Air Force info?

[thambok]

Not True.

The USAF hasn't bought a tail-hook equipped aircraft since the F-111 and the tail-hook on the F-111 was NEVER used for practice -- using it caused structural damge to the USAF version of the aircraft.

Most USAF Bases don't even have arresting cables anymore and not very many still have operational emergency Barrier systems -- the barrier net systems were abandoned and decommisioned before I retired 16 years ago.

The F-111, F-4, F-15 and F-16 all have tailhooks, though the F-22 does not. The tailhooks on Navy jets are more robust and are retractable from the cockpit, whereas the tailhooks on the 15 and 16 are lighterweight hooks, intended only for emergency arrest.

Barriers are prevalent on fighter bases, especially where the 15 and 16 are the predominant aircraft. The Air Force standard AAS is the Esco Bak-12, which looks like a giant disc brake, attached to a diesel engine. The Civil Engineering squadron is responsible for their maintenance, which falls under the 3E0x2 AFSC, the the Electrical Systems shop (3E0x1) frequently helps in their routine maintenance. The SOP calls for a trial of the system at least once annually, if no barrier engagements have occurred. This was usually accomplished

As an aside, I can tell you that the tailhook on an F-15 generates a hell of a lot of FOD when it drops onto the runway, of which I have had to walk afterwards more than a few times. I can personally attest to their presence and use through 1996 on F-4s, F-15s and F-16s, though a Google of BAK-12 bases indicates several bases still have them in use. I know we did away with the net style barrier, but the cables are still very much present.

 

[dreampilot79]

Do you really need a military pilot?

There are a lot of Russian military aircraft for sale.... Quite a few Mig 15/17's in civilian hands and flying air shows.

Haven't heard of any Mig 21's on the air show circuit.. but wouldn't be surprised if the Russians are selling them.

While I wouldn't really wanna go into combat with it (Russian systems and avionics suck). the hottest military airplane for air shows is the Russian SU-22. NONE of those however are in civilian hands.

 

[Richard_Smith]

Getting the Jargon right is going to be the biggest problem.

FWIW, carrier landings are often refered to as "Traps" or "Engagements" even though they are in fact controlled crashes.

One other difference is "Call Signs" -- almost Every Navy aviator has a personal "call-sign" which is a semi-official designation. Only a relatively USAF types have "call-signs," which are little more than nick-names.

I think carrier-based Naval Aviators also have a slightly different "mind-set" than other flyers. (This was touched upon briefly in an earlier post).

Probably due to the differences in landing.

If you skid off the runway on the ground, the nose of your plane kisses grass.
If you skid off the deck of the carrier, you kiss your sweet ass...
...Goodbye

 

[dreampilot79]

One little note on military aircraft with tail hooks... The F-4 was designed from the beginning to be used by BOTH the USAF and the Navy... and it was!

The F16, YF-17, and F-18 were all designed to a spec that called for joint use... as was the F-111. In the end, the political infighting caused the F16 to be selected by the air force... the navy rejected it. The F-18 was dusted off a few years later when the navy wanted a newer cheaper replacement for the F-14.

The F-18 was never ever gonna replace the F-14.. it was too small to hold the radar required for the Phoenix missile system. When it looked like the F-18 was gonna die again... the navy changed tacks ... and suggested that they keep the F-14 for long range fleet defence (Phoenix missile)... and then replace the A-4, A-6 and Intruder with an updated attack plane that could do double dubty as a low cost air superiority fighter.AND a replacement for the older attack planes. Throw in some new avionics... modify the hard points to hold either the new AIM-120 slammer... the AIM 9 sidewinder or the sidewinder missile... OR the Maverick air to ground missile plus bombs.. and voilla... the FA-18 is born.

The double dubty idea for the F-111 was scrapped and it held the vestage of a tail hook... kinda like human embrios still have tails.

 

[dreampilot79]

I think carrier-based Naval Aviators also have a slightly different "mind-set" than other flyers. (This was touched upon briefly in an earlier post).

Probably due to the differences in landing.

If you skid off the runway on the ground, the nose of your plane kisses grass.
If you skid off the deck of the carrier, you kiss your sweet ass...
...Goodbye

Naval aviators... have a different mind set... kinda like seals think they're better than anybody else.

