Tail slat question

"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.

"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???

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

(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.

"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?

"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!

"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.

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

"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.

"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!