F-8 versus F-4

Certainly advantage Hun if you were interested in the various aspects of
urban renewal. For the single-minded air superiority types, "Not a pound
for air-to-ground!"

R / John

An VF purists repeated that phrase until the day we started hanging bombs
on
Tomcats...

Yes. F-14 community stupidity was the third component of the trinity that
killed what could have been the premier strike fighter of the age.

R / John

Mike Kanze wrote:

Guy,

The marines, at least, had a different attitude towards their F-8s, and the
USN certainly carried bombs on theirs on occasion, but more often Zunis for
flak suppression.

Nice to know you could do it, if your primary mud-moving assets were
unavailable.

However, IMHO, again an example of "the fact that you can do it, does not
necessarily make it a good idea." Like trying to tank from an A-7, flying
under the Golden Gate Bridge, or extreme pursuit of all the earthly delights
in Olongopo.

In the case of the Marines, every fighter and attack a/c is considered a primary
mud-moving a/c. BTW, what's the big deal with tanking from an A-7? I've been
told (by a former A-7 pilot acquaintance of mine) that it was tougher than from
the C/L drogue of an A-4 or KA-3/KA-6 owing to having the tail in the wing wake
(ISTR he mentioned needing to cross-control), but is still probably easier/safer
than from a KC-135 with the add-on drogue.

Guy

SNIP
BTW, what's the big deal with tanking from an A-7? I've been
told (by a former A-7 pilot acquaintance of mine) that it was tougher than
from
the C/L drogue of an A-4 or KA-3/KA-6 owing to having the tail in the wing
wake
(ISTR he mentioned needing to cross-control), but is still probably
easier/safer
than from a KC-135 with the add-on drogue.

Guy


Actually, it wasn't a particularly big deal except that the A-7 buddy store
was on the left wing. Great for just about every jet except for the F-8
(probe on the left), which put you in the dirtiest air the tanker could
generate. I've tanked the A-7 in the F-8, F-4 and F-14. Not as nice as the
KA-6, maybe no better than the KC-135 and its 9 foot non-retractable hose,
but then again, maybe no worse.

Gas is gas. You fly an afterburning aircraft on extended legs/cycles, you
tank.

R / John

Guy,

John put it fairly well in his post. Some aircraft types (not just the F-8)
found themselves in the A-7's exhaust a mite more often than comfortable.
Not a show-stopper, but when you factor in the other variables that can crop
up (night, low state, etc.), having to deal with this just made the
experience less pleasant.

More to my earlier point: While it was good to know that the Air Wing could
tank from the A-7 if other assets weren't available, it was not the best use
of that platform. Same-o for putting forward firing ordnance on the A-6. You
could do it if needed, but rockets were better employed by the SLUFs.

--
Mike Kanze

"Wineau - A person who drinks wine from a glass."

- Sighted on a T-shirt



"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Mike Kanze wrote:

Guy,

The marines, at least, had a different attitude towards their F-8s, and
the
USN certainly carried bombs on theirs on occasion, but more often Zunis
for
flak suppression.

Nice to know you could do it, if your primary mud-moving assets were
unavailable.

However, IMHO, again an example of "the fact that you can do it, does not
necessarily make it a good idea." Like trying to tank from an A-7, flying
under the Golden Gate Bridge, or extreme pursuit of all the earthly
delights
in Olongopo.

In the case of the Marines, every fighter and attack a/c is considered a
primary
mud-moving a/c. BTW, what's the big deal with tanking from an A-7? I've
been
told (by a former A-7 pilot acquaintance of mine) that it was tougher than
from
the C/L drogue of an A-4 or KA-3/KA-6 owing to having the tail in the wing
wake
(ISTR he mentioned needing to cross-control), but is still probably
easier/safer
than from a KC-135 with the add-on drogue.

Guy

On 5/12/05 7:52 PM, in article , "Mike
Kanze" wrote:

Guy,

John put it fairly well in his post. Some aircraft types (not just the F-8)
found themselves in the A-7's exhaust a mite more often than comfortable.
Not a show-stopper, but when you factor in the other variables that can crop
up (night, low state, etc.), having to deal with this just made the
experience less pleasant.

More to my earlier point: While it was good to know that the Air Wing could
tank from the A-7 if other assets weren't available, it was not the best use
of that platform. Same-o for putting forward firing ordnance on the A-6. You
could do it if needed, but rockets were better employed by the SLUFs.

