A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

USAF Phantoms on deck?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old May 3rd 08, 01:19 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
John Carrier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 85
Default USAF Phantoms on deck?

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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Old pics - new scans 3 - VC10 from 101 Sqn RAF, leading 2 FG1 Phantoms from 43 Sqn Dave Kearton Aviation Photos 0 January 15th 08 09:48 PM
What happened to the US AF RF-4 Phantoms ? Prowlus Military Aviation 4 August 28th 04 04:30 PM
gunpods on Phantoms Rob van Riel Naval Aviation 32 March 27th 04 12:37 PM
ECM pods on navy phantoms Rob van Riel Military Aviation 4 October 23rd 03 03:34 AM
Question about GAF Phantoms landing SA Military Aviation 5 October 7th 03 05:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.