Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

Recommended Photo Store
 
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
 
 
 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Well, Here’s Something Out of the Ordinary…

    Posted by David Foster on January 12th, 2014 (All posts by )

    an F-86 Sabrejet for sale.

    There aren’t too many of these around.

    I don’t think there were ever any two-seat versions of the F-86 built, so a pilot’s first flight in the Sabrejet is going to have to be solo.

     

    17 Responses to “Well, Here’s Something Out of the Ordinary…”

    1. Jonathan Says:

      I’ll take two!

    2. Jason Says:

      Actually there were I think 2 two-seaters built.
      http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p86_15.html

    3. David Foster Says:

      Huh…I stand corrected. Still, there don’t appear to be any F-86 two-seaters available currently…and I doubt if there are any serious F-86 simulators..so it’s still got to be kick the tires, light the fires, and take off all by yourself.

    4. Michael Kennedy Says:

      There used to be one that did mock dogfights with a MiG at the El Toro air show. One time, about 15 years ago, the MiG didn’t show up so the guy with the F 86 decided just to do some aerobatics. He crashed and was killed.

    5. Michael Kennedy Says:

      Here’s the the video.

    6. David Foster Says:

      A USAF mechanic was doing a high-speed taxi test in an F-86 following some maintenance…got it up to about 105 knots and decided he didn’t have room to stop on the remaining runway, so took off. Amazingly enough, given that his total flight experience consisted of 2 hours with an instructor in a Cub, he got down in one piece. Apparently the airplane was repairable also, though he did as he had been advised on the radio and let the plane roll into the barrier at runway end rather than using the brakes.

      http://www.courtesyaircraft.com/misc%20images/Air%20and%20Space%20Sabre.pdf

    7. Bill Brandt Says:

      Then there was this

      http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/06/4795656/farrell.html

      I was drafted and at Ft Ord just a few days – my parents house was maybe a mile from the accident

    8. Joe Wooten Says:

      I think Connie Edwards has one in his collection of warbirds.

    9. Bill Brandt Says:

      A friend of mine, Air Force vet and pilot who flew everything from F105s to the EC-121 – said the F86 was the nicest plane to fly.

    10. Michael Kennedy Says:

      Bill, the article about the mechanic mentioned that takeoff stalls were a notorious problem with the plane.

    11. Joe Wooten Says:

      Michael, I think that was a problem of the second generation jet engines which the F-86 used. Flame-outs and sudden thrust loss were typical problems of that generation. The F-80 was even worse in 1944-1947.

      I bet a modern engine of the same thrust would not have that problem. Several NATO nations used a F-86 derivative built in Italy and West Germany as a ground attack plane well into the 80’s.

    12. David Foster Says:

      The kind of takeoff stall that the article mentioned is an aerodynamic stall, totally separate from engine compressor stalls.

      Speaking of the engine, some later versions of the F-86 used electronic engine controls, which included vacuum-tube amplifiers. I wonder what happened when a tube burned out…

    13. Michael Kennedy Says:

      “I bet a modern engine of the same thrust would not have that problem. Several NATO nations used a F-86 derivative built in Italy and West Germany as a ground attack plane well into the 80′s.”

      For an amazing story of an “unstart” with a modern jet engine, read this . An astonishing story.

    14. Michael Kennedy Says:

      Argh ! The link doesn’t work. Here try this one.

    15. Michael Kennedy Says:

      That worked. I like this sentence. “The SR-71 had a turning radius of about 100 mi. at that speed and altitude, so I wasn’t even sure what state we were going to land in.

    16. Bill Brandt Says:

      Is a takeoff stall due to not enough speed and angle of attack? The runway has plenty of length – I remember that the jet just never left the runway. Slid across Freeport Blvd (a 4 laned major artery) and slammed into the Crossroads shopping Center into the ice cream parlor.

      The Crossroads never really recovered financially after that and today it is the headquarters of the police and fire depts.

    17. Michael Kennedy Says:

      In the article he describes the F 86 “nasty characteristic.” “If you put the nose up too much, the drag increased and you couldn’t accelerate out of it.” That’s aerodynamic stall.

      Fortunately, the SR 71 was 78,000 feet higher. It’s just coming out recently how high those planes really flew. In 1959, I worked for Douglas and knew guys who had been involved with the U 2 project. They told me it went over 90,000 feet. The SR 71 went higher.

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.