Re: Phast Phantom photo

[Dave in San diego]

dano > wrote in news:dano45-F1878E.10180601112004@sm-
news1.rand.org:

> http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/TPC/Funny_Pictures/0001-1000/0001-
0100/0090/TPC_0090.htm

Well, I downloaded the .JPG file and looked at it with a text editor.
There's no Photoshop signature in the header, so I'd give my vote for real.

Dave in San Diego

[Pechs1]

Can't get the pix to come up...any other address??
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Tony Volk]

You need to make sure that you get all of the link's address into your
browser (copy it paste it if you have to- probably in two pieces due to its
size). The photo looks OK enough to me, my problem is with the statement
that "the picture was taken on an ordinary instamatic camera, and then a
blow-up was made". The F-4 looks pretty clean for a blow up from a cheap
camera. And out of curiosity, who in the tower would have the rank or
authority to give an RAF wing commander a "severe rollicking" shortly after
his takeoff (before word presumably traveled up the c.o.c.)? Neat picture
though!

Tony

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> Can't get the pix to come up...any other address??
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

[John Keeney]

"dano" > wrote in message
...
> Could be photoshop, but caption claims it's not. Cool photo nonetheless.
>
<http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/TPC/Funny_Pictures/0001-1000/0001-0100/0090/
TPC_0090.htm>

Without going over the photo closely I don't find anything
that jumps out as an edit job. But if it was taken with an
instamatic, someone needs to give the photograper a SLR
cause he's danged good.

[Pechs1]

Finally got it and I'll bet he is actually is doing this. It doesn't seem to
amazing to me.

F-4 is one beeyouuuutifil aircraft, my favorite...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[John Carrier]

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> Finally got it and I'll bet he is actually is doing this. It doesn't seem
> to
> amazing to me.
>
> F-4 is one beeyouuuutifil aircraft, my favorite...

Blissful ignorance. F-8's forever!

As to the pic, I'm sure its authentic. While I've never done the twixt the
hangars bit, I've made a low pass or two ... strictly with the permission of
the unit on the receiving end of course.

R / John

[Jim]

John Carrier wrote:
> "Pechs1" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Finally got it and I'll bet he is actually is doing this. It doesn't seem
>>to
>>amazing to me.
>>
>>F-4 is one beeyouuuutifil aircraft, my favorite...
>
>
> Blissful ignorance. F-8's forever!
>
> As to the pic, I'm sure its authentic. While I've never done the twixt the
> hangars bit, I've made a low pass or two ... strictly with the permission of
> the unit on the receiving end of course.
>
> R / John
>
>
Love the SCAMP-1 DEPARTURE with an F-8 at twilight.

[John Carrier]

"Jim" > wrote in message
et...
> John Carrier wrote:
>> "Pechs1" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Finally got it and I'll bet he is actually is doing this. It doesn't seem
>>>to
>>>amazing to me.
>>>
>>>F-4 is one beeyouuuutifil aircraft, my favorite...
>>
>>
>> Blissful ignorance. F-8's forever!
>>
>> As to the pic, I'm sure its authentic. While I've never done the twixt
>> the hangars bit, I've made a low pass or two ... strictly with the
>> permission of the unit on the receiving end of course.
>>
>> R / John
> Love the SCAMP-1 DEPARTURE with an F-8 at twilight.

That too, but there's something to be said about a 600KIAS pass below a DE's
deck level with the burner light timed just so ....

R / John

[Pechs1]

John->Blissful ignorance. F-8's forever!

Yer just youinger than me...altho when I finally flew an A/C with one seat, did
like that!!!
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[John Carrier]

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> John->Blissful ignorance. F-8's forever!
>
> Yer just youinger than me...

I don't think so ... albeit perhaps in spirit.

>altho when I finally flew an A/C with one seat, did
> like that!!!

Yes. Lots of advantages to the two-seater. But single seat, F-8, A-4 was
much more satisfying work at the emotional level.

R / John

[Leanne]

"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pechs1" > wrote in message
> ...
> > John->Blissful ignorance. F-8's forever!
> >
> > Yer just youinger than me...
>
> I don't think so ... albeit perhaps in spirit.
>
> >altho when I finally flew an A/C with one seat, did
> > like that!!!
>
> Yes. Lots of advantages to the two-seater. But single seat, F-8, A-4 was
> much more satisfying work at the emotional level.
>
> R / John
>
>

[Leanne]

"Leanne" > wrote in message news:...


Sorry about the previous post as I have a bad mouse button and it will cause
the computer to send things while I am reading.

I see that the single seat A-4 and F-8 have been mentioned. Did anyone get
time in the F4D Skyray or is it before your time? I worked in depot
maintenance on the electrical and electronics wiring problems,especially
those caused by someone let the hell hole door swing free.

Leanne

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

I'm waitin' to see who's older. How're you all gonna settle THIS one? How
about year of first cruise and aircraft flown. I think we've already
established that John was F-8's and Pechs was F-4's.

I've seen John's F-8 plaque on the wall in the Naval Aviation Museum snack
bar in Pensacola, but I can't remember the year it was for.

--Woody

On 11/4/04 2:31 PM, in article , "John
Carrier" > wrote:

>
> "Pechs1" > wrote in message
> ...
>> John->Blissful ignorance. F-8's forever!
>>
>> Yer just youinger than me...
>
> I don't think so ... albeit perhaps in spirit.
>
>> altho when I finally flew an A/C with one seat, did
>> like that!!!
>
> Yes. Lots of advantages to the two-seater. But single seat, F-8, A-4 was
> much more satisfying work at the emotional level.
>
> R / John
>
>

[John Carrier]

"Leanne" > wrote in message
...
> "Leanne" > wrote in message news:...
>
>
> Sorry about the previous post as I have a bad mouse button and it will
> cause
> the computer to send things while I am reading.
>
> I see that the single seat A-4 and F-8 have been mentioned. Did anyone get
> time in the F4D Skyray or is it before your time? I worked in depot
> maintenance on the electrical and electronics wiring problems,especially
> those caused by someone let the hell hole door swing free.

Well before my time. Mid-late 50's design by Ed Heinemann. Great rate of
climb. One great turn. Held the world speed record for a short while (next
to last on the low altitude course), several time to climb records and 100km
closed course too IIR. Barely supersonic, not quite enough internal fuel.

R / John

[John Carrier]

> I'm waitin' to see who's older. How're you all gonna settle THIS one?
> How
> about year of first cruise and aircraft flown. I think we've already
> established that John was F-8's and Pechs was F-4's.

I'll make it half easy, Woody. Sept 1947 B-day. USNA '69.

R / John

[Pechs1]

Doug-<< How're you all gonna settle THIS one? How
about year of first cruise and aircraft flown. >><BR><BR>

VF-33, onboard Independence, late fall of 1975...

Wings June 14,1974...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

John-<< I'll make it half easy, Woody. Sept 1947 B-day. USNA '69. >><BR><BR>

Okay then..3 January, 1951...University of Colorado, 9 semester plan,
Commisioned December 23, 1972
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

Leanne-<< I see that the single seat A-4 and F-8 have been mentioned. Did
anyone get
time in the F4D Skyray or is it before your time? I worked in depot
maintenance on the electrical and electronics wiring problems,especially
those caused by someone let the hell hole door swing free. >><BR><BR>

Before my time as well. A-4/F-8 still on Hancock, I believe when I started,
VFP-63 still in Miramar.

I was in the first class in Beeville that flew the TA-4 instead of the
F-9..1973
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Jim]

Pechs1 wrote:
> I was in the first class in Beeville that flew the TA-4 instead of the
> F-9..1973
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Curious if the community sponsored the on base October BBQ for all hands
back in '73?

Sure did wonders for morale.

[WaltBJ]

Bunch of kids. 22 Jan 1931, Ketchikan, Alaska. USAF Aviation Cadet
Class 54-H, 28 Apr 54. F86F Sabrejet, F86Dog, F102, F104A, F4, 2000+.
Last flight in F4 Jan 31 80. Hung it up for good 31 March 80. Carter
wore me out. 104A with the J79-19 engine - yahoo! .9 to 2.0. 27 miles.
1'45", 1000 pounds of fuel....
Walt BJ

[John Carrier]

Wings April 1971 (pools galore in the TRACOM then), a detour to VC prior to
VF-191 onboard Oriskany late summer of 1975.

