RpRUmm no. Let me introduce you to science. Much of which is the quest to find out the what, why and how. Not knowing any of those at a particular point in time does not default to “nothing.” It simply means that at that point in time we do not know.
Why is an accident absurd? The only way it can be absurb is if you must have something, which simply becomes a weak argument for there being a creator.
What, why, how has nothing to do with whether or not God exists, it merely is trying to figure out what it was done with, why it was done and how it was done but then that means there is an organized plan behind it.
Atheists, for the most part, scoff at the fact that for people of religions, God and the energy God used to build with, has simply always been yet they they that that energy has always been while at the same time saying that it some how organized itself, by chance, into matter and living beings with emotions.
Some say that the universe popped out of nothing and then by chance created it as we know it.
The former is simply absurd using logic, the latter is asininely moronic.
RpRI still find it sad that so many people still believe in something, base their lives upon something that quite clearly isn’t real.
A problem with your stance is that nothing is clear, without exception, no matter which side one is on.
The alternative to a creator, is that all that is, is an accident which, at face value, is simply absurd.
The odd thing is, is that those who simple cannot believe in a God that simple has always been, will accept that the material that forms the universe simply has always been, or, in some cases, that something came from nothing.
RpRWhich country is this country – Sudan? Somalia?
Just because it is happening doesn’t make it right. — In what manner does this have even a tiny relation with the Sudan or Somalia.
Your narrow minded ignorance is overriding your thought process.Wonderful. In America that would be a great help to those loner kids, you know, the weird ones who don’t have many friends, who have been bullied for their choice in music or fashion, the ones who are…different. It might mean they get a few more when they go walkabout at school with their daddy’s armoury… — Oh yes the liberal talking point bs about how evil bullying is even though it is no worse now than it was in the past but liberals are quick to start passing laws that will, successfully of course, start forcing mankind to stop being what they are by nature and be what the government considers proper citizens — BRILLIANT!
In the past if confronted by a bully, parents, in the majority, simply told kids to stand up for them selves, but now the parents go whining how there overly protected little brat is special and must be coddled.
Oddly there was a bit on this yesterday on NPR that this action by parents is causing children in schools to be depressed, and feel like failures, when they find out that they now must solve problems, far more important than being bullied, by them selves and there is no one there to coddle them.
(As a side note, if kids do get into a scuffle, in the past they were sent to the principle who called the parents and the parents dealt with each child.
Now it becomes a crime, police are called and every ones life is ruined except the wannabe lenninists running the school with their no discreation, no exception policy.
Of course this is why kids are expelled for pointing fingers like a gun, or having a trinket on a bracelet that resembles a gun.
That is bullying but it is legal because the school government is doing it.)1984, only it came about a few years later than predicted.
You can’t talk that way about the American constitution. You just can’t.
Although despite them being so generous with the idea that every American can have a fire arm, they do display a little meanness when it comes to nuclear weapons – why are they not happy with the idea of Iran having them, for example? —-
Oh yes the instant jump from firearms to nuclear weapons.
A too commonly spouted analogy that is ludicrous except to those who cannot address the topic in a reasonable manner .The statement about our Constitution is a most common one by persons who live with a government, that if it says crap, the populace will drop their pants and squat.
That makes them very good citizens I guess but it is still rather sad.
“
RpRThat (maybe) they’d be better served if they were taught how to get on with others, rather than kill them?
That is a myopic statement at best and paranoid at worst.
If you think they teach how to kill people, you live in a very small sad world.
I guess then also, the Olympic trap shooters are just trained killers out practicing how to kill more efficiently, brilliant.
—————————-
John Green
Or, even how to properly read and write.
Unfortunately, that is a problems that actually does infest a growing number of U.S. grade school systems, especially as in most schools one can no longer flunk grades till one gets it done properly, they just herd them out he doors like cattle.
The minorities are the ones herded along most quickly as to hold them back is considered a racist act.
