Phantom flight

[Raymond Marshall]

Hi all,

I had a great opportunity yesterday. I'm a hornet driver by
trade, and got a chance to fly the F-4 on a qual/eval as part of
the test pilot school course. After trying to flare on my first
several landings like the Air Force IP in the back seat wanted, I
planted my last landing pretty firm within the first 100 feet of
the runway (no ball to fly though).

I have to say I have a lot more respect for anyone who landed
that aircraft on a boat.

Ray

[John Carrier]

"Raymond Marshall" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi all,
>
> I had a great opportunity yesterday. I'm a hornet driver by trade, and
> got a chance to fly the F-4 on a qual/eval as part of the test pilot
> school course. After trying to flare on my first several landings like
> the Air Force IP in the back seat wanted, I planted my last landing pretty
> firm within the first 100 feet of the runway (no ball to fly though).
>
> I have to say I have a lot more respect for anyone who landed that
> aircraft on a boat.

The Phantom was very stable aircraft around the boat. Despite its genuine
mach 2 capability (well, maybe not the S model), it was remarkably docile
and forgiving throughout its envelope. It had high wing loading and
relatively unsophisticated aerodynamics so it couldn't turn (except perhaps
compared to a Zipper ... oops, an opening for Walt he'll likely not refuse).
Didn't have the sports car feel of some jets ... more like a pickup truck,
but a solid and reliable jet.

If you get an opportunity to get checked out in the F-8, I recommend you go
for it. THAT was an airplane that could enthrall you ... and then bite you
on the ass.

R / John

[John Miller]

John Carrier wrote:
> The Phantom was very stable aircraft around the boat. Despite its genuine
> mach 2 capability (well, maybe not the S model), it was remarkably docile
> and forgiving throughout its envelope.

My flight instructor once mentioned that on his first flight in a
Phantom, as he got it slowed down for landing, it scared the poo out of
him (apparently *felt* like it was in danger of departure, even though
it was O.K.).

Can any of you experienced Phantom pilots shed any light on this?

--
John Miller
email domain: n4vu.com; username: jsm(@)

[Phormer Phighter Phlyer]

Raymond Marshall wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I had a great opportunity yesterday. I'm a hornet driver by trade, and
> got a chance to fly the F-4 on a qual/eval as part of the test pilot
> school course. After trying to flare on my first several landings like
> the Air Force IP in the back seat wanted, I planted my last landing
> pretty firm within the first 100 feet of the runway (no ball to fly
> though).
>
> I have to say I have a lot more respect for anyone who landed that
> aircraft on a boat.
>
> Ray

Well, compared to the Turkey, I say it was much easier as it was so
stable on airspeed, to power changes. Get on speed, pull power go down
faster, add power, go up faster. It was sometimes said it was so fast
that you didn't have time to goon things up when on the ball.

I loved it around the boat.

[Phormer Phighter Phlyer]

John Miller wrote:
> John Carrier wrote:
>
>>The Phantom was very stable aircraft around the boat. Despite its genuine
>>mach 2 capability (well, maybe not the S model), it was remarkably docile
>>and forgiving throughout its envelope.
>
>
> My flight instructor once mentioned that on his first flight in a
> Phantom, as he got it slowed down for landing, it scared the poo out of
> him (apparently *felt* like it was in danger of departure, even though
> it was O.K.).
>
> Can any of you experienced Phantom pilots shed any light on this?
>

Well, it did get a little 'vague' when you got around 'on speed', and
the margin from onspeed to nose wander, wing drop off wasn't that large
but ya got used to it. Yopu could do all sorts of things with the stick
when really slow, w/o the jet doing anything, since so much of the
wing/stab was somewhat ineffective.

What was really scary was riding along on a mode 1 at the boat and
watching the stick move some vast amounts, w/o the jet really doing
anything.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 05:47:41 GMT, Raymond Marshall
> wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>I had a great opportunity yesterday. I'm a hornet driver by
>trade, and got a chance to fly the F-4 on a qual/eval as part of
>the test pilot school course. After trying to flare on my first
>several landings like the Air Force IP in the back seat wanted, I
>planted my last landing pretty firm within the first 100 feet of
>the runway (no ball to fly though).
>
>I have to say I have a lot more respect for anyone who landed
>that aircraft on a boat.
>
>Ray

You don't say which model of the F-4 you were flying. Big differences
in handling between slatted and hard-wing aircraft. Ditto for
long-nose gun-bearers compared to pug-nose varieties.

But, having landed C, D and E models on runways for many years without
the benefit of a ball, I'll contribute that the Phantom was a pretty
easy airplane to land. AOA lights/tone were pretty close to all you
need. Set AOA to on-speed, then use the throttle to move your impact
point up or down the runway. The nose really doesn't demo a lot of
pitch change, but simply rides down the glide path--push some power
and you slow your descent and extend the point of touch-down. Hold
what you've got until ground effect when the nose will want to drop a
bit, but you wind up really holding the pitch attitude rather than
flaring.

Now, get in the back seat and try the no-flap straight-in. You'll love
the part from two miles out until just over the overrun where you
can't see the runway at all.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[José Herculano]

> If you get an opportunity to get checked out in the F-8, I recommend you
> go for it. THAT was an airplane that could enthrall you ... and then bite
> you on the ass.

Not a single one flying anymore... sad...
_____________
José Herculano

[Bob]

Hi John,
I had the pleasure of flying most all the F4 models made for the Navy
at Pax River. Also had one squadron tour in the F4J block 46 and a
couple hundred landings. Had many traps in the F8E with more than a
few "wet flight suit" traps in the dark. Also had traps in props. I
believe I can say without fear of argument from any Phantom that the
F4 was the easiest airplane ever built to land, carrier or shore based.
For starters, the F-4s were all assigned to the "big" decks. Having
grown up on 27 Charlies, the "big" decks were like cheating. Secondly
the F-4 dirtied up was ultra-stable. Squeeze a hair of power and the
ball went up a hair. First time in my career I ever saw a ball go out
the side of the lens. In F-8s you left the ball nearing the ramp and
gave it a little high dip to set the hook or it could easily bounce and
hook skip the whole speghetti pile. The Phantom just hit the deck and
planted itself dowm. Tail hook the size of a plow shear, never heard
of one parting. If you did bolt, a rarity, you had enough power to
bend it around in a VFR pattern and get back to the groove in about 60
seconds. About the only gripe we had around the boat was fuel
consumption was high. Almost as bad as present day F-18s. But our
boarding rates were in the 90% range and bolts were uncommon. By far
the best carrier plane I personally ever flew. Now in the air in ACM
it was a dog and took both hands to pull max G's. Pretty good vertical
with it's power and gave you a real edge over guys who didn't like to
get their nose up. Nasty and unrecoverable flat spin mode, not as bad
as the F-14 but usually resulted in either a punch out or a mort. So
you didn't spin it, simple enough. The guy who told you the F-4 was
scary dirty must have been a helo pilot or an USAF guy. Not all that
analytical for sure.





John Miller wrote:
> John Carrier wrote:
> > The Phantom was very stable aircraft around the boat. Despite its
genuine
> > mach 2 capability (well, maybe not the S model), it was remarkably
docile
> > and forgiving throughout its envelope.
>
> My flight instructor once mentioned that on his first flight in a
> Phantom, as he got it slowed down for landing, it scared the poo out
of
> him (apparently *felt* like it was in danger of departure, even
though
> it was O.K.).
>
> Can any of you experienced Phantom pilots shed any light on this?
>
> --
> John Miller
> email domain: n4vu.com; username: jsm(@)

[Ed Rasimus]

On 26 Mar 2005 14:19:03 -0800, "Bob" > wrote:

>Hi John,
>. Now in the air in ACM
>it was a dog and took both hands to pull max G's. Pretty good vertical
>with it's power and gave you a real edge over guys who didn't like to
>get their nose up. Nasty and unrecoverable flat spin mode, not as bad
>as the F-14 but usually resulted in either a punch out or a mort. So
>you didn't spin it, simple enough. The guy who told you the F-4 was
>scary dirty must have been a helo pilot or an USAF guy. Not all that
>analytical for sure.

