Victory205

The SL “performance” isn’t valid, he won’t let go of that, which speaks volumes, nor have I seen the information from valid altitudes and configurations proven, although it’s possible that I missed it. It’s possible to reduce a SL estimate from the precise EM charts (that are constructed specifically to show turn performance) mathematically, but I guess they don’t know how. It takes a little work.

The results will be obvious, since everyone will be able to see for themselves. It‘s not my call to divulge methodology, but I‘m confident that it will produce solid results. It just takes enormous time by people who have other jobs and families.

Ad hominem my arse, that‘s exactly what was happening. After months of disruptive posts, ignoring advice on best practices that will produce usable data, and being emotionally invested in his outcomes, we get a poor pitiful me response. The goal is getting accurate information by performing a simple task correctly. There should be zero drama in an analytical task without all of the nonsense. You notice that the gents who are interested in performance are finally beginning to show their work and at provide some their test parameters and methods. Still managing to leave us in the dark on a few inputs, but there is hope that we’ll end up with useful information. Maybe someday, they’ll move up to the EM Chart altitudes. If I am wrong about the way I approach a task, or am using an improper technique or have an inaccurate setup, or am stuck on stupid myself in any way, then I want to be told about it so it can be corrected. Valid performance should always produce repeatable outcomes. Don’t forget, the context of all of this is occurring when we know that the performance modeling is not finished.

The wounded victim look is unbecoming. When the time comes, simply produce a paper with the targets and outcomes, using the correct charts in known configurations and altitudes, no additional extrapolation for any reason, including either video or confirmation from the community that replicates your results. Not some half assed snippet that lists rows of numbers. If your numbers don’t correlate, then you need to provide proof. That’s how peer review is done. When you reference irrelevant charts, like the SAC and HM, or don’t produce both testing methodology in terms of how and where you obtained both the targets and the results that don’t correlate at least via video, you lose credibility. To avoid bias, most fly the test, then look up the targets after the test is complete. Do it right, or don’t do it at all.

One word - Labradar Wasn’t a Harrier pilot shot down in the Falkland by a SAM that he was visually tracking? Supposedly he didn’t bother to maneuver because he was above the “effective” range of the Argy SAMs? Don’t know. In all of the missile shoots I heard about or was involved in, I never heard of an engine stall. Same with gun firing. I guess that the experience was different in the 1970’s.

Modern Technique of the Pistol is a bit outdated. Like most in completion and law enforcement, I’m a mod iso shooter though, he was pretty dogmatic about the Weaver Stance. Rob Leatham, Brian Enos (the zen of shooting), Kelly McCann (integrated combatives) are probably better sources. Cooper is great on mindset, which applies to every facet of life. @SgtPappy Stalls are overstated right now. One of the long discussions has involved reducing the stall issues from that of “conventional wisdom” (that dumb movie again). Eventually we’ll get less stalls due to wake turbulence, and inevitable dual stalls in flat spins in the A (and some in the B too).

Indeed, the quote system drives us all nuts. Standard tanking speed was 250 knots using organic assets. The KC10 and 135 would typically be at 280 KIAS, while C130’s were at 220-230 usually. Engine stall in wake turbulence wasn’t an issue. It suddenly became a thing after “Top Gun the Movie™ “ was released in 1986. I remember that all of a sudden, my RIO was worried about it. 250 was a sweet spot, that’s what I set up the S3 at while testing drag and throttle response during tanking. It didn’t waste a lot of fuel, plenty of maneuver authority and engine response. You could move in and stop precisely without too much coast. I generally moved the wings aft a couple of clicks, which ended up being around 35 degrees. Whatever works for you. Moving the wings aft increases the deck angle and reduces pitch response slightly. All the way to Bomb is more appropriate to the faster speeds of the USAF tankers, it also extended glove vanes which made the aircraft a little pitchy at those subsonic speeds. I didn’t use Bomb mode. Oh crap, I inadvertently mentioned Glove Vanes…

How do I say this? Some of the pilots that are semi-worshipped on social media (not just the military guys) are in reality, well, I better not say it. Like Okie said, “Would I let him date my daughter? NO!” applies more broadly than you might thing. Some have fouled up their lives so badly that they’re on Youtube trying to make enough money to keep the lights on. It’s a same, because some are fantastic people- Bio Baranek, David Parsons, great guys who won’t embellish and don’t self promote or fleece people. They are simply interested in the profession. All of this “fighter pilot” worship began with the advent of social media monetization, dovetailing from “that Movie”. It will be interesting to see if Top Gun Part Deux intensifies it. Things like veteran’s discounts are relatively new. We didn’t have any of that when I was on active duty, I was astounded to learn that after thirty odd years, I suddenly qualify for generous discounts at Lowe’s, AT&T, Apple, etc. I knew from playing football, that we were just passing through. The fans and alums would be fawning over the next set of juvenile delinquents as soon as we left. Same with Navy, same with any profession. You are just passing through, to be replaced by someone who will eventually do your job better than you did. Walk into my home, and you’d be hard pressed to know what I did for a living. No “I love me wall” like you see from the YouTubers, but a lot of books! Switching subjects, you have the right idea about practicing flying in the landing configuration, feeling out the aircraft, trying to understand how it responds. When we get the final numbers sorted, we’ll talk about how to fly the CQ pattern more. It’s pretty dialed in. I was initially disappointed that our changes didn’t make it in last time, but I realize that it’s provided more time to dial it in even better. Flying a jet really is an instrument task, it requires a light touch and your full attention, but it isn’t difficult. There is a reason Navy pilots get their instrument ratings before going into FAM and the rest of the training syllabus.

