How high can you go? Pick an aircraft, hit max altitude, pop flare!

[garyscott 11]

Heres my first alt attempt.

 

 

 

F-22A, 235kts IAS, over the top at 111706FT. That was the best height i could get on that flight with that bird. Control response at alt was mushy to say the least! No air to bite into.

 

Pick an aircraft, and go for it! Just dont forget the flares.

[Spinners 15,986]

For a slice of history try this mod

http://combatace.com/files/file/10518-mcdonnell-douglas-f4h-1-project-high-jump/

[Gr.Viper 131]

*insert image of a Lightning in the black sky, pilot facing the camera, and the caption "OH, CRAP! I FORGOT THE FLARES!"*

[Wrench 9,848]

got booted out of the cockpit, as I think I hit "The Roof", but it was still climbing, according to the display lower left very ODD!!

 

pic 1 is the view I got stuck with,

pic 2 is one the way down; could't pass up the sun/moon/horizon shot (and, so's you could see the aircraft itself)

[garyscott 11]

Wrench . . . nice!

I wasn't aware there was a "roof", because of that i thought it would be fun to see who could gain an alt record. . . . . .

Since the roof is there, it kind of caps it.

 

Oh well . . . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im still going to gun it regularly though . . . .

[+SkateZilla 49]

dont see the point in poping flares.

 

yeah i hit the "roof" and i jump from 150Knots to Super sonic, then as I stall and come down, my airspeed goes from super sonic back to 200 or so knots. flight controls are crap above 90K.

[+ianh755 196]

The "roof" is only a "view" limit, you still keep climbing and if you stay in the cockpit (even though the 3d model disappears) you get heights like this - not to be taken seriously as it was in a modded TSR2 but I've been higher in a Mach 6.5 BAE Hawk when testing how engine entries work! PS just noticed I'm high enough to be classed as a space craft (80KM+ with 0g LOL)

 

Edited April 16, 2012 by ianh755

[+SkateZilla 49]

dude, i think your in orbit now.

[+ianh755 196]

LOL, the highest I hit was over 500,000ft in the Hawk which definitely makes it a spacecraft! It is interesting to think about "is there a ceiling limit"? anyway it goes high enough for our needs!

[garyscott 11]

dont see the point in poping flares.

 

.

 

The other option was dance a jigg, but how do ya prove that??

 

Its just for fun, dude.

 

And no modded aircraft ianh755! lol.

Straight, downloaded, out the box, vanilla aircraft. No limit on what though . . . .

[+SkateZilla 49]

so i can upload a NASA F-14B with experimental engines and he can download it and it qualifies as a straight up downloaded Plane :p

[MigBuster 2,884]

The "roof" is only a "view" limit, you still keep climbing and if you stay in the cockpit (even though the 3d model disappears) you get heights like this - not to be taken seriously as it was in a modded TSR2 but I've been higher in a Mach 6.5 BAE Hawk when testing how engine entries work! PS just noticed I'm high enough to be classed as a space craft (80KM+ with 0g LOL)

 

 

Was a MiG-17F still glued to your tail

[garyscott 11]

so i can upload a NASA F-14B with experimental engines and he can download it and it qualifies as a straight up downloaded Plane :p

 

Is it / has it been in service?

 

Lol

 

Kinda beats the fun outta it if you just crank up the engine specs to Star Trek warp factor 90!

 

Ill stick to timing my pull up and climb profile to get astro-wings.

 

(incoming!!)

[+SkateZilla 49]

Is it / has it been in service?

 

Lol

 

Kinda beats the fun outta it if you just crank up the engine specs to Star Trek warp factor 90!

 

Ill stick to timing my pull up and climb profile to get astro-wings.

 

(incoming!!)

 

Yes, NASA had two F-14A+s with special Thrust Vectoring Engine Nozzles, with increased thrust and less weight/drag.

[garyscott 11]

Yes, NASA had two F-14A+s with special Thrust Vectoring Engine Nozzles, with increased thrust and less weight/drag.

 

(Outgoing!)

 

In absence of links etc showing the airframes (it isn't NASA 991 by any chance is it?), then the only program i can think of with TV connections relating to the F-14 was the spin program in the 80's - 90's. Initially carried out at Langleys 14ft wind tunnel, the findings of that (TV control for enhanced manoeuvring response in future combat aircraft) were carried over to an F-14 which was firstly ground ran at Pax River, then flown successfully. The vanes were of a similar design and function to those installed on the X-31 research aircraft. The test results of the program, although very compelling, sadly did not materialize in any upgrade for the F-14 fleet.

From what i remember, the engines were actually de-tuned (thrust limited slightly, so as not to blow the vanes off!), and the vane installation added 1100lbs per engine.

 

Caesar may be able to expand on this, as from what ive seen on CA, he's the Tomcat-Meister.

