RAF Museum Hendon

[pcolbeck]

I love Phantoms. They just look so aggressive.

[Tourist Tony]

Yeah, that looks bonkers enough. A bit like a cut 'n' shut.
What it's doing in a "bomber" hall though? I suppose having enough space to house the collection being one of the reasons it's there.

Iirc, there was a plan (never implemented I think) which mounted the He 162 above a winged powered bomb, a bit like a cruise missile, only much bigger.  The whole lot takes of with a wheeled trolley which drops away, the pilot flies it all to the target and releases the bomb which flies onto the target and hits it.  The He 162 relied on fuel carried on the bomb, and the bomb needed it's own engines, because the He 162 alone didn't have enough thrust to get it all off of the ground!  Really bonkers!

"Mistel"
Old bomber carried beneath fighter to target.

[TimO]

Yeah, that looks bonkers enough. A bit like a cut 'n' shut.
What it's doing in a "bomber" hall though? I suppose having enough space to house the collection being one of the reasons it's there.

Iirc, there was a plan (never implemented I think) which mounted the He 162 above a winged powered bomb, a bit like a cruise missile, only much bigger.  The whole lot takes of with a wheeled trolley which drops away, the pilot flies it all to the target and releases the bomb which flies onto the target and hits it.  The He 162 relied on fuel carried on the bomb, and the bomb needed it's own engines, because the He 162 alone didn't have enough thrust to get it all off of the ground!  Really bonkers!

"Mistel"
Old bomber carried beneath fighter to target.

Interesting, this seems to have started off with converted time expired bomber airframes, but what I was thinking of was the Arado E.377a which was a later development, but certainly wasn't a converted bomber.  It was a glide bomb modified with two BMW jet engines (the E.377 was just a glide bomb, but still carried fuel for the parent aircraft).  It needed the additional engines added because the He 162 didn't have the guts to get the whole combination off the ground with it's single engine.

[spesh]

another bit of political history I learned yesterday was the Phantom; re-engined with RR Speys for the RAF and lost a lot of high altitude performance as a result

It's swings and roundabouts.

Compared with the J79 turbojet, the Spey turbofan had more thrust and had a lower fuel consumption, giving an increase of 10% in operational range, 15% increase in ferry range and better low-level acceleration (improved take-off and climb performance). The exhaust was probably less smoky as well*.

However, the Spey engines had a wider diameter than the J79 due to the bypass ducting, so the rear fuselage had to be heavily modified and the air intakes enlarged to permit the greater airflow they required.

Unfortunately, the increased drag of the engine installation resulted in poorer level flight performance at high altitude.

This engine mod applied to the F-4K (Royal Navy Phantom FG.1) and F-4M (RAF Phantom FGR.2) variants.

Interestingly, the RAF operated some J-79-powered Phantoms as well, having purchased 15 second-hand ex-U.S. Navy F-4J aircraft redesignated F-4J(UK), to use in lieu of the Phantoms deployed to the Falkland Islands after the war.

Crews liked the aircraft, and generally rated them better than the Spey-equipped FGR.2s. They had a slower rate of climb due to the less-powerful engines, but they were also 1,670 lb (760 kg) lighter and able, at altitude, to reach higher speeds (Mach 2.3 at 45,000 ft/13,700 m, compared to Mach 2.1 at 36,000 ft/11,000 m).


Sources used:

1) F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2) F-4 Phantom II variants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3) Article on military aircraft engines written by Bill Gunston and published in the January 2000 edition of AIR International

* If you ever seen any archive footage of 1950s and 1960s jets, you'll notice just how smoky their exhaust plumes were. The extreme example being B-52s taking off using water injection power boosting.

[TimO]

Interesting, I didn't realise that B52s are noted for their dirty exhausts because of the water injection on take-off.

I knew that Harriers use this, and it's one of the limitations on hovering, once they run out of water I think it's a no-no, presumably because the engine can't produce enough thrust, and things start to overheat (like the flaps which apparently are in the hot exhaust from the rear nozzles to increase downward thrust).

