Any Phantom stories out there?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 8N 98E
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember in the early 80's (can't remember the exact year) I was scheduled to open the Bournemouth International air show, which was part sponsored by the local TV company at the time 'TVS', by launching a banner behind our Grumman Ag-Cat. The banner had a 6 foot square 'TVS' logo with 'weclome to TVS Bournmouth air show' clipped on behind the logo. All this was behind around 100 feet of rope linked to a large loop help open between a pair of launch poles about 10 foot high fairly close to side of the runway, around the mid point. The idea was that the Ag-Cat would do a low pass trailing a grappling hook and put the hook through the launch poles, peeling the banner off the ground and do a circuit and then drop the banner back on the airfield. Normal speed for this would be around 60 Kts.
The 'proper' airshow would then commence!
About half an hour or so before the opening a Phantom was scheduled to land and taxi to the static park.
When the Phantom arrived, he did a very low overshoot (I think intentionally) and turned left to the side of the runway, away from the crowd line, climbing away to position downwind. Very spectacular! Unfortunately.......his left main gear went through the banner tow line loop and peeled the banner beautifully off the ground.....welcoming everybody to the airshow!
Needless to say the banner only lasted about 10 seconds before it disintegrated!
I guess a Phantom Go-Around speed is significantly greater than 60kts!
The 'proper' airshow would then commence!
About half an hour or so before the opening a Phantom was scheduled to land and taxi to the static park.
When the Phantom arrived, he did a very low overshoot (I think intentionally) and turned left to the side of the runway, away from the crowd line, climbing away to position downwind. Very spectacular! Unfortunately.......his left main gear went through the banner tow line loop and peeled the banner beautifully off the ground.....welcoming everybody to the airshow!
Needless to say the banner only lasted about 10 seconds before it disintegrated!
I guess a Phantom Go-Around speed is significantly greater than 60kts!
Was that the same year and the same Phantom that went off the side of the runway during T/O on the last day of the show? The nav ejected and the aircraft diverted safely to Lyneham.
I didn't see it but the aircraft came over my house 6 miles away with the u/c still down and I thought it was a bit odd.
I didn't see it but the aircraft came over my house 6 miles away with the u/c still down and I thought it was a bit odd.
Would one of you gents like to tell the tale about the Phantom in reheat, dragging the RHAG behind it in the circuit!
Thanks
lsh
Thanks
lsh
We were on a visit to Brunei.
The Air Attache was "HP", sadly no longer with us, lost in the St Athan collision.
On his wall was a picture of a Phantom, nose pitched well-up, low level, reheat, hook down & towing a mass of debris!!!
I asked what had happened.
and IIRC....
On short final with an emergency, ATC had raised the approach end barrier on them, rather than the stop end!
With the emergency, they were headed for the RHAG anyway, so the hook was down!
The result?
The spectacular picture mentioned above.
Surely you guys must know the story and be able to flesh it out?
Anyway, 'tis true, was told to me first-hand.
lsh
Did someone mention Deci?
892 trying to stop without catching a wire: we took a couple of spare wheels as it was a bit embarrassing to block the runway for half a day
Then there was the USMC F4 that was stuck on Ark whilst in Valetta and sent home to the US of A with an 892 NAS fin
892 trying to stop without catching a wire: we took a couple of spare wheels as it was a bit embarrassing to block the runway for half a day
Then there was the USMC F4 that was stuck on Ark whilst in Valetta and sent home to the US of A with an 892 NAS fin
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All over the place
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that this ferry was to Cyprus (probably from Gan), and that the excessive time in reheat resulted in the pilot (from 41 Sqn I think)
I remember reading it as flying over Iran with one engine in full reheat and that has stuck in my mind through all these years. I thought it was odd at the time. Now I wonder why a Toom would be in Gan ?
regards
H
Last edited by howiehowie93; 6th Oct 2012 at 13:14. Reason: tidy up a bit
Actually, on reflection, I'm not sure if it had actually landed at Gan or just overflown it on the way back from the far east (Singapore I think). The F4 was the last of the BP (Ex Bersatu Padu??or something similar), and I think the recovery had already been somewhat protracted.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
howie, there is a website remembering RAF Gan, 'RAF Gan Remembered', funnily enough, there are two pictures of F4M's on the site, which I was surprised to see.
One depicts an F4 being towed through what appears to be an admin site, minus canopy, with men on the wings holding up the (unlocked) outer wing panels.
Wonder what happened there?
(edit:- lost canopy on take off, circa 1972)
One depicts an F4 being towed through what appears to be an admin site, minus canopy, with men on the wings holding up the (unlocked) outer wing panels.
Wonder what happened there?
(edit:- lost canopy on take off, circa 1972)
Last edited by gibbo568; 6th Oct 2012 at 19:19.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Age: 91
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
early F4 deployments
I think ( well before my time) 6 Squadron deployed the FGR2 to The Far East - Singapore - again from memory the Lightnings of 74 Squadron had pulled out and it was to show the RAF could still deploy to the NEAF with the new F4 and tanker support - I recall the NRL on my 1st F4 Sqn was ex 6 Sqn and he spoke of it - again I think some of the sorties were pretty long and limited either by O2 supplies or it could have been engine oil usage - Not 100% sure
How to loose the rear canopy
An afternoon a sortie came back with a mayday call, the landing was uneventful, but for the GIB it sure was a new feeling doing his business in a windy office without a canopy to protect against blast and weather. The explanation what happened was a bit weird like just fell off, dont know why, and so on. A first inspection could not reveal anything terchnical responsible for the mishap.
No damage reports fom civvis had arrived that time, so the canopy was most probably somewhere in the wooden area of the black forest close to our base.
How could this have happened?
Well it´s always the same.
Bad waeather in the morning, a full squadron coffee bar, and some unsane ideas. In this case a few hotshots discussed, how slow the phantom could be flown by a superior stick in some sound maneuver without going out of control, and being it only for a couple of seconds. Some bold front seater came up with the number slower than 60 knots (even the speedometer started not before 80 knots) and another took him by the word and offered some ammount of his flightpay if he would do it and could prove that he had done it.
The discussion was interrupted by improving weather and flying was called on.
After briefing and flightplanning our superior stick guy and his GIB used all their not so superior brain to make a proposal to their money offering pilot fellow to prove their ability to fly slower than 60 knots and prove it by...
opening the canopy and making a mark with a edding on the outside..
The canopy was restricted to 60 knots, which was enough for speedy taxiing, and our superior crew saw no problem in slowing down, open the canopy, make the mark with the edding, close the canopy again and speed up to flying speed again. Would the rest of the aircrews had heard of this plan there might have been a way to reason, but as it had become a thing of honor and money between two well expierienced Recce-pilots the show went on.
You know already that it didn´t work as planned, and you might guess the reason. No, it was not the speed that went wrong as they later told the interested audience during another bad weather day without any unwanted flight safety or command guys around. They just had forgotten the effect of a blownup canopy seal, which prevented the canopy from closing again. There might have been a work around, but let´s not communicate it, there are still some phantoms flying and you never know if Joe
............ will try .....
franzl
No damage reports fom civvis had arrived that time, so the canopy was most probably somewhere in the wooden area of the black forest close to our base. How could this have happened?
Well it´s always the same.
Bad waeather in the morning, a full squadron coffee bar, and some unsane ideas. In this case a few hotshots discussed, how slow the phantom could be flown by a superior stick in some sound maneuver without going out of control, and being it only for a couple of seconds. Some bold front seater came up with the number slower than 60 knots (even the speedometer started not before 80 knots) and another took him by the word and offered some ammount of his flightpay if he would do it and could prove that he had done it.
The discussion was interrupted by improving weather and flying was called on.
After briefing and flightplanning our superior stick guy and his GIB used all their not so superior brain to make a proposal to their money offering pilot fellow to prove their ability to fly slower than 60 knots and prove it by...
opening the canopy and making a mark with a edding on the outside..
The canopy was restricted to 60 knots, which was enough for speedy taxiing, and our superior crew saw no problem in slowing down, open the canopy, make the mark with the edding, close the canopy again and speed up to flying speed again. Would the rest of the aircrews had heard of this plan there might have been a way to reason, but as it had become a thing of honor and money between two well expierienced Recce-pilots the show went on.
You know already that it didn´t work as planned, and you might guess the reason. No, it was not the speed that went wrong as they later told the interested audience during another bad weather day without any unwanted flight safety or command guys around. They just had forgotten the effect of a blownup canopy seal, which prevented the canopy from closing again. There might have been a work around, but let´s not communicate it, there are still some phantoms flying and you never know if Joe
............ will try .....franzl
Last edited by RetiredF4; 6th Oct 2012 at 21:20.
Geehova,
I have put a request for a copy of your forthcoming book on my Xmas wishlist.
I realise this is a pilots forum and I don't have any first hand flying stories to tell about the Phantom but I do have a few memories of my time supporting the aircraft at HSA Brough and HOSM. My first involvement was in 1970, investigating the failure of hydraulic pipes, which were a pretty frequent event in the early days. The areas most commonly affected were PC1 and PC2 pipes in the centre fuselage above the wing. On one of the squadrons OC Eng had become convinced that his airframe technicians were not making or fitting the pipes properly so he decided to give them all a lesson and made and fitted the next pipe himself. Much to his dismay, and probably the amusement of the others, it failed on the first sortie. Just as an aside, would the RAF have the capability to make a hydraulic pipe nowadays?
To investigate the problem we needed to get in and look what was happening but we could not engine run with the panels removed. We had a set of panels made with large holes cut in them and additional stiffening ribs on the outside. Initially we had no instrumentation so the investigation was going to be tactile to start with. Along with a gentle giant called Jack Stothard we established a procedure of touching the assorted pipes while running at various stabilised rpms and grading the level of vibration on a scale of 1 to 5. Then we cross calibrated ourselves by swapping sides. When were were satisfied we got reasonably consistent results we decided to do some additional runs in reheat, as we were uncertain whether the vibration was airframe induced or hydraulic pressure ripple induced.
The running bay at HOSM consisted of two ramps which the main wheels were towed up so that the jet pipes were more or less horizontal. The aircraft was chocked but the main holdback was the arrester hook which was supposed to be tensioned against a strop anchored to the ground. There was no detuner or silencer, just a large venetian blind like jet blast deflector at either end of the pan. The next run initially went well, all exciting stuff for a young engineer fresh from university, stood on the wing of the F4 with both engines in min reheat. As the runner went to max reheat the aircraft moved on the chocks as the holdback had not been properly tensioned. Just for a second I was convinced the aircraft was off through the venetian blind and we were going to be chopped up like salami. Jack and I nervously looked at each other across the top of the fuselage before turning to see the ground crew grinning broadly in the adjacent portakabin.
Our next step was to fit instrumentation in the from of pressure transducers and accellerometers to do a more scientific study. The root cause of the problem was that when the Spey engines had been introduced, the length of the pump flexible hoses had been changed and this created a hydraulic pressure ripple resonance at certain rpms. We introduced a small spherical presure damper at the end of the hoses and while it did not completely cure the problem it did reduce the nuber of pipe failures.
Some years later I was involved in the investigation of the failure the hydraulic motors which drove the standby fuel transfer pumps. These only ran in the event of electrical failure or when in reheat, to supplement the flow from the main electrically driven transfer pumps. We instrumented the pumps and decided we would do a sustained max reheat run on both engines. We particularly wanted to cover the transition as the No 4 and 6 tanks emptied to see what happened as the pumps became uncovered. Standing watching and listening to the aircraft thundering away was fantastic and after about 5 minutes of this punishment, the concrete behind the aircraft began to suffer. The top layer began to spall off and pieces of concrete the size of dinner plates were picked up by the jet blast and hurled at the venetian blind jet blast deflectors. They were shattered into smaller chunks and flew high in the air raining down on the surrounding countryside and the road which ran past the running bay. Fortunately there wasn't much traffic passing at the time. Just after the end of the run the local farmer rang up to complain that the noise was driving his bullocks mad.
Happy days, pushing forward the frontiers of aviation.
I have put a request for a copy of your forthcoming book on my Xmas wishlist.
I realise this is a pilots forum and I don't have any first hand flying stories to tell about the Phantom but I do have a few memories of my time supporting the aircraft at HSA Brough and HOSM. My first involvement was in 1970, investigating the failure of hydraulic pipes, which were a pretty frequent event in the early days. The areas most commonly affected were PC1 and PC2 pipes in the centre fuselage above the wing. On one of the squadrons OC Eng had become convinced that his airframe technicians were not making or fitting the pipes properly so he decided to give them all a lesson and made and fitted the next pipe himself. Much to his dismay, and probably the amusement of the others, it failed on the first sortie. Just as an aside, would the RAF have the capability to make a hydraulic pipe nowadays?
To investigate the problem we needed to get in and look what was happening but we could not engine run with the panels removed. We had a set of panels made with large holes cut in them and additional stiffening ribs on the outside. Initially we had no instrumentation so the investigation was going to be tactile to start with. Along with a gentle giant called Jack Stothard we established a procedure of touching the assorted pipes while running at various stabilised rpms and grading the level of vibration on a scale of 1 to 5. Then we cross calibrated ourselves by swapping sides. When were were satisfied we got reasonably consistent results we decided to do some additional runs in reheat, as we were uncertain whether the vibration was airframe induced or hydraulic pressure ripple induced.
The running bay at HOSM consisted of two ramps which the main wheels were towed up so that the jet pipes were more or less horizontal. The aircraft was chocked but the main holdback was the arrester hook which was supposed to be tensioned against a strop anchored to the ground. There was no detuner or silencer, just a large venetian blind like jet blast deflector at either end of the pan. The next run initially went well, all exciting stuff for a young engineer fresh from university, stood on the wing of the F4 with both engines in min reheat. As the runner went to max reheat the aircraft moved on the chocks as the holdback had not been properly tensioned. Just for a second I was convinced the aircraft was off through the venetian blind and we were going to be chopped up like salami. Jack and I nervously looked at each other across the top of the fuselage before turning to see the ground crew grinning broadly in the adjacent portakabin.
Our next step was to fit instrumentation in the from of pressure transducers and accellerometers to do a more scientific study. The root cause of the problem was that when the Spey engines had been introduced, the length of the pump flexible hoses had been changed and this created a hydraulic pressure ripple resonance at certain rpms. We introduced a small spherical presure damper at the end of the hoses and while it did not completely cure the problem it did reduce the nuber of pipe failures.
Some years later I was involved in the investigation of the failure the hydraulic motors which drove the standby fuel transfer pumps. These only ran in the event of electrical failure or when in reheat, to supplement the flow from the main electrically driven transfer pumps. We instrumented the pumps and decided we would do a sustained max reheat run on both engines. We particularly wanted to cover the transition as the No 4 and 6 tanks emptied to see what happened as the pumps became uncovered. Standing watching and listening to the aircraft thundering away was fantastic and after about 5 minutes of this punishment, the concrete behind the aircraft began to suffer. The top layer began to spall off and pieces of concrete the size of dinner plates were picked up by the jet blast and hurled at the venetian blind jet blast deflectors. They were shattered into smaller chunks and flew high in the air raining down on the surrounding countryside and the road which ran past the running bay. Fortunately there wasn't much traffic passing at the time. Just after the end of the run the local farmer rang up to complain that the noise was driving his bullocks mad.
Happy days, pushing forward the frontiers of aviation.
Dog Tired
The BOH ejection was the result of the No 2 losing NWS and, as he left the paved surface, the nav decided to bang out. The pilot decided not to. My very good mate was the leader.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In a hole with an owl
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bournemouth ejection
It was a 43 sqn aircraft and the nav who ejected was P*t* H*mphrys (apologies if that's the wrong spelling of his surname), a Seth Effricken.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In a hole with an owl
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do my eyes decieve or is that a very Tremblers looking 43 Sqn jet?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following on from the Nav. ejection, a caption on a Squadron Prints picture of XS571 includes the following,
“On the morning of 21 November 1977 it suffered a nose wheel steering fault during take off and veered off the runway at a speed of 90kts. Its crew, Flt Lt s G***s and Flt Lt A M**r, both ejected but the Phantom, still on the ground, came to rest with little damage. It must be one of the few aircraft still airworthy after being abandoned by its crew”.
I arrived on 43 in 1981 as an A/Eng Tech A/P, and did not know anything about the incident, can anyone fill in any of the details?
In 1983, the then CO took a twin sticker, (XT875 I think), for 'a last check flight' before flying to Cyprus for the ACP, (he was relatively new to the squadron at the time).
A few minutes later, there was a loud screech and a double bang. No ejections, but XT875 had gone sideways down the runway, blown the main wheels, and ground the brake units down quite a bit!
Cause? Nose wheel steering runaway according the the F720B!
We were 'unable to reproduce fault', and there were no repeat events.
“On the morning of 21 November 1977 it suffered a nose wheel steering fault during take off and veered off the runway at a speed of 90kts. Its crew, Flt Lt s G***s and Flt Lt A M**r, both ejected but the Phantom, still on the ground, came to rest with little damage. It must be one of the few aircraft still airworthy after being abandoned by its crew”.
I arrived on 43 in 1981 as an A/Eng Tech A/P, and did not know anything about the incident, can anyone fill in any of the details?
In 1983, the then CO took a twin sticker, (XT875 I think), for 'a last check flight' before flying to Cyprus for the ACP, (he was relatively new to the squadron at the time).
A few minutes later, there was a loud screech and a double bang. No ejections, but XT875 had gone sideways down the runway, blown the main wheels, and ground the brake units down quite a bit!
Cause? Nose wheel steering runaway according the the F720B!
We were 'unable to reproduce fault', and there were no repeat events.