gunpods on Phantoms

[Rob van Riel]

Navy Phantoms were capable of carrying a 20mm gunpod, but there is an
abundance of references stating this weapon was worse than useless for
air to air use, and thus not carried. However, I can't really find any
reference on the use of the gun in air to ground work. I know Air
Force Phantoms used gunpods for this, but did the Navy?

Thanks for any info

Rob

[Pechs1]

robvr-<< Navy Phantoms were capable of carrying a 20mm gunpod, but there is an
abundance of references stating this weapon was worse than useless for
air to air use, and thus not carried. >><BR><BR>

The biggest obstacle was the weight of the thing and how ya had to 'bring it
back'. If ya had 2 and 2 and the pod, max trap was in the 4.0 range. Plus wing
tanks got the crap beat outta them on the boat.


P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[John S. Shinal]

(Rob van Riel) wrote:

>Navy Phantoms were capable of carrying a 20mm gunpod, but there is an
>abundance of references stating this weapon was worse than useless for
>air to air use, and thus not carried. However, I can't really find any
>reference on the use of the gun in air to ground work. I know Air
>Force Phantoms used gunpods for this, but did the Navy?

They may not exactly have been 'useless' for air-to-air, the
USAF's 366th TFW "Gunfighters" scored a number of times with the pod.

Interesting info from Pechs1 about trap weight, though. The
USN may have had additional issues due to the gun getting banged about
during traps.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Mike Kanze]

John,

>The USN may have had additional issues due to the gun getting banged about
during traps.

Not just traps. Aircraft handling - particularly on a crowded hangar deck -
is not conducive to the health and longevity of protruding "attachments."
The EA-6B folks - with jamming pods that cost (circa 1972) $1 million a
pop - learned early on that "sailors and pods don't mix."

--
Mike Kanze

"When you're majoring in abnormal psychology, ALL television is
educational!"

- Frank & Ernest, 3/9/04


"John S. Shinal" > wrote in message
...
> (Rob van Riel) wrote:
>
> >Navy Phantoms were capable of carrying a 20mm gunpod, but there is an
> >abundance of references stating this weapon was worse than useless for
> >air to air use, and thus not carried. However, I can't really find any
> >reference on the use of the gun in air to ground work. I know Air
> >Force Phantoms used gunpods for this, but did the Navy?
>
> They may not exactly have been 'useless' for air-to-air, the
> USAF's 366th TFW "Gunfighters" scored a number of times with the pod.
>
> Interesting info from Pechs1 about trap weight, though. The
> USN may have had additional issues due to the gun getting banged about
> during traps.
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

[WaltBJ]

(Pechs1) wrote in message >...
> robvr-<< Navy Phantoms were capable of carrying a 20mm gunpod, but there is an
> abundance of references stating this weapon was worse than useless for
> air to air use, and thus not carried. >><BR><BR>
>SNIP:
Pechs- did the Navy F4B have an air to air computing gunsight like the
USAF F4D?
Of course, you could have used the old TAC technique - stick the
muzzle up his ass and pull the trigger and ease back on the pole.
We flew the pod on our F4Ds at the A-A dart quite a bit and had good
luck with the SUU23 and its shotgun pattern of about 8 mils in el and
10 mils in az. The gun pod was also wicked in CAS TIC work. You could
get in real close. The 366 TFW at DaNang in 72 had one F4E that
carried a CL tank and two SUU23s on the wing pylons. Unfortunately the
06s hogged all the sorties. (guess the double-barreled shotgun effect
made up for any -unh- erraticity from the deskxperts.
Walt BJ

[Rob van Riel]

(Pechs1) wrote in message >...
> robvr-<< Navy Phantoms were capable of carrying a 20mm gunpod, but there is an
> abundance of references stating this weapon was worse than useless for
> air to air use, and thus not carried. >><BR><BR>
>
> The biggest obstacle was the weight of the thing and how ya had to 'bring it
> back'.

Makes sense.


> If ya had 2 and 2 and the pod, max trap was in the 4.0 range. Plus wing
> tanks got the crap beat outta them on the boat.

Almost makes sense, mainly because I never flew anything myself, let
alone a Navy jet. Would 2 and 2 mean 2 Sparrow, 2 Sidewinder? What do
max trap values mean? I know enough to know this has something to do
with landing parameters, but I couldn't tell you what to save my life.


Rob

[morten lund]

Not being the professional my self, but an avid desktop pilot, my
understanding is that trap values are a meassure of the maximum bringback
fuelweight that would allow the AC to trap the wire on the carrier. 4.0
would mean 4000 lbs JP4, which might be considered a bit on the skimpy side,
espc. in bad weather, at night or with a wounded bird, what with no easy
divert field close by.

