F-100 Question

Any Hun enthusiasts here?

Sorry for the bump, but I gotta find out the answer to that last question. It’s been driving me nuts for a while now. I know there are some knowledgeable folks here….

Here’s one that some of you modellers may be able to help me with.

F-100 external tanks…..apparently there were three sizes….275, 335, and 450-gallon. Can anyone provide pictures of the three types? I have a flight simulator with an F-100D, and while it says the tanks in-game are 335-gallon capacity, they look to be the larger 450-gallon variety. Any and all help with this is appreciated.

Changing subjects, what was it about the F-100 that lent it to the Sabre Dance tendency? Was it just a situation of getting into an overtly high AoA at low airspeeds?

On another note, that is a shocking video clip of the Flanker. I think the second view is zoomed in, but nonetheless a quite horrifying clip.

Sabre Dance Video

Try this link for the video: http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-3-11_F_100.wmv
For those of you who have not visited this site before there is a wealth of quite stunning footage ranging from the sublime to the bizarre.
Try this one for starters: http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-3-26_Su_27UBCrashinLviv.wmv
and make sure that you go right to the end. It has to be one of the closest encounters ever filmed!

We acknowledged the inertial roll coupling, but that was only in the early short-finned F-100A’s.

Also, does anyone know if the Sabre Dance affected the F-100D? The famous video of that is the F-100C, which had a different wing than the F-100D (and F-100F)?

In Vietnam, at Tuy Hoa, an incident was recorded of a pilot getting into a sabre dance in his F-100D. Landing skills were constantly tested at this base because of a consistent cross wind.

We acknowledged the inertial roll coupling, but that was only in the early short-finned F-100A’s.

Also, does anyone know if the Sabre Dance affected the F-100D? The famous video of that is the F-100C, which had a different wing than the F-100D (and F-100F)?

That whole century series (as well as the US Navy jets and pretty much all others) were really pioneers in how to fly, service and use complex jets operationally. The aeronautics/aero dynamics were almost new, the materials new, a real “great leap” fowards, which came at a cost in lives and aircraft.

No computer design, all wind tunnels, slide rules and how easily the German research was to read (:diablo:).

F-101 had its nose up problems, F-104 is well known/debated, F-105 certainly early on had its problems as well. The RAF lost Hunters (several on one occasion with a fueling error) Swifts etc, the Mirage was a handful (but fine looking as well)

Yes I’ve always liked the ‘Hun’, and its Century siblings.
Also take your point about modern aviation forum – bloomin hard work!

I wouldn’t be so quick to just simply dissmiss all the accidents down to it being a pionering high performance jet, it did still have a few issues of its own ,including the ‘Sabre Dance’ and roll coupling issues.

Not, as I said, and Phantom II posts above, planes have quirks.
I just tried to put the quirks into context, lest it be labeled a “bad” plane…as frequently seem on the Modern Military Forum (the home of “X plane has been shot down, so it’s junk” and the infamous “X-country did terrible in the Olympics, therefore X’s airplanes are junk”….nonsense like that).:D

The 100 was a great plane in its day and was a “world beater” in performance for its era. It certainly deserves its due.

I wouldn’t be so quick to just simply dissmiss all the accidents down to it being a pionering high performance jet, it did still have a few issues of its own ,including the ‘Sabre Dance’ and roll coupling issues.

Thanks for the comments J Boyle. I’m glad I was right about the Hun. She’s one of my favorites, and though her accident rate was high, you make a valid point about other aircraft of the time being similar. I’d wager the F-100’s arch rival the MiG-19 didn’t have a much better safety record though it did have twin engines (Can a MiG-19 still fly on one engine?).

I can tell you that even nowadays, learning new types is always a challenge. Every airplane I’ve ever flown has its own quirks and tendencies, and you must learn to respect them. Of course because an airplane has one tendency/quirk or another doesn’t necessarily means its a bad thing. Many times one bad quality means a given aircraft has another really good quality that other airplanes don’t have.

I always find myself comparing what I’m flying at the present to the aircraft I’ve flown in the past, and my experience is very limited compared to many folks out there.

I’m not a fighter pilot, and truth be told I lost interest in that route when I started flying, (truth be told I really lost interested in June of 1996 when the last F-4G’s left the USAF inventory) but I think these principles about aircraft safety can be applied to just about any airplane flying (past, present, or future). The saying “Know thy aircraft.” comes to mind.

or was the F-100’s safety record simply due to it being one of the first supersonic fighters and nothing inherently wrong with the design itself?

I think you’ve got it!
Sure, early jets had quirks that would be unacceptable by todays standards…but that’s true of most old technologies from autos (you should see the intensive recommended maintenace schedule for my 1963 sports coupe…quite a change from today’s cars that need just a bit more maintenace than your refrigerator) and early electronics (anyone recall early TVs with external antennas?).
Everything was an advancement over the past, so people lived with growing pains. (I’m sure 50 years from now, people will wonder how we put up with early computers that crashed frequently and required laborious typing).

The safety records of all early jet fighters…even the basic early subsonic and transonic jets…were terrible by today’s standards.
In your position, I’m sure you could recite by heart the accident rate for today’s USAF types, an internet serach or a call to the USAF Safety Center (or whatever thay call it now) would provide some figures for the early jets.

