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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Phantom flight
Hi all,
I had a great opportunity yesterday. I'm a hornet driver by trade, and got a chance to fly the F-4 on a qual/eval as part of the test pilot school course. After trying to flare on my first several landings like the Air Force IP in the back seat wanted, I planted my last landing pretty firm within the first 100 feet of the runway (no ball to fly though). I have to say I have a lot more respect for anyone who landed that aircraft on a boat. Ray |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Raymond Marshall" wrote in message om... Hi all, I had a great opportunity yesterday. I'm a hornet driver by trade, and got a chance to fly the F-4 on a qual/eval as part of the test pilot school course. After trying to flare on my first several landings like the Air Force IP in the back seat wanted, I planted my last landing pretty firm within the first 100 feet of the runway (no ball to fly though). I have to say I have a lot more respect for anyone who landed that aircraft on a boat. The Phantom was very stable aircraft around the boat. Despite its genuine mach 2 capability (well, maybe not the S model), it was remarkably docile and forgiving throughout its envelope. It had high wing loading and relatively unsophisticated aerodynamics so it couldn't turn (except perhaps compared to a Zipper ... oops, an opening for Walt he'll likely not refuse). Didn't have the sports car feel of some jets ... more like a pickup truck, but a solid and reliable jet. If you get an opportunity to get checked out in the F-8, I recommend you go for it. THAT was an airplane that could enthrall you ... and then bite you on the ass. R / John |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
John Carrier wrote:
The Phantom was very stable aircraft around the boat. Despite its genuine mach 2 capability (well, maybe not the S model), it was remarkably docile and forgiving throughout its envelope. My flight instructor once mentioned that on his first flight in a Phantom, as he got it slowed down for landing, it scared the poo out of him (apparently *felt* like it was in danger of departure, even though it was O.K.). Can any of you experienced Phantom pilots shed any light on this? -- John Miller email domain: n4vu.com; username: jsm(@) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
John Miller wrote:
John Carrier wrote: The Phantom was very stable aircraft around the boat. Despite its genuine mach 2 capability (well, maybe not the S model), it was remarkably docile and forgiving throughout its envelope. My flight instructor once mentioned that on his first flight in a Phantom, as he got it slowed down for landing, it scared the poo out of him (apparently *felt* like it was in danger of departure, even though it was O.K.). Can any of you experienced Phantom pilots shed any light on this? Well, it did get a little 'vague' when you got around 'on speed', and the margin from onspeed to nose wander, wing drop off wasn't that large but ya got used to it. Yopu could do all sorts of things with the stick when really slow, w/o the jet doing anything, since so much of the wing/stab was somewhat ineffective. What was really scary was riding along on a mode 1 at the boat and watching the stick move some vast amounts, w/o the jet really doing anything. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Hi John,
I had the pleasure of flying most all the F4 models made for the Navy at Pax River. Also had one squadron tour in the F4J block 46 and a couple hundred landings. Had many traps in the F8E with more than a few "wet flight suit" traps in the dark. Also had traps in props. I believe I can say without fear of argument from any Phantom that the F4 was the easiest airplane ever built to land, carrier or shore based. For starters, the F-4s were all assigned to the "big" decks. Having grown up on 27 Charlies, the "big" decks were like cheating. Secondly the F-4 dirtied up was ultra-stable. Squeeze a hair of power and the ball went up a hair. First time in my career I ever saw a ball go out the side of the lens. In F-8s you left the ball nearing the ramp and gave it a little high dip to set the hook or it could easily bounce and hook skip the whole speghetti pile. The Phantom just hit the deck and planted itself dowm. Tail hook the size of a plow shear, never heard of one parting. If you did bolt, a rarity, you had enough power to bend it around in a VFR pattern and get back to the groove in about 60 seconds. About the only gripe we had around the boat was fuel consumption was high. Almost as bad as present day F-18s. But our boarding rates were in the 90% range and bolts were uncommon. By far the best carrier plane I personally ever flew. Now in the air in ACM it was a dog and took both hands to pull max G's. Pretty good vertical with it's power and gave you a real edge over guys who didn't like to get their nose up. Nasty and unrecoverable flat spin mode, not as bad as the F-14 but usually resulted in either a punch out or a mort. So you didn't spin it, simple enough. The guy who told you the F-4 was scary dirty must have been a helo pilot or an USAF guy. Not all that analytical for sure. John Miller wrote: John Carrier wrote: The Phantom was very stable aircraft around the boat. Despite its genuine mach 2 capability (well, maybe not the S model), it was remarkably docile and forgiving throughout its envelope. My flight instructor once mentioned that on his first flight in a Phantom, as he got it slowed down for landing, it scared the poo out of him (apparently *felt* like it was in danger of departure, even though it was O.K.). Can any of you experienced Phantom pilots shed any light on this? -- John Miller email domain: n4vu.com; username: jsm(@) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On 26 Mar 2005 14:19:03 -0800, "Bob" wrote:
Hi John, . Now in the air in ACM it was a dog and took both hands to pull max G's. Pretty good vertical with it's power and gave you a real edge over guys who didn't like to get their nose up. Nasty and unrecoverable flat spin mode, not as bad as the F-14 but usually resulted in either a punch out or a mort. So you didn't spin it, simple enough. The guy who told you the F-4 was scary dirty must have been a helo pilot or an USAF guy. Not all that analytical for sure. That's low. Really low. And, notice how I resist saying that USAF guys could pull max G with out using two hands. I just wouldn't say something like that. Of course, if you didn't have to hover on the CAP at "max conserve" orbiting at 250 KIAS to meet cycle time it was a lot easier. Just run around the alloted area a bit above corner velocity and you can grab all the G you want with one hand. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On 26 Mar 2005 14:19:03 -0800, "Bob" wrote: Hi John, . Now in the air in ACM it was a dog and took both hands to pull max G's. Pretty good vertical with it's power and gave you a real edge over guys who didn't like to get their nose up. Nasty and unrecoverable flat spin mode, not as bad as the F-14 but usually resulted in either a punch out or a mort. So you didn't spin it, simple enough. The guy who told you the F-4 was scary dirty must have been a helo pilot or an USAF guy. Not all that analytical for sure. That's low. Really low. And, notice how I resist saying that USAF guys could pull max G with out using two hands. I just wouldn't say something like that. Of course, if you didn't have to hover on the CAP at "max conserve" orbiting at 250 KIAS to meet cycle time it was a lot easier. Just run around the alloted area a bit above corner velocity and you can grab all the G you want with one hand. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com Two hands to pull 'max 'G'? Hogwash. I could overstress the thing w/o problem. As for everything else, pretty close. I did love it but never heard of one in a flat spin. Lots of OOC, spin stuff but nothing flat. Even when the stab horns were breaking, 1976.7, we lost a F-4J(VF-33) when it broke. The plane spun but when the airloads allowed the stab to fall full leading edge up, it recovered. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob" wrote in message oups.com... Hi John, I had the pleasure of flying most all the F4 models made for the Navy at Pax River. Also had one squadron tour in the F4J block 46 and a couple hundred landings. Had many traps in the F8E with more than a few "wet flight suit" traps in the dark. Also had traps in props. I believe I can say without fear of argument from any Phantom that the F4 was the easiest airplane ever built to land, carrier or shore based. For starters, the F-4s were all assigned to the "big" decks. Having grown up on 27 Charlies, the "big" decks were like cheating. Secondly the F-4 dirtied up was ultra-stable. Squeeze a hair of power and the ball went up a hair. First time in my career I ever saw a ball go out the side of the lens. In F-8s you left the ball nearing the ramp and gave it a little high dip to set the hook or it could easily bounce and hook skip the whole speghetti pile. The Phantom just hit the deck and planted itself dowm. Tail hook the size of a plow shear, never heard of one parting. If you did bolt, a rarity, you had enough power to bend it around in a VFR pattern and get back to the groove in about 60 seconds. About the only gripe we had around the boat was fuel consumption was high. Almost as bad as present day F-18s. But our boarding rates were in the 90% range and bolts were uncommon. By far the best carrier plane I personally ever flew. Now in the air in ACM it was a dog and took both hands to pull max G's. Pretty