Tail slat question

[Jim Doyle]

Hello all,

Just a quick question - do any aircraft have slats installed on the leading
edge of the horizontal tailplane?

Rather like slats would be used on the main wing section but - instead of
providing helpful lift - they're just to counter a very large pitching
moment on approach when wing-mounted high lift devices are deployed.

Thank you in advance!

Jim D

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:16:48 -0000, "Jim Doyle"
> wrote:

>Hello all,
>
>Just a quick question - do any aircraft have slats installed on the leading
>edge of the horizontal tailplane?
>
>Rather like slats would be used on the main wing section but - instead of
>providing helpful lift - they're just to counter a very large pitching
>moment on approach when wing-mounted high lift devices are deployed.
>

Can't comment on slats, which implys to me moveable. But, the F-4E at
slots on the horizontal tailplane--fixed sections about two inches
extended from the leading edge of the tailplane sections and running
the entire length.

The slotted slab was one of the mods necessary to compensate for the
longer nose and forward weight addition of the gun. A #7 fuel cell was
added in the tail cone to increase extreme aft weight and the fixed
slots were added to the tail plane to provide increased aerodynamic
downforce to counter the nose gun.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ron]

>
>Can't comment on slats, which implys to me moveable. But, the F-4E at
>slots on the horizontal tailplane--fixed sections about two inches
>extended from the leading edge of the tailplane sections and running
>the entire length.
>
>The slotted slab was one of the mods necessary to compensate for the
>longer nose and forward weight addition of the gun. A #7 fuel cell was
>added in the tail cone to increase extreme aft weight and the fixed
>slots were added to the tail plane to provide increased aerodynamic
>downforce to counter the nose gun.
>
>
>
>Ed Rasimus

One of my friends who flew slatted/non slatted wing F-4s and also F-15As at
Holloman, told me at medium altitudes, he thought a non slatted F-4 was
actually a little bit faster than an F-15A.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[Ed Rasimus]

On 12 Feb 2004 22:04:13 GMT, (Ron) wrote:

>One of my friends who flew slatted/non slatted wing F-4s and also F-15As at
>Holloman, told me at medium altitudes, he thought a non slatted F-4 was
>actually a little bit faster than an F-15A.
>
>
>Ron
>Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

That would be a hard call, but I doubt it. Certainly top speed for an
LES version of the F-4E would be lower than a non-slat (and range
would be lower because of the foamed tanks after LES conversion.)

But, I'd bet that with the cleaner airframe overall, the Eagle would
have the edge as well as the bigger engines. Certainly sustainability
of airspeed during manuever would be no-contest in favor of the F-15.

Might be a question of what he meant by "faster"--higher cruise speed?
higher top end? sub-sonic or super? clean or typical load? missiles or
not? etc. etc.

Now, an RF-4....


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 12 Feb 2004 22:04:13 GMT, (Ron) wrote:
>
> >One of my friends who flew slatted/non slatted wing F-4s and also F-15As
at
> >Holloman, told me at medium altitudes, he thought a non slatted F-4 was
> >actually a little bit faster than an F-15A.
> >
> >
> >Ron
> >Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
>
> That would be a hard call, but I doubt it. Certainly top speed for an
> LES version of the F-4E would be lower than a non-slat (and range
> would be lower because of the foamed tanks after LES conversion.)
>
> But, I'd bet that with the cleaner airframe overall, the Eagle would
> have the edge as well as the bigger engines. Certainly sustainability
> of airspeed during manuever would be no-contest in favor of the F-15.
>
> Might be a question of what he meant by "faster"--higher cruise speed?
> higher top end? sub-sonic or super? clean or typical load? missiles or
> not? etc. etc.
>
> Now, an RF-4....

Weasel, super sonic 100 feet off the ground.