That's low. Really low.

And, notice how I resist saying that USAF guys could pull max G with
out using two hands.

I just wouldn't say something like that.

Of course, if you didn't have to hover on the CAP at "max conserve"
orbiting at 250 KIAS to meet cycle time it was a lot easier. Just run
around the alloted area a bit above corner velocity and you can grab
all the G you want with one hand.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Raymond Marshall]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> You don't say which model of the F-4 you were flying. Big differences
> in handling between slatted and hard-wing aircraft. Ditto for
> long-nose gun-bearers compared to pug-nose varieties.

I suppose I really need to elaborate for the group since I
haven't been a regular poster here. I flew F-18Cs from Lemoore
in VFA-147 for 3 years. Made two cruises and survived a little
over 300 traps. I've got about 960 hours in the F-18 and am
currently going through the USAF Test Pilot School.

As part of the course, I got a single flight qualitative
evaluation of the QF-4E. The airplane was from Holloman AFB,
serial number 71-087. The jet came complete with a huge auto
pilot control panel to enable the drone control station to fly
it. Fortunately I didn't get to evaluate that part of the
airplane. I did get to fly from the front seat, do everything
from start up, taxi and takeoff to 4 landings. I took off,
climbed up and looked at the dirty stall characteristics, did
some of the advanced handling characteristic maneuvers that were
interesting, and also did a couple 30 degree dive bomb runs. I
finished the flight with a short low level. I did 2 flap down
touch and gos (I think this is what the navy versions of the F-4
called half flaps), a simulated single engine touch and go, and a
full flap full stop. I used the drag chute on the full stop
which was pretty cool.

Now I've got to write a short report on my evaluation of the F-4
and what I learned flying it. Don't get something for nothing...
So what did I learn? My first impression was that the pitch
control was very sensitive. At higher airspeeds it was very
little movements that gave you 5 gs or -1 gs. Rolling in and out
of turns really highlighted this to me. At slower speeds the
pitch had a lot of lag and my inputs tended to overshoot my
desired target.

> But, having landed C, D and E models on runways for many years without
> the benefit of a ball, I'll contribute that the Phantom was a pretty

As for landings, I found that the jet was very honest with speed
changes. It was very easy to set the throttles, and almost
instantly speed would be stabilized... it was mushy feeling
control wise but I always felt like I had good control. I think
the difference was the switch from up and away with pitch so
sensitive to small movements, and then in the landing pattern you
had to use large movements to make the jet respond. The
simulated single engine landing was almost a non event. I really
liked the AOA tones, once I had made a couple landings. I could
also see how they'd be useful for fighting the jet once you had
some experience.

> Now, get in the back seat and try the no-flap straight-in. You'll love
> the part from two miles out until just over the overrun where you
> can't see the runway at all.

Funny that you mention that... we had a layer we might have had
to fly above and the IP debated putting in the handheld GPS they
use with area boundaries because it blocked the only small hole
he had to see the runway from the back seat. He said 'I suppose
you're not going to kill me are you?' and then put the GPS in.

V/r,

Ray Marshall

[John Carrier]

"Bob" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi John,
> I had the pleasure of flying most all the F4 models made for the Navy
> at Pax River. Also had one squadron tour in the F4J block 46 and a
> couple hundred landings. Had many traps in the F8E with more than a
> few "wet flight suit" traps in the dark. Also had traps in props. I
> believe I can say without fear of argument from any Phantom that the
> F4 was the easiest airplane ever built to land, carrier or shore based.
> For starters, the F-4s were all assigned to the "big" decks. Having
> grown up on 27 Charlies, the "big" decks were like cheating. Secondly
> the F-4 dirtied up was ultra-stable. Squeeze a hair of power and the
> ball went up a hair. First time in my career I ever saw a ball go out
> the side of the lens. In F-8s you left the ball nearing the ramp and
> gave it a little high dip to set the hook or it could easily bounce and
> hook skip the whole speghetti pile. The Phantom just hit the deck and
> planted itself dowm. Tail hook the size of a plow shear, never heard
> of one parting. If you did bolt, a rarity, you had enough power to
> bend it around in a VFR pattern and get back to the groove in about 60
> seconds. About the only gripe we had around the boat was fuel
> consumption was high. Almost as bad as present day F-18s. But our
> boarding rates were in the 90% range and bolts were uncommon. By far
> the best carrier plane I personally ever flew. Now in the air in ACM
> it was a dog and took both hands to pull max G's. Pretty good vertical
> with it's power and gave you a real edge over guys who didn't like to
> get their nose up. Nasty and unrecoverable flat spin mode, not as bad
> as the F-14 but usually resulted in either a punch out or a mort. So
> you didn't spin it, simple enough. The guy who told you the F-4 was
> scary dirty must have been a helo pilot or an USAF guy. Not all that
> analytical for sure.

SNIP

Can't disagree with most of your commentary. The Phantom got better with
the slotted stab, never needed more than one hand to pull max G. It was
challenging to exploit in ACM. For my first 500 hours, my thought was "No
wonder we beat up on these guys!" (F-8 driver perspective.) Around the 500
hour mark it changed, "How did we ever beat up these guys?"

The F-8 "high dip" cost us a jet for a whole cruise. Broke the nose strut
trunions. 27C, night, pitching deck was an F-8 mishap waiting to happen.
Certainly having a left or right runway, a 3 1/2 degree glideslope, and a
wee more hook-to-ramp made the big decks much more accommodating. OTOH,
they all look pretty small in the dark.

Yes, the Phantom was very solid around the blunt end of the boat. Went
through a whole cruise without a bolt ... until I mentioned that fact to my
RO on the last flight (mid translant). BOING!!! Oh well .... 99%

I found the F-14 a revelation. Not rock steady like the Phantom, but
significantly slower and tons more gas. It took some flying (as did the
Gator), but it was safe as houses. I've always maintained that all the
hogwash about shipboard flying qualities, hard-to-get-aboard, etc is just
that: hogwash. Show me the carrier landing mishap rate. Cause there's the
jets that'll kill you or jets that'll take care of you. Nobody TRIES to hit
the ramp. Nor do they put plumbers in unforgiving airplanes.

R / John

[John Carrier]

"José Herculano" > wrote in message
...
>> If you get an opportunity to get checked out in the F-8, I recommend you
>> go for it. THAT was an airplane that could enthrall you ... and then
>> bite you on the ass.
>
> Not a single one flying anymore... sad...

Isn't there a F-8K or two privately held? Nothing quite like an F-8 in the
break oil cooler door open.

R / John

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2005 14:19:03 -0800, "Bob" > wrote:
>
>
>>Hi John,
>>. Now in the air in ACM
>>it was a dog and took both hands to pull max G's. Pretty good vertical
>>with it's power and gave you a real edge over guys who didn't like to
>>get their nose up. Nasty and unrecoverable flat spin mode, not as bad
>>as the F-14 but usually resulted in either a punch out or a mort. So
>>you didn't spin it, simple enough. The guy who told you the F-4 was
>>scary dirty must have been a helo pilot or an USAF guy. Not all that
>>analytical for sure.
>
>
> That's low. Really low.
>
> And, notice how I resist saying that USAF guys could pull max G with
> out using two hands.
>
> I just wouldn't say something like that.
>
> Of course, if you didn't have to hover on the CAP at "max conserve"
> orbiting at 250 KIAS to meet cycle time it was a lot easier. Just run
> around the alloted area a bit above corner velocity and you can grab
> all the G you want with one hand.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Two hands to pull 'max 'G'? Hogwash. I could overstress the thing w/o
problem.

As for everything else, pretty close. I did love it but never heard of
one in a flat spin. Lots of OOC, spin stuff but nothing flat. Even when
the stab horns were breaking, 1976.7, we lost a F-4J(VF-33) when it
broke. The plane spun but when the airloads allowed the stab to fall
full leading edge up, it recovered.

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

José Herculano wrote:
>>If you get an opportunity to get checked out in the F-8, I recommend you
>>go for it. THAT was an airplane that could enthrall you ... and then bite
>>you on the ass.
>
>
> Not a single one flying anymore... sad...
> _____________
> José Herculano
>
>

Doesn't Thunderbird aviation still have one? Last I saw it was at Bug
Roache's memorial service, flown by Hoss Pearson

[Bob]

Hi John,
I guess my "hi dip" remark wasn't quite that. In the days of paddles,
the LSO would give you a high dip signal and expect you to just drop
the nose a hair and then return to level. This just worked off about
ten feet or so from your flat groove altitude. In the F-8 if I wanted
to get aboard without chancing a hook skip or a BAR (flat at the ramp)
bolter I'd pull up the nose a hair just before touchdown to set the
hook. As long as you weren't fast this tecnique kept you from a flat
bounce and usually got you a one wire. On a really dark night if the
deck was moving I had to depend upon the LSO to tell me when to go for
it, like, "OK, fly it on down". Landing an F-8 on a black night with
the deck moving was high risk no matter how you did it. I always
calculated, the fewer passes over the ramp per night, the better chance
I'd make it down to the ready room dry.

Back to the Phantom and using two hands for max G's. Figure of speech,
please forgive. Yes you could usually get max G with one hand.
Getting 9 G's (max) below ten grand at 600 kts took me both hands. But
I was a weak-assed pilot who was used to pulling an F-8 around with
half the effort. Agree, a savvy F-4 pilot could whip an F-8 everywhere
but prior to 1968 the number of ACM savvy F-4 pilots was low. Later
F-8's, like the F8J, were dogs and the F-4 guys routinely beat up on
them.

We had a couple of guys who went through an entire cruise (100-120
traps) without a bolter in the F-4. I had two of my three F-4 cruises
bolterless, not all greenies but bolterless. Wire average probably
around two. Different strokes...........

Sorry if I offended the USAF guys. What I meant to say, was carrier
pilots were used to landing at slower speeds and felt comfortable
dirty. We spent more time with a donut than any blue suiter given all
the FCLP's and constant speed approach patterns. Not necessarily
better, just different. I spent time with a number of USAF exchange
guys and they caught on just fine to our different way of doing things.

[Bob]

OK, you are strong. Stick force to get 9 Gs at 600 kts at 1000 ft was
over 50 pounds. Not many good reasons to be doing that in ACM since
the vertical was best for the F-4. The F-4 had a rare but
unrecoverable flat spin mode. In this mode we tried everything
including special anti-spin chutes and still never recovered one. Most
of these flat spins were entered from very nose high, slow speed high
yaw maneuvers, like trying to kick the nose down from a very high yo
with the rudders. Drag chutes, even anti-spin chutes just streamed
above you. very gentle spin rate and low altitude loss per turn but
just plain unrecoverable. We lost at least four F-4s at Pax learning
about this mode. MacD denied it even existed.

[John Carrier]

"Bob" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi John,
> I guess my "hi dip" remark wasn't quite that. In the days of paddles,
> the LSO would give you a high dip signal and expect you to just drop
> the nose a hair and then return to level. This just worked off about
> ten feet or so from your flat groove altitude. In the F-8 if I wanted
> to get aboard without chancing a hook skip or a BAR (flat at the ramp)
> bolter I'd pull up the nose a hair just before touchdown to set the
> hook. As long as you weren't fast this tecnique kept you from a flat
> bounce and usually got you a one wire. On a really dark night if the
> deck was moving I had to depend upon the LSO to tell me when to go for
> it, like, "OK, fly it on down". Landing an F-8 on a black night with
> the deck moving was high risk no matter how you did it. I always
> calculated, the fewer passes over the ramp per night, the better chance
> I'd make it down to the ready room dry.

Perhaps the best way to communicate "go for it" is "Fly the ball." A little
nose up could scoop up an early wire, but of course a little too much could
ding a tail pipe and maybe even permanently damage the nozzle. By
comparison, the F-14 could REALLY troll for a wire. More than a few bolters
were saved by a bit of attitude in the wires ... certainly a varsity
correction.

During my initial F-14 CQ I decided to learn to take auto throttles all the
way to touchdown. A nose-up at the ramp (to get the power up for the
burble) invariably resulted in a one on the fly. Took a while to master the
"jiggle the stick a bit" to get the stab input to bump the power w/o
changing the attitude of the jet.
..
> Back to the Phantom and using two hands for max G's. Figure of speech,
> please forgive. Yes you could usually get max G with one hand.
> Getting 9 G's (max) below ten grand at 600 kts took me both hands. But
> I was a weak-assed pilot who was used to pulling an F-8 around with
> half the effort. Agree, a savvy F-4 pilot could whip an F-8 everywhere
> but prior to 1968 the number of ACM savvy F-4 pilots was low. Later
> F-8's, like the F8J, were dogs and the F-4 guys routinely beat up on
> them.

The J wasn't too bad with the P-420 engine (19,500 in A/B). We were never
"routinely beat up on" in it, though I tapped a couple of the better Phantom
drivers that WERE beating up on me. The J still couldn't match the D (never
got to fly it, but it was light, had the lighter nose and the P-20 engine).
The P-420 H was the hot rod.

R / John

> We had a couple of guys who went through an entire cruise (100-120
> traps) without a bolter in the F-4. I had two of my three F-4 cruises
> bolterless, not all greenies but bolterless. Wire average probably
> around two. Different strokes...........

.... Not all greenies. I can relate. My first cruise, the air wing average
was 3.06 (I was an LSO until they found out my parents were married to each
other). Nowadays, it's around 3.5, almost exactly what CVW-19's top hook
(one of the best ball flyers I've EVER seen) had for the cruise. Another
trend is to the 1/2 ball high pass as "centered." There are several
generations of LSO's now that will grade you as LOBAW for a genuine rails
pass. A pity.

R / John

[Cockpit Colin]

"Bob" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi John,
> I had the pleasure of flying most all the F4 models made for the Navy
[snip]
> Nasty and unrecoverable flat spin mode, not as bad
> as the F-14 but usually resulted in either a punch out or a mort. So
> you didn't spin it, simple enough.


Newby question here - I've always been curious as to why any aircraft in the
1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio class (F/A-18? F4? F14? etc) would have
trouble being able to "simply" power out flat spins / falling leafs etc.

Can anyone give me a bit on an insight?

Many thanks,

CC

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 3/27/05 6:21 PM, in article ,
"Cockpit Colin" > wrote:

>
> "Bob" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Hi John,
>> I had the pleasure of flying most all the F4 models made for the Navy
> [snip]
>> Nasty and unrecoverable flat spin mode, not as bad
>> as the F-14 but usually resulted in either a punch out or a mort. So
>> you didn't spin it, simple enough.
>
>
> Newby question here - I've always been curious as to why any aircraft in the
> 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio class (F/A-18? F4? F14? etc) would have
> trouble being able to "simply" power out flat spins / falling leafs etc.
>
> Can anyone give me a bit on an insight?
>

That 1:1 thing is a sort of fallacy in many cases. It assumes a combat
loaded aircraft (air-to-air load) at half fuel with the motor being run at
sea level--large amount of static sea-level rated thrust on a relatively
light aircraft... Hence the 1:1 ratio. Most spins and departures occur at
much higher altitudes where the thrust of the motor is quite a bit lower.
At higher altitudes, the T:W may be less than 1:1.

Also keep in mind that if you're spinning, the thrust is spinning with you.
Adding full power (providing your jet isn't susceptible to compressor stalls
at slow speed and high alpha) simply adds a thrust vector that rotates with
the jet. It's not effective in "powering the jet out" of a spin.

A falling leaf is essentially a spin with no established rotation. The
aircraft establishes itself in a coupled departure mode. Thrust MAY help
power you out depending on aircraft configuration and altitude... I think
there were some Marines that claimed to have powered out of the falling leaf
in the Hornet, but most folks don't have a lot of success with it. IIRC,
adding power in the falling leaf INCREASES time to recover.

This is all without reviewing the NATOPS notes on falling leaf recoveries.
Any TPS dudes want to sing out here?

--Woody

[nafod40]

John Carrier wrote:
>
> Yes, the Phantom was very solid around the blunt end of the boat. Went
> through a whole cruise without a bolt ... until I mentioned that fact to my
> RO on the last flight (mid translant). BOING!!! Oh well .... 99%

I made the mistake of listing my "100% boarding rate for the cruise" on
my fitrep brag sheet prior to a night go as we prepped to cross the
pond. Duh...

[nafod40]

Cockpit Colin wrote:
>
> Newby question here - I've always been curious as to why any aircraft in the
> 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio class (F/A-18? F4? F14? etc) would have
> trouble being able to "simply" power out flat spins / falling leafs etc.
>
> Can anyone give me a bit on an insight?

One way to think of it (not too scientific) is that adding power just
adds more "juice" to the spin. The power vector rotates around, just
making the plane do whatever it's doing with that much more vigor.

[Bob]

An airplane in a flat spin has very high angle of attack. Way above
any normal spin mode. Once stabilized flat you are sort of like a
frisbee, rotating with all the incoming air hitting just the bottom of
the plane. The break out of this spin or any for that matter, you must
lower your angle of attack somehow. In upright spins this means, stick
full forward. Flat spins, fwd stick doesn't help because the air flow
is under not over your vertical control surface, stabilator in the F-4
case. The rotation can't be altered for the same basic reason. Power
changes don't give you any significant nose up or down impulse. If you
deploy your drag chute it will just ride above you and not inflate,
like a streamer. You have lots of time to try lots of things on the
way down but like I said, we lost a lot of F-4s trying everything but
never found anything that worked. Answer was, be gentle when using
rudders when vertical and nose high. The F-4 gave you plenty of
warning when you did something it didn't like. Wing wobble, some
buffet, very loose nose in yaw, and often some "Oh ****s" from the rear
seat. My theory, and I never tried it, was if all else failed in a
flat spin, have the back seater eject and maybe the reaction to the
seat firing would lower the nose a hair. You just never told the RIO
what your plan was. In Navy planes, he could eject me but I couldn't
eject him. A serious design fault IMHO. Actually there was a way to
eject the rear seat from the front but it wasn't widely advertised.

[Cockpit Colin]

> One way to think of it (not too scientific) is that adding power just
> adds more "juice" to the spin. The power vector rotates around, just
> making the plane do whatever it's doing with that much more vigor.

I understand what you're trying to say, but I just can't get a handle on the
physics of it ...

Sure, I can understand how (without power) the aircraft would want to
continue rotating about it's centre of gravity (like a spinning top) - but
with power applied it would seem to me to want to accelerate the aircraft in
a given direction - which I would of thought would have initially increased
the distance from the centre of the spin to the centre of gravity (one and
the same with no power) to something bigger and bigger until control was
regained. In the case of a little power I could see how the aircraft might
continue to spin (perhaps to a point where the nose or some point further
forward becomes the spin center) - but with a LOT of power I would have
thought that eventually the aircraft would just start traveling in the
direction of the thrust (with less inclination to turn).

Obviously I'm wrong, but I just can't understand why adding say, 16,000 to
32,000 pounds thrust along a given line won't accelerate the aircraft away
from the centre of the spin.

I can only visualise it increasing the spin rate if the thrust was somehow
vectored 90 deg.

Where am I going wrong?

Cheers,

CC

PS: Thanks to the 2 other posters - I hadn't thought of decreased engine
power in the equasion, and I can appreciate how adding power in a
conventional spin maked things worse - it's just the flat spins / falling
leafs etc that have me baffled.

[[email protected]]

Well, okay, I rise to the challenge. I have a little over 700 hours in
the 104A (including some time in the Dash 19 version) and just over
2000 in the F4D/E/E-LES. I was fortunate in that the IP who checked me
out in the F4 respected my 3000 hours fighter time and together we
explored the envelope. I found the F4 to be an honest airplane (as was
the 104) and once you learned what it was trying to tell you you could
fly it to its real envelope, not the Dash One or NATOPS figures, but
what it was really capable of. The one aerodynamic thing I didn't like
was the G-dig decelerating through M 1.0 while loaded up - it came on
really sudden and if you happened to be looking outside (as is usual
while chasing someone) you were looking at a probable over-G. As for
fighting the birds, once in knife-range the old engined 104 vs F4 it
was the pilots - with the Dash 19 it could run the F4 out of fuel,
keeping the speed up and the G on, working the vertical a lot better,
and then assassinate it. With a missile fight - if the Sparrows worked
the 104 was going to be in trouble. Muscles per G? I guess I'm a bad
example because at 6-2 and 225 I never had any problem getting the
stick wa-a-a-y back. Landing - on a wet slippery runway at DaNang my
routine was on-speed plus a slow chevron, aim for the numbers at the
end of the runway and about eight feet up (eyeball guess) have the back
seater pull the throttles back while I popped the chute. PS I did not
like the loss of speed in the LES version for a dubious gain in turn
rate for a measly 180 degrees. I'd been through that in the F102 - turn
like hell and then dive for airspeed after having lost 250 knots in 180
degrees. Never got out of control when I was flying it but had a stud
try to pick up a wing with aileron down around first nose-rise in an
approach to a stall. This guy had been previously current in F4s and
had tons of Hun time so I was complacent. (Bad Walter! Bad boy! No
donut!) Anyway my lightning reactions responded and my white knuckles
now firmly gripping the rear stick hit the radar scope and the bird
unloaded to zero alpha in a microsecond and we were back flying again.
(Said reactions honed by 104's propensity to pitch up when working it
slow and hard) Used to spiral up in the F4 turning toward the sun just
out of a being-tracked position and at the appropriate time and 200
KIAs or slower go zero alpha, full rudder, inboard engine idle and
outboard full AB and sort of do a lateral pivot on a dime and blast
past the other guy going straight down accelerating in both ABs while
he was still going up and getting even slower. This also worked in the
Dash 19 104 with the advantage of much faster accel due to 1+:1 T/W.
Damn. I miss that kind of flying! Walt BJ

[Cockpit Colin]

Before I read that post I was confused about getting out of flat spins using
power - but now I'm envious, and confused about getting out of flat spins
using power! ;)