I'm not certain of the numbers (and others will hopefully correct me) but I
think that 4.0 is near minimums to two attempts at the deck if there is
other traffic in the pattern, when flying the F4

and cheers for the info, I'm brushing up on my Vietnam knowledge in
anticipation of recieving my next boardgame: "Downtown", which looks at
strike warfare in routepack 5 and 6 (AFAIR)

cheers,
Morten

"Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
om...
> (Pechs1) wrote in message
>...
> > robvr-<< Navy Phantoms were capable of carrying a 20mm gunpod, but there
is an
> > abundance of references stating this weapon was worse than useless for
> > air to air use, and thus not carried. >><BR><BR>
> >
> > The biggest obstacle was the weight of the thing and how ya had to
'bring it
> > back'.
>
> Makes sense.
>
>
> > If ya had 2 and 2 and the pod, max trap was in the 4.0 range. Plus wing
> > tanks got the crap beat outta them on the boat.
>
> Almost makes sense, mainly because I never flew anything myself, let
> alone a Navy jet. Would 2 and 2 mean 2 Sparrow, 2 Sidewinder? What do
> max trap values mean? I know enough to know this has something to do
> with landing parameters, but I couldn't tell you what to save my life.
>
>
> Rob

[Ogden Johnson III]

(Rob van Riel) wrote:

>Navy Phantoms were capable of carrying a 20mm gunpod, but there is an
>abundance of references stating this weapon was worse than useless for
>air to air use, and thus not carried. However, I can't really find any
>reference on the use of the gun in air to ground work. I know Air
>Force Phantoms used gunpods for this, but did the Navy?

Marine Corps F-4s certainly did. We've always liked cannons,
whether ground-based artillery or airborne .30 cals, .50 cals,
20mm, 30mm. [Or even the 105mm carried by Puff and its
descendants.]
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

[Mike Kanze]

Morten,

>4000 lbs JP4

Microscopic nit: Carrier-borne aircraft used JP5 in my day. Higher
flashpoint, thus safer around the boat. Not sure, but ISTR the boat uses
another JP type these days?!

Ashore, they burn JP4, allowing XC stops at the nice golf courses positioned
at nearly all AFBs. <g>

--
Mike Kanze

"When you're majoring in abnormal psychology, ALL television is
educational!"

- Frank & Ernest, 3/9/04


"morten lund" > wrote in message
. ..
> Not being the professional my self, but an avid desktop pilot, my
> understanding is that trap values are a meassure of the maximum bringback
> fuelweight that would allow the AC to trap the wire on the carrier. 4.0
> would mean 4000 lbs JP4, which might be considered a bit on the skimpy
side,
> espc. in bad weather, at night or with a wounded bird, what with no easy
> divert field close by.
>
> I'm not certain of the numbers (and others will hopefully correct me) but
I
> think that 4.0 is near minimums to two attempts at the deck if there is
> other traffic in the pattern, when flying the F4
>
> and cheers for the info, I'm brushing up on my Vietnam knowledge in
> anticipation of recieving my next boardgame: "Downtown", which looks at
> strike warfare in routepack 5 and 6 (AFAIR)
>
> cheers,
> Morten
>
> "Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Pechs1) wrote in message
> >...
> > > robvr-<< Navy Phantoms were capable of carrying a 20mm gunpod, but
there
> is an
> > > abundance of references stating this weapon was worse than useless for
> > > air to air use, and thus not carried. >><BR><BR>
> > >
> > > The biggest obstacle was the weight of the thing and how ya had to
> 'bring it
> > > back'.
> >
> > Makes sense.
> >
> >
> > > If ya had 2 and 2 and the pod, max trap was in the 4.0 range. Plus
wing
> > > tanks got the crap beat outta them on the boat.
> >
> > Almost makes sense, mainly because I never flew anything myself, let
> > alone a Navy jet. Would 2 and 2 mean 2 Sparrow, 2 Sidewinder? What do
> > max trap values mean? I know enough to know this has something to do
> > with landing parameters, but I couldn't tell you what to save my life.
> >
> >
> > Rob
>
>

[Brett]

"Mike Kanze" > wrote:
> Morten,
>
> >4000 lbs JP4
>
> Microscopic nit: Carrier-borne aircraft used JP5 in my day. Higher
> flashpoint, thus safer around the boat. Not sure, but ISTR the boat uses
> another JP type these days?!
>
> Ashore, they burn JP4, allowing XC stops at the nice golf courses
positioned
> at nearly all AFBs. <g>

USAF started the transition to JP8 in 1979.