RpRWhy F4??? Gripen, Typhoon trainer or Rafale B or indian sukhoi 30 MkI (afterall they participated to Red Flag) would fit perfectly. F4 aren’t in service anymore in Germany and i dont know if any ally participating to Red Flag still use it. Of course geopolitics consideration of you book should be taken into account.
That might be the best bet.
It has speed and range.
RpRDisagree. While Edwards may not have aircraft on strip alert like the old ADC or SAC bases used to, having B-1’s or F-15’s there for trial work is entirely plausible enough for this proposed work of fiction, and to give the story enough urgency to the mission. B-1’s are a regular enough sight above the California desert, and Edwards has plenty of traffic. Like I said in a earlier post, imagine a B-1 is at Edwards (or even Palamdale) for trials work, (or the resident 419? test squadron), and they are told to re-mission to fly the scientist to Alaska. No they may to be able to generate the flight on zero notice, but IF they were ready to go for another mission, then why not? The folks in Pasadena call Edwards and ask “hey, what’s the fastest thing you can get someone to Alaska”.. a pause, “well we have a B-1 that is just about taxi out on a JDAM trial….” “guess we could get them to hold……”
Works for me, and I wouldn’t close the book in disgust saying “no way…” and yes I’ve done that before
If B-1s are are not going to fly a flight that is thousands of miles long, they are not fueled for a flight of that length.
Fuel for a JDAM trial might get them to Oregon.
Fueling an aircraft takes time.
Military aircraft cannot fly through civilian airspace willy-nilly on short notice and forcing all civilian air traffic to not fly does not go unnoticed by anyone in this day of near instant communication so what ever the plot is, secrecy is not part of it.
The airspace must be clear, especially in one with the heavy air traffic of the West Coast.
If it were flying at a very high altitude no problem but a B-1 is not designed for high altitude speed.
RpRNo, what is “vacuous” is failing to acknowledge the crass stupidity of giving a child a gun -any gun- in the first place. But never mind, the instructor got his “just rewards” for his mistake.
Acknowledge what?
Your ignorance?
Tens of Thousands of children learn to fire and fire firearms in this country every year.
So what is your point.
PS:
A rapidly growing number of schools are beginning to offer some shooting sports as part of the the schools sport program.
RpRI nearly posted something like this, but I was wary of dragging up all the old arguments we used to have here about gun control. I guess the pro-gun lobby will say it was just an accident, accidents happen, etc, etc , but it’s just absolute bloody madness to encourage 9 year old kids to play with Uzi sub-machine guns in the first place.
Stupidity has just rewards and the dead man got his, that said; whether it was a single shot rifle, shotgun or any other hand held weapon is a vacuous argument.
How many round the firearm can discharge means nothing except to those who have an agenda to shout from there soapbox.
Had the girl mishandled a single-shot weapon that fired, struck and killed an instructor the soap-box people would be spouting the same — Nine year old child, blah,blah,blah, blah.
The fact it was a sub-machine gun just makes them shout their vacuous point more belligerently.
The only point that can forwarded, is that the instructor broke rules of safety and paid the price for ignoring safety.
RpRRoughly what kind of speed could the B-1B and F-15D/E maintain for the entire flight beyond their official cruising speeds? As previously mentioned neither aircraft can sustain supersonic speeds for the whole flight – but what speed might they be able to attain and maintain (assuming ideal altitude and performance and that it doesn’t really matter if the aircraft collapses into a pile of burning wreckage after it lands so long as the scientist character arrives as quickly and safely as possible)? Aside from dramatic impact the main reason I am looking at using a military jet is because I am assuming that combat aircraft and crews are inherently better equipped for being rapidly prepped for flight as well as being pushed beyond their normal performance envelope.
The main focus of the book will push suspension of disbelief a bit far so I want to make as much of the rest as realistic, grounded and factually accurate as possible (or at least as realistic as the US government stuffing a terrified scientist into a fast jet and lobbing them towards Alaska at breakneck speed can ever be). That said, my one concession to my own “no proposed/retired/hypothetical aircraft” rule is that I am considering having a B-1 variant feature in a pivotal role later in the book (something extremely similar to the proposed B-1R with F119 engines so it is at least close to being a real world aircraft – also, I am working on the assumption that this would be capable of supercruise) but with a very different mission and only after the main character has arrived at Elmendorf as it is directly related to the nature and location of the crisis.
