F4 Phantom
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PHANTOM PHAN
The only explanation I can offer is that the Phantom weas flown at optimum Angle of Attack on the approach, so the wings were working pretty hard, causing a lot of aerodynamic drag and buffet. This, coupled with the relatively high power setting and, possibly, the noise of air being bled from the engines and blown over the flaps (Boundary Layer Control) may have produced the noise you describe (unless it was the rapid grinding of metal on metal as the pilot moved the controls around in a rapid panic!). Hope this helps.
The one thing I was always curious about was the noise they made on approach: ROAR with grinding metal overtones.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blaireau
Yup, definitely remember Alfredo, Sunday lunchtimes were a particular joy in those days. From your comments, I reckon that you and I were probably at the same wedding in 1972, then, when the groom got a tankard from Boston RFC with the inscription, "When you're up, don't Black out"....
jf
jf
Blaireau,
Yep, the Sebastapol was a very pleasant spot. We had a period detached to Waddo and an evening run to Minting for a swift half on the way home was a great way to end the day.
The sour sod at the Lea Gate moved on eventually. It's not a bad place these days, although it's a very occasional treat now as I live many miles away.
Does anyone know how to spell-check in PPrune??
Yep, the Sebastapol was a very pleasant spot. We had a period detached to Waddo and an evening run to Minting for a swift half on the way home was a great way to end the day.
The sour sod at the Lea Gate moved on eventually. It's not a bad place these days, although it's a very occasional treat now as I live many miles away.
Does anyone know how to spell-check in PPrune??
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jakarta
Age: 71
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PHAN
One of the most critical lessons learnt from VN (and most other wars) was that singles don't survive long in combat. Ask Erich Hartmann...or Johnny Johnson
"Alone, unarmed and scared ****e-less" is/was a more apt description.
To answer your question, Recce "Pukes" tried, not always successfully, to get attached to packages of attackers for mutual protection. In the absence of our armed brothers, we went in pairs. Eight eyes "on-stalks" much better than four.
Most missions in Desert Storm / Proven Force (***both North and South) were flown as part of an attack package, if the targets were in the same vicinity. Primarilly for SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences) "MAGNUM" was always nice to hear if you had an SA-8 tracking your bottom!
Cheers
Kato
One of the most critical lessons learnt from VN (and most other wars) was that singles don't survive long in combat. Ask Erich Hartmann...or Johnny Johnson
"Alone, unarmed and scared ****e-less" is/was a more apt description.
To answer your question, Recce "Pukes" tried, not always successfully, to get attached to packages of attackers for mutual protection. In the absence of our armed brothers, we went in pairs. Eight eyes "on-stalks" much better than four.
Most missions in Desert Storm / Proven Force (***both North and South) were flown as part of an attack package, if the targets were in the same vicinity. Primarilly for SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences) "MAGNUM" was always nice to hear if you had an SA-8 tracking your bottom!
Cheers
Kato
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK & points middle east
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZOOM!
Are you absolutely certain it was the Bleandreeble Manual Override Valve? I thought that retro-fit was only available on the SPEY!!!!??? The J-79 utilized the spondulie overture arch type!
Are you absolutely certain it was the Bleandreeble Manual Override Valve? I thought that retro-fit was only available on the SPEY!!!!??? The J-79 utilized the spondulie overture arch type!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
Hi folks
Watched a TV programme last night that descibed the F4 as a flying bus!?!
Just wonder if there are any ex F4 drivers out there who can please dispel this myth! It also mentioned that the gull shaped wings and anhedral tailplane were due to design mistakes? Not quite sure how that would work!
Cheers
Tiger
Watched a TV programme last night that descibed the F4 as a flying bus!?!
Just wonder if there are any ex F4 drivers out there who can please dispel this myth! It also mentioned that the gull shaped wings and anhedral tailplane were due to design mistakes? Not quite sure how that would work!
Cheers
Tiger
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
The number produced and the multitude of Nations that bought them testifies to the quality of the 'bus' ride. It was not the sleekest of its' era and it did have a few odd angles to overcome specific aerodynamic problems but it worked and looked workmanlike.
