Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbfsb!cbnewsc!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: gordon@meaddata.com (Gordon Edwards)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Aircraft turnaround and maintenance
Message-ID: <1991Feb19.032605.18295@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 19 Feb 91 03:26:05 GMT
References: <1991Feb13.221910.6268@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb15.071907.11518@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb18.053845.10992@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Lines: 25
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: gordon@meaddata.com (Gordon Edwards)


In article <1991Feb18.053845.10992@cbnews.att.com>,
dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes:

[text deleted -gordon]

|> 
|> 1. I noticed on the TV coverage of carrier ops that the F-14's
|> were (apparently) shutting off their afterburners very soon after 
|> taking off from the flight deck. I.e., the orange glow in the 
|> tailpipes disappeared almost immediately after the planes took
|> off. What is the usual length of afterburner "burn" for a 
|> high-performance jet fighter/bomber on take-off, and is it shorter
|> for a carrier jet than for a land-based jet?

The F-14A must use afterburner during a carrier launch.  The Navy is 
retrofitting F-14As to the newer F-14A+ which has much more powerful
engines and does not require the afterburner for a launch.  Therefore,
if you can get off the ground without using 'burner, that's great.

-- Gordon     (gordon@meaddata.com)