Once again, thanks for any and all answers that have or will be provided, this is greatly appreciated.
Sadly you have waxed yourself into a corner that you are going to have to rewrite to get out of.
The ONLY Air Force aircraft that were on alert status were Air Defense Command fighters, that does not exist.
At this time Air National Guard bases are the only ones performing that function.
The last Contiguous Air Force base flying F-15s in a mode that could have filled in was Mountain Home in Idaho and they disbanded several years ago.
There are ZERO Air Force compounds that have quick alert aircraft beyond the Air National Guard flying F-16s.
The time for get a B-1 ready, that is not on alert status would be hours, not minutes and there are NO B-1s on alert status at Edawards.
About the only thing that, maybe and that is a big maybe, would be if ATAC had aircraft at Edwards for Red Flag type exercises and then you would have a civilian pilot as Air Force pilots are not familiar with the aircraft ATAC flys and even then you have the problem of multiple air to air refuelings plus ATAC would have to be flying their two-seat Viggen which they have now retired.
You are going to have rewrite in some form or push plausibility to fantasy levels.
One possibility would be that a European Air Force still flying F-4s was at Edwards for war games, or another base near by, and an exercise was about to start so the aircraft were already running ready to launch.
RpRJ75 pretty much limited all fighters that used it to Mach 2.3, although the Thud didn’t even reach that speed. I don’t think early F100’s would have offered any performance increase at high altitude. J75 was large and took up a lot of space and was very heavy compared to modern engines. I don’t think any amount of imagination fixes the top speed limits during its career.
If a newer F-106 had been introduced in the 1970’s I would think streamlined Sparrow missiles in the two-seater are probably the most likely choice. The Falcons probably get replaced by Sidewinders, at most four possible in a new bay. No nuke. Integrate the gun perhaps in a wingtip. The J75-P5A used in the XF8U gives you a bump in maximum weight possible. You could stretch the fuselage in all three dimensions for the two-seater so that it adds some fuel to make drop tanks less necessary.
This is from:
RASCAL Project
Responsive Access, Small Cargo & Affordable Launch
Proposal by ‘Destiny Aerospace’
…We have budgeted $200,000 for flight analysis to determine the dynamic stability envelopes
for the F-106 at high Mach number and the necessary changes to the flight control system control
coefficients, if any are required. The F-106 has already been flown to Mach 2.7…
…The F-106 J-75 engine is stainless steel throughout. It has a reputation as a very rugged
engine. Modern jet engines use more “advanced” materials such as titanium compressor
blades, which may be more sensitive to the injected fluid. The stainless steel J-75 will give us
the widest range of permissible liquids and operating conditions to test in.
We know from several F-106 pilots that they flew the aircraft on “unofficial” zoom
flights to 85,000 feet and they report that the standard J-75 maintained thrust throughout the
flight profile…
The J-75 was an advancement developed from the J-57 and due to the change to turbofans never had the development it could have had.
The only one with more power was the one in the F8U-3 and that was due to changes in the afterburner, not the engine.
Turbojets give outright greater performance than a turbofan but use more fuel at low altitudes.
As one pilot said the Six would keep on accelerating till it self-destructed.
If R. Strange McNamara had not been fixated on the F-111, and only the F-111, the Six would have had the radar that was used in the F-15 plus the much improved, dog fight capable AIM-26 based Falcon X.
The Swedish Falcons, were advanced beyond the Falcon X and were extremely improved from what the Six carried.
The gun replaced the Genie and would have stayed right where it was as there was no other place to put it and its very large magazine capacity.
Sidewinders could easily have been put on the wings but to use the Sparrow would have been zero advantage.
The gun was put there from what happened in not only Vietnam but Korea.
A pilot at the Six site was in Korea and at one point they were seconds from launching against Korean Migs.
