If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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). 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. The USAF tank was a true "gas bag"--good for only four G empty and just over two when full with very poor assymetric or "rolling" G allowance. It was seldom used in other than ferry configurations for peacetime/training missions. In combat ops it was always jettisoned when empty. As for "already combersome F-4 even harder to turn", I can only say, "huh???" The 370s weren't all that noticeable and, except when we had very long time-on-target requirements in the SAM suppression mission, we almost always retained them. Roll aug off, however, was standard for any manuevering. 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. 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? Never saw it done in the USAF. Seems like it would create a very forward C/G. 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. Another pod was carried when testing the ACMR (air combat maneuvering range). This pod trnsmitted airplane dat like speed, altitude, angle of attack, attitude, weapons select and other info needed to reconstruct real time ACM engagements. Basically an AIM-9 shape without fins and with a pointy antenna nose rather than the ogival IR seeker head. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com Gotta agree with Ed. Wing tanks didn't make the F-4 any harder to roll. Roll rate in a word was fantastic, clean, wing tanks, CL. I have never seen MERS on the F-4s I flew but I was post Vietnam. We had Ters on station 2 and 8, AIM-9s on the Lau7s, 2 AIM-7 in the aft fusealge stations and a CL..CL was 600/1.6 IMN, 6+ and 0 neg G limited. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:52:45 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote: 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. You are correct--it was the Royal Jet tank, not Sargent-Fletcher. But, the flight load limits for the RJ tank are a lot lower than the McAir. As far as jettison limits (which hadn't been addressed until this point), let me suggest that anyone who was jettisoning the RJ tank at the published flight conditions was looking for a belly bumping experience. The 'rule-of-thumb' we used with good results was one G for every 100 knots of airspeed at jettison. Going 400 KIAS? Then pull to 4 G before hitting the button. Clean separation guaranteed. I'll confess to only having done it about 100 times, so others may have different experiences. 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. Drag index of 12.8 for two 370s. Drag of 9.6 for one C/L 600. 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. By 1972, I was just checking out in the F-4 and arriving in theater. We were NORMALLY carrying three AIM-7s on all missions with one pod in a forward missile well. No camera pods. 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. You are correct. SUU-16. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Phormer Phighter Phlyer wrote:
Rufus wrote: Phormer Phighter Phlyer wrote: Rob van Riel wrote: No pix but I was XO of VX-4 from Apr '88 till Dec '89. I and the CO flew the F-4S' we had 3 of them. Used for launch of high speed targets or targets for the F-14/18, radar type. No testing still being done for the F-4S. We flew with a centerline and LAU-7s. I just missed you...I was at Mugu during the summer of '86...I think. I was working with the PMTC guys. Great tour, our 'boss' was COMOPTEVFOR, a 2 star, our administrative boss was COMFITFUD, but as an ecelon II command, we could do what we wanted. Lots of parts, lots of $. I flew the F-14, F-4 and also we leased three Cessna T-210s to move project guys around. Great fun getting low over the desert on the way to China Lake, making cars think you were the CHP. Heh...I sent a Harrier out with a DLQ pod and he blew up a CHP radar gun once by mistake. Cop's mistake...what should you expect, pointing a radar at a tactical aircraft? Big hammer, no supervision. Yup...life was good... Yeah - Mugu is a great place to be stationed. I was there as a civvie with the PMTC crowd