From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Aurora chase planes (was Re: Aurora)
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
	<1h8beqINN9hv@news.cerf.net> <1992Dec23.194205.17821@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 06:13:15 GMT

On Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:42:05 GMT, pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron) said:


Dillon> In article <1h8beqINN9hv@news.cerf.net>, davsmith@nic.cerf.net (David Smith) writes:
>
>I think people are getting a little too hung up on the "chase" word.
>If I recall right, what started this was that an observer said he
>saw this unidentified plane being chased by an F-15 or F-16.  As
>an observer, how can you tell if one plane is "chasing" another or
>accompanying it?  (Mary's definition of "chase plane" is the standard
>one for testing aircraft but we're really talking about an "accompanying
>plane")  Unless there was some major manuevering going on you can't say
>that the F-15 was "chasing" or attempting to intercept with the intent
>of shooting it down or identifying an unknown plane rather than accompanying
>it as a "chase plane".

Dillon> If I saw one aircraft, armed or not, I would feel safe to assume it to be a
Dillon> "companion" plane.  If I saw two, armed to the teeth, one behind and slightly
Dillon> below, the other off center, above and further behind ... The Air Force guys I
Dillon> grew up with call that "snakes and pistols".  ie Sidewinders and guns.

Dillon> If you were to see only one "chase" aircraft, it is probably just that.  Most
Dillon> air forces (includes USN) prefer to fly in wing pairs.

Dillon> Not that I speak with any real athority.  Mary, does this seem like a plausible
Dillon> explanation (although not complete).

We do sometimes fly more than one chase.  This is usually during the
handoff from one chase to another.  An example here is the AFTI/F-111
which would go to the tanker a couple of times during a three-hour
research flight, while we sortied three chases, each good for a little
over an hour.  Why didn't we use just one chase and have it refuel,
you ask?  Because T-38s don't have refueling capability and F-18s need
a different tanker than the F-111.  (The only thing the Air Force and
the Navy agree on is that the Army shouldn't have fast jets.)

Let me agree specifically with you about armed-up airplanes--one never
chases with weapons.  It makes the research pilots nervous.  Actually,
this is because weapons are draggy.  Except for the missiles on
wingtips on the F-16 and F-18, and those will be dummies when flying
safety chase.  Remember that flight test, including the chasing, is
only done by test organizations; operational squadrons (the people who
routinely fly with weapons) are only rarely involved.  Dryden, for
example, has absolutely no weapons.  Rarely, we'll borrow some dummy
missiles if their presence is germane to a phenomenon that we wish
to observe (some sort of flow anomaly comes to mind) but we don't have
cannon.

By the way, chase should fly off to the side, usually behind and below
the research plane.  The chase has to be far enough away that it won't
interfere with the flow over the research plane, so being behind it,
in very loose formation (several spans away).  There's a classic story
floating around about some plane that had fantastic performance with
one chase pilot and average performance with all others; the one pilot
was flying too close, "pushing" the other plane with his bow wave.
(There are also stories about doing performance points in mountain
waves, but this is the wrong newsgroup for them.)  Chase pilots are
test pilots, trained in how to fly chase.  Dryden has six test pilots,
all of whom fly both research and chase flights.

I might also add that the movie "Topgun", while excellent in its way,
trades authenticity in formation flight for cinematic excitement.  The
usual battle spread that one goes into aerial combat with is up to
about a mile.  Obviously, two aircraft a mile apart are not going to
be very interesting, even on a _wide_ screen.  For this reason, the
choice was made to tighten the formation greatly, resulting in some
_great_ photo footage.  But don't be fooled, fighters don't go into
the furball in tight formation.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot
Newsgroups: sci.space