RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Oil well fires.
- Status
Oil well fires.
Puddle Duck
Scholar
Rramjet, so you finally did a chart. You did the chart yourself or at least you followed it. That is the real deal, the actual distance. They are right. When I first put the parameters up, I deliberately made it for the worst conditions that was likely to be seen. It was not meant to be the conditions that either F-4 had that night. No-wind condition is the default until you get an actual wind. and is what is used on the PR releases. For a pilot, “High, Heavy and Hot” the 3 Hs really suck.
You seem to have a real problem with the temperature. I want you to be happy, so would you care to use 30 degrees? If you can accept that, go back to post 3470 and redo this problem using 30 degrees. All you have to do is start from 30, not 40. Then use the Max takeoff chart and do it for 30 degrees.
Finally for the PR sheet standard takeoff distance of 4490 ft, do it for the weight (subtract 500 lbs to account for the extra max thrust available over the D) and at 30 degrees. using the Max takeoff chart. That will give you the exact numbers for the E model.
Post the answers I haven’t run the problem yet. I think I have it close from off the top of my head, but we’ll compare plotted answers when you post. It will be a shorter distance.
The whole purpose of these chart exercises is to rebut your claim that Mil power takeoffs were the norm. You use burners during takeoff. Untwist your knickers.
By the way, that PR sheet you put up is for a “hardwing E”, not the “slatwing E” the Iranians were flying.
You do know how PR released are made, don’t you? Someone (like the Public Relations Officer) who knows nothing about a subject, gathers some information, writes it down, takes it to what expert is available and says “is this right? The overworked expert looks at it for a few seconds and says “that looks about right” and goes back to work. Most PR releases, like this one are full of errors.
You don’t accept the C/D charts as representative of the E? The E takeoff will be identical to the C chart by subtracting 500 lbs from the chart takeoff weight.
Rramjet, have you just declared yourself to be an F-4 E model expert? Prove what you say about the E model. Don’t just pick something of a PR sheet and declare it to be true. Post your chart and real information from it’s flight manual. It has to have the label “ T. O. 1F-4E-1”, (on the top center of the page) and I will gladly use them. Until that happens, I’ll use the C dash one.
The increases in both weight and thrust balance out. Actually the increase in mil thrust would be in the range of 350 to 425 pounds for a net loss of about 1000 lbs. And there would be more of a loss in the high end, since these are slat Es. Where it gains (and I’m guessing it’s quite a bit) is in the “energy charts”. Unfortunately, those were classified.
For takeoff purposes, the weight increase is 1260 lbs and the thrust increase is 1700 lbs. The difference is 440 lbs., so by subtracting ~500 lbs from the takeoff weight, the charts give the identical run.
Actually, it seems that the Phantom did not have full radar visibility to the rear!
Rramjet why are you still on the RHAW subject? What is the significance of an upgraded either are not reading anything I’m trying to teach you or you have attention span problems. I laid out the workings of the RHAW gear here. Go back and read it.
Both cockpits have the same equipment, the billboard simply shows what the filter thinks is a threat, i.e.the lighted indicator” SEARCH” shows the search radar for the SA-2 (spoon rest if I remember correctly), “SAM shows that a Fansong fire control is active and whether it is in LO or HI Pulse Repetition Frequency (PRF). “LAUNCH” if the SA-2 is using telemetry with the missile. “GUNS” shows the AA control radar Firecan, and AI shows and air-intercept radar. All AI radars at that time would pass that filter. I don’t remember what the other lights were. That is five out of the 10 lights. The only range information that you can get is relative, if you have two radars of the same type, the longer one on the scope is closer, if you have the same one looking at you over a period of time, and the strobe gets shorter, you are moving away from him. There is no calibration in the system. I thought that the “length of strobe showing v. relative power” would be self explanatory.
Enough for now. I’ll be back later.
Rramjet, when will you answer my questions?
King of the Americas
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,513
Do you feel like you need an intellectual shower after posting this garbage?
Please keep the tone civil.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: LibraryLady
Last edited by a moderator:
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
Are you actually capable of refuting it, or are you just going to sling insults?
I added a little emphasis to your quote. Do UFOs use Soviet radar?
For a start you do not reference your source and second you seem to be confusing sources (to whom do your refer in “his” interview with Pirouzi?)
If by “Enquirer” you mean a newspaper article I would simply ask “When has a newspaper ever exaggerated or misconstrued (for effect) what an interviewee actually said…?" Surely THAT never happens?
That is because you seem to insist on relying on second (third, fourth) hand interpretive accounts rather than the first hand witness descriptions of the events. If I was to rely on such accounts for my arguments I would be howled down by you (and others in this forum) unmercifully! You indulgence of second (third etc) hand accounts is hypocritical of you Astrophotograppher.
First you make a HUGE unfounded assumption about who and what rank would have been “on alert” at the time. You cannot know that your statement even approximates the truth, yet you put it forward as if it should be true! If I were to do a similar thing I would be howled down! THAT is hypocrisy Astrophotographer.
Second, WHAT reason have we to question Jafari’s claim? I don’t “blindly” accept his claim, I merely note that all he states is supported by other sources and that it would be totally inconsistent and unnecessary for him to lie about his rank.
Well, Mooy’s Memorandum offers in summary:
(First F-4) “As the F-4 approached a range of 25nm he lost all instrumentation and communications … When the F-4 turned away from the object and apparently was no longer a threat to it the aircraft regained all instruments and communications”.
(Second F-4) “As the range decreased to 25nm the object moved away at a speed that was visible on the radar scope and stayed at 25nm …the pilot attempted to fire an AIM-9 missile at the object and at that time his weopons control panel went off and he lost all communications.”
Pirouzi states:
(First F-4) “…every time he came close to the object, it affected his radio and all his instruments.” and “But every time he got close to the object, his navigation aids went out, his radio went dead, but his engines were working normally, the lights on the instrument panel were working, all his navigation aids were out, at one point he was talking to me, his radio went dead completely as he got closer to the object.”
“I ordered him to close again … and this time, he lost all navigation aids again, this involved all the electronic equipment aboard the aircraft.”
(Second F-4) “The second plane got to within 25-30 miles of the object and reported, suddenly, ‘I’ve lost all my navigation aids. My needles are fluctuating. I cannot get near the object. I can’t get close because I’ve lost every aid I’ve got. What can I do?”
“He also reported that every time he got close, his navigation and all his electronic systems went crazy.”
“…their navigation systems went out of action every time they got close. There was strong interference on the radio and they heard these emergency signals which were false. ... Their radar was not working when they got close, even though all indications were aboard the aircraft that their radar was working. Their screens just went blank. The distance was 15 to 20 miles, where his navigation aids failed …"
(NOTE: Pirouzi has just referred to the first F-4 here)
… The second pilot reported that sometimes it was 10 miles and sometimes as much as 35 miles away from the UFO when his systems went haywire.”
Jafari states:
“It was now 26 miles away from us…33000 feet…. 150 knots closure airspeed …. Close to 25 miles and all of a sudden…. I was looking at the radar …. I saw it jump back about 2 miles…. went downward below the horizon …. I was really scared…. I thought it was a missile that was launched toward me…. When I selected the missile … when I looked to my missile panel … I saw all of the instrument … fluctuating ….lots of static on the radio …. There were no lights inside the missile panel, so I knew there was no use for none of these things ….
(http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
And
“The pilot of the first jet lost instrumentation and communication when he got too close to the brilliant object … I approached the object …. We locked on it with radar … 25 miles …. Size on radar scope was comparable to 707 tanker … whenever they were close to me my weapon were jammed and my radio communication were garbled… I tried to launch a heat seeker missile to it but my missile panel went out.”
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370)
So, That’s all the first hand and interview information from verified sources we have.
I am presenting the first hand witness accounts. Please tell me Astrophotographer WHAT evidence Klass uses to base his accounts on? (I have answered your questions about the avionics systems – please do me the reciprocal courtesy of answering mine about Klass’ sources.
But Puddle Duck … HOW DO YOU KNOW that “mil. power takeoffs” were NOT the norm for Sharokhi? We have at least ONE first hand source stating that they WERE the norm… and the charts indicate that with a light load (ie without a full fuel load) such takoffs ARE possible from Shahrokhi without needing to use the “burners”. So perhaps you should untwist your OWN knickers.
