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

Phormer Phighter Phlyer wrote:
Rufus wrote:

Phormer Phighter Phlyer wrote:

Rob van Riel wrote:

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.

Heh...I sent a Harrier out with a DLQ pod and he blew up a CHP radar gun
once by mistake. Cop's mistake...what should you expect, pointing a
radar at a tactical aircraft? Big hammer, no supervision. Yup...life
was good...

Yeah - Mugu is a great place to be stationed. I was there as a civvie
with the PMTC crowd for a bit...a Hornet baby amongst the Tomcat guys.
But it was fun to get a look at the B model Toms - had a brief brush
with the AB controls on that engine while I was at GE. Was nice to see
it in an airplane.

You didn't happen to flow through VX-5 by any chance? We could have
crossed paths there...

--
- Rufus

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

Guy Alcala wrote:

snip

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

Forgot -- the "**" means "Only gradual coordinated turns are permitted".

Guy

Rufus wrote:
Phormer Phighter Phlyer wrote:

Rufus wrote:

Phormer Phighter Phlyer wrote:

Rob van Riel wrote:

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.


Heh...I sent a Harrier out with a DLQ pod and he blew up a CHP radar gun
once by mistake. Cop's mistake...what should you expect, pointing a
radar at a tactical aircraft? Big hammer, no supervision. Yup...life
was good...

Yeah - Mugu is a great place to be stationed. I was there as a civvie
with the PMTC crowd for a bit...a Hornet baby amongst the Tomcat guys.
But it was fun to get a look at the B model Toms - had a brief brush
with the AB controls on that engine while I was at GE. Was nice to see
it in an airplane.

You didn't happen to flow through VX-5 by any chance? We could have
crossed paths there...


Visited VX-5 lots, taking project guys there but was at Mugu only.

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.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 05:08:21 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

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).

We didn't have the luxury of configuring specific jets for specific
missions other than with regard to the mission expendables themselves.
By that I mean a H/K F-4E during Linebacker was loaded with 4xCBU-52
on the inboard TERs (two on each), three fuel tanks, three AIM-7E-2,
and ONE ECM pod in the (usually) left forward missile well.

If squadron airplanes were tasked for other missions (by 1 Oct '72 we
only had one F-4 squadron at Korat--the 34th), they got different bomb
loads but the AIM-7 and ECM pod configuration remained constant.

An escort mission (the other primary mission tasking of the 34th TFS)
would load three tanks, four AIM-9E on the inboard MAU-32s and the
same three Sparrows and ECM.


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.

Over the years there were a lot of different configurations. Some
places and times carried ECM on an inboard wing station. Some carried
two pods. Various models of pods were carried and, yes, strike cameras
were occasionally hung.

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.

I was in the 34th at the time, although not flying that day. While
that may be the tail number and it might even be a picture with Coe
and Webb flying it, I'm not sure that you could guarantee the
pedigree. Seems highly fortuitous that someone could have been there
with a camera to take the picture on the day of the kill. (Was it a
shot from the boomer?)

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.

You are making a bad assumption here. A/A escort flights flew as
"out-riggers" on a set of bomb-droppers, usually three or four flights
of four. They went in with the bombers and out with the bombers.

H/K flights were "first-in/last-out", sweeping ahead of the strikers
and remaining in the area until the package was clear--and often
beyond that if fuel allowed to do visual armed recce for SAM sites.

They did run pods "ON" and we never turned them on except as a
last-ditch defense in a SAM-dance. But, as mentioned above, we did not
have the luxury of uploading and downloading ECM pods for the day's
mission. They were bolted on (unjettisonable) and stayed on.

As for the likelihood of use--since we were not configured with
AIM-9s, we were at least as likely as the escort guys to need an
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.

Strike escort guys more commonly felt themselves used (abused?) as
"herders" to create a situation to turn the MiGs to a place where the
fair-haired boys of the 555th could get their shots. We didn't even
get to talk to Teaball.


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.

They also had "Agile Eagle" aircraft, the first increment of TCTO-566
modded airplanes with LES and TISEO. And, they had Combat Tree,
dedicated GCI support and a serious public-relations corps to make a
USAF ace. They were mostly 555th TFS and mostly Fighter Weapons School
grads and instructors, so they were arguably the best trained,
qualified and equipped to do that mission.



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

Phormer Phighter Phlyer wrote:
Rufus wrote:

Phormer Phighter Phlyer wrote:

Rufus wrote:

Phormer Phighter Phlyer wrote:

Rob van Riel wrote:

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.



Heh...I sent a Harrier out with a DLQ pod and he blew up a CHP radar
gun once by mistake. Cop's mistake...what should you expect, pointing
a radar at a tactical aircraft? Big hammer, no supervision.
Yup...life was good...

Yeah - Mugu is a great place to be stationed. I was there as a civvie
with the PMTC crowd for a bit...a Hornet baby amongst the Tomcat guys.
But it was fun to get a look at the B model Toms - had a brief brush
with the AB controls on that engine while I was at GE. Was nice to
see it in an airplane.

You didn't happen to flow through VX-5 by any chance? We could have
crossed paths there...


Visited VX-5 lots, taking project guys there but was at Mugu only.

It's a small world...always wondering who'll jog my memory next.

--
- Rufus