USAF Phantoms on deck?

WaltBJ wrote:
As for the F4C/D/E landing on a carrier - they sure couldn't use the
meatball - my outdated E dash-1 gives the limit sink rate of 720 fpm
at 33000 pounds. 122 KIAS was the basic fence speed on a D before they
axed the BLC. Using that as the minimum coming-aboard speed and 720
fpm gives a glide slope of 3.34 degrees. USN standard is, I believe, 4
1/2 degrees.

3-1/2 degrees.

As for the BLC-less E model, the lowest practical 'on-speed' (19.2
units AOA) was 145 KIAS @ 32000# right off the graph in the dash-1.

I never even sat in a Phantom, dammit, (missed a chance while stashed
at Top Gun to catch as many rides as I wanted with the Reserve
outfit there at Miramar, to this day I can't explain why I didn't grab that
with both hands!), but I recall the F-4 guys talking about 145 or so
being their approach speeds to the boat. All I can say is that from
Vulture's Row them little birdies got bigger awful fast!

USN practice is to carry a hell of a lot more tire pressure at the ship
than they do ashore.


Jeff

Dan wrote:
The one time I saw an F-4E use its tail hook for real, as opposed to
testing the rope, I was surprised at how far the rope paid out. I think it
was at Zaragosa. I don't know whether the hook would have been strong
enough to stop it on a Navy boat, but it sure looked like the stopping
distance was much longer than anything I have seen in the footage of Navy
landings on boats. I'm not sure there would have been a reason to redesign
that part of the airframe to a different standard than Navy F-4.

Field arrestments are much longer than those aboard. Why go to
the trouble and expense of designing an arresting engine which stops
the aircraft in 400 feet when you have thousands available?

Anyway, field engagements could occur at significantly higher weights
and speeds, particularly for long field engagements and rejected
takeoffs--it can be the same gear, some versions are bi-directional.
Better to take up as much room as you can.


Jeff

On Tue, 06 May 2008 22:26:22 -0800, Bob wrote:

Around 41 years ago at Ubon debriefing, F-4C, I think a cable
engagement was one of the monthly blocks to fill in? Comes to mind
because the crews talked about how rough it was sometimes.
I take it the run out though would have been more on land than on a
carrier?

There was no periodic currency requirement for approach end barrier
engagements. It was the recommended emergency procedure for many
situtations in the F-4 and not particularly difficult compared to a
carrier landing because you could spot the landing anywhere in the
normal touchdown area prior to the cable which was usually around 2500
feet into the runway. Runout was about three to four times what a
carrier arrestment runs.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

"Bob" wrote...

Around 41 years ago at Ubon debriefing, F-4C, I think a cable
engagement was one of the monthly blocks to fill in? Comes to mind
because the crews talked about how rough it was sometimes.
I take it the run out though would have been more on land than on a
carrier?

Indeed! The runout on a BAK-12 or similar is 1000-1500', while a carrier gear
runout is on the order of 300'.

On May 7, 5:28 am, Ed Rasimus wrote:
SNIP:
Runout was about three to four times what a
carrier arrestment runs.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"www.thunderchief.orgwww.thundertales.blogsp ot.com
SNIP:
FWIW the 'stoppers' on the BAK12 were B52 wheel brakes with a sort of
governer to control brake application so the run-out normally stayed
within about 900-1200 feet. I saw an A3D abort at Danang (1971) and
pull out all the tape - even bent its tail hook. The pilot aborted
kind of late on takeoff when it became clear the bird wasn't going to
get airborne in the remainder of the 11000 foot runway. Good thing the
BAK12 stopped them or they would have been in the sewage lagoon for
dinghy drill . . .
Walt BJ