The problem was there were more Migs than they had missiles total and the EC-121 they were protecting would have been shot down anyway for lack of weapons to defend it. The Migs turned away as I said seconds before the Six would have fired, weapons bays were open.
One change considered, pre-gatling gun, had the Six line reopened, was a ground attack version that would have used radar system from the Deuce and, like the Deuce, used the nuclear capable AIM-26 Falcon in the bay and the ability to carry ground attack missiles on the wing pylons.
RpRGiven the choice between who to believe between a pilot taking about their aircraft and the manual, I take the manual every day! :very_drunk:
Go to the F-106 site and tell the pilots, who flew the plane, and ground crew that worked on them, that they are wrong.
They have forgotten more about the plane than you will ever know (and they actually still will not say many things that the aircraft could do or did).
I imagine you are using the :
F-106 Specific Technical Orders, Manuals and Checklists
If you think these give the limits of the Six, well, you are very naive.
A little interesting info.
Project ICE CUBE
High-Altitude “Snap-up”Intercept Evaluation
By Colonel Paul A. Seymour, USAF (Ret)
19 Aug 2007
“Ice Cube” was a high-altitude “snap-up” intercept evaluation conducted by F-106A interceptors stationed at George Air Force Base in 1962 (approximate date) to determine the ability of the F-106 to intercept and destroy extremely hi-flying aircraft.
The F-106 pilots were outfitted with capstan partial pressure suits. They flew a full-afterburner profile to approximately 45,000 feet, accelerated to Mach 2.0 or greater, acquired the high flying target (Lockheed U-2 aircraft), initiated a high-G pull-up once they were locked onto the target with their radar, and climbed until “simulated launch” of the MB-1 nuclear rocket weapon.
During the “pop-up”, they experienced “afterburner blow-out” at about 65,000 feet, and engine “flame-out” at about 72,000 feet. When the engine quit, their pressure suits inflated, and they experienced nearly uncontrollable flight. When the nose finally dropped below the horizon and the airspeed began to climb, they regained marginal control of the aircraft. However, flying the aircraft with a fully inflated pressure suit proved to be extremely difficult. After descending to about 25,000 feet, the pilots initiated an “air start” on the engine, hoping like hell that it re-lit.
All of the F-106 “Ice Cube” flights were successful in restarting the engine, and approach and landing was without incident. Nonetheless, the “snap-ups” were all planned to occurred near-or-over Edwards Air Force Base in California, where there were long runways and ample “dry lakes” to land in the event a “dead stick” landing was required.
The “Ice Cube” tests proved the “reasonably effective” ability of the F-106 to intercept and “kill” an extremely high-flying hi-speed aircraft, although intercept conditions needed to be extremely precise.
I flew on about four of these test missions, could see the “curvature of the earth” at maximum altitude, and witnessed the totally black sky above with stars during the daylight missions. It was awesome, and one of the greatest thrills of my flying career.
Colonel Paul A. Seymour, USAF (Ret)
————————————————–
F-106 vs. F-4, High Altitude, High Speed
by Bruce Gordon
F-106 Pilot, 94 FIS While Deployed to Osan AB, Korea 1969
SCRAMBLE! In a couple of minutes my wingman and I were airborne from Osan AB and headed east
across the Korean peninsula. We expected to check out unknown aircraft, but this time it was
different.
“We have a change of call signs for you”, the radar controller announced. I had been told that we
NEVER change our call signs while airborne because it confused everyone, but the radar controller
insisted. Our new call signs indicated that we were #3 and #4 in an F-4 flight. Two F-4’s out of a
planned flight of four F-4’s had aborted, and fighters were needed for a BARCAP mission protecting
one of our reconnaissance aircraft (see “Korean Mission” earlier in this story). We were to fly as #3
and #4 in the F-4 flight. We were vectored southeast and soon found a KC-135 tanker which was
refueling two F-4’s. We dropped in behind and got in line for fuel. As I pulled in to refuel, the boomer
said: “You have the right call sign, but you’re the wrong kind of aircraft”. “No sweat. Just give us
fuel”, I replied. We topped off with fuel, then turned north with the F-4’s.