I thoroughly enjoyed the 2600hrs I spent in the 'bus' and it was capable of beating most aircraft of its' time. It provided the RAF with their first real look down shoot down capability and it could escort itself on strike attack missions. With those attributes one could forgive the aerodynamic properties and where there were instability characteristics, at least it remained predictable - if you screwed up it bit you.
It also provided much satisfaction if you got it right - GA results depended almost entirely on the crew, not on the accuracy of the avionics. Al-in-all I found it much more of a challenge than the more modern kit.
I thoroughly enjoyed the 2600hrs I spent in the 'bus' and it was capable of beating most aircraft of its' time. It provided the RAF with their first real look down shoot down capability and it could escort itself on strike attack missions. With those attributes one could forgive the aerodynamic properties and where there were instability characteristics, at least it remained predictable - if you screwed up it bit you.
It also provided much satisfaction if you got it right - GA results depended almost entirely on the crew, not on the accuracy of the avionics. Al-in-all I found it much more of a challenge than the more modern kit.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pianosa
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
Originally Posted by tiger26isfinals
Hi folks
Watched a TV programme last night that descibed the F4 as a flying bus!?!
Just wonder if there are any ex F4 drivers out there who can please dispel this myth! It also mentioned that the gull shaped wings and anhedral tailplane were due to design mistakes? Not quite sure how that would work!
Cheers
Tiger
Watched a TV programme last night that descibed the F4 as a flying bus!?!
Just wonder if there are any ex F4 drivers out there who can please dispel this myth! It also mentioned that the gull shaped wings and anhedral tailplane were due to design mistakes? Not quite sure how that would work!
Cheers
Tiger
One of the chaps that made such comments was a civilian lecturer at RMAS. I'll leave it up to the rest of you to judge his level of expertise on this particular matter.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
Never heard of a two-seat bus and a supersonic one at that.
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
The original Toom was called the AH-1 (Attack, McDonnell) and had flat straight wings and a flat tail and plain side inlets. IIRC they had some pitch-up problems (lot of things did then) and drooped the tail so that it would not get blanketed by the wing wake (and added the dogtooth on the wing). They found that they needed a little dihedral on the wing, so rather than bend the whole thing they applied a larger degree of crank to the folding bits. Then the Navy decided that they wanted a Mach 2-plus fighter, which meant new inlets. All this was done before the first aircraft flew, which was not bad going for the 1950s. Then the Navy wanted more detection range = bigger antenna = characteristic bloodhound nose, and raised the RIO's seat.
The great and good Bill Gunston recalls seeing the first wire photo of the prototype in the Flight office, with everyone falling over laughing about this clearly screwed-up design...
The great and good Bill Gunston recalls seeing the first wire photo of the prototype in the Flight office, with everyone falling over laughing about this clearly screwed-up design...
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
Was it true that the guy in the back got a bit more of a battering courtesy of G compared to the chap in the front or is this a myth?
I'd have love to have had a flight in an F4*, a truly thunderous beast for us mortals on the ground.
*Although the Bucc would be my first pick if I had the choice.
I'd have love to have had a flight in an F4*, a truly thunderous beast for us mortals on the ground.
*Although the Bucc would be my first pick if I had the choice.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
THS
Wherever you read about people in the back (of anything) having more trouble with g than people in the front, this is likely to be because the bloke in the front normally knows when the g is coming and can strain. The chap in the back can get caught all relaxed and all.
Wherever you read about people in the back (of anything) having more trouble with g than people in the front, this is likely to be because the bloke in the front normally knows when the g is coming and can strain. The chap in the back can get caught all relaxed and all.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pianosa
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
The backseat gets a little less G than the front- up to 1/2 g I recall reading for the F4 (back seat is closer to the C of G, think of levers and rotational velocity etc.). What really screws up the backseaters day is when sudden applications of G are unadvertised and Baldrick finds himself with his head in his lap and suddenly able to accomplish something he probably spent most of puberty trying to do with little success (if the harness wasn't in the way
).
For the record, the mighty Phantom was the dream aircraft for me growing up. It just looked the part- mean as a bag of mean things. Too bad it was in the process of being retired as I arrived.
). For the record, the mighty Phantom was the dream aircraft for me growing up. It just looked the part- mean as a bag of mean things. Too bad it was in the process of being retired as I arrived.