Thank you for the landing explanation. It's amazing that we have systems that can land planes safely in bad conditions even if it takes a few tries.
Do you experience turbulence at high speeds?
Do you experience turbulence at high speeds?
F-14 Questions Answered - Ask Away
- Thread starter Astro14
- Start date
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Oldmoparguy1
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
What was the worst sea-state or deck pitch that you've had to take off and land in? Especially in those conditions, what was the rate of being a bolter (attempted vs successful landings)?
In addition to flying the big fighter, I was an LSO. In fact, I was an LSO in the fleet, then in the RAG (where I was the head of the carrier landing phase of instruction...a phase that washed out more young Tomcat drivers than any other...the F-14 was a handful to bring aboard), and then as the senior LSO on the boat, known as CAG Paddles.
Finally, it always seemed to be cold & raining whenever I was waving pitching deck...adding just a bit more challenge (and some misery) to an already challenging situation...
Cheers,
Astro
Daaym Astro!
You write as good as you fly! When I finished reading that, I was holding my breath. Thank you...
+1
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
What was the worst sea-state or deck pitch that you've had to take off and land in? Especially in those conditions, what was the rate of being a bolter (attempted vs successful landings)?
In addition to flying the big fighter, I was an LSO. In fact, I was an LSO in the fleet, then in the RAG (where I was the head of the carrier landing phase of instruction...a phase that washed out more young Tomcat drivers than any other...the F-14 was a handful to bring aboard), and then as the senior LSO on the boat, known as CAG Paddles.
Finally, it always seemed to be cold & raining whenever I was waving pitching deck...adding just a bit more challenge (and some misery) to an already challenging situation...
Cheers,
Astro
Daaym Astro!
You write as good as you fly! When I finished reading that, I was holding my breath. Thank you...
+1
Originally Posted By: Astro14
I'm just glad you took the time to read it all...
This has to be the best internet thread of all time. I'm a bit frustrated considering myself very technically oriented not being able to understand much of it. I had aspirations to fly at the beginning of my career but thought Air Force. I mean, aversion to carrier landings is a no brainer. I washed out because I lost my cool with someone and decided to withdraw. But i probably could not have passed the g force tests and such either. I saw some vids of a civilian in the back seat passing out every time the jet turned. I could envision blowing out a blood vessel in my brain and dying instantly. That'd be my luck.
In top gun they were talking about a negative x-g turn when they shot the bird at the Russians. Wouldn't that have caused a huge blood pressure in their brains? You also hear of pilots getting red eyes where the blood vessels rupture.
Would you say the experience is fun, stressful, or stressful fun? There is a private facility that gives you a ride in an f4 for $10,000. Maybe someday if I get some money to blow.
I'm just glad you took the time to read it all...
This has to be the best internet thread of all time. I'm a bit frustrated considering myself very technically oriented not being able to understand much of it. I had aspirations to fly at the beginning of my career but thought Air Force. I mean, aversion to carrier landings is a no brainer. I washed out because I lost my cool with someone and decided to withdraw. But i probably could not have passed the g force tests and such either. I saw some vids of a civilian in the back seat passing out every time the jet turned. I could envision blowing out a blood vessel in my brain and dying instantly. That'd be my luck.
In top gun they were talking about a negative x-g turn when they shot the bird at the Russians. Wouldn't that have caused a huge blood pressure in their brains? You also hear of pilots getting red eyes where the blood vessels rupture.
Would you say the experience is fun, stressful, or stressful fun? There is a private facility that gives you a ride in an f4 for $10,000. Maybe someday if I get some money to blow.
Last edited by a moderator:
Astro, I too want to add my thanks for this thread. It is one of the main reasons I check the Aviation forum, to see if there is something new here.
In conjunction with your discussion about a pitching deck, recommend to readers the 2008 PBS series "Carrier." Specifically, Episode 7: "Rites of Passage," Chapter 4: "Swells" and Chapter 5: "Bolter Bolter Bolter." Some very happy looking pilots once they landed.
http://www.pbs.org/weta/carrier/full_episodes.htm
In conjunction with your discussion about a pitching deck, recommend to readers the 2008 PBS series "Carrier." Specifically, Episode 7: "Rites of Passage," Chapter 4: "Swells" and Chapter 5: "Bolter Bolter Bolter." Some very happy looking pilots once they landed.
http://www.pbs.org/weta/carrier/full_episodes.htm
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Astro14
I'm just glad you took the time to read it all...
