Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Could Spey Phantom reach mach 2?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Could Spey Phantom reach mach 2?

Old 5th Apr 2021, 18:08
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: florida
Age: 78
Posts: 1,399
Salute!

Great to hear stuff about something other than Hunters or Bucs or .....

As Lomcevak mentioned, then Beagle, many folks do not appreciate the supersonic climb schedules we had in those old, over-powered beasts. They were slick, low drag designs and most could not turn worth a damn. We still had work to do with all the aero to help "dogfighting", and that was reflected in later birds like the Eagle, Viper, Tiffie, etc. And then the Raptor and new kid on the block - Stubbie.

Most folks do not realize that the father of the Phantom could get to 35,000 feet in about 2 minutes from a standing start at the end of RWY 35. My Voodoo at Grand Forks on a cold day with basic combat loadout, no external tanks, used about 2,000 feet until gear up. Then climb at 30 degrees pitch until 0.9 M, but rarely got there ( the mach) before pushing over and slipping thru the mach. Started back up at 1.3 M to 45,000 feet plus a little. Figure about 5 minutes from brake release. Who hoo for this 22 year old troop, and they were paying me to do it.

I have no doubt the RA-5 was a speed merchant, but never figured it for a good climb. The Viper was really clean, and at 40,000 feet in the A2A loadout we could barely maintain 1.1 M in mil once there and in a slight descent. As Lomcevak pointed out, just a slight bunt to unload really helped. Between 45 and 50,000 feet in the Voodoo, we could hold 1.15 M using min burner on one engine and mil power on the other. God how I miss those days.

Gums sends...


gums is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2021, 19:17
  #22 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 11,493
ORAC is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2021, 19:20
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 145
Originally Posted by gums View Post
Salute!

Great to hear stuff about something other than Hunters or Bucs or .....

As Lomcevak mentioned, then Beagle, many folks do not appreciate the supersonic climb schedules we had in those old, over-powered beasts. They were slick, low drag designs and most could not turn worth a damn. We still had work to do with all the aero to help "dogfighting", and that was reflected in later birds like the Eagle, Viper, Tiffie, etc. And then the Raptor and new kid on the block - Stubbie.

Most folks do not realize that the father of the Phantom could get to 35,000 feet in about 2 minutes from a standing start at the end of RWY 35. My Voodoo at Grand Forks on a cold day with basic combat loadout, no external tanks, used about 2,000 feet until gear up. Then climb at 30 degrees pitch until 0.9 M, but rarely got there ( the mach) before pushing over and slipping thru the mach. Started back up at 1.3 M to 45,000 feet plus a little. Figure about 5 minutes from brake release. Who hoo for this 22 year old troop, and they were paying me to do it.

I have no doubt the RA-5 was a speed merchant, but never figured it for a good climb. The Viper was really clean, and at 40,000 feet in the A2A loadout we could barely maintain 1.1 M in mil once there and in a slight descent. As Lomcevak pointed out, just a slight bunt to unload really helped. Between 45 and 50,000 feet in the Voodoo, we could hold 1.15 M using min burner on one engine and mil power on the other. God how I miss those days.

Gums sends...
Gums
May I say how much I for one enjoy your posts. Interesting, knowledgeable and authoritative, but at the same time so passionate and evocative that it feels like we’re in the cockpit with you. Much respect.
Video Mixdown is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 13:51
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 68
Posts: 349
LOMCEVAK, My comments were slightly tongue in cheek. Yes , a clean F4 did accelerate quite well in Full A/B and may catch the unwary! I seem to recall that we could be airborne in 2500ft and land in 2000ft using slightly different techniques.

On an acceleration to M2.0 if the Trop was reached too early a second climb at above M1.3 (Ramp Schedule) and a 3-5 unit pushover would achieve M2.0.

BEagle, A shame that for the short time you flew the F4 it was so limited in was was allowed.

At the same time (1981-1986) in the USAF on 1964 built D Models and 1975 built E Models we operated to the makers limits. Yes, we could still pull 8g with a very low fuel weight. Those of us who were lucky enough to fly the F4 Phantom (all Models) to their limits were the luckiest people alive. The aircraft, in its time, was one of the all time greats.

Having flown a few different Models, IMHO, the F4M (FGR2) was overall the most capable F4 Phantom. The minor limitations of the Spey were more than overcome by the weapons and weapons system. Lookdown Shootdown in RAFG in the 70s was a unique capability. Until the mid 70s Strike, LL Night All Weather Attack and Recce were all the order of the day. A Slotted Stab, Drooped Ailerons and Rapid Reheat would have been nice additions at a minor cost.

Video Mixdown, I totally agree with you comments concerning gums posts
Gums
May I say how much I for one enjoy your posts. Interesting, knowledgeable and authoritative, but at the same time so passionate and evocative that it feels like we’re in the cockpit with you. Much respect
Dominator2 is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 16:24
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: outernet
Posts: 44
Flew a clean F4K on a test flight out of Yeovilton. Part of it was to check the movements of the ramps. So having followed the profile and at about 38,000ft or thereabouts in full burner, continued to accelerate to see how it would go. Managed 2.2M. The next problem was slowing down as there had been a couple of flameouts coming out of burner. Therefore, somewhere just west of Chivenor, laid in about a 3 G turn to starboard, and gently eased both engines back to min burner. Follow by easing them individually back in to military power. This turn appeared to take up most of the Bristol Channel.
twothree is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 18:06
  #26 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 60
Posts: 1,458
As I imagined speed range etc is always dependent on various factors. The figures I've come across I believe relate to a specific series of tests to establish a guaranteed level of performance, if that makes sense. It doesn't surprise me that twothree managed to significantly out do the higher altitude figure which I came across, hence I thought I'd bandy this about some folk who'd know.

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 18:52
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 33
So, Twothree, whereabouts and on what heading did you undertake your supersonic run - turning stbd just west of Chivenor?
Paying Guest is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 19:01
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 709
Originally Posted by Dominator2 View Post
Having flown a few different Models, IMHO, the F4M (FGR2) was overall the most capable F4 Phantom. The minor limitations of the Spey were more than overcome by the weapons and weapons system. Lookdown Shootdown in RAFG in the 70s was a unique capability. Until the mid 70s