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:16:48 -0000, "Jim Doyle"
> > wrote:
>
> >Hello all,
> >
> >Just a quick question - do any aircraft have slats installed on the leading
> >edge of the horizontal tailplane?
> >
> >Rather like slats would be used on the main wing section but - instead of
> >providing helpful lift - they're just to counter a very large pitching
> >moment on approach when wing-mounted high lift devices are deployed.
> >
>
> Can't comment on slats, which implys to me moveable. But, the F-4E at
> slots on the horizontal tailplane--fixed sections about two inches
> extended from the leading edge of the tailplane sections and running
> the entire length.
>
> The slotted slab was one of the mods necessary to compensate for the
> longer nose and forward weight addition of the gun. A #7 fuel cell was
> added in the tail cone to increase extreme aft weight and the fixed
> slots were added to the tail plane to provide increased aerodynamic
> downforce to counter the nose gun.

Ed, I tend to doubt the extra forward weight was responsible for the fixed
inverted slot (not slat) on the tail, as the navy's F-4J, with the short nose
and No.7 tank, also had it from the beginning, indeed before the F-4E entered
service. The F-4J also removed the inboard section of the LEFs and had drooped
ailerons, so that may have had something to do with it, but I'm cross-posting
this to r.a.m.n. to see if anyone over there knows why.

Guy

[Les Matheson]

The slotted stabs were only on the slatted (post -556) birds. Most Es, all
Fs,Gs and subsequent models. Hard wing F-4s didn't have slotted stabs.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)


"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:16:48 -0000, "Jim Doyle"
> > wrote:
>
> >Hello all,
> >
> >Just a quick question - do any aircraft have slats installed on the
leading
> >edge of the horizontal tailplane?
> >
> >Rather like slats would be used on the main wing section but - instead of
> >providing helpful lift - they're just to counter a very large pitching
> >moment on approach when wing-mounted high lift devices are deployed.
> >
>
> Can't comment on slats, which implys to me moveable. But, the F-4E at
> slots on the horizontal tailplane--fixed sections about two inches
> extended from the leading edge of the tailplane sections and running
> the entire length.
>
> The slotted slab was one of the mods necessary to compensate for the
> longer nose and forward weight addition of the gun. A #7 fuel cell was
> added in the tail cone to increase extreme aft weight and the fixed
> slots were added to the tail plane to provide increased aerodynamic
> downforce to counter the nose gun.
>
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:22:53 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>>
>> That would be a hard call, but I doubt it. Certainly top speed for an
>> LES version of the F-4E would be lower than a non-slat (and range
>> would be lower because of the foamed tanks after LES conversion.)
>>
>> But, I'd bet that with the cleaner airframe overall, the Eagle would
>> have the edge as well as the bigger engines. Certainly sustainability
>> of airspeed during manuever would be no-contest in favor of the F-15.
>>
>> Might be a question of what he meant by "faster"--higher cruise speed?
>> higher top end? sub-sonic or super? clean or typical load? missiles or
>> not? etc. etc.
>>
>> Now, an RF-4....
>
>Weasel, super sonic 100 feet off the ground.

Would you mean F-100F Weasel, F-105F Weasel, F-105G Weasel, F-4C
Weasel or F-4G Weasel??? I've flown next to four of those five (in
combat) and will testify that none of them have any particular
advantage for going fast. In fact, the Weasel conversions for all five
aircraft add bumps and blisters for antennae that increase drag.

Yes, an F-105 is fast and I will testify that the airplane is capable
of supersonic flight at extreme low altitude, but I'd opt for
single-seat D model to really go fast and not a wart-encrusted
two-seater.

The F-4G Weasel, of course was LES.


Ed,
Society of Wild Weasels #2488


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:56:53 -0600, "Les Matheson"
> wrote:

>The slotted stabs were only on the slatted (post -556) birds. Most Es, all
>Fs,Gs and subsequent models. Hard wing F-4s didn't have slotted stabs.

Better go out and dig up the old dash-1s, Les. First, TCTO -556 was
the change of the conventional weapons control panel and the
incorporation of the pinkie switch for A/A weapons selection and the
forward push button on the throttle to let the front-seater quickly
take control of the radar to five mile boresight and auto-acq.

The LES mod was TCTO -566. I never got to fly a LES airplane, since
the Korat E's didn't get converted and when I went to Spain, I watched
the last of the 401st hard-wing E's depart and only flew the F-4C
during my tenure there. Let me assure you that the hard-wing E model
had a slotted slab. The C and D model didn't have a slotted slab (and,
of course, they were all hard wings.)


