Home » Archives for Till Daisd » Page 15
Author

Till Daisd

Till is an aviation enthusiast blogger who has been writing since 2013. He started out writing about personal readings since expanded his blog to include information and stories about all aspects of aviation. Till's blog is a go-to source for anyone interested in learning more about aviation, whether you're a pilot or just a curious onlooker.

A-12-box
Cold War

CIA stored in boxes A-12 spy planes to Area 51 to keep the Oxcart project a secret

by Till Daisd
written by Till Daisd

The A-12 Oxcart at Area 51

Area 51, a top-secret military installation hidden in the desert northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, has been the testing ground for the United States’ most classified aircraft programs since 1955. The site is Groom Lake, referred to as “The Ranch” by the crews and workers of the time.

There, the Lockheed U-2 had been tested and flown. However, plans were underway in 1961 for the advent of an airplane that promised powers that would astound. The “Skunk Works” division of Lockheed, under commission by the CIA, created the A-12, which was intended to conduct reconnaissance missions over any target at heights above 80,000 feet and speeds exceeding Mach 3. If demonstrated to be effective, the A-12’s combination of speed and altitude would render it practically invulnerable to interception. This was the first aircraft flown under the renowned “Blackbird” name.

A-12 project

A-12 Oxcart stored in boxes

The A-12 had to be transported from its Skunk Works production site in Burbank to Area 51. In order to create a wide enough space for the aircraft, they occasionally had to excavate around the road during the trip.

Frank Murray, A-12 Pilot and Roadrunners Internationale Historian, contributed some exclusive details in his extensive and beautiful article (CLICK HERE to read the complete story). GROOM LAKE – AREA 51 A-12 ARCHANGEL CIA PROJECT OXCART, HOW THEY GOT HERE: On-The-Road:

A-12 CIA

‘The pictures show the varied nature of the trip from Burbank to Area 51. A couple of pictures show what can only be described as a “revolting development,” getting the big box wheels sunk in soft soil. Wonder how they got it jacked up and going again. No pictures of these steps. Several photographs show how close the box comes to signs, bridge abutments, etc. Travel was allowed on mid-week days, with no movement on the weekends or Holidays. During one of the movements, a Greyhound bus nicked the big box. The bus driver was paid cash for the bus repairs without any resultant attention to the details. The end of the road was the main hangar complex at Area 51, where the airplane was off-loaded into the hangar for re-assembly.

Did you know? To keep the A-12 project secret CIA stored in boxes Oxcart spy planes and moved them from Skunk Works production site to Area 51

A-12 Oxcart Arriving at Area 51

‘The first convoy departed Burbank on 26 February 1962 and arrived three days later. The second convoy carrying Article 122 departed for Area 51 on 26 June 1962, followed by Article 123 in August 1962. The two-seat Article 124 got to the Area in November 1962. The rest of the A-12s and the three YF-12s arrived by mid-1964.’

A-12 stored in boxes

Murray’s article continues with an eyewitness account:

‘To whom it may concern:

Did you know? To keep the A-12 project secret CIA stored in boxes Oxcart spy planes and moved them from Skunk Works production site to Area 51

‘My name is Jim Noce, and I recall being on those moves from the “Skunk Works” to the ranch. We left the Area early in the morning, taking turns driving until we reached Burbank. When we arrived, the Article was concealed in a large crate and covered with a tarp on the semi, ready to travel. We headed East on the Freeway, and the California State Police gave escort.

Did you know? To keep the A-12 project secret CIA stored in boxes Oxcart spy planes and moved them from Skunk Works production site to Area 51

‘The CSP had long poles along the route to clear hanging power lines or unpin road signs hinged for clearance purposes. When we reached the CA/NV border, we pulled to the side of the road and ate sack ‘lunches made up by the mess hall in the Area. We also had igloo coolers of lemonade and thermos of hot coffee or chocolate. We also had soda pop. Not bad for the ’60s.