“When I talked to Henry in late 1982 he still remembered the night, 6 years before, when he was rudely awakened by the loud roar of jets taking off at full speed. At that time he lived close to the Shahroki Air Field in Hamadan, Iran. Jets taking off at full speed at night and “with afterburner” were a rarity, he said. Henry was an employee of the Westinghouse Corp. and he was in Iran to help maintain the avionics, including radar, in the F-4 Phantom jets that the Iranians had bought several years earlier. Although he did not know the reason for the high speed takeoffs at the time they occurred, he found out the next day: the jets chased a UFO. Several days after that, he and co-workers were allowed to examine the planes. They found that all the electronics were operating normally. This was surprising, considering what the pilots reported had happened during the chase!” (http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
You merely have speculation based on your own experience at an entirely different place and time. THAT is not direct evidence, it IS mere supposition and speculation. The EVIDENCE we DO have in the case indicated that it was unusual for F-4s to take off “at full speed” from Shahroki. Morover, it IS possible for an F-4 to do this. That is the long and the short of it I am afraid.
I simply do not accept that “subtracting 500lbs” will make the C chart an accurate representation of the E chart.
I have a first hand witness account to support my position. It is up to YOU to prove that wrong. That is, YOU are the one that has to provide the accurate and specifically relevant charts if you want to do this. Using a chart from a different model is NOT acceptable in this process.
Thank you for your explanation of the RHAW system and I appreciate your reposting earlier information. You must understand that I am but one person arguing my case here while on “your side” of the argument you have many posters often providing conflicting information. If I miss any pertinent information then I apologise… but I promise you I DO at least TRY to keep up with it all… unfortunately to do this properly would require more time than I actually have. So again I apologise if I miss information in some posts.
My point about the RHAW system was that it CAN provide distance information. You have clarified the conditions under which this can occur. But your initial contention was that this could NOT occur at all and in this your WERE mistaken… I have also posted information concerning other visual aids that might have been utilised in the circumstance (eg; mirrors and the backseater or pilot simply looking toward the rear) and there is no specific information that states the UFO/missile/object was trailing directly behind the F-4… in fact the information we do have is that it was actually above and behind him. So I maintain that it WAS possible for an experienced pilot to relay distance estimates.
A final point to note is that the “distance estimation” reports actually seem to originate in turn from a newspaper report. I would not like to take newspaper reports to be particularly “accurate” in their assessments. They may be “indicative” or (as history as so often shown) they may be (just plainly) wildly wrong! I suggest we actually stick to the first hand accounts and the witness interview accounts and those documents we can PROVE the provenance of - such as the Memorandum for the Record – but note even in the latter, Mooy was writing a summary of the story, recounting the substantive facts of the case rather than providing a “blow by blow” detailed account. For THAT type of account we can only turn to Pirouzi and Jafari.
Have I answered you questions now? I hope so. If not I am sure you WILL be “back”.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Sounds more like bad movie dialogue than a pilot handling a sticky situation.
In most of what I have heard or read the pilots are calm and professional right up to the last.
Last edited:
And yet you keep linking to http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/ as your main source of information. Good for you!
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
No, you have one account from a man who lived near the airbase saying that taking off at night with afterburners was not the norm. The two are not always equivalent. For instance, it could mean that night take-offs were rare. He doesn't say that planes often took off at night, but rarely with their afterburners on, which is how you interpret it.
gambling_cruiser
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 734
An attempt to fire an AIM-9 missile at more than 20 miles distance is either made up or shows a bloody rookie pilot which slept during is weapons instruction class.
Last edited:
You are 100% mistaken. Here again is an edited version of the post where I listed the sources I rely on (which you have all seemed to "conveniently" ignored! Bad for you!
You will note that I rely on Dr Maccabee ONLY for the avionics engineer assessment of the F-4s and that Dr Maccabee's document is then NOT a "main" source for my information at all.
Addendum:
Finally (and out of order from the original post) I note some interesting confirmation of the “starfish” shape of the UFO as described by Pirouzi
Interestingly I discovered a video of a UFO from Brazil (30 Dec 1990) that looks almost exactly like the droopy starfish shape Pirouzi describes (and draws) (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5t3s0_ovni-a-niteroi-bresil-30dec-1992_tech). Now here is a repeat of a UFO of the same description! (and who said there were no discernible patterns to be found in the study of UFOs!).
Then, you simply have NO knowledge of the events in question. You really SHOULD go to the sources I mention (above) to understand the situation as it transpired. You error really is unforgivable at this late stage when everyone posting here SHOULD know the basic facts of the case by now. Otherwise they should NOT be posting such utter nonsense about the events in the case! Get with the program kid!
...besides ...what DO you know about when and how an AIM-9 can be fired effectively?
Henry: "Jets taking off at full speed at night and “with afterburner” were a rarity, he said." (http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
So, Henry is stating directly that when "jets" took of from Shahrokhi at night it was a "rarity" for them to use afterburners.
This makes sense linguistically (it is a plain language statement) AND it makes sense in the real world too (don't want to unduly and unnecessarily disturb the slumbering citizenry). In other words, at night, from Shahrokhi, jets rarely used afterburners. They might have always used them in the day...who knows... Henry's statement says nothing about that scenario - but THAT scenario is also totally irrelevant to the case...
You totally misrepresent Jafari's statements...he was "scared", yes, but there is NOTHING to indicate he did not conduct himself professionally according to his obvious experience. Your attempt at rewriting history is NOT supported by the evidence in the case.
Laton
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2006
- Messages
- 263
Anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of air-combat or military aviation from Vietnam onwards knows that the AIM-9 Sidewinder is a short range (about 11 miles max, effective range on the early 'winders was a lot less) IR (heat-seeking) missile.
3rd generation 'all-aspect' Sidewinders didn't enter service until after 1978 so it would have been an earlier type, probably an AIM-9E which, in order to track properly, needs to be fired from within quite specific parameters- the main one is that you need to be behind the target aircraft so that the seeker head can 'see' the targets' engine heat signature.
I REALLY wish people would apprise themselves of the FACTs in the case. Why don't you start with Jafari's description of the "missile" incident at (http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2 - from about 5:30 on). Here he describes that what he thought could have been a missile fired at him from the UFO coming toward him. He decided that he should prepare to fire a missile in reply...NOTE: that is NOT the same thing as actually trying (or attempting) to FIRE the AIM-9 at that moment. However, Jafari was unable to even "select" the missile because when he looked at his control panel (in his own words) "to see if the missile was selected or not" ... "I saw all the instruments fluctuating" ... "and there was no lights inside the missile panel, so I saw there was no use for none of these things..."
So in Jafari's OWN words... he did not even get as far as confirming missile selection, let alone trying to actually launch one! Obviously Jafari would have known the capabilities of his armament and would have selected an appropriate time to actually launch a missile - if indeed he EVER decided that he WOULD actually launch one... The way his statement actually comes across is that he considered a hostile act from the UFO was possible and that HIS appropriate course was to select a missile to potentially return the favour IF THE NEED AROSE... that is all.
Belz...
Fiend God
Very well, Ramjet. Since you are completely unwilling to review your flawed notion of burden of proof, I don't think there's any choice but to label you as willfully ignorant. And since this means you are incapable of changing your mind on this issue, discussing with you is pointless.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
And none of this is evidence supporting the claim that aliens exist. Just more incredulity and ignorance. Anyone surprised?
Oh god if it were only so.
Indeed, if after over 750 postings a guy can't come up with a single piece of evidence to support his claim, refuses to understand some of the simpler concepts of skepticality, and repeats the same feeble arguments from ignorance and incredulity as if he expects anyone to accept them as valid, there exists little hope. But then that was quite apparent somewhere around 90 pages and 3600 posts ago.
amb
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 18,777
What have identifying military aircraft got to do the proving we have aliens roaming around our skies?
I would say that a craft from another world would look nothing like anything we can imagine. If this craft were to appear in our skies, it would immediately be recognized for what it is. No ifs or buts.
I would say that a craft from another world would look nothing like anything we can imagine. If this craft were to appear in our skies, it would immediately be recognized for what it is. No ifs or buts.
- Status