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[[email protected]]

Cessna's 177/RG Cardinal series had slots installed in the stab to keep
the tail from stalling before the wing. The first batch didn't have them
& were installed after the fact which led to later production 177s
having them installed.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:22:53 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> That would be a hard call, but I doubt it. Certainly top speed for an
> >> LES version of the F-4E would be lower than a non-slat (and range
> >> would be lower because of the foamed tanks after LES conversion.)
> >>
> >> But, I'd bet that with the cleaner airframe overall, the Eagle would
> >> have the edge as well as the bigger engines. Certainly sustainability
> >> of airspeed during manuever would be no-contest in favor of the F-15.
> >>
> >> Might be a question of what he meant by "faster"--higher cruise speed?
> >> higher top end? sub-sonic or super? clean or typical load? missiles or
> >> not? etc. etc.
> >>
> >> Now, an RF-4....
> >
> >Weasel, super sonic 100 feet off the ground.
>
> Would you mean F-100F Weasel, F-105F Weasel, F-105G Weasel, F-4C
> Weasel or F-4G Weasel??? I've flown next to four of those five (in
> combat) and will testify that none of them have any particular
> advantage for going fast. In fact, the Weasel conversions for all five
> aircraft add bumps and blisters for antennae that increase drag.
>
> Yes, an F-105 is fast and I will testify that the airplane is capable
> of supersonic flight at extreme low altitude, but I'd opt for
> single-seat D model to really go fast and not a wart-encrusted
> two-seater.
>
> The F-4G Weasel, of course was LES.

I mean an F-15 in ground effect that fast would be a bad thing.

[Mike Marron]

>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote:

>>Would you mean F-100F Weasel, F-105F Weasel, F-105G Weasel, F-4C
>>Weasel or F-4G Weasel??? I've flown next to four of those five (in
>>combat) and will testify that none of them have any particular
>>advantage for going fast. In fact, the Weasel conversions for all five
>>aircraft add bumps and blisters for antennae that increase drag.

>>Yes, an F-105 is fast and I will testify that the airplane is capable
>>of supersonic flight at extreme low altitude, but I'd opt for
>>single-seat D model to really go fast and not a wart-encrusted
>>two-seater.

>>The F-4G Weasel, of course was LES.

>I mean an F-15 in ground effect that fast would be a bad thing.

First, what you just wrote has nothing to do with what Ed just said.
Second, doubtful an F-15 loaded for bear ever flies in ground effect
except for a few brief seconds during takeoff and landing (operational
Eagle drivers out there can jump in here and correct me if I'm wrong).
Finally, ANYTHING moving at the speed of heat at less than 1/2
its wingspan above the surface is a "bad thing." So WHAT, pray tell
Tarver, are you babbling on about now???

[Grantland]

Mike Marron > wrote:

>>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>its wingspan above the surface is a "bad thing." So WHAT, pray tell
>Tarver, are you babbling on about now???
>
Talking to yourself again, ****bag? What a loser!

Grantland

[Mike Marron]

(Grantland) wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:
>>>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>>>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote:

>>>>Would you mean F-100F Weasel, F-105F Weasel, F-105G Weasel, F-4C
>>>>Weasel or F-4G Weasel??? I've flown next to four of those five (in
>>>>combat) and will testify that none of them have any particular
>>>>advantage for going fast. In fact, the Weasel conversions for all five
>>>>aircraft add bumps and blisters for antennae that increase drag.

>>>>Yes, an F-105 is fast and I will testify that the airplane is capable
>>>>of supersonic flight at extreme low altitude, but I'd opt for
>>>>single-seat D model to really go fast and not a wart-encrusted
>>>>two-seater.

>>>>The F-4G Weasel, of course was LES.

>>>I mean an F-15 in ground effect that fast would be a bad thing.