Water injection on Wikipedia

[spesh]

All models of the B-52 from A to G were powered by non-afterburning versions of the J-57 turbojet, utilising water/methanol injection. The remaining B-52s in service are H-model, fitted with low-bypass TF33 turbofan engines providing 17,000lb (75.6 kN) thrust each (compared with the J57-P-43W used on the B-52F which produced 13,750 lbf (61.2 kN) thrust with water/methanol injection).

Even without water injection, there would have been a certain amount of smoke from small amounts of unburnt fuel in the exhaust plume of early jet engines. Smoke levels in jet aircraft exhausts have reduced over the years as the design of the fuel combusters has improved.

This may prove useful to some of you some day, perhaps, in a somewhat bizarre set of circumstances.

[rogerzilla]

I saw a programme on the B-52.  One of the pilots proudly stated that it contained as much "aluminum" as 10,000 trashcans, had 10 miles of wiring and the power of 10 railway locomotives.

Presenter: "So what is it like to fly?"

Pilot: "Like 10 railway locomotives towing 10,000 trashcans at the end of 10 miles of wire."

[pcolbeck]

Thy plan to keep them in service until 2040 which will be 80 years after the last one rolled of the production line. That would be the equivalent of a WW1 bomber still being in service in 2000.

[clarion]

Thy plan to keep them in service until 2040

[Martin]

never seen a B-52; is there anywhere still in the UK they regularly land?
(ditto an F-15)

[TimO]

I walked under a B52 at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Museum in the states.  They had it indoors, along with many other big planes, like a Valkyrie and a U2 hanging from the ceiling!

I was thinking about the just post WWII era Avro Shackleton's that the RAF kept in service until replaced by the E-3Ds.  Looking them up, it turns out the B52 first flew three years after the Shackleton first flew, and the RAF retired the Shackleton twenty years ago.

(Strictly speaking, the Shackleton was derived from the Lincoln, but that only first flew five years earlier).

[pcolbeck]

never seen a B-52; is there anywhere still in the UK they regularly land?
(ditto an F-15)

No B52s are stationed in Europe. I think they sometimes land at RAF Fairford (run as a USAFE base) when they do exercises. Elvington near York is as long as it is as the USAF paid for it to be upgraded for B52 use in the cold war, it's no longer an active RAF base though.

F-15s are common in UK skys. They fly over my house at low level frequently. They are based at Lakenheath.

[Jaded]

never seen a B-52; is there anywhere still in the UK they regularly land?
(ditto an F-15)

They flew over my house in the Gulf War, on their way to Fairford, I believe. Very slow and very low and very noisy.

[clarion]

First time I saw an F-15 was quite memorable.  I was on a school trip near Lynmouth.  We were walking up on the moors, and we saw two go by below us, very close to the ground.

One of my friends thought they were Foxbats and that we'd been invaded by the Russians

[Mr Larrington]

never seen a B-52; is there anywhere still in the UK they regularly land?
(ditto an F-15)

Diego Garcia is still technically part of The Empire, but they don't like visitors.

[spesh]

Thy plan to keep them in service until 2040

It's not the chronological time clocked up that's the issue with aircraft, it's the flight time, and more importantly, the number of takeoff-landing cycles.

[pcolbeck]

I know. They have done a lot of work on the airframes to keep them flying. The wings have been re skinned and spar strengthened amongst other things. I get the feeling that they are like grandmas broom.

[fuzzy]

never seen a B-52; is there anywhere still in the UK they regularly land?
(ditto an F-15)

B52's feature at just about every RIAT at Fairford.

I have a video I shot during the Gulf War of a B52 taking off from Fairford, bound for Iraq. It was a stupid o'clock in the morning sortie, just after sunrise. I have the aircraft appearing over the brow of the runway, lifting and flying directly overhead then dissapearing into the rising sun. A beautiful sight marred unfortunatley by the mission it was on.