This has to be the best internet thread of all time. I'm a bit frustrated considering myself very technically oriented not being able to understand much of it. I had aspirations to fly at the beginning of my career but thought Air Force. I mean, aversion to carrier landings is a no brainer. I washed out because I lost my cool with someone and decided to withdraw. But i probably could not have passed the g force tests and such either. I saw some vids of a civilian in the back seat passing out every time the jet turned. I could envision blowing out a blood vessel in my brain and dying instantly. That'd be my luck.
In top gun they were talking about a negative x-g turn when they shot the bird at the Russians. Wouldn't that have caused a huge blood pressure in their brains? You also hear of pilots getting red eyes where the blood vessels rupture.
Would you say the experience is fun, stressful, or stressful fun? There is a private facility that gives you a ride in an f4 for $10,000. Maybe someday if I get some money to blow.
Thanks turtlevette - I appreciate it!
I loved the experience. Stress comes from the demands of the mission - I never really felt stress from just flying the airplane, though, when I was brand new to the jet, there was stress from my own performance expectations with this big, complex, fast airplane.
There was always some of that performance expectation (self-placed as much as anything) when I was landing on a carrier...so, stress, yes, but I exhilarating and fun as well.
I was one of those weird guys who would gladly fly at night (some guys hated it)...I would take the flying experience, along with the stress of night carrier landings, over sitting on the boat every single time. Some guys really preferred not to fly at night at all...their stress/fun balance was different than mine, I suppose.
A ride in an F-4 would be great. That jet was a triumph of engineering for its time. Very good thrust/weight, even to this day. It would be worth it.
The negative G thing in Top Gun was complete Hollywood. The airplane was limited to about -2.3G, but your eyeballs were only good to about -2.0G. I've flown inverted on many occasions, and even -1.0G is a bit uncomfortable (fun, but not easy on your body).
A good friend (sadly, we lost him a long time ago, but that's another story) owned a Pitts Special. I saw him once at the squadron with completely bloodshot eyes...just like you would suspect, the capillaries in the eyes are what breaks first under negative G...he said it was a Lomcovak gone wrong, and he thought they hit -2.5...no thanks...and I don't know anyone that claims to have hit -4.0 as claimed in TopGun...
Positive G is another thing altogether. You can train for that. You can tolerate that for quite a while. First, you've got to raise your blood pressure so that it still gets to your brain. No blood flow to your brain, and 5 seconds later, it shuts down. It's simply hydraulics - a pressure and a column height (distance from heart to brain) relationship.
You can't really change the column height, though the F-16 reduced it somewhat with a reclining seat, so, you have to raise the pressure. You do this by increasing thoracic pressure. Inhale sharply, tighten your diaphragm, close your throat and squeeze. Exhale quickly and repeat. As long as you do that, you can keep your BP high enough to maintain blood flow to your brain. It takes a combination of muscular strength and aerobic capacity to sustain this effort. Short, squatty guys have an advantage here with a lower column height. I was at a disadvantage, being 6"1' and having a BP of 100/60 (back then). Hypertensive smokers would have an advantage, too, if it were just your static blood pressure in consideration. But the only way to get above about 4.0 G is to increase your blood pressure. That takes the fitness I described. I compensated for my static disadvantage through training and could maintain the Anti-G Strain Maneuver for a very long time.
Also, the blood goes to your legs, and with a G suit, and with pumping up the muscles of your legs and lower abdomen, you can force it back up to your heart. I loved pulling "G"...and the F-14B, in military power at 450 KIAS would maintain a steady 5 G indefinitely...so when I was teaching low-level flying, part of my sortie would include some G-tolerance flying...loaded up at 5-6 "G" for 15-20 minutes...
One other odd physiological note. For me (and this varies slightly for other people), the capillaries in my legs would burst at about 7.5 G. So, if I felt "tingling" in the back of my thighs, I knew I was overstressing the Tomcat, or right at the stress limit of the Hornet. I could feel the G and didn't have to look back inside the cockpit. And, oddly, there would be all of these little spots on the back of my legs after the flight - we called them "G measles" because it looked like you had measles...they were re-absorbed after a few days, like tiny bruises...
Admiral V - I'll have to give that video a watch. I've seen some snippets of it after one of my cousins told me about the series. I know some of the guys in it. The squadron CO/XO were peers of mine and I've flown with at least one of them...I love those documentaries...they take me back, and I can still smell the jet exhaust and salt air...
Originally Posted By: Astro14
I'm just glad you took the time to read it all...
