A "Q" for the F-4 Community
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
A "Q" for the F-4 Community
Guys ...
I've heard a few anecdotes and stories over time that the F-4J(UK) was very popular with crews compared with the F-4M (FGR.2). Stepping away from the politics surrounding the original decision to fit the Spey to our F-4K & M's ... and the later need to buy a few J79 engined ex USN F-4J's prior to the Tornado F.3 coming on stream ... was the F-4J(UK) superior in performance and role execution from a "Hands on Perspective" to that of the FGR.2 ?
I understand our F4 Nav community had to contend with a different backseat environment in the F-4J(UK) ... did that bring up any issues ?
I guess the above is a bit of an Anorak question really ... but a "crews eye" view would be greatly appreciated
Best regards ...
Coff.
I've heard a few anecdotes and stories over time that the F-4J(UK) was very popular with crews compared with the F-4M (FGR.2). Stepping away from the politics surrounding the original decision to fit the Spey to our F-4K & M's ... and the later need to buy a few J79 engined ex USN F-4J's prior to the Tornado F.3 coming on stream ... was the F-4J(UK) superior in performance and role execution from a "Hands on Perspective" to that of the FGR.2 ?
I understand our F4 Nav community had to contend with a different backseat environment in the F-4J(UK) ... did that bring up any issues ?
I guess the above is a bit of an Anorak question really ... but a "crews eye" view would be greatly appreciated
Best regards ...
Coff.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess I've already said my bit, although I never flew the J. I had quite a few sorties in the F.
Fonthill Media - The Phantom in Focus Sampler
The F4K was really only good for the carrier as the lack of avionics was a serious limitation.
The F4M was good down low. The radar was always good but (eventually) reliable. The J79 was a jet so worked better at height. The M probably went quite a bit further in terms of range, certainly when I worked with the J79 jets.
Have to say that most of my mates that flew the J preferred it to the M.
Fonthill Media - The Phantom in Focus Sampler
The F4K was really only good for the carrier as the lack of avionics was a serious limitation.
The F4M was good down low. The radar was always good but (eventually) reliable. The J79 was a jet so worked better at height. The M probably went quite a bit further in terms of range, certainly when I worked with the J79 jets.
Have to say that most of my mates that flew the J preferred it to the M.
Last edited by Geehovah; 31st Jan 2013 at 17:33.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Then that's my bad Maxburner ... sorry. My genuine interest is in a comparison between the M and J in terms of performance and capability as it would seem the almost "off the shelf" J was superior ... I was hopeful that a few who had the privilege to fly both could share a few observations and perspectives.
Cheers ...
Coff.
Cheers ...
Coff.
The F-4J(UK)s were bought - ISTR GBP 120 Million for qty 15 including spares and support. Originally they were only going to be used for about 5 years and not have a Major servicing - in the end they were kept much longer and Major servicings were carried out. Bargain !
Last edited by RAFEngO74to09; 1st Feb 2013 at 18:24.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
The question actually asks many questions about the different F4s. Which was best, hard wing or soft wing? Which models had a slotted stabilator and what did it do for performance? Was the K the only model with drooped ailerons and could they be used in combat? Was the K also the only model with rapid reheat? I know that the J79 reheat lit quite quickly. The debate between J79 and RR Spey has been aired many times. Why do USAF models and their derivatives have less sturdy landing gear and smaller tyres.
Then of course there is the weapons system. Having operated Ds and Es as well as the M there is no doubt that, in the right hands, the PD radar was way ahead. I was appalled to hear when at Yuma that only 2 RIOs on MC Sqn could operate or understand PD, the rest just used Pulse.
The Digital Radar in the E model was an improvement but it still had all of the limitations of pulse. The weapons upgrade in the F made it credible to go on into the 90s, a shame the display wasn't better.
Any thoughts out there?
Then of course there is the weapons system. Having operated Ds and Es as well as the M there is no doubt that, in the right hands, the PD radar was way ahead. I was appalled to hear when at Yuma that only 2 RIOs on MC Sqn could operate or understand PD, the rest just used Pulse.
The Digital Radar in the E model was an improvement but it still had all of the limitations of pulse. The weapons upgrade in the F made it credible to go on into the 90s, a shame the display wasn't better.
Any thoughts out there?
Am I correct in thinking that the J did not have INS, so could theoretically scramble faster as it didn't have to wait for an align, or was the align time rapid enough not have been a factor?
Last edited by HaveQuick2; 2nd Feb 2013 at 14:48. Reason: clarity
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dominator2, its the USAF/land based derivatives that had the larger main wheels and tyres, 11.5 inches wide against the Navy's 7.7 inches. To accommodate the larger wheels/tyres the inner wing upper surface had a slight bulge as did the main undercarriage doors, only the F-4J/S and the last 12 RF-4Bs (post SLEP) also had the larger wheel/tyre combination.
-RP
-RP
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: London
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have Quick 2,
The RAF Germany Battle Flight HASs for Phantom FGR2 / F-4M were equipped with INAS heaters. RS05 was held 24/7/365 with crewroom to airborne times in the region of 2.5 to 3 minutes regularly achieved, particularly during TACEVALs. During a forward deployment trial to use the ex-Lightning QRA facility at RAF Gutersloh in 1979, I once recorded a crewroom to airborne time of 1 min 40 sec when INAS alignment was dispensed with and the taxy distance to the runway was slightly less than that at RAF Wildenrath. So fast enough !
The RAF Germany Battle Flight HASs for Phantom FGR2 / F-4M were equipped with INAS heaters. RS05 was held 24/7/365 with crewroom to airborne times in the region of 2.5 to 3 minutes regularly achieved, particularly during TACEVALs. During a forward deployment trial to use the ex-Lightning QRA facility at RAF Gutersloh in 1979, I once recorded a crewroom to airborne time of 1 min 40 sec when INAS alignment was dispensed with and the taxy distance to the runway was slightly less than that at RAF Wildenrath. So fast enough !
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ISTR that an FGR2 INS could be aligned in 100 seconds, from a stored heading shut-down. The alignment was started as a first action by the nav, on reaching the cockpit, it was aligned before the crew were strapped in and the engines running.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thanks chaps ...
Can I just pick up on something Dominator2 said regarding Hard v Soft Wings. I understand that we elected not to have leading-edge slats on the J. Was this on cost grounds or did the Hard Wing offer faster/more agile advantages at height ?
Best ...
Coff.
Can I just pick up on something Dominator2 said regarding Hard v Soft Wings. I understand that we elected not to have leading-edge slats on the J. Was this on cost grounds or did the Hard Wing offer faster/more agile advantages at height ?
Best ...
Coff.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Age: 91
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F4J
So many mistakes ! - THe FGR2 needed INAS for the pilots ADI so we never got airborne from Battle flight with the INAS not aligned -
The F4 J was a short term stop gap only 3 aircraft were put through the major programme at St Athan - then resprayed in RAF colours
The RAF wanted the F4S over the F4 J but not were available - the S is a upgraded J - at the time they were still upgrading the last Js at NAF North Island but no wing slat sets were available in the time period so the RAF took the hard wing J
The J was a much better F4 than the F4M for many reasons - the radar was the AWG12 but upgraded so better than the RAF AWG1/12
The F4 J was a short term stop gap only 3 aircraft were put through the major programme at St Athan - then resprayed in RAF colours
The RAF wanted the F4S over the F4 J but not were available - the S is a upgraded J - at the time they were still upgrading the last Js at NAF North Island but no wing slat sets were available in the time period so the RAF took the hard wing J
The J was a much better F4 than the F4M for many reasons - the radar was the AWG12 but upgraded so better than the RAF AWG1/12