Appaerntly, one of the pilots flying out of Fairford during the Gulf War was flying the same airframe his Grandfatehr flew over Vietnam. This had been verified by logbook entries

[Tourist Tony]

The dreaded seven-engine approach :: F-16.net

[clarion]

Is it time for someone to post a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/IWEfmCvu8R8&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/IWEfmCvu8R8&rel=1</a>

[TimC]

another bit of political history I learned yesterday was the Phantom; re-engined with RR Speys for the RAF and lost a lot of high altitude performance as a result

It's swings and roundabouts.

Compared with the J79 turbojet, the Spey turbofan had more thrust and had a lower fuel consumption, giving an increase of 10% in operational range, 15% increase in ferry range and better low-level acceleration (improved take-off and climb performance). The exhaust was probably less smoky as well*.

However, the Spey engines had a wider diameter than the J79 due to the bypass ducting, so the rear fuselage had to be heavily modified and the air intakes enlarged to permit the greater airflow they required.

Unfortunately, the increased drag of the engine installation resulted in poorer level flight performance at high altitude.

This engine mod applied to the F-4K (Royal Navy Phantom FG.1) and F-4M (RAF Phantom FGR.2) variants.

Interestingly, the RAF operated some J-79-powered Phantoms as well, having purchased 15 second-hand ex-U.S. Navy F-4J aircraft redesignated F-4J(UK), to use in lieu of the Phantoms deployed to the Falkland Islands after the war.

Crews liked the aircraft, and generally rated them better than the Spey-equipped FGR.2s. They had a slower rate of climb due to the less-powerful engines, but they were also 1,670 lb (760 kg) lighter and able, at altitude, to reach higher speeds (Mach 2.3 at 45,000 ft/13,700 m, compared to Mach 2.1 at 36,000 ft/11,000 m).


Sources used:

1) F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2) F-4 Phantom II variants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3) Article on military aircraft engines written by Bill Gunston and published in the January 2000 edition of AIR International

* If you ever seen any archive footage of 1950s and 1960s jets, you'll notice just how smoky their exhaust plumes were. The extreme example being B-52s taking off using water injection power boosting.

I love textbook answers, they never tell the real story and often perpetuate manufacturers' (and politicians') propaganda! The Spey F4 (FG1/FGR2) was a sop to the British aviation industry (well, Rolls Royce) after the cancellation of TSR2 and its selected substitute, the F111 (which had been due to be assembled here). The Royal Navy had already selected the F4 as a pretty-much off-the-shelf buy to replace the Sea Vixen as a fleet defence aircraft. Once the RAF element was added to the order after the politicians got cold feet about the F111, the ground attack role the RAF needed it for gave the excuse to let RR put the Spey in it as it theoretically had some advantages at low level. In fact the structural changes were much more substantial and damaging to the overall drag than first expected, and the aircraft was considerably slower than the J79 F4. It also wasn't that much less smoky! At high level it was a bit of a disaster, which, when it took the air defence lead from the Lightning, was a major handicap. Mach 1.7 was really the best you could get out of it. The F4Js bought from the US Marine Corps to equip No. 74 Sqn at RAF Wattisham were by far the best variant of the Phantom flown by the RAF, and were considerably more effective than the Tornado F3 that replaced them (and whose delayed service entry had caused them to be bought!).

As for the B52, there are still 85 in service, but none in UK. The USAF has very recently declared RAF Fairford as surplus to requirements, so there won't be any more deployments there.

[rogerzilla]

Is it time for someone to post a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/IWEfmCvu8R8&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/IWEfmCvu8R8&rel=1</a>

I remember when that came out, and Melody Maker were impressed by how bad the girls' harmonies were.

[ScumOfTheRoad]

Methinks we are due a YACF trip to IWM Duxford.

[Tourist Tony]

Anyway,stuff your BUFF, here's sex on wings
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/PA69MsHfxuc&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/PA69MsHfxuc&rel=1</a>

[Regulator]

Methinks we are due a YACF trip to IWM Duxford.

***Considers possibility for family friendly Reggie ride***