good vertical with it's power and gave you a real edge over guys who didn't like to get their nose up. Nasty and unrecoverable flat spin mode, not as bad as the F-14 but usually resulted in either a punch out or a mort. So you didn't spin it, simple enough. The guy who told you the F-4 was scary dirty must have been a helo pilot or an USAF guy. Not all that analytical for sure. SNIP Can't disagree with most of your commentary. The Phantom got better with the slotted stab, never needed more than one hand to pull max G. It was challenging to exploit in ACM. For my first 500 hours, my thought was "No wonder we beat up on these guys!" (F-8 driver perspective.) Around the 500 hour mark it changed, "How did we ever beat up these guys?" The F-8 "high dip" cost us a jet for a whole cruise. Broke the nose strut trunions. 27C, night, pitching deck was an F-8 mishap waiting to happen. Certainly having a left or right runway, a 3 1/2 degree glideslope, and a wee more hook-to-ramp made the big decks much more accommodating. OTOH, they all look pretty small in the dark. Yes, the Phantom was very solid around the blunt end of the boat. Went through a whole cruise without a bolt ... until I mentioned that fact to my RO on the last flight (mid translant). BOING!!! Oh well .... 99% I found the F-14 a revelation. Not rock steady like the Phantom, but significantly slower and tons more gas. It took some flying (as did the Gator), but it was safe as houses. I've always maintained that all the hogwash about shipboard flying qualities, hard-to-get-aboard, etc is just that: hogwash. Show me the carrier landing mishap rate. Cause there's the jets that'll kill you or jets that'll take care of you. Nobody TRIES to hit the ramp. Nor do they put plumbers in unforgiving airplanes. R / John |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Hi John,
I guess my "hi dip" remark wasn't quite that. In the days of paddles, the LSO would give you a high dip signal and expect you to just drop the nose a hair and then return to level. This just worked off about ten feet or so from your flat groove altitude. In the F-8 if I wanted to get aboard without chancing a hook skip or a BAR (flat at the ramp) bolter I'd pull up the nose a hair just before touchdown to set the hook. As long as you weren't fast this tecnique kept you from a flat bounce and usually got you a one wire. On a really dark night if the deck was moving I had to depend upon the LSO to tell me when to go for it, like, "OK, fly it on down". Landing an F-8 on a black night with the deck moving was high risk no matter how you did it. I always calculated, the fewer passes over the ramp per night, the better chance I'd make it down to the ready room dry. Back to the Phantom and using two hands for max G's. Figure of speech, please forgive. Yes you could usually get max G with one hand. Getting 9 G's (max) below ten grand at 600 kts took me both hands. But I was a weak-assed pilot who was used to pulling an F-8 around with half the effort. Agree, a savvy F-4 pilot could whip an F-8 everywhere but prior to 1968 the number of ACM savvy F-4 pilots was low. Later F-8's, like the F8J, were dogs and the F-4 guys routinely beat up on them. We had a couple of guys who went through an entire cruise (100-120 traps) without a bolter in the F-4. I had two of my three F-4 cruises bolterless, not all greenies but bolterless. Wire average probably around two. Different strokes........... Sorry if I offended the USAF guys. What I meant to say, was carrier pilots were used to landing at slower speeds and felt comfortable dirty. We spent more time with a donut than any blue suiter given all the FCLP's and constant speed approach patterns. Not necessarily better, just different. I spent time with a number of USAF exchange guys and they caught on just fine to our different way of doing things. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
John Carrier wrote:
Yes, the Phantom was very solid around the blunt end of the boat. Went through a whole cruise without a bolt ... until I mentioned that fact to my RO on the last flight (mid translant). BOING!!! Oh well .... 99% I made the mistake of listing my "100% boarding rate for the cruise" on my fitrep brag sheet prior to a night go as we prepped to cross the pond. Duh... |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CFI without commercial? | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 75 | December 8th 10 04:17 PM |
RAF Blind/Beam Approach Training flights | Geoffrey Sinclair | Military Aviation | 3 | September 4th 09 06:31 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
us air force us air force academy us air force bases air force museum us us air force rank us air force reserve adfunk | Jehad Internet | Military Aviation | 0 | February 7th 04 04:24 AM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |