• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

"Quirks" of Past Aircraft

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
I can certainly see how that happened to your former CO...easy thing to do. Also, wasn't part of that inadvertent torp launch deal the fact that while launching a buoy, the ATO would be looking out the left window (while hopefully mashing the buoy button and not the torp button) to confirm that the buoy had cleared the launcher? It's all coming back now...sheesh!

You are correct, however there is a "SONO LAUNCH ONLY" switch setting. The rest of the story about that CO was that they were just checking in to the range and weren't even ready to drop a torp, just get their intial pattern going. That's what made it all the more amusing for everyone else and so painful for him, hence his drop yardage, just to make sure the torpedo firing report was (painfully) complete.
 

Catmando

Keep your knots up.
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
A couple of the top of my head:

A-4- Everyone who has flown it has been suddenly surprised by the un-commanded snap-roll induced by the mechanical/aerodynamic slats coming out, asymmetrically!

F-14- Everyone I know has at least once, while doing a Sierra Hotel high speed break with the wings swept back, missed the switch to put the wings back in Auto. They learn about it as they turn downwind and start to stall around 200kts! Fortunately the wings sweep forward rapidly, before ground impact.

F-14- The fuel dump switch was inhibited by the squat-switch, weight on wheels switch. Thus if the dump switch was in the dump position, immediately upon lift-off, fuel began dumping. The first time I ever saw this was at night at Cecil. Taking off in AB, the flames behind the aircraft light up the sky. Thinking he was on fire, he almost ejected. But the F-14 was brand new then, and the Tower thought the guy was just showing off.

While the F-4 cockpit was noisy, guys could take off their helmets in fight without having their eardrums in pain. Not so the F-14. Its ECS turbine spun at an incredible rpm, and while it put out great airflow, it was like screaming banshees. It was unbearable, even for a moment.

F-14- Instead of using DLC in working off a "high" coming aboard, a lot of guys just quickly moved the stick left and right. The drag from the spoilers flipping up and down quickly worked much better than the DLC.

F-4- In the landing configuration at certain power settings, the J-79s made a howling, screaming, pitch changing sound that sounded like 1,000 howling demons. One day after doing touch and go's, the skipper called me in. It seemed that I had been flying over a Catholic elementary school on downwind. The head nun had called to complain. Apparently every time I flew overhead I was at the certain power setting where the bleeds open and shut, causing the screaming. She had all the kids under desks, thinking I was about to crash. So I had to go to the school to apologize in person.

The F-14's stabilizers were about the same size at the A-4's wings in area.



 

brownshoe

Well-Known Member
Contributor
A-4 ground crew point of view... I hated those f'ing ladders. Not to mention those oily starboard wings (slid down and fell on my keister one night during a preflight).
 
Last edited:

jmcquate

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Cat, over a few drinks with a Tomcat driver a while back, I remember him saying that because of the slow spool rate of the TF-30s, you had to keep a high AOA behind the boat in the Alphas to maintain a higher RPM for power inputs. Any truth to that?
 

BusyBee604

St. Francis/Hugh Hefner Combo!
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
Cat, over a few drinks with a Tomcat driver a while back, I remember him saying that because of the slow spool rate of the TF-30s, you had to keep a high AOA behind the boat in the Alphas to maintain a higher RPM for power inputs. Any truth to that?
Sounds like the Skyhawk, in that we flew landing approaches w/ speedbrakes out, to keep our RPM higher for quicker engine acceleration to 100% in case of waveoff or bolter. Of course you had to program yourself to close the speedbrakes instantly upon initiating W/O, or at touchdown on a CV landing!:eek:
A-4C 149567  NK604 VA-146 1966.jpg
BzB
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
A couple of the top of my head:
F-14- Instead of using DLC in working off a "high" coming aboard, a lot of guys just quickly moved the stick left and right. The drag from the spoilers flipping up and down quickly worked much better than the DLC.​
So "poor man's DLC" is a Grumman thing. Nice.
F-4- In the landing configuration at certain power settings, the J-79s made a howling, screaming, pitch changing sound that sounded like 1,000 howling demons. One day after doing touch and go's, the skipper called me in. It seemed that I had been flying over a Catholic elementary school on downwind. The head nun had called to complain. Apparently every time I flew overhead I was at the certain power setting where the bleeds open and shut, causing the screaming. She had all the kids under desks, thinking I was about to crash. So I had to go to the school to apologize in person.
Did she move to Coupeville later in life?
Sounds like the Skyhawk, in that we flew landing approaches w/ speedbrakes out, to keep our RPM higher for quicker engine acceleration to 100% in case of waveoff or bolter. Of course you had to program yourself to close the speedbrakes instantly upon initiating W/O, or at touchdown on a CV landing!:eek:
BzB
Prowler and Goosehawk both do the same thing for the same reason.
 

Wingnut172N

Tumbleweed
pilot
Cat,

I've heard that the F-4 was very stable and well-behaved around the boat, just had a fast approach speed, whereas the Turkey was something of a handful. Would you agree? What made the F-14 so difficult to land? Also, a lot of Phantom vids I've seen have them rocketing off the bow with the extended nose strut and what seems like an overrotation off the cat...was that a technique specific to that airplane?
 

Corkyboy

New Member
A-4 ground crew point of view... I hated those f'ing ladders. Not to mention those oily starboard wings (slid down and fell on my keister one night during a preflight).
They did try putting anti skid paint on the inner starboard wing, but it was only marginally successful. Speaking of oil, adding engine oil to the J-52 powered A-4 was no picnic. If it had been over serviced by the previous plane captain, then the drain bottle would overflow down to your armpits, before you had a chance to get out of the way.
 

BusyBee604

St. Francis/Hugh Hefner Combo!
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
They did try putting anti skid paint on the inner starboard wing, but it was only marginally successful. Speaking of oil, adding engine oil to the J-52 powered A-4 was no picnic. If it had been over serviced by the previous plane captain, then the drain bottle would overflow down to your armpits, before you had a chance to get out of the way.
Without our stellar Plane Captains, we'd never have gotten airborne. Long time no see brownshoe & Corkyboy!:eek:
BzB
 

zipmartin

Never been better
pilot
Contributor
.......because of the slow spool rate of the TF-30s, u had to keep a high AOA .......

The A-7A/B/C all had TF30's and the A-7E had the TF41, all turbo-fans with slow spool-up times. The problem was the A-7's speedbrake was UNDER the fuselage so it couldn't be used during the landing configuration to increase RPM's during approach, like the A-4 did. This meant the LSO's window for a wave-off was further out than other aircraft. You definitely didn't want to get behind the power curve behind the boat. The speedbrake was wired so that even if it was extended, it would automatically retract when the gear was extended. It was like a barn door when fully extended and would flat put you forward in the seat. Rumor has it that it was originally designed for 90 degree bomb runs (great accuracy) but you had to roll in from around 30K feet to get the pipper on target, release, and pull out before getting into the blast envelope. The advent of the INS and computers made the accuracy thing a moot point anyway.
 

BusyBee604

St. Francis/Hugh Hefner Combo!
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
Also, a lot of Phantom vids I've seen have them rocketing off the bow with the extended nose strut and what seems like an overrotation off the cat...was that a technique specific to that airplane?
You think the Phantom looked like an overr0tation off the cat, you should have seen it's MacDonnell "Daddy", the [horribly underpowered] Demon. I made 2 cruises with a Demon Squadron in the wing, and every launch, AB or not... seemed like the start of an epic stall/spin fiasco. From Vulture's Row, each Demon upon full rotation looked like a plan view from above. Although I never saw, or even heard of a full stall on a Demon catshot, It never failed to put my heart in my throat each time.:eek:
F3H-2N Demon-1.jpg F3H-2N Demon.jpg
BTW, my beloved Skyhawk required a pretty extensive rotation off the cat also, especially in the max gross, or heavyweight tanker configuration.:eek:
BzB
 
Last edited:

brownshoe

Well-Known Member
Contributor
They did try putting anti skid paint on the inner starboard wing, but it was only marginally successful. Speaking of oil, adding engine oil to the J-52 powered A-4 was no picnic. If it had been over serviced by the previous plane captain, then the drain bottle would overflow down to your armpits, before you had a chance to get out of the way.
Crap, Walt, just think, that was about 50 years ago. Ah the heck with it... let's go get some midrats. :)
 
Last edited:
Top