Fighter pilots have to think that they can beat anyone.... if they don't they don't enguage when the odds are 5 to one against them and a ship gets sunk or an army gets chewed up.

Fighter pilots already think they're better than anyone else... then navy pilots point to the skill required to crash a multi million dollar jet into multi billion dollar aircraft carrier whitout breaking either one... and they come away with a real superiority complex.

 

[Weird Harold]

The F-111, F-4, F-15 and F-16 all have tailhooks,

You are correct. I'd forgotten about the tailhooks on 15's and 16's because they're mostly recessed and don't require a safety-lock on the ground.

My last assignment before retiring in 1989 was Spangdahlem in 1989 and at that time, there was a plan to decommison the BAK12's as well as the net-style barrier systems as the F-4's were finally phased out of the active force completely.

 

[thambok]

My last was RAF Lakenheath, UK. One day during exercises, I caught a wrench across the terminals on the battery of a BAK-12. My partner knocked me off with a 2x4, which left bruises for weeks.

I so wish they WEREN'T still in service. That could have saved me a LOT of pain.

 

[Aurora Black]

As long as he's flying solo -- which is the normal practice at airshows for aerobatic demonstrations -- just read up on aerobatics. I don't recall any specific titles, but there are several good autobiographies written by pilots who are areobatics competitors.

One thought -- you probably don't want to put him in an F-14 or an F-15E Strike Eagle or the two-seat version of the F-16. Doing so would require the involvement of a GIB (Guy In Back), who is generally somone a pilot works closely with on an every-day basis as part of a team.

I definitely do not want a guy in the back. He'd only get in the way.

 

[Richard_Smith]

One little note on military aircraft with tail hooks... The F-4 was designed from the beginning to be used by BOTH the USAF and the Navy... and it was!

The F16, YF-17, and F-18 were all designed to a spec that called for joint use... as was the F-111. In the end, the political infighting caused the F16 to be selected by the air force... the navy rejected it. The F-18 was dusted off a few years later when the navy wanted a newer cheaper replacement for the F-14.

The F-18 was never ever gonna replace the F-14.. it was too small to hold the radar required for the Phoenix missile system. When it looked like the F-18 was gonna die again... the navy changed tacks ... and suggested that they keep the F-14 for long range fleet defence (Phoenix missile)... and then replace the A-4, A-6 and Intruder with an updated attack plane that could do double dubty as a low cost air superiority fighter.AND a replacement for the older attack planes. Throw in some new avionics... modify the hard points to hold either the new AIM-120 slammer... the AIM 9 sidewinder or the sidewinder missile... OR the Maverick air to ground missile plus bombs.. and voilla... the FA-18 is born.

The double dubty idea for the F-111 was scrapped and it held the vestage of a tail hook... kinda like human embrios still have tails.

Besides all the other arguments against the F-18, there is just something WRONG about a fleet not protected by Cats. Whether they be Wildcats, Hellcats, Cougars, what have you.

 

[impressive]

Fighter pilots already think they're better than anyone else... then navy pilots point to the skill required to crash a multi million dollar jet into multi billion dollar aircraft carrier whitout breaking either one... and they come away with a real superiority complex.

So, so, so true. Man, this thread is a real stroll down memory lane.

Interestingly, while they call themselves "Naval Aviators" (ay-vee-ay-TORs) once they're trained, I've never once heard the phrase "Navy Test Aviator."

And, the Blue Angels never once showed up at any of the parties following the air shows -- but the Thunderbirds ALWAYS did (and they were lotsa fun).

Unless things have changed, they are the only branch of the U.S. mil to fly the a Harrier varient.

The Navy tested the AV-8B in the late 80s. Dunno if they ever flew 'em in service, though.

 

[impressive]

I definitely do not want a guy in the back. He'd only get in the way.

Oh, god ... don't forget the flight suits. There's something quite fetching about a test pilot with his boots still on and his flight suit around his ankles.

 

[Aurora Black]

Oh, god ... don't forget the flight suits. There's something quite fetching about a test pilot with his boots still on and his flight suit around his ankles.

Stop provoking me, woman! You don't know what you're starting!

 

[dreampilot79]

Oh, god ... don't forget the flight suits. There's something quite fetching about a test pilot with his boots still on and his flight suit around his ankles.