This has to be the best internet thread of all time. I'm a bit frustrated considering myself very technically oriented not being able to understand much of it. I had aspirations to fly at the beginning of my career but thought Air Force. I mean, aversion to carrier landings is a no brainer. I washed out because I lost my cool with someone and decided to withdraw. But i probably could not have passed the g force tests and such either. I saw some vids of a civilian in the back seat passing out every time the jet turned. I could envision blowing out a blood vessel in my brain and dying instantly. That'd be my luck.
In top gun they were talking about a negative x-g turn when they shot the bird at the Russians. Wouldn't that have caused a huge blood pressure in their brains? You also hear of pilots getting red eyes where the blood vessels rupture.
Would you say the experience is fun, stressful, or stressful fun? There is a private facility that gives you a ride in an f4 for $10,000. Maybe someday if I get some money to blow.
Thanks turtlevette - I appreciate it!
I loved the experience. Stress comes from the demands of the mission - I never really felt stress from just flying the airplane, though, when I was brand new to the jet, there was stress from my own performance expectations with this big, complex, fast airplane.
There was always some of that performance expectation (self-placed as much as anything) when I was landing on a carrier...so, stress, yes, but I exhilarating and fun as well.
I was one of those weird guys who would gladly fly at night (some guys hated it)...I would take the flying experience, along with the stress of night carrier landings, over sitting on the boat every single time. Some guys really preferred not to fly at night at all...their stress/fun balance was different than mine, I suppose.
A ride in an F-4 would be great. That jet was a triumph of engineering for its time. Very good thrust/weight, even to this day. It would be worth it.
The negative G thing in Top Gun was complete Hollywood. The airplane was limited to about -2.3G, but your eyeballs were only good to about -2.0G. I've flown inverted on many occasions, and even -1.0G is a bit uncomfortable (fun, but not easy on your body).
A good friend (sadly, we lost him a long time ago, but that's another story) owned a Pitts Special. I saw him once at the squadron with completely bloodshot eyes...just like you would suspect, the capillaries in the eyes are what breaks first under negative G...he said it was a Lomcovak gone wrong, and he thought they hit -2.5...no thanks...and I don't know anyone that claims to have hit -4.0 as claimed in TopGun...
Positive G is another thing altogether. You can train for that. You can tolerate that for quite a while. First, you've got to raise your blood pressure so that it still gets to your brain. No blood flow to your brain, and 5 seconds later, it shuts down. It's simply hydraulics - a pressure and a column height (distance from heart to brain) relationship.
You can't really change the column height, though the F-16 reduced it somewhat with a reclining seat, so, you have to raise the pressure. You do this by increasing thoracic pressure. Inhale sharply, tighten your diaphragm, close your throat and squeeze. Exhale quickly and repeat. As long as you do that, you can keep your BP high enough to maintain blood flow to your brain. It takes a combination of muscular strength and aerobic capacity to sustain this effort. Short, squatty guys have an advantage here with a lower column height. I was at a disadvantage, being 6"1' and having a BP of 100/60 (back then). Hypertensive smokers would have an advantage, too, if it were just your static blood pressure in consideration. But the only way to get above about 4.0 G is to increase your blood pressure. That takes the fitness I described. I compensated for my static disadvantage through training and could maintain the Anti-G Strain Maneuver for a very long time.
Also, the blood goes to your legs, and with a G suit, and with pumping up the muscles of your legs and lower abdomen, you can force it back up to your heart. I loved pulling "G"...and the F-14B, in military power at 450 KIAS would maintain a steady 5 G indefinitely...so when I was teaching low-level flying, part of my sortie would include some G-tolerance flying...loaded up at 5-6 "G" for 15-20 minutes...
One other odd physiological note. For me (and this varies slightly for other people), the capillaries in my legs would burst at about 7.5 G. So, if I felt "tingling" in the back of my thighs, I knew I was overstressing the Tomcat, or right at the stress limit of the Hornet. I could feel the G and didn't have to look back inside the cockpit. And, oddly, there would be all of these little spots on the back of my legs after the flight - we called them "G measles" because it looked like you had measles...they were re-absorbed after a few days, like tiny bruises...
Admiral V - I'll have to give that video a watch. I've seen some snippets of it after one of my cousins told me about the series. I know some of the guys in it. The squadron CO/XO were peers of mine and I've flown with at least one of them...I love those documentaries...they take me back, and I can still smell the jet exhaust and salt air...
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-five-maneuvers-that-were-prohibited-in-the-f-14-tom-1757179036
Number 2 is kinda hard for me to believe. I thought they could fly inverted all day long. And thought the fuel delivery system is more sophisticated than that. I thought too many negative g was a pilot limitation, causing a stroke.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-five-maneuvers-that-were-prohibited-in-the-f-14-tom-1757179036
Number 2 is kinda hard for me to believe. I thought they could fly inverted all day long. And thought the fuel delivery system is more sophisticated than that. I thought too many negative g was a pilot limitation, causing a stroke.
