mjt@super.org (Michael J. Tighe) (06/30/89)
From: Michael J. Tighe <mjt@super.org> >> The F-4 a fighter? I respectfully disagree. The F-4 was an air defense > ^^^ fleet? I guess it depends on who the owner of the plane is. If it was the USAF, then the plane was air defense; if it was the USN, then it was fleet defense. > I contest the claim that MiGs were much better... I did not mean the MIGS were better, but more maneuverable. There is no doubt (in my mind) that the F-4 was a better plane, but the MIGs had better turning capability. > The F-4 did become a fighter, and a damn good one, even though it > started life as an interceptor/bomber. And this is testament to the skill of our pilots and ACM tacticians to be able to take a plane that is not designed for the fighter role, and make it work. > I'd like to point out an interesting difference between Navy two- > seaters and Air Force two-seaters. Another interesting (albeit stupid) is that the refueling receptacles were not the same. The USN F-4 used a male probe, while the USAF F-4 used a female receptacle. I assume this was fixed eventually, but it could have been a problem. > BTW did you know that you can successfully launch an F-8 _with_ the > wings folded? I don't know if you can do this with the F-4, but maybe > nobody ever tried. Can't say I have, but while we are on this subject of weird takeoff & landing configurations, did you know that the U-2 could be (and was) configured to takeoff from a carrier? And that an F-15 can land with only one wing? (assuming you can find some one to shoot one off). Believe it or Not.
shafer@drynix (Mary Shafer) (07/01/89)
From: Mary Shafer <shafer@drynix> Michael J. Tighe <mjt@super.org> wrote the stuff with the odd no. of >, the even no. of > stuff comes from me: >>> The F-4 a fighter? I respectfully disagree. The F-4 was an air defense >> ^^^ fleet? >I guess it depends on who the owner of the plane is. If it was the >USAF, then the plane was air defense; if it was the USN, then it was >fleet defense. The F-4 was designed and built for the Navy as a fleet defense a/c. It was eventually (and rather grudgingly) bought by the Air Force as a fighter, rather than an air defense a/c. By the time the Air Force bought it, the Navy had already put the gun in, added the slats, etc. to make it a fighter. Now that it's in the Air National Guard squadrons, it's back to being an air defense a/c. The Air Force also uses it for Wild Weasel. Recce, too, or is that the Luftwaffe? I could see that they were recce F-4s, but I couldn't see the markings. >Another interesting (albeit stupid) is that the refueling receptacles >were not the same. The USN F-4 used a male probe, while the USAF F-4 >used a female receptacle. I assume this was fixed eventually, but it >could have been a problem. All Navy (and Marine) a/c refuel with probe and drogue, all USAF a/c use the boom. This will probably never change, although the Air Force has fitted a drogue refuelling system to the KC-135 and KC-10. However, this has to be installed on the ground and doesn't have all the features that the Navy drogue does. One Navy pilot has told me that you can get fuel from it, but it's really just barely adequate. He said something about the pucker factor involved in a mid-ocean, night refuelling when you're down to 300 lb, even with a _good_ drogue system.... Flight International had a good article about refuelling about 3-4 weeks ago. The cover has an inset picture of a Phantom, probe out, closing on the drogue. (Phantom because it's an RAF a/c, I think.) The Navy and Air Force also use different O2 and radio connections, so that the helmets aren't compatible. The only thing that the Navy and the Air Force agree on is that the Army shouldn't have fast jets :-). BTW, most NATO a/c, except the F-16, refuel with probe and drogue. This is really obvious when you look at the RAF Hercules, with a fixed probe added on after (during?) the Falklands war. -- M F Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov NASA Ames Research Center arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer Dryden Flight Research Facility DON'T use the drynix address Of course I don't speak for NASA A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all. --Unknown US fighter pilot.
shafer@drynix (Mary Shafer) (07/05/89)
From: Mary Shafer <shafer@drynix>
I responded to Michael J Tighe's comments on refuelling, saying:
All Navy (and Marine) a/c refuel with probe and drogue, all USAF a/c
use the boom. This will probably never change, although the Air Force
has fitted a drogue refuelling system to the KC-135 and KC-10.
However, this has to be installed on the ground and doesn't have all
the features that the Navy drogue does. One Navy pilot has told me
that you can get fuel from it, but it's really just barely adequate.
Right after I sent this off, I got the June "Interavia", which has
another article about refuelling. The KC-10 Extender had underwing
pods with the drogue. They're powered by a little propeller on the
front and they work really well, with all the features. There's a
nice drawing in the article. So it's only the KC-135 that has the
barely adequate, ground-installed drogue.
I should also mention that the US Army uses probe and drogue
refuelling for most of its helicopters, particularly the big ones.
The tankers are KC-130s.
--
M F Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
Dryden Flight Research Facility DON'T use the drynix address
Of course I don't speak for NASA
A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all.
--Unknown US fighter pilot.mlewis@uunet.UU.NET (Marcus S. Lewis) (07/05/89)
From: unocss!mlewis@uunet.UU.NET (Marcus S. Lewis) >From article <7885@cbnews.ATT.COM>, by mjt@super.org (Michael J. Tighe): > > From: Michael J. Tighe <mjt@super.org> >>> The F-4 a fighter? I respectfully disagree. The F-4 was an air defense >> ^^^ fleet? I am going to try to add my two cents worth to this one. My dad was a fighter pilot back when (his favorite I think was the F-86) and flew F-104D's out of George AFB just before and during the transition to F-4's. Some of the few war stories he will tell are about competition between the "zipper" pilots and the white elephant pilots. He said that the dogfight setups favored the F-4 all the time: The 104's were the aggressors and the fight began when the F-4 got a lock. Sure, a fair fight. But the -104's nearly EVERY TIME were able to blow the F-4's away, strictly because of maneuverability. And radar cross-section, and smoke. If the 104's could break the lock, they had the bigger aircraft at a severe disadvantage. It's beyond me how such a little bitty wing could lift that airplane. But then there wasn't much to it but a cockpit mounted on an engine.Very little in the way of avionics. My dad may also have some distinction - he managed to lose one each F-104D and F-4C at the same base, two years apart. The punishment? He was a Safety Officer for the rest of his career. BTW, somebody mentioned a recce version of the F-4 with a question. Yes, hte 26th TRW at Ramstein flew them in the late 60's (I lived there then). I remember seeing a Canberra recce (looooong wings) bird on the flight line and being told not to talk about it. Also can't rememer markings on it. Hope this makes it out of here. Marc -- Na khuya mne podpis'? | Internet: cs057@zeus.unl.edu | UUCP: uunet!btni!unocss!mlewis Go for it! | Bitnet: CS057@UNOMA1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------