Funny.. that never did a single thing for me.

 

[Aurora Black]

Funny.. that never did a single thing for me.

. .

 

[Richard_Smith]

When Lieutenant (J.G.) Jones and his new wife arrived at their bridal suite, they were pleased to see his squadron buddies had wired a bottle of champagne to their room. They had a quick toast and then engaged, weapons hot.

Later, in the afterglow, his wife gently pushed on the top of his head and he grinned. “What?”

Blushing slightly she answered, “You know what.”

But he wanted to hear her say it, “Tell me then.”

“You know,” she lowered her eyes and whispered, “I want you to…to go down on me.”

Jones immediately dove, grabbing the near-empty bottle of champagne from beside their bed and poured some of it across his wife’s abdomen. He lapped up the bubbly while his wife writhed and gripped his hair.

But suddenly she sat up yelling, beating at his head and shoulders. “What are you doing? Are you crazy!”

Jones had set fire to the champagne (of course the alcohol, having such a low flash point, did not actually burn her flesh but it did scare her).

“Sweetheart,” the Aviator told her as he once move dove for his target. “When Jones goes down, he goes down in flames!”

 

[zeb1094]

When Lieutenant (J.G.) Jones and his new wife arrived at their bridal suite, they were pleased to see his squadron buddies had wired a bottle of champagne to their room. They had a quick toast and then engaged, weapons hot.

Later, in the afterglow, his wife gently pushed on the top of his head and he grinned. “What?”

Blushing slightly she answered, “You know what.”

But he wanted to hear her say it, “Tell me then.”

“You know,” she lowered her eyes and whispered, “I want you to…to go down on me.”

Jones immediately dove, grabbing the near-empty bottle of champagne from beside their bed and poured some of it across his wife’s abdomen. He lapped up the bubbly while his wife writhed and gripped his hair.

But suddenly she sat up yelling, beating at his head and shoulders. “What are you doing? Are you crazy!”

Jones had set fire to the champagne (of course the alcohol, having such a low flash point, did not actually burn her flesh but it did scare her).

“Sweetheart,” the Aviator told her as he once move dove for his target. “When Jones goes down, he goes down in flames!”

Too bad Champagne doesn't have a high enough alcohol content to be able to burn. You would need something like Everclear or 100 or more proof liquor. Champange won't burn.

 

[Aurora Black]

Too bad Champagne doesn't have a high enough alcohol content to be able to burn. You would need something like Everclear or 100 or more proof liquor. Champange won't burn.

Too bad??? He could have hurt the poor woman!

Great joke, by the way.

 

[Richard_Smith]

Too bad Champagne doesn't have a high enough alcohol content to be able to burn. You would need something like Everclear or 100 or more proof liquor. Champange won't burn.

Poetic License

 

[zeb1094]

Poetic License

Well if you use/used in a story the trolls would pounce!

 

[Richard_Smith]

Well if you use/used in a story the trolls would pounce!

A) It was a joke

B) I think one just did

 

[zeb1094]

A) It was a joke

B) I think one just did

, I was just commenting. Oh and if I was a troll you would know it as I always post my ID on any comment that I put on a story. And I always comment if I vote!

B) Bite me!

 

[Richard_Smith]

, I was just commenting. Oh and if I was a troll you would know it as I always post my ID on any comment that I put on a story. And I always comment if I vote!

B) Bite me!

Consider yourself bitten.

*sigh* I still have 30 messages to post to get an Avatar.

 

[Aurora Black]

Are y'all really fighting or is this just macho stuff?

 

[zeb1094]

Are y'all really fighting or is this just macho stuff?

I ain't fightin', although he did call me a troll! But, I have no hard feelings about that. As a matter of fact I have no feeling toward him at all!

 

[Richard_Smith]

Are y'all really fighting or is this just macho stuff?

My comments are partly Macho Stuff and partly just to get my 100 posts for an Avatar (*sob*).

And I probably should not have responded with "B) I think one just did."

It was wrong of me to take a cheap shot at someone just because he did not understand I was telling a joke.

Smitty,

P.S. And I still think it's a good joke, whether Champagne burns or not.
Champagne just fits in more with the "Newlywed" motiff.