for a bit...a Hornet baby amongst the Tomcat guys. But it was fun to get a look at the B model Toms - had a brief brush with the AB controls on that engine while I was at GE. Was nice to see it in an airplane. You didn't happen to flow through VX-5 by any chance? We could have crossed paths there... -- - Rufus |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:52:45 GMT, Guy Alcala wrote: 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. You are correct--it was the Royal Jet tank, not Sargent-Fletcher. But, the flight load limits for the RJ tank are a lot lower than the McAir. Here's what the chart has -- (limits are Carriage KIAS/Mach/Sym. G/Unsym G/Roll Rate/Stick Throw/Jettison limits Min KIAS/Max. KIAS/Mach. Note: "-" means basic airframe limits apply. Jettison limits list 3 values for below 35,000 ft., then 3 values above 35,000 feet. "NE" means "Not established"): McAir, 0% - 10% full: -/-/+ - & -2.0/-/200/Full/NE/375 KIAS/NE/NE/420 KIAS/NE 10% - 75% full: -/-/+6.5 & -2.0/+5.2 & 0.0/150/one half/Not authorized/Not authorized 75% - full: -/-/+5.0 & -2.0/+4.0 & 0.0/150/one half/NE/375/NE/NE/420/NE RJ, 0% -10% full: 600/1.8/+5.0 & 0.0/+4.0 & +1.0/**/**/NE/375 KIAS/NE/NE/420/NE 10% - 75% full: 600/1.8/+5.0 & 0.0/+4.0 & +1.0/**/**/Not authorized/Not authorized 75% - Full: 600/1.8/+3.0 & 0.0/+1.0 & +1.0/**/**/NE/375/NE/NE/420/NE As far as jettison limits (which hadn't been addressed until this point), let me suggest that anyone who was jettisoning the RJ tank at the published flight conditions was looking for a belly bumping experience. The 'rule-of-thumb' we used with good results was one G for every 100 knots of airspeed at jettison. Going 400 KIAS? Then pull to 4 G before hitting the button. Clean separation guaranteed. I'll confess to only having done it about 100 times, so others may have different experiences. I've read similar comments by other pilotsas to actual procedures. 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. Drag index of 12.8 for two 370s. Drag of 9.6 for one C/L 600. My source may be in error. I was going by the sample planning problems in the T.O. 1F-4C-34-1-1, which list the same drag, 9.6, for a pair of 370s or a single 600 C/L, but that may be a mistake. OTOH, it does show different weights for the two, 269lb. for the empty C/L vs. 680 lb. for a pair of empty 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. By 1972, I was just checking out in the F-4 and arriving in theater. We were NORMALLY carrying three AIM-7s on all missions with one pod in a forward missile well. No camera pods. You had a different mission (H/K). Judging by photo frequency, strikers and strike escorts were often carrying a pair of ALQ-87s in the forward wells by that time, if they weren't carrying a strike camera in place of one of the jammers. For instance, I've got a shot of Coe and Webb's 34th TFS F-4E waiting to tank P/S after they'd gotten their MiG-21 on 5 Oct. 1972. They were tasked as strike escort, and theyre carrying four AIM-9Es, plus two ALQ-87s forward and a single AIM-7E-2 aft (they got the MiG with the other). Course, they had to sit there and wait for the SAMs and MiGs to a greater extent than you did, plus they turned the pods ON, so I imagine carrying a pair of them was a lot more valuable to them than an extra (and unlikely to be used) AIM-7. The Strike escorts seem to have felt that they were primarily there as Atoll absorbers for the strikers, and comments by COM 7th AF (or maybe it was CINCPACAF, I forget) at the time seem to confirm that was the case. The 432nd MiGCAP guys seem to have carried a full load of AIM-7s and AIM-9s, but also carried two ALQ-87s or -100s, one on each I/B. Guy |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Guy Alcala wrote:
snip RJ, 0% -10% full: 600/1.8/+5.0 & 0.0/+4.0 & +1.0/**/**/NE/375 KIAS/NE/NE/420/NE 10% - 75% full: 600/1.8/+5.0 & 0.0/+4.0 & +1.0/**/**/Not authorized/Not authorized 75% - Full: 600/1.8/+3.0 & 0.0/+1.0 & +1.0/**/**/NE/375/NE/NE/420/NE Forgot -- the "**" means "Only gradual coordinated turns are permitted". Guy |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Rufus wrote:
Phormer Phighter Phlyer wrote: Rufus wrote: Phormer Phighter Phlyer wrote: Rob van Riel wrote: No pix but I was XO of VX-4 from Apr '88 till Dec '89. I and the CO flew the F-4S' we had 3 of them. Used for launch of high speed targets or targets for the F-14/18, radar type. No testing still being done for the F-4S. We flew with a centerline and LAU-7s. I just missed you...I was at Mugu during the summer of '86...I think. I was working with the PMTC guys. Great tour, our 'boss' was COMOPTEVFOR, a 2 star, our administrative boss was COMFITFUD, but as an ecelon II command, we could do what we wanted. Lots of parts, lots of $. I flew the F-14, F-4 and also we leased three Cessna T-210s to move project guys around. Great fun getting low over the desert on the way to China Lake, making cars think you were the CHP. Heh...I sent a Harrier out with a DLQ pod and he blew up a CHP radar gun once by mistake. Cop's mistake...what should you expect, pointing a radar at a tactical aircraft? Big hammer, no supervision. Yup...life was good... Yeah - Mugu is a great place to be stationed. I was there as a civvie with the PMTC crowd for a bit...a Hornet baby amongst the Tomcat guys. But it was fun to get a look at the B model Toms - had a brief brush with the AB controls on that engine while I was at GE. Was nice to see it in an airplane. You didn't happen to flow through VX-5 by any chance? We could have crossed paths there... Visited VX-5 lots, taking project guys there but was at Mugu only. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Guy Alcala wrote:
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. Wing tanks were frowned upon because they got beat up by the deck crew and were twice the problem of a CL w/o any real advantage. As for 'blowing off the CL...no-no-do that a few times and you'll be outta CL tanks. It may have been common in the USAF, with a warehouse full of them but not so on a CV. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 05:08:21 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote: Ed Rasimus wrote: By 1972, I was just checking out in the F-4 and arriving in theater. We were NORMALLY carrying three AIM-7s on all missions with one pod in a forward missile well. No camera pods. You had a different mission (H/K). We didn't have the luxury of configuring specific jets for specific missions other than with regard to the mission expendables themselves. By that I mean a H/K F-4E during Linebacker was loaded with 4xCBU-52 on the inboard TERs (two on each), three fuel tanks, three AIM-7E-2, and ONE ECM pod in the (usually) left forward missile well. If squadron airplanes were tasked for other missions (by 1 Oct '72 we only had one F-4 squadron at Korat--the 34th), they got different bomb loads but the AIM-7 and ECM pod configuration remained constant. An escort mission (the other primary mission tasking of the 34th TFS) would load three tanks, four AIM-9E on the inboard MAU-32s and the same three Sparrows and ECM. Judging by photo frequency, strikers and strike escorts were often carrying a pair of ALQ-87s in the forward wells by that time, if they weren't carrying a strike camera in place of one of the jammers. Over the years there were a lot of different configurations. Some places and times carried ECM on an inboard wing station. Some carried two pods. Various models of pods were carried and, yes, strike cameras were occasionally hung. For instance, I've got a shot of Coe and Webb's 34th TFS F-4E waiting to tank P/S after they'd gotten their MiG-21 on 5 Oct. 1972. I was in the 34th at the time, although not flying that day. While that may be the tail number and it might even be a picture with Coe and Webb flying it, I'm not sure that you could guarantee the pedigree. Seems highly fortuitous that someone could have been there with a camera to take the picture on the day of the kill. (Was it a shot from the boomer?) They were tasked as strike escort, and theyre carrying four AIM-9Es, plus two ALQ-87s forward and a single AIM-7E-2 aft (they got the MiG with the other). Course, they had to sit there and wait for the SAMs and MiGs to a greater extent than you did, plus