I found this interesting.
http://www.ejectionsite.com/F-14 SHOOTDOWN.pdf
http://www.ejectionsite.com/F-14 SHOOTDOWN.pdf
Originally Posted By: spasm3
I found this interesting.
http://www.ejectionsite.com/F-14 SHOOTDOWN.pdf
That's a great story!
There were flight manual missile loading limits involving station four...and loading an AIM-7F without the improved autopilot software on station four was strictly prohibited. AIM-7M was OK.
We had heard, anecdotally, about missiles hitting the airplane, but it wasn't until after I flew the airplane for several years that I heard about the shoot down.
This is the first time that I've ever read about it. Hearing it from his perspective was great.
Thanks!
I found this interesting.
http://www.ejectionsite.com/F-14 SHOOTDOWN.pdf
That's a great story!
There were flight manual missile loading limits involving station four...and loading an AIM-7F without the improved autopilot software on station four was strictly prohibited. AIM-7M was OK.
We had heard, anecdotally, about missiles hitting the airplane, but it wasn't until after I flew the airplane for several years that I heard about the shoot down.
This is the first time that I've ever read about it. Hearing it from his perspective was great.
Thanks!
Last edited by a moderator:
You could have already mentioned, but it's such a long thread...
How many hours of flight before the engines got an overhaul? and did thzey just swap in some ready on the shelf engines so the bird was ready to go ASAP? who/where did the rebuilding?
How many hours of flight before the engines got an overhaul? and did thzey just swap in some ready on the shelf engines so the bird was ready to go ASAP? who/where did the rebuilding?
I was also wondering how they avoid DVT ( deep vein thrombosis ) while seated for long flights, i guess they are young, but still its a risk.
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
You could have already mentioned, but it's such a long thread...
How many hours of flight before the engines got an overhaul? and did thzey just swap in some ready on the shelf engines so the bird was ready to go ASAP? who/where did the rebuilding?
I wish I knew the hour number, but I actually don't. It was long, like 1000 hours, but I'm not certain...
Engines would be changed if they were due for that inspection/overhaul or if they were damaged.
To keep a fighter in the air when it was needed, all Navy airplanes were designed for quick engine changes. In the F-14, it could be done in the shadow of the airplane. That is, underneath the jet. There were only a few mounting points. An engine cart was rolled underneath a parked jet, access doors opened, and the then all the fuel lines, etc. were disconnected. Just a few mounting bolt held it in place. Three I think. Then the engine cart would be rolled out from under the jet.
Roll the new engine underneath, bolt it up, connect the lines and the jet was back in service.
Squadron mechanics were good at engine/component changes. We had lots of different specialties: AD -engine mechanic, AE - aviation electrician, AM - airframe/structural mechanic, AMH - hydraulics, AO - ordnance, PR - survival equipment, AME - escape systems AW - weapon system...there were lots more, but you get the idea...but they didn't rebuild parts/components at the squadron level.
Rebuild/overhaul happened at what we called intermediate maintenance. Each Naval Air Station (NAS, like NAS Oceana) and each carrier had their own AIMD. Rebuilds required specialize testing equipment/benches and specialized expertise. Sometimes, when a part was simply shot, you just get a new one...but the AIMD folks reworked a lot of equipment, including very sophisticated electronics, to return them to service.
AIMD on a carrier always had spares ready to go. It was a coordination effort between squadrons and AIMD. The guys (and gals) turning wrenches at the squadron level could troubleshoot really well, so that we never just threw parts at a problem. There were budgetary controls and squadrons had to track the $$ spent on AIMD parts, new parts, consumables like oil, or hydraulic fluid, or aircrew equipment so that things were carefully maintained and used.
I know that Navy airplanes always looked rough when you saw them, but that was life at sea - you couldn't do large scale painting...painting was done to control corrosion, not for cosmetics so that our mechanics weren't wasting time on making them pretty when they were getting salt water and grease from the cats on them every day. But the jets were well looked after.
They were designed to be easy to maintain, with quick access to all systems on the jet, and with parts on hand at AIMD. If we were flying combat missions, and we were always prepared for that on a moment's notice (most of the Navy's history has been peacetime operations, the last 15 years have been an anomaly), we had to get the jets back in the air quickly.
