favorite aircraft

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jetstar - I apologize if I came off wrong on the F-110. I loved flying the F-14 with those engines, it brought out the plane's full potential and it was a huge power and reliability increase for the jet.

I was strafing one day and the gun exploded (gun parts went through the skin of the plane) and the left engine ate them. Despite damaged blades, that F-110 ran without a hitch, all the way home. It had to be pulled for re-work (lots of blade damage, some big pieces missing, as gun parts tend to be high strength steel)...but I have never seen an engine run with that kind of damage...a great piece of engineering.

But the balance of AB liner cooling air and boundary layer holes in the AB liner was off when the -400 was designed from the -100...AB liner burnthroughs happened too often. Some of them with serious consequences, like when an F-14B, crewed by Bill Daisley and Fred Dillingham, experienced a burnthrough on 15 March, 1993, while flying at 10,000' and 800+ knots (about 1.4 IMN). The AB flame, uncontained by the liner or engine casing, cut through the starboard stabilizer control rod, causing the airplane to pitch full nose down at that speed. The airplane was shredded by the G loading (in excess of -14 Gs when the cockpit came apart) and the debris field was roughly 10 miles in length.

Fred and I had been squadron-mates during Operation Desert Storm and flown in combat together...including some very hazardous tactical reconnaissance on the last day of that conflict as we got down below the oil fire smoke, in the realm of small arms threat and mid-air collisions while imaging high-interest targets. Ironic that his end came on a simple training sortie...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Bell AH-1 Cobra.

My dad moved from the UH-1C gunship to the AH-1G Cobra in Vietnam. Fully loaded he didn't have to slide along the perforated steel planking and bounce into translational lift. The Cobra could just lift off. He flew Cobras until he retired in 1985.

He always said, that the Jet Jockeys, "...managed their aircraft, we fly ours." Yup, the "B" Huey gunships really needed landing gear and a bleepin runway with a full ordinance load plus the occasional "home made" C4 device on board.
 
What's the most high performance realistic jet a private citizen can own? I know some guys have bought older Russian fighters. What's the closest thing to say, an F-14/F-15 etc. that you or I could buy???
 
Closest that you could get would be in the L-39 category, realistically. Czech-built trainer. Good to 6 G, not sutained, more like one hard pull, and about 400 KTs top speed...it's fun plane to fly (I am told) and reasonable to own...reasonable meaning about $250,000 to buy, with a fuel cost of about $4,000 per flight...

A Tomcat, if you could support it, would cost $10,000 just to fuel for one flight...and you could, in max AB, use all that fuel in 10 minutes...but the maintenance on that jet would cost you at least as much as the fuel...maybe more...if you could buy one. Most were crushed at AMARC over the last few years, and a few are left in museums...and very, very few of them could ever be made flyable; generally, engines and avionics were removed on transfer to the museums. I've seen only 2 that could be made to fly: the F-14D in the Smithsonian, and remarkably, the F-14B in the Naval Air Station Wildwood Museum. I was, frankly, stunned to find that jet, complete, intact and leaking a bit of engine oil and hydraulic fluid, 4 years ago on a bit of a side trip.

If you could get your hands on a Russian MiG-29, then, you would be in a 4th Generation fighter...and there is no comparison with any other airplane...Sure, a G-5 can go longer distance, but the 4G fighter can do things that would tear the Gulsftream apart and not even begin to be near its performance envelope...

The 4th Gen jets are all good to 700-800 KIAS (While NATOPS limited the Tomcat to 780 KIAS, I've seen 850+ on the gauge a couple of times...the Gulfstream, or the L-39 would not survive that kind of speed...indicated airspeed is a measure of dynamic pressure...which increases with the square of the speed) and can all sustain 7-9 G in a max-rate turn.

Makes the most extreme amusement park ride you've been on seem lame, slow and gentle, in comparison...
 
Last edited:
Could you actually purchase a decommissioned US fighter jet though?

Thanks for the info. Good lord. That fuel cost alone would eat into a budget!
 
At last years air show here (missed this year) there was a private F-4 and F-105. Amazing how loud the F-4 was. Far and away louder than anything else in the air.

I hope someone has a flyable F-14 as it is one of my favorite aircraft.
 
Yeah, I always loved watching the F-14 on tv shows. Too bad I was too young to be around them when they were operational still.
 
The fuel cost was a big deal at 68 cents a gallon...now, it's over $3 for the DOD, closer to $4 for private aviation...and the Tomcat held 2,500 gallons internal...with another 660 in the drop tanks...

Buying a US fighter is prohibited, some part of US law...you can't buy from DOD or AMARC...but through museums and other institutions, folks have acquired F-86s and other early fighter aircraft, mostly piston engined aircraft. DOD auctioned many P-51s during the late 40s and early 50s...but who would want some old war relic for a few thousand $$? Nowadays, though...it sure would have been a great return on investment!

It's strange, but getting a MiG or Aero Vodochody (sp?) is far easier than a US fighter...there are still FAA hurdles, but the planes are cheap and available...

One really difficult issue is maintenance...so, you buy a Tomcat...where do you get service manuals? Trained folks in avionics, structures (particularly hydraulics), engines, etc? How about spare parts? That's why the AMARC destroyed so many F-14s, to keep spare parts from Iranian hands...that particular airplane is so complex, the parts/logistics tail is immense...even simple stuff, like ejection seat cartridges...where do you get those?
 
