VX-4 phantom loads

VX-4 has created some of the most spectacular paintjobs seen on F-4
Phantoms, and as such are prime subjects for scale models. I could of
course build such planes with nothing, or only fuel tanks under the wings,
I prefer to have a little more variation in loadouts. Given that VX-4 was
a test squadron, I would imagine they put some a-typical, and therefore
interesting loads under their Phantoms.

Does anyone out there have information on what they tested on their
Phantoms? Maybe even some pictures?

Thanks in advance for any info

Rob

Rob van Riel wrote:
VX-4 has created some of the most spectacular paintjobs seen on F-4
Phantoms, and as such are prime subjects for scale models. I could of
course build such planes with nothing, or only fuel tanks under the wings,
I prefer to have a little more variation in loadouts. Given that VX-4 was
a test squadron, I would imagine they put some a-typical, and therefore
interesting loads under their Phantoms.

Does anyone out there have information on what they tested on their
Phantoms? Maybe even some pictures?

Thanks in advance for any info

Rob


No pix but I was XO of VX-4 from Apr '88 till Dec '89. I and the CO flew
the F-4S' we had 3 of them. Used for launch of high speed targets or
targets for the F-14/18, radar type. No testing still being done for the
F-4S.

We flew with a centerline and LAU-7s.

Phormer Phighter Phlyer wrote:
Rob van Riel wrote:

VX-4 has created some of the most spectacular paintjobs seen on F-4
Phantoms, and as such are prime subjects for scale models. I could of
course build such planes with nothing, or only fuel tanks under the
wings,
I prefer to have a little more variation in loadouts. Given that VX-4 was
a test squadron, I would imagine they put some a-typical, and therefore
interesting loads under their Phantoms.

Does anyone out there have information on what they tested on their
Phantoms? Maybe even some pictures?

Thanks in advance for any info

Rob


No pix but I was XO of VX-4 from Apr '88 till Dec '89. I and the CO flew
the F-4S' we had 3 of them. Used for launch of high speed targets or
targets for the F-14/18, radar type. No testing still being done for the
F-4S.

We flew with a centerline and LAU-7s.

I just missed you...I was at Mugu during the summer of '86...I think. I
was working with the PMTC guys.

--
- Rufus

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 corrsion protection than the
acryllic 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 visable 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 acryllic. But, the downside was, it cost
severals 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 varities 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 pgun 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 trnsmitted airplane dat 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.

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

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.

In the Phantom's twilight service, F-4E and F-4G were flown with F-15 tanks
on the centerline. No maneuvering restrictions, although I am not sure if
they did anything to the rear Sparrow firing problem...

_____________
José Herculano

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 20:19:24 -0000, "José Herculano"
wrote:

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.

In the Phantom's twilight service, F-4E and F-4G were flown with F-15 tanks
on the centerline. No maneuvering restrictions, although I am not sure if
they did anything to the rear Sparrow firing problem...

_____________
José Herculano

I know that the F-4G flew with the much better MacAir tank. It's a
good bet that the later E-equipped units would have gotten the better
tanks as well.

With drag considerations, the single center-line tank would give much
better range/endurance than the two outboard configuration.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

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.

Rufus wrote:
Phormer Phighter Phlyer wrote:

Rob van Riel wrote:

VX-4 has created some of the most spectacular paintjobs seen on F-4
Phantoms, and as such are prime subjects for scale models. I could of
course build such planes with nothing, or only fuel tanks under the
wings,
I prefer to have a little more variation in loadouts. Given that VX-4
was
a test squadron, I would imagine they put some a-typical, and therefore
interesting loads under their Phantoms.

Does anyone out there have information on what they tested on their
Phantoms? Maybe even some pictures?

Thanks in advance for any info

Rob


No pix but I was XO of VX-4 from Apr '88 till Dec '89. I and the CO
flew the F-4S' we had 3 of them. Used for launch of high speed targets
or targets for the F-14/18, radar type. No testing still being done
for the F-4S.

We flew with a centerline and LAU-7s.


I just missed you...I was at Mugu during the summer of '86...I think. I
was working with the PMTC guys.


Great tour, our 'boss' was COMOPTEVFOR, a 2 star, our administrative
boss was COMFITFUD, but as an ecelon II command, we could do what we
wanted. Lots of parts, lots of $.

I flew the F-14, F-4 and also we leased three Cessna T-210s to move
project guys around. Great fun getting low over the desert on the way to
China Lake, making cars think you were the CHP.

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.