>>First, what you just wrote has nothing to do with what Ed just said.
>>Second, doubtful an F-15 loaded for bear ever flies in ground effect
>>except for a few brief seconds during takeoff and landing (operational
>>Eagle drivers out there can jump in here and correct me if I'm wrong).
>>Finally, ANYTHING moving at the speed of heat at less than 1/2
>>its wingspan above the surface is a "bad thing." So WHAT, pray tell
>>Tarver, are you babbling on about now???

>Talking to yourself again, ****bag? What a loser!

Obviously, neither you or Tarver have the first clue when it comes to
anything remotely related to flying an airplane so I won't waste
my time explaining what I'm talking about. But the more I read your
trashmouthed drivel, the more your insane rhetoric reminds me of an
enraged Hitler spewing hate at a Nazi party rally. I can almost hear
the spittle hitting your keyboard as your lips move along with the
cursor! Get some help for that anger problem. Seriously! You
desperately need it.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote:
>
> >>Would you mean F-100F Weasel, F-105F Weasel, F-105G Weasel, F-4C
> >>Weasel or F-4G Weasel??? I've flown next to four of those five (in
> >>combat) and will testify that none of them have any particular
> >>advantage for going fast. In fact, the Weasel conversions for all five
> >>aircraft add bumps and blisters for antennae that increase drag.
>
> >>Yes, an F-105 is fast and I will testify that the airplane is capable
> >>of supersonic flight at extreme low altitude, but I'd opt for
> >>single-seat D model to really go fast and not a wart-encrusted
> >>two-seater.
>
> >>The F-4G Weasel, of course was LES.
>
> >I mean an F-15 in ground effect that fast would be a bad thing.
>
> First, what you just wrote has nothing to do with what Ed just said.

In that case, why is Ed's response to me?

[Mike Marron]

>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:
>>>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote:

>>>Would you mean F-100F Weasel, F-105F Weasel, F-105G Weasel, F-4C
>>>Weasel or F-4G Weasel??? I've flown next to four of those five (in
>>>combat) and will testify that none of them have any particular
>>>advantage for going fast. In fact, the Weasel conversions for all five
>>>aircraft add bumps and blisters for antennae that increase drag.

>>>Yes, an F-105 is fast and I will testify that the airplane is capable
>>>of supersonic flight at extreme low altitude, but I'd opt for
>>>single-seat D model to really go fast and not a wart-encrusted
>>>two-seater.

>>>The F-4G Weasel, of course was LES.

>>>I mean an F-15 in ground effect that fast would be a bad thing.

>>First, what you just wrote has nothing to do with what Ed just said.

>In that case, why is Ed's response to me?

Don't look now, but Ed hasn't yet responded to your most recent
nonsense about an "F-15 in ground effect is a bad thing." Now,
lemme say this one more time so please try and follow along and just
forget about Ed for the time being, OK? I'm sure he's probably
wondering what you meant as well and will be jumping in here shortly.

Once again, you said an "F-15 is ground effect going fast would be a
bad thing." Do you even know what "ground effect" is? An F-15, or F-4,
-105 or any fast jet doesn't ingress and egress from the target area
in "ground effect." Sure, they fly low, but not THAT low!

[[email protected]]

"Jim Doyle" > wrote:

>Hello all,
>
>Just a quick question - do any aircraft have slats installed on the leading
>edge of the horizontal tailplane?
>
>Rather like slats would be used on the main wing section but - instead of
>providing helpful lift - they're just to counter a very large pitching
>moment on approach when wing-mounted high lift devices are deployed.
>
>Thank you in advance!
>
>Jim D
>

No Jim, never. By your post you seem (like a lot of people) to
believe that the horizontal stabilizers on the tailplane help to
carry the aircraft's weight.

This is not true.

The tailplane is designed merely to control the wing which does
the whole of the lifting job. The tail actually 'pushes down' in
level flight. This produces 'fore and aft' stability just as wing
dihedral produces horizontal stability.
--

-Gord.

