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.

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).

From an RF-4C stores limitation chart, the USAF used McAir and Royal Jet C/L
tanks. McAir and Sargent-Fletcher made the wing tanks. The McAir C/L
limits are somewhat higher than the Royal Jet's, but the jettison limits are
the same.

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.

Drag appears to be the same as a pair of 370s.

snip

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.

Considering the reliability of AIM-7s after a few cat shots and traps, I
imagine it wasn't a big deal. And you could always punch the tank. By 1972
USAFf-4s were normally just carrying a pair of AIM-7s in the aft wells, with
jamming or camera pods in the forward wells. and unlike the USAF, the navy
had already modified their I/B pylons to carry AIM-9s and other ordnance
simulataneously. Cunningham/Driscoll had been carrying Rockeyes on I/B TERs
(plus a C/L, 2 AIM-7s and 4 x AIM-9Gs) when they claimed 3 MiGs with AIM-9s
on 10 May.

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?

I've got more than a few shots of TERs O/B on navy F-4s in Vietnam, but I've
also got a couple showing them carrying MERS (and bombs) there.

Never saw it done in the USAF. Seems like
it would create a very forward C/G.

ISTR reading that one of the reasons the navy didn't like to carry wing
tanks was apparently due to overrotation following the cat shot, probably
owing to fuel slosh creating an aft Cg, so a more forward Cg would seem to
be a good thing for their purposes.

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.

Ed, you meant SUU-16, not -19.

Guy

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:52:45 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

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).

From an RF-4C stores limitation chart, the USAF used McAir and Royal Jet C/L
tanks. McAir and Sargent-Fletcher made the wing tanks. The McAir C/L
limits are somewhat higher than the Royal Jet's, but the jettison limits are
the same.

You are correct--it was the Royal Jet tank, not Sargent-Fletcher. But,
the flight load limits for the RJ tank are a lot lower than the McAir.

As far as jettison limits (which hadn't been addressed until this
point), let me suggest that anyone who was jettisoning the RJ tank at
the published flight conditions was looking for a belly bumping
experience. The 'rule-of-thumb' we used with good results was one G
for every 100 knots of airspeed at jettison. Going 400 KIAS? Then pull
to 4 G before hitting the button. Clean separation guaranteed.

I'll confess to only having done it about 100 times, so others may
have different experiences.

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.

Drag appears to be the same as a pair of 370s.

Drag index of 12.8 for two 370s. Drag of 9.6 for one C/L 600.

snip

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.

Considering the reliability of AIM-7s after a few cat shots and traps, I
imagine it wasn't a big deal. And you could always punch the tank. By 1972
USAFf-4s were normally just carrying a pair of AIM-7s in the aft wells, with
jamming or camera pods in the forward wells.

By 1972, I was just checking out in the F-4 and arriving in theater.
We were NORMALLY carrying three AIM-7s on all missions with one pod in
a forward missile well. No camera pods.

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.

Ed, you meant SUU-16, not -19.

You are correct. SUU-16.


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

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:52:45 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

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).

From an RF-4C stores limitation chart, the USAF used McAir and Royal Jet C/L
tanks. McAir and Sargent-Fletcher made the wing tanks. The McAir C/L
limits are somewhat higher than the Royal Jet's, but the jettison limits are
the same.

You are correct--it was the Royal Jet tank, not Sargent-Fletcher. But,
the flight load limits for the RJ tank are a lot lower than the McAir.

Here's what the chart has --
(limits are Carriage KIAS/Mach/Sym. G/Unsym G/Roll Rate/Stick Throw/Jettison
limits Min KIAS/Max. KIAS/Mach. Note: "-" means basic airframe limits apply.
Jettison limits list 3 values for below 35,000 ft., then 3 values above 35,000
feet. "NE" means "Not established"):

McAir, 0% - 10% full: -/-/+ - & -2.0/-/200/Full/NE/375 KIAS/NE/NE/420
KIAS/NE

10% - 75% full: -/-/+6.5 & -2.0/+5.2 & 0.0/150/one half/Not authorized/Not
authorized

75% - full: -/-/+5.0 & -2.0/+4.0 & 0.0/150/one half/NE/375/NE/NE/420/NE


RJ, 0% -10% full: 600/1.8/+5.0 & 0.0/+4.0 & +1.0/**/**/NE/375 KIAS/NE/NE/420/NE

10% - 75% full: 600/1.8/+5.0 & 0.0/+4.0 & +1.0/**/**/Not authorized/Not
authorized

75% - Full: 600/1.8/+3.0 & 0.0/+1.0 & +1.0/**/**/NE/375/NE/NE/420/NE

As far as jettison limits (which hadn't been addressed until this
point), let me suggest that anyone who was jettisoning the RJ tank at
the published flight conditions was looking for a belly bumping
experience. The 'rule-of-thumb' we used with good results was one G
for every 100 knots of airspeed at jettison. Going 400 KIAS? Then pull
to 4 G before hitting the button. Clean separation guaranteed.

I'll confess to only having done it about 100 times, so others may
have different experiences.

I've read similar comments by other pilotsas to actual procedures.

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.

Drag appears to be the same as a pair of 370s.

Drag index of 12.8 for two 370s. Drag of 9.6 for one C/L 600.

My source may be in error. I was going by the sample planning problems in the
T.O. 1F-4C-34-1-1, which list the same drag, 9.6, for a pair of 370s or a single
600 C/L, but that may be a mistake. OTOH, it does show different weights for the
two, 269lb. for the empty C/L vs. 680 lb. for a pair of empty 370s.



snip

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.

Considering the reliability of AIM-7s after a few cat shots and traps, I
imagine it wasn't a big deal. And you could always punch the tank. By 1972
USAFf-4s were normally just carrying a pair of AIM-7s in the aft wells, with
jamming or camera pods in the forward wells.

By 1972, I was just checking out in the F-4 and arriving in theater.
We were NORMALLY carrying three AIM-7s on all missions with one pod in
a forward missile well. No camera pods.

You had a different mission (H/K). Judging by photo frequency, strikers and
strike escorts were often carrying a pair of ALQ-87s in the forward wells by that
time, if they weren't carrying a strike camera in place of one of the jammers.
For instance, I've got a shot of Coe and Webb's 34th TFS F-4E waiting to tank P/S
after they'd gotten their MiG-21 on 5 Oct. 1972. They were tasked as strike
escort, and theyre carrying four AIM-9Es, plus two ALQ-87s forward and a single
AIM-7E-2 aft (they got the MiG with the other). Course, they had to sit there
and wait for the SAMs and MiGs to a greater extent than you did, plus they turned
the pods ON, so I imagine carrying a pair of them was a lot more valuable to them
than an extra (and unlikely to be used) AIM-7. The Strike escorts seem to have
felt that they were primarily there as Atoll absorbers for the strikers, and
comments by COM 7th AF (or maybe it was CINCPACAF, I forget) at the time seem to
confirm that was the case.

The 432nd MiGCAP guys seem to have carried a full load of AIM-7s and AIM-9s, but
also carried two ALQ-87s or -100s, one on each I/B.

Guy

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

For Ed-I'm reading 'To Hanoi and back, the USAF and North VietNam,
1966-1973, Wayne Thompson, and in the first chapter he mentions that the
late model F-4E had a rudimentary fly by wire back up for pitch control,
for emergencies when PC-1/2 were gone...ever heard of this?

Guy Alcala wrote:
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).


From an RF-4C stores limitation chart, the USAF used McAir and Royal Jet C/L
tanks. McAir and Sargent-Fletcher made the wing tanks. The McAir C/L
limits are somewhat higher than the Royal Jet's, but the jettison limits are
the same.


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.


Drag appears to be the same as a pair of 370s.

snip

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.


Considering the reliability of AIM-7s after a few cat shots and traps, I
imagine it wasn't a big deal. And you could always punch the tank. By 1972
USAFf-4s were normally just carrying a pair of AIM-7s in the aft wells, with
jamming or camera pods in the forward wells. and unlike the USAF, the navy
had already modified their I/B pylons to carry AIM-9s and other ordnance
simulataneously. Cunningham/Driscoll had been carrying Rockeyes on I/B TERs
(plus a C/L, 2 AIM-7s and 4 x AIM-9Gs) when they claimed 3 MiGs with AIM-9s
on 10 May.


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?


I've got more than a few shots of TERs O/B on navy F-4s in Vietnam, but I've
also got a couple showing them carrying MERS (and bombs) there.


Never saw it done in the USAF. Seems like
it would create a very forward C/G.


ISTR reading that one of the reasons the navy didn't like to carry wing
tanks was apparently due to overrotation following the cat shot, probably
owing to fuel slosh creating an aft Cg, so a more forward Cg would seem to
be a good thing for their purposes.



Wing tanks were frowned upon because they got beat up by the deck crew
and were twice the problem of a CL w/o any real advantage. As for
'blowing off the CL...no-no-do that a few times and you'll be outta CL
tanks. It may have been common in the USAF, with a warehouse full of
them but not so on a CV.

....and then there was always the threat of "bridle-slap" into the CL tank
off the waist cats.
At night was quite a show...

"Phormer Phighter Phlyer" wrote in message
news:1110551117.df4c0e0d2d0180affc7668b7b7146eb0@t eranews...
Guy Alcala wrote:
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).


From an RF-4C stores limitation chart, the USAF used McAir and Royal Jet
C/L
tanks. McAir and Sargent-Fletcher made the wing tanks. The McAir C/L
limits are somewhat higher than the Royal Jet's, but the jettison limits
are
the same.


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.


Drag appears to be the same as a pair of 370s.

snip

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.


Considering the reliability of AIM-7s after a few cat shots and traps, I
imagine it wasn't a big deal. And you could always punch the tank. By
1972
USAFf-4s were normally just carrying a pair of AIM-7s in the aft wells,
with
jamming or camera pods in the forward wells. and unlike the USAF, the
navy
had already modified their I/B pylons to carry AIM-9s and other ordnance
simulataneously. Cunningham/Driscoll had been carrying Rockeyes on I/B
TERs
(plus a C/L, 2 AIM-7s and 4 x AIM-9Gs) when they claimed 3 MiGs with
AIM-9s
on 10 May.


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?


I've got more than a few shots of TERs O/B on navy F-4s in Vietnam, but
I've
also got a couple showing them carrying MERS (and bombs) there.


Never saw it done in the USAF. Seems like
it would create a very forward C/G.


ISTR reading that one of the reasons the navy didn't like to carry wing
tanks was apparently due to overrotation following the cat shot,
probably
owing to fuel slosh creating an aft Cg, so a more forward Cg would seem
to
be a good thing for their purposes.



Wing tanks were frowned upon because they got beat up by the deck crew
and were twice the problem of a CL w/o any real advantage. As for
'blowing off the CL...no-no-do that a few times and you'll be outta CL
tanks. It may have been common in the USAF, with a warehouse full of
them but not so on a CV.

I hate to differ about the Navy never using wing tanks but....
I was the Gunner in VF-74, 171, and 102 at NAS Oceana and aboard the USS
Independence and Nimitz during the 1970's. We used the Sargent Fletcher
wing tanks when towing targets. They did have a bad habit of leaking.


"Bob" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi Rob,
What kind of load-outs did VX-4 have for their Phantoms? I can give
you some insight for the time frame 1968 to 1972. The only unusual
Paint job was the black F-4J that later had the playboy bunny on the
vertical stabilizer. It was painted black in response to a Marine
request to see if all black would be better at night for CAS missions
in South Vietnam. The paint used was a polyurethane and it was hoped
it would give a better, longer lasting corrosion protection than the
acrylic then used. Black proved to be slightly harder to see at
night. Any airplane without lights is hard to see at night and the
black was very visible in daylight. In air combat maneuvering tests
the black plane always gathered the most bad guys behind it. Like a
magnet. The poly paint was much better for anti-corrosion and lasted
several times longer than acrylic. But, the downside was, it cost
several times as much and was hazardous to the health of appliers. To
my knowledge no other Navy airplane was painted black.

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. 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. 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. VX-4 Phantoms
tested all varieties of these Aim missiles which all looked the same
externally. A very large towed target was also tested. It was towed
with an underwing mounted reel. This target wasn't accepted for
service use. 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. The Navy did not choose to use these gun pods but all
internal gun systems in their future airplanes used this M-60 gun.
Another pod was carried when testing the ACMR (air combat maneuvering
range). This pod transmitted airplane data like speed, altitude, angle
of attack, attitude, weapons select and other info needed to
reconstruct real time ACM engagements. Another small centerline pod
was called a "blivet" and carried crews luggage on cross country
flights. This blivet also carried a variety of things, like booze
(pre-PC Navy) animal carcasses from hunting trips, etc.

There were more unusual loads on VX-4 Phantoms but these are a few of
the more common.

Bob wrote:
The Navy did not use wing tanks on their F-4's.

Oh really?

We had at least one bird with wing tanks in both fleet F-4 sqadrons I
was ion. VF-33 and VF-151. We used them for checking the forward AIM-7
fuselage stations and also when we carried a camera.

"Rob van Riel" wrote in message
news
VX-4 has created some of the most spectacular paintjobs seen on F-4
Phantoms

Two thoughts I've had as I've read this thread:

1) It is awesome knowing the guys that actually slung the Phantom around in
the air and in the hangars are among us, and that they recall all of the
detail with such clarity.

2) I hope you never get to judge one of my F-4 builds. ;-)

Seriously, enjoyed reading this thread.

WmB