[Thomas Schoene]

John S. Shinal wrote:
> (Rob van Riel) wrote:
>
>> Navy Phantoms were capable of carrying a 20mm gunpod, but there is an
>> abundance of references stating this weapon was worse than useless
>> for
>> air to air use, and thus not carried. However, I can't really find
>> any
>> reference on the use of the gun in air to ground work. I know Air
>> Force Phantoms used gunpods for this, but did the Navy?
>
> They may not exactly have been 'useless' for air-to-air, the
> USAF's 366th TFW "Gunfighters" scored a number of times with the pod.

There were actually three different pods in play here, I believe. THe Air
Force had the SUU-16 and SUU-23, both based on Gatling guns and both, I
belive, using linkelss feeds.

The Navy was using a different pod, the Mk 4, with the rather unusual
dual-barrel Mk 11 revolver canon. I've heard some rather unfavorable
remarks about the MK 4, that it was no good at all for air-to-air becuase it
jammed if you pulled G while firing (it was belt-fed, not linkless). But I
don't know this as a fact.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[morten lund]

I stand corrected; was I reasonably close with regard to the other stuff I
wrung out? :-)

cheers,
Morten

"Mike Kanze" > wrote in message
...
> Morten,
>
> >4000 lbs JP4
>
> Microscopic nit: Carrier-borne aircraft used JP5 in my day. Higher
> flashpoint, thus safer around the boat. Not sure, but ISTR the boat uses
> another JP type these days?!
>
> Ashore, they burn JP4, allowing XC stops at the nice golf courses
positioned
> at nearly all AFBs. <g>

rest of thread snipped :-)

[Rob van Riel]

(John S. Shinal) wrote in message >...
> (Rob van Riel) wrote:
>
> >Navy Phantoms were capable of carrying a 20mm gunpod, but there is an
> >abundance of references stating this weapon was worse than useless for
> >air to air use, and thus not carried. However, I can't really find any
> >reference on the use of the gun in air to ground work. I know Air
> >Force Phantoms used gunpods for this, but did the Navy?
>
> They may not exactly have been 'useless' for air-to-air, the
> USAF's 366th TFW "Gunfighters" scored a number of times with the pod.

If I recall correctly, that was a different gun in a different pod. I
seem to remember reading the shots tended to scatter too widely to be
very good at dogfighting (though not useless, as you pointed out), but
this same scattering made it a good weapon for strafing.

Rob

[Rob van Riel]

Ogden Johnson III > wrote in message >...
> Marine Corps F-4s certainly did. We've always liked cannons,
> whether ground-based artillery or airborne .30 cals, .50 cals,
> 20mm, 30mm. [Or even the 105mm carried by Puff and its
> descendants.]

Thanks for the info. I'll add it to my list of things to put under USMC Phantoms.

Rob

[Pechs1]

Walt-<< Pechs- did the Navy F4B have an air to air computing gunsight like the
USAF F4D? >><BR><BR>

Don't think so altho the only F-4C time I had was in CIS at Luke AFB.

In 'D' models, we used the SUU-23 all the time in A-G, none against the dart
tho..In RTU, 61st and 13th at MacDill.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

robvr-<< Almost makes sense, mainly because I never flew anything myself, let
alone a Navy jet. Would 2 and 2 mean 2 Sparrow, 2 Sidewinder? What do
max trap values mean? >><BR><BR>

Max trap for the F-4 was 40,000 pounds. Empty F-4S weighed about 34k, F-4J was
33000 or so. 2 and 2 weighed about 1500 lbs. Only 6000 to play with to get to
40k. If ya added a 2000 lb gun pod(2000 or 1000??), then max trap fuel was
kinda low.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

We used 4.0 day time, 5.1 night time or non-case 1 daytime. We used to pull the
cb on tank 7 so it wouldn't transfer...held it until recovery so you could be
5.1 twice on the ball if ya went into the penalty box. The CG thing w/o
sparrows aft wasn't a big deal.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

John-<< Interesting info from Pechs1 about trap weight, though. The
USN may have had additional issues due to the gun getting banged about
during traps.
>><BR><BR>

The only gun pod the USN had was the non-20mm vulcan cannon version. Kinda like
a A-4 gun inna pod and to say it wan't reliable is putting it mildly. On my
first cruise in VF-33, 1975, no pods were on any boat, afaik.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Matt Wiser]

(Pechs1) wrote:
>robvr-<< Navy Phantoms were capable of carrying
>a 20mm gunpod, but there is an
>abundance of references stating this weapon
>was worse than useless for
>air to air use, and thus not carried. >><BR><BR>
>
>The biggest obstacle was the weight of the thing
>and how ya had to 'bring it
>back'. If ya had 2 and 2 and the pod, max trap
>was in the 4.0 range. Plus wing
>tanks got the crap beat outta them on the boat.
>
>
>P. C. Chisholm
>CDR, USN(ret.)
>Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter
>and Combat Buckeye Phlyer
I always wondered why Navy Phantoms never carried the gun pod, despite
requests from pilots to have a gun. Didn't Randy Cunningham say that if he
had a gun on 10 May '72 he would've had several more MiG kills?

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[John Carrier]

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> We used 4.0 day time, 5.1 night time or non-case 1 daytime. We used to
pull the
> cb on tank 7 so it wouldn't transfer...held it until recovery so you could
be
> 5.1 twice on the ball if ya went into the penalty box. The CG thing w/o
> sparrows aft wasn't a big deal.

Just enough change in CG to assist in pitch rate a bit. Once I got
reasonably proficient in the jet I could tell the difference between a late
and early block jet ... the early (non-transferring) being the preferred
ride.

R / John

[John Carrier]

But the most fuel weight (regardless of configuration) was 5.1 for an empty
tank 7, 5.8 with it full. No fun was night recovery with 2x2 ordnance and
1/2 flaps (util failure or in my case, a flap switch failure). 1.8 on the
ball for an actual weight pass with about 40 knots of wind.

R / John

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> robvr-<< Almost makes sense, mainly because I never flew anything myself,
let
> alone a Navy jet. Would 2 and 2 mean 2 Sparrow, 2 Sidewinder? What do
> max trap values mean? >><BR><BR>
>
> Max trap for the F-4 was 40,000 pounds. Empty F-4S weighed about 34k, F-4J
was
> 33000 or so. 2 and 2 weighed about 1500 lbs. Only 6000 to play with to get
to
> 40k. If ya added a 2000 lb gun pod(2000 or 1000??), then max trap fuel was
> kinda low.
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

[Pechs1]

John-<< But the most fuel weight (regardless of configuration) was 5.1 for an
empty
tank 7, 5.8 with it full. No fun was night recovery with 2x2 ordnance and
1/2 flaps (util failure or in my case, a flap switch failure). 1.8 on the
ball for an actual weight pass with about 40 knots of wind. >><BR><BR>

Yowser-with or w/o ail droop?
Blue water, I assume? If ya went around, into the barricade? Could they get
enough WOD for that(115kt max engaging speed(?)).

I saw a 1/2 flap, really damaged F-4 go thru the net like it wasn't there.
Exceeded the max engaging speed by a lot..BUT it slowed it down enough so the
jet wasn't flying. Both guys shelled out, neither made it. VF-102, USS
Independence, 1977 or so.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[WaltBJ]

The SUU23 gun pod was what we had at Homestead in the 307th and 68th
and at DaNang in the 390th - it held 1100 rounds of 20mm linkless ammo
(about 1.1 pounds per round). If it was regularly boresighted (simple,
using the borescope and the X on the nose gear door) it shot through
the pipper. The 8x10 mil pattern was only 8 feet by 10 feet at 1000
feet so if any MiG was under the pipper he was toast.
I never even got to see a MiG but onst I fired 300 rounds (having fun
- started shooting at 4000 feet slant range) in one pass at Avon Park
range and got 100 hits. It also killed a T54 for me. I'd call that
effective.
Walt BJ

[John Carrier]

> Yowser-with or w/o ail droop?
> Blue water, I assume? If ya went around, into the barricade? Could they
get
> enough WOD for that(115kt max engaging speed(?)).

Next to last East Coast F-4 cruise with 102/Independence ... 153xxx F-4J
with drooped ailerons. Somewhere in the Arabian sea, night. Dirtied up and
noticed the airspeed was around 165 or so vice the 143-5 that a normal
airplane would see at full flaps. Gauge indicated full, cycled them through
1/2 ... no change in speed or aircraft response. Cycled them up and back to
full ... still 165. Sooo. We told CATCC that we wanted a low pass and
speed check with SPN-42.'

They confirmed our speed. Cleaned up tanked a bit ... twice I think as the
galley slaves responded to the increased tempo drumbeat. About a 1/2 hour
later they were ready. Wanted us around 2.0 or thereabouts and ran the
weights. Flies a nice pass at 1/2 flaps, honored the stronger burble ...
but not much ... and grabbed the 1 on the fly.

A bingo wasn't totally out of the question, but Misira (sp?) wasn't a
desirable action (diplomatic issues back then) and D-Gar was a long LONG way
away.

R / John

[John S. Shinal]

"John Carrier" wrote:

... and grabbed the 1 on the fly.

Is that a...ahem...unusually abrupt trap ?



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[John Carrier]

"John S. Shinal" > wrote in message
...
> "John Carrier" wrote:
>
> ... and grabbed the 1 on the fly.
>
> Is that a...ahem...unusually abrupt trap ?

Implying that I just barely grabbed it (as opposed to being settled on the
main mounts prior to picking up the wire). Most (all?) aircraft touch down
tailhook first.

R / John

[Paul Michael Brown]

> ... and grabbed the 1 on the fly.

> > Is that a...ahem...unusually abrupt trap ?

> Implying that I just barely grabbed it (as opposed to being settled on the
> main mounts prior to picking up the wire). Most (all?) aircraft touch down
> tailhook first.

All I know is what I read in books, but I seem to recall that the opposite
of catching a one wire "on the fly" is a "taxi one wire," which suggests a
low and/or flat approach. But I'll defer to those who have BTDT.

[Will Dossel]

"Mike Kanze" > wrote in message >...
> John,
>
> >The USN may have had additional issues due to the gun getting banged about
> during traps.
>
> Not just traps. Aircraft handling - particularly on a crowded hangar deck -
> is not conducive to the health and longevity of protruding "attachments."
> The EA-6B folks - with jamming pods that cost (circa 1972) $1 million a
> pop - learned early on that "sailors and pods don't mix."

.... or 'sailors and props' having on more than one instance had major
dings put in my props while the plane was buried on the hangar deck.
Severity of damage/inability to repair was directly proportional to
proximity of fly-off too... :(

Will Dossel
Last of the Steeljaws (VAW-122)

[John S. Shinal]

"John Carrier" wrote:
>Implying that I just barely grabbed it (as opposed to being settled on the
>main mounts prior to picking up the wire). Most (all?) aircraft touch down
>tailhook first.

Oh hell - sorry. I wasn't casting aspersions on your skill at
the ramp, I thought you were alluding to something I heard of as an
"airborne engagement". It's supposed to be a murderous thump. I don't
know quite enough about the geometry over the wire to make any other
conclusions.

I just didn't know what "caught it on the fly" meant.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[John Carrier]

No offense taken.

John

"John S. Shinal" > wrote in message
...
> "John Carrier" wrote:
> >Implying that I just barely grabbed it (as opposed to being settled on
the
> >main mounts prior to picking up the wire). Most (all?) aircraft touch
down
> >tailhook first.
>
> Oh hell - sorry. I wasn't casting aspersions on your skill at
> the ramp, I thought you were alluding to something I heard of as an
> "airborne engagement". It's supposed to be a murderous thump. I don't
> know quite enough about the geometry over the wire to make any other
> conclusions.
>
> I just didn't know what "caught it on the fly" meant.
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

[sid]

"John Carrier" > wrote in message >...
>> Implying that I just barely grabbed it (as opposed to being settled on the
> main mounts prior to picking up the wire). Most (all?) aircraft touch down
> tailhook first.
>
> R / John

Kinda like this?
http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/030415-N-4142G-106.jpg

[John Carrier]

Groan! That much wing down with a Phantom would probably blow the left
strut.

R / John

"sid" > wrote in message
om...
> "John Carrier" > wrote in message
>...
> >> Implying that I just barely grabbed it (as opposed to being settled on
the
> > main mounts prior to picking up the wire). Most (all?) aircraft touch
down
> > tailhook first.
> >
> > R / John
>
> Kinda like this?
> http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/030415-N-4142G-106.jpg

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

Foul line doesn't look like much protection there! There's video out there
somewhere of a Hornet pulling the same thing... A "RIGHT FOR LINEUP." call
from the LSO at the ramp.

Pilot does a very aggressive right wing down correction and catches his
wingtip LAU on the one wire.

There's some wild funky chicken and swearing on the mouse audio before he
comes to a stop. Thankfully, no one was hurt.

--Woody

On 3/27/04 6:26 AM, in article , "John
Carrier" > wrote:

> Groan! That much wing down with a Phantom would probably blow the left
> strut.
>
> R / John
>
> "sid" > wrote in message
> om...
>> "John Carrier" > wrote in message
> >...
>>>> Implying that I just barely grabbed it (as opposed to being settled on
> the
>>> main mounts prior to picking up the wire). Most (all?) aircraft touch
> down
>>> tailhook first.
>>>
>>> R / John
>>
>> Kinda like this?
>> http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/030415-N-4142G-106.jpg
>
>