Carriers launched airplanes every 90 minutes. So, airplane lands, and the guys have about 45-60 minutes from when the airplane is parked to when the next crew is manning it up and taxiing it to the catapult. You can do an engine change, or a component swap in that time. Not quite NASCAR pit crew...more like 24 hours of Le Mans...but our guys worked incredibly long hours, and pulled off a few miracles, on the deck to get our airplanes back in the air so that we could do the mission.
You could have already mentioned, but it's such a long thread...
How many hours of flight before the engines got an overhaul? and did thzey just swap in some ready on the shelf engines so the bird was ready to go ASAP? who/where did the rebuilding?
I wish I knew the hour number, but I actually don't. It was long, like 1000 hours, but I'm not certain...
Engines would be changed if they were due for that inspection/overhaul or if they were damaged.
To keep a fighter in the air when it was needed, all Navy airplanes were designed for quick engine changes. In the F-14, it could be done in the shadow of the airplane. That is, underneath the jet. There were only a few mounting points. An engine cart was rolled underneath a parked jet, access doors opened, and the then all the fuel lines, etc. were disconnected. Just a few mounting bolt held it in place. Three I think. Then the engine cart would be rolled out from under the jet.
Roll the new engine underneath, bolt it up, connect the lines and the jet was back in service.
Squadron mechanics were good at engine/component changes. We had lots of different specialties: AD -engine mechanic, AE - aviation electrician, AM - airframe/structural mechanic, AMH - hydraulics, AO - ordnance, PR - survival equipment, AME - escape systems AW - weapon system...there were lots more, but you get the idea...but they didn't rebuild parts/components at the squadron level.
Rebuild/overhaul happened at what we called intermediate maintenance. Each Naval Air Station (NAS, like NAS Oceana) and each carrier had their own AIMD. Rebuilds required specialize testing equipment/benches and specialized expertise. Sometimes, when a part was simply shot, you just get a new one...but the AIMD folks reworked a lot of equipment, including very sophisticated electronics, to return them to service.
AIMD on a carrier always had spares ready to go. It was a coordination effort between squadrons and AIMD. The guys (and gals) turning wrenches at the squadron level could troubleshoot really well, so that we never just threw parts at a problem. There were budgetary controls and squadrons had to track the $$ spent on AIMD parts, new parts, consumables like oil, or hydraulic fluid, or aircrew equipment so that things were carefully maintained and used.
I know that Navy airplanes always looked rough when you saw them, but that was life at sea - you couldn't do large scale painting...painting was done to control corrosion, not for cosmetics so that our mechanics weren't wasting time on making them pretty when they were getting salt water and grease from the cats on them every day. But the jets were well looked after.
They were designed to be easy to maintain, with quick access to all systems on the jet, and with parts on hand at AIMD. If we were flying combat missions, and we were always prepared for that on a moment's notice (most of the Navy's history has been peacetime operations, the last 15 years have been an anomaly), we had to get the jets back in the air quickly.
Carriers launched airplanes every 90 minutes. So, airplane lands, and the guys have about 45-60 minutes from when the airplane is parked to when the next crew is manning it up and taxiing it to the catapult. You can do an engine change, or a component swap in that time. Not quite NASCAR pit crew...more like 24 hours of Le Mans...but our guys worked incredibly long hours, and pulled off a few miracles, on the deck to get our airplanes back in the air so that we could do the mission.
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: CT8
Following all this brings up this rather personal question. How long are the flights and what if you have to urinate? I would need a plane with a bathroom. Coffee and microwave to heat up the donuts would be nice as well.
I don't see drink holders in Formula One race cars...so, I don't think you'll ever see coffee in a fighter...combat maneuvers tend to spill the drinks...
So, to be direct, urination was done with "piddle packs" - a resealable, leak-proof, mil-spec, heavy plastic bag filled with absorbent material...same stuff that's in disposable diapers, I suspect.
With the g-suit and harnessing, it wasn't easy to use, but you could manage to get things in place to fill the bag if needed. Older airplanes had "relief tubes" - a funnel in the floor and a tube vented to the outside...yeah...not a fan of that, as a guy using it, or for the guys that worked on our airplanes.
Accommodation for the use of the piddle packs had to be made for female aircrews in fighters...involving a flexible plastic funnel...
I always had water in the jet, a plastic canteen that fit in my g-suit. I brought extra on long flights. Hydration was important, so was stopping by the head on your way up to the airplane...and I gave up coffee during Desert Storm...the diuretic effects of coffee simply became too much of a hassle when in flight.