Did you know? To keep the A-12 project secret CIA stored in boxes Oxcart spy planes and moved them from Skunk Works production site to Area 51

Greyhound Bus barely scraping the side of the A-12 Oxcart box

Did you know? To keep the A-12 project secret CIA stored in boxes Oxcart spy planes and moved them from Skunk Works production site to Area 51

‘After we had lunch, we headed up Highway 95 until we reached Mercury, that had our security clearance for entering the Atomic Proving Grounds. I may be wrong, but I think that once we reached the Ranch, the Article was uncrated and put on a cart by something like a cherry picker and I do believe the box was broken down and loaded back on the trailer, and sent back to Burbank. I never knew of anyone taking pictures from our group and I do recall the incident where a Greyhound Bus barely scraped the side of the box, and the driver was given cash to fix the few scratches avoiding insurance claims.

Did you know? To keep the A-12 project secret CIA stored in boxes Oxcart spy planes and moved them from Skunk Works production site to Area 51

‘Sincerely, Jim Noce Former CIA agent Area 51.’

Did you know? To keep the A-12 project secret CIA stored in boxes Oxcart spy planes and moved them from Skunk Works production site to Area 51

Check out Habubrats SR-71’s Twitter profile and Born into the Wilde Blue Yonder’s Facebook page for further Blackbird photos and stories.

Photo by  Roadrunners Internationale

ADDITIONAL CREDITS

Did you know? To keep the A-12 project secret CIA stored in boxes Oxcart spy planes and moved them from Skunk Works production site to Area 51
  • Dorsey G. Kammerer – Former Lockheed Enginer – Source of Photos
  • Jason Owen – Grandson of Kammerer- Contribution of Photos
  • Jim Noce – Former CIA Security Participant
  • Bob Murphy – Former Lockheed Project Manager
  • T.D. Barnes – Former EG&G Special Projects
  • Central Intelligence Agency
  • Lockheed-California Company
  • California Highway Patrol
  • Nevada Highway Patrol

Be sure to check out Roadrunners Internationale for some unique info about U-2, A-12 and YF-12 programs.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinRedditWhatsappTelegramEmail
F-32
History

Even though the Boeing F-32 may have had some advantages over the F-35, it would have had the same issues as the Lightning II

by Till Daisd
written by Till Daisd

The Boeing X-32

Boeing was given a four-year contract by the US Department of Defense in 1996 for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program competition’s concept demonstration phase. The intention was to create a low-cost, multirole tactical aircraft that could be used by the US Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, as well as the Royal Air Force and Navy of the United Kingdom.

At its plant in Palmdale, California, Boeing assembled the X-32A and X-32B concept demonstration aircraft.

On Sep. 18, 2000, the X-32A made its first flight from Palmdale to Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. The X-32A demonstrated conventional takeoff and landing characteristics for the Air Force as well as carrier approach flying qualities for the Navy. The aircraft made 66 flights during four months of testing. The flights validated the aircraft’s handling qualities for inflight refueling, weapons bay operations, and supersonic flight.

The X-32A took off from Palmdale and made its first flight to Edwards Air Force Base in California on September 18, 2000. The Air Force used the X-32A to demonstrate conventional takeoff and landing characteristics, and the Navy used it to demonstrate carrier approach flying qualities. The aircraft was tested for four months, making sixty-six flights. The aircraft’s handling qualities for supersonic flight, weapons bay operations, and in-flight refueling were confirmed by the flights.

On March 29, 2001, the X-32B aircraft took off for its maiden flight. It completed 78 test flights in four months, including a transcontinental ferry flight from Edwards Air Force Base to Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. The aircraft successfully transitioned to and from STOVL flight mode by using its direct-lift system to redirect thrust from the aircraft’s cruise nozzle to the lift nozzles. Additionally, the X-32B demonstrated off its capacity for hovering and vertical landings.

Following the end of the flight tests in July 2001, the Department of Defense declared on October 26 of that same year that the Lockheed Martin X-35 had been chosen over the X-32. The X-35 was further developed into the F-35 Lightning II.

The Boeing F-32 may have had some advantages over the F-35

Were there any areas where the Boeing X-32 was better than the Lockheed Martin X-35?

‘Of note was that the X-32 arrived at the competition nearly a month before the X-35. It was ready to go, and clearly had the early lead,’ says David Tussey, former US Navy A-7 pilot, on Quora.

– Probably cheaper. The X-32 took a less complex design, more manufacturable approach. And the proposed final design, which was different from the prototype, was much more conventional (dropped that one-piece delta wing).

– More survivable in combat. Probably, again owing to the less complex design.

– Probably more expandable, over time. I think the Lockheed design is somewhat more rigid, but that’s mostly speculation.

Tussey concludes;

‘One can only imagine what the designs would have looked like had the STOVL requirement been dropped. Once the Lockheed thrust-fan was proven to work, the competition was all over.’

The Boeing F-32 may have had some advantages over the F-35 but it would have had the same issues of the Lightning II. Here’s why.
This is the X-32 as flown and tested. Note the large delta wing.

The F-32 would have had the same issues of the F-35

However, as the mockup of the final F-32 shows, the aircraft would have had a totally revised wing (in place of the large delta wing of the X-32) and taileron concept. ‘When the competition winner was announced, this F-32 only existed on paper and in fiberglass models. It would have required years of further development to come to fruition,’ says David Rendall, an aviation expert, on Quora.

The Boeing F-32 may have had some advantages over the F-35 but it would have had the same issues of the Lightning II. Here’s why.
F-32 final mockup

‘Boeing hadn’t fully appreciated the naval aspects of control in carrier landings and so had to start afresh after they finalised the X-32. It was a huge error on their behalf and was one of the reasons they lost the deal, X-35 was much closer to the final product.’

Rendall concludes;

‘Most of the problems with F-35 have come from new avionics and coding issues and maintenance of the stealth outer coating. These would have been the same systems and materials used on F-32 so it would have had many of the same delays and problems on top of it needing a couple more years in the wind tunnel.’

Photo by Boeing and U.S. Air Force

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinRedditWhatsappTelegramEmail
F-4-Barricade-landing
Cold War

Naval Aviator recalls F-4 sliding off carrier deck during barricade landing

by Till Daisd
written by Till Daisd

The Barricade landing

Navy carrier operations are a furious ballet that flogs the senses, even in the calmest circumstances. This is taken a step further when the choice is made to rig the barricade, giving a few dancers PCP and sledgehammers.

Tim Hibbetts, former US Navy A-6 Intruder and F/A-18 Hornet pilot, explains on Quora;

‘If the call to rig the netting is made, it’s because the jet can’t land normally and the captain feels the conditions are perfect to take it aboard versus letting the pilot eject alongside the ship and simply plucking him out of the water, returning the plane to the taxpayers (though inconveniently parked). Even if the plane lands perfectly, there’s still a high chance that it’s going to be badly damaged. They are just not designed to take the barricade anymore.

‘Why so dangerous? The primary reason is that once the plane gets past a certain point on the approach, there is no way to safely wave off. It’s committed. In fact, you cut power and hopefully engage the netting as you touchdown.’

F-4 Phantom II sliding off the deck of the carrier

David Tussey, former US Navy A-7E Corsair II pilot, recalls on Quora;

‘I saw one snap in my entire Navy career of 20+ years. It was an F-4 that had almost hit the ramp on the previous approach. The impact broke one of the main landing gears in half, but the airplane managed to get airborne again. A decision was made to rig the barricade and trap the Phantom in it. It was late at night… Pitch dark.

‘The pilot flew a flawless approach to the barricade. As directed, he shut the engine down just before touch down. The aircraft engaged the barrier successfully, but the sheared main landing gear sliced through the bottom cable of the barricade, rendering the netting useless. The aircraft slid off the deck and the crew ejected. The RIO was recovered alive, but the pilot was never found. Tragic event.’

Tussey concludes;

‘This was on the USS Independence in the mid-70s. We later did several trial riggings of the barricade and discovered some mistakes in procedures, but nothing that would have prevented that accident. It was terrible watching that happen in real-time on the flight deck camera.’

