FNG

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2015, 04:15
by 35_aoa
Cool to find this place......lots of technical info which I intend to digest. Navy guy (F/A-18 background) about to start learning to fly the A/B Viper.......I guess that is block 10 & 15, or so says my manual, the "-1" or whatever it is called in AF land. Thanks for having me, looking forward to the data dump!

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2015, 16:10
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Welcome to the boards! It's always good to have more people with experience here.

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2015, 18:03
by basher54321
35_aoa wrote:Cool to find this place......lots of technical info which I intend to digest. Navy guy (F/A-18 background) about to start learning to fly the A/B Viper.......I guess that is block 10 & 15, or so says my manual, the "-1" or whatever it is called in AF land. Thanks for having me, looking forward to the data dump!



Brilliant - welcome

Block 15 OCUs perhaps?

27317fa1171fd8e93867e5dbe967fd1e.jpg

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2015, 18:27
by sprstdlyscottsmn
ooooh wee! That looks like a good time right there.

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2015, 05:02
by 35_aoa
basher54321 wrote:Brilliant - welcome

Block 15 OCUs perhaps?


Yep, those are a couple of the exact ones. Being fairly ignorant at this point (I think I know what the FLCCs and EPU are at the moment), what is OCU?

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2015, 17:30
by basher54321
Block 15 Operational Capability Upgrade - they were in production along side the C model in the 80s so have a few features of the C airframe.

A PW-220 was fitted and there were avionics/weapons capability upgrades.

jbgator on here says he flew them in the 90s and it was a "Horse" - the PW-220 provides more thrust over the PW-200.

The Fallon ones were supposed to be some of the very last produced and were originally for Pakistan but were held back for embargo reasons.

So a Navy Adversary pilot in a near clean F-16 - what rotten luck :P

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2015, 08:52
by 35_aoa
basher54321 wrote:
So a Navy Adversary pilot in a near clean F-16 - what rotten luck :P


Oh no complaints, very very excited for the opportunity. I have fought them a lot and it is always pretty impressive. With a Navy guy at the controls, the Viper is a pretty formidable sparring mate in BFM.......actually the CAF guys are normally pretty good too, much better than light grey Eagle folk.

And yes, our jets were from a litter of pre-embargo Pakistan jets.....think the rest of the batch went to Edwards for chase duties. 220 motors, though sadly not F-16N........my understanding is that those were big mouth C's?

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2015, 18:05
by basher54321
35_aoa wrote:
Oh no complaints, very very excited for the opportunity. I have fought them a lot and it is always pretty impressive. With a Navy guy at the controls, the Viper is a pretty formidable sparring mate in BFM.......actually the CAF guys are normally pretty good too, much better than light grey Eagle folk.

And yes, our jets were from a litter of pre-embargo Pakistan jets.....think the rest of the batch went to Edwards for chase duties. 220 motors, though sadly not F-16N........my understanding is that those were big mouth C's?


Sorry for the tongue in cheek humour - not sure there are many better placements - and its good to see some comments from the Navy side so thanks for that.

On that note I suspect you will be doing BFM with F-35s during your time - so we expect lots of views of them in your gunsight :twisted:

The F-16N/TF-16N AFAIK were mainly small mouth/inlet from what I have seen - still with the GE-100 engine though but less airflow and less thrust probably.

This is the breakdown:
4 x F-16N Block 30B
8 x F-16N Block 30C
8 x F-16N Block 30D
2 x F-16N Block 30E
4 x TF-16N Block 30E


Here is a F-16N Block 30 E:


USNavy F-16N #163577 (AF #86-1695) of VF-45 in factory fresh markings at Luke AFB. [Photo by Kevin Patrick]


from http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/airframe-profile/2197

That's a F-16C Block 30J+ in 2014 with Big mouth:


USAF F-16C block 30 #87-0340 from the 124th FS arrives at Kandahar AB on February 16th, 2012. [USAF photo by SSgt. Heather Skinkle]


The Block 15s you are flying should hopefully be relatively light so could even be better in some aspects.

