Buccaneer and RN Phantom questions

[GreenKnight121]

So much for posting the question I wanted to here :\:ugh:
I have a long question which I typed out in advance, but this :mad: thing won't let me paste it in here! Is this just a lack of knowledge on how to do this or is this site really that user unfriendly?

[FormerFlake]

Did you try "CTRL V"?

[Toxteth O'Grady]

Must be a phantom question. :E

:cool:

TOG

[GreenKnight121]

What the???

I was typing an answer to your posts and this darned thing re-logged me in, wiping out what I had typed!


One more time:
Yes, it IS a "Spectre solicitation" :hmm:

I am unfamiliar with "ctrl V", as I am enslaved by those devilish products of the demon William Gates (Microsoft Windows and Mocrosoft Word).

In these programs, to copy a block of text from one document and paste it somewhere else, you hold down the right mouse button, and drag it over the text you want. This highlights the text. You then release the button and press it again. A drop-down menu appears and you select "copy". you then go to the target item, place the curser where you want the text and right-click again. The menu reappears, and you select "paste". The text then appears and is in the new document, file, etc.

This has worked on every discussion forum I have visited (even those on UK and Aussie servers) except this one.

Here goes nothing (tries "ctrl V")


This question is for anyone who has actual knowledge (not speculation) of Buccaneers and RN Phantoms… or has access to a REALLY good reference on these aircraft.

I have been trying for quite some time to find the following data:

Buccaneer:
1. Maximum allowable take-off weight from the “long” BS-4 catapult [44 meter?] used on the Victorious and Hermes (port catapult after 1966).
2. Minimum allowable Take-Off speed at maximum catapult TO weight (44 m BS-4).

FG.mk.1 Phantom:
1.a. Maximum allowable take-off weight from the “short” BS-5 catapult [45 m?] (bow catapult on Eagle & Ark Royal).
1.b. Minimum allowable Take-Off speed at maximum catapult TO weight (45 m BS-5).
2.a. Maximum allowable take-off weight from the “long” BS-5 catapult [60 m?](waist catapult on Eagle & Ark Royal).
2. b. Minimum allowable Take-Off speed at maximum catapult TO weight (60 m BS-5).

As these aircraft and ships are long out of service, there should be no classification problem in getting this data… unless, like here in the US, no publication anywhere has even a “general, non-specific” TO speed for any F-4 Phantom model (at least that I have been able to find).

I have only seen a “max. TO weight” number that does not reference land or sea, and makes no reference to which catapult models allow what weights.


Your help is thanked in advance, as well as is any ultimately futile effort anyone makes to find this data.


PS If you are just going to tell me which book to buy/hunt for that will (or might) have the info, don't bother, as my access to UK bookstores and libraries with specialist books is non-existant. Please post the numbers if you have them.

“Answers are the easy part, questions raise the doubts.”
Jimmy Buffet: “Off to see the Lizard”

[GreenKnight121]

Apparently, either the carrier-operations info on Buccs and RN Phantoms are still classified, or there is no one viewing with knowledge of info sources for these aircraft.


I posted here because I was told that "a lot of such people post there"... but that was apparently not an accurate assessment.
:ugh:

[fantaman]

Apparently, either the carrier-operations info on Buccs and RN Phantoms are still classified, or there is no one viewing with knowledge of info sources for these aircraft.


I posted here because I was told that "a lot of such people post there"... but that was apparently not an accurate assessment.
:ugh:
As your post has only been on the board two days, it would seem a tad unfair take that tone. Unfotunately, we cannot all sit in front of our computers looking at PPRuNe waiting for questions to come up that we may be able to answer.

It may be that no one here feels qualified to answer your question. Perhaps if you wait a few days an ex Bucc or Toom pilot will come on, see your message and reply?

[A2QFI]

Green Knight 121 We are are a fairly busy, active and informed site! (See figures below) Bearing in mind that the few people who might know the answers to your very specific questions might be down route, on holiday or whatever, why not give it a bit longer before you get tetchy about a lack of replies!

Threads: 198,376, Posts: 2,468,614, Members: 123,802, Active Members: 54,464

[jindabyne]

PS If you are just going to tell me which book to buy/hunt for that will (or might) have the info, don't bother, as my access to UK bookstores and libraries with specialist books is non-existant. Please post the numbers if you have them

And here's me thinking that th'internet was a global facility - silly boy!