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
How does Iran keep their F-4 Phantoms in the air ?



All it takes is money....given enough , you can reverse engineer parts, work 3rd party and black market deals...over 5,000 F-4s were built...

Same thing goes on with F-14s...but the supply was so much smaller...about 700 built...only 70 exported...so, it just takes more money....
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Jetstar - I apologize if I came off wrong on the F-110. I loved flying the F-14 with those engines, it brought out the plane's full potential and it was a huge power and reliability increase for the jet.

I was strafing one day and the gun exploded (gun parts went through the skin of the plane) and the left engine ate them. Despite damaged blades, that F-110 ran without a hitch, all the way home. It had to be pulled for re-work (lots of blade damage, some big pieces missing, as gun parts tend to be high strength steel)...but I have never seen an engine run with that kind of damage...a great piece of engineering.

But the balance of AB liner cooling air and boundary layer holes in the AB liner was off when the -400 was designed from the -100...AB liner burnthroughs happened too often. Some of them with serious consequences, like when an F-14B, crewed by Bill Daisley and Fred Dillingham, experienced a burnthrough on 15 March, 1993, while flying at 10,000' and 800+ knots (about 1.4 IMN). The AB flame, uncontained by the liner or engine casing, cut through the starboard stabilizer control rod, causing the airplane to pitch full nose down at that speed. The airplane was shredded by the G loading (in excess of -14 Gs when the cockpit came apart) and the debris field was roughly 10 miles in length.

Fred and I had been squadron-mates during Operation Desert Storm and flown in combat together...including some very hazardous tactical reconnaissance on the last day of that conflict as we got down below the oil fire smoke, in the realm of small arms threat and mid-air collisions while imaging high-interest targets. Ironic that his end came on a simple training sortie...


Not at all. Flying high performance aircraft carries risk. You guys that strap them on know the risks well. I did my share of crash box investigations, and each one put a knot in my gut and a lump in my throat. I'm sorry to hear about Bill and Fred. You guys have my utmost respect, and thanks for your service.
 
Reading up on the F-14 Tomcat, Astro I can see why you loved flying them. It says that the Islamic Republic Of Iran has some, did we give those planes or some to them?

adam
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14

You and I have very different ultimate dreams for airplanes...mine are more aligned with birds of prey - lethal, powerful, maneuverable...that said, I can appreciate the beauty of something that was built for a single purpose, and I listed a few of my favorites.

The Gulfstream is a nice limo for the skies...but I just have a different idea of when an airplane is at its best...


We looked into purchasing a T38 (about as close to flying a fighter jet as I will ever be) and I've got to say, it was a let down. Bottom line, the GIV we operated at the time was faster and more fun in every way. In fact, the T38 had -8 engines instead of -6 (or some such nonsense) , they had slightly higher airflow requirements and this prevented the aircraft from going any faster than about M0.93, even with full AB. What a joke it was.

Even a loop took seemingly consumed 10,000 feet. YUK.

But, I can see your point clearly. There is something awesome and wonderful about top shelf military aircraft. The performance and capability are stunning. And I am certain there is nothing that comes close to that flying experience.

I hope you see my point about travel to both normal and improbable locations. That's what aircraft really do best (IMHO) , cover large distances, safely, in comfort. We share the fun, and the experience with many, to me that's wonderful too.

Never discount the performance of a Gulfstream jet. Our G550 ran 11.69 seconds in the 1/4 mile at 144MPH, with autothrottles engaged and brakes not held. Rumor has it that it will break into the 10 second range by holding brakes. We tried this once and flat spotted all 4 main tires because it was accelerating with locked brakes. Also, we can easily cruise at high speed, for hours on end at 51,000 feet. That's a type of performance that is often overlooked. It takes a very capable aircraft to do that. I submit that the Gulfstream jets are not limo's at all. But highly engineered, high performance machines, well designed to outperform even the best commercial aircraft.
 
We sold them (about 70) to the Shah at his request. After the overflight of Israel by a MiG-25 in 1971 and Russian overflights of airman (after joint US -Iran exercises), the Shah wanted an airplane that could shoot down the MiG...

The Tomcat, with its Phoenix missile system, was the most capable for that mission at that time...but it was an expensive airplane...only the Shah could afford it...no one else stepped up at the time to buy it...
 
A casual glance at the T-38 kinda indicates that it isn't going to turn on a dime, but it does have a pretty fast roll rate. IIRC the T-38 has fixed inlet ducts which itself will limit top speed. The J85's have hydromechanical engine controls with a simple electronic temperature control. It's a 1950's design ( pure turbojet) and a -15 will only put out around 4500 pounds of thrust in AB.
 
Last edited:
Heck, the Shah(King of Iran) probably was oil rich or rich to begin with. So the U.S.A. destroyed some too eh? What a waste. I would have put those in museums. I see a plane from your squadron is in Tukwila WA. I like the artwork on the "Jolly Rogers" myself. Too bad they dont make fighter aircraft like that one anymore. How come no one else made retractable wing fighters since the F-14 also?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom