• There seems to be an up tick in Political commentary in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site we know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religiours commentary out of the fourms.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politicion will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment amoung members. It is a poison to the community. We apprciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

F-100 Super Sabre flying tips..?

PRB

PRB

Administrator
Staff member
So, I’m watching the “Great Planes” marathon on the Military channel. On now, the F-100 Super Sabre. The host is asking questions of a former F-100 pilot, who says this: “In the pattern, you never moved the stick, you held the stick rock-steady. You used the rudders to maneuver the plane in the pattern.” What?? I’ve never heard of such a crazy thing. Could that be true?
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>
There was some WIP pics of an F-100 “under construction” by somebody here. They need to see this. When it comes out I’m going to try to fly around the pattern using only the rudders! :icon_lol:
 
PRB said:
So, I’m watching the “Great Planes” marathon on the Military channel. On now, the F-100 Super Sabre. The host is asking questions of a former F-100 pilot, who says this: “In the pattern, you never moved the stick, you held the stick rock-steady. You used the rudders to maneuver the plane in the pattern.” What?? I’ve never heard of such a crazy thing. Could that be true?
<o:p></o:p>
There was some WIP pics of an F-100 “under construction” by somebody here. They need to see this. When it comes out I’m going to try to fly around the pattern using only the rudders! :icon_lol:
Click to expand...

Sort of goes against more modern fighters...you don't touch the rudder. You keep your feet planted flat on the floor. Most rudder input is prohibited once you're flying.

-G-
 
PRB said:
So, I’m watching the “Great Planes” marathon on the Military channel. On now, the F-100 Super Sabre. The host is asking questions of a former F-100 pilot, who says this: “In the pattern, you never moved the stick, you held the stick rock-steady. You used the rudders to maneuver the plane in the pattern.” What?? I’ve never heard of such a crazy thing. Could that be true?
<o:p></o:p>
There was some WIP pics of an F-100 “under construction” by somebody here. They need to see this. When it comes out I’m going to try to fly around the pattern using only the rudders! :icon_lol:
Click to expand...
Probably because it had a tendency to roll easily.
 
I believe the Phantom was also flown with a lot of pedal input, probably something to do with secondary effects of controls and the early swept wing jets?
 
I find that hard to believe. There are many pilots and maintainers who are not only full of it, they forget what they're talking about over the years and start telling the legend. It may be true, but it's unlikely. If I tried to could count the number of myths I've heard about B-1s, It'd take years.

I once watched a TV special where a B-52 pilot was being interviewed. He told the cameraman that long sorties in an ACES II ejection seat were like sitting on a 2X4 for 12 hours. I don't know where or why he came up with that one. I sit on an ejection seat every day, and it's nothing like sitting on a 2X4.

From time to time I fly an Aeronca Champ, and I fly it primarily with rudders. I start it leaning over wth the pedals and then I coordinate my turns with the stick. The Champ also has very low wing loading, and the F-100 has extremely high wing loading. High AOA and wing loading in the pattern would always mean that yaw inputs could equal snap-roll like phenomena; the same reason that many modern military jets discourage the use of anything but correcting rudder.
 
PRB said:
So, I’m watching the “Great Planes” marathon on the Military channel. On now, the F-100 Super Sabre. The host is asking questions of a former F-100 pilot, who says this: “In the pattern, you never moved the stick, you held the stick rock-steady. You used the rudders to maneuver the plane in the pattern.” What?? I’ve never heard of such a crazy thing. Could that be true?
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>
There was some WIP pics of an F-100 “under construction” by somebody here. They need to see this. When it comes out I’m going to try to fly around the pattern using only the rudders! :icon_lol:
Click to expand...

My instructer did a whole circuit in a C172 with only rudder and trim as a demo. I was also amazed, but it's true. I'm not sure about all aircraft, but it should be.
One of my friends said that his mate did the same to prove to his wife that it can be done. He flew from Germany to the UK. She just refused to let him land that way! :)

Ben
 
My Uncle owned a Mooney 201 and I remember him telling me that on long flights he would make course corrections with rudder only. Not being a real life pilot I thought that sounded odd but I guess not after reading some replies here.