Also if you look at the service period the A's probably have already lasted a lot longer:

F-16N USN service period = 1987 to 1995
F-16A USN service period = 2003 to present

Ns were retired early for a few reasons if interested- see 3rd post up from John Williams:
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24886&start=195

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2015, 07:12
by 35_aoa
Thanks for the great info! Now back to -1 perusal. I did enjoy the cartoon in the first couple pages of a guy dashing up to the pilot climbing up the ladder, running a manual out to him with the quote "before you go flying, read this!" lol Not sure why but it made me laugh

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2015, 14:18
by basher54321
35_aoa wrote:Thanks for the great info! Now back to -1 perusal. I did enjoy the cartoon in the first couple pages of a guy dashing up to the pilot climbing up the ladder, running a manual out to him with the quote "before you go flying, read this!" lol Not sure why but it made me laugh



You're welcome - have fun

ReadThis.JPG

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2015, 19:28
by jbgator
35 AOA,

Wanted to respond to some of your comments in other threads and decided to consolidate them here. As I recall N model was a small lip jet. In and of itself that is not necessarily a limitation. The big lip is a little heavier and more drag. There are certain parts of the envelope where the extra airflow helps, but not everywhere. The A-model was a lot lighter and the 220 is a vast improvement over the -200 motor. I flew Singapore A models with 220 in 1987-1989 then back to 200 motor jets. In 1991 we replaced our 200s with 220s and flew lots of mixed engine flights for a while where we could compare performance. Eye opening the difference. You could do anything you wanted with the 220 throttle, the 200 occasionally shot flames out the front if you weren't careful. The 220 had significantly lower fuel flow and RPM flying right next to a 200, the burner lit faster and the nozzle programmed better. I flew Functional Check Flights (FCF) in both jets and used to snap the 220 throttle from idle to MAX on takeoff to watch the burner light passing about 70-80% RPM. No use doing that with a 200 even if you weren't afraid of a bang because the 200 had to stabilize at Mil before it would light anyway. So you have a good jet there that has benefitted from lots of improvements over time. By the way, lots of time on FCFs at Mach 2 and USAF does not have any restrictions below the KCAS red line for the Jet and 50K feet (Clean A-model will go to 52K in Mil power, no zoom...proven by self...but the ECS/cabin pressure can often be a problem...for me, when it shut down at 52K, I thought the motor had quit...JB came down fast)

I have asked Lockheed/GD folks about the later production A models like you are flying and the Singapore jets I flew. Much of the weight growth came in the C-model as they beefed them up for heavier expectations (TGPs, Nav Pods, heavier gross weights, lessons learned from A-model wear, etc.) The landing gear is heavier to provide the greater gross weight and the brakes and tires were rated higher. I suspect these components were standard to all production airplanes when the later A-models were built and hence would expect those A-models to be heavier than Blk 1/5/10 and even early Blk 15. The only response I got at the FW plant was "we have dial a jet here, an A-model is an A-model...." Not satisfactory answer in my mind. I doubt they get different bulkheads, wings, landing gear, etc. than the C-models being built right next in line but what do I know? The jets also got heavier over time as stiffeners were added. I last flew the Blk 15 with a 220 motor in 1997 when we converted to Blk 32 (C-model 220 motor). I did not detect significant differences in performance and I flew both A and C models for several months that year. In 2000 we traded our Blk 32s for big lip Blk 30s....now that was noticeable.....

AOA indexers....those flashing lights to the left of the HUD designed as a distraction? Don't know anyone that ever discussed paying attention to them. FPM and AOA bracket, what more do you need? I didn't look at the AOA indexer in the T-38 or F-4 either. Flew Airspeed in the T-38. The F-4 had a nice AOA tone but mostly flew A/S in that too. Was hard to go back to no HUD and FPM as I flew the F-4 after I had ~1400 hours and 7 years flying the Viper. Only flew the Phantom for 1 year and 168 hours before back to the Viper.

I flew a lot against A-D Hornets but never a SH. I was glad to be in a Viper. But none of us ever really got to go to war like that did we? So in terms of TGP, Data Link, Displays, weapons, etc for A/G missions I don't really think there is that much difference but I don't really know anything about the SH.