Not to pile on, but A-6E plugging into an A-7 was really no big deal. I
think the worst platform I ever tanked from though was the British Victor.
The baskets were so high up that you were constantly in his wingtip
vortices. It took a bit of rudder and coordinated aileron trim to stay in
one spot and keep from sliding to the center of the aircraft (where the jet
tanking on the OTHER side was also trying to slide). Still, it wasn't
unmanageable, just made the event more interesting.

The most challenging CONDITIONS were definitely over Iraq in March/April of
2003.

--Woody

Woody,

The most challenging CONDITIONS were definitely over Iraq in March/April of
2003.

Care to elaborate?

--
Mike Kanze

"Wineau - A person who drinks wine from a glass."

- Sighted on a T-shirt

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 5/12/05 7:52 PM, in article , "Mike
Kanze" wrote:

Guy,

John put it fairly well in his post. Some aircraft types (not just the
F-8)
found themselves in the A-7's exhaust a mite more often than comfortable.
Not a show-stopper, but when you factor in the other variables that can
crop
up (night, low state, etc.), having to deal with this just made the
experience less pleasant.

More to my earlier point: While it was good to know that the Air Wing
could
tank from the A-7 if other assets weren't available, it was not the best
use
of that platform. Same-o for putting forward firing ordnance on the A-6.
You
could do it if needed, but rockets were better employed by the SLUFs.

Not to pile on, but A-6E plugging into an A-7 was really no big deal. I
think the worst platform I ever tanked from though was the British Victor.
The baskets were so high up that you were constantly in his wingtip
vortices. It took a bit of rudder and coordinated aileron trim to stay in
one spot and keep from sliding to the center of the aircraft (where the
jet
tanking on the OTHER side was also trying to slide). Still, it wasn't
unmanageable, just made the event more interesting.

The most challenging CONDITIONS were definitely over Iraq in March/April
of
2003.

--Woody

On 5/13/05 2:01 PM, in article , "Mike
Kanze" wrote:

Woody,

The most challenging CONDITIONS were definitely over Iraq in March/April of
2003.

Care to elaborate?

Owl,

Turbulence like you read about in the North. Most of the refueling was IMC.
In fact, I had one rendezvous (night, NVG's, wingman) where we didn't
visually break out the fully lit tanker until .3 miles in the HUD (STT radar
lock, distance reported by lead because *I* was certainly flying welded
wing--looked reasonable though). NASTY! Several nights the weather was
from nearly the surface all the way above 350 to 400.

Getting into the iron maiden on the KC-135 is challenging in turbulence
(actually, staying in is the rough part), but with WORPS or WOPR stores on
the 10 or the 135 in turbulence with all that excessive amount of hose
bouncing the basket all over, it was downright hard as hell! One night, we
had a Prowler rip a store off the tanker and a Tomcat rip the probe off the
aircraft and divert. Toughest tanking I've ever seen!

Speaking of which, I'll never figure out how the Prowlers found the tankers
on those IMC nights, but they always managed to just by using their
yardstick. Those guys did some very impressive work.

Frankly, we hung it out a bit in conditions that we normally wouldn't have
accepted to get ordnance to the folks on the ground.

--Woody

While even a USAF type such as I will confess to a bit of envy
regarding the F-8, I've got to point out that the F-100 would carry
and deliver real iron and did a nice job hauling a special weapon.
Those are two regions in which the venerable Hun would, could and did
outperform the Crusader.

Not on real iron, Ed. The Navy had little use for them, but the Marines did
use the two underwing pilons on F-8E/J to carry a good variety of iron. Two
2,000lb Mk84s were not unusual, coupled with Sidewinders or Zunis on the
fuselage rails. That, in my book, is real iron.
_____________
José Herculano

Hi John,
You sound very much like a guy you'd have to beat back to the ready
room to beat. Different opinions are what kept the beer flowing in the
WOXOF room. Every cockpit had a different view.

Must point out to the bluesuiters singing the F-100 AG praises, that,
we carried lots of ordnance into North Vietnam on the F-8, probably
half the hops, generally as flak suppressors. I could be wrong, but I
don't the the F-100 ventured far north of the DMZ carrying iron.
Perhaps their scheduling seniors were just smarter than ours. We
considered hops south of the DMZ as R&R.

"Bob" wrote in message
ups.com...

Must point out to the bluesuiters singing the F-100 AG praises, that,
we carried lots of ordnance into North Vietnam on the F-8, probably
half the hops, generally as flak suppressors. I could be wrong, but I
don't the the F-100 ventured far north of the DMZ carrying iron.
Perhaps their scheduling seniors were just smarter than ours. We
considered hops south of the DMZ as R&R.

That's nice. To the troops on the ground looking for the CAS, it wasn't such
a playground.

Glenn D.