Photo by U.S. Navy

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinRedditWhatsappTelegramEmail
X-59
Civil

Lockheed Martin Skunk Works Rolls Out X-59 QueSST NASA’s Newest X-Plane

by Till Daisd
written by Till Daisd

X-59 Roll out

Lockheed Martin Skunk Works rolled out the X-59 on Jan. 12, 2024, a unique experimental aircraft designed to quiet the sonic boom, at a ceremony in Palmdale, California. The ceremony marked a significant milestone in Lockheed Martin’s and NASA’s decades-long journey to solve one of the most persistent challenges of supersonic flight – the sonic boom.

“We’re thrilled to take on this challenge alongside NASA, whose quiet supersonic technology mission will have lasting, transformational impacts for people around the world,” said John Clark, vice president and general manager, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, said in a company news release. “This project is just one example of the broader ingenuity of our industry as we continually strive to push the envelope of what’s possible.”

Rollout ceremonies are a long-standing aviation tradition, and in the case of the X-59, it celebrated technical advancements, collaboration and innovation that stemmed from years of research, development and production of a one-of-a-kind technology demonstrator aircraft that will reduce the loudness of sonic booms to a gentle thump.

First flight later this year

“The entire X-59 team leaned into the expertise of both legendary organizations, NASA and Lockheed Martin, to ensure success for this program. I am extremely proud of everyone who made this historic moment possible,” said Greg Ulmer, executive vice president, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics.

Lockheed Martin Skunk Works Rolls Out X-59 QueSST NASA’s Newest X-Plane

Lockheed Martin, NASA and government leaders attended the ceremony to include:

  • Greg Ulmer, executive vice president, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
  • John Clark, vice president and general manager, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works
  • Pam Melroy, NASA Deputy Administrator
  • Jim Free, NASA Associate Administrator
  • Bob Pearce, NASA Associate Administrator
  • Dee Dee Myers, California’s Senior Economic Advisor to the Governor

Next, the aircraft will complete ground tests including engine-run and taxi tests before its next major milestone, first flight, later this year. After the aircraft is validated in initial flight tests, it will move into the acoustic testing phase. This phase will include flights over populated areas to provide US and international regulators with statistically valid data required to help approve new rules that could allow quiet commercial supersonic flight over land. This would cut commercial flight times to half of what they are today, transforming travel for people around the world.

The X-59 QueSST

For more than a decade, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works and NASA have collaborated to solve one of the most persistent challenges of supersonic flight – the sonic boom. Lockheed Martin Skunk Works is leading the design, build and flight test of the X-59 quiet supersonic technology (QueSST) X-plane. The technology demonstrator will be flown over populated areas to provide U.S. and international regulators with statistically valid data required to help approve new rules that could allow quiet commercial supersonic flight over land, which could bring us one step closer to quiet supersonic travel for passengers around the globe.

The X-59 is an experimental supersonic aircraft shaped to reduce the loudness of a sonic boom reaching the ground to that of a gentle thump. The X-plane accomplishes this by a tailored design that separates the shock waves that produce sonic booms, making them quieter. The resulting supersonic “heartbeat” is dramatically quieter than the disruptive N-wave boom generated by today’s supersonic aircraft. We look forward to supporting NASA in the effort to obtain the data regulators will need to make informed decisions on appropriate sonic boom levels in the quest to remove the prohibition on supersonic over land flight.

Lockheed Martin Skunk Works Rolls Out X-59 QueSST NASA’s Newest X-Plane

Photo by Barry Tice / Lockheed Martin

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinRedditWhatsappTelegramEmail
Top-Gun-Maverick
F-14 Tomcat

Maverick has some gas left in the tank: Top Gun 3 allegedly in Development, Tom Cruise, Glen Powell and Miles Teller to Return

by Till Daisd
written by Till Daisd

Top Gun 3

In the night of Jan. 11, 2024 Puck News reported that one of Tom Cruise’s biggest franchises is about to take flight once again. In fact, a third Top Gun movie is in the works, with Cruise expected to return alongside Top Gun: Maverick co-stars Miles Teller and Glen Powell.

