Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: mhuang@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU ( * * Hunter * * ) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Aircraft turnaround and maintenance Message-ID: <1991Feb21.025311.9859@cbnews.att.com> Date: 21 Feb 91 02:53:11 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: California State Polytech U., San Luis Obispo, California Lines: 56 Approved: military@att.att.com From: mhuang@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU ( * * Hunter * * ) Once again, dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) declares... >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? Some aircraft such as the A-7 Corsair do not have afterburners and consequently do not require them on a takeoff from a carrier catapult. Other aircraft such as the F/A-18 Hornet (I may be wrong about this), do not require afterburners on takeoff from carriers. The F-14 Tomcat, at least up to the "D" model, with the new, more powerful engines (like the GE F110's, flown on the Super-Tomcat), is an incredibly underpowered aircraft. Originally, the Tomcat was intended to fly an engine of the F110 class, but due to production/design problems, and a rush to get the Tomcat to the fleet, the P&W TF30-414A was used for the "A" model Tomcat. Due to the use of this underpowered engine in the "A" model Tomcat, it needs to use full afterburner on carrier takeoffs to get off the deck. There is undoubtedly some safety margin in this, but this is standard practice, at least with this model of aricraft. In the new "D" models, afterburner is not required for a carrier takeoff. As for the usuall length of afterburner "burn," there is usually minimal or no use of afterburner on land-based takeoffs to conserve fuel, wear and tear, etc. This usually increases takeoff roll, however, with land runways, there is usually less problem with this than with on board carriers... Some aircraft such as the Tomcat do use afterburner on takeoff, but not more than a couple of seconds after leaving the pavement. >2. I am aware of air-to-air refueling as a way to increase combat >range, but do the air services use it as a way to increase payload? >I.e., do planes ever take off with a full bombload and partial >fuel load, and then rendezvous with a tanker to top their tanks >once aloft? Yes. Hunter---> -- mhuang@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU=======Adm. Michael "Hunter" Huang, NCC-1736=======# mhuang@nike.CalPoly.EDU // Amiga: The Vision of Tomorrow mhuang@FubarSys.com $ \X/ Project: "SimStar: The Next Simulation" mhuang@caticsuf.cati.CSUFresno.EDU=="This project is so secret...Or it it?"==#