It is good some Navy folks get exposed to the Viper. I wish USAF used the Hornet as an adversary jet instead of F-16. It is different enough to make it more realistic. I used to say the USAF Aggressors should do adversary for USN and vice versa. There is enough cultural difference there to make them unpredictable. Even though they get good training for the role, in the end, the Aggressors are just a USAF Viper or Eagle driver. sort of predictable.

Have fun....I know you will.

JB

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2015, 20:21
by 35_aoa
JB,

Wow, thanks for all the awesome info. I always like to hear the historical perspective on things, which is a cool thing about this site.

As for USAF using the -18 as an adversary (or aggressor in your speak), I think that could be interesting. It certainly fights a little differently, as I'm sure you know. My guess is that the acquisition process was just a lot easier for us, with the F-16 being so widely proliferated and comparatively cheap. The Pak A/B buy was an incredible value.

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2015, 21:49
by jbgator
Actually I never expected USAF to acquire Hornets, just negotiate a deal with USN to do adversary stuff. Win-Win to me. Navy buys and maintains logistics for Hornets, USAF buys and maintains Logistics for Vipers. Navy/Marine pilots with their slight twist on aviating (A nice way of saying sub standard, takeoff and landing focused, Carrier landing, tail hook obsessed....now you know I am joking right? Good friend of mine was a Tomcat toad, Navy exchange to USAF Vipers, transfer to USAF Reserve in Vipers with me, Now G.O. in USAFR) provide enough unpredictability to make the Adversary/Aggressor role more realistic. Somehow we never polished the polo shirted/flight suit stuff off him. There is nothing more valuable than the USAF/USN/USMC exchange program. I would encourage you to pursue it.

I have flown with Dutch, German, RAF, Australian, Canadian, Danish, Norwegian, and Netherlands exchange pilots, Thai, Singapore, and California (Joking) foreign students, and USMC/USN exchange pilots and students. I learned a lot from them, probably more than they learned from me. The biggest thing is someone who thinks outside of your container. Group think is powerful. The Navy has the advantage of the Marines who don't think like anyone else, USAF has no such advantage.

Back to a previous point, I remembered that, if you ever got in a USAF Viper, you would find the AOA indexer light intensity knob in the full-off position. Useless piece of hardware blocking forward visibility. Especially if it flared up on approach at night with Noggs. So I learned to verify it was off at night.

Years after he had transitioned to the Viper I flew from Hawaii to Hill AFB in the pit of an F-16D on an A/C delivery with my Navy friend and he still rowed the jet to landing (my description of constant power manipulation by USN pilots I trained). Hope you figure out how to set the power, small corrections, and flare to a smooth touchdown. It is a special feeling when you've flown the Viper enough not to bounce every time you try to land. When you get it you will probably be ruined for return to the Hornet.

JB

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2015, 03:43
by 35_aoa
JB

haha that is funny you mentioned that......exactly where I am at, or where I'm trying to get away from now :) My first couple of approach turns, you guessed it, I was sawing the throttle like you do in a Hornet......except the thing has so much power and is so slick (even with speedbrakes out) that you just accelerate to like 200 knots in the process. Completely different animal in the landing pattern. It honestly flies much more like the family V35 Bonanza than it does any Navy jet I've flown. I think having a background in civilian flying has helped me in that respect. While it has been a good 13-14 years since I have done much flaring to land (aside from a brief stint in T-34's slightly more recently), it does come back pretty quickly, and the thing really does fly like a light single IMHO as soon as you start the flare. We still fly the "Navy pattern", but I've learned to just flick out the boards to 60 deg for a couple seconds rolling out on final to bleed some of the knots I was holding onto in the approach turn, then set the power at like 79% (78% if I'm below a 5.0 or so) and not touch it until I'm in the flare. I think there are a couple schools of thought.....those who land fast at like 8-9 AoA, and those who fly 11 and hit 13 in the flare. Second method has bought me all of my "no bounce" landings, as well as a very tiny goose of the throttle just before touchdown prior to coming to idle. The more "on speed" approach method also seems to make aerobraking and just generally comfortably setting the nose down much more manageable. I full stopped the other day on a wet runway right after a storm, and it was really surprising how well it behaved......the Hornet is bad, actually real bad on a wet runway (we actually will take a trap if there is 1/4" or more of water)......my scariest landing, day/night/boat/ashore was during a thunderstorm landing at miramar in the middle of the afternoon. 15-20 knot crosswind which only makes the directional control problems of the Hornet more scary. Immediately started a hard right drift towards the side of the runway, remembered a friend who had recently departed the runway and destroyed a jet going offroading across taxiway P and through a ditch, and just sat on my hands (or took my feet off the pedals), let it do its thing with really small corrections to stay away from the extremes, and it finally stopped, seat cushion well into my behind. Nothing like that in the Viper, just a nice smooth honest airplane that had a whole lot of rudder authority to keep tracking and a wheelbase that doesn't lend itself to 360's or cartwheels. That being said, in normal conditions, you can be a lot less careful landing an -18 and you still won't break it. I'm still pretty cautious in the Viper, which I think is why a lot of guys land fast......better to roll out on a 12-14k ft runway a little longer, than scrape the speedbrakes and/or tailpipe overdoing it in the flare. And I have probably fully substantiated your "Navy only cares about landing" notion at this point :P

As for the exchange, I definitely considered it. The "career killer" aspect kind of pushed me away a little, and mostly I just wanted to come out here which was the big reason I didn't do it. However, I've known some guys to do it, and it sounds very cool.

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2015, 14:52
by jbgator
Sounds like you're getting the hang of it. 11 AOA flare to 12-13 is the way to go. I never let a student keep landing fast. OK for you guys as you will never fly heavy but when you come back with missiles, tanks, ECM pod, and unexpended bombs to a wet runway you find the jet not so docile or easy to stop, even on 10K runway. I taught sight picture in the flare (too many focused on the AOA staple which can be a little off in ground effect and causes tunnel vision in the flare). I had them set 12.5 on the pitch ladder in the aerobrake and made them memorize the sight picture. Told them that was how much they get to flare. If that wasn't enough they needed to hold what they got and accept the bounce. I never scraped a tail or had a stud who did. Also watch big roll corrections in close as the jet rolls by dumping lift (raises flapperons) and differential tail causing sink rates and possible slab strikes as they dip trailing edge real low to cause roll. Told them to ride through jet wash or go around.

For power management I used to demo a landing from the RCP in a B-model. Power on initial to hold 300 KCAS (1800' pattern altitude) and never touch it again through touchdown. Speed brakes in the break to arrive at roll-off at 200 KCAS, as you said...fan the boards as required to control speed on final. I succeeded a couple of times but, even if I had to do one power adjustment, it usually got the point across. Doing lots of SFOs to T&G helped understand the point too and I found my RCP landings were often better than FCP as a result.

Nice thing about landing on 8-10K non-moving runways was, once qualified to land the jet, we never spent anymore time talking about it. In the training squadron or operational we talked tactics, not landing techniques. I understand why you need to do it in the Navy and have utmost respect for the difficulty, I'm just happy I didn't have to spend time on it and the scariest part of my combat missions was not the night landing at the end. My buddy took me out to the TR in the Gulf to watch some CQ years ago (He was an O-6 by then and knew the CAG). Flew from Key West to the boat on a COD, spent the day, and returned that evening. Was really cool. The trap was less than I expected and the CAT shot really got my attention. We had lunch, spent a recovery on the LSO platform, and hung out with the CAG in his special little sky box (terminology?) watching the rest of the deck dance and launches. Impressive watching that massive, multi-engine, airplane come aboard from the LSO platform (not the COD/E-2, the Tomcat). I call all my F-15 pilot friends the same thing: "Large multi engine aircraft pilots."

Assume you have your 9G pin now. Expect you will humiliate your Hornet buddies in BFM and, as always, know you will have fun.

JB

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2015, 00:38
by neurotech
35_aoa wrote:JB

haha that is funny you mentioned that......exactly where I am at, or where I'm trying to get away from now :) My first couple of approach turns, you guessed it, I was sawing the throttle like you do in a Hornet......except the thing has so much power and is so slick (even with speedbrakes out) that you just accelerate to like 200 knots in the process. Completely different animal in the landing pattern.