One of my favorite memories of combat operations was when our maintenance officer, a Tomcat RIO whose callsign was "Butch" stood up and addressed our squadron's piddle pack usage during combat...we were flying long missions, and guys, including me, were using them on those long mission. But guys had gotten used to the convenience and were using them on every flight, including the 90 minute patrols over the ship.
We typically didn't use any during normal operations, but now we were up to several dozen per day, and a cost of $8 (when a flight suit cost $80), Butch told us that his survival equipment line in his maintenance budget couldn't support our piddle pack usage rate...and stated so by saying, "We are literally [censored] away the money that we need to buy you guys flight suits, helmets and survival gear!"
I almost fell out of my chair...
Following all this brings up this rather personal question. How long are the flights and what if you have to urinate? I would need a plane with a bathroom. Coffee and microwave to heat up the donuts would be nice as well.
I don't see drink holders in Formula One race cars...so, I don't think you'll ever see coffee in a fighter...combat maneuvers tend to spill the drinks...
So, to be direct, urination was done with "piddle packs" - a resealable, leak-proof, mil-spec, heavy plastic bag filled with absorbent material...same stuff that's in disposable diapers, I suspect.
With the g-suit and harnessing, it wasn't easy to use, but you could manage to get things in place to fill the bag if needed. Older airplanes had "relief tubes" - a funnel in the floor and a tube vented to the outside...yeah...not a fan of that, as a guy using it, or for the guys that worked on our airplanes.
Accommodation for the use of the piddle packs had to be made for female aircrews in fighters...involving a flexible plastic funnel...
I always had water in the jet, a plastic canteen that fit in my g-suit. I brought extra on long flights. Hydration was important, so was stopping by the head on your way up to the airplane...and I gave up coffee during Desert Storm...the diuretic effects of coffee simply became too much of a hassle when in flight.
One of my favorite memories of combat operations was when our maintenance officer, a Tomcat RIO whose callsign was "Butch" stood up and addressed our squadron's piddle pack usage during combat...we were flying long missions, and guys, including me, were using them on those long mission. But guys had gotten used to the convenience and were using them on every flight, including the 90 minute patrols over the ship.
We typically didn't use any during normal operations, but now we were up to several dozen per day, and a cost of $8 (when a flight suit cost $80), Butch told us that his survival equipment line in his maintenance budget couldn't support our piddle pack usage rate...and stated so by saying, "We are literally [censored] away the money that we need to buy you guys flight suits, helmets and survival gear!"
I almost fell out of my chair...
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: spasm3
I was also wondering how they avoid DVT ( deep vein thrombosis ) while seated for long flights, i guess they are young, but still its a risk.
You should know that I am acutely aware of the nature of DVT, its causes and its effects.
We were young...and we never talked about DVT back then... I think awareness of DVT has greatly increased...
If you read back to page on which you posted your question, you'll see a discussion on G-forces. When your blood is pumping that hard, and you're straining to maintain blood flow to your head by squeezing your lower extremities...DVT, the clot formation itself, simply won't happen...any more than it will happen while you're running on a treadmill.
There is tremendous blood flow through your entire body when under G...and DVT happens when the blood pools through inactivity and/or being a cramped position, and the thrombus (clot) forms in the vein of your lower leg...the results ranging from serious to fatal.
Now, on a long flight, where you weren't pulling G, then you were strapped into an ejection seat and really unable to move, so you're at a bit of a risk...along with the risk of boredom, fatigue, and a host of other physiological issues...
But the same G-suit that helped to keep you conscious during maneuvering was a big help in this case. To the left of the ejection seat (front and back) was the place where the G-suit plugged in. It was pneumatically operated, and activated by G-force, but on top of the connection was a manual button. Hold that button and the suit would inflate, squeezing your lower legs, thighs, and abdomen.
I used to hit that button pretty often, like every few minutes, when flying on a long mission, and I would strain against the G-suit...it helped to keep me awake, focused, and keep things like leg cramps and muscle aches at bay. I didn't know what a DVT was back then, but I'm certain that my regimen kept me from being at risk...just like getting up and walking every few minutes would keep you from being at risk when you're on a long flight.
I was also wondering how they avoid DVT ( deep vein thrombosis ) while seated for long flights, i guess they are young, but still its a risk.
You should know that I am acutely aware of the nature of DVT, its causes and its effects.
We were young...and we never talked about DVT back then... I think awareness of DVT has greatly increased...
If you read back to page on which you posted your question, you'll see a discussion on G-forces. When your blood is pumping that hard, and you're straining to maintain blood flow to your head by squeezing your lower extremities...DVT, the clot formation itself, simply won't happen...any more than it will happen while you're running on a treadmill.