As reported by Screen Rant, “Writing in the What I’m Hearing newsletter for Puck, Matt Belloni confirms that Top Gun 3 is in the works at Paramount. Cruise will reprise his role, as will Glen Powell and Miles Teller, who had prominent supporting parts as Hangman and Rooster, respectively, in 2022’s long-awaited sequel. Belloni adds that Top Gun: Maverick co-writer Ehren Kruger is already writing the script, with Joseph Kosinski potentially returning to direct as well as produce.”

As Comic Book says, according to Puck report, Maverick co-writer Ehren Kruger is currently working on the script, with producers Jerry Bruckheimer and David Ellison involved, and Maverick director Joseph Kosinski expected to either direct or produce. Although nothing is officially confirmed by Paramount Pictures, the report indicates that Top Gun 3 could be Cruise’s next movie after the forthcoming Mission: Impossible 8.

Maverick has some gas left in the tank

This comes just days after it was announced that Cruise has signed a development deal with Warner Bros. Discovery, where he will work with Warner Bros. Motion Picture Group’s Co-Chairs and CEOs Michael De Luca & Pam Abdy to develop both original and franchise feature films. Depending on how Cruise’s schedule shakes out, there is reportedly a chance that his projects with Warner Bros. would be delayed into late 2025 or beyond.

As one of the highest-grossing movies of 2022, the future of Top Gun franchise has been a source of speculation over the past few years.

In fact, there was a lot of speculation that a third film could tentatively be in the works amid the smash success of Top Gun: Maverick.

While Bruckheimer has repeatedly played coy about the possibility, Kosinski previously hinted that there is more story to tell with Cruise’s Pete “Maverick” Mitchell.

“Is there another story that is compelling enough that we need to go back?” Kosinski asked. “It seems to me at the end of this film that Maverick has some gas left in the tank. He’s not settling down.”

Photo by Paramount

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinRedditWhatsappTelegramEmail
Jackie-Vigilante
History

Vigilante pilot recalls giving a nearly Mach 2 ride to Jackie Cochran in the A3J

by Till Daisd
written by Till Daisd

The Vigilante

The North American A3J Vigilante was once intended to be a Mach 2 all-weather bomber with nuclear weapons capability. However, as nuclear submarines took over the Navy’s strategic deterrence mission, the Vigilante was converted into a fast reconnaissance aircraft. The resulting RA-5C Vigilante had advanced electronic equipment installed in its bomb bay, including vertical, oblique, and split-image cameras, passive electronic countermeasures, and side-looking airborne radar.

The Navy was eager for publicity after the Vigilante’s maiden flight in August 1958 and its numerous outstanding performance milestones by June 1960. According to Mark A. Frankel’s story in his book North American Aviation Jet Age: The Columbus Years 1941-1988, the public relations department of the NAA was authorized to invite noted aviatrix Jackie Cochran to ride in the rear cockpit of a Vigilante as it exceeded Mach 2.

A nearly Mach 2 ride to Jackie Cochran

Test pilot John Moore recalls the event:

‘We checked Jackie out in the rear seat of the A3J-1 Vigi. There were no flight controls in that cockpit, but she really did not care on this mission. She just wanted to achieve Mach 2. With the wisdom of a woman who held many aviation records, she carefully reviewed and digested cockpit matters related to the ejection system, radios, and the like. But she was impatient and wanted to get on with it.

‘The day was clear and warm, which caused me some concern. At 35,000 feet the temperature norm is minus 65 degrees[,] but on this day the weatherman gave us a minus 56 degree reading, which would be marginal for attaining Mach 2. Our performance guys said it might be close, but I should make that speed okay with my precious cargo in the back seat. So off we went. Our FAA[-]assigned supersonic corridor stretched from Knoxville, Tennessee[,] to Columbus, Ohio[,] with the provision that we be subsonic over both cities.

A3J Vigilante test pilot John Moore

‘About Mach 1.6 our acceleration rate became noticeably slower as the “Vigi” engines struggled with the warmer air. At Mach 1.9 we were accelerating very slowly, and I was running out of fuel and supersonic corridor at the same time. But I knew exactly what to do I pushed the intercom button and said with pride, “Jackie, here we are at Mach 2.” There was a moment’s silence, then she replied, “Buster, you may be at Mach 2 in the front cockpit, but I am only at Mach 1.96 in this cockpit.”