R / John

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> Doug-<< How're you all gonna settle THIS one? How
> about year of first cruise and aircraft flown. >><BR><BR>
>
> VF-33, onboard Independence, late fall of 1975...
>
> Wings June 14,1974...
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
> Phlyer

[John Carrier]

Did the Zipper C model get the higher output J-79? I'm sure the A was
lighter and cleaner. Any less stable w/o the ventral fin? The F-8 ventrals
were installed to improve supersonic stability, the A's and B's were a
little squirrely in the 1.5 range or so. Even the C/K would do a slow dutch
roll @ high mach if the yaw stab was not up to spec.

R / John

R / John
"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
> Bunch of kids. 22 Jan 1931, Ketchikan, Alaska. USAF Aviation Cadet
> Class 54-H, 28 Apr 54. F86F Sabrejet, F86Dog, F102, F104A, F4, 2000+.
> Last flight in F4 Jan 31 80. Hung it up for good 31 March 80. Carter
> wore me out. 104A with the J79-19 engine - yahoo! .9 to 2.0. 27 miles.
> 1'45", 1000 pounds of fuel....
> Walt BJ

[Jim]

John Carrier wrote:
> Wings April 1971 (pools galore in the TRACOM then), a detour to VC prior to
> VF-191 onboard Oriskany late summer of 1975.
>
> R / John
>
> "Pechs1" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Doug-<< How're you all gonna settle THIS one? How
>>about year of first cruise and aircraft flown. >><BR><BR>
>>
>>VF-33, onboard Independence, late fall of 1975...
>>
>>Wings June 14,1974...
>>P. C. Chisholm
>>CDR, USN(ret.)
>>Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
>>Phlyer
>
>
>
Was that with CDR/CAPT Billy Phillips?

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"John Carrier" > writes:
> Did the Zipper C model get the higher output J-79? I'm sure the A was
> lighter and cleaner. Any less stable w/o the ventral fin? The F-8 ventrals
> were installed to improve supersonic stability, the A's and B's were a
> little squirrely in the 1.5 range or so. Even the C/K would do a slow dutch
> roll @ high mach if the yaw stab was not up to spec.
>
> R / John
>
> R / John
> "WaltBJ" > wrote in message
> om...
>> Bunch of kids. 22 Jan 1931, Ketchikan, Alaska. USAF Aviation Cadet
>> Class 54-H, 28 Apr 54. F86F Sabrejet, F86Dog, F102, F104A, F4, 2000+.
>> Last flight in F4 Jan 31 80. Hung it up for good 31 March 80. Carter
>> wore me out. 104A with the J79-19 engine - yahoo! .9 to 2.0. 27 miles.
>> 1'45", 1000 pounds of fuel....
>> Walt BJ
>
>

Walt flew the Hot Rod Model A's - an early air-to-air only F-104A with
the original small-0bore -3 engine replaced with the -19 engine used
on teh F-4E. They literally had about a Metric Ton more push than the
C model (I know, I know, I'm mixing units here, but I'm waxing
hyperbolic here), and performance that the documents I have on it,
and computations I've done have to be seen to be believed.
According to my quick reference (F-104A (-10 Engine) SAC Chart, June
1970)
The upper right corner of teh envelope is Mach 2+/67,000'. The whole
envelope ios bordered by either Q or airfrae heat limits - it never
runs out of power. During a Point Intercept mission,it would be
passing 30Kft in less than a minute after breaking ground.
(Oh, yeah - since it could fly so high, it would go just as far at
Mach 2 as it would a Mach 0.9)
I'm in awe of the beast.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> "John Carrier" > writes:
> > Did the Zipper C model get the higher output J-79? I'm sure the A was
> > lighter and cleaner. Any less stable w/o the ventral fin? The F-8 ventrals
> > were installed to improve supersonic stability, the A's and B's were a
> > little squirrely in the 1.5 range or so. Even the C/K would do a slow dutch
> > roll @ high mach if the yaw stab was not up to spec.
> >
> > R / John
> >
> > R / John
> > "WaltBJ" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >> Bunch of kids. 22 Jan 1931, Ketchikan, Alaska. USAF Aviation Cadet
> >> Class 54-H, 28 Apr 54. F86F Sabrejet, F86Dog, F102, F104A, F4, 2000+.
> >> Last flight in F4 Jan 31 80. Hung it up for good 31 March 80. Carter
> >> wore me out. 104A with the J79-19 engine - yahoo! .9 to 2.0. 27 miles.
> >> 1'45", 1000 pounds of fuel....
> >> Walt BJ
> >
> >
>
> Walt flew the Hot Rod Model A's - an early air-to-air only F-104A with
> the original small-0bore -3 engine replaced with the -19 engine used
> on teh F-4E.