Remember gang, “stuck on stupid” doesn’t imply a lack of mental facility, it means focused on the wrong thing, especially trivial items that aren’t germane to the real problem. Fiddling with the radio when you’re about to fly into a mountain. We all do it. If Hummingbird would just get his arse up to 5000 feet with 4x4 at the test weight (you do understand that the 6.5G limit is associated with a weight limit), he’d be a great asset. I think he’s afraid of heights. The detuning thing continues to be obscure. The initial cadre in the 124 RAG and VF1 and 2 had massive issues with fan blades coming off and cutting fuel lines and cells. They were grounded from time to time until a containment could be designed and put around the engine casing to prevent it. Somewhere in that time frame, the engine thrust was reduced as an adjunct of changing fuel control behavior to prevent stalls. When or exactly what that entail was never articulated to us. The difference between installed thrust, ram effect, mid compression bypass losses vs the absolute thrust delta remains somewhat murky. In the end, the pilot goes up and maneuvers to get a feel for what the aircraft will do, what works, and what doesn’t. The focus on determining precise thrust numbers that you see from enthusiasts wasn’t a thing. Just to reiterate. We had very few issues with engine stalls. I canvassed my squadron buds and the hours between stalls averaged ~1600 hrs per pilot. We learned how to manage the throttles. The GE engines were the real answer, and they had problems too.

Cooper was a brilliant thinker and speaker. He had a manner of distilling information into useful rules of thumb. The color codes and Four Laws are a great example. It’s a shame that he’s gone, his observations on present times would have been epic. Kids attempting to cancel him for some of his views would have shown the world what to do when a mob tries to ruin a person. Tinker Burgers were world renown. In their heyday, they were about eight inches in diameter. I am not interested whatsoever in being any sort of “celebrity” that we have seen develop over the past decade or so due to social media. Regular, run of the mill guys are self promoting on social media to make a few bucks, some of it is interesting, a lot is rehashing of things that we have all known about or heard for literally decades. Nothing wrong with that, it helps preserve the history and some funny events, but everyone has stories. Anecdotes are just part of the journey, and does not construe some sort of exalted status, especially considering the massive team effort that it took to make it all happen. I’d like to see venues like the Tomcast podcast bring on maintenance troops, cat and arresting gear crew and officers, Air Bosses and so forth to talk about where the real work gets done, and the challenges inherent in the profession.

For those who are interested in development- We’re all extremely fortunate that HB engineers have the mindset to continue to work to get it right. I’d have difficulty sleeping at night with what I alone have put Fat Creason, callsign “Boogeyman” through in terms of handling. Hummingdude is using estimated charts drawn with crayon, and demanding precision as if they were laser etched by an aircraft flown by a computer “script”. Just look at Ps-0 line on the H-M chart, does it look like it’s a precise depiction of aircraft performance? Do you actually believe that the squiggles highlighted in red depict anomalies in aircraft performance, or did the draftsman’s hand slip? Why aren’t the aberrations present on the EM charts? The SAC charts are general and based on estimated engine performance, yet a couple of you act like you found the Dead Sea Scrolls. What engines, before or after the TF30 was detuned? What’s the stall speed based on? The aircraft doesn’t exhibit stall break. The climb numbers are bizarrely overstated with precision that isn’t measurable. It bizarre that what is essentially a marketing brochure type of information is “defended”. It’s being stuck on stupid, which that doesn’t reference being stupid, it references continuing to ignore explanations by professionals who actually obtain and reduce the data. What explains an obstinate refusal to simply match the parameters of the EM charts, by testing at a configuration and altitude shown on the chart? What in the name of Leroy Grumman is stopping you from flying a level turn at 5000 MSL with 4x4 at the appropriate weight? What explains all of the drama at this point, when we know that the acceleration performance isn’t finished? But what do I know, I just flew the airplane.

It’s a waste of time to continually explain what a recipient can’t grasp due to a lack of physics, math and basic common sense. I call it being “stuck on stupid”, a borrowed phrase, where someone spends intense energy on something that is of no consequence. There is no way to get someone off of their obsession. If it brings them enjoyment, that’s fine, but perspective is always in order, as some of you have shown. Individual airplanes also have different G capabilities due to load out, fairing alignments, trim drag, control and flap rigging, total engine thrust due to engine trim and age. It’s not a digital world, everything has a range of specifications that are acceptable. A little anecdote for your edification- We had an A4 that was barely making the required takeoff EPR check. It was underperforming, so it was relegated to basic FAM and instrument flights. I flew it with a student out to El Centro to deliver parts to a weapons detachment, getting a couple of RI hops on the student in the process. The thing was a dog, barely climbed to the mid thirties. Throttle wide assed open to make cruise Mach, but we had two drops and a blivet for the parts, it wasn’t surprising that it wasn’t exactly screaming. We ferried it back to Tinker AFB in OKC after delivering the parts, grabbing a famous “Tinker Burger” back in the maintenance hangar canteen. Since we didn’t have a ladder on XC’s, we shinnied down the refueling probe to the wing, and went aft, hopping down using the starboard fuel tank as a step. As I went down the right side of the fuselage, I noticed that the side of the aircraft was abnormally hot. Couldn’t see anything using the inspection doors, but I checked again when we landed back at home plate and found it warm again, so I showed the guys where it was located and wrote it up. Maintenance ended up pulling the tail to access the full engine. Turns out, there was a 4” by 4” hole in the compressor section where the case had broken at an accessory mounting angle. The Pratt motor and self installed it’s own mid compression bypass.

Those are simple Vmax values, not the times associated with them. Level accels, windup turns, sawtooth climbs, pull up push over, even split S’ are used to obtain data that is then reduced mathematically construct the various Energy charts. While it may be fun to compare, it should be obvious that the information is mathematically derived (there is no “unlimited fuel/constant weight” setting), due to cost, time and sometimes the danger involved, and a 3% accuracy result is considered outstanding.

Even if it’s a Vulcan Bomber? Very confident you say?

You can’t see what you write? I’d throw that Kindle away if it won’t let you see mistakes and allow you to change them before you hit send. Get your money back. Come back down to earth, consider the problem. Note that I didn’t specify aircraft type at all. Think only about the problem. That’s the point.

How in the world do you go from energy state comparison to Vulcan Bombers? Are you British? First things first, how do you spell the word “lose”? Two “o’s” or one? You must work on a Rabbit Farm!

Think in terms of total energy. Don’t get bogged down in thrust to weight. We’re not adding power in the zoom. Simple concept, too many are rushing down rabbit holes.

I changed the typo at 35K, the aircraft overperforms at Vmax all but one altitude. Thanks Cheezit!

I don’t know what Hummingbird or others are doing, what they are looking at, why some seem obsessed with testing at SL where there are no references, there is ground effect modeled who knows how by DCS, nor have I seen any method to validate performance “interpolation” whatsoever. It’s quite easy to just replicate the conditions portrayed on the H-M and Maneuver charts, and then fly those profiles. If someone is going to make up the targets, then proof of methodology to include supporting documents of both references and results are required. Otherwise, it simply an irrelevant opinion. Until valid answers are provide in a demonstrative paper, I’d simply ignore it. Especially since the outcomes are frequently not in line with what you can see by doing it yourself.

The F14B configured as described, picks up a ~1500 fpm descent rate when rolled into a 30 AOB. After about a 400 foot descent, it slowly levels and pitches back up, demonstrating positive dynamic stability. Are you familiar with phugoid oscillations? You were doing so well, writing at a far higher level than most, and the you just had to misspell “lose”. I was devastated. I wouldn’t waste time flying too much with the SB in and DLC disengaged. I’d get familiar with power response and power settings in the landing config. I would be quick to say that they are about to change for the better, so get familiar, just don’t write the numbers in stone. My top end velocities in the F14B- F14B max mach at Max AB with 4x4 and 55K on fuel vs H-M Diagram Pg XI-9-3 Fig 9-2 Cross referenced to Maneuvering Diagram at corresponding altitudes- Alt - Actual/Target SL - 1.10/1.07 5K - 1.227/1.22 15K - 1.449/1.44 25K - 1.705/1.72 35k - 2.045/1.95 Mil power 15K - .985 35K - .974 All level accelerations as per the chart methodology with unlimited fuel. Understand, the width of the Ps=0 lines is approximately .01 to .02 Mach

What are the instantaneous total energy states of the two aircraft? If you did the maneuver at zero thrust, does that change anything?

Yeah, we need to slow it down just a little. Still a WIP.

Good grief people, it isn’t rocket science. The A had a max gross weight for mil power cat shots, based on SE fly away for the existing conditions. Above that weight, you needed a burner shot. The B didn’t use burner for cat shots due to additional thrust available at mil (roughly equal to zone 2 on an A), single engine control issues at typical end speeds, and cat interface depending again, on conditions, what ship, etc. The B engines had a slightly worse SFC than the A, but not having to use burner for takeoff saved fuel overall for a typical flight.

Interesting.