‘Rats! I had forgotten that she had a Mach meter on the instrument panel in her cockpit…’

At last, Jackie Cochran reaches Mach 2

Moore concludes;

‘She elected to stay another day to try again with more optimum temperatures projected along with a faster pilot. So, our boss, Jim Pearce, saved the day by taking his elegant passenger to Mach 2,01 in both cockpits of the Vigilante at the same time.’

North American Aviation Jet Age The Columbus Years 1941-1988 is published by Schiffer Publishing and is available to order here.

Jackie Cochran

Photo by U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinRedditWhatsappTelegramEmail
A-7-Tu-16
Cold War

US Navy A-7 pilot recalls when he flew alone into a formation of Soviet Tu-16 bombers to see if they were conducting a missile strike against his carrier

by Till Daisd
written by Till Daisd

A lonely US Navy A-7 intercepts a formation of Soviet Tu-16 Badger bombers

The Tupolev Tu-16, also known by the NATO reporting name Badger, was an innovative project that was developed in response to a need from the Soviet Ministry of Defense for a fast bomber that would counter the threats posed by NATO. Built around two turbojets, the most powerful jet engines in the world at the time, and it was the first Soviet medium bomber with swept wings. The Tu-16 was first flown in 1952 and was used for missile strikes, Electronic CounterMeasures, the delivery of nuclear bombs, and reconnaissance.

Upon entering service, the Badger was employed to track the movements of NATO carrier task forces. Western aviation publications were full of images of Soviet Tu-16s flying over the US Navy and Royal Navy aircraft carrier decks in the 1960s and 1970s.

Tu-16 Badger “simulated” attack on two US Carriers

Former US Navy A-7 Corsair II pilot David Tussey recalls on Quora;

‘I once intercepted a Badger “simulated” attack on two US Carriers operating in the Sea of Japan in 1986. The Badgers were out of Vladivostok. It was about 3 am in the morning. 5–6 aircraft. The formation sped quickly (450kts+) towards the carrier battle group, reached their presumed “launch position” about 100 miles away, and then turned back and slowed down to return home.

‘My job was to verify that there were no missiles on the Badger’s wings, which there weren’t any… So, we knew it was just a simulated attack. Using the carrier battle group as training. The carrier had spotted these aircraft very shortly after takeoff and was tracking them for well over a hundred miles before they turned back.

Flying inside a formation of Soviet Badger bombers

‘Got to admit…it was weird flying inside a formation of Soviet Badger aircraft in the pitch black of night…and they didn’t have their lights on. (My lights were on full display, so they knew for sure I was there.)

‘Creeeeepy. I’m sure the Soviet strike leader was none too happy to have this Navy jet along with them, moving from plane to plane to ascertain they weren’t carrying any anti-ship missiles.’

Tussey concludes;

‘In the end, the Badgers turned back. I left the formation. We tracked them all the way back to Vlad. I returned to the carrier just in time to catch an early breakfast, then hit the rack.

‘Just another Tuesday in Naval Aviation.’

Photo by U.S. Navy

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinRedditWhatsappTelegramEmail
Airbus-A320-Boeing-737-800-1200x627-1
Civil

Boeing 737 Vs Airbus A320: which is the better Short Haul Airliner? Boeing 737 Pilot gives Unbiased Perspective

by Till Daisd
written by Till Daisd

Boeing Vs Airbus

In the vast expanse of commercial aviation, two giants dominate the sky—Boeing and Airbus. These aerospace juggernauts are synonymous with modern air travel, producing a significant portion of the world’s commercial aircraft. According to Bristol Groundschool, yet, for the casual traveller or aviation enthusiast, the differences between a Boeing and an Airbus aircraft may not be immediately apparent.

One of the fundamental differences between Boeing and Airbus lies in their design philosophies. Boeing tends to favour a more traditional approach, often allowing pilots greater manual control. On the other hand, Airbus is renowned for its emphasis on fly-by-wire technology, incorporating more automation into the flying process.