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Well, okay, I rise to the challenge. I have a little over 700 hours in
> the 104A (including some time in the Dash 19 version) and just over
> 2000 in the F4D/E/E-LES. I was fortunate in that the IP who checked me
> out in the F4 respected my 3000 hours fighter time and together we
> explored the envelope. I found the F4 to be an honest airplane (as was
> the 104) and once you learned what it was trying to tell you you could
> fly it to its real envelope, not the Dash One or NATOPS figures, but
> what it was really capable of. The one aerodynamic thing I didn't like
> was the G-dig decelerating through M 1.0 while loaded up - it came on
> really sudden and if you happened to be looking outside (as is usual
> while chasing someone) you were looking at a probable over-G. As for
> fighting the birds, once in knife-range the old engined 104 vs F4 it
> was the pilots - with the Dash 19 it could run the F4 out of fuel,
> keeping the speed up and the G on, working the vertical a lot better,
> and then assassinate it. With a missile fight - if the Sparrows worked
> the 104 was going to be in trouble. Muscles per G? I guess I'm a bad
> example because at 6-2 and 225 I never had any problem getting the
> stick wa-a-a-y back. Landing - on a wet slippery runway at DaNang my
> routine was on-speed plus a slow chevron, aim for the numbers at the
> end of the runway and about eight feet up (eyeball guess) have the back
> seater pull the throttles back while I popped the chute. PS I did not
> like the loss of speed in the LES version for a dubious gain in turn
> rate for a measly 180 degrees. I'd been through that in the F102 - turn
> like hell and then dive for airspeed after having lost 250 knots in 180
> degrees. Never got out of control when I was flying it but had a stud
> try to pick up a wing with aileron down around first nose-rise in an
> approach to a stall. This guy had been previously current in F4s and
> had tons of Hun time so I was complacent. (Bad Walter! Bad boy! No
> donut!) Anyway my lightning reactions responded and my white knuckles
> now firmly gripping the rear stick hit the radar scope and the bird
> unloaded to zero alpha in a microsecond and we were back flying again.
> (Said reactions honed by 104's propensity to pitch up when working it
> slow and hard) Used to spiral up in the F4 turning toward the sun just
> out of a being-tracked position and at the appropriate time and 200
> KIAs or slower go zero alpha, full rudder, inboard engine idle and
> outboard full AB and sort of do a lateral pivot on a dime and blast
> past the other guy going straight down accelerating in both ABs while
> he was still going up and getting even slower. This also worked in the
> Dash 19 104 with the advantage of much faster accel due to 1+:1 T/W.
> Damn. I miss that kind of flying! Walt BJ
>

[Cockpit Colin]

> The one aerodynamic thing I didn't like
> was the G-dig decelerating through M 1.0 while loaded up - it came on
> really sudden and if you happened to be looking outside (as is usual
> while chasing someone) you were looking at a probable over-G.

Can someone tell me more about "G-dig" (using low-time piston guy type
language!)

Thanks!

Cheers,

CC

[J.A.M.]

IIRC the F-4 experienced an increase of the actual G-loading when
manouevering through the Mach 1. If you were pulling close to the structural
limit you could have an overstress problem. Aerodinamics thing, displacement
of the center of pressure, that kind of thing. Maybe a Phantom driver could
explain it better.

"Cockpit Colin" > escribió en el mensaje
...
> > The one aerodynamic thing I didn't like
> > was the G-dig decelerating through M 1.0 while loaded up - it came on
> > really sudden and if you happened to be looking outside (as is usual
> > while chasing someone) you were looking at a probable over-G.
>
> Can someone tell me more about "G-dig" (using low-time piston guy type
> language!)
>
> Thanks!
>
> Cheers,
>
> CC
>
>

[John]

Dang, Walt! I love the stuff you post here. Have you ever thought
about writing a book? You and a few others here (Ed R. comes
immediately to mind) have the gift to write in detail and help those of
us who were not there get sense of what it was like.

Thanks for the post.

Blue skies to you all.

[John Carrier]

"J.A.M." > wrote in message
...
> IIRC the F-4 experienced an increase of the actual G-loading when
> manouevering through the Mach 1. If you were pulling close to the
> structural
> limit you could have an overstress problem. Aerodinamics thing,
> displacement
> of the center of pressure, that kind of thing. Maybe a Phantom driver
> could
> explain it better.

The aerodynamic center shifted forward abruptly as you were decelerating
through about .95 IMN. As the aero center shifts forward, the stabs
downward trim force becomes greater and a pitch up occurs. (This is rather
typical transonic behavior, although it varies from jet to jet.)

In the F-4's case, if you were pulling 6 G or so, you'd suddenly find
yourself around 9 G during this transient. At medium/high altitudes, the
airframe would give a hint that this was about to happen with a subtle
buffet cue. You could reduce your back stick just as the aircraft dug in
and maintain your G without exceeding it. If you were low (say 5,000',
higher IAS for .95) the buffet cue wasn't there and it could sneak up on
you.

I experienced the low altitude manifestation once and use the incident as an
illustration of the effects (big time overstress) of transonic pitch up for
my aero lecture.

R / John

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:17:42 -0600, "John Carrier" >
wrote:

>> of the center of pressure, that kind of thing. Maybe a Phantom driver
>> could
>> explain it better.
>
>The aerodynamic center shifted forward abruptly as you were decelerating
>through about .95 IMN. As the aero center shifts forward, the stabs
>downward trim force becomes greater and a pitch up occurs. (This is rather
>typical transonic behavior, although it varies from jet to jet.)
>
>In the F-4's case, if you were pulling 6 G or so, you'd suddenly find
>yourself around 9 G during this transient. At medium/high altitudes, the
>airframe would give a hint that this was about to happen with a subtle
>buffet cue. You could reduce your back stick just as the aircraft dug in
>and maintain your G without exceeding it. If you were low (say 5,000',
>higher IAS for .95) the buffet cue wasn't there and it could sneak up on
>you.
>
>I experienced the low altitude manifestation once and use the incident as an
>illustration of the effects (big time overstress) of transonic pitch up for
>my aero lecture.
>
>R / John
>

Walt used the term "G-dig", but I always heard it called "Mach
tuck"--(coincidentally we had a guy in the squadron with last name
Tuck, so his call sign became Mach -- rather than the more
conventional "Friar".)

Most jets of the period really couldn't command a lot of G when
supersonic--the slab simply didn't have enough authority. So, if a
fight was engaged in the supersonic speed range, guys trying to get as
much turn rate as possible would have a yard of stick pulled into
their gut. When the airplane decelerated through the Mach, that slab
prepositioning when it went sub-sonic would then command a whole lot
more AOA and G. Overshoot of the allowable G limit was damn near
inevitable.

One solution was to ask the back-seater to keep on eye on the mach for
you and call when it looked like you were going to transition. Good
situational awareness also helped--you knew your altitude, your entry
airspeed, your attitude and your tactical position relative to the
adversary. Predicting when you were going to go sub-sonic was then a
function of art rather than science for the experienced guys.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Gord Beaman]

wrote:

>Well, okay, I rise to the challenge. I have a little over 700 hours in
>the 104A (including some time in the Dash 19 version) and just over
>2000 in the F4D/E/E-LES. I was fortunate in that the IP who checked me
>out in the F4 respected my 3000 hours fighter time and together we
>explored the envelope. I found the F4 to be an honest airplane (as was
>the 104) and once you learned what it was trying to tell you you could
>fly it to its real envelope, not the Dash One or NATOPS figures, but
>what it was really capable of. The one aerodynamic thing I didn't like
>was the G-dig decelerating through M 1.0 while loaded up - it came on
>really sudden and if you happened to be looking outside (as is usual
>while chasing someone) you were looking at a probable over-G. As for
>fighting the birds, once in knife-range the old engined 104 vs F4 it
>was the pilots - with the Dash 19 it could run the F4 out of fuel,
>keeping the speed up and the G on, working the vertical a lot better,
>and then assassinate it. With a missile fight - if the Sparrows worked
>the 104 was going to be in trouble. Muscles per G? I guess I'm a bad
>example because at 6-2 and 225 I never had any problem getting the
>stick wa-a-a-y back. Landing - on a wet slippery runway at DaNang my
>routine was on-speed plus a slow chevron, aim for the numbers at the
>end of the runway and about eight feet up (eyeball guess) have the back
>seater pull the throttles back while I popped the chute. PS I did not
>like the loss of speed in the LES version for a dubious gain in turn
>rate for a measly 180 degrees. I'd been through that in the F102 - turn
>like hell and then dive for airspeed after having lost 250 knots in 180
>degrees. Never got out of control when I was flying it but had a stud
>try to pick up a wing with aileron down around first nose-rise in an
>approach to a stall. This guy had been previously current in F4s and
>had tons of Hun time so I was complacent. (Bad Walter! Bad boy! No
>donut!) Anyway my lightning reactions responded and my white knuckles
>now firmly gripping the rear stick hit the radar scope and the bird
>unloaded to zero alpha in a microsecond and we were back flying again.
>(Said reactions honed by 104's propensity to pitch up when working it
>slow and hard) Used to spiral up in the F4 turning toward the sun just
>out of a being-tracked position and at the appropriate time and 200
>KIAs or slower go zero alpha, full rudder, inboard engine idle and
>outboard full AB and sort of do a lateral pivot on a dime and blast
>past the other guy going straight down accelerating in both ABs while
>he was still going up and getting even slower. This also worked in the
>Dash 19 104 with the advantage of much faster accel due to 1+:1 T/W.
>Damn. I miss that kind of flying! Walt BJ