[BEagle]

I don't quite understand the concept of a 'minimum allowable take-off speed' for a catapult-launched aircraft. What is the crew supposed to do when fired off if the speed isn't reached - abort? I don't think so! In any case, I suspect that AoA was the more critical parameter.

Flew the Bucc and the F4 - but not in carrier operations. I vaguely recall that there was a 'thrustmeter' in the Bucc - the pilot would call the readings to the navigator/observer to check against a table in the FRCs which allowed for temperature and pressure with full power set. This checked that the engines were producing sufficient thrust and BLC blow to meet the launch assumptions of wind over the deck, aircraft weight etc.

You would probably need an old RN copy of the Buccaneer S2 and Phantom FG 1 ODM and/or aircrew manuals to establish the figures you are asking for. So many variables to consider that I suspect that it is highly unlikely anyone can remember simplistic figures.

[airborne_artist]

GK

As BEagle suggests, it's unlikely that many PPruners have this info in their head, or in their filing cabinet.

I'd suggest the RN archives at Portsmouth, the FAA Museum archivist at Yeovilton, and asking around at the FAA Officers' Assoc.

Have a look at this page (http://www.royal-marines.mod.uk/static/pages/1035.html) for some RN historical contacts.

[junglyking]

Having visited the FAA Musuem Cobham Hall archive on a RAeS visit last year, I would suggest you try this link and ask them:
FAA Museum Research Request (http://www.fleetairarm.com/pages/research/index.htm)
- they are the official FAA archive and if they don't have it, I would suggest no one else has - they have a HUGE store and the ladies who work there seem to love being asked this sort of thing..... (safeguard - they do!) You may want to explain that the information you want should be in the Operational Data Manual (Topic 16) or Flight Reference Cards (Topic 14) to give them a chance of finding it though.
Are you intending to recreate a Cat and Trap carrier with Buccs and Tooms to see off CVF and JCA?????;)

[phil gollin]

.............

Are you intending to recreate a Cat and Trap carrier with Buccs and Tooms to see off CVF and JCA?????;)



I know that Eagle didn't operaate Phantoms, but, when the RN were clearing out all their old drawings they decided that they would get rid of the vast majority of all the buillders drawings. But they did decide to keep all the drawings for one ship - HMS Eagle (there are boxes and boxes and boxes of drawings at the National Maritime Museum's Brass Foundary site at their Woolwich Arsenal site).

So if anyone wants to rebuild an aircraft carrier - it's all there for you.

[GreenKnight121]

Well, at least I got some...

Just a "I'll see if I can find out" or, as several of you did post, websites where I can go, are all the response needed...

Although on the other boards I asked these questions on, persons at least did do the "I'll find out" and "good question, beats me" routine... at least acknowledging that they had read it.

At first I was under the impression that there was simply no one even going to bother saying that much.

I know you are (most of you) busy... that is the reason I was unable to get the first post done right... I was on lunch and had to get back to work.

And the comment on books is because when I have asked questions in the past, many of the answers were "try this book"... and the name of an out-of-print, published only in the UK, not in most US libraries, $500+ on E-Bay/Amazon book!

And no, you do NOT have to respond to every post you read in order make me happy... it is just funny that as soon as I posted a slightly insulting statement, so many of you finally found the time to post the response you didn't before.

I guess "the squeeky wheel gets the grease" still applies on the Internet.



And thanks to BEagle, airborne artist, & junglyking for their advice, I'll try those contacts.

Phil... Eagle did operate Phantoms... not as well as the Ark, but she did.
The "too expensive to modify" argument used to decomm her was mostly political, not actual. What was going to be expensive was the routine overhaul of her boilers, turbines, general equipment, and electronics that was coming due, as well as purchasing more FG.mk 1 Phantoms to outfit her, and the day-to-day operating and manning costs.

[John Eacott]

GK21,

Whilst Eagle was used for some trials with the F4 about 1969-70 IIRC, it certainly didn't operate Phantoms as a routine. The mods required for the F4K included a water cooled JBD, to prevent deck damage from the AB's with the extended NLG, amongst other requirements. The decision to operate Ark rather than Eagle was largely dictated by Ark having already had the F4K mods incorporated into its last refit, whilst Eagle hadn't. Eagle was by far the better platform (984 radar, aft lower hangar refitted into workshops/accommodation, etc. And the wardroom relocated to 4 deck, anteroom in the liftwell :ok: - much better than Ark's abomination on 6 deck) and far more reliable, with little or no feedwater problems that plagued Ark, plus other irritating day to day problems.