When I worked as a civilian contractor, mainly in the simulator, we had a few test pilots who flew both F-16s and F/A-18s. The pilots were always instructed to "use the tailhook" because the F/A-18 is designed to make a trap, and we'd look really dumb overrunning the runway. The F-16s would also go for an arrested landing somewhat regularly.

The two comments that might be useful in the F-16 is always be prepared to go around, especially when "a little" high on landing. If the nose attitude isn't maintained for aerobraking, there is a real risk of an overrun. The video of the 2011 mishap at Oshkosh is a classic example.


Here is the mishap report.
https://timemilitary.files.wordpress.co ... 6c_aib.pdf

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2015, 01:49
by jbgator
In the case of Oshkosh there is no arresting cable so the hook does you no good. Going around with a fast/long touchdown is a good idea in any airplane. In this case he indicated his vision was too obscured to safely go around. I have seen bad ECS fogging but never that bad.

But this does go in line with my previous post to 35 AOA about pilots regularly landing at 8-9 AOA as a technique to avoid speed brake/tail strikes. You get away with it on a long dry runway but it puts you in a bad situation when it is short and/or wet. They won't always get to land at Fallon. That is why I would never let a student keep landing like that. They would have to show me an 11+ AOA landing consistently before I cleared them solo. Proper Aerobraking is obviously important and I think the F-15/16 were the first USAF fighters to use the technique (obviously not in F-4) and it was not used in the T-38, so all our students needed to learn it as something new. It definitely impacts landing roll if you do it wrong but I am skeptical in the case of this accident, as fast and long as he landed, that it would have made a difference.

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2015, 02:33
by neurotech
jbgator wrote:In the case of Oshkosh there is no arresting cable so the hook does you no good. Going around with a fast/long touchdown is a good idea in any airplane. In this case he indicated his vision was too obscured to safely go around. I have seen bad ECS fogging but never that bad.

But this does go in line with my previous post to 35 AOA about pilots regularly landing at 8-9 AOA as a technique to avoid speed brake/tail strikes. You get away with it on a long dry runway but it puts you in a bad situation when it is short and/or wet. They won't always get to land at Fallon. That is why I would never let a student keep landing like that. They would have to show me an 11+ AOA landing consistently before I cleared them solo. Proper Aerobraking is obviously important and I think the F-15/16 were the first USAF fighters to use the technique (obviously not in F-4) and it was not used in the T-38, so all our students needed to learn it as something new. It definitely impacts landing roll if you do it wrong but I am skeptical in the case of this accident, as fast and long as he landed, that it would have made a difference.

I'm kind of skeptical of the Oshkosh mishap explanation. There have been numerous reports of cockpit fogging, but very few resulted in a mishap. I also knew that there was no arresting gear on the runway at Oshkosh.

You can imagine why it would be unacceptable for a test pilot to damage an aircraft in a 'pilot induced' mishap by being complacent with landing technique. Apparently, some Air Force pilots seem to think that arresting gear is only for emergencies. Navy pilots are usually quite experienced with arrested landings, obviously. There have been times when gusty winds (technically within NATOPS limits) were enough that the pilot opted for arresting gear.

Most Naval Aviators have heard the tragic story of Capt. Hank Kleemann, and how his F/A-18 flipped over, and why the NATOPS recommends against aerobraking on landing. Doing a no-flare landing in a F-16 could quite easily wreck the jet. One of the factors in Capt. Kleemann's mishap was "negative transference" from techniques he used in the F-14.

Your posts on F-16 landing technique make a lot of sense, not disagreeing with you.

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2015, 02:53
by jbgator
Arresting gear IS only for emergencies in AF aircraft as they are not designed for regular arrestment. We did not use the hook to stop in any normal situations. All use of the hook is addressed in the emergencies section of the Dash-1 and checklists. As such, it is by USAF definition an emergency procedure. The only time I used the hook for other than emergency situations was to test an arresting cable. This was done at about 100 knots. USAF aircraft cannot raise their hook after it is dropped and in the F-16 there is a sheer pin that must be replaced by MX after an engagement so it isn't something done routinely.

And it is "unacceptable" for any pilot, not just a test pilot, to damage an aircraft due to complacent landing technique. All pilots know that and AF pilots are no less interested in avoiding it than Navy pilots or test pilots. I trained a lot of student test pilots to fly the F-16 after they had several accidents at Edwards and decided that handing a test pilot a Dash-1 and saying "go fly it" doesn't work so well. After one crashed an F-16 doing an SFO they added them to the TR phase of our classes at Luke and they got conversion academics and several TR rides before they could go back to the TPS and fly F-16s.

And you would be surprised to know how much sink rate an F-16 can survive on landing without "wrecking the jet" as I have experienced multiple times with new students who mess up the flare.

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2015, 03:47
by 35_aoa
neurotech wrote:I'm kind of skeptical of the Oshkosh mishap explanation. There have been numerous reports of cockpit fogging, but very few resulted in a mishap. I also knew that there was no arresting gear on the runway at Oshkosh.

You can imagine why it would be unacceptable for a test pilot to damage an aircraft in a 'pilot induced' mishap by being complacent with landing technique. Apparently, some Air Force pilots seem to think that arresting gear is only for emergencies. Navy pilots are usually quite experienced with arrested landings, obviously. There have been times when gusty winds (technically within NATOPS limits) were enough that the pilot opted for arresting gear.

Most Naval Aviators have heard the tragic story of Capt. Hank Kleemann, and how his F/A-18 flipped over, and why the NATOPS recommends against aerobraking on landing. Doing a no-flare landing in a F-16 could quite easily wreck the jet. One of the factors in Capt. Kleemann's mishap was "negative transference" from techniques he used in the F-14.

Your posts on F-16 landing technique make a lot of sense, not disagreeing with you.


Yeah, have seen some pretty good fogging as well, but nothing as apparently incapacitating as that. Was the Kleemann accident the one at Miramar where the guy drowned in the drainage ditch just north of RWY 24? First planing link failure for the Hornet IIRC. Funny thing is that guys in the Super now will actually aerobrake to some extent, but just given the FCS and the Aileron/Rudder Interconnect, it is not a great thing to do in a crosswind. I'd tend to say it is just a bad idea in any F/A-18, but I didn't grow up in the Rhino. There are enough weird directional control issues to deal with as it is, better to just plant it on the ground and start using NWS and get yourself into a PIO or worse, smack a horizontal stab on the runway (which has been done).

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2015, 03:56
by 35_aoa
jbgator wrote:
And you would be surprised to know how much sink rate an F-16 can survive on landing without "wrecking the jet" as I have experienced multiple times with new students who mess up the flare.


Interesting to hear, I guess I have been pretty cautious about letting a sink rate develop because I just figured the mains wouldn't take much.....that and I don't want to get the inevitable bounce......so I will typically be in the flare a little longer before touchdown than maybe is ideal for a shorter runway.

Another interesting difference is that the flaps come up with the gear handle. Anyone ever settle back onto the runway being too aggressive/bringing up the gear too slow? I've heard 190 is a good minimum number, pretty similar to 180 in the Hornet before you move the flaps up to "auto"

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2015, 05:08
by neurotech
35_aoa wrote:Yeah, have seen some pretty good fogging as well, but nothing as apparently incapacitating as that. Was the Kleemann accident the one at Miramar where the guy drowned in the drainage ditch just north of RWY 24? First planing link failure for the Hornet IIRC. Funny thing is that guys in the Super now will actually aerobrake to some extent, but just given the FCS and the Aileron/Rudder Interconnect, it is not a great thing to do in a crosswind. I'd tend to say it is just a bad idea in any F/A-18, but I didn't grow up in the Rhino. There are enough weird directional control issues to deal with as it is, better to just plant it on the ground and start using NWS and get yourself into a PIO or worse, smack a horizontal stab on the runway (which has been done).

Thats the crash I was referring to. The planing link failure sent the jet off the runway and he drowned.

