USAF Phantoms on deck?

[John[_9_]]

Did USAF Phantoms ever land and take off from a carrier deck? I
believe that at least the USAF F4-C was at least initially was nearly
identical to the Navy F4-B. Was the F4-D and F4-E capable of taking
off and landing from a carrier deck? Was it ever done?

If the F4-D/E was not capable of carrier operations why? Was it from
systems not being able to take the stress or was it structural?

John Dupre'

[Don McIntyre]

On May 2, 7:29 am, John > wrote:
> Did USAF Phantoms ever land and take off from a carrier deck? I
> believe that at least the USAF F4-C was at least initially was nearly
> identical to the Navy F4-B. Was the F4-D and F4-E capable of taking
> off and landing from a carrier deck? Was it ever done?
>
> If the F4-D/E was not capable of carrier operations why? Was it from
> systems not being able to take the stress or was it structural?
>
> John Dupre'

AFAIK the quick answer is "no." I'm not sure that there was any
structural/systems reason behind it, I guess there was just never a
need. Again, AFAIK, there wasn't any MAJOR structural differences
between the USN and USAF versions that would have made them unable to
do carrier landings, they used the same Landing Gear and even the same
tailhook on both.
I would think the longer nose of the E-model would have made carrier
landings even more exciting…

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Fri, 2 May 2008 07:06:01 -0700 (PDT), Don McIntyre
> wrote:

>On May 2, 7:29 am, John > wrote:
>> Did USAF Phantoms ever land and take off from a carrier deck? I
>> believe that at least the USAF F4-C was at least initially was nearly
>> identical to the Navy F4-B. Was the F4-D and F4-E capable of taking
>> off and landing from a carrier deck? Was it ever done?
>>
>> If the F4-D/E was not capable of carrier operations why? Was it from
>> systems not being able to take the stress or was it structural?
>>
>> John Dupre'
>
>AFAIK the quick answer is "no." I'm not sure that there was any
>structural/systems reason behind it, I guess there was just never a
>need. Again, AFAIK, there wasn't any MAJOR structural differences
>between the USN and USAF versions that would have made them unable to
>do carrier landings, they used the same Landing Gear and even the same
>tailhook on both.
> I would think the longer nose of the E-model would have made carrier
>landings even more exciting…

I'll ditto that. AFAIK, no USAF Phantom landed or catted on a carrier.
The C/D/E all had a trap capable tail hook and the same landing gear,
but they didn't have the extensible nose gear to establish attitude
for the cat shot and they didn't have the bridle fittings for the cat
hook-up.

I don't think that the E-model was any more difficult to see over the
nose than the pug-nosed versions.

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

[[email protected][_2_]]

On May 2, 10:31*am, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2008 07:06:01 -0700 (PDT), Don McIntyre
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On May 2, 7:29 am, John > wrote:
> >> Did USAF Phantoms ever land and take off from a carrier deck? *I
> >> believe that at least the USAF F4-C was at least initially was nearly
> >> identical to the Navy F4-B. *Was the F4-D and F4-E capable of taking
> >> off and landing from a carrier deck? *Was it ever done?
>
> >> If the F4-D/E was not capable of carrier operations why? *Was it from
> >> systems not being able to take the stress or was it structural?
>
> >> John Dupre'
>
> >AFAIK the quick answer is "no." I'm not sure that there was any
> >structural/systems reason behind it, I guess there was just never a
> >need. Again, AFAIK, there wasn't any MAJOR structural differences
> >between the USN and USAF versions that would have made them unable to
> >do carrier landings, they used the same Landing Gear and even the same
> >tailhook on both.
> > *I would think the longer nose of the E-model would have made carrier
> >landings even more exciting…
>
> I'll ditto that. AFAIK, no USAF Phantom landed or catted on a carrier.
> The C/D/E all had a trap capable tail hook and the same landing gear,
> but they didn't have the extensible nose gear to establish attitude
> for the cat shot and they didn't have the bridle fittings for the cat
> hook-up.
>
> I don't think that the E-model was any more difficult to see over the
> nose than the pug-nosed versions.
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"www.thunderchief.orgwww.thundertales.blogspot.com-

Didn't the USN models have their electronics better protected from
salt water?