[Les Matheson]

Okay, maybe you are right, but we always referred to the slatted Es as 556
birds. I thought the ex Thunderbirds E I flew had a solid slab. That was
a long time ago, and I was still a student. All my "real" E model time was
in slats.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)


"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:56:53 -0600, "Les Matheson"
> > wrote:
>
> >The slotted stabs were only on the slatted (post -556) birds. Most Es,
all
> >Fs,Gs and subsequent models. Hard wing F-4s didn't have slotted stabs.
>
> Better go out and dig up the old dash-1s, Les. First, TCTO -556 was
> the change of the conventional weapons control panel and the
> incorporation of the pinkie switch for A/A weapons selection and the
> forward push button on the throttle to let the front-seater quickly
> take control of the radar to five mile boresight and auto-acq.
>
> The LES mod was TCTO -566. I never got to fly a LES airplane, since
> the Korat E's didn't get converted and when I went to Spain, I watched
> the last of the 401st hard-wing E's depart and only flew the F-4C
> during my tenure there. Let me assure you that the hard-wing E model
> had a slotted slab. The C and D model didn't have a slotted slab (and,
> of course, they were all hard wings.)
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...

> Obviously, neither you or Tarver have the first clue

Hush kite boy.

You have generated enough of your childish noise for the day.

"Pop" goes the weasel.

[Mike Marron]

>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>Hush kite boy.

>You have generated enough of your childish noise for the day.

>"Pop" goes the weasel.

I see that my work in this thread has been completed. He's all yours,
Ed. Have fun!

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

Les Matheson wrote:
>
> The slotted stabs were only on the slatted (post -556) birds. Most Es, all
> Fs,Gs and subsequent models. Hard wing F-4s didn't have slotted stabs.
> --

It sure wasn't part of the -556 mod (cockpit switches,
major rework of the armament relay panels, new wire
bundles, improved gunsight, and similar) but a whole
bunch of mods were done at the same time as -556.

I don't recall seeing *many* slotted stabs on F-4Es during
the period 1968-72, though there were a few. Originally,
the LE of the stab was without the fixed, mini-slats up front.
IIRC, the slotted stab mod had its own TCTO - but I have no
idea of the number. Finding it would provide a list of the
applicable tail numbers which hadn't already had it accomplished
on the TCTO issue date.

If I had to guess, it was around the time of the flash-
suppressor extension to the gun fairing, or shortly
thereafter... making it about mid-1971 or later.

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

Les Matheson wrote:
>
> Okay, maybe you are right, but we always referred to the slatted Es as 556
> birds. I thought the ex Thunderbirds E I flew had a solid slab.

For sure. The old ex-T-bird F-4s were monstrosities of
missing and mis-matched equipment, exempt from many TCTO
upgrades.

And us maintenance pukes called slatted Es as "-556 birds",
too; it was a clearly visible "dividing line" between two
much-different sets of equipment and weapons system operation.

[Nele VII]

What the heck the inverted slat is doing on F-4J then, Ed? It has no gun!

--

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
Gord Beaman wrote in message >...
>"Jim Doyle" > wrote:
>
>>Hello all,
>>
>>Just a quick question - do any aircraft have slats installed on the
leading
>>edge of the horizontal tailplane?
>>
>>Rather like slats would be used on the main wing section but - instead of
>>providing helpful lift - they're just to counter a very large pitching
>>moment on approach when wing-mounted high lift devices are deployed.
>>
>>Thank you in advance!
>>
>>Jim D
>>
>
>No Jim, never. By your post you seem (like a lot of people) to
>believe that the horizontal stabilizers on the tailplane help to
>carry the aircraft's weight.
>
>This is not true.
>
>The tailplane is designed merely to control the wing which does
>the whole of the lifting job. The tail actually 'pushes down' in
>level flight. This produces 'fore and aft' stability just as wing
>dihedral produces horizontal stability.
>--
>
>-Gord.

[John Carrier]

..> The slotted stabs were only on the slatted (post -556) birds. Most Es,
all
> Fs,Gs and subsequent models. Hard wing F-4s didn't have slotted stabs.

All J's and N's did.

R / John

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:33:08 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>> >Weasel, super sonic 100 feet off the ground.
>>

>I mean an F-15 in ground effect that fast would be a bad thing.
>

So, you now think an F-15 is a Weasel? Why would "ground effect" have
anything to do with top speed? Interference with the clean separation
of the shockwave would be detrimental.

