Ed Rasimus wrote:

On 9 Mar 2005 08:33:25 -0800, "Bob" wrote:

The Navy did not use wing tanks on their F-4's. The normal external
tank configuration was the single centerline tank. The reason was that
wing tanks made the already cumbersome F-4 even harder to turn. Roll
rate was reduced and nose high maneuvers were harder.

The Navy bought a different centerline tank than USAF did. (Not sure,
but as I recall it was a MacAir tank for USN and a Sargent-Fletcher
for AF).

From an RF-4C stores limitation chart, the USAF used McAir and Royal Jet C/L
tanks. McAir and Sargent-Fletcher made the wing tanks. The McAir C/L
limits are somewhat higher than the Royal Jet's, but the jettison limits are
the same.

The Navy tank was stressed for close to aircraft limits and
with lower drag than a pair of outboard 370s made for better
efficiency all around.

Drag appears to be the same as a pair of 370s.

snip

Normally each
F-4 carried 2 Aim-7 missiles in the under fuselage cavities and four
Aim-9H or G missiles on under wing pylons.

Here you highlight one shortcoming of the C/L tank option. Two of the
four missile wells couldn't be used.

Considering the reliability of AIM-7s after a few cat shots and traps, I
imagine it wasn't a big deal. And you could always punch the tank. By 1972
USAFf-4s were normally just carrying a pair of AIM-7s in the aft wells, with
jamming or camera pods in the forward wells. and unlike the USAF, the navy
had already modified their I/B pylons to carry AIM-9s and other ordnance
simulataneously. Cunningham/Driscoll had been carrying Rockeyes on I/B TERs
(plus a C/L, 2 AIM-7s and 4 x AIM-9Gs) when they claimed 3 MiGs with AIM-9s
on 10 May.

Air-to-ground ordnance was
hung in TERs (triple ejector racks) under the wings. MERs (multiple
ejector racks) could be carried but normally weren't.

Are you saying it was Navy practice to carry TERs on the outboard
stations rather than MERs?

I've got more than a few shots of TERs O/B on navy F-4s in Vietnam, but I've
also got a couple showing them carrying MERS (and bombs) there.

Never saw it done in the USAF. Seems like
it would create a very forward C/G.

ISTR reading that one of the reasons the navy didn't like to carry wing
tanks was apparently due to overrotation following the cat shot, probably
owing to fuel slosh creating an aft Cg, so a more forward Cg would seem to
be a good thing for their purposes.

A M-60 gun pod (SU-23) was tested. This pod was about
the size of a centerline fuel tank, fired 20mm bullets and was mainly
tested to get some gun data on the M-60 which was then used exclusively
by the USAF.

Both SUU-23 and SUU-19 were carried by USAF F-4C and D models. Only
major difference was that the -19 was RAT driven while the 23 was
electrically spun. Good guns that could be very effective against
ground targets.

Ed, you meant SUU-16, not -19.

Guy