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
  #1  
Old May 2nd 08, 01:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
John[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default USAF Phantoms on deck?


Did USAF Phantoms ever land and take off from a carrier deck? I
believe that at least the USAF F4-C was at least initially was nearly
identical to the Navy F4-B. Was the F4-D and F4-E capable of taking
off and landing from a carrier deck? Was it ever done?

If the F4-D/E was not capable of carrier operations why? Was it from
systems not being able to take the stress or was it structural?

John Dupre'
  #2  
Old May 2nd 08, 03:06 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Don McIntyre
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default USAF Phantoms on deck?

On May 2, 7:29 am, John wrote:
Did USAF Phantoms ever land and take off from a carrier deck? I
believe that at least the USAF F4-C was at least initially was nearly
identical to the Navy F4-B. Was the F4-D and F4-E capable of taking
off and landing from a carrier deck? Was it ever done?

If the F4-D/E was not capable of carrier operations why? Was it from
systems not being able to take the stress or was it structural?

John Dupre'


AFAIK the quick answer is "no." I'm not sure that there was any
structural/systems reason behind it, I guess there was just never a
need. Again, AFAIK, there wasn't any MAJOR structural differences
between the USN and USAF versions that would have made them unable to
do carrier landings, they used the same Landing Gear and even the same
tailhook on both.
I would think the longer nose of the E-model would have made carrier
landings even more exciting…

  #3  
Old May 2nd 08, 03:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Ed Rasimus[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default USAF Phantoms on deck?

On Fri, 2 May 2008 07:06:01 -0700 (PDT), Don McIntyre
wrote:

On May 2, 7:29 am, John wrote:
Did USAF Phantoms ever land and take off from a carrier deck? I
believe that at least the USAF F4-C was at least initially was nearly
identical to the Navy F4-B. Was the F4-D and F4-E capable of taking
off and landing from a carrier deck? Was it ever done?

If the F4-D/E was not capable of carrier operations why? Was it from
systems not being able to take the stress or was it structural?

John Dupre'


AFAIK the quick answer is "no." I'm not sure that there was any
structural/systems reason behind it, I guess there was just never a
need. Again, AFAIK, there wasn't any MAJOR structural differences
between the USN and USAF versions that would have made them unable to
do carrier landings, they used the same Landing Gear and even the same
tailhook on both.
I would think the longer nose of the E-model would have made carrier
landings even more exciting…


I'll ditto that. AFAIK, no USAF Phantom landed or catted on a carrier.
The C/D/E all had a trap capable tail hook and the same landing gear,
but they didn't have the extensible nose gear to establish attitude
for the cat shot and they didn't have the bridle fittings for the cat
hook-up.

I don't think that the E-model was any more difficult to see over the
nose than the pug-nosed versions.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
  #4  
Old May 2nd 08, 05:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
[email protected][_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default USAF Phantoms on deck?

On May 2, 10:31*am, Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2008 07:06:01 -0700 (PDT), Don McIntyre





wrote:
On May 2, 7:29 am, John wrote:
Did USAF Phantoms ever land and take off from a carrier deck? *I
believe that at least the USAF F4-C was at least initially was nearly
identical to the Navy F4-B. *Was the F4-D and F4-E capable of taking
off and landing from a carrier deck? *Was it ever done?


If the F4-D/E was not capable of carrier operations why? *Was it from
systems not being able to take the stress or was it structural?


John Dupre'


AFAIK the quick answer is "no." I'm not sure that there was any
structural/systems reason behind it, I guess there was just never a
need. Again, AFAIK, there wasn't any MAJOR structural differences
between the USN and USAF versions that would have made them unable to
do carrier landings, they used the same Landing Gear and even the same
tailhook on both.
*I would think the longer nose of the E-model would have made carrier
landings even more exciting…


I'll ditto that. AFAIK, no USAF Phantom landed or catted on a carrier.
The C/D/E all had a trap capable tail hook and the same landing gear,
but they didn't have the extensible nose gear to establish attitude
for the cat shot and they didn't have the bridle fittings for the cat
hook-up.

I don't think that the E-model was any more difficult to see over the
nose than the pug-nosed versions.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"www.thunderchief.orgwww.thundertales.blogsp ot.com-


Didn't the USN models have their electronics better protected from
salt water?
  #5  
Old May 2nd 08, 07:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Max Richter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default USAF Phantoms on deck?

Hello,
i have read that the tyres at least where different and optimized for
the softer landing on land.
The carrierversions had small but highpressure tyres and the
landversions had bigger ballontype wheels with lower pressure.

Greetings
Max

John schrieb:

Did USAF Phantoms ever land and take off from a carrier deck? I
believe that at least the USAF F4-C was at least initially was nearly
identical to the Navy F4-B. Was the F4-D and F4-E capable of taking
off and landing from a carrier deck? Was it ever done?

If the F4-D/E was not capable of carrier operations why? Was it from
systems not being able to take the stress or was it structural?

John Dupre'



  #6  
Old May 2nd 08, 07:42 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Mike Kanze
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default USAF Phantoms on deck?

In addition to others' comments, there might also have been engine settings in USAF F-4s incompatible with JP-5 fuel used aboard carriers.

Some USN birds (IIRC, the T-2A, with its single J-37 engine) required either different mechanical or switch settings when changing from shore-supplied JP-4 to shipboard JP-5, or back again.

--
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

"John" wrote in message ...

Did USAF Phantoms ever land and take off from a carrier deck? I
believe that at least the USAF F4-C was at least initially was nearly
identical to the Navy F4-B. Was the F4-D and F4-E capable of taking
off and landing from a carrier deck? Was it ever done?

If the F4-D/E was not capable of carrier operations why? Was it from
systems not being able to take the stress or was it structural?

John Dupre'
  #7  
Old May 2nd 08, 09:59 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
John Carrier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 85
Default USAF Phantoms on deck?

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
"Mike Kanze" wrote in message . ..
In addition to others' comments, there might also have been engine settings in USAF F-4s incompatible with JP-5 fuel used aboard carriers.

Some USN birds (IIRC, the T-2A, with its single J-37 engine) required either different mechanical or switch settings when changing from shore-supplied JP-4 to shipboard JP-5, or back again.

--
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

"John" wrote in message ...

Did USAF Phantoms ever land and take off from a carrier deck? I
believe that at least the USAF F4-C was at least initially was nearly
identical to the Navy F4-B. Was the F4-D and F4-E capable of taking
off and landing from a carrier deck? Was it ever done?

If the F4-D/E was not capable of carrier operations why? Was it from
systems not being able to take the stress or was it structural?

John Dupre'
  #8  
Old May 2nd 08, 10:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Ed Rasimus[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default USAF Phantoms on deck?

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
  #9  
Old May 3rd 08, 12:27 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Mike Kanze
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default USAF Phantoms on deck?

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
  #10  
Old May 3rd 08, 04:03 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Dan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 465
Default USAF Phantoms on deck?

Ed Rasimus wrote:
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



I never had the pleasure of cats or traps, I always went by
helicopter and the boats tended to be a tad smaller like the USS
Okinawa. Even so it could be a bumpy ride in rough weather. There were a
couple of times I decided people who only experience land based roller
coasters were missing the real fun.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
 




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 10:48 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 01:37 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 10:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.