The Starfighter got the majority of the bad press, but even fondly remembered types like the Hunter and Huns were nothing to write home about.
I’m sure French jets were no better, and I doubt if we’ll ever learn the truth behing the Soviet jets.
Some of that had to do with the technological learning curve or rudimentary aircraft systems, but as a military pilot, I’m sure you appreciate that it goes far byond that into non-aircraft factors such as training, operational policies and weather.

Some interesting answers gents. Thanks to all who responded.

Basically in short, the lack of directional stability led to an uncontrollable rate of yaw that eventually combined with roll to make the aircraft uncontrollable at high speeds thus resulting in the airframe breaking apart? If I’m wrong please correct me. I just want to make sure I understand the problem.

Also, just to clarify, the inertia roll coupling issue was only dealt with on the short-fitted F-100A’s?

The Sabre Dance seems to be something different altogether. Was this other phenomenon the reason that F-100’s never enjoyed the best of safety records, or was the F-100’s safety record simply due to it being one of the first supersonic fighters and nothing inherently wrong with the design itself?

I’ve read that the F-100 was fairly popular with its pilots, and if so, what’s the reason for all the crashes?

Not the first time I’ve sung the praises of Bill Gunston’s “Supersonic Fighters Of The West” (Ian Allan 1976)…. Roger Smith.

I’ve often quoted it here myself.

Anyone with an interest in Western Western warplanes of the late 40s-early 70s should get copies of the book and its companions…Attack Aircraft of the West and Bombers of the West.

He brings an engineers mind and a fine writing style to the development of the aircraft;covering both the engineering side, but the increasingly important political/financial side as well.

His Plane Speaking book is a fine read as well, with its short chapters covering the breath of aviation history.

………The vertical tail on the YF-100 prototypes was higher than the production model. I wonder why they reduced it?

Not the first time I’ve sung the praises of Bill Gunston’s “Supersonic Fighters Of The West” (Ian Allan 1976) and he covers the problem in some detail in the chapter on the F-100.

“What seemed to be a trivial change – though actually worked out most carefully – was that the tail fin and high, narrow rudder of the first YF aircraft were cut down in the F-100A to reduce weight and drag. The production rudder was broad but squat, being arrested barely half-way up the fin by the sharpely lowered fuel vent which in the first YF-100A had been on top of the tall fin. This little change was to have a major impact on the programme.”

Later he relates how Lt-Col Frank K. ‘Pete’ Everest chief of the test flight at AFFTC, Edwards AFB “wringing out the F-100 in deliberately harsh ways they (Everest and Capt Zeke Hopkins) discovered tendencies towards control sensitivity, divergence and ‘coupling’ between roll and yaw and between pitch and yaw of a nature which, …… …. seemed to be not only undesirable in a combat aircraft but potentially even dangerous.” Everest made noises but was shouted down by the company and the Air Force.

On 12th October, 1954 NAA’s Senior engineering test pilot took off from Palmersdale in 25764, an early F-100A, to carry out a high-speed full power dive and pull out.

Following the break-up and crash an exhaustive investigation took place – rivalled only by the one into the DH Comet crashes.

I don’t suppose Lt-Col Everest got any satisfaction from being proved right.

Roger Smith.

Here, incorrectly described as a crash on take-off:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOamnWpLtO8

My account (Wide Body by Clive Irving, Hodder & Stoughton 1993) has it that Dutch roll in the B-47 was eliminated with a yaw damper. The damper was still there in the early Dutch roll accidents in the 707’s life, when the ventral fin and other aerodynamic fixes were introduced as well.

PPS…..

More Googling turned up this….

The “Sabre Dance” footage was in two movies that I know of, The X-15 Story where Charles Bronson was a Chase pilot who ingested some material from the X-15 and crashed on landing. The other movie was “The Hunters” with Robert Mitchum and Robert Wagner. They flew F-86’s in the movie( Korea) but inserted the F-100 crash scene. Too bad we didn’t have a Zero Zero seat back then.
Ken

Gee, where have I read that before?
Oh, my post #8! 😀
Done without the benfit of Google….😀

on the subject of F-100s Mark Berents first book is quite a good read:)

PPS…..

Totally memory c*ckup – it wasn’t in Six Million Dollar Man at all. 😮

More Googling turned up this….

To those wondering about the infamous “Sabre Dance” crash footage. The plane in question had a landing gear problem and was attempting to land on a foamed runway at Edwards AFB. Lt. Barty R. Brooks got into a high AOA unstable oscillation (The Sabre Dance) while trying to make a slow approach and was killed in the crash of F-100C 54-1907. The crash occurred 10 Jan 56. The crash was filmed by cameras set up for an unrelated test.

and….

The “Sabre Dance” footage was in two movies that I know of, The X-15 Story where Charles Bronson was a Chase pilot who ingested some material from the X-15 and crashed on landing. The other movie was “The Hunters” with Robert Mitchum and Robert Wagner. They flew F-86’s in the movie( Korea) but inserted the F-100 crash scene. Too bad we didn’t have a Zero Zero seat back then.

I’ll get my coat….. :rolleyes:

Ken