There is tremendous blood flow through your entire body when under G...and DVT happens when the blood pools through inactivity and/or being a cramped position, and the thrombus (clot) forms in the vein of your lower leg...the results ranging from serious to fatal.
Now, on a long flight, where you weren't pulling G, then you were strapped into an ejection seat and really unable to move, so you're at a bit of a risk...along with the risk of boredom, fatigue, and a host of other physiological issues...
But the same G-suit that helped to keep you conscious during maneuvering was a big help in this case. To the left of the ejection seat (front and back) was the place where the G-suit plugged in. It was pneumatically operated, and activated by G-force, but on top of the connection was a manual button. Hold that button and the suit would inflate, squeezing your lower legs, thighs, and abdomen.
I used to hit that button pretty often, like every few minutes, when flying on a long mission, and I would strain against the G-suit...it helped to keep me awake, focused, and keep things like leg cramps and muscle aches at bay. I didn't know what a DVT was back then, but I'm certain that my regimen kept me from being at risk...just like getting up and walking every few minutes would keep you from being at risk when you're on a long flight.
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
You could have already mentioned, but it's such a long thread...
How many hours of flight before the engines got an overhaul? and did they just swap in some ready on the shelf engines so the bird was ready to go ASAP? who/where did the rebuilding?
I worked on the F-16 version of the GE F-110 engine which is very similar. I believe 1000 hours TBO is correct. We called it "vertical maintenance" in the "I level" shop. The F-16 adopted TAC instead of hours. It calculates cycles instead of hours, hours at idle have less value than full power, etc. I believe they are 2000 TAC TBO.
You could have already mentioned, but it's such a long thread...
How many hours of flight before the engines got an overhaul? and did they just swap in some ready on the shelf engines so the bird was ready to go ASAP? who/where did the rebuilding?
I worked on the F-16 version of the GE F-110 engine which is very similar. I believe 1000 hours TBO is correct. We called it "vertical maintenance" in the "I level" shop. The F-16 adopted TAC instead of hours. It calculates cycles instead of hours, hours at idle have less value than full power, etc. I believe they are 2000 TAC TBO.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just finished reading through the whole 22-page thread. Wow, Astro, I can't tell you how grateful I am to you for starting this thread, and answering everyone's questions so thoroughly and graciously!
Man, your description of the LSO position, as someone else said, had me on the edge of my seat! Deck pitching 20'? Holy cow! Just incredible. It's amazing to me how the risks of flight have been mitigated through skill, experience, and technology, and engineering.
Thank you sir, and thanks for your exemplary service to our country!
Can't wait to read more!!
John Pifer
A&P mechanic, Embraer Aircraft Maintenance Services, Nashville
P.S. I ride dirt bikes with a fella who used to fly F-14s. Unsurprisingly, he's fast on the dirt bike (and sportbike)!
Man, your description of the LSO position, as someone else said, had me on the edge of my seat! Deck pitching 20'? Holy cow! Just incredible. It's amazing to me how the risks of flight have been mitigated through skill, experience, and technology, and engineering.
Thank you sir, and thanks for your exemplary service to our country!
Can't wait to read more!!
John Pifer
A&P mechanic, Embraer Aircraft Maintenance Services, Nashville
P.S. I ride dirt bikes with a fella who used to fly F-14s. Unsurprisingly, he's fast on the dirt bike (and sportbike)!
Last edited by a moderator:
John - thanks for that. I am glad you've enjoyed the thread. As I said in the opener, I had been getting a lot of PM and/or thread questions, so I started the thread to keep things in one place...and looking back through it, I've said a lot, and I've repeated myself on a few technical descriptions...but that's OK...it means that I'm still remembering it accurately.
I really feel fortunate for all the opportunities that I've had. And you guys have the good/bad luck to have me on BITOG...I am a geek and technically oriented...and I enjoy talking about the big fighter.
I once rode dirt bikes. In 1978, I bought a one year old Suzuki RM-125...the 1977 RM-125B was the first real year of the revolution in suspension travel. I've got a lot of great memories with that bike. Sold it in 1982 to buy a whitewater slalom racing kayak when I was getting seriously competitive in that sport...but that's a topic for another thread...
Cheers,
Astro
I really feel fortunate for all the opportunities that I've had. And you guys have the good/bad luck to have me on BITOG...I am a geek and technically oriented...and I enjoy talking about the big fighter.