According to Flight Deck Friend, the best way to describe the fundamental differences of Boeing and Airbus is to compare it’s two short haul airliners, the A320 and Boeing 737 because they are the most widely used short haul aircraft by airlines around the world by some margin.

How do they compare to each other?

Boeing 737 Vs Airbus A320

‘It’s a heated debate usually between two people who have not flown both,’ says Randy Duncan, Boeing 737 pilot, on Quora.

‘The Airbus people say their system lowers pilot workload and improves their situational awareness because it allows them to focus on the conduct of the flight at a higher level rather than worrying about flight dynamics.

‘The Boeing people say they don’t want some “damn computer” flying the airplane and that they have full control of the airplane and can roll it upside down if they needed to.

‘A320 overhead panel. I don’t know how it works but it looks well designed.

Airbus A320 Vs Boeing 737: which is the better Short Haul Airliner? The Unbiased Perspective of a Boeing 737 Pilot

‘A 737 overhead panel. I do know how this one works but the layout is complex and can get confusing.’

Airbus A320 Vs Boeing 737: which is the better Short Haul Airliner? The Unbiased Perspective of a Boeing 737 Pilot

Duncan continues;

‘I fly a 737 which has no stability augmentation except in the yaw axis. I hear a lot of Boeing pilots complaining about Fly By Wire. The ones with the strongest opinions have never flown an Airbus.

‘Boeing does have Fly by Wire in their widebody aircraft. The design philosophy is slightly different but there’s still a microprocessor that makes dynamic decisions about control deflection.

Different philosophies

‘Personally, I like my little 737 and I enjoy flying it. I would love to fly an Airbus but not enough to go through a training cycle to do it. When I’ve ridden in the jumpseat of an Airbus, I’m pretty much lost. I wouldn’t know how to start the engines and the procedures are foreign to me.

‘The Airbus cockpit looks spacious and well designed compared to the cramped quarters in a 737. I particularly like the Airbus jumpseat. The 737 jumpseat is an ironing board type of thing that folds out of the wall and the legroom makes a coach seat seem like luxury. It would be an engineering challenge to make it less comfortable. The 737 layout is very old and although it has had a lot of avionics, engine and wing updates, it still feels dated. That said, the 737 is very, very reliable. It’s very rare that we can’t dispatch the airplane. That wasn’t true of the older models.’

Duncan concludes;

‘I don’t really know which airplane is superior. Both companies are great at designing and building airplanes. The philosophy may be different in terms of controls and layout but both deliver a safe and reliable product.’

Airbus A320 Vs Boeing 737: which is the better Short Haul Airliner? The Unbiased Perspective of a Boeing 737 Pilot
United Airlines Airbus A320 and Boeing 737-800 on final approach at San Francisco

Photo by  Bill Larkins via Wikipedia

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinRedditWhatsappTelegramEmail
F-4-ejection
History

USAF F-4 crew members ejected two times from a Phantom II, grounded, and never flew an F-4 again

by Till Daisd
written by Till Daisd

The F-4

Constructed initially as a high-altitude interceptor, the F-4 Phantom II soon proved to be a unique aircraft, setting more than a dozen world records for speed, altitude, and climb time. It was unique because it carried no internal cannon, so the F-4 relied on radar-guided missiles for offense. An individual known as a Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) was needed to use its sophisticated sensors and weaponry.

The aircraft’s first flight took place in 1958 and was first delivered to Navy and Marine Corps squadrons in 1960. It became one of the most frequently used aircraft in aviation history when its performance and versatility eventually drew the attention of not only the US Air Force but also the air forces of 10 other countries.

The F-4 flew with the Air Force Thunderbirds and the Blue Angels and was the premier air superiority fighter for the Navy and Air Force for more than 20 years. Was there anything negative about the legendary F-4 Phantom II, even though its amazing skills are undeniable?

USAF F-4 Phantom II crew members were grounded

David Ecale, who served in the US Air Force, explains on Quora;

‘For F-4 pilots who eject a second time from an F-4, there is a very special punishment:

‘THEY ARE GROUNDED AND WILL NEVER FLY AN F4 AGAIN!

