you put that on wrong you could break a rib...

The two XL's were very much demonstrators. They were modified A airframes with modified Block 30 avionics at first. NASA later upgraded one of them with a Block 40 FLCS computer and rewrote the control laws a bit to take advantage of the digital computer for a Flight Qualities (FQ) program. The NASA FQ report showed that the control laws were WIP, there were a lot of high Cooper-Harper numbers recorded for various tasks. That said, the aero and performance is one of the best publicly documented and is regularly used to validate CFD in research. The control laws were never developed like those of a production A/C since the plane was never pursued. As an aside, the Mud Hen competition is often referenced as the end of the XL, but the Air Force had the option to convert the tail ends of both the F-15C and F-16C production into E's and XL's. They chose not to pursue the XL because the Cold War ended and they wanted to protect ATF funds. The XL would have been an FY90-1 plane so it would have been between the Block 40 and 50. As F-2 alluded, the best hope is a mod...

I very nearly posted something similar about the -105 and -111 gunsights, but a quick look at the the 1F-105F-1 and 1F-111A-34-1-1 confirmed the inner circle of their gunsights are solid not dashed like the F-4. So, not a Thud or Vark.