I once rode dirt bikes. In 1978, I bought a one year old Suzuki RM-125...the 1977 RM-125B was the first real year of the revolution in suspension travel. I've got a lot of great memories with that bike. Sold it in 1982 to buy a whitewater slalom racing kayak when I was getting seriously competitive in that sport...but that's a topic for another thread...
Cheers,
Astro
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
John - thanks for that. I am glad you've enjoyed the thread. As I said in the opener, I had been getting a lot of PM and/or thread questions, so I started the thread to keep things in one place...and looking back through it, I've said a lot, and I've repeated myself on a few technical descriptions...but that's OK...it means that I'm still remembering it accurately.
I really feel fortunate for all the opportunities that I've had. And you guys have the good/bad luck to have me on BITOG...I am a geek and technically oriented...and I enjoy talking about the big fighter.
I once rode dirt bikes. In 1978, I bought a one year old Suzuki RM-125...the 1977 RM-125B was the first real year of the revolution in suspension travel. I've got a lot of great memories with that bike. Sold it in 1982 to buy a whitewater slalom racing kayak when I was getting seriously competitive in that sport...but that's a topic for another thread...
Cheers,
Astro
I've noticed that a lot of pilots seem to gravitate towards motorcycles.
RMs are still great bikes, but, unfortunately, Suzuki doesn't make the RM-125 (or 250) any longer. Yamaha is the only Japanese OEM who still offers brand-new, 2-stroke motorcycles.
Are you still kayaking? I've never done it but I'd like to.
John - thanks for that. I am glad you've enjoyed the thread. As I said in the opener, I had been getting a lot of PM and/or thread questions, so I started the thread to keep things in one place...and looking back through it, I've said a lot, and I've repeated myself on a few technical descriptions...but that's OK...it means that I'm still remembering it accurately.
I really feel fortunate for all the opportunities that I've had. And you guys have the good/bad luck to have me on BITOG...I am a geek and technically oriented...and I enjoy talking about the big fighter.
I once rode dirt bikes. In 1978, I bought a one year old Suzuki RM-125...the 1977 RM-125B was the first real year of the revolution in suspension travel. I've got a lot of great memories with that bike. Sold it in 1982 to buy a whitewater slalom racing kayak when I was getting seriously competitive in that sport...but that's a topic for another thread...
Cheers,
Astro
I've noticed that a lot of pilots seem to gravitate towards motorcycles.
RMs are still great bikes, but, unfortunately, Suzuki doesn't make the RM-125 (or 250) any longer. Yamaha is the only Japanese OEM who still offers brand-new, 2-stroke motorcycles.
Are you still kayaking? I've never done it but I'd like to.
Astro, I was wondering if you could expound a little more on the max altitude capabilities of jet aircraft and the ins and outs of controlling them at high altitude.
I read earlier in the thread where you said that some pilots of airliners are nervous about buffeting at high altitudes (I think you mentioned FL410, which seems to be the max listed altitude for many airliners).
From my rudimentary knowledge of aerodymanics, I know that buffeting can indicate loss of smooth airflow over the wings and fuselage, and can also be one of the first warnings of an impending stall.
So, let's take the Boeing 757, for example - a relatively modern, and common, airliner design that is powered by HBPR turbofans.
What's it like to fly the 757, and other aircraft like it, at altitudes of FL400 and above? Is it easy to stall? What would KIAS look like at that altitude? Are there winds up there that could potentially cause loss of control?
I have read about "coffin corner" in the U-2 - a region of flight in that airplane in which the pilot is very close to overspeeding the aircraft, yet also not far above the minimum airspeed to avoid a stall.
Is there a sort of "coffin corner" at high altitude with airliners? Not as narrow of an envelope, I'm sure.
I read earlier in the thread where you said that some pilots of airliners are nervous about buffeting at high altitudes (I think you mentioned FL410, which seems to be the max listed altitude for many airliners).
From my rudimentary knowledge of aerodymanics, I know that buffeting can indicate loss of smooth airflow over the wings and fuselage, and can also be one of the first warnings of an impending stall.
So, let's take the Boeing 757, for example - a relatively modern, and common, airliner design that is powered by HBPR turbofans.
What's it like to fly the 757, and other aircraft like it, at altitudes of FL400 and above? Is it easy to stall? What would KIAS look like at that altitude? Are there winds up there that could potentially cause loss of control?
I have read about "coffin corner" in the U-2 - a region of flight in that airplane in which the pilot is very close to overspeeding the aircraft, yet also not far above the minimum airspeed to avoid a stall.
Is there a sort of "coffin corner" at high altitude with airliners? Not as narrow of an envelope, I'm sure.
Last edited by a moderator:
