Originally Posted by
stilton
Thanks for the replies, I’m still curious about the practice of using AOA instead of an indicated airspeed for land based operations
It makes sense landing on a carrier where you want the lowest possible touchdown speed but why carry that practice over to landings on a conventional runway
In any type you actually want to approach at a given AOA but most aircraft do not have AOA gauges so you fly an airspeed to achieve it. Flying AOA keeps it simple; the number is always the same whereas you have to adjust the airspeed for weight. In addition, a swept wing aircraft such as the F4 typically approaches below minimum drag speed, on the backside of the drag curve. The technique required to fly an accurate approach is to control AOA with the stick and rate of descent/approach path with power. Hence, you need an AOA gauge and you fly an AOA value and achieve an accurate approach.
Apart from the AOA gauge the pilot was provided with Head Up Indexers and on some models Audio AOA.
The F-4K/FG1 had audio AOA but the F-4M/FGR2 did not. The tones used were identical to those on the Buccaneer. BUT, they worked in the opposite sense! When at the correct datum AOA for the approach in both types, you had a 'steady note'. But, when the AOA was less than this you had 'beeps' in the Buccaneer and 'burps' in the F-4 and vice versa when greater than the datum AOA. Not many pilots were current on both at the same time but I was for a while. I had a Buccaneer background so when flying the FG1 I used the gauge until 'on speed' then maintained the AOA using the on-speed tone.
All naval variants (B,J,K,M,N,S) ...
The F-4M was not a naval version. However, the YF-4M (XT852) that was still flying through to at least 1990 did have the drooped ailerons and slatted stabilator as per the F-4K/FG1.