Moses
 
With the right amount of skill, you can fly a plane with many unusual control and power inputs. However, using only rudder input to turn a swept wing jet brings you that much closer to an unhappy ending...especially in the pattern. From what I've heard about F-100's and F-4's, it takes very little stick input to initiate a turn. Maybe the person who sandbagged the ride in this story didn't see the stick move much, because the stick didn't need to move much.
 
I believe the F-100 WiP pictures were either by AlphaSim or Michael Davies.....

I could be wrong though...:kilroy:
 
Mr. Davies is now developing his F-100 for the RAZBAM label.
 
SirBenn21 said:
Well here is an idea. :iidea:

Start up FSX and have a go and see how possible it is via a Flight Sim.

Ben
Click to expand...

Ok, I tried it with the Alphasim F-11 Tiger. It’s the closest thing I have in FSX to an F-100. It worked! And it was kind of fun and challenging. I felt like that DC-10 pilot who had to land without hydraulics in Sioux City Iowa some time ago! I had to use the stick for pitch control, but I never touched the ailerons. I don’t know why I would want to do such a thing as a matter of normal procedures. It’s much easier to land the plane if you can use the ailerons! :icon_lol: I’ve heard of using only the rudders (or only ailerons) to make small course corrections on long flights, but this pilot made it sound like he landed this way "normally." Not sure what it prooves, in any case. I think the real planes are a bit harder to land than the ones in FSX...
 
re: rudder corrections on long flights;

That's been my technique since I started flying instruments. I'm sure there are aircraft out there that you can't or shouldn't do this in, but it works just fine when only one or two degree corrections are needed. I usually use the rudder to make one or two degree corrections, then I keep the turn indicator zeroed out with rudders. I'm a big fan of power/trim instrument flying. I'm sure it gets harder when you're talking about large aircraft that have a wide range of weights they fly at.
 
Slug Flyer said:
Mr. Davies is now developing his F-100 for the RAZBAM label.
Click to expand...
That's gratifying to know, especially if I live to see the release. Over the past few years, from time to time threads are started asking what aircraft folks would like to see developed. My answer has always been and will continue to be the F-100 Super Saber. The ONLY century aircraft almost totally ignored and every time I suggest that aircraft, it's as though I'm speaking a foreign language as the post is never mentioned and basically ignored, never to be mentioned again. I hope this aircraft gets the attention it so richly deserves.
 
Bone said:
... Maybe the person who sandbagged the ride in this story didn't see the stick move much, because the stick didn't need to move much.
Click to expand...

Well, the person who said all this about the rudders was the pilot. At least there was no question that the "Great Planes" production people told us he was a pilot. 200 combat missions over Vietnam, pulling 6.5 Gs after dropping bombs, using peripheral vision to aim the refueling probe, mounted on the right wing, into the tanker. He said he lands it "just like my Super Decathalon". So, unless the Great Planes people have been had, I would have to say he was the pilot.

It's possible he meant using the rudder for small corrections on final, but even that really makes no sense (to me anyway) if you have a perfectly good control stick. But he did say "in the landing pattern", which implies to me the square shaped pattern over the airport. It's interesting to me that this doesn't make any sense to the pilots here either. I'll bet he was refering to some querk of the F-100, and did it poorly. I wish we had an F-100 pilot here.
 
Having a lot of time in swept wing jets.... This seems a bit unlikely, however before high lift augmentation became really effective in more modern aircraft, some of these planes flew approach at pretty high angles of attack, in which area rough handling of the ailerons can cause serious issues! Many modern swept wing incorporate spoilers to assist in roll authority which avoids this issue somewhat. Tactical types are known for rudder induced roll coupling.

Probably an issue of not slamming the stick around, a sin of which most of the fighter jocks I have flown with are guilty of.

Cheers: t
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top