Damned interesting too Walt!...give us more!...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[nafod40]

Cockpit Colin wrote:
>>One way to think of it (not too scientific) is that adding power just
>>adds more "juice" to the spin. The power vector rotates around, just
>>making the plane do whatever it's doing with that much more vigor.
>
>
> I understand what you're trying to say, but I just can't get a handle on the
> physics of it ...

OK, stream of consciousness here. Ignore any violations of the law(s of
physics).

A plane in a spin is yawing and rolling simultaneously. It is also at a
stalled angle of attack. What happens is that, as the AOA of a wing
increases, its drag always increases, but at a certain point its lift
decreases (near and past stall speed). So in a spin (to the left) the
left wing has a higher angle of attack, due to adding the downward
motion of the plane and the relative motion of the spin (steal kid's F-4
model, experiment), than the right. It has higher drag and less lift,
and so the plane rolls left and yaws left. You get spin.

To break the spin ususally you must break the yaw, which puts both wings
back into an equal amount of AOA condition. To break the yaw you need to
create a moment. The moment is created typically with rudder, and
sometimes helped by tricks with ailerons. The thrust would not help with
creating a moment.

So what would it do with more thrust? Well, if the nose was pointing
down, it'd make the plane fly "heavier" due to a downward component to
the thrust. That'd give you more spin.

As for the thought of having the thrust fly you away, if you watch how
fast planes spin, versus how fast they accelerate on takeoff with full
blower, you'd see that before it'd have chance to accelerate in one
direction it'd be pointing another, so to speak. Mathematically
speaking, say you wanted the plane to fly away to the east. Integrate
the component of thrust that points east over a half-rotation of spin
(less than a second?) and divide that by the mass of the plane to get a
delta velocity eastward over the half-rotation. Or something like that.
Small number which is immediately cancelled by other half-rotation. A
plane in a spin carves a slightly spiral trajectory. It'd make the
spiral a wee bit bigger. Not enough to matter.

That's my story (based on 200+ inverted spins in a Buckeye...thought
processes cloudy now), and I'm sticking to it.

[Diamond Jim]

"Bob" > wrote in message
oups.com...
............. My theory, and I never tried it, was if all else failed in a
> flat spin, have the back seater eject and maybe the reaction to the
> seat firing would lower the nose a hair. You just never told the RIO
> what your plan was. In Navy planes, he could eject me but I couldn't
> eject him. A serious design fault IMHO. Actually there was a way to
> eject the rear seat from the front but it wasn't widely advertised.
>

Bad form to return to the ship without your backseater. How would you ever
get someone else to fly with you?

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:30:52 GMT, "Diamond Jim" >
wrote:

>
>"Bob" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>............ My theory, and I never tried it, was if all else failed in a
>> flat spin, have the back seater eject and maybe the reaction to the
>> seat firing would lower the nose a hair. You just never told the RIO
>> what your plan was. In Navy planes, he could eject me but I couldn't
>> eject him. A serious design fault IMHO. Actually there was a way to
>> eject the rear seat from the front but it wasn't widely advertised.
>>
>
>Bad form to return to the ship without your backseater. How would you ever
>get someone else to fly with you?
>
Strange policy those Navy guys got! The USAF Phantom was set up so
that the back seater could eject himself only, and if the front seater
initiated ejection it would be a dual sequenced ejection. After around
1970, they installed a "command-selector valve" in the R/C/P that
allowed the backseater to choose single or dual ejection.

Default position was single back seat ejection. Crew coordination
briefing during preflight required briefing the WSO on what the A/C
wanted done with the rotating handle.

My guidance was always to leave the handle alone unless I
specifically, in a very rare situation tell you to rotate it. If the
back-seater lost confidence he was free to leave whenever he wanted,
but I damn sure didn't want to suddenly find myself hanging from a
parachute when I was about to recover the jet.

Corollary was that if I ever found out that he rotated the selector
valve without my instruction I would kill him.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[[email protected]]

Command ejection depended, for me, on who was in the back seat. If he'd
been around, I said select 'command' and if you see anything really
hairy and pull the handle I won't complain. I flew a few missions with
an ex-ADC RIO ( Len Trottier) who had more fighter time than I did. he
was very cool and crafty and skilled. When he racked up a hard landing
(back seat landing at Da Nang) the WingCo damn near had apoplexy. "What
the hell was he doing landing the airplane?" the only thing Len didn't
have was pilot's wings - he could do every thing. BTW for the Navy guy
- if you land a USAF F4 like you did USN ones you just might find the
bird sitting on its belly - the USAF gear isn't stressed for routine
carrier alndings, let along 'energetic' ones. Back in the 60's a navy
exchange pilot forgot and landed a 460 FIS 102 like he would a Navy
bird. result - splayed gear and bird on its belly. Limit touchdown
speed for a 102 at min fuel was about 540 FPM, well below GCA/ILS
normal approach descent rates. . Which reminds me - I saw a Navy F4J (I
think that's the model) get into Da Nang sucking fumes - the touchdown
was with brio and he must have bounced thirty feet in the air. Only
time I ever saw a fighter do that. F4s do look funny with the oleos
fully extended. Most impressive - I guess he 'spotted' the non-moving
deck. That was about the end of 1971, I think. Walt BJ

[John Carrier]

>>Bad form to return to the ship without your backseater. How would you ever
>>get someone else to fly with you?
>>
> Strange policy those Navy guys got! The USAF Phantom was set up so
> that the back seater could eject himself only, and if the front seater
> initiated ejection it would be a dual sequenced ejection. After around
> 1970, they installed a "command-selector valve" in the R/C/P that
> allowed the backseater to choose single or dual ejection.
>
> Default position was single back seat ejection. Crew coordination
> briefing during preflight required briefing the WSO on what the A/C
> wanted done with the rotating handle.
>
> My guidance was always to leave the handle alone unless I
> specifically, in a very rare situation tell you to rotate it. If the
> back-seater lost confidence he was free to leave whenever he wanted,
> but I damn sure didn't want to suddenly find myself hanging from a
> parachute when I was about to recover the jet.
>
> Corollary was that if I ever found out that he rotated the selector
> valve without my instruction I would kill him.

Can't speak for early aircraft, but by the time I transitioned to the F-4,
all Navy jets had a command selector valve. Either the rear seat would go
alone with the pilot commanding both (rear first for obvious reasons), or
either seat could initiate dual ejection. Generally, we flew dual command
to either seat with a qualified RO in the back. Sadly there were a couple
"qualified" RO's I flew with that I'd rather not have entrusted with the
decision. Fortunately, I never had to jettison an aircraft command or no.

