F4 Phantom
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
Just for information, Phantom from the Cockpit: Flying the Legend by Peter Caygill (published by Pen & Sword books) has recently hit the bookshops.
I assume that it is in the same vein as his previous books Jet Jockeys and Lightning From the Cockpit.
I assume that it is in the same vein as his previous books Jet Jockeys and Lightning From the Cockpit.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fife
Age: 87
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
[What were the differences between the FG1 and the FGR2?? Anything significant? Anything obviously physically different? Were they both carrier capable?[/quote]
Internal differences, the FG1 had no battery, no inertial, no HF so was well equipped to get lost & incommunicado. Externally the ailerons drooped when flaps were lowered so as to reduce final approach speed to something that the Mighty Ark's 840 odd feet of runway could handle; the FG1 stabilator had a fixed slat (upside down) to maintain adequate pitch control at the lower speed. To enable less traumatic s/e go-arounds, the RN FG! engines were modified, I believe, to enable "rapid" reheat selction our Fighting Cocks machinery didn't go for this one. Without the droopaileron & slotted stabilator the FGR2 might have been uncomfortable going to a deck smaller than the USN boats.
Internal differences, the FG1 had no battery, no inertial, no HF so was well equipped to get lost & incommunicado. Externally the ailerons drooped when flaps were lowered so as to reduce final approach speed to something that the Mighty Ark's 840 odd feet of runway could handle; the FG1 stabilator had a fixed slat (upside down) to maintain adequate pitch control at the lower speed. To enable less traumatic s/e go-arounds, the RN FG! engines were modified, I believe, to enable "rapid" reheat selction our Fighting Cocks machinery didn't go for this one. Without the droopaileron & slotted stabilator the FGR2 might have been uncomfortable going to a deck smaller than the USN boats.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
Spey - nice at low level, pretty bomb-proof, cr@p above block 3 (>40K+), draggy cos it's a wide bu@@er and made you look like you were crop-spraying if not in min burner. Oh and as already referred to - you could start it up without the crazy USN starter TRUCK needed for the J79.
J79B - not quite the thrust at low level, great though all the way up to well above the release to service limits (and nice dry power cruise above airliner-land), pretty bomb proof, the engine designed for the jet so nice and slim!!! = less draggy, Fast burner light if you enjoyed the hot relight bang and only made you look like you were nearly crop spraying. Nasty lack of volts if both stopped in flight though!
Oh and did I mention - You also got the US flying suit (one that fitted), spray painted helmet and black fin.
Where is 'gentleman John these days?
J79B - not quite the thrust at low level, great though all the way up to well above the release to service limits (and nice dry power cruise above airliner-land), pretty bomb proof, the engine designed for the jet so nice and slim!!! = less draggy, Fast burner light if you enjoyed the hot relight bang and only made you look like you were nearly crop spraying. Nasty lack of volts if both stopped in flight though!
Oh and did I mention - You also got the US flying suit (one that fitted), spray painted helmet and black fin. Where is 'gentleman John these days?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
Other two main differences, both later removed/disabled on the FG1 when land based with the RAF.
First, the FG1 was fitted with a double-extensible nose undercarriage leg to give a high angle of attack for carrier launches. It could be extended in length by as much as 40 inches and, I am lead to believe, that pilots tended to sit well back if the gear got stuck and they had to land with it extended.....
Second, the dish for the AWG-11 radar was fitted inside the radome and swung sideways with it when it has folded in order to reduce the aircraft's length so that it could fit on the deck lifts and reduce stowage space below decks. Caused a lot of unservicable radars due to bad waveguide seals when it was closed.
Not sure on the detail differences between the AWG-11 & 12, except an embarassed new OC Leuchars had to ask his wingman how to turn on the gunsight after just arriving off the FGR2 course at CY.......
First, the FG1 was fitted with a double-extensible nose undercarriage leg to give a high angle of attack for carrier launches. It could be extended in length by as much as 40 inches and, I am lead to believe, that pilots tended to sit well back if the gear got stuck and they had to land with it extended.....
Second, the dish for the AWG-11 radar was fitted inside the radome and swung sideways with it when it has folded in order to reduce the aircraft's length so that it could fit on the deck lifts and reduce stowage space below decks. Caused a lot of unservicable radars due to bad waveguide seals when it was closed.
Not sure on the detail differences between the AWG-11 & 12, except an embarassed new OC Leuchars had to ask his wingman how to turn on the gunsight after just arriving off the FGR2 course at CY.......
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
Didn't the FG1 also have permanent 12th stage blow with flaps down, whereas in the FGR2 it was normally 7th stage, but 12th stage was manually selectable.
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
Originally Posted by BEagle
Didn't the FG1 also have permanent 12th stage blow with flaps down, whereas in the FGR2 it was normally 7th stage, but 12th stage was manually selectable.
In the meantime, I recall that our Coningsby FGR2's had manual wingfold whereas IIRC the (early) FGR1's had the hydraulic wingfold. I can clearly recall an incident in the ASF hangar at Coningsby when a team of guys were folding the wings by the somewhat dodgy manual method. This consisted of about three guys underneath pushing up whilst two stood on top waiting for the outer wing to be raised sufficiently for them to grab hold. Of course, as the outer wing reached nearer and nearer to the vertical, the guys underneath had less and less leverage whilst the ones on top couldn't really help much until the wing was almost vertical and even then, as their feet were hard up against the hinge, they could only steady the wing rather than pull. Not quite sure what triggered the event, I only heard the resulting thuds as the outer wing fell from the nearly vertical, struck one of the lads underneath squarely on the head and then with considerable velocity into the fully extended position. The biggest talking points revolved around the fact that the ambulance from SSQ (a few minutes walk from the hangar) took about 15 minutes to arrive and take away the unconcious J/T. We all assumed that he would be whipped away to Nocton Hall for x-rays and were dumbfounded when he was released from SSQ that afternoon sans x-rays etc (but it was a Friday afternoon.....). I wonder what the H&S people would say about this nowadays (risk assessment? - wots one of those?). Actually, it would have been a good thing for the H&S polizei to have been around then as we had to endure, on a daily basis, the use of multiple diesel engined hyd rigs and houchins in the hangar as the electrical supply wasn't man enough to run the electrical equivalents. One had to wear ear defenders all day and breathe a diesel fume-rich atmosphere as there were never enough exhaust extensions. Ah, happy days....
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
At the risk of being called a spotter, and wearing my shabbiest anorak, here we go. Yes, the Spey-engined FGR2 could use both 7th and 12th stage air for boundary layer control. However, if I recall correctly, the on-speed was only 3 kts slower using both, and it casued the TGT to rise a few degrees thus adding wear and tear on the engines. So, a Bleed Control Switch was used in the Isolate position to select 7th stage air only. I'm a little hazy here in that it could have been 12th stage only, but I think I'm right in saying 7th.
Ground school on the F4 was a very long time ago, and I haven't flown one since about 1986, so forgive this humble contributor if I've got it all round my neck, as they say in Lincolnshire.
Still a great jet, though!
Ground school on the F4 was a very long time ago, and I haven't flown one since about 1986, so forgive this humble contributor if I've got it all round my neck, as they say in Lincolnshire.
Still a great jet, though!
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
Yes Lyneham Lad, health and safety were far from top priority. I remember the lads walking along the aircraft spines to put the covers on the pitot tubes. No scaffolding, rubber soled shoes and an oily and often wet surface a long way off the ground. I'm amazed we didn't kill more guys.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
One other significant difference between J79 and Spey was the spool-up time. The old technology axial flow turbojet was rapidly responsive to throttle demands whereas the by-pass Spey was very slow in comparison and the reheat light-up even slower. The use of idle power if high and fast on the approach would invariably be followed either by a touchdown in the undershoot or a change of underpants as the people got bigger quicker than rate of descent could be reduced. Pulling G whilst selecting reheat could wash off 50 kts in no time before the burners lit so it was always useful if the bogey could send 5 secs notice before manoeuvring.
The only good thing about the Spey in the RAF Phantoms was the British jobs saved/created - perhaps a worthwhile price to pay?
The only good thing about the Spey in the RAF Phantoms was the British jobs saved/created - perhaps a worthwhile price to pay?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
Can't agree that the Spey was 'pretty bombproof'. It was distinctly fragile, especially in the early days when its TBO was about 50 hours. Even though the TBO was progressively increased, the Spey's flashbacks and associated (but unspecified) damage were never really sorted out by endless mods, tweaks and interviews with RR reps. Still, it is worth remembering that it was the world's first reheated turbofan and so I suppose it was all part of the learning process. Even the F-15 had engine stall problems in its first few years of service. But the turbojet J79 was made of cast iron, with cast iron bits and pieces and cast iron moving bits. That was bombproof!
Another problem with the Spey was that it was shorter than the J79 and so the engine's weight was further aft, making for a more pitchy aircraft than the other versions. This made some precision work - such as strafe - more difficult, so BEagle's score of 52% was pretty damned good. I take my hat off to him.
Another problem with the Spey was that it was shorter than the J79 and so the engine's weight was further aft, making for a more pitchy aircraft than the other versions. This made some precision work - such as strafe - more difficult, so BEagle's score of 52% was pretty damned good. I take my hat off to him.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
I think I recall that it was 7 years in service before a Spey engine in Phantom ran to its scheduled TBO without removal; are we talking 200 hours? I am not sure of the figures. There was certainly a major engine shortage in the early70s - OCU closed and engines sent to RAFG to keep the strike and recce forces in the air.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
Yes, it was in 1970 that a lot of crews at Coningsby were grounded due to shortage of engines. This followed an incident where both engines failed in the same aircraft on the same sortie. Fortunately, the second engine failed after landing.
It gave rise to a wonderful example of the late Jim McRoberts wit when, shortly after being told that he was one of the chosen few to be grounded, he announced to all present that 'for years he had been getting the ****ty end of the stick and now they had taken the stick away'. RIP Jim.
It gave rise to a wonderful example of the late Jim McRoberts wit when, shortly after being told that he was one of the chosen few to be grounded, he announced to all present that 'for years he had been getting the ****ty end of the stick and now they had taken the stick away'. RIP Jim.
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
Soddim
I remember Mr McR from my time on 92sqn. Now there was a top gun, a much better man than the Hollywood/Tom Cruise image could ever hope to be. If memory serves correctly he was cleared to the max "g" and beyond that the mighty toom could pull.
Thanks for the memories and RIP
I remember Mr McR from my time on 92sqn. Now there was a top gun, a much better man than the Hollywood/Tom Cruise image could ever hope to be. If memory serves correctly he was cleared to the max "g" and beyond that the mighty toom could pull.
Thanks for the memories and RIP
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
The only Jim McRoberts I remember was on the OCU and he then moved to 41 Sqn when it first fired up. He called himself 'TacR MacR'. Good recce puke, even though he was a nav.
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
From watching the mighty toom on Aperporth range for years during AMPC it was easier to spot the J79 engined a/c' either USAF or 74 sqdn as they had miles of sooty exhaust behind them. cough!!!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
The sooty exhaust from the J79 was so bad that a wise unspeyed F4 pilot lit the burners before 10 miles range to get rid of the 'here-I-am' trail.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
I remember two instances where banging out led to a soft landing for the aircraft. One was a spin recovery trial. We were shown the video on the OCU in 1969. The F4 climbed like a rocket until eventually it slid down its contrail before entering a spin.
It rotated about 3 times then the canopies departed followed by the crew. The aircraft then did a soft, wheels up landing on the edge of the salt lake. The film showed it virtually undamaged.
The second incident was an F4J in Vietnam. After the crew departed the aircraft was seen to make a successful landing on the beach. By the time the air strike arrived - a few minutes - the aircraft had gone and Russia had a fully serviceable Doppler AI radar.
So, if in doubt bang out the nav. If that fails, bang out yourself. Yes, I know pilot had to leave straight after the nav or risk the lid staying on.
It rotated about 3 times then the canopies departed followed by the crew. The aircraft then did a soft, wheels up landing on the edge of the salt lake. The film showed it virtually undamaged.
The second incident was an F4J in Vietnam. After the crew departed the aircraft was seen to make a successful landing on the beach. By the time the air strike arrived - a few minutes - the aircraft had gone and Russia had a fully serviceable Doppler AI radar.
So, if in doubt bang out the nav. If that fails, bang out yourself. Yes, I know pilot had to leave straight after the nav or risk the lid staying on.
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
Some aircraft have been known to enter a stable stalled descent with 200 or 400 pounds of excess ballast removed from the nose. The F-106 in the USAF Museum did that, was recovered from a snowy field in the Frozen North (ND IIRC) and flew until the type was retired.
BTW I recall reading about the Spey-Phantom in the early days, with RR confidently predicting that it would be far better all round than the J79 and would sell in export form - I think there was even an AR.168 designation for an Allison-built AB Spey, ready for when the USAF and USN saw the light. After all, how could a ****ing LIGHTBULB COMPANY possibly beat RR?
BTW I recall reading about the Spey-Phantom in the early days, with RR confidently predicting that it would be far better all round than the J79 and would sell in export form - I think there was even an AR.168 designation for an Allison-built AB Spey, ready for when the USAF and USN saw the light. After all, how could a ****ing LIGHTBULB COMPANY possibly beat RR?