• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Why no VOR on the boat?

Fly Navy said:
Funny, stories I've heard, Navy O-3/O-4 aren't afraid of AF O-6 lol

Yeah that sucks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is generally true. For one thing, it seems like there are a lot more AF 0-6's than any other service. That, and the fact that so many of them wear space 'wings' or another peice of AF 'wings' makes them an even easier target.
 
Flash said:
Are the Navy T-6's still painted in that blue and white scheme? Whatever happened to the orange creamsicle combo?
Click to expand...

Yup, Still Blue and White.

I've seen a pic up of one orange and white flying froms with a blue and white... thats about it.
 
pdx said:
Whatever the cause was, it seems like the Navy missed our chance to give input on the T-6.

No Beta + whimpy AF gear = long landing distance.

I suppose this is OK if all your runways are 10,000', but the T-6 will kill split field ops at Whiting and any student landings at most of our OLFs. Awesome.

About the TACAN on the boat, I read an article a few months back (looking for it again now) about the differences between TACAN and VOR. Apparently, the VOR electronics and antennae were just too bulky to put on a ship. The Navy could have just redesigned a VOR slightly, but they decided to make some "improvements." For all the initial hype about greatly improved accuracy, the azimuth accuracy of a TACAN is pretty similar to a VOR.

Also, with the FAA channel coupling, some civil VOR units are operated EXACTLY like TACAN units (needles, flags, DME, etc). The only difference the pilot can see is a larger cone of confusion for a TACAN.
Click to expand...

Why is the Navy even considering replacing the T34 with the T6 if it has no TACAN, Beta, and will require extending all of the runways? Sounds like we may have the T34 around for a while to come hopefully. Without split field ops I don't know how NASWF would be able to get people through in the required time...
 
How bout cause the current incarnation of VOR is the big ungainly cone shaped thing, whereas the TACAN is the somewhat less bulky little can thingy...makes it easier to put on a carrier, less space taken up
 
highlyrandom said:
How bout cause the current incarnation of VOR is the big ungainly cone shaped thing, whereas the TACAN is the somewhat less bulky little can thingy...makes it easier to put on a carrier, less space taken up
Click to expand...

Your technical jargon is making my head hurt.....are you an engineer because you are wicked smart.......:D
 
jamnww said:
Why is the Navy even considering replacing the T34 with the T6 if it has no TACAN, Beta, and will require extending all of the runways? Sounds like we may have the T34 around for a while to come hopefully. Without split field ops I don't know how NASWF would be able to get people through in the required time...
Click to expand...
The T-6A+ (really the T-6B) is supposed to have a TACAN, BETA and beefy-er landing gear... and also optional points on the wing to hang fuel pods, weapons and the like... oh yeah... and a HUD...supposedly...
 
TheBubba said:
The T-6A+ (really the T-6B) is supposed to have a TACAN, BETA and beefy-er landing gear... and also optional points on the wing to hang fuel pods, weapons and the like... oh yeah... and a HUD...supposedly...
Click to expand...


Riiiiiiiiight. And the MMA is gonna be up and running in a few years.
 
TheBubba said:
The T-6A+ (really the T-6B) is supposed to have a TACAN, BETA and beefy-er landing gear... and also optional points on the wing to hang fuel pods, weapons and the like... oh yeah... and a HUD...supposedly...
Click to expand...

I believe the T-6A+/B is a manufacturer proposal and not a done deal yet. anyone have more info?
 
Flash said:
I believe the T-6A+/B is a manufacturer proposal and not a done deal yet. anyone have more info?
Click to expand...

I believe it exists, I think the Greek Air Force bought some as an attack aircraft/attack trainer.
 
Fly Navy said:
I believe it exists, I think the Greek Air Force bought some as an attack aircraft/attack trainer.
Click to expand...

I doubt the US Navy needs them though.....:D
 
Aeronautical Information Manual:
1-1-5. Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN)

a. For reasons peculiar to military or naval operations (unusual siting conditions, the pitching and rolling of a naval vessel, etc.) the civil VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) system of air navigation was considered unsuitable for military or naval use. A new navigational system, TACAN, was therefore developed by the military and naval forces to more readily lend itself to military and naval requirements. As a result, the FAA has integrated TACAN facilities with the civil VOR/DME program. Although the theoretical, or technical principles of operation of TACAN equipment are quite different from those of VOR/DME facilities, the end result, as far as the navigating pilot is concerned, is the same. These integrated facilities are called VORTACs.

b. TACAN ground equipment consists of either a fixed or mobile transmitting unit. The airborne unit in conjunction with the ground unit reduces the transmitted signal to a visual presentation of both azimuth and distance information. TACAN is a pulse system and operates in the Ultrahigh Frequency (UHF) band of frequencies. Its use requires TACAN airborne equipment and does not operate through conventional VOR equipment.



I have never flown in the military, so I can only take at what the FAA puts out. VOR's work on two phases, a reference and a variable phase. Reference is a pulse in all directions while variable changes throughout different radials (360 of them.) One way of thinking of it is that at the 360 radial, the reference and variable are identical, like two sine curves that are the same (starting from the origin.) At the 180 radial, the variable phase is roughly inverted. The wave is shifted so the null points are an equal distance from each other. Another way of thinking is that the variable sine curve is flipped across the X axis.

Now DME’s work with an interrogation signal sent from DME equipment in the aircraft and the station sends a reply. The equipment measures the time it takes and calculates the distance.

TACAN’s, in my opinion from the articles I read above, are the fancier versions of NDB/ADF’s. The NDB sends out a pulse and the ADF in the plane is able to indicate the relative bearing to the station. I believe the TACAN emits a pulse and the 9 different receivers measure the signal to determine the direction and DME in the same way above. It appears that the main different between a NDB and TACAN is the LF/MF to the UHF.

So, as a CFI with an opinion and a guess, I believe TACAN’s are on ships and not VOR’s because the shifting of the ship would screw with a VOR indication on the CDI on the instrument. Navigating in close proximity to the ship could have the CDI dancing all over the place. For a TACAN, the shifting of the boat (I think) would be less detrimental due to the fact that radials are not shifting all over the sky.

As for instrument flying and IAP only being over the station, that is incorrect. With distance information, a cross radial, GPS or radar with the assistance of ATC, an IAP for a VOR type approach can be off the station.

Does this make any sense to the crustier individuals out there?
 
There was a T-6A+/B whatever 'prototype' here a while back. I didn't spend a lot of time looking at it, mainly a drive by as I was turning in my gear. It was definitely high speed (higher than the standard T-6A). I think it had 3 MFDs and a HUD. Beyond that I didn't feel like waiting in line to talk to the factory guys.
 
Crowbar said:
There was a T-6A+/B whatever 'prototype' here a while back. I didn't spend a lot of time looking at it, mainly a drive by as I was turning in my gear. It was definitely high speed (higher than the standard T-6A). I think it had 3 MFDs and a HUD. Beyond that I didn't feel like waiting in line to talk to the factory guys.
Click to expand...

Please never.. ever.. ever.. ever.. say "high speed" again.

K, thanks.
 
Maybe I should add 'low drag' in there? How about 'cutting edge' or 'state of the art'? I actually like 'newfangled' myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top