- Thread starter
- #81
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Because its difficult to produce an aircraft that is able to land with ease aboard a carrier deck while simultaneously able to perform effectively as a fighter.Something about the fighters Vought built that I've always wondered about- why were they in general so hard to control, difficult to land on an aircraft carrier and successful at ACM?
Again, I've read it did well in ACM, but how would it have panned out operating off the carriers? Was handling secondary to performance?
"Easy-handling" aircraft generally do not have the near-instant control response required for good air combat maneuvering.
The holy grail of fighter design is that rare phenomenon that is honest, easy to fly and land, and devoid of "gotchas", but an ACM champion nonetheless. Fokker D7, F6F Hellcat, and some say Hawker Hurricane, come readily to mind. Anybody got other candidates to stand on this podium?Such excellent dogfighters generally were regarded as "twitchy" or "a real handful" for less-experienced pilots - but those same characteristics are what made for their excellent maneuverability.
Looks like bad links. "The requested page could not be found".
Nope, still no joy.
Oh, so all of them were capable of taking 8.5 ≤ 0.72?Realize that the RF-4B was a USMC only (46 made) aircraft and it did not carry AIM-7s. The last 12 were built on the F-4C frame (different wheels, wheel wells, and wing mods). The Reece versions of the F-4 had only a terrain following radar, smaller and lighter than the missile carrying version (probably accounts for a different Max G load however later versions could be beefed up to take more).
I'm not sure which models you mean by all of them. The last 12 RF-4Bs the USMC got were slightly different airframes based on the RF-4C. May / probably have had different G limits. I would guess that the light nose of the Reece version might have allowed greater G loading. Take that with a grain of salt.Oh, so all of them were capable of taking 8.5 ≤ 0.72?
You quoted a NATOPS manual regarding the RF-4 in post #92. I was basing my replies off that and assumed your diagram was from that. My bad.
Well, I figured the weight changes between the early F-4B's and later ones were due to a load-factor change, but if the first RF-4B's were built to lower structural standards, then it's possible than the 8g L/F figure might very well have not represented the F-4B's.You quoted a NATOPS manual regarding the RF-4 in post #92. I was basing my replies off that and assumed your diagram was from that. My bad.
Oops, isn't that back-to-front? Normally a weight increase without extra structural strengthening results in a load factor reduction.Well, I figured the weight changes between the early F-4B's and later ones were due to a load-factor change
Not if the extra weight were load-bearing components to reinforce stuff.Oops, isn't that back-to-front? Normally a weight increase without extra structural strengthening results in a load factor reduction.