Phantom flight

"Bob" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi John,
I had the pleasure of flying most all the F4 models made for the Navy
[snip]
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.


Newby question here - I've always been curious as to why any aircraft in the
1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio class (F/A-18? F4? F14? etc) would have
trouble being able to "simply" power out flat spins / falling leafs etc.

Can anyone give me a bit on an insight?

Many thanks,

CC

On 3/27/05 6:21 PM, in article ,
"Cockpit Colin" wrote:


"Bob" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi John,
I had the pleasure of flying most all the F4 models made for the Navy
[snip]
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.


Newby question here - I've always been curious as to why any aircraft in the
1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio class (F/A-18? F4? F14? etc) would have
trouble being able to "simply" power out flat spins / falling leafs etc.

Can anyone give me a bit on an insight?


That 1:1 thing is a sort of fallacy in many cases. It assumes a combat
loaded aircraft (air-to-air load) at half fuel with the motor being run at
sea level--large amount of static sea-level rated thrust on a relatively
light aircraft... Hence the 1:1 ratio. Most spins and departures occur at
much higher altitudes where the thrust of the motor is quite a bit lower.
At higher altitudes, the T:W may be less than 1:1.

Also keep in mind that if you're spinning, the thrust is spinning with you.
Adding full power (providing your jet isn't susceptible to compressor stalls
at slow speed and high alpha) simply adds a thrust vector that rotates with
the jet. It's not effective in "powering the jet out" of a spin.

A falling leaf is essentially a spin with no established rotation. The
aircraft establishes itself in a coupled departure mode. Thrust MAY help
power you out depending on aircraft configuration and altitude... I think
there were some Marines that claimed to have powered out of the falling leaf
in the Hornet, but most folks don't have a lot of success with it. IIRC,
adding power in the falling leaf INCREASES time to recover.

This is all without reviewing the NATOPS notes on falling leaf recoveries.
Any TPS dudes want to sing out here?

--Woody

Cockpit Colin wrote:

Newby question here - I've always been curious as to why any aircraft in the
1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio class (F/A-18? F4? F14? etc) would have
trouble being able to "simply" power out flat spins / falling leafs etc.

Can anyone give me a bit on an insight?

One way to think of it (not too scientific) is that adding power just
adds more "juice" to the spin. The power vector rotates around, just
making the plane do whatever it's doing with that much more vigor.

An airplane in a flat spin has very high angle of attack. Way above
any normal spin mode. Once stabilized flat you are sort of like a
frisbee, rotating with all the incoming air hitting just the bottom of
the plane. The break out of this spin or any for that matter, you must
lower your angle of attack somehow. In upright spins this means, stick
full forward. Flat spins, fwd stick doesn't help because the air flow
is under not over your vertical control surface, stabilator in the F-4
case. The rotation can't be altered for the same basic reason. Power
changes don't give you any significant nose up or down impulse. If you
deploy your drag chute it will just ride above you and not inflate,
like a streamer. You have lots of time to try lots of things on the
way down but like I said, we lost a lot of F-4s trying everything but
never found anything that worked. Answer was, be gentle when using
rudders when vertical and nose high. The F-4 gave you plenty of
warning when you did something it didn't like. Wing wobble, some
buffet, very loose nose in yaw, and often some "Oh ****s" from the rear
seat. My theory, and I never tried it, was if all else failed in a
flat spin, have the back seater eject and maybe the reaction to the
seat firing would lower the nose a hair. You just never told the RIO
what your plan was. In Navy planes, he could eject me but I couldn't
eject him. A serious design fault IMHO. Actually there was a way to
eject the rear seat from the front but it wasn't widely advertised.

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.

Not a single one flying anymore... sad...
_____________
José Herculano

"José Herculano" wrote in message
...
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.

Not a single one flying anymore... sad...

Isn't there a F-8K or two privately held? Nothing quite like an F-8 in the
break oil cooler door open.

R / John

José Herculano wrote:
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.


