Phantom flight

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

"Raymond Marshall" wrote in message
om...
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.

The Phantom was very stable aircraft around the boat. Despite its genuine
mach 2 capability (well, maybe not the S model), it was remarkably docile
and forgiving throughout its envelope. It had high wing loading and
relatively unsophisticated aerodynamics so it couldn't turn (except perhaps
compared to a Zipper ... oops, an opening for Walt he'll likely not refuse).
Didn't have the sports car feel of some jets ... more like a pickup truck,
but a solid and reliable jet.

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.

R / John

John Carrier wrote:
The Phantom was very stable aircraft around the boat. Despite its genuine
mach 2 capability (well, maybe not the S model), it was remarkably docile
and forgiving throughout its envelope.

My flight instructor once mentioned that on his first flight in a
Phantom, as he got it slowed down for landing, it scared the poo out of
him (apparently *felt* like it was in danger of departure, even though
it was O.K.).

Can any of you experienced Phantom pilots shed any light on this?

--
John Miller
email domain: n4vu.com; username: jsm(@)

John Miller wrote:
John Carrier wrote:

The Phantom was very stable aircraft around the boat. Despite its genuine
mach 2 capability (well, maybe not the S model), it was remarkably docile
and forgiving throughout its envelope.


My flight instructor once mentioned that on his first flight in a
Phantom, as he got it slowed down for landing, it scared the poo out of
him (apparently *felt* like it was in danger of departure, even though
it was O.K.).

Can any of you experienced Phantom pilots shed any light on this?


Well, it did get a little 'vague' when you got around 'on speed', and
the margin from onspeed to nose wander, wing drop off wasn't that large
but ya got used to it. Yopu could do all sorts of things with the stick
when really slow, w/o the jet doing anything, since so much of the
wing/stab was somewhat ineffective.

What was really scary was riding along on a mode 1 at the boat and
watching the stick move some vast amounts, w/o the jet really doing
anything.

Hi John,
I had the pleasure of flying most all the F4 models made for the Navy
at Pax River. Also had one squadron tour in the F4J block 46 and a
couple hundred landings. Had many traps in the F8E with more than a
few "wet flight suit" traps in the dark. Also had traps in props. I
believe I can say without fear of argument from any Phantom that the
F4 was the easiest airplane ever built to land, carrier or shore based.
For starters, the F-4s were all assigned to the "big" decks. Having
grown up on 27 Charlies, the "big" decks were like cheating. Secondly
the F-4 dirtied up was ultra-stable. Squeeze a hair of power and the
ball went up a hair. First time in my career I ever saw a ball go out
the side of the lens. In F-8s you left the ball nearing the ramp and
gave it a little high dip to set the hook or it could easily bounce and
hook skip the whole speghetti pile. The Phantom just hit the deck and
planted itself dowm. Tail hook the size of a plow shear, never heard
of one parting. If you did bolt, a rarity, you had enough power to
bend it around in a VFR pattern and get back to the groove in about 60
seconds. About the only gripe we had around the boat was fuel
consumption was high. Almost as bad as present day F-18s. But our
boarding rates were in the 90% range and bolts were uncommon. By far
the best carrier plane I personally ever flew. Now in the air in ACM
it was a dog and took both hands to pull max G's. Pretty good vertical
with it's power and gave you a real edge over guys who didn't like to
get their nose up. 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. The guy who told you the F-4 was
scary dirty must have been a helo pilot or an USAF guy. Not all that
analytical for sure.





John Miller wrote:
John Carrier wrote:
The Phantom was very stable aircraft around the boat. Despite its
genuine
mach 2 capability (well, maybe not the S model), it was remarkably
docile
and forgiving throughout its envelope.

My flight instructor once mentioned that on his first flight in a
Phantom, as he got it slowed down for landing, it scared the poo out
of
him (apparently *felt* like it was in danger of departure, even
though
it was O.K.).

Can any of you experienced Phantom pilots shed any light on this?

--
John Miller
email domain: n4vu.com; username: jsm(@)

On 26 Mar 2005 14:19:03 -0800, "Bob" wrote:

Hi John,
. Now in the air in ACM
it was a dog and took both hands to pull max G's. Pretty good vertical
with it's power and gave you a real edge over guys who didn't like to
get their nose up. 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. The guy who told you the F-4 was
scary dirty must have been a helo pilot or an USAF guy. Not all that
analytical for sure.

That's low. Really low.

And, notice how I resist saying that USAF guys could pull max G with
out using two hands.

I just wouldn't say something like that.

Of course, if you didn't have to hover on the CAP at "max conserve"
orbiting at 250 KIAS to meet cycle time it was a lot easier. Just run
around the alloted area a bit above corner velocity and you can grab
all the G you want with one hand.


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

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On 26 Mar 2005 14:19:03 -0800, "Bob" wrote:


Hi John,
. Now in the air in ACM
it was a dog and took both hands to pull max G's. Pretty good vertical
with it's power and gave you a real edge over guys who didn't like to
get their nose up. 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. The guy who told you the F-4 was
scary dirty must have been a helo pilot or an USAF guy. Not all that
analytical for sure.


That's low. Really low.

And, notice how I resist saying that USAF guys could pull max G with
out using two hands.

I just wouldn't say something like that.

Of course, if you didn't have to hover on the CAP at "max conserve"
orbiting at 250 KIAS to meet cycle time it was a lot easier. Just run
around the alloted area a bit above corner velocity and you can grab
all the G you want with one hand.


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

Two hands to pull 'max 'G'? Hogwash. I could overstress the thing w/o
problem.

As for everything else, pretty close. I did love it but never heard of
one in a flat spin. Lots of OOC, spin stuff but nothing flat. Even when
the stab horns were breaking, 1976.7, we lost a F-4J(VF-33) when it
broke. The plane spun but when the airloads allowed the stab to fall
full leading edge up, it recovered.

"Bob" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi John,
I had the pleasure of flying most all the F4 models made for the Navy
at Pax River. Also had one squadron tour in the F4J block 46 and a
couple hundred landings. Had many traps in the F8E with more than a
few "wet flight suit" traps in the dark. Also had traps in props. I
believe I can say without fear of argument from any Phantom that the
F4 was the easiest airplane ever built to land, carrier or shore based.
For starters, the F-4s were all assigned to the "big" decks. Having
grown up on 27 Charlies, the "big" decks were like cheating. Secondly
the F-4 dirtied up was ultra-stable. Squeeze a hair of power and the
ball went up a hair. First time in my career I ever saw a ball go out
the side of the lens. In F-8s you left the ball nearing the ramp and
gave it a little high dip to set the hook or it could easily bounce and
hook skip the whole speghetti pile. The Phantom just hit the deck and
planted itself dowm. Tail hook the size of a plow shear, never heard
of one parting. If you did bolt, a rarity, you had enough power to
bend it around in a VFR pattern and get back to the groove in about 60
seconds. About the only gripe we had around the boat was fuel
consumption was high. Almost as bad as present day F-18s. But our
boarding rates were in the 90% range and bolts were uncommon. By far
the best carrier plane I personally ever flew. Now in the air in ACM
it was a dog and took both hands to pull max G's. Pretty good vertical
with it's power and gave you a real edge over guys who didn't like to
get their nose up. 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. The guy who told you the F-4 was
scary dirty must have been a helo pilot or an USAF guy. Not all that
analytical for sure.

SNIP

Can't disagree with most of your commentary. The Phantom got better with
the slotted stab, never needed more than one hand to pull max G. It was
challenging to exploit in ACM. For my first 500 hours, my thought was "No
wonder we beat up on these guys!" (F-8 driver perspective.) Around the 500
hour mark it changed, "How did we ever beat up these guys?"

The F-8 "high dip" cost us a jet for a whole cruise. Broke the nose strut
trunions. 27C, night, pitching deck was an F-8 mishap waiting to happen.
Certainly having a left or right runway, a 3 1/2 degree glideslope, and a
wee more hook-to-ramp made the big decks much more accommodating. OTOH,
they all look pretty small in the dark.

Yes, the Phantom was very solid around the blunt end of the boat. Went
through a whole cruise without a bolt ... until I mentioned that fact to my
RO on the last flight (mid translant). BOING!!! Oh well .... 99%

I found the F-14 a revelation. Not rock steady like the Phantom, but
significantly slower and tons more gas. It took some flying (as did the
Gator), but it was safe as houses. I've always maintained that all the
hogwash about shipboard flying qualities, hard-to-get-aboard, etc is just
that: hogwash. Show me the carrier landing mishap rate. Cause there's the
jets that'll kill you or jets that'll take care of you. Nobody TRIES to hit
the ramp. Nor do they put plumbers in unforgiving airplanes.

R / John

Hi John,
I guess my "hi dip" remark wasn't quite that. In the days of paddles,
the LSO would give you a high dip signal and expect you to just drop
the nose a hair and then return to level. This just worked off about
ten feet or so from your flat groove altitude. In the F-8 if I wanted
to get aboard without chancing a hook skip or a BAR (flat at the ramp)
bolter I'd pull up the nose a hair just before touchdown to set the
hook. As long as you weren't fast this tecnique kept you from a flat
bounce and usually got you a one wire. On a really dark night if the
deck was moving I had to depend upon the LSO to tell me when to go for
it, like, "OK, fly it on down". Landing an F-8 on a black night with
the deck moving was high risk no matter how you did it. I always
calculated, the fewer passes over the ramp per night, the better chance
I'd make it down to the ready room dry.

Back to the Phantom and using two hands for max G's. Figure of speech,
please forgive. Yes you could usually get max G with one hand.
Getting 9 G's (max) below ten grand at 600 kts took me both hands. But
I was a weak-assed pilot who was used to pulling an F-8 around with
half the effort. Agree, a savvy F-4 pilot could whip an F-8 everywhere
but prior to 1968 the number of ACM savvy F-4 pilots was low. Later
F-8's, like the F8J, were dogs and the F-4 guys routinely beat up on
them.

We had a couple of guys who went through an entire cruise (100-120
traps) without a bolter in the F-4. I had two of my three F-4 cruises
bolterless, not all greenies but bolterless. Wire average probably
around two. Different strokes...........

Sorry if I offended the USAF guys. What I meant to say, was carrier
pilots were used to landing at slower speeds and felt comfortable
dirty. We spent more time with a donut than any blue suiter given all
the FCLP's and constant speed approach patterns. Not necessarily
better, just different. I spent time with a number of USAF exchange
guys and they caught on just fine to our different way of doing things.

John Carrier wrote:

Yes, the Phantom was very solid around the blunt end of the boat. Went
through a whole cruise without a bolt ... until I mentioned that fact to my
RO on the last flight (mid translant). BOING!!! Oh well .... 99%

I made the mistake of listing my "100% boarding rate for the cruise" on
my fitrep brag sheet prior to a night go as we prepped to cross the
pond. Duh...