OT but is this photo real?

[aflyer]

Re: OT but is this photo real?

From many years ago, I recall a story about an F8 Crusader taking off with the wings folded; I searched Google and found a link to a photo:

http://www.vmf235.com/f8_wingsfolded.jpg

The nearby paragraph states that it's been done 5 times including a Skyraider launch during the Korean war.

I sent this to a friend (Navy type) who flew F-8s in Viet Nam days...I accused him of being the pilot, here is his reply --

"No....just some Marine....(VMF=Marine Fighter Squadron)....the airplane
actually flies pretty well...so I am told...and this particular guy DID NOT
KNOW his wings were folded UNTIL the LSO told him so on his first pass at
the field. They were doing Field Carrier Landing Practice, getting ready to
go out to the boat for fun and games.

Another guy I know, who was doing FCLPs, at night, came in and refueled,
folded the wings, got gas, and taxied out took off with the wings folded,
and all he noticed was an "abnormal" reflection of the rotating
beacon...How's that for being a sharpie?

John

[Tin Man]

Re: OT but is this photo real?

Alternately: A T-38 was flying on an IFR clearance, under positive control from ATC on vectors to an ILS, when a C-172 (which was not abiding by see-and-avoid rules) *blasted* through them.

Hmm, lets see T38@ 330kts, C172 @ 110 Kts. Do you think the Cessna would have time to SEE AND AVIOD even if they did see them? Blame the controller or the T38 jockey boys.

[deepsky]

Re: OT but is this photo real?

As for the post about the skyraider wing fold takeoff, the A-1 has a leg jammer so the pilot will feel when the wings are stowed.

Just thought I'd add that tid bit

[Randy Haskin]

Re: OT but is this photo real?

Hmm, lets see T38@ 330kts, C172 @ 110 Kts. Do you think the Cessna would have time to SEE AND AVIOD even if they did see them? Blame the controller or the T38 jockey boys.

"Jockey boys"? Please tell me that you're trolling for flame with that.

My post was aimed at the bias -- probably unintentional on King's part -- toward the Cessna and against the T-38 in his post. As if the Cessna was just flying along, minding it's own business, and the evil T-38 "BLASTED" right through them!

I turned the statement around to show the perspective that I see every day. Most GA pilots don't look at it from the point of view from the fast mover -- the two guys in the '38 were flying radar vectors to an ILS. The guy in the front seat was probably a$$es-and-elbows getting out his appraoch plate and reviewing it for his instructor in the back seat. He was probably struggling to set the localizer course, freq, and TACAN station, all the while flying with his knees, looking at the approach plate for the data, and making sure he was obeying his clearance (some of which he probably forgot or was trying to write down with his 'free' hand. AND, his career was probably hanging in the balance, as screwing up an ILS would be grounds for failing the flight. Probably just a touch of stress going on in his cockpit at that point. And all of this is happening at three times the speed of most GA aircraft.

The instructor in the back seat no doubt had his hands full, too. Watching the student in the front flail around...double checking all the info he is setting into the jet systems, verbally prompting the student to accomplish items he's forgotten. Perhaps he's even verbally reminding the student to slow down in perparation for dropping the gear, or not to overshoot his altitude in the descent. I can tell you the forward view from the back seat of a '38 is no piece of cake -- through two panes of curved plexi, there's enough distortion that you can barely even tell if it's night or day up there.

So...those "jockey boys" aren't just up there leisurely enjoying the view, zipping along like Sky King and dreaming of the next Officers Club bar they get to visit. They were busy at work...just like the IFR student and his CFI in the Cessna. Neither of them probably had any idea what was happening outside their little simulated-IFR worlds until *BANG!*.

There's no magic in a jet which makes in more capable of avoiding traffic than a GA aircraft. You mentioned the speed differential between the two. Funny, I don't remember my vision getting better the faster I go. Why is the T-38 crew more capable of seeing the Cessna than the other way around? If anything, the Cessna is travelling a lot slower, and things in the cockpit are happening a lot slower, and that should leave the Cessna crew more time to LOOK OUTSIDE to see and avoid.

Besides, in that situation, if you want to assign blame, legally they're both at fault. Both aircraft are required to see and avoid. If you want to get really technical, then ask why the Cessna, flying under VFR, was at 4200', a non-VFR hemispherical altitude?

Again, just trying to show things from a different perspective.

[MRussell]

Re: OT but is this photo real?

Thanks for the insight to the fast-movers, Randy, and let me say upfront I'm no flamer.

I suppose, in addition to your last question, you could also ask "why is a T38 doing 330KIAS at 4200' heads-down?" I read the report, and I've read alot about T38s, but for heaven's sake is the '38 really "uncontrollable" at 250KIAS? Perhaps the '38 instructor wanted to add speed to increase the training pressure on the student?

Obviously blame goes to both of the instructors AND the controller (who probably still had the maneuvering Skyhawk on his scope, perhaps with N-number still assigned, because radar svc was terminated only 3 mins prior, albeit with no altitude data from Mode C). The instructors and controllers must manage traffic when the students are heads-down in IFR training.

Someone in a post above made the great point that it's awfully hard to see a T38, let alone avoid one coming at you at 330KIAS. As someone who's heard too many horror stories of "close passes" by military aircraft near MOAs and bases, I know there's very little a GA pilot or instructor can do to miss these aircraft.

[Propellerhead]

Re: OT but is this photo real?

...and let me say upfront I'm no flamer.

<Seinfeld>"Not that there's anything wrong with that..."</Seinfeld>



Rob

[speeddemon]

Re: OT but is this photo real?

Tailhook? Hmmnn...I didn't know the Navy flew F-15's? I can't believe no one else thinks that's odd. Maybe it's something I don't know about. Seems a little odd to have to embelish the story like it isn't incredible enough.

All military fighters are equipped with arresting gear. Just ask Hacker...he's had to use the hook on the Mud Hen before, I'm pretty sure.

[Randy Haskin]

Re: OT but is this photo real?

for heaven's sake is the '38 really "uncontrollable" at 250KIAS? Perhaps the '38 instructor wanted to add speed to increase the training pressure on the student?

To get technical, 14 CFR Part 91.117 is where the max speed limit of 250 below 10K comes from. That same paragraph also says, "If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed."

Further focusing that is a letter from the FAA to the DoD entitled "Speed Authorization Granded to DOD". That specifies that the technical orders for military aircraft establish which aircraft have speed authorization below 10K.

The USAF guidance is from a message from USAF HQ, which says, "AIRCREW FLYING IN CONUS BELOW 10,000 MSL (OUTSIDE SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE) WILL FLY AT 250 KNOTS UNLESS MANEUVERING AIRSPEEDS PUBLISHED IN THE AIRCRAFT T.O. DICTATE OTHERWISE."

The Flight Manual for the T-38 (T.O. 1T-38C-1) establishes airspeeds for certain phases of flight. For Departure, Enroute Descent, Penetration Approaches, and Instrument Appraoches, Chapter 2 says that 300 knots is what they shall be accomplished at.

So, this is where the authorization comes from. It's not that the T-38 is 'uncontrollable' at 250, it's that the technical order mandates that the airplane will be operated at 300.

For what it's worth, the Dash 1 says, with respect to ILS approaches, "enter the approach at 300 KCAS in clean configuration. At transition to final approach lower landing gear and flaps to 60% or full down."

[Randy Haskin]

Re: OT but is this photo real?

All military fighters are equipped with arresting gear. Just ask Hacker...he's had to use the hook on the Mud Hen before, I'm pretty sure.

Yes, the F-15 is equipped with a hook, and it is used whenever there is a Utility Hydraulic failure. I have used it before.

Follow this link to a photo of a squadronmate of mine using the hook up at St Louis:

F-15E Cable Engagement at Lambert Field

IIRC, the max engagement speed for the F-15 tailhook is something like 220 knots, and that is why the Israeli wingless Eagle's hook snapped.

[speeddemon]

Re: OT but is this photo real?

Hmm, lets see T38@ 330kts, C172 @ 110 Kts. Do you think the Cessna would have time to SEE AND AVIOD even if they did see them? Blame the controller or the T38 jockey boys.

Tin Man, I'm gonna have to go with Hacker on this and say that you are WAAAY off base. Jockey boys, huh? Hmmmm. I thought that when us military pilots 'earned' our wings, it was with the understanding that our standards of safety and judgement were well above what was expected of general aviation pilots. But maybe that was just my getting caught up in the moment while fantasizing about flathatting and raising hell once they turned me loose in one of Uncle Sam's toys.

When I was going through Navy training, I ran into a similar situation. We were a form flight of two coming in to the 'entry' point at the beach line. We were totally under positive control, at the speed, altitude, and position 'we' were supposed to be at.

We also had a Cessna just tooling along up the beach line, minding his own business (i.e., thumb up his a$$, not paying attention). We could hear the approach controller trying over and over again to raise this GA guy on the radio, but there was no response. By the time he called us, we were less than a mile, at the same altitude. (You can always tell when it is 'serious', because the controller suddenly becomes VERY clear and enunciates slowly). My lead went up, I went down, and we the Cessna literally 'split' between us by less than 100 feet. No way he couldn't have heard or felt us go by. By the time we formed back up and turned in the cockpit to look for him, he was still just tooling north up the beach, like nothing ever happened.

So who was at fault? Us big bad Navy boys because we should have known better? The controller because he should have spoken louder, or tried harder to get the Spam Can up on the radio? Or the guy flying the Cessna at 120kts, paying more attention to the girls on the beach than the fact that he was flying within spitting distance of a very busy Naval Air Station?

[Tin Man]

Re: OT but is this photo real?

No flames intended for our military pilots, its the system. Military pilots have restricted areas, moas, alert areas, high speed transition routes, and a lot more than I can think of right now to learn their skillls. There is no reason to have a T38 @ 330knts mixing it up with GA aircraft at 1/3 the speed. You place the blame where you want.

[speeddemon]

Re: OT but is this photo real?

You place the blame where you want.

Okay. I squarely place the blame on the GA instructor. To go out and practice IFR maneuvering requires a 'box' of safety. If the instructor terminated radar control--as indicated by the NTSB report--then essentially they were proceeding VFR or 'due regard' (meaning, I accept responsibility for my whereabouts, and will be accountable for staying out of everyone elses way--i.e. head outside the cockpit, looking for 'the other guy').

You can scream the 'big sky, little airplane' theory all you want, but here's how I see it. I've flown in and out of the area in question. There are (or at lease were) THREE active Air Force Bases (Brooks, Randolph, and Kelly) in the immediate vacinity...all high activity training bases. Within another 50 miles or so is/was NAS Beeville...another jet training base with high activity. Within 100 miles is NAS Corpus Christi and NAS Kingsville...two more high volume training bases. That is SIX active military training bases within 100 miles of San Antonio.

On any given day, do you realize the sheer volume of military training flights that encompases? And into this, you have Joe Civilian instructor, flying along without a Mode C transponder, having chopped flight following with ATC, head 'inside' the cockpit....and not adhering to the established VFR flight altitudes.

Yup....it's all us jockey boys fault. And its the fault of the controller for trusting the GA instructor to be responsible for himself and others when he chopped and went due regard.

[Apteryx]

Re: OT but is this photo real?

How many GA pilots, look behind them when they fly, not many I've flown with.
I sat through part of a controllers shift at a radar facility, and they usually dim down the non-controlled traffic, when it gets busy.
There was one, way back, with F106's under military control and a Comanche under FAA control, (not talking to each other), with a fatal midair.

[MRussell]

Re: OT but is this photo real?

OK, ok, we won't call you jockies if you don't call us spam canners... fair enough?

This is actually an amazing discussion; answering a ton of questions I've wondered about for 10-15 years!

It really only leaves (for me) one more set of questions. When was the last time the military guys here flew a 172? Do you have a good understanding of the limits of outward visibility in such a craft, especially while turning? I've never flown a fighter obviously but I've seen videos from on-board (the one of the F15 guys dogfighting and horsing around comes to mind), and I know those little bubble canopies have pretty excellent visibility (albeit if not from the backseat of a T38). Finally, if a 172 instructor did see your T38, or F15/18 coming at him from the right at a 330-knot closure rate, what exactly would you recommend as his best course of action to avoid a collision? I am NOT being sarcastic, as your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

[King]

Re: OT but is this photo real?

Really cool discussion going on here, but one thing you guys missed out on.

The spam can (C172) lots everything firewall forward and completed a controlled descent and landed. Now THATS cool!

I have a video on my computer of a T-38 and Beech Baron having a near hit (I think near miss means a hit, therefore new hit means a miss ) about 2 miles from our airport that occurred last spring. Video is from the T-38 and it scares the crap outa you when you see it. I am going to try and convert it to something I can post here for you guys.