I've probably got some old reference material back home from Eagle's last commission, and Ark's penultimate, but won't be there until the end of the ski season. If I remember, I might try to find it: but out of courtesy, rather than as a response to your vaguely insulting demands of the contributors to this forum.

[FJJP]

GreenKnight121

As you can see I am a regular contributer to this forum. The banter is usually brilliant, but can be barbarous at times!

You'll usually find that someone in here has the knowledge you're looking for, or at least, as happened here, can point you in the right direction. It is not often that threads go unanswered.

Welcome aboard, please be patient with us - we're a hard-working bunch [including many that away from their computers for extended periods down-route]!

FJJP

[PPRuNe Radar]

If I remember, I might try to find it: but out of courtesy, rather than as a response to your vaguely insulting demands of the contributors to this forum.

In the same vein ;) , some info from the book 'Phantom from the Cockpit - Flying the Legend'.

Deck landing trials were initially conducted from NAS Patuxent River using the USS Coral Sea with Phanton FG.1 XT597 between 12th July and 1st August 1968. This was the first production Phantom FG.1 with 'Blue Plus' RR Spey engines and upgraded throttle gearings. This aircraft was also configured so that compressor bleed switched from 12th stage to 7th stage bleed as full Military Power was engaged to increase available thrust. This aircraft also had microswitch operated automatic aileron droop retraction (AADRS) on touchdown in case the nose had to be lifted quickly in the case of a 'bolter'.

XT859 was also used in later trials, but without AADRS or bleed switching.

The tests were to used to demonstrate catapult launching capability to specifications of 129Kts TAS in full reheat at 44,600lbs take off weight in ISA +25C. Height loss was not to exceed 6 feet on launch. Landings, overshoots and bolters were also explored.

Initial technique of full back stick then easing it forward after launch was found to be suitable for higher launch speeds (140Kts), but caused over rotation at low speeds (pitching to 27 units AoA at 122Kts) even with forward stick being applied. The fact that the stick had little or no self centreing mechanism was the main cause since a given stick position was difficult to achieve in any technique required.

Approaches were determined at around 19 degrees AoA, speed being 137Kts IAS at a weight of 36,000lbs. The trials determined that if the aircraft had bleed switching, it was probably not necessary to also have AADRS.

Further trials took place with XT597 on USS John F Kennedy in October 1968 to assess an aural AoA indicator and a variety of stick positioning feel devices. The launches carried out were:

Weight - Cat end speed - Wind over deck - Total 'speed' - Calculated Min Launch speed

44300lbs 121Kts 18Kts 139Kts 127Kts
45100lbs 119Kts 17Kts 136Kts 131Kts
44900lbs 107Kts 26Kts 133Kts 130Kts
44800lbs 109Kts 22Kts 131Kts 130Kts

From these tests, the Min Launch Speed above was calculated from a base figure of 125Kts in ISA conditions with full reheat and a weight of 44,600lbs. Corrections were then applied at +3Kts for each ISA +5C step, -1Kt per ISA +10millibars, and +3Kts for each +1000lbs in aircraft weight.

In March 1969, XT857 and XT865 carried out a short trial on HMS Eagle, carrying out approaches and roller landings. No full stop landings or cat launches were carried out. XV567 was also used towards the end of the trial.

The average approach configuration was 138Kts IAS at a weight of 36,500lbs, however previous US experience had already determined that the Calibrated Airspeed displayed to the pilot could be +/- 4Kts. Various techniques were discovered for inclusion in the Pilots Operating Notes and identified shortcomings which arose from the findings of this trial were addressed, leading to the final introduction of the Phantom into service with the Royal Navy.

Hopefully any Toom drivers out there can answer any technical queries or maybe fill in more information.

[GreenKnight121]

John... I appreciate in advance your trying to find the info...

P-Radar... thanks for the info, it is just the kind of thing I was looking for.



And to all of the rest of you out there, both posting on this thread and lurking:

I DO seem to have been a bit short-tempered and Wank&r-ish this week!

While there have been a couple of contributing factors, none of them was your fault, and I was wrong to have taken out my frustrations over them on you good people.

So, my apologies to you all!

(although I am still having problems with the rude comments this board attaches to the names of posters who have not paid their blackmail money to keep PPRuNe from calling them nasty things)(some of us do not have much spare money at all, and don't like being insulted for not throwing it your way, board owner!!)