they turned the pods ON, so I imagine carrying a pair of them was a lot more valuable to them than an extra (and unlikely to be used) AIM-7. You are making a bad assumption here. A/A escort flights flew as "out-riggers" on a set of bomb-droppers, usually three or four flights of four. They went in with the bombers and out with the bombers. H/K flights were "first-in/last-out", sweeping ahead of the strikers and remaining in the area until the package was clear--and often beyond that if fuel allowed to do visual armed recce for SAM sites. They did run pods "ON" and we never turned them on except as a last-ditch defense in a SAM-dance. But, as mentioned above, we did not have the luxury of uploading and downloading ECM pods for the day's mission. They were bolted on (unjettisonable) and stayed on. As for the likelihood of use--since we were not configured with AIM-9s, we were at least as likely as the escort guys to need an AIM-7. The Strike escorts seem to have felt that they were primarily there as Atoll absorbers for the strikers, and comments by COM 7th AF (or maybe it was CINCPACAF, I forget) at the time seem to confirm that was the case. Strike escort guys more commonly felt themselves used (abused?) as "herders" to create a situation to turn the MiGs to a place where the fair-haired boys of the 555th could get their shots. We didn't even get to talk to Teaball. The 432nd MiGCAP guys seem to have carried a full load of AIM-7s and AIM-9s, but also carried two ALQ-87s or -100s, one on each I/B. They also had "Agile Eagle" aircraft, the first increment of TCTO-566 modded airplanes with LES and TISEO. And, they had Combat Tree, dedicated GCI support and a serious public-relations corps to make a USAF ace. They were mostly 555th TFS and mostly Fighter Weapons School grads and instructors, so they were arguably the best trained, qualified and equipped to do that mission. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Phormer Phighter Phlyer wrote:
Rufus wrote: Phormer Phighter Phlyer wrote: Rufus wrote: Phormer Phighter Phlyer wrote: Rob van Riel wrote: No pix but I was XO of VX-4 from Apr '88 till Dec '89. I and the CO flew the F-4S' we had 3 of them. Used for launch of high speed targets or targets for the F-14/18, radar type. No testing still being done for the F-4S. We flew with a centerline and LAU-7s. I just missed you...I was at Mugu during the summer of '86...I think. I was working with the PMTC guys. Great tour, our 'boss' was COMOPTEVFOR, a 2 star, our administrative boss was COMFITFUD, but as an ecelon II command, we could do what we wanted. Lots of parts, lots of $. I flew the F-14, F-4 and also we leased three Cessna T-210s to move project guys around. Great fun getting low over the desert on the way to China Lake, making cars think you were the CHP. Heh...I sent a Harrier out with a DLQ pod and he blew up a CHP radar gun once by mistake. Cop's mistake...what should you expect, pointing a radar at a tactical aircraft? Big hammer, no supervision. Yup...life was good... Yeah - Mugu is a great place to be stationed. I was there as a civvie with the PMTC crowd for a bit...a Hornet baby amongst the Tomcat guys. But it was fun to get a look at the B model Toms - had a brief brush with the AB controls on that engine while I was at GE. Was nice to see it in an airplane. You didn't happen to flow through VX-5 by any chance? We could have crossed paths there... Visited VX-5 lots, taking project guys there but was at Mugu only. It's a small world...always wondering who'll jog my memory next. -- - Rufus |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ex USAF/RAAF QF-4G Phantom heading down under | Aerophotos | Military Aviation | 13 | May 8th 04 08:45 PM |
PBJ-1 (NAVY Mitchel) and F4 Phantom, T6 Texan and bunch of AC manuals FS | Nenad Miklusev | Military Aviation | 0 | May 2nd 04 09:24 AM |
Winch Loads / Speeds data? | Gary Emerson | Soaring | 1 | December 17th 03 08:59 AM |
How many aircraft types photographed????? Loads of rotors | Tim | Rotorcraft | 0 | October 26th 03 08:49 PM |
F-4 chaff/flare loads | Bob Martin | Military Aviation | 25 | September 25th 03 03:36 PM |