F-16s intercept unauthorized small plane....

MikeD said:
Plus, for an aircraft that's truly an unknown, you want to stay in a place where weapons employment can be successfully brought to bear quickly, if it ever came to that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because the C-182 has such an impressive kill/loss ratio.

Nah, but seriously, I get what you're saying. Nothing like bringing a crew served weapon to a slap fight.
 
Stomp16 said:
however, I am still curious as to what Vs and Vso are for a standard F16. Is this classified or something? Why does no one ever want to answer that question?
Click to expand...

Well, first off, it's because military fighters don't have "V-speeds". That's something you get in civilian aviation for standardization.

More correctly, though, is because fighters don't have a "stall speed" per se -- it is measured by AOA. In fact, the F-15E and T-38, the jets that I have the most time in, don't have a published "stall speed" anywhere in the literature. Stall is measured by AOA as well as environmental factors (like knowing when the buffett you're feeling on the airframe has reached an intensity to the point where the aircraft is actually stalled).

Why? Because the stall speeds change, depending on fuel and stores load. It's not a static number. Again, AOA is the only reliable method of actually determining when the airplane is stalled. Also, remember that for jets that are maneuvering, stall AOA can be reached at a wide range of airspeeds through the flight envelope (e.g., accelerated stalls) and that is something that can be used during tactical maneuvering.

Even at that, the AOA number doesn't dictate how slow I can actually fly in a fighter. I have flown F-15Es and T-38s well below what would be those stall speeds -- at high AOA and in afterburner. The AOA says that the airplane is fully stalled, and yet I can fly airspeed/altitude/heading to Commercial PTS standards. Same thing as when you see the Blue Angles fly the F-18 at high AOA but very slow; the airspeed is well below where the airplane would stall if it were just relying on Mr Bernoulli for lift, but the airplane is still most definitely flying controlled.

So, knowing those speeds doesn't really help anyone understand the issue.
 
pete2800 said:
Another serious question: Is there ever a time that an F-16 doesn't have an energy advantage, or could have one in a matter of a few seconds?
Click to expand...

Yes, fighters -- like any other aircraft -- have a L/Dmax point on the lift/drag/power curve, below which it is distinctly not at an energy advantage. This is why most fighters have the FAA waiver to do 300 knots below 10,000 feet, because L/Dmax sits in the neighborhood of 250 for many of them.
 
Great post from Hacker. To add to that, the Hornet actually has unlimited AoA as long as we aren't carrying a bunch of ait-to-ground stores or assymetric loading. It's quite easy to see 50-60 alpha in heavy maneuvering at slow speed if you overdo the pull a little bit. Still completely controllable. You can also go from 300+ kts to 48 in the HUD (basically 0 in the hornet) in a matter of seconds with a max performance pull. There is no stall, or any sort of indication of exceeding critical AoA or anything like that. You will be in a cloud of vapes coming off the LEX's and there is a lot of buffeting from the vertical stabs, but that is about the only way to know that you are now really no longer flying.
 
mshunter said:
Why is it you military guys always get to rub this stuff is our faces! If I were king for a day, I'd make you take me for a ride. :cool:
Click to expand...

If I were King, I'd take you. I actually love to take people on rides and share what a cool experience it is.

My offer to take folks in the T-38 sims if they ever make it up my way is still open.
 
I'd love to take folks as well, but among other things, there is not another seat. I've actually never even taken my wife flying, so I guess I better go rent a Cessna or something and take care of her first before I start taking other people :)
 
Hacker15e said:
Well, first off, it's because military fighters don't have "V-speeds". That's something you get in civilian aviation for standardization.

More correctly, though, is because fighters don't have a "stall speed" per se -- it is measured by AOA. In fact, the F-15E and T-38, the jets that I have the most time in, don't have a published "stall speed" anywhere in the literature. Stall is measured by AOA as well as environmental factors (like knowing when the buffett you're feeling on the airframe has reached an intensity to the point where the aircraft is actually stalled).

Why? Because the stall speeds change, depending on fuel and stores load. It's not a static number. Again, AOA is the only reliable method of actually determining when the airplane is stalled. Also, remember that for jets that are maneuvering, stall AOA can be reached at a wide range of airspeeds through the flight envelope (e.g., accelerated stalls) and that is something that can be used during tactical maneuvering.

Even at that, the AOA number doesn't dictate how slow I can actually fly in a fighter. I have flown F-15Es and T-38s well below what would be those stall speeds -- at high AOA and in afterburner. The AOA says that the airplane is fully stalled, and yet I can fly airspeed/altitude/heading to Commercial PTS standards. Same thing as when you see the Blue Angles fly the F-18 at high AOA but very slow; the airspeed is well below where the airplane would stall if it were just relying on Mr Bernoulli for lift, but the airplane is still most definitely flying controlled.

So, knowing those speeds doesn't really help anyone understand the issue.
Click to expand...

Its the magic of thrust! :) The -38 is a great aircraft to see and teach how the AOA relationship works in terms of the wide stall regime.
 
Cptnchia said:
Yeah, because the C-182 has such an impressive kill/loss ratio.

Nah, but seriously, I get what you're saying. Nothing like bringing a crew served weapon to a slap fight.
Click to expand...

Correct. And more so for if that same Cessna/Piper/Lear/whatever is determined to be hostile and it's intentions unknown (or even known) and it's heading towards somewhere that it shouldn't be and won't deviate, OR is going towards it's known target......one has to be in a position to kill if need be.

Back during the Payne Stewart incident, there was serious talk at high levels of what to do with the aircraft if it began to head towards a major metropolitan area. Serious talk of potentially knocking it down, and the legality of doing such an unprecedented move.

Similar to my Accident Synopsis "Flight of the Unintentional UAV" that one can find in the Tech Topics section, only difference being that the aircraft in the 1971 story was flying with no one in it. Stewart's incident was the first with persons.....US citizens.....onboard where that decision was being considered.
 
Hacker15e said:
Vance AFB in Enid, OK. It's about 90 minutes from OKC, 2 hours from Tulsa, and 2 hours from Wichita.
Click to expand...

Or exactly 51NM from PWA. I fly up that way quite often just for the cross country time. I might have to take you up on that one day if you're still offering.
 
Yep. It takes a little prior planning, so give me some warning and I'll see what I can set up.
 
Damn, too bad I didn't know about the T-38 sim offer before I graduated OSU. Stillwater isn't very far from Vance at all. In fact, we got aircraft all the time doing training in the pattern from Vance.

Anyways, my blimp offer still stands! :)
 
MikeD said:
Correct. And more so for if that same Cessna/Piper/Lear/whatever is determined to be hostile and it's intentions unknown (or even known) and it's heading towards somewhere that it shouldn't be and won't deviate, OR is going towards it's known target......one has to be in a position to kill if need be.

Back during the Payne Stewart incident, there was serious talk at high levels of what to do with the aircraft if it began to head towards a major metropolitan area. Serious talk of potentially knocking it down, and the legality of doing such an unprecedented move.

Similar to my Accident Synopsis "Flight of the Unintentional UAV" that one can find in the Tech Topics section, only difference being that the aircraft in the 1971 story was flying with no one in it. Stewart's incident was the first with persons.....US citizens.....onboard where that decision was being considered.
Click to expand...


http://415vva.homestead.com/Mil_Hist___Battle_of_Palmdale.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top