R / John

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:34:47 -0600, "John Carrier" >
wrote:

>Can't speak for early aircraft, but by the time I transitioned to the F-4,
>all Navy jets had a command selector valve. Either the rear seat would go
>alone with the pilot commanding both (rear first for obvious reasons), or
>either seat could initiate dual ejection. Generally, we flew dual command
>to either seat with a qualified RO in the back. Sadly there were a couple
>"qualified" RO's I flew with that I'd rather not have entrusted with the
>decision. Fortunately, I never had to jettison an aircraft command or no.
>
>R / John
>

And, I always brought the equipment home for reuse as well.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[[email protected]]

Hey, Ed, I tried, but when both engines quit at 1500 AGL right over the
runway at 300 KIAs - well, I thought about a 4-lane road half a mile
away at about 50 degrees left but then I thought about running into
cars and killing civilians trying to save an eleven year old F4 so -
when it got to glide speed and we still didn't have a light out we
went. Phil Burbages' first recheckout ride after 5 years pounding a
desk, too. Felt bad - it was a good bird until then and I'd been flying
jets since 1954 - this was 1978. Number of landings = number of
takeoffs minus 1. (engines quit because some AMC mech left a wad of
typhoon tape in #2 fuel cell 15 months earlier and it finally wandered
around and plugged the transfer port to #1 fuel cell. The low-level
float and quantity probe are in cell 2 - and it stayed full as #1 went
dry. Just wasn't our day. I did get a tie and a pin from Martin-Baker
but it cost Uncle Sam 2,236,000 bucks . . .Walt BJ

[Cockpit Colin]

I've heard of most ejections being described as "pretty violent" - what was
your experience of it?

Painful per sec, or is it over too damn quick to feel much?

CC

[Cockpit Colin]

Thanks for that. I was thinking mostly about flat / falling leaf spins, but
there are some definate "food for thought" in this regard in what you wrote.


"nafod40" > wrote in message
...
> Cockpit Colin wrote:
> >>One way to think of it (not too scientific) is that adding power just
> >>adds more "juice" to the spin. The power vector rotates around, just
> >>making the plane do whatever it's doing with that much more vigor.
> >
> >
> > I understand what you're trying to say, but I just can't get a handle on
the
> > physics of it ...
>
> OK, stream of consciousness here. Ignore any violations of the law(s of
> physics).
>
> A plane in a spin is yawing and rolling simultaneously. It is also at a
> stalled angle of attack. What happens is that, as the AOA of a wing
> increases, its drag always increases, but at a certain point its lift
> decreases (near and past stall speed). So in a spin (to the left) the
> left wing has a higher angle of attack, due to adding the downward
> motion of the plane and the relative motion of the spin (steal kid's F-4
> model, experiment), than the right. It has higher drag and less lift,
> and so the plane rolls left and yaws left. You get spin.
>
> To break the spin ususally you must break the yaw, which puts both wings
> back into an equal amount of AOA condition. To break the yaw you need to
> create a moment. The moment is created typically with rudder, and
> sometimes helped by tricks with ailerons. The thrust would not help with
> creating a moment.
>
> So what would it do with more thrust? Well, if the nose was pointing
> down, it'd make the plane fly "heavier" due to a downward component to
> the thrust. That'd give you more spin.
>
> As for the thought of having the thrust fly you away, if you watch how
> fast planes spin, versus how fast they accelerate on takeoff with full
> blower, you'd see that before it'd have chance to accelerate in one
> direction it'd be pointing another, so to speak. Mathematically
> speaking, say you wanted the plane to fly away to the east. Integrate
> the component of thrust that points east over a half-rotation of spin
> (less than a second?) and divide that by the mass of the plane to get a
> delta velocity eastward over the half-rotation. Or something like that.
> Small number which is immediately cancelled by other half-rotation. A
> plane in a spin carves a slightly spiral trajectory. It'd make the
> spiral a wee bit bigger. Not enough to matter.
>
> That's my story (based on 200+ inverted spins in a Buckeye...thought
> processes cloudy now), and I'm sticking to it.
>

[[email protected]]

I remember (dimly) the TAC crew who ran spin tests in the F4 back
around 1967 and then went around briefing crews. They came down to
Homestead while I was going throught the F4 RTU. They described the
flat spin and how finally they both ejected and neither ejection did
anything to force the nose down enough to break the spin. They also
said if the tail surfaces were about 8 feet further back from the wing
recovery from a flat spin would have been possible. As for ejection
sensations - FWIW a Martin-Baker H7 ejection isn't punishing at all.
the only odd effect I noticed is that the powerful upward push and
acceleration pulls your eyelids. As soon as the telescoping catapult
tubes parted the powder gases dissipated, that hard push stopped and
the lanyard-fired rocket took over. You can see again and you can hear
the rocket hissing away. (Helmet soaks up the real noise) Looking down
you can see the airplane apparently dropping below you - way below you
- and the hole you just came out of. The rocket quits and you're still
going up, maybe 250 feet above the airplane now. Then there's an
audible click as the drogue chute deploys followed by a sudden yank as
it fills and the seat is yanked up to coast butt-first into the
airstream. (we were only at about 215 IAS at 1500 when I initiated the
ejection sequence). One startling thing for me was that apparently
something was awry, perhaps because ISTR I was slightly canted to one
side) and the seat started to spin rapidly around the longitudinal
axis. I remember thinking "If I have to go manual now this will be
difficult . . ." thinking about manual seat separation and ripcord
pulling. The spin was rapid enough to be quite disorienting. But then
the main chute deployed and I was yanked firmly from the seat. It was
all very cool from then on - I landed in blowdown and second growth
following a hurricane about a dozen years before and the landing was so
well cushioned my feet were about a foot above the ground when I
stopped.
Of course the early seats were punishers before a) pilots started
getting back injuries and b) the physiologists and the seat designers
got together and observed some design limitations inherent in homo sap,
like 15 G was too brutal and 8G was okay. One comment - from the time
I pulled the D-ring until the seat fired seemed about five full
seconds. It didn't fire immediately and I started to look down to make
sure I had the handle - dumb thought! but then my mind said "Don't look
down - you'll hurt your back!" so I stayed erect and then the seat
fired. This seemed to take about 5 seconds - according to the Dash One
it's just 0.54 seconds from pull to fire. Shows how adrenalin speeds
up thought in 'combat mode'.
Walt BJ

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 3/29/05 6:17 AM, in article , "John
Carrier" > wrote:

>
> I experienced the low altitude manifestation once and use the incident as an
> illustration of the effects (big time overstress) of transonic pitch up for
> my aero lecture.
>
> R / John
>
>

John,

Even the Hornet does it. I've got a few "811's" (maintenance overstress
code) due to transonic pitch up. .95 to the merge and load on the G's, and
the FCS can't keep up (i.e. reduce the pitch rate fast enough) to keep the
g-meter from exceeding 7.5.

Worst I've ever seen was 8.4--still category 1 overstress only (low
limit--visual inspection only).

--Woody

[Gord Beaman]

wrote:

>I remember (dimly) the TAC crew who ran spin tests in the F4 back
>around 1967 and then went around briefing crews. They came down to
>Homestead while I was going throught the F4 RTU. They described the
>flat spin and how finally they both ejected and neither ejection did
>anything to force the nose down enough to break the spin. They also
>said if the tail surfaces were about 8 feet further back from the wing
>recovery from a flat spin would have been possible. As for ejection
>sensations - FWIW a Martin-Baker H7 ejection isn't punishing at all.
>the only odd effect I noticed is that the powerful upward push and
>acceleration pulls your eyelids. As soon as the telescoping catapult
>tubes parted the powder gases dissipated, that hard push stopped and
>the lanyard-fired rocket took over. You can see again and you can hear
>the rocket hissing away. (Helmet soaks up the real noise) Looking down
>you can see the airplane apparently dropping below you - way below you
>- and the hole you just came out of. The rocket quits and you're still
>going up, maybe 250 feet above the airplane now. Then there's an
>audible click as the drogue chute deploys followed by a sudden yank as
>it fills and the seat is yanked up to coast butt-first into the
>airstream. (we were only at about 215 IAS at 1500 when I initiated the
>ejection sequence). One startling thing for me was that apparently
>something was awry, perhaps because ISTR I was slightly canted to one
>side) and the seat started to spin rapidly around the longitudinal
>axis. I remember thinking "If I have to go manual now this will be
>difficult . . ." thinking about manual seat separation and ripcord
>pulling. The spin was rapid enough to be quite disorienting. But then
>the main chute deployed and I was yanked firmly from the seat. It was
>all very cool from then on - I landed in blowdown and second growth
>following a hurricane about a dozen years before and the landing was so
>well cushioned my feet were about a foot above the ground when I
>stopped.
>Of course the early seats were punishers before a) pilots started
>getting back injuries and b) the physiologists and the seat designers
>got together and observed some design limitations inherent in homo sap,
>like 15 G was too brutal and 8G was okay. One comment - from the time
>I pulled the D-ring until the seat fired seemed about five full
>seconds. It didn't fire immediately and I started to look down to make
>sure I had the handle - dumb thought! but then my mind said "Don't look
>down - you'll hurt your back!" so I stayed erect and then the seat
>fired. This seemed to take about 5 seconds - according to the Dash One
>it's just 0.54 seconds from pull to fire. Shows how adrenalin speeds
>up thought in 'combat mode'.
>Walt BJ

Damn!...very interesting...we need many more of these, told just
that way...a description that can be believed...you really should
write a book Walt, you have a knack of describing an event that
paints a vivid picture (and what's even better is totally
believable)
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[John Carrier]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 3/29/05 6:17 AM, in article , "John
> Carrier" > wrote:
>
>>
>> I experienced the low altitude manifestation once and use the incident as
>> an
>> illustration of the effects (big time overstress) of transonic pitch up
>> for
>> my aero lecture.
>>
>> R / John
>>
>>
>
> John,
>
> Even the Hornet does it. I've got a few "811's" (maintenance overstress
> code) due to transonic pitch up. .95 to the merge and load on the G's,
> and
> the FCS can't keep up (i.e. reduce the pitch rate fast enough) to keep the
> g-meter from exceeding 7.5.
>
> Worst I've ever seen was 8.4--still category 1 overstress only (low
> limit--visual inspection only).

Most A/C do it to some degree (even the lowly T-45 ... 1.04 on a good day,
downhill). Some are worse than others. The F-8 wasn't much of a problem.
At low altitude, the F-4 didn't give a hint and could be. Never ran into it
in the Turkey, but there were so many moving parts ....

R / John

[Cockpit Colin]

> Damn!...very interesting...we need many more of these, told just
> that way...a description that can be believed...you really should
> write a book Walt, you have a knack of describing an event that
> paints a vivid picture (and what's even better is totally
> believable)

Thanks Walt - and sign me up for my copy!

[Cockpit Colin]

BTW - there is a good collection of ejection experiences at
www.ejectionsite.com


> Damn!...very interesting...we need many more of these, told just
> that way...a description that can be believed...you really should
> write a book Walt, you have a knack of describing an event that
> paints a vivid picture (and what's even better is totally
> believable)
> --
>
> -Gord.
> (use gordon in email)

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Bob wrote:
> OK, you are strong. Stick force to get 9 Gs at 600 kts at 1000 ft was
> over 50 pounds. Not many good reasons to be doing that in ACM since
> the vertical was best for the F-4. The F-4 had a rare but
> unrecoverable flat spin mode. In this mode we tried everything
> including special anti-spin chutes and still never recovered one. Most
> of these flat spins were entered from very nose high, slow speed high
> yaw maneuvers, like trying to kick the nose down from a very high yo
> with the rudders. Drag chutes, even anti-spin chutes just streamed
> above you. very gentle spin rate and low altitude loss per turn but
> just plain unrecoverable. We lost at least four F-4s at Pax learning
> about this mode. MacD denied it even existed.
>

How about 8.5 g(the max for a clean F-4J) and corner, about 450 kts.

As for 'not many reasons', well ask Rookie Rab that when he saw Mig-17
tracers goin' over his canopy...

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

John Carrier wrote:

>
>
> Perhaps the best way to communicate "go for it" is "Fly the ball." A little
> nose up could scoop up an early wire, but of course a little too much could
> ding a tail pipe and maybe even permanently damage the nozzle. By
> comparison, the F-14 could REALLY troll for a wire. More than a few bolters
> were saved by a bit of attitude in the wires ... certainly a varsity
> correction.
>

I got way to used to 'nose up, add a little power, down DLC' over the ramp.

Never had a day time bolter, got a lot of early wires tho..
> .
>
>>Back to the Phantom and using two hands for max G's. Figure of speech,
>>please forgive. Yes you could usually get max G with one hand.
>>Getting 9 G's (max) below ten grand at 600 kts took me both hands. But
>>I was a weak-assed pilot who was used to pulling an F-8 around with
>>half the effort. Agree, a savvy F-4 pilot could whip an F-8 everywhere
>>but prior to 1968 the number of ACM savvy F-4 pilots was low. Later
>>F-8's, like the F8J, were dogs and the F-4 guys routinely beat up on
>>them.
>
>
> The J wasn't too bad with the P-420 engine (19,500 in A/B). We were never
> "routinely beat up on" in it, though I tapped a couple of the better Phantom
> drivers that WERE beating up on me. The J still couldn't match the D (never
> got to fly it, but it was light, had the lighter nose and the P-20 engine).
> The P-420 H was the hot rod.
>
> R / John
>
>
>>We had a couple of guys who went through an entire cruise (100-120
>>traps) without a bolter in the F-4. I had two of my three F-4 cruises
>>bolterless, not all greenies but bolterless. Wire average probably
>>around two. Different strokes...........
>
>
> ... Not all greenies. I can relate. My first cruise, the air wing average
> was 3.06 (I was an LSO until they found out my parents were married to each
> other). Nowadays, it's around 3.5, almost exactly what CVW-19's top hook
> (one of the best ball flyers I've EVER seen) had for the cruise. Another
> trend is to the 1/2 ball high pass as "centered." There are several
> generations of LSO's now that will grade you as LOBAW for a genuine rails
> pass. A pity.
>
> R / John
>
>

[nafod40]

Bob wrote:
> Getting 9 G's (max) below ten grand at 600 kts took me both hands. But
> I was a weak-assed pilot <snip excuse>

You jet guys are all weak-assed pilots. Ever watch an E-2 in the break?
Snaps those 80' wingspan blades right to 90 degrees, vapes off the tips.
Let me tell you...while that happens out the outside, in the cockpit
you're steer wrestling.

You see, you basically have to unstrap from the seat, grab the yoke
under the right armpit with both hands holding the left horn, like
you're getting ready to toss down a baby heifer. At the numbers, you
bend forward at the waist and shift your grip to push up on the right
while pulling down on the left, which might require you to stick your
left boot against the side bubble to get decent leverage. Once you've
rolled, put the right boot on the instrument panel (don't bust any of
the steam guages) and haul back. If you can free up a hand, grab the
ditching handle and give your Null-P copilot a smack on the head to
remind him to throw in a bootful of rudder into the turn, else you end
up flying the ball sideways.

Now that's a break.

[Jeb Hoge]

LOL...this might be the best description ever.

[Sergio]

Ed Rasimus a formulé ce mardi :

> Strange policy those Navy guys got! The USAF Phantom was set up so
> that the back seater could eject himself only, and if the front seater
> initiated ejection it would be a dual sequenced ejection.

IIRC, it saved the life of a colonel (or major ?) that flew RIO of a
general over Thailand. I seem to remember that this F-4 was hit by AAA
over North Vietnam and tried to return to a Thai AF base. An air force
general was driving the bird and died just afert the RIO's ejection.
Can't figure out where I read that thing...

--
Sergio
(pour m'écrire, remplacer @aviation par @gmail)