Scudrunners

No, I didn't; never got the chance. Had to settle for the Canadian version... (;>0)

Obscure facts:
(1) original USAF T-33 was powered by Allison J33
(2) licence-built RCAF T-33 was powered by more powerful Rolls-Royce Nene 10 which oddly was gifted to the Russians - see MiG-15

Seems unreal that they didn’t have a rejection point or didn’t think to shut down since they were probably not wheels up when they got there.

John Swallow wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 2:56 am The CF-5 and the CF-104 had an acceleration check speed/checkpoint to ascertain if adequate thrust was being developed.

T-33, F-86, Tutor used the "push in the seat" technique.

What was your favourite?

Ask Richard Bach about taking off in a BD-5J sometime.

Then there was the Sacramento Ice Cream Parlor, up the road from me, in an old, gentle cow of a Sabre.

You could try this in an F-100:



TL;DR takeoffs in jets are more tricky than piston aircraft. You probably won't believe me, but that's ok.

-- EDIT --

A very few piston/prop aircraft are interesting to fly, like jets. The first really interesting piston/prop
aircraft I flew was the P-51D (converted to TF-51 Cavalier):



Takeoff was a hoot. We drove down the runway, faster and faster and faster, which was actually
pretty cool, except the instructor yelling at me over the intercom to rotate. See, every piston prop
aircraft I had flown up to that point, would talk to me when it wanted to go flying, as it rolled down
the runway. It would start to make little hops, like an old lady picking up her long dress over puddles.

But not the P-51. It was perfectly happy to roll down that runway at tremendous speed, sitting on
the runway like a fat kid on the sidewalk. A degree of alpha and up we went. How interesting, that
skinny wing was.

I have mentioned before that the stall characteristic of that NLF wing on the P-51 was different
from anything I had flown before. It would bite you in the @ss. I can only imagine the poor pilots
in WWII that tried to hang onto a Zero or something in a turn, only to violently stall/spin off. The
good news is that probably no one could follow such a maneuver.

Reminds me of an old USAF fighter pilot I flew with once. We were in a turning contest in a couple
of Pitts, and I was on his tail, until he ran out of speed and did a split-S, which was a fairly ballsy
maneuver to pull at the altitude we were at. I did not follow him, but I did not forget that trick, either.
A low-altitude split-S is an interesting maneuver, and one that not many pilots will follow if you
surprise them with it. A great trick when you run out of airspeed. Remember that.

Back to jets. Wings. P-51D. Oh yeah, the Glasair III - which is basically an angle-valve 540 with
a pair of handle bars on the back - was very reminiscent of the P-51D. It unmistakably had
"that NLF wing" which sure smelled like jet to me.



My favorite homebuilt. It was far too heavy but made marvellous sounds with that large
diameter exhaust. I'm really weird. I love engines. I love how they sound. The Lamborghini
with the Stebro exhaust made me wet my pants, as you blipped the throttle on the downshifts.

https://www.courant.com/breaking-news/h ... story.html

"A preliminary report on a plane crash in Farmington that killed four people shows witnesses noticed trouble as the plane struggled to get off the ground the morning of Sept. 2. The draft report from the National Transportation Safety Board found no evidence of “any anomalies with any of the airplane’s primary or secondary flight control surfaces,” but notes that the parking brake had not been released.

Witnesses told investigators that the plane was “going slower” during takeoff than usual, and “a puff of blue-colored smoke” came from the back of the plane when it was about two-thirds down the runway at Robertson Airport in Plainville."

Colonel wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 2:34 am Update: sure looks like the brakes - plural - were dragging on takeoff.

Now, we don't know why - at least not yet. That mystery may never be solved.

But. The pilots taking off, were apparently waiting like good little airline pilots
for the V1. You know, the reject speed, which if you are interested was Delorean
speed - 88.

However, they never reached V1, so they never rejected the takeoff, and they
drove off the end of the short runway and staggered into the air.

Dunno about you guys, but when I was flying jets, I was always paranoid about
whether the fucking thing was making power, which is thrust minus drag, right?

The stuff I flew always had dirty blades from sitting and needed a comp wash
and never got one.

A little, long-forgotten history lesson:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Florida_Flight_90

As the takeoff roll began, the first officer noted several times to the captain that the instrument panel readings he was seeing did not seem to reflect reality (he was referring to the fact that the plane did not appear to have developed as much power as it needed for takeoff, despite the instruments indicating otherwise).

The pilot was told not to delay because another aircraft was 2.5 miles out on final approach to the same runway

Tricky and subjective stuff, inadequate acceleration. Horrible consequences for a difficult decision.

Here's the FAA definition of V1

Definition. V1 is the maximum speed at which a rejected takeoff can be initiated in the event of an emergency. V1 is also the minimum speed at which a pilot can continue takeoff following an engine failure.


Something not right? Stop.

I fly engines with N1 - displays RPM. I understand that.

EPR is a meaningless number - still good to look at the N1 imho. Had several issues with faulty EPR indications.

On a Jet engine fuel flow can tell you right away if the engine is developing the correct power - you should know the normal take-off value imho.

Eric, if your N1's are good but the brakes are dragging, how do you know?

Also, did you ever fly the Jurassic?