XF8U-3 Performance Comparison with F4H-1/F-4B

[Zipper730]

Getting back to the F-4B (since the purpose of this thread was about comparing the two): It seems pointless to compare the air-to-ground capabilities of the two aircraft since the F-4B had air-to-ground capability off the bat (the XF8U-3 didn't, though there were considerations of adding a 6000 lb. payload if need be) and quite a lot of it!

The big issue generally here was how the two would perform in air-to-air combat. The typical load-outs commonly seen on carrier-based F-4 units appear to be.

Layout 1: 4 x AIM-7 + 4 x AIM-9 + 1 x 600 gal. tank​

I think this is the most common layout seen aboard carrier-based F-4 units. It gave it greater endurance for CAP stations and overall range.​

​

Layout 2: 4 x AIM-7 + 4 x AIM-9 + 2 x 370 gal. tanks​

While it was used in carrier based squadrons, it didn't seem to be quite as common as the 600 gal. centerline tank. Some USMC squadrons might have made use of these more readily. Interestingly, I don't think I ever saw a carrier-based squadron carrying all three drop-tanks, though the USAF did it routinely for the CAP missions they flew.​

​

While the aircraft could carry 6 x AIM-7, and Standard Aircraft Characteristics sheets did list a provision for 4 x AIM-7's as a fighter load-out, I never recall seeing pictures of either of these in operational aircraft. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, however.

The F8U-3's intended load-out appeared to be...

Layout 1: 3 x AIM-7​

This was the intended primary load-out envisioned for the aircraft being that it was to fulfill an interceptor mission.​

​

Layout 2: 4 x AIM-9​

This was the intended secondary load-out. It seems doubtful this would have been carried on a routine basis since the aircraft was developed into a configuration that could carry 3 x AIM-7 and 4 x AIM-9 simultaneously.​

​

Layout 3: 3 x AIM-7 + 2 x AIM-9​

This was cited in a Standard Aircraft Characteristics sheet which formed the last two pages in Mr. Thomason's book.​

It seems unlikely to have been routinely employed since the aircraft was ultimately modified to be able to carry 3 x AIM-7 and 4 x AIM-9 simultaneously.​

​

Layout 4: 3 x AIM-7 + 4 x AIM-9​

This likely would have been the most common layout had the plane seen operational service.​

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Of course. The thing that I was trying to get at was that the flying speeds flaps-up are higher than flaps-down. All the images I gave on Post #52 were based on flaps being down (the variations in speed were weight and whether the power and BLC was on/off).

With the XF8U-3, normal landings (carrier or field) were done with the wings up, flaps-down and BLC on. I doubt they would have attempted an engine out landing on a carrier-deck (I figure they'd have just ejected), but the diagram depicted a field-landing and was to be done flaps-up which would mean that, even if engine power and everything was present, you'd be going quite a bit faster. Looking at a NATOPS pilot's pocket checklist for the F-8D/E (which called for this to be done with the droops in the cruise position), it stands to reason that the XF8U-3, if it had become operational, would have probably done the same, but the figures calculated seemed to be with flaps-up.

I did some looking through several sources: One source was a NATOPS Pilot's Pocket Checklist (F-8D & E); the other was an F-8H&J Flight Manual. The former looks like a rickety piece of shit that has pages missing (This unfortunately excludes landing speeds , except for an engine-out landing, ironically), but the F-8H/J manual does have this data and it roughly reads as follows (some numbers are rounded up)

Good info and your perspective is correct IMO. The XF8U-3 was purely experimental and although it looked like a beast, I think it would have had to have a lot of refinement before it was accepted. I think the navy and Vought probably had the data you were looking for stashed away in a report or an unofficial checklist, but didn't develop a NATOPS document because it was an experimental aircraft (I think you recognize this.)

This jet was totally badass!

 

[Zipper730]

The XF8U-3 was purely experimental and although it looked like a beast, I think it would have had to have a lot of refinement before it was accepted.

Correct, it had several issues that were in the process of being resolved, and others that had already been worked through. It seems that the biggest issue by the time of program cancellation was (other than the single/twin-man crew issue) the canopy, which was being rectified by employing a type of laminated glass that would be able to take the temperatures the plane would be able to achieve at high-speeds.

They were working on resolving the BLC issue by reshaping the interface between the fuselage and wing center-section, since this was playing a significant role in the poor effectiveness of the BLC system (this was incorporated on BuNo. 147085 which actually flew, albeit barely): With the landing-weight of the aircraft creeping up from 26156-27650 lb. to around 29000 lb., even if everything worked as designed, it would stand to reason the BLC would probably reduce the landing speed to around 111.9 to 114.6 kn. which would still be slightly better or equal to the smaller F-8D at 115 kn.

While there could be something I'm missing here: This chart includes most all the data I have at this point for stall-speeds flaps up, flaps in the cruise-configuration, flaps down with BLC on/off, and landing-speeds in the same configuration, as well as limited data regarding the effects of C/G on stall-speed. The two areas in reddish-orange were based on a combat weights that would correspond to a 50-60% fuel load with the aircraft flying in either a clean configuration or with the droops in the cruise/combat configuration.

I've honestly found the F8U-3's performance to be somewhat less impressive than the way it was often described, with figures seeming hardly any better than the F-4B in the same configuration. Technically, the F-4B's stall-speed varies from 138-147 knots which has to do with the speed at which the stall-warning would start to come on (147 kn.), and the speed wherein a full-stall would occur (138 kn.), and would be accompanied with nose-slicing (141-142 kn.), which indicates the F-4B would be able to keep flying a little bit slower before stalling out (while I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to do that, it's simply something that sets the absolute minimum turning-circle) which gives it an arguable advantage over the F8U-3.

There's of course some variables that aren't factored in with all this...

1. Effect of Stall Speed on Altitude: The stall-speeds cited for both aircraft are based on altitudes from S/L to 10000': At higher-altitudes, transonic effects begin to take hold which raises the stall speed. The F-4 has a somewhat thicker wing (Root: 6.4%; Tip: 3-4%) than the F8U-3 (Root: 5%; Tip: 4%), particularly at the root and this might have produced larger variations in stall speed at altitude (the RF-4B for comparison has a difference in stall speed at 36000 lb. of 15 kn. from 0-10000' to 35000').
2. Weight Variations
   • F-4B
     • Stall speed figures are based on the A/C at design weight of 37500 lb. which is lower than the combat weight (by about 500-600 lb.) albeit probably negligible.
     • To achieve the same time on station the F8U-3 would require with internal fuel alone, it would need to carry a centerline 600 gal. tank or 2 x 370 gal. wing-tanks. Combat weight in this configuration usually is based on the presumption of an internal fuel load of around 75-80% versus 50%.
   • F8U-3
     • The stall-speed figures are based on weights that correlate with a 50-60% fuel-load.
     • The aircraft doesn't require external tanks to achieve the time-on-station requirements, so at the start of combat, the figures would likely be around 50-60% versus 75-80%, allowing for a proportionally lower stall-speed.

Interestingly, there were some cases where XF8U-3 pilots would engage and defeat F-4B pilots in mock dogfights as they were undergoing testing at Patuxent River (eventually somebody put a stop to it), which leads me to consider some of the following.

1. Roll-Rate: I have reason to suspect the F8U-3 had a better rate of roll than the F-4B. Generally, with everything else equal: Whoever can roll-fastest will win.
2. Droop-Design: While the F8U-3's leading-edge droops appear to have been adapted for the F-8J, the F8U-3 had a thinner, sharper wing than the F-8J and that might have had some effect on lifting characteristics.
3. Comparing Estimates: I would assume the low/medium estimates are probably correct for stall-speeds.
4. Situational Awareness: The F-4B test-pilots weren't flying over enemy territory and engaged in combat; they were carrying out various choreographed flight-tests. The XF8U-3 pilots were out for a fight and would have had the element of surprise.

The aircraft had provision for a semi-submerged store in the aft-fuselage which was proposed for both a Rolls-Royce Conway derivative (for the RN:FAA) and an upgraded variant for the USN. The station in the aft fuselage, though designed predominantly for a nuclear weapon, could include a gunpack (at least for the RN:FAA).

UPDATE (12/30/22)
Image altered to correct for an error, another image added, and an overall-cleanup to make for an easier read.

 

[Zipper730]

BiffF15
I should have tagged you on this a long time ago. I figure you would definitely have a lot of useful information since you were actually a combat pilot.

 

[BiffF15]

BiffF15
I should have tagged you on this a long time ago. I figure you would definitely have a lot of useful information since you were actually a combat pilot.

Thanks Zipper, I will have a look this afternoon (working to MSY and back today).
Cheers,
Biff

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Ironically, I could still see some features that would have favored the F8U-3 had it entered operational service regardless...

1. Transition might have been easier than the F-4B since it was a single-seater (excepting possibly the F3D if they were still in service).
2. The aircraft had a provision for a semi-submerged store in the aft fuselage: This was predominantly for the air-to-ground role and would have been a special-store, though there had been thoughts of other possibilities such as a fuel-tank to add additional range (probably unnecessary), and a gun-pack had been proposed (at least for the RN). One of the biggest problems with the F-4 was the lack of an internal gun. While a gun-pack is externally mounted, it might have been less prone to wobble when firing as the pylon-mounted gun-pods carried on the F-4's.

Your thoughts?

Just caught this - catching up

The lack of a gun on the F-4 is kind of a mixed quandary. Many complained of this deficiency during the Vietnam War but when a gun pod was fitted to USAF F-4s only a small percentage of kills were accomplished with a gun so it's a guess if the navy would have had better results.

This was corrected on the F-4E

At the end of the day I think choosing the F-4B was still the right choice.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

The lack of a gun on the F-4 is kind of a mixed quandary. Many complained of this deficiency during the Vietnam War but when a gun pod was fitted to USAF F-4s only a small percentage of kills were accomplished with a gun so it's a guess if the navy would have had better results.

I worked at GE in the late 60s when these issues were being addressed. The Vulpod had issues with accuracy in any other condition than steady state 1G upright flight. The heavy, bulky, draggy pod was nearly impossible to brace rigidly enough to hold its zero through high G maneuvering flight. It wasn't very convenient to mount/dismount, as it had to be taken out to the range and re-zeroed every time. Imagine doing that aboard a carrier?
When I left GE for the Navy, the E bird was still having issues with its radar being put out of action for the rest of the flight every time the gun was fired. A Vulcan with any wear on it would generate enough high amplitude, high frequency vibration to damage the radar, which was sitting right on top of the gun. Not too bad with a brand new airplane and gun, but after a few missions, wear would start to tell.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I worked at GE in the late 60s when these issues were being addressed. The Vulpod had issues with accuracy in any other condition than steady state 1G upright flight. The heavy, bulky, draggy pod was nearly impossible to brace rigidly enough to hold its zero through high G maneuvering flight. It wasn't very convenient to mount/dismount, as it had to be taken out to the range and re-zeroed every time. Imagine doing that aboard a carrier?
When I left GE for the Navy, the E bird was still having issues with its radar being put out of action for the rest of the flight every time the gun was fired. A Vulcan with any wear on it would generate enough high amplitude, high frequency vibration to damage the radar, which was sitting right on top of the gun. Not too bad with a brand new airplane and gun, but after a few missions, wear would start to tell.

IIRC the A-4 had a similar issue with an ECM pod, if the guns were fired the device was vibrated apart.

In the post Vietnam war days I know that once we saw guns installed on such aircraft like the F-14, 15, 16 and F/A-18, they had very few gun kills in combat, I think the actual percentage was posted on here a while back

 

[XBe02Drvr]

In the post Vietnam war days I know that once we saw guns installed on such aircraft like the F-14, 15, 16 and F/A-18, they had very few gun kills in combat, I think the actual percentage was posted on here a while back

AAMs enjoyed a significant increase in capability, effectiveness, and reliability in this time period, eliminating many threats before they could get into gun range. The tactics that worked so well for the NVAF didn't translate well to different venues and later generations of weapons.

 

[BiffF15]

IIRC the A-4 had a similar issue with an ECM pod, if the guns were fired the device was vibrated apart.

In the post Vietnam war days I know that once we saw guns installed on such aircraft like the F-14, 15, 16 and F/A-18, they had very few gun kills in combat, I think the actual percentage was posted on here a while back

Zipper,

Thanks for the invite. From quickly reading through the reference speeds it would appear to be 2-2.5 knots difference per every 2k in weight change on the F8. The plane had a great reputation!

FBJ,

The gun pods would not be anywhere near as accurate as an internally mounted one due to where it's located. Inside the structure being solidly mounted, exterior being pod and or flexible due to G loads and airstream. However, you could get an air to air kill with it. One of my sim IPs at Eagle RTU had one in Vietnam, Maj Jim Beatty.

Also realize that the missiles used in WW Nam improved during the conflict, they were still having lots of malfunctions up into Gulf War 1.

The Viper switchology would inadvertently allow an AIM-9 to be shot off when going from ground to air mode. The Eagle had problems with AIM-7s not firing after the pickle button was pushed (had one of these myself while shooting at a QF-106). Both problems were subsequent fixed, Viper via software and Eagle with a mod and a new motor fire wire (the AIM-7 was ejected from the aircraft, then while still attached via the motor fire wire sent a motor ignition impulse then off it went). What could go wrong with a 100+ miracles occurring in sequence over a few milliseconds…

Below is info regarding a gun pod kill, first in the F4E.

Joe Moran wrote:

"We were in the 35 TFS TDY to Danang from Kunsan. Jim was #3. Rolled up and found 2 MiG 21s 4,000′ directly below him same direction. Barrel rolled back, stoked the AB's and started across the circle. Claims he did not go supersonic. Unable to get AIM 9Js to growl. Closing fast went to guns. He was in an old E model (no pinkie switch). MiGs broke. He pulled pipper in front for high angle shot. KILL. Over g when he pulled up. Egressed at speed of stink. No truth to the rumor that airplane never flew again. Jim claims low altitude butter fly dart sorties in the FWIC syllabus prepared him for that shot. He always went down and away to get there the quickest (with the greatest angles). This was end of April 1972. First gun kill in an F-4E. Handley's book claimed he was the first in May. I talked to Phil 'bout that and he concedes Jim was the first but his book was already out and 'you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube'."

Here is the obituary of Major James M. Beatty, Jr.

Maj. James M. Beatty Jr. was one of America's unsung heroes. He flew 229 combat mission, 147 in North Vietnam, and during one of those missions got a confirmed gun kill on a MIG 21. Maj. Beatty earned the Silver Star, two Distinguished Flying Crosses, and 14 Air Medals among many other awards and decorations during his combat flying. He had 3,250 hours in the F-4 and F-15 aircraft. Maj. Beatty was a recognized expert in aerial combat, and culminated his Air Force career as the Air-To-Air Test Project Manager in the Fighter Weapons test Group, Nellis AFB, Nevada.
After leaving the active Air Force, he continued to serve his country as an F-15 academic and simulator instructor for more than 22 years at Tyndall AFB, Panama City, Fla. His service in the U.S. Air Force and his vast experience was essential in developing future Air Force warriors. As an instructor pilot and simulator instructor, he trained more than 1,000 F-15 pilots and air Battle Managers for the combat air forces during his time at Tyndall. His superior instructional skills enabled the 325th Fighter Wing to meet pilot and air battle manager production goals.
Maj. Beatty was born in Eau Claire, Pa., and had lived in Panama City since 1988. He was a graduate of Grove City College, and served in the USAF from 1963 to 1976.

Not all hero's got five kills. The guy was a stud and you could hear his big brass ones dragging as he walked about. Great guy and well respected by everyone at Tyndall.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Zipper,

Thanks for the invite. From quickly reading through the reference speeds it would appear to be 2-2.5 knots difference per every 2k in weight change on the F8. The plane had a great reputation!

FBJ,

The gun pods would not be anywhere near as accurate as an internally mounted one due to where it's located. Inside the structure being solidly mounted, exterior being pod and or flexible due to G loads and airstream. However, you could get an air to air kill with it. One of my sim IPs at Eagle RTU had one in Vietnam, Maj Jim Beatty.

Also realize that the missiles used in WW Nam improved during the conflict, they were still having lots of malfunctions up into Gulf War 1.

The Viper switchology would inadvertently allow an AIM-9 to be shot off when going from ground to air mode. The Eagle had problems with AIM-7s not firing after the pickle button was pushed (had one of these myself while shooting at a QF-106). Both problems were subsequent fixed, Viper via software and Eagle with a mod and a new motor fire wire (the AIM-7 was ejected from the aircraft, then while still attached via the motor fire wire sent a motor ignition impulse then off it went). What could go wrong with a 100+ miracles occurring in sequence over a few milliseconds…

Below is info regarding a gun pod kill, first in the F4E.

Joe Moran wrote:


Here is the obituary of Major James M. Beatty, Jr.



Not all hero's got five kills. The guy was a stud and you could hear his big brass ones dragging as he walked about. Great guy and well respected by everyone at Tyndall.

Cheers,
Biff

As always, great stuff Biff!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

FBJ,

The gun pods would not be anywhere near as accurate as an internally mounted one due to where it's located. Inside the structure being solidly mounted, exterior being pod and or flexible due to G loads and airstream. However, you could get an air to air kill with it. One of my sim IPs at Eagle RTU had one in Vietnam, Maj Jim Beatty.

Yep - some of the F-4 drivers that I briefly worked with mentioned the pod was almost useless but was better then nothing. As Wes mentioned, I think Vietnam made the requirement for a gun essential especially with the ROEs and the unreliability of A2A stuff.

Also realize that the missiles used in WW Nam improved during the conflict, they were still having lots of malfunctions up into Gulf War 1.

Interesting! I would have thought things were really worked out by then.

The Viper switchology would inadvertently allow an AIM-9 to be shot off when going from ground to air mode. The Eagle had problems with AIM-7s not firing after the pickle button was pushed (had one of these myself while shooting at a QF-106). Both problems were subsequent fixed, Viper via software and Eagle with a mod and a new motor fire wire (the AIM-7 was ejected from the aircraft, then while still attached via the motor fire wire sent a motor ignition impulse then off it went). What could go wrong with a 100+ miracles occurring in sequence over a few milliseconds…

Do you remember when you were shooting at QF-106s?

Below is info regarding a gun pod kill, first in the F4E.

In the book "And Kill Migs" it shows this combat happened in May 72 (doesn't matter)

Here is the obituary of Major James M. Beatty, Jr.

Not all hero's got five kills. The guy was a stud and you could hear his big brass ones dragging as he walked about. Great guy and well respected by everyone at Tyndall.

Cheers,
Biff

Truth!

 

[BiffF15]

Yep - some of the F-4 drivers that I briefly worked with mentioned the pod was almost useless but was better then nothing. As Wes mentioned, I think Vietnam made the requirement for a gun essential especially with the ROEs and the unreliability of A2A stuff.

Interesting! I would have thought things were really worked out by then.

Do you remember when you were shooting at QF-106s?

In the book "And Kill Migs" it shows this combat happened in May 72 (doesn't matter)




Truth!

We went to Tyndall AFB for WSEP probably in the first quarter of 93 when I shot at a QF-106. Four of us in a wall against a single drone in the high 50s going well above the Mach. My missile launched, guided, but failed to fire / ignite. Radar went to flood mode. Problem traced back to the motor fire wire. Last missile shoot I did on active duty was '96 with the jets all moded. 100% success rate, and I got to shoot an AIM-7MH off my jet.

It sounds like a freight train when it fires. Very cool.

Shot 7 of them total.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

We went to Tyndall AFB for WSEP probably in the first quarter of 93 when I shot at a QF-106. Four of us in a wall against a single drone in the high 50s going well above the Mach. My missile launched, guided, but failed to fire / ignite. Radar went to flood mode. Problem traced back to the motor fire wire. Last missile shoot I did on active duty was '96 with the jets all moded. 100% success rate, and I got to shoot an AIM-7MH off my jet.

It sounds like a freight train when it fires. Very cool.

Shot 7 of them total.

Wow! My father in law's F-106 was converted in Nov 90 and eventually sent to Tyndall. According to Joe B 59-0061 was shot down Sept 3, 1993

 

[BiffF15]

Wow! My father in law's F-106 was converted in Nov 90 and eventually sent to Tyndall. According to Joe B 59-0061 was shot down Sept 3, 1993

View attachment 688600

The sad thing is the ANG units keep their planes looking like new. It was probably a museum or better quality jet when it went for a swim!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The sad thing is the ANG units keep their planes looking like new. It was probably a museum or better quality jet when it went for a swim!

Actually his aircraft was used as a chase plane on the B-1B program. He plucked several F-106s out of the bone yard, got them refurbished. His "detachment" was the last operational F-106 unit.

F-106 Delta Dart as B-1B Chase plane

Read about the B-1B Flight Test Chase Program role the F-106 Delta Dart, the Ultimate Interceptor, played with the USAF Systems Command's Contract Management Division.

www.f-106deltadart.com

 

[Zipper730]

The lack of a gun on the F-4 is kind of a mixed quandary. Many complained of this deficiency during the Vietnam War but when a gun pod was fitted to USAF F-4s only a small percentage of kills were accomplished with a gun so it's a guess if the navy would have had better results.

I figured there were two problems at work at the time with this...

1. The F-4's gunpod (Mk-4, SUU-16, and SUU-23) was mounted on a fairly thin pylon which made the pod pod susceptible to wobbling motions (maybe there's a better word but I'm at a loss for it) when maneuvering.
   • The XF8U-3's mounting for the gunpack was a semi-submerged/conformal store what seemed better attached to the airplane and appears more resistant to wobbling motions (I remember seeing some aircraft in WWII that had gunpacks without significant issues owing to the fact that they weren't mounted on a thin pylon).
2. Pilot skill had rapidly deteriorated within the USAF through the mid/late 1960's: While this had been occurring to a limited extent throughout the 1950's, things appeared to have gotten a lot worse shortly after the start of the Vietnam War: The F-4E's first arrived on the scene around November/December of 1968.

At the end of the day I think choosing the F-4B was still the right choice.

Of course, the two-man crew was the deciding factor. If the F-4B had the supersonic performance of the XF8U-3, there never would have been any discussion (that said, the XF8U-3 looked way cooler).

I worked at GE in the late 60s when these issues were being addressed. The Vulpod had issues with accuracy in any other condition than steady state 1G upright flight. The heavy, bulky, draggy pod was nearly impossible to brace rigidly enough to hold its zero through high G maneuvering flight.

Just to be clear, the bracing problem was owing to it being mounted on a thin pylon? Would it have been as bad if it were mounted in a conformal/semi-submerged configuration like this?

When I left GE for the Navy, the E bird was still having issues with its radar being put out of action for the rest of the flight every time the gun was fired.

When did they sort that out completely? I thought they put various dampers on by the time it entered service (guess the official history isn't always accurate j/k).

Zipper,

Thanks for the invite.

No problem!

BTW: I got a question for you regarding your thoughts about the F-4 Phantom: Early SAC's listed the maximum load-factor as 6.5g normal rated, later on 8.5g normal rated is listed. Was this the case always, or was the plane strengthened from early operational service (1961-1964) to later on?

This is from a flight manual on the F-4C/D/E

 

[XBe02Drvr]

The F-4's gunpod (Mk-4, SUU-16, and SUU-23) was mounted on a fairly thin pylon which made the pod pod susceptible to wobbling motions

I never saw a Vulpod mounted on an F4 "in the flesh", but the photos we got showed it mounted centerline, not on wing pylons, as they were carrying drop tanks.

When did they sort that out completely? I thought they put various dampers on by the time it entered service (guess the official history isn't always accurate j/k).

I was gone before it got sorted out, but I suspect it had something to do with original testing being done on new equipment and pilots flying not-new equipment out in the field. A Vulcan is hard on itself and everything around it, and under heavy use is subject to wear and imbalance. Your quintessential fire breathing monster.
My memory is that the Vulpod was originally designed and intended for centerline mount, which necessitated zeroing on jackstands with gear retracted, an unholy PITA, and likely impractical out in the boonies. Do you suppose U-Bong and Naked Fanny were set up to do that? Betcha SR6 would know.

 

[Zipper730]

I never saw a Vulpod mounted on an F4 "in the flesh", but the photos we got showed it mounted centerline, not on wing pylons, as they were carrying drop tanks.

The centerline pylon is thin by the standpoint of a grafted-on gunpack, but doesn't appear as thin as the wing-pylons.

I was gone before it got sorted out, but I suspect it had something to do with original testing being done on new equipment and pilots flying not-new equipment out in the field.

Probably true.

My memory is that the Vulpod was originally designed and intended for centerline mount, which necessitated zeroing on jackstands with gear retracted

Sounds like it'd be damned near impossible in a carrier hangar.

...U-Bong and Naked Fanny...

That's a great nickname.

Regarding the matter of aircraft weaponry: I should invite S Shortround6 to be honest.

BTW: I was looking at the g-load limits for the RF-4B and it seemed around 8g instead of 8.5g at or below Mach 0.72, and 6.5 above. The document was from 1965 so it's probably as close as I'll get to the early F-4B figures.

 

[Zipper730]

Message Deleted