RN Phantoms - extended nose gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greater Aldergrove
Age: 52
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RN Phantoms - extended nose gear
Folks,
Wondering if anyone can explain the the reason why Royal Navy Phantoms needed an extended nose gear leg, compared to their US counterparts. I'm guessing the increased angle of incidence did a lot for payload and takeoff speeds, but that leg must have been under immense load during takeoff.
Maybe some RN veterans would have more insight?
Wondering if anyone can explain the the reason why Royal Navy Phantoms needed an extended nose gear leg, compared to their US counterparts. I'm guessing the increased angle of incidence did a lot for payload and takeoff speeds, but that leg must have been under immense load during takeoff.
Maybe some RN veterans would have more insight?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greater Aldergrove
Age: 52
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Angle of attack I believe is more accurate as the angle of incidence is the fixed relationship between the wing and the chord line - I'll get my coat.
Still reckon the nose gear leg looks mighty spindly...of course, I'm assuming the catapult acted on the nose gear...maybe not?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fife
Age: 87
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The F4 was launched by a bridle which was attached to the fuselage somewhere near the wing roots, not to the nosewheel. I stand to be corrected, but I believe all USN & RN Phantoms (F4B/N, J & K) had the extendable nosewheel oleo which was incorporated to give the aircraft an appropriate angle of attack during the catapult launch.
Last edited by NutherA2; 13th Nov 2013 at 09:23. Reason: Minor typo
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greater Aldergrove
Age: 52
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The F4 was launched by a bridle which was attached th the fuselage somewhere near the wing roots, not to the nosewheel. I stand to be corrected, but I believe all USN & RN Phantoms (F4B/N, J & K) had the extendable nosewheel oleo which was incorporated to give the aircraft an appropriate angle of attack during the catapult launch.
That makes sense...if you check the Wikipedia page for the Phantom, there is a pic of both RN and USN Phantoms on the USS Independance, side by side, on exercise. The USN machine looks to have an extended nose gear leg, but not to the same extent as the RN one...the RN one looks about 6 or 8 feet tall!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF F4M's had the launch hooks covered with a panel, just under the intakes on both sides. I was told that the strop during the launch was thrown forward and into the sea. £10 a time for the strop I believe in the early seventies !
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: In the shadows
Age: 80
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eagle did the Phantom trials in March 1969 but I don't know whether the bridle arresting gear was fitted at that time. Edit: found out that Eagle never had bridle catchers fitted so the bridles would have been ditched on each launch so Terry is correct that this occurred up until the early 70's - Eagle decommissioned for the last time in 1972.
The reason for the extended nosewheel leg was to avoid the necessity for the pilot to put in a large tailplane angle in order to rotate the aircraft as it left the bows. (quote by Cdr Hefford who flew the Phantom on deck trials - in 1969 CO C Squadron, Boscombe Down). The Spey engines were installed at a slight downward angle compared with the US engined Phantoms.
Last edited by CharlieOneSix; 13th Nov 2013 at 14:34. Reason: additionl info and correction
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: In the shadows
Age: 80
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further quote from Cdr Hefford which may be of interest regarding the Phantom launch technique:
"We devised a stick restraining device for use during a catapult launch. The idea was to set a tailplane angle while holding the stick against a wire strap which was under tension and retracted into the instrument panel when not needed. The tension was such that, should the pilot need more aft stick, he could overcome the restraining device. We completed tests at RAE Bedford before embarking and established that very consistent safe launching were possible, whereas USN launches showed very large variations in the rate and angle of rotation off the catapult. We could not use the "hands free" launch which was designed into, and was so successful, in the Buccaneer, because the control system balance was such as to cause the stick to rotate aft during launch, but we felt this was the next best thing. The disadvantage was that it had to be unclipped during the climb."
"We devised a stick restraining device for use during a catapult launch. The idea was to set a tailplane angle while holding the stick against a wire strap which was under tension and retracted into the instrument panel when not needed. The tension was such that, should the pilot need more aft stick, he could overcome the restraining device. We completed tests at RAE Bedford before embarking and established that very consistent safe launching were possible, whereas USN launches showed very large variations in the rate and angle of rotation off the catapult. We could not use the "hands free" launch which was designed into, and was so successful, in the Buccaneer, because the control system balance was such as to cause the stick to rotate aft during launch, but we felt this was the next best thing. The disadvantage was that it had to be unclipped during the climb."
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fife
Age: 87
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was there any truth in the rumour McDonnell were also hoping to sell UK style Phantoms to the US navy for use on the smaller types of carriers?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great stuff Charlie and thanks for sharing. I think in my so far nearly 42 years of aircraft maintenance, my time on the F4 was the most interesting. Because I enjoyed it so much, I seem to remember more about that type than all the machines I am current on these days. There are volumes of information about the F4 available and every time I dig, I learn something new . . . .
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Isle of Man
Age: 73
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In about 1988, we installed a tie-down point at Honington in preparation for a 'Bolthole' for a Phantom squadron. It had to be tested, of course, and that was achieved by tying-down a Phantom, with the CO of the squadron in the cockpit IIRC, and running it at full chat, then with full reheat - to see if the tie-down held. It did. I noticed, though, that just before 'giving it welly', the pilot extended the nose leg - the gentle rising of the nose was quite elegant to watch. No idea why it was extended and as he taxied off afterwards, I never had the chance to ask.
I was standing a few feet from the stbd wing whilst all this happened. Even with ear defenders, a most impressive sound and much vibration through my DMS shoes. When self and PSA chaps wandered on to the concrete to check the tie-downs - it was still flippin' hot and started to melt the rubber on my shoes - so, quick scarper on to the grass!
I was standing a few feet from the stbd wing whilst all this happened. Even with ear defenders, a most impressive sound and much vibration through my DMS shoes. When self and PSA chaps wandered on to the concrete to check the tie-downs - it was still flippin' hot and started to melt the rubber on my shoes - so, quick scarper on to the grass!
I managed to get a few photos of the F4K, having done a couple of tours on Ark. These were from 1974 and show the sequence off the waist cat:
Re the extended NLG, I also recall that it was a fairly serious issue if the extended NLG failed to retract. Apart from being unable to retract there were issues (IIRC) that prohibited a landing, this photo was a low pass to visually inspect the NLG due to spurious cockpit indications;
The US F4 (a USMC version) shows their NLG, which obviously wasn't too much of an issue off our cats as we cross decked a lot. Which makes me wonder if the explanation by C16 is the full SP?
And a USN F4:
An F4K for comparison from the same angle
Re the extended NLG, I also recall that it was a fairly serious issue if the extended NLG failed to retract. Apart from being unable to retract there were issues (IIRC) that prohibited a landing, this photo was a low pass to visually inspect the NLG due to spurious cockpit indications;
The US F4 (a USMC version) shows their NLG, which obviously wasn't too much of an issue off our cats as we cross decked a lot. Which makes me wonder if the explanation by C16 is the full SP?
And a USN F4:
An F4K for comparison from the same angle
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PORTUGAL
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NLG extension
From memory, the F4K extended by 40" on a double telescopic compared with the USN/USMC 20" extension.
On the K this gave 9 degrees of incidence and the rotation at the end of the cat stroke was a further 5 degrees minimum to achieve climb-out at launch speed dependent on launch weight.
But, it's all a long time ago.
Nice shots John.
On the K this gave 9 degrees of incidence and the rotation at the end of the cat stroke was a further 5 degrees minimum to achieve climb-out at launch speed dependent on launch weight.
But, it's all a long time ago.
Nice shots John.