Stick with what you know, John.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:25:04 +0100, "Nele VII"
> wrote:

>What the heck the inverted slat is doing on F-4J then, Ed? It has no gun!

BTSOM! Ask a sailor.

Might be to counter a heavier radar, or maybe a balance to the drooped
ailerons or for better control immediately after cat shot. Dunno.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:33:08 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >> >Weasel, super sonic 100 feet off the ground.
> >>
>
> >I mean an F-15 in ground effect that fast would be a bad thing.
> >
>
> So, you now think an F-15 is a Weasel?

Not me.

I never lied about being a weasel and I have always known the lead is bait.

Before your childish editing, we were discussing speed and low and fast the
F-4 has the advantage.

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"



>I never lied about being a weasel

Aha, tarver finally admits he's a weasel.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
>
>
> >I never lied about being a weasel
>
> Aha, tarver finally admits he's a weasel.

The F-15 tried to be a weasel, but the F-16 got the work.

[WaltBJ]

Slots are to raise the lift coefficient (down coefficeint on the
horizontal stab?) at low speeds. Enables raising the nose at lower TO
speeds for more AOA for liftoff at lower speeds. FWIW I never saw an E
without a slotted tail. I first flew LES birds on return to the
cockpit in 76. I was not then and am still not impressed. Can't
remember the exact top speed at 1000 ASl in AB but with 2x275 tanks it
was definitely 50-75 knots slower than our Ds at DaNang - even though
the D was carrying a CL bag, 2 MERs, 2 TERs, 2 x AIM9 and a ECM pod.
Our Ds rang up 745 KIAS at 4000 AGL getting out of Dodge after a
little SAM SEAD, and we were happy to see it. The LES bird could loop
at 300 KIAS from 15,000 in AB - BFD - worthless as a combat maneuver.
You can have all the turn you want - I'll take more speed any day. Ask
the 106 drivers who fought our Dash 19 Zippers about turn vs speed.
Walt BJ

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:07:37 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:33:08 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >Weasel, super sonic 100 feet off the ground.
>> >>
>>
>> >I mean an F-15 in ground effect that fast would be a bad thing.
>> >
>>
>> So, you now think an F-15 is a Weasel?
>
>Not me.

Can you not read your own posts? That is all that I quoted above. We
were discussing high speeds between LES and non-LES Phantoms versus an
F-15. You added the one-liner "Weasel, super sonic (sic) 100 feet off
the ground".

When I suggested that the five aircraft that have performed as "Wild
Weasels" were not particularly fast compared to the standard versions
of the aircraft, you rebutted (non-sequitur) with:

"I mean an F-15 in ground effect that fast would be a bad thing."

Which either means you equate F-15 with "Weasel" or you are trying to
say something you didn't communicate very well. I'm not sure if you
mean "bad thing" as a good thing, either.
>
>I never lied about being a weasel and I have always known the lead is bait.

Of course you never lied about being a Weasel, and I've never said I
was a Weasel either. I've stated repeatedly in this forum that I've
flown combat on the wing of the F-100F, F-105F, F-105G and F-4C
Weasel. I've carried the Shrike, but not the Standard ARM. I've been
honored to have been asked by guys I've flow with to join the Society
of Wild Weasels and proudly hold WW #2488.

The tactics of Hunter/Killer don't employ "bait".

>
>Before your childish editing, we were discussing speed and low and fast the
>F-4 has the advantage.

That reminds me of the old childish riddle, "what is the difference
between an orange."

Speed and low and fast, the F-4 has the advantage over WHAT? Certainly
not an F-105. And not an F-104. And not a F-111. And not a Tornado.
There are a lot of aircraft that go faster, lower. Hell, even the
Buccaneer can do better.