A 'big' J79 anyway, but not the -17 used in the F-4E, albeit the same thrust. The
-19 was the one also used in the F-104S (as you know). I don't know what the
differences were between the two engine subtypes, but assume it was accessory
locations and the like. To further answer John's question, the F-104A came with
various versions of the J79-3, before some of them were retrofitted with the -19.
The F-104C had the J79-7 with about 1,000 lb. more thrust in A/B than the -3,
essentially the same thrust as the -11 in F-104Gs.

> They literally had about a Metric Ton more push than the
> C model (I know, I know, I'm mixing units here, but I'm waxing
> hyperbolic here), and performance that the documents I have on it,
> and computations I've done have to be seen to be believed.
> According to my quick reference (F-104A (-10 Engine) SAC Chart, June
> 1970)

Typo for '-19', presumably.

> The upper right corner of teh envelope is Mach 2+/67,000'. The whole
> envelope ios bordered by either Q or airfrae heat limits - it never
> runs out of power. During a Point Intercept mission,it would be
> passing 30Kft in less than a minute after breaking ground.
> (Oh, yeah - since it could fly so high, it would go just as far at
> Mach 2 as it would a Mach 0.9)
> I'm in awe of the beast.

The performance section of the -1 (equivalent to the-1-1) for the a/c is quite
impressive. I've got the F-104A-D -1 dated 1 June1968, which covers various
versions of the a/c with -3B, -7, and -19 engines. The -3B is pretty hot,
although there's a bit of transonic acceleration sag (we're talking relative to
the later versions here) up to about M1.4, then it really starts to cook. the C
w/-7 is better, but the A w/-19 is just awesome. I've been told by someone with
access to -1s for both, who's also talked to pilots who've flown them, that even
the heavier F-104S can give an F-15 a run for its money in climb and acceleration,
and it actually has a greater supersonic point intercept radius (easy to believe
with a turbojet instead of turbofan). Naturally, the F-15 wins hands down on
avionics and weapon load, and it can fight at speeds below 450 KIAS.

The biggest problem I see with the F-104A and to some extent the F-104C is the
relatively low G limits when carrying anything more than 1,000 lb. of internal
fuel -- It's typically in the 5-5.6G range. However, that's also about the buffet
boundary for guns tracking at combat speeds, and I imagine it was widely ignored
(as were the Q limits) when necessary. I know of one pilot who had an F-104D
model up to 850KCAS (Q limit is 750) at 5,000 ft. MSL in level flight, with a USAF
general in the back seat, and he mentioned to the general that they were almost
certainly faster than the official low altitude world speed record (held by the
Project Sageburner F-4) at the time. I wonder if the G and S had higher g limits
- I know the G was strengthened for prolonged flight at high Q for the strike
role, and the S was based on it.

Guy

[Red Rider]

I am still a kid.

Jan 1940 San Francisco,
Jun 1956 - Dec 1959 San Diego State,
Jul 1957 1st solo, Piper J-3 Cub, San Diego,
Jul 1957 Parris Island,
Dec 1957 - Dec 1959 USMC Reserve San Diego,
Jan 1960 NAVCAD Pensacola,
Oct 1962 F-8 Cuban Missile Crisis,
Jun 1964 RF-8 "Yankee Team" Laos,
Mar 1973 last flight RA-5C

[John Carrier]

Certainly fast, certainly quick. Couldn't turn worth a damn, but it'd sure
make a vertical fight to water ones eyes. I met Daryl Greenameyer after his
low altitude record. His was a kit 104 with a G tail, NF-104 nose, super
light with a J-79-10 (don't ask) that was tuned to an inch of its life.
Around 815KIAS x's 4 on the course and he never exceeded 300 meters on the
flight. Runs were at 60-70' AGL and the film was impressive.

