They probably didn't need it, Chuck. Even the huge F14 didn't need
burner once they had the GE F110 engine fitted, the F14D, I think it
was.
But it's just not cricket to have that much power. RAF aircraft have
always been more frugal than thrusty, until the Typhoon (Eurofighter)
that is. And that has oodles, no, double oodles, of power! :-)
Chris
On 25 Jan 2009, at 16:52, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> But they are fun to watch. I spent a couple hours on the Nimitz one
> night several years ago watching night flight operations... totally
> mesmerized. But it was a little disappointing in one respect. I'd
> seen
> films of F-14s during night takeoffs with long blue flame tails
> blasting
> out from the afterburners. But not from F/A-18s. Nothing visible at
> all until the angle was such that you could look up the pipe. Maybe
> there's enough power that afterburner isn't required for takeoff with
> that aircraft? But the catapults were certainly working. I know
> because I was trying to sleep not far away. :-)
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|