We had Rhinos (early 2000s) for operational testing (operated by Boeing) and the test pilots were not big on aerobraking, even with the FCS update. We had an incident where a Rhino did a firm landing in a crosswind, then started PIOing down the runway. The pilot powered up and grabbed the cable on the next approach. It was a combination of pilot handling, and a minor FCS software glitch. Aerobraking is not a good idea in the Rhino.

Have you had any instruction for the F-16 for Navy vs USAF procedures?

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2015, 06:40
by johnwill
Of course, I'm not a pilot and am not trying to horn in on your very interesting conversation, but concerning aerobraking and sink rates, I can offer a comment. Aerobraking was used routinely by F-102, F-106, and B-58. It should be obvious why, the very large area delta wings common to those three provided a lot of drag with the nose up.

F-16 landing sink rate capability is designed for two gross weight conditions, "landplane landing weight" and "max design landing weight". Landplane landing weight is roughly what you have returning from an air to air mission and max design landing weight is what you have returning from an air to ground mission. Those weights are specified in structural design requirements and vary with Block Number to account for the increased gross weight of the various blocks. Way back when, Block 1, 5, 10, and 15 airplane gear design landing weights were about 19.5k and 27.5k. Anyway, design sink rate for landplane landing weight is 10 ft/sec and for max design landing weight it is 6 ft/sec. A normal 12 or 13 deg AoA on speed landing will result in a sink rate of 1 or 2 ft/sec. So you can see there is a large margin of gear strength for higher sink rates.

For really heavy landings, brake energy limits are more critical than sink rate limits. That's where aerobraking helps.

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2015, 07:27
by 35_aoa
neurotech wrote:
35_aoa wrote:Yeah, have seen some pretty good fogging as well, but nothing as apparently incapacitating as that. Was the Kleemann accident the one at Miramar where the guy drowned in the drainage ditch just north of RWY 24? First planing link failure for the Hornet IIRC. Funny thing is that guys in the Super now will actually aerobrake to some extent, but just given the FCS and the Aileron/Rudder Interconnect, it is not a great thing to do in a crosswind. I'd tend to say it is just a bad idea in any F/A-18, but I didn't grow up in the Rhino. There are enough weird directional control issues to deal with as it is, better to just plant it on the ground and start using NWS and get yourself into a PIO or worse, smack a horizontal stab on the runway (which has been done).

Thats the crash I was referring to. The planing link failure sent the jet off the runway and he drowned.

We had Rhinos (early 2000s) for operational testing (operated by Boeing) and the test pilots were not big on aerobraking, even with the FCS update. We had an incident where a Rhino did a firm landing in a crosswind, then started PIOing down the runway. The pilot powered up and grabbed the cable on the next approach. It was a combination of pilot handling, and a minor FCS software glitch. Aerobraking is not a good idea in the Rhino.

Have you had any instruction for the F-16 for Navy vs USAF procedures?


Yeah, just like you said, not something I am interested in doing in an -18......the brakes are very good, there is really no good reason to do so; I've really gotten on them on a couple occasions, and never saw anything close to having "hot brakes" or blowing fuze plugs or anything like that. As for instruction of USN vs USAF procedures, our training is 100% in house now, after Tuscon stopped teaching block 15. That being said, our syllabus leverages pretty heavily off the USAF program......all the ground school products are pretty much pirated from the USAF. Are there any specific procedures you had in mind? Would be interested to hear if there was something that we aren't getting.

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2015, 13:23
by jbgator
JW, just as soon as I posted it I remembered the Deltas and aerobrake...good catch. But by the time I was teaching F-16 pilots (1986-1989) at FTU there were none left so all TX course studs came from F-4 (the real Rhino), A-7, A-10, etc. and had little to no experience with aerobrake. Landing in a heavy sink rate still produces a bounce and if it was a B-model with me in the pit the AutoThrottle (i.e. me) was already coming on to go around anyway. With the sidestick controller you could not "help" a student and they could not feel your inputs if you made them. Paddling them off in close was not good either as the flight controls would temporarily go neutral till you made your input. So I just kept my hand resting on the throttle and if they did something dumb I shoved it forward. Obviously the F-16 would not take a sink rate like the F-4 and some of my hardest landings were F-4 pilots who didn't flare.

35 AOA, the gear up settle you mention has not, to my knowledge, resulted in runway impact but your ROT is good. As to firm touchdowns, there is one time when it is a good idea. When you land on a wet runway you need to make sure you get enough friction to get the wheels spun up before braking. As I tell people, all the notes, warnings, and cautions in the F-16 Dash-1 have names for me. In 1984 an F-16 landed in a good thunderstorm in Incirlik Turkey and went off the side of the runway (Looked like the Oshkosh, mud all the way through the motor). Turns out he landed so smoothly no WOW and wheel spin up before he applied the brakes. Wheels lock up, when WOW finally occurs both tires blow simultaneously and he was along for the ride. That jet was at the Lik for almost a year getting fixed as the nose gear went up through the intake.

Fogging is jet specific, some are worse than others. Don't know why. Usually in humid environs you needed to blow out the moisture before flight. This meant, despite the heat, going to full-hot and defog forward. I have seen it blow out snow in some situations.

JB

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2015, 16:54
by neurotech
35_aoa wrote:Yeah, just like you said, not something I am interested in doing in an -18......the brakes are very good, there is really no good reason to do so; I've really gotten on them on a couple occasions, and never saw anything close to having "hot brakes" or blowing fuze plugs or anything like that. As for instruction of USN vs USAF procedures, our training is 100% in house now, after Tuscon stopped teaching block 15. That being said, our syllabus leverages pretty heavily off the USAF program......all the ground school products are pretty much pirated from the USAF. Are there any specific procedures you had in mind? Would be interested to hear if there was something that we aren't getting.

Some Navy pilots in F-16s (USAF FTU trained) were carrying too much AoA in close, and not adding enough power, causing a high sink rate. Navy pilots were making late power corrections, when a "wave off" would have been safer.

Landing on a wet, slippery runway was another area where the -1 was vague, but the NATOPS specifies what is not recommended, and what is prohibited.

Another issue was pilots were misjudging their fuel state, especially for mixed formations. NATOPS is more explicit and recommends briefing fuel states before the flight. On certain missions, the F/A-18s were buddy tanking, but not the F-16s. This led to a few close calls.

I'm sure someone will point out that most of this is either obvious, or just good airmanship. NATOPS is explicit in some areas where the -1 is a little vague.

Re: FNG

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2015, 20:49
by 35_aoa
neurotech wrote:
35_aoa wrote:Yeah, just like you said, not something I am interested in doing in an -18......the brakes are very good, there is really no good reason to do so; I've really gotten on them on a couple occasions, and never saw anything close to having "hot brakes" or blowing fuze plugs or anything like that. As for instruction of USN vs USAF procedures, our training is 100% in house now, after Tuscon stopped teaching block 15. That being said, our syllabus leverages pretty heavily off the USAF program......all the ground school products are pretty much pirated from the USAF. Are there any specific procedures you had in mind? Would be interested to hear if there was something that we aren't getting.

Some Navy pilots in F-16s (USAF FTU trained) were carrying too much AoA in close, and not adding enough power, causing a high sink rate. Navy pilots were making late power corrections, when a "wave off" would have been safer.

Landing on a wet, slippery runway was another area where the -1 was vague, but the NATOPS specifies what is not recommended, and what is prohibited.

Another issue was pilots were misjudging their fuel state, especially for mixed formations. NATOPS is more explicit and recommends briefing fuel states before the flight. On certain missions, the F/A-18s were buddy tanking, but not the F-16s. This led to a few close calls.

I'm sure someone will point out that most of this is either obvious, or just good airmanship. NATOPS is explicit in some areas where the -1 is a little vague.


Yeah, I have noticed that about the -1. Also the CAPs are written in a much more vague manner IMO, specifically OCF I'd say. However, we don't have a NATOPS for the F-16, not sure if there was one at one point in time, but all I have is the -1. Obviously there is the 3710 which covers general NATOPS (separate manual, not type/model/series specific), which I'm assuming is what you are getting at here.