The F-4 fighter patrol procedures were different than ours – they flew lower and slower. F-106’s
patrolled at 41,000 feet at .93 Mach, F-4’s patrolled at 35,000 feet at .85 Mach. They were leading,
so we flew their speeds and their altitudes with them. As we patrolled up and down the east coast of
North Korea, we occasionally checked fuel quantities. The F-4’s started out with a lot more fuel than
the F-106’s, but as time went on it was clear that they were using a lot more fuel than we were. We
were both carrying external fuel tanks and missiles, ready for air combat, so this was a good test of
fuel consumption in combat configuration.
Finally the F-4’s were running low on fuel, while my wingman and I still had plenty of fuel. We
followed them back to the tanker, and we all topped off with fuel and turned back north, resuming
BARCAP patrol. The Combat Operations Center called, saying that the reconnaissance aircraft had
finished its work and we could go home.
We joined in close formation briefly, then the F-4 lead called: “Let’s go home – FAST”! The F-4’s lit
their afterburners and entered a gentle dive to gather speed. We lit our afterburners, but held our
altitude because I wasn’t quite sure what the F-4’s were going to do next. The F-4s each had two
afterburners, and accelerated faster than we did. We were all going about Mach 1.2 as the F-4s got
about a half mile ahead of us and the gap stopped increasing. At about Mach 1.4 it was clear that we
were catching them. I pushed the nose down and the two of us rapidly caught up with the F-4s. We
were going about Mach 1.5 when we caught them, going about a hundred knots faster than them.
We flew right past their cockpits to be sure that our sonic booms would rattle their teeth. Passing
them put them in our 6 o’clock position. I didn’t want to give them any opportunities to attack us, so I
thanked them for the mission and stayed in afterburner as we zoomed up and away. I now knew that
the F-4’s cruised at 35,000 feet, so I asked radar for cruise home at 45,000 feet – just so I could
embarrass the F-4s that fly low and slow!
Bruce
RpRAccording to its flight manual, F-106 is limited to M2.0 from 35k feet to 50k feet. Its max ceiling is 55k feet. With 2×360 gals, F-106 has max speed of M1.9 at around 38000 lbs.
In short there is really nothing to compare. Its performance its comparable at best to F-4, F-15 etc. Both MiG-31 and MiG-25 can go M2.83 with their full AAM payload. MiG-25RB can go M2,7+ even with 4xFAB-500M-62 bombs hanging from its pylons.
I do not know what flight manual you have but it is wrong.
I communicated with former pilots of the F-106 and one I spoke with hit Mach 2.2 plus before having to make a pre-planned intercept turn which scrubbed off speed but he said it was still accelerating hard with no problems.
They said they did not simply push the aircraft for high speed because in full burner it used a lot of fuel and you had to explain to your commander what happened to your fuel load.
—————
The problem with your novel and a high speed dash is there is no aircraft that can fly fast, that far, without refueling.
In the days of the Air Defense Command, at least aircraft and tankers to make a high-speed dash, on short notice, with refueling existed but that died with end of Continental Interceptors.
At high altitude the Six was extremely efficient for fuel use which is why it had extremely long range.
From lift off to need to refuel at full-burner was only about 20 minutes, but as one pilot said the Six would keep accelerating till it self-destructed.
At 40,000 ft. the Six really started to sing.
It could fly to sixty thousand feet with no problems and zoom a lot higher without burn-out.
It could also go supersonic without the burner but the fuel use and time made using the burner the better choice.
RpRLUCY
Save your money, even if it is a DVD in the one dollar bin.
Moronic movie.
RpR22 Jump Street
Save your money, the best part is spoofing 23 Jump Street to ex dozen Jump Street during the credits.
RpRThis SUPA PONY flies New York- Los Angeles non stop at 345 mph ( 7 hrs ) burning 100 gallons of fuel. Then can still fly another 1000 miles with a reserve. Flying at 400 mph would burn 50% more fuel.
Slightly faster than HH-1; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-1_Racer
Do you like to embarrass yourself with such foolish statements.
Sign In
