VX-4 phantom loads

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.