[Max Richter]

Hello,
i have read that the tyres at least where different and optimized for
the softer landing on land.
The carrierversions had small but highpressure tyres and the
landversions had bigger ballontype wheels with lower pressure.

Greetings
Max

John schrieb:

>Did USAF Phantoms ever land and take off from a carrier deck? I
>believe that at least the USAF F4-C was at least initially was nearly
>identical to the Navy F4-B. Was the F4-D and F4-E capable of taking
>off and landing from a carrier deck? Was it ever done?
>
>If the F4-D/E was not capable of carrier operations why? Was it from
>systems not being able to take the stress or was it structural?
>
>John Dupre'
>
>

[Mike Kanze]

In addition to others' comments, there might also have been engine settings in USAF F-4s incompatible with JP-5 fuel used aboard carriers.

Some USN birds (IIRC, the T-2A, with its single J-37 engine) required either different mechanical or switch settings when changing from shore-supplied JP-4 to shipboard JP-5, or back again.

--
Mike Kanze

"The Internet is like one of those garbage dumps outside of Bombay. There are people, most unfortunately, crawling all over it, and maybe they find a bit of aluminum, or perhaps something they can sell. But mainly it's garbage."

- Joseph Weizenbaum (1923 - 2008), MIT computer science professor and inventor of ELIZA

"John" > wrote in message ...

Did USAF Phantoms ever land and take off from a carrier deck? I
believe that at least the USAF F4-C was at least initially was nearly
identical to the Navy F4-B. Was the F4-D and F4-E capable of taking
off and landing from a carrier deck? Was it ever done?

If the F4-D/E was not capable of carrier operations why? Was it from
systems not being able to take the stress or was it structural?

John Dupre'

[John Carrier]

After the C, did USAF had bridle attach points? Were the landing gear identical in spec (IIRC, they were less robust on the E)? I think it's likely that the E had structure optimized for its mission and may no longer have been carrier suitable. USN J/S had fat tires too.

OBTW, the T-2A (Had the misfortune to fly iy in basic jet all the way through forms) had a J-34. Idle to Military in 17 seconds. YTou could smoke a cigarette in that amount of time. By comparison, I can remember a mishap board suggesting an F-4 ramp strike had as a contributing factor the "slower spool-up time" of the J79-10B (smokeless) versus the straight Dash-10. In my opinion, a J-79 had essentially instantaneous throttle response. But what do I know?

R / John
"Mike Kanze" > wrote in message . ..
In addition to others' comments, there might also have been engine settings in USAF F-4s incompatible with JP-5 fuel used aboard carriers.

Some USN birds (IIRC, the T-2A, with its single J-37 engine) required either different mechanical or switch settings when changing from shore-supplied JP-4 to shipboard JP-5, or back again.

--
Mike Kanze

"The Internet is like one of those garbage dumps outside of Bombay. There are people, most unfortunately, crawling all over it, and maybe they find a bit of aluminum, or perhaps something they can sell. But mainly it's garbage."

- Joseph Weizenbaum (1923 - 2008), MIT computer science professor and inventor of ELIZA

"John" > wrote in message ...

Did USAF Phantoms ever land and take off from a carrier deck? I
believe that at least the USAF F4-C was at least initially was nearly
identical to the Navy F4-B. Was the F4-D and F4-E capable of taking
off and landing from a carrier deck? Was it ever done?

If the F4-D/E was not capable of carrier operations why? Was it from
systems not being able to take the stress or was it structural?

John Dupre'

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Fri, 2 May 2008 15:59:27 -0500, "John Carrier" >
wrote:

>After the C, did USAF had bridle attach points? Were the landing gear identical in spec (IIRC, they were less robust on the E)? I think it's likely that the E had structure optimized for its mission and may no longer have been carrier suitable. USN J/S had fat tires too.
>
>OBTW, the T-2A (Had the misfortune to fly iy in basic jet all the way through forms) had a J-34. Idle to Military in 17 seconds. YTou could smoke a cigarette in that amount of time. By comparison, I can remember a mishap board suggesting an F-4 ramp strike had as a contributing factor the "slower spool-up time" of the J79-10B (smokeless) versus the straight Dash-10. In my opinion, a J-79 had essentially instantaneous throttle response. But what do I know?
>
>R / John

No bridle attachment points on C, D or E. As I recall (and I
occasionally...or maybe often...recall incorrectly), the E had fat
tires and the tell-tale wing bulge to house them. And, as far as I
know the C model had pretty much the same landing gear as the B.

I got to go for a ride in a J off of Forrestal in the Med and remember
being more impressed by the cat shot than the trap.

Sounds as though the T-2A had a similar situation to the T-37 with
it's J-69s--slow spool-up. But, of course like all AF aircraft the
Tweet was generously over-powered...

And, just like you, I share the opinion that the J-79, with or without
smoke, was virtually "power-on-demand". And gobs of it.

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

[Mike Kanze]

>OBTW, the T-2A (Had the misfortune to fly iy in basic jet all the way through forms) had a J-34. Idle to Military in 17 seconds. YTou could smoke a cigarette in that amount of time.

Before entering A-6 type training, I was stashed in VT-7 in the final days of the T-2A's existence there. On a hot summer day (plenty of those at NAS Meridian, MS) if the single engine in the A didn't spool up to its 3400 equivalent mousefart in 16 seconds, SOP was to turn around and taxi back to the ramp. Otherwise you'd go nowhere but into the swamp that surrounded three of the four sides of NMM.

By contrast, the T-2B & C were "two-holers," with the C (which replaced the A at VT-7) having a pair of J-85 GE4s. The T-2C was a great little bird that one could also battery-start if needed on a cross-country.

I never flew in the T-2B so can't comment on it.

--
Mike Kanze

"The Internet is like one of those garbage dumps outside of Bombay. There are people, most unfortunately, crawling all over it, and maybe they find a bit of aluminum, or perhaps something they can sell. But mainly it's garbage."

- Joseph Weizenbaum (1923 - 2008), MIT computer science professor and inventor of ELIZA

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message ...
On Fri, 2 May 2008 15:59:27 -0500, "John Carrier" >
wrote:

>After the C, did USAF had bridle attach points? Were the landing gear identical in spec (IIRC, they were less robust on the E)? I think it's likely that the E had structure optimized for its mission and may no longer have been carrier suitable. USN J/S had fat tires too.
>
>OBTW, the T-2A (Had the misfortune to fly iy in basic jet all the way through forms) had a J-34. Idle to Military in 17 seconds. YTou could smoke a cigarette in that amount of time. By comparison, I can remember a mishap board suggesting an F-4 ramp strike had as a contributing factor the "slower spool-up time" of the J79-10B (smokeless) versus the straight Dash-10. In my opinion, a J-79 had essentially instantaneous throttle response. But what do I know?
>
>R / John

No bridle attachment points on C, D or E. As I recall (and I
occasionally...or maybe often...recall incorrectly), the E had fat
tires and the tell-tale wing bulge to house them. And, as far as I
know the C model had pretty much the same landing gear as the B.

I got to go for a ride in a J off of Forrestal in the Med and remember
being more impressed by the cat shot than the trap.

Sounds as though the T-2A had a similar situation to the T-37 with
it's J-69s--slow spool-up. But, of course like all AF aircraft the
Tweet was generously over-powered...

And, just like you, I share the opinion that the J-79, with or without
smoke, was virtually "power-on-demand". And gobs of it.

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

[Dan[_2_]]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2008 15:59:27 -0500, "John Carrier" >
> wrote:
>
>> After the C, did USAF had bridle attach points? Were the landing gear identical in spec (IIRC, they were less robust on the E)? I think it's likely that the E had structure optimized for its mission and may no longer have been carrier suitable. USN J/S had fat tires too.
>>
>> OBTW, the T-2A (Had the misfortune to fly iy in basic jet all the way through forms) had a J-34. Idle to Military in 17 seconds. YTou could smoke a cigarette in that amount of time. By comparison, I can remember a mishap board suggesting an F-4 ramp strike had as a contributing factor the "slower spool-up time" of the J79-10B (smokeless) versus the straight Dash-10. In my opinion, a J-79 had essentially instantaneous throttle response. But what do I know?
>>
>> R / John
>
> No bridle attachment points on C, D or E. As I recall (and I
> occasionally...or maybe often...recall incorrectly), the E had fat
> tires and the tell-tale wing bulge to house them. And, as far as I
> know the C model had pretty much the same landing gear as the B.
>
> I got to go for a ride in a J off of Forrestal in the Med and remember
> being more impressed by the cat shot than the trap.
>
> Sounds as though the T-2A had a similar situation to the T-37 with
> it's J-69s--slow spool-up. But, of course like all AF aircraft the
> Tweet was generously over-powered...
>
> And, just like you, I share the opinion that the J-79, with or without
> smoke, was virtually "power-on-demand". And gobs of it.
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com


I never had the pleasure of cats or traps, I always went by
helicopter and the boats tended to be a tad smaller like the USS
Okinawa. Even so it could be a bumpy ride in rough weather. There were a
couple of times I decided people who only experience land based roller
coasters were missing the real fun.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[John Dallman]

In article
>,
(Don McIntyre) wrote:
> On May 2, 7:29 am, John > wrote:
> > Did USAF Phantoms ever land and take off from a carrier deck?
> AFAIK the quick answer is "no." I'm not sure that there was any
> structural/systems reason behind it, I guess there was just never a
> need.

Presumably USAF pilots - except for the few that had done a rotation to
USN carrier service - would not be trained for carrier work?

--
John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

[John Carrier]

The T-2A was a joy in formation. You couldn't maintain 250 in the breakup and would be in trail FOREVER to get back up to speed. There was an alternative accel check on the runway IIRC, something like 70% to Mil in 10 seconds if you couldn't make the idle-mil specified time. The A also had greater speedbrake extention than the B/C to allow the engine to operate at higher, more responsive, RPM.

The B's had J-60's, somewhat more robust than the C's J-85's at the expense of a slightly slower accel to military. VT-9 had 50/50 split of A's and B's and in the old serial form of jet flight training, you did all the early work at VT-7 in A's and then went to VT-9 for Form, Night Fams, and OCF. 1/2 the studs transitioned to the B to start, half just prior to OCF and their trip to Pensacola for guns and CQ in the T-2C at VT-4.

When new, the T-2B/C was a rocket with outstanding thrust to weight. Climb angles around 20 degrees nose up. The engines were so used up by the time I returned as an IP in 1986, they probably didn't have more than 60% of the original advertised thrust. The T-2 was not as rewarding to fly as the TA-4 advanced jet; but even so, it was an outstanding introduction to jet aviation and was ideal for the basic jet / intermediate strike mission.

R / John
"Mike Kanze" > wrote in message . ..
>OBTW, the T-2A (Had the misfortune to fly iy in basic jet all the way through forms) had a J-34. Idle to Military in 17 seconds. YTou could smoke a cigarette in that amount of time.

Before entering A-6 type training, I was stashed in VT-7 in the final days of the T-2A's existence there. On a hot summer day (plenty of those at NAS Meridian, MS) if the single engine in the A didn't spool up to its 3400 equivalent mousefart in 16 seconds, SOP was to turn around and taxi back to the ramp. Otherwise you'd go nowhere but into the swamp that surrounded three of the four sides of NMM.

By contrast, the T-2B & C were "two-holers," with the C (which replaced the A at VT-7) having a pair of J-85 GE4s. The T-2C was a great little bird that one could also battery-start if needed on a cross-country.

I never flew in the T-2B so can't comment on it.

--
Mike Kanze

"The Internet is like one of those garbage dumps outside of Bombay. There are people, most unfortunately, crawling all over it, and maybe they find a bit of aluminum, or perhaps something they can sell. But mainly it's garbage."

- Joseph Weizenbaum (1923 - 2008), MIT computer science professor and inventor of ELIZA

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message ...
On Fri, 2 May 2008 15:59:27 -0500, "John Carrier" >
wrote:

>After the C, did USAF had bridle attach points? Were the landing gear identical in spec (IIRC, they were less robust on the E)? I think it's likely that the E had structure optimized for its mission and may no longer have been carrier suitable. USN J/S had fat tires too.
>
>OBTW, the T-2A (Had the misfortune to fly iy in basic jet all the way through forms) had a J-34. Idle to Military in 17 seconds. YTou could smoke a cigarette in that amount of time. By comparison, I can remember a mishap board suggesting an F-4 ramp strike had as a contributing factor the "slower spool-up time" of the J79-10B (smokeless) versus the straight Dash-10. In my opinion, a J-79 had essentially instantaneous throttle response. But what do I know?
>
>R / John

No bridle attachment points on C, D or E. As I recall (and I
occasionally...or maybe often...recall incorrectly), the E had fat
tires and the tell-tale wing bulge to house them. And, as far as I
know the C model had pretty much the same landing gear as the B.

I got to go for a ride in a J off of Forrestal in the Med and remember
being more impressed by the cat shot than the trap.

Sounds as though the T-2A had a similar situation to the T-37 with
it's J-69s--slow spool-up. But, of course like all AF aircraft the
Tweet was generously over-powered...

And, just like you, I share the opinion that the J-79, with or without
smoke, was virtually "power-on-demand". And gobs of it.

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

[John Carrier]

SNIP alot

> No bridle attachment points on C, D or E. As I recall (and I
> occasionally...or maybe often...recall incorrectly), the E had fat
> tires and the tell-tale wing bulge to house them. And, as far as I
> know the C model had pretty much the same landing gear as the B.

Didn't know one way or the other about the bridle on the USAF versions.
Thanks.

> I got to go for a ride in a J off of Forrestal in the Med and remember
> being more impressed by the cat shot than the trap.

AKA an "E Ticket" ride

> Sounds as though the T-2A had a similar situation to the T-37 with
> it's J-69s--slow spool-up. But, of course like all AF aircraft the
> Tweet was generously over-powered...

Methinks the F-22 might have "sufficient" thrust. Saw the demo and it was
impressive.

> And, just like you, I share the opinion that the J-79, with or without
> smoke, was virtually "power-on-demand". And gobs of it.

All things being relative. I envied the F-4 guys for their power (while
flying the Crusader) till I found there wasn't really THAT much more.
Biggest problem adapting to the beast was its tendancy to bleed energy, I'd
find that in a particular maneuver I was always be 50 knots shy of where I'd
be in the F-8 and of course there was all the buffet cues: Light buffet,
moderate buffet, heavy buffet, Jimmy Buffet.

R / John

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Sat, 3 May 2008 07:25:08 -0500, "John Carrier" >
wrote:

>All things being relative. I envied the F-4 guys for their power (while
>flying the Crusader) till I found there wasn't really THAT much more.
>Biggest problem adapting to the beast was its tendancy to bleed energy, I'd
>find that in a particular maneuver I was always be 50 knots shy of where I'd
>be in the F-8 and of course there was all the buffet cues: Light buffet,
>moderate buffet, heavy buffet, Jimmy Buffet.
>
>R / John
>

And down in the wardroom, All-You-Can-Eat Buffet.

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

[John Carrier]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 3 May 2008 07:25:08 -0500, "John Carrier" >
> wrote:
>
>>All things being relative. I envied the F-4 guys for their power (while
>>flying the Crusader) till I found there wasn't really THAT much more.
>>Biggest problem adapting to the beast was its tendancy to bleed energy,
>>I'd
>>find that in a particular maneuver I was always be 50 knots shy of where
>>I'd
>>be in the F-8 and of course there was all the buffet cues: Light buffet,
>>moderate buffet, heavy buffet, Jimmy Buffet.
>>
>>R / John
>>
>
> And down in the wardroom, All-You-Can-Eat Buffet.

Sliders and Auto-dog. Who could ask for anything more?!?

R / John

[JR Weiss]

"John Carrier" > wrote...
>
> Sliders and Auto-dog. Who could ask for anything more?!?

Grilled ham, egg, & cheese at Midway Midrats!

[~^ beancounter ~^]

chiefs mess was the place for good grub on
uss ranger.....i got to do my mess duty there and
enjoy the "perks"....nice kp duty...we even had
a few video games then ( 1974-1976)





On May 4, 12:31*pm, "JR Weiss" >
wrote:
> "John Carrier" > wrote...
>
> > Sliders and Auto-dog. *Who could ask for anything more?!?
>
> Grilled ham, egg, & cheese at Midway Midrats!

[MajorOz]

On May 4, 2:02 pm, "rwildes" > wrote:
> Wake Island wasn't any better! Loved flying the old recips across the big
> pond!

....yeah...

36 hrs Travis to Tachi, with two engine changes on the 121 at Midway
(wearing winter uniforms)

cheers

oz, much more comfortable on a C-5

[WaltBJ]

As for the F4C/D/E landing on a carrier - they sure couldn't use the
meatball - my outdated E dash-1 gives the limit sink rate of 720 fpm
at 33000 pounds. 122 KIAS was the basic fence speed on a D before they
axed the BLC. Using that as the minimum coming-aboard speed and 720
fpm gives a glide slope of 3.34 degrees. USN standard is, I believe, 4
1/2 degrees. BTW 122 KIAS is for a clean bird with zero fuel and you
were supposed to add 2 knots for every 1000 pounds above zero fuel.
That of course included your remaining fuel and all the junk hung on
the airplane. The USN tests their birds at around 1400 fpm sink rate
touchdowns before accepting the design for production. I apologize to
the Navy guys if I've got this wrong. AFIK the USAF Phantoms all had
different main landing gears. I know the tires are wider since the
wing above the wheel wells was noticeably bulged. ISTR our D/E tire
pressures were about 100 psi less than the Navy Phantoms' narrower MLG
tires.
As for the BLC-less E model, the lowest practical 'on-speed' (19.2
units AOA) was 145 KIAS @ 32000# right off the graph in the dash-1.
Guess the captain would have to crank up about 30 knots into a stiff
wind to get a USAF Phantom aboard and stopped without dinging
something. The tailhook would certainly take it; I witnessed a 160
knot field engagement with an E carrying 11 Mk 82s once when I was ex
officio 'Mr. Barrier' at Da Nang in 1972.
Walt BJ

[Dan[_2_]]

WaltBJ wrote:
<snip>

The tailhook would certainly take it; I witnessed a 160
> knot field engagement with an E carrying 11 Mk 82s once when I was ex
> officio 'Mr. Barrier' at Da Nang in 1972.
> Walt BJ

The one time I saw an F-4E use its tail hook for real, as opposed to
testing the rope, I was surprised at how far the rope paid out. I think
it was at Zaragosa. I don't know whether the hook would have been strong
enough to stop it on a Navy boat, but it sure looked like the stopping
distance was much longer than anything I have seen in the footage of
Navy landings on boats. I'm not sure there would have been a reason to
redesign that part of the airframe to a different standard than Navy F-4.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jeff Crowell[_1_]]

WaltBJ wrote:
> As for the F4C/D/E landing on a carrier - they sure couldn't use the
> meatball - my outdated E dash-1 gives the limit sink rate of 720 fpm
> at 33000 pounds. 122 KIAS was the basic fence speed on a D before they
> axed the BLC. Using that as the minimum coming-aboard speed and 720
> fpm gives a glide slope of 3.34 degrees. USN standard is, I believe, 4
> 1/2 degrees.

3-1/2 degrees.

> As for the BLC-less E model, the lowest practical 'on-speed' (19.2
> units AOA) was 145 KIAS @ 32000# right off the graph in the dash-1.

I never even sat in a Phantom, dammit, (missed a chance while stashed
at Top Gun to catch as many rides as I wanted with the Reserve
outfit there at Miramar, to this day I can't explain why I didn't grab that
with both hands!), but I recall the F-4 guys talking about 145 or so
being their approach speeds to the boat. All I can say is that from
Vulture's Row them little birdies got bigger awful fast!

USN practice is to carry a hell of a lot more tire pressure at the ship
than they do ashore.


Jeff

[Jeff Crowell[_1_]]

Dan wrote:
> The one time I saw an F-4E use its tail hook for real, as opposed to
> testing the rope, I was surprised at how far the rope paid out. I think it
> was at Zaragosa. I don't know whether the hook would have been strong
> enough to stop it on a Navy boat, but it sure looked like the stopping
> distance was much longer than anything I have seen in the footage of Navy
> landings on boats. I'm not sure there would have been a reason to redesign
> that part of the airframe to a different standard than Navy F-4.

Field arrestments are much longer than those aboard. Why go to
the trouble and expense of designing an arresting engine which stops
the aircraft in 400 feet when you have thousands available?

Anyway, field engagements could occur at significantly higher weights
and speeds, particularly for long field engagements and rejected
takeoffs--it can be the same gear, some versions are bi-directional.
Better to take up as much room as you can.


Jeff

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Tue, 06 May 2008 22:26:22 -0800, Bob > wrote:

>Around 41 years ago at Ubon debriefing, F-4C, I think a cable
>engagement was one of the monthly blocks to fill in? Comes to mind
>because the crews talked about how rough it was sometimes.
>I take it the run out though would have been more on land than on a
>carrier?

There was no periodic currency requirement for approach end barrier
engagements. It was the recommended emergency procedure for many
situtations in the F-4 and not particularly difficult compared to a
carrier landing because you could spot the landing anywhere in the
normal touchdown area prior to the cable which was usually around 2500
feet into the runway. Runout was about three to four times what a
carrier arrestment runs.

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

[JR Weiss]

"Bob" > wrote...
>
> Around 41 years ago at Ubon debriefing, F-4C, I think a cable
> engagement was one of the monthly blocks to fill in? Comes to mind
> because the crews talked about how rough it was sometimes.
> I take it the run out though would have been more on land than on a
> carrier?

Indeed! The runout on a BAK-12 or similar is 1000-1500', while a carrier gear
runout is on the order of 300'.

[WaltBJ]

On May 7, 5:28 am, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
SNIP:
Runout was about three to four times what a
> carrier arrestment runs.
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"www.thunderchief.orgwww.thundertales.blogspot.com
SNIP:
FWIW the 'stoppers' on the BAK12 were B52 wheel brakes with a sort of
governer to control brake application so the run-out normally stayed
within about 900-1200 feet. I saw an A3D abort at Danang (1971) and
pull out all the tape - even bent its tail hook. The pilot aborted
kind of late on takeoff when it became clear the bird wasn't going to
get airborne in the remainder of the 11000 foot runway. Good thing the
BAK12 stopped them or they would have been in the sewage lagoon for
dinghy drill . . .
Walt BJ