You are correct! If he would have thought about it for one second he wouldn't have even tried this stuff and he and his crew might be alive today.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Fight's On! The origins of TOPGUN and dogfights back in the day/future prospects
- Thread starter futrMarineBlueAngel
- Start date
I don't understand. How would stashing him somewhere for a couple years help him any? If he wasn't qualified at that moment, why would he be two years later? Was he given a second chance or something?
It doesn't 'help him' necessarily ... it's just the NAVY's way of burying their dead-men-walking while they're still breathing w/out declairing 'em .... 'dead'. It's a way to make up for piss-poor personnel procurement procedures ... that's '5 P's' ...
Some can/do 'rise from the dead' after 'stash' ... can you say: thank you, Jesus (?) ...
:sleep_125IF you could 'choose' your future in the USN ... it would NOT include 'stash'.
Though it SHOULD include stache
(if you can get past looking at that sexy beast of a jet behind him anyway)
OK. Who is that stached man? Looks familiar. But I can't help looking away and being distracted by your avatar.Though it SHOULD include stache
(if you can get past looking at that sexy beast of a jet behind him anyway)
Looks about right for the timeframe. Standard stash. Uncovered pen pocket. Old style carabiner.
But what's with the lightweight survival vest? Only a PRC pocket and a K-bar? While there might be more behind, it's still pretty sparse for 150 missions. Where's the water? Where's the sidearms? Where are all the survival package goodies? And shined boot in combat? C'mon! And why do the ankles shine? Leggens? Or zippers, probably. Sheesh.
But the beast behind him .....always was sexy.
Well that's why he looks familiar... before the thumb fooled me.
Here's a shot of a Vigi without distraction of Hoser
HJ Photo
As to Hoser, I found this on the web recently:
Naval Academy Yearbook said:
His answer to my question about having to devote so much time to academics (he struggled with demerits and grades so he decided to be Anchorman to get the cash prize):
Hoser said:
sfdistance
New Member
G Limits, how much G is enough: 7.5 or 9G capability?
On another note, out of curiousity, why are the latest carrier borne fighters not built for 9G turns. I understand that its not usually a capability that would be tactically useful since it bleeds energy so quickly, but it seems like something that might come in handy in certain situations like an evasive maneuver. Again it seems like the Air Force puts some value on this capability since the F-15, 16, and 22 are all stressed for 9G, and the CTOL F-35 apparently is too, while the CVN and STOVL F-35, as well as super hornets and legacy hornets are all limited in the 7-7.5G range. Is this a result of the Navy trying to extend the service life of its aircraft by shrinking the envelope artificially in the flight control computers? Or maybe it has to do with cutting weight in some areas that allows for the added weight necessary in others (i.e landing gear)? Just curious if anyone has insight on this. Also I've heard that hornets have a button on the stick that allows the pilot to tell the computer to max out the jet at 9 instead of 7.5, for emergencies. Anyone know if that is true? (If this is another OPSEC thing than nevermind)
On another note, out of curiousity, why are the latest carrier borne fighters not built for 9G turns. I understand that its not usually a capability that would be tactically useful since it bleeds energy so quickly, but it seems like something that might come in handy in certain situations like an evasive maneuver. Again it seems like the Air Force puts some value on this capability since the F-15, 16, and 22 are all stressed for 9G, and the CTOL F-35 apparently is too, while the CVN and STOVL F-35, as well as super hornets and legacy hornets are all limited in the 7-7.5G range. Is this a result of the Navy trying to extend the service life of its aircraft by shrinking the envelope artificially in the flight control computers? Or maybe it has to do with cutting weight in some areas that allows for the added weight necessary in others (i.e landing gear)? Just curious if anyone has insight on this. Also I've heard that hornets have a button on the stick that allows the pilot to tell the computer to max out the jet at 9 instead of 7.5, for emergencies. Anyone know if that is true? (If this is another OPSEC thing than nevermind)
I don't know about the F-35 but as for the rest, it's actually a physiological reason for the limitation. All about the human body. The F-18 seats are more vertical than the air force seats. The air force seats lean back a little more. The angle difference allows them to pull more overall G's. Physically speaking the equivalent stress on the human body is the same due to the geometry. Why they designed it like that I can't tell you, but that's one of the main reasons for max G.
The was designed with a sidestick controlller and an ejection seat tilted back at 30° whereas other fighter aircraft vary from 13° to 20°. Phsyiologists I've talked to say you need an event greater tilt angle to really reap benefit. Perhaps that is way other aircraft haven't introduced the same angle. I've bummed some F-16N rides and found it comfortable, but harder to lead forward and look in the rear quadrant (and take pictures!). 9Gs is no sweat in a F-16, but you better be ready with your grunt or you'll see (actually you'll see nothing but a pinhole of light) onset of G-LOC almost instantly.
Although not a carrier-borne fighter, the F-16CJ can accelerate at 9G.
It is not, by definition, a load factor that "bleeds energy so quickly."
I'm not a fighter guy, but it seems to me it'd be a very tactically useful capability to have a massive amount of turn rate and be able to just snap your guns onto an opponent. Yeah, a quick bat turn will bleed all your speed, but in a 1v1, the other guy would be dead. Plenty of time to rebuild energy as you head home after that.
I've pulled 7 G's in my Yak 52 sitting pretty much straight up and about 8.5 G's leaned back in an Su-29. I'm told the Su-29 seats lean back about 30 degrees and it was a lot easier to take the G's in that position than sitting straight up. I know the Yak 52 and Su-29 can't maintain the G's like a military fighter, but short duration being tilted back did make a difference on how it felt.