 

(Incoming??)

[mynameismatt 3]

I think NASA used the F-15 as a thrust vectoring test bed, not the F-14.

Linky:

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/F-15ACTIVE/HTML/EC96-43485-13.html

Edited April 16, 2012 by mynameismatt

[Caesar 305]

Mynameismatt has it. NASA did not receive any F-14A+/B Tomcats but rather F-15 Eagles to test thrust vectoring. For F-14's NASA flew a/c 157991 (YF-14A) from 1979 to 1984 and the a/c was used for high-AOA testing among other aerodynamic studies. After, a/c 158613 (F-14A Block 60, produced FY 1971) was delivered to NASA for use from 1984 to 1987.

[+SkateZilla 49]

light tests of a modified F-14 were subsequently conducted to demonstrate the structural integrity and thrust-vectoring performance of the vane concept over a limited flight envelope.

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-14-test.htm

 

never made it out of the G-Limited tests...

 

there's video footage somewhere of the flight,

 

Edited April 16, 2012 by SkateZilla

[garyscott 11]

Caesar, if Turkey's on the menu, you da man!

 

I know the program i was referencing wasn't a NASA job, i believe it was a NAVY run thing alone, but my memory is hazy on it. You know any further? I can definitely remember seeing the vane equipped bird in publications of the time, and a family member who was near Pax took photos of the airframe with the modifications (long since lost!).

 

Any memory refreshing gratefully received!

 

Gary

[garyscott 11]

 

That's the Spin / ARI equipped bird isn't it?

Edited April 16, 2012 by garyscott

[+SkateZilla 49]

That's the Spin / ARI equipped bird isn't it?

 

yeah, the navy contracted langley to do the tunnel tests, and eventually did tests seeing if vectoring the thrust would help with spin recovery, in the end i think they modified the vanes and dropped the "paddles". the same paddles were fitted onto F-18 HARV and X-31 before the new 360 degree vectoring that was later fitted onto Test F-16 MATV.

 

Grumman Said the Same 360 Nozzles would have been on the next Tomcat had they won a contract.

[garyscott 11]

yeah, the navy contracted langley to do the tunnel tests, and eventually did tests seeing if vectoring the thrust would help with spin recovery, in the end i think they modified the vanes and dropped the "paddles". the same paddles were fitted onto F-18 HARV and X-31 before the new 360 degree vectoring that was later fitted onto Test F-16 MATV.

 

Grumman Said the Same 360 Nozzles would have been on the next Tomcat had they won a contract.

 

Yep, nice one SkateZilla. If they had won that contract . . . . that would be one hard 'Cat to beat!

[+SkateZilla 49]

NASA started to test spin recovery using other methods (forward Canards, not hte glove vanes)), larger fuselage veins and parachutes.

 

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/F-14/HTML/ECN-20602.html

 

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/F-14/HTML/ECN-12451.html

[Caesar 305]

For the TV stuff that the Tomcat did do, SZ has you covered - it didn't go far, the in-depth stuff was covered by the F-15, but 997 did perform certain TV tests. The majority of the spin stuff was earlier, 1970's to early 1980's - the tests were completed 1 June 1984. Former NAVAIR and ACEVAL/AIMVAL pilot Dick Gray began the testing. 158613 (NASA number 834) primarily focused on NASA research for variable-sweep flight transition experiments and was used until 11 September 1987.

 

EDIT: Funny side-note about spin recovery. A certain ACEVAL/AIMVAL Turkey pilot figured out how to recover a Tomcat from a spin in less than 7k feet lost - manual sweep the wings to 68 deg! The bird did not like to spin with the C of G moving aft, or with the loss of lift and would break a spin at its incipient phases very quickly. When he asked Grumman about why this hadn't been tested the answer was that they had run out of spin test funding. His reply was colorful to say the least.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Caesar

[+SkateZilla 49]

For the TV stuff that the Tomcat did do, SZ has you covered - it didn't go far, the in-depth stuff was covered by the F-15, but 997 did perform certain TV tests. The majority of the spin stuff was earlier, 1970's to early 1980's - the tests were completed 1 June 1984. Former NAVAIR and ACEVAL/AIMVAL pilot Dick Gray began the testing. 158613 (NASA number 834) primarily focused on NASA research for variable-sweep flight transition experiments and was used until 11 September 1987.

 

EDIT: Funny side-note about spin recovery. A certain ACEVAL/AIMVAL Turkey pilot figured out how to recover a Tomcat from a spin in less than 7k feet lost - manual sweep the wings to 68 deg! The bird did not like to spin with the C of G moving aft, or with the loss of lift and would break a spin at its incipient phases very quickly. When he asked Grumman about why this hadn't been tested the answer was that they had run out of spin test funding. His reply was colorful to say the least.

 

that would have saved a life or 2