Not a single one flying anymore... sad...
_____________
José Herculano



Doesn't Thunderbird aviation still have one? Last I saw it was at Bug
Roache's memorial service, flown by Hoss Pearson

Raymond Marshall wrote:
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

Well, compared to the Turkey, I say it was much easier as it was so
stable on airspeed, to power changes. Get on speed, pull power go down
faster, add power, go up faster. It was sometimes said it was so fast
that you didn't have time to goon things up when on the ball.

I loved it around the boat.

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 05:47:41 GMT, Raymond Marshall
wrote:

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

You don't say which model of the F-4 you were flying. Big differences
in handling between slatted and hard-wing aircraft. Ditto for
long-nose gun-bearers compared to pug-nose varieties.

But, having landed C, D and E models on runways for many years without
the benefit of a ball, I'll contribute that the Phantom was a pretty
easy airplane to land. AOA lights/tone were pretty close to all you
need. Set AOA to on-speed, then use the throttle to move your impact
point up or down the runway. The nose really doesn't demo a lot of
pitch change, but simply rides down the glide path--push some power
and you slow your descent and extend the point of touch-down. Hold
what you've got until ground effect when the nose will want to drop a
bit, but you wind up really holding the pitch attitude rather than
flaring.

Now, get in the back seat and try the no-flap straight-in. You'll love
the part from two miles out until just over the overrun where you
can't see the runway at all.


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

Ed Rasimus wrote:
You don't say which model of the F-4 you were flying. Big differences
in handling between slatted and hard-wing aircraft. Ditto for
long-nose gun-bearers compared to pug-nose varieties.

I suppose I really need to elaborate for the group since I
haven't been a regular poster here. I flew F-18Cs from Lemoore
in VFA-147 for 3 years. Made two cruises and survived a little
over 300 traps. I've got about 960 hours in the F-18 and am
currently going through the USAF Test Pilot School.

As part of the course, I got a single flight qualitative
evaluation of the QF-4E. The airplane was from Holloman AFB,
serial number 71-087. The jet came complete with a huge auto
pilot control panel to enable the drone control station to fly
it. Fortunately I didn't get to evaluate that part of the
airplane. I did get to fly from the front seat, do everything
from start up, taxi and takeoff to 4 landings. I took off,
climbed up and looked at the dirty stall characteristics, did
some of the advanced handling characteristic maneuvers that were
interesting, and also did a couple 30 degree dive bomb runs. I
finished the flight with a short low level. I did 2 flap down
touch and gos (I think this is what the navy versions of the F-4
called half flaps), a simulated single engine touch and go, and a
full flap full stop. I used the drag chute on the full stop
which was pretty cool.

Now I've got to write a short report on my evaluation of the F-4
and what I learned flying it. Don't get something for nothing...
So what did I learn? My first impression was that the pitch
control was very sensitive. At higher airspeeds it was very
little movements that gave you 5 gs or -1 gs. Rolling in and out
of turns really highlighted this to me. At slower speeds the
pitch had a lot of lag and my inputs tended to overshoot my
desired target.

But, having landed C, D and E models on runways for many years without
the benefit of a ball, I'll contribute that the Phantom was a pretty

As for landings, I found that the jet was very honest with speed
changes. It was very easy to set the throttles, and almost
instantly speed would be stabilized... it was mushy feeling
control wise but I always felt like I had good control. I think
the difference was the switch from up and away with pitch so
sensitive to small movements, and then in the landing pattern you
had to use large movements to make the jet respond. The
simulated single engine landing was almost a non event. I really
liked the AOA tones, once I had made a couple landings. I could
also see how they'd be useful for fighting the jet once you had
some experience.

Now, get in the back seat and try the no-flap straight-in. You'll love
the part from two miles out until just over the overrun where you
can't see the runway at all.

Funny that you mention that... we had a layer we might have had
to fly above and the IP debated putting in the handheld GPS they
use with area boundaries because it blocked the only small hole
he had to see the runway from the back seat. He said 'I suppose
you're not going to kill me are you?' and then put the GPS in.

V/r,

Ray Marshall