R / John

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Guy Alcala > writes:
> Peter Stickney wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> "John Carrier" > writes:
>> > Did the Zipper C model get the higher output J-79? I'm sure the A was
>> > lighter and cleaner. Any less stable w/o the ventral fin? The F-8 ventrals
>> > were installed to improve supersonic stability, the A's and B's were a
>> > little squirrely in the 1.5 range or so. Even the C/K would do a slow dutch
>> > roll @ high mach if the yaw stab was not up to spec.
>> >
>> > R / John
>> >
>> > R / John
>> > "WaltBJ" > wrote in message
>> > om...
>> >> Bunch of kids. 22 Jan 1931, Ketchikan, Alaska. USAF Aviation Cadet
>> >> Class 54-H, 28 Apr 54. F86F Sabrejet, F86Dog, F102, F104A, F4, 2000+.
>> >> Last flight in F4 Jan 31 80. Hung it up for good 31 March 80. Carter
>> >> wore me out. 104A with the J79-19 engine - yahoo! .9 to 2.0. 27 miles.
>> >> 1'45", 1000 pounds of fuel....
>> >> Walt BJ
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Walt flew the Hot Rod Model A's - an early air-to-air only F-104A with
>> the original small-0bore -3 engine replaced with the -19 engine used
>> on teh F-4E.
>
> A 'big' J79 anyway, but not the -17 used in the F-4E, albeit the same thrust. The
> -19 was the one also used in the F-104S (as you know). I don't know what the
> differences were between the two engine subtypes, but assume it was accessory
> locations and the like.

According to my files, teh biggest difference was a differenct control
fir the Afterburner fuel pump, that allowed a continuously variable
fuel flow from Min-AB to Max-AB. (That's not a trivial thing - you've
got to have soem amount of variable delivery to deal with the change
in mass flow qith altitude and airspeed, then throw in some other
"logic" (Cams & fueldraulic analog computer, in this case) to nudge
all that around to match the throttle commands.)
>
To further answer John's question, the F-104A came with
> various versions of the J79-3, before some of them were retrofitted with the -19.
> The F-104C had the J79-7 with about 1,000 lb. more thrust in A/B than the -3,
> essentially the same thrust as the -11 in F-104Gs.
>
>> They literally had about a Metric Ton more push than the
>> C model (I know, I know, I'm mixing units here, but I'm waxing
>> hyperbolic here), and performance that the documents I have on it,
>> and computations I've done have to be seen to be believed.
>> According to my quick reference (F-104A (-10 Engine) SAC Chart, June
>> 1970)
>
> Typo for '-19', presumably.

Oh, yes. definitely.

>> The upper right corner of teh envelope is Mach 2+/67,000'. The whole
>> envelope ios bordered by either Q or airfrae heat limits - it never
>> runs out of power. During a Point Intercept mission,it would be
>> passing 30Kft in less than a minute after breaking ground.
>> (Oh, yeah - since it could fly so high, it would go just as far at
>> Mach 2 as it would a Mach 0.9)
>> I'm in awe of the beast.
>
> The performance section of the -1 (equivalent to the-1-1) for the a/c is quite
> impressive. I've got the F-104A-D -1 dated 1 June1968, which covers various
> versions of the a/c with -3B, -7, and -19 engines. The -3B is pretty hot,
> although there's a bit of transonic acceleration sag (we're talking relative to
> the later versions here) up to about M1.4, then it really starts to cook. the C
> w/-7 is better, but the A w/-19 is just awesome. I've been told by someone with
> access to -1s for both, who's also talked to pilots who've flown them, that even
> the heavier F-104S can give an F-15 a run for its money in climb and acceleration,
> and it actually has a greater supersonic point intercept radius (easy to believe
> with a turbojet instead of turbofan). Naturally, the F-15 wins hands down on
> avionics and weapon load, and it can fight at speeds below 450 KIAS.

That sounds about right. Of course, when you start hanging
Sparrow/Apsiede sized missiles on an F-104, you really start piling up
drag But Fast. A Back of the Envelope quickie goxes a Drag Index for
an AIM-7 on an F-104 to be about 6, (Drag Index is DeltaCD * 10000, of
1 Drag COunt = 0.0001 Cd) It adds up fast.