‘Who gives them this punishment? Their boss? Nope! The Board of Inquiry? Nope! The Flight Surgeon? Yup!

‘You see, ejection from an F-4 permanently compresses your spine. Two times & you’re done! (Note the profile of the WSO [the photo depicts a US Navy Phantom II hence the backseater was called RIO] in this picture. That’s some serious acceleration. You can actually see the compression in action.)

Airman explains why USAF F-4 Crew Members who Ejected two times from a Phantom II were Grounded and Never Flew an F-4 Again

‘WSOs get grounded, too!

‘I was at Luke AFB when the Base Commander ejected. I watched him get wheeled into the Hospital ER on a gurney. … It was his second F-4 bailout.’

By contrast, there was not a two-ejection limit for US Navy Phantom II crews as explains John Chesire, former F-4 and F-14 Tomcat pilot;

‘While the two-ejection limit was true for the Air Force, it was not true for the US Navy. I once knew and flew with a Navy RIO who had five ejections. Only the first four were successful. (Lt. David J. “Goose” Lortscher. His callsign Goose later became the RIO character’s callsign in the movie, Top Gun.)’

Photo by U.S. Navy

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinRedditWhatsappTelegramEmail
P-3-Sub
Cold War

P-3 NFO tells the story of when his Orion had to fly a 13-hour anti-submarine patrol and shut down 2 engines

by Till Daisd
written by Till Daisd

The P-3 Orion

Ten men focus on instrument panels, scopes, and detection devices as their P-3 Orion flies an ASW search pattern, far from land, skimming over rough seas whose darkness and depth conceal a potentially hostile submarine. The P-3 is one of many patrol aircraft operated by the Navy. Four constant-speed turboprop engines and thirteen and a half feet of paddle-blade propellers power it. To increase the time on the station for sea-level ASW work, two engines may be shut down.

The P-3 may operate with one of its four engines turned off in order to save fuel during its long-range patrols over land and sea. This makes longer missions—more than ten hours—possible. The engine that is shut down is the number one engine, which is located the farthest from the fuselage on the port side. Additionally, by doing this, engine smoke is reduced, improving visibility from the port aft window for surveillance.

Former Naval Flight Officer (NFO) Ross Hall recalled on Quora that he flew P-3 Orion anti-submarine and maritime surveillance aircraft.

‘Operating out of Iceland, our P-3 was tracking a Soviet submarine in the Norwegian Sea. We already had engine #1 loitered, which was standard procedure during our nine-hour flight. We were operating in EMCON (emissions control), so were not transmitting. Our P-3 was, however, monitoring the regular broadcast from our base, which informed us that our sister aircraft, due to relieve us on station, had been delayed. “Extend on station as long as practical” was our new order.

‘We routinely shut down #1 Engine during long range patrols but once a ship thought we were in distress and alerted the USCG.’ P-3 Orion NFO tells an unusual sea story.
P-3 Orion engine loiter shutdown

P-3 shuts down 2 engines

‘“Loiter number four”, and we shut down our second engine.

‘Our aircraft shuddered, as we settled into a low-speed, high angle of attack loiter. We ended up extending our time on station by almost four hours until the relief airplane arrived. Total flight time: almost thirteen hours!

‘Occasionally, the hours of boredom are punctuated by sheer terror, or occasionally by sheer bliss – I recall many occasions where fantastic events unfolded in front of my eyes: aurora borealis; adiabatic winds over a glacier; mountainous seas crashing over the flight deck of an aircraft carrier; exotic ports of call; the suicide of a friend and colleague; watching a fading tropical thunderstorm in a drunken haze.’

Hall concludes;

‘Looking back, I am most amazed at the profound responsibilities our nation lays at the hands of young, inexperienced people, and how they rise to the challenges presented to them. I consider myself very fortunate.’

Photo by U.S. Navy

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinRedditWhatsappTelegramEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts
@2019 - All Right Reserved. Designed and Developed by Aviation Wings