Stick to what you know, John. You have credibility there. If you want
to jump in here, answer in whole sentences. Keep track of what you
say. It has to make sense.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:07:37 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:33:08 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >Weasel, super sonic 100 feet off the ground.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> >I mean an F-15 in ground effect that fast would be a bad thing.
> >> >
> >>
> >> So, you now think an F-15 is a Weasel?
> >
> >Not me.
>
> Can you not read your own posts? That is all that I quoted above. We
> were discussing high speeds between LES and non-LES Phantoms versus an
> F-15. You added the one-liner "Weasel, super sonic (sic) 100 feet off
> the ground".

We were discussing under what conditions an F-4 might be faster than an
F-15. If you had left more of the posts in you would have been able to
remember that, Ed.

<snip of Ed twisting in the wind>

Speed is life, when you are bait.

[Guy Alcala]

WaltBJ wrote:

> Slots are to raise the lift coefficient (down coefficeint on the
> horizontal stab?) at low speeds. Enables raising the nose at lower TO
> speeds for more AOA for liftoff at lower speeds. FWIW I never saw an E
> without a slotted tail. I first flew LES birds on return to the
> cockpit in 76. I was not then and am still not impressed. Can't
> remember the exact top speed at 1000 ASl in AB but with 2x275 tanks it
> was definitely 50-75 knots slower than our Ds at DaNang - even though
> the D was carrying a CL bag, 2 MERs, 2 TERs, 2 x AIM9 and a ECM pod.
> Our Ds rang up 745 KIAS at 4000 AGL getting out of Dodge after a
> little SAM SEAD, and we were happy to see it. The LES bird could loop
> at 300 KIAS from 15,000 in AB - BFD - worthless as a combat maneuver.
> You can have all the turn you want - I'll take more speed any day. Ask
> the 106 drivers who fought our Dash 19 Zippers about turn vs speed.

OTOH, considering the number of hard wing F-4s that were lost to
departures (probably at least 150. The one source I have handy lists
USMC/USN admitted losses to this cause up to August 1971 at 79. USAF
losses were probably higher) and the poor state of high alpha training in
the average USAF pilot from 1967 or so, the slats made a lot of sense as
far as keeping the average pilot from departing due to adverse yaw while
maneuvering with a heavy load. Steve Ritchie's wingman John Markle and
his WSO lost their a/c to this cause while in a fight over NVN on May
20th, 1972 (CSAR got them both out)

Owing to the lack of edge of the envelope training (to keep the safety
stats looking good), pilots often encountered the F-4's departure
characteristics for the first time in combat, and didn't know how to
recognize it until too late. Initially the navy figured that they could
fix the problem with improved crew training, but eventually they went for
the same hardware solution that the USAF had already adopted even though
it was less of a problem for their F-4s, given the different mission
distribution compared to the air force (less A/G, more FAD/AtA).

Ultimately, the departure and flight characteristics of the F-4 (and the
F-8, F-100, F-101 and F-104, among others) led the military to put a great
deal of energy and money into flight control and aerodynamic design to
idiot-proof the next generation of fighter a/c (i.e. F-15/16/18 and to a
lesser extent, F-14), to allow the average pilot carefree handling to near
or on the edge of the envelope, while keeping them out of trouble. The
F-5 was an early nudge in that direction as well. There's no doubt that
a/c like the F-16 with hard FC limits that can't be overridden will
penalize the good sticks on some occasions (I'm reminded of the Top Gun
instructor who used to deliberately depart his F-4, to allow him to make
maneuvers that no one else could match), but the average pilot can use so
much more of the envelope confidently that there's an overall improvement
in capability, and a lower attrition rate. They've also improved the
training, obviously, but training time will always be limited and
expensive.

Guy

[Nele VII]

Why then German F-4Fs does not have them?