>
> The biggest problem I see with the F-104A and to some extent the F-104C is the
> relatively low G limits when carrying anything more than 1,000 lb. of internal
> fuel -- It's typically in the 5-5.6G range. However, that's also about the buffet
> boundary for guns tracking at combat speeds, and I imagine it was widely ignored
> (as were the Q limits) when necessary. I know of one pilot who had an F-104D
> model up to 850KCAS (Q limit is 750) at 5,000 ft. MSL in level flight, with a USAF
> general in the back seat, and he mentioned to the general that they were almost
> certainly faster than the official low altitude world speed record (held by the
> Project Sageburner F-4) at the time. I wonder if the G and S had higher g limits

I don't know offhand. To tell you the truth, I really don't think
that it makes much difference in Real Life - you're limited by Buffet
at low speeds (And of course, with a T-Tail, the runaway pitchup.
Definitely Nature's Way of sayig you've pulled enough G) and at high
speeds by Gavailable. Most supersonic types lose pitch effectiveness
at high speeds - they just can't pull that many Gs anyway, The F-104
was different - apparently it just didn't care, and at high speeeds,
it had lift to burn.

Hopefully Walt Bjorneby will show up and correct light on our musings
with the torch of experience.

> - I know the G was strengthened for prolonged flight at high Q for the strike
> role, and the S was based on it.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Paul Michael Brown]

Pechs ] recently shaped the electrons thusly:

> I was in the first class in Beeville that flew the TA-4 instead of the
F-9, in 1973.

Heys Pechs -- After all the recent discussion about high and fast in the
F-104, I'd be interested in your thoughts about the other corner of the
envelope. How was the TA-4 (specifically, the TA-4J, right?) to fly around
the boat? What adjustments were made to the carqual syllabus vice the F-9?

[Pechs1]

Paul-<< How was the TA-4 (specifically, the TA-4J, right?) to fly around
the boat? What adjustments were made to the carqual syllabus vice the F-9?
>><BR><BR>

I answer-"I only flew the TA-4J, never been a F-9, so I'm not familiar with
that A/C around the boat. I just remember seeing the last few adding power
everytime they turned when taxiing.

The TA-4J was fine around the boat but remember, when I was doing that I had a
grand total of 4 traps under my belt from the T-2 onboard the 'Lex'. I was
'busy' whan around the boat in the 'dog', onboard Enterprise no less(BIG boat,
compared to the Lex.).
But when I flew the 'dog' again in VF-126, the T, E, F and F+ and M models, I
found them really forgiving, easy to fly. I would think they would be a neat
jet around the ship.


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

[gunnysarge]

which squadron did you fly with during cuban crisis?Any good stories?
jr martin


I am still a kid.

Jan 1940 San Francisco,
Jun 1956 - Dec 1959 San Diego State,
Jul 1957 1st solo, Piper J-3 Cub, San Diego,
Jul 1957 Parris Island,
Dec 1957 - Dec 1959 USMC Reserve San Diego,
Jan 1960 NAVCAD Pensacola,
Oct 1962 F-8 Cuban Missile Crisis,
Jun 1964 RF-8 "Yankee Team" Laos,
Mar 1973 last flight RA-5C

[Evil Roy]

Sorry to break into the thread, but a question for a Vig driver:

I'd often been told a reason for the Vig being moved to the recon role
was that the aft bomb bay had a tendency for the weapon to 'follow' the
aircraft in the slipstream.

It sounds like a good story, but I would find it difficult to accept
that this was never highlighted during weapons trials.

Comments?

Thanks...


gunnysarge wrote:
> which squadron did you fly with during cuban crisis?Any good stories?
> jr martin
>
>
> Red Rider Wrote:
>
>>I am still a kid.
>>
>>Jan 1940 San Francisco,
>>Jun 1956 - Dec 1959 San Diego State,
>>Jul 1957 1st solo, Piper J-3 Cub, San Diego,
>>Jul 1957 Parris Island,
>>Dec 1957 - Dec 1959 USMC Reserve San Diego,
>>Jan 1960 NAVCAD Pensacola,
>>Oct 1962 F-8 Cuban Missile Crisis,
>>Jun 1964 RF-8 "Yankee Team" Laos,
>>Mar 1973 last flight RA-5C
>
>
>