[simpits-tech] Back!

[Erwin Neyt]

Hi John,

Wow, I never got graduated, drop out three months prior. Have missed a bit,
I guess.
For you the 'boom-ride' story will prob. be boring, but I enlighten the rest
:)

Well, as John told the Tweet was a pretty easy plane, I went through the
course without much pain. Learned all the basics and moved on to the T-38.
Just prior to solo you are scheduled to fly the 'boom-ride' mission and
experience supersonic flight. I remember it was a beautiful day, as there
are many in Texas. I was briefed and away we went. Pre-flight is as usual
until, and things only start to be different as you line up for take off.
You remember you won't have to do the shallow climb out on mil power, and
things get a bit more excited. Full brakes, I went to AB, the bird
trembling, until you release the brakes and the acceleration kicks in. Just
after being airborne I cleaned the aircraft (gear and flaps up), quick check
of the engines. Oh, yeah keep it level and keep on the afterburner! Just
about 100ft. and speeding away. Just as I approached the end of the runway,
I pulled vertical. Wow. Did a second engine check and looked at my
altimeter: 10,000 ft. Looked over my shoulder and there was Sheppard's
runway, just a tiny stripe. Man, did this baby climb!! (The T-38 did hold
the record of climb several years!)

Approaching 20,000 ft I cut the power, rolled inverted and leveled off. I
requested a high area (we were assigned a block of space per sortie,
depending on the type of mission, you asked for high or low). When I arrived
in the area I went again to afterburner and started to accelerate. The mach
meter started scrawling up, 0.8, 0.9 0.95.... I closely looked for all the
signs when transitioning into supersonic flight. Nothing was noticeable,
except for the 'dip' in the pitot-static instruments, as the shock wave
passed the static ports. 1.0, 1.1, 1.2. I was faster than the speed of
sound!! Now my instructor told me to try and maneuver carefully and I
noticed that due to the lack of airflow over the surfaces the aircraft
reacted very sluggish to my control input. I did some shallow turns and it
required almost full stick deflection.

This is also the most dangerous aspect of flying supersonic, just above mach
1.0. Remember when you turn, you induce drag which slows down the aircraft.
and having applied almost full stick defection can you imagine what would
happen if you dropped sub-sonic? Right, full stick at around 700 kts, bang!
Slowing down I did it carefully straight and level, again nothing really
noticeable.

Well, I flew around 120 sorties but some of them stay in memory. This was
one of them.

so far my 'little tale', hope you enjoyed it :)

Erwin.



----- Original Message -----
From: "John P. Miguez" <jmiguez@bellsouth.net>
To: <simpits-tech@simpits.org>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: [simpits-tech] Back!


> The T-37 was easy to fly.  It was also a good IFR and formation trainer.
It
> was stable.  The controls were responsive but on the firm side.  The
biggest
> drawback was the time it took for the engines to spool up.  You had to
stay
> ahead of the airplane in the landing pattern.
>
> There is a plane made by the French called the Paris.  It is a 4 seat
> version of the T-37.  You can pick one up for about a half mil all updated
> and ready to go.  Private Pilot or Plane & Pilot did a article on it
> recently.  Looks like it would be fun to fly.
>
> I flew B-52s and F4s in the Air Force.  I have about 1700 hrs in the BUFF
> and 500 in the F-4.  All but 100 hours of my F4 experience was in the RF
> version.  Low and fast!!!
>
> John
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matt Bailey" <mattb@rtccom.net>
> To: <simpits-tech@simpits.org>
> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 10:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [simpits-tech] Back!
>
>
> > Is the tweet a nice flying plane? I get the impression those military
> > trainers with their more conventional wings are more pleasurable to
> > fly....nicer handling etc. Incidentally, there is a very well designed
> CT-114
> > for X-Plane that flies amazingly well.......light, responsive controls,
> > plenty of power (well, compared to piston planes). It's really a
pleasure
> to
> > fly. Not sure if this is representative of the real aircraft but X-Plane
> does
> > have a reputation of capturing the overall "feel" of specific aircraft,
> with
> > well designed models of course.
> >
> > I'd like to have something like a T-37, CT-114, etc. Seems like it would
> be a
> > fun little plane to joyride around in, and much faster than a "normal"
> > general aviation piston plane, for going places. Too pricey to afford
any
> > time in the near future though. :( It does puzzle me to some extent, to
> see
> > people who buy these fancy new general aviation planes, like the new
> Pipers,
> > that cost several hundred thousand dollars, when for similar money or
less
> > they could have a fun hotrod like an ex-military jet or a nice kitbuilt
pl
> ane
> > like the RVs. Different needs I guess......I'd just want to fly crazy
and
> > have fun. :)
> >
> > So exactly what kind of flying did you do?
> >
> > -Matt Bailey
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Simpits-tech mailing list
> Simpits-tech@simpits.org
> http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
> To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the above
page.  Thanks!