--

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
Alan Dicey wrote in message ...
>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:25:04 +0100, "Nele VII"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What the heck the inverted slat is doing on F-4J then, Ed? It has no gun!
>>
>>
>> BTSOM! Ask a sailor.
>>
>> Might be to counter a heavier radar, or maybe a balance to the drooped
>> ailerons or for better control immediately after cat shot. Dunno.
>>
>
>I dimly recall reading that the tailplane inverted slot on the F-4 was
>to increase control effectiveness at low speed, during carrier
>approaches. Googling, I found the following helpful quotes:
>
>http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_11.html
>The second production F-4E (66-0285) flew for the first time on
>September 11, 1967. It differed from 66-0285 by having a slotted
>stabilator. This slotted stabilator was added in order to give greater
>tailplane effectiveness, helping to counteract the increased weight in
>the nose.
>
>http://www.vogue-web.ch/f4/f4_21.html
>Even though the Navy wanted better takeoff and landing performance for
>the Phantom, it nevertheless felt that speed, climb, and range
>requirements ruled out the use of the high-drag slatted wing that was
>used by the Air Force on the F-4E. In the pursuit of better takeoff and
>landing performance, McDonnell decided instead to add a slot to the
>stabilator leading edge, effectively turning it into a miniature
>inverted slatted wing. This slotted stabilator provided a tremendous
>downward force at low speeds, which allowed a large leading edge down
>deflection without stalling. The effectiveness of the slotted stabilator
>was markedly improved by locking the inboard leading flap in the up
>position.
>
>http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_25.html
>The F-4N was fitted with an F-4J-style slotted stabilator which helped
>solve "Mach tuck" problems when decelerating from supersonic speeds and
>which reduced approach speeds during landings. All F-4Ns had their
>inboard leading-edge flaps locked shut.
>
>So, it seems that the main purpose of the inverted slot is, as I
>thought, to increase the control authority of the all-moving tail at low
>speeds, allowing landing speeds to be reduced. An additional benfit
>seems to have been in the transonic region, again in terms of control
>authority.
>
>Looking at it from first principles, this makes sense: the slot is
>inverted, so it will be affect the downforce-capability of the tail: as
>the tail is all-moving this translates into extended control authority.
> The airflow is persuaded to stay attached to the tail surface at
>lower speeds and/or higher AoA than a non-slotted tail.
>
>Mind you, I am not a pilot, so cannot speak with any authority on the
>subject: just offer the thoughts to add some light to the discussion.
>Hope this helps...
>
>

[Alan Dicey]

Nele VII wrote:

> Why then German F-4Fs does not have them?

All I can do is look for some explanation in my reference books and on
the web. Here's what Joe Baugher says:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_17.html
175 examples of the F-4F were ordered by the West German government. The
F-4F emerged as a lighter and simpler F-4E which was significantly
cheaper and incorporated major components that were manufactured in
Germany. The number 7 fuselage fuel tank was removed and all Sparrow
equipment was eliminated. The AN/APQ-120 radar was simplified, with no
beacon search or constant wave illuminator being provided for Sparrow or
Falcon missile launches. Although no inflight refuelling receptacle was
initially fitted, the internal plumbing needed for midair refuelling was
installed at the factory. An unslotted tailplane was used as an economy
and weight-saving measure [...] The design that finally emerged was 3300
pounds lighter than the stock F-4E.

And about other post-E Phantoms: -

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_22.html
(RN F-4K)
A double-extensible nose undercarriage leg was used to enable high angle
of attack carrier launches to be made. The gear could be extended in
length by as much as 40 inches. This arrangement was first tested on a
Navy F-4B during trials aboard the USS Forrestal. In the interest of
achieving slower carrier landing approach speeds, larger wing leading
edge flaps were fitted and boundary layer control was applied. The
amount of anhedral on the stabilator was reduced, and slats were
provided on the stabilator leading edge.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_23.html
(RAF F-4M)
The RAF version lacked the slotted stabilators, the double-extensible
nose leg, and the aileron droop of the naval variant. The F-4M was
fitted with anti-skid brakes for safer operations on wet or short
runways. Like the F-4K, the F-4M was not equipped with an internal
cannon.

Does this help?

[Tosser]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...



> This is not true.

Maybe for slats it is ... but not for slots.

> The tailplane is designed merely to control the wing which does
> the whole of the lifting job. The tail actually 'pushes down' in
> level flight. This produces 'fore and aft' stability just as wing
> dihedral produces horizontal stability.

Like the man said, Gord, the Cessna 177 Cardinal had slots on the leading edge
of the horizontal stabiliser.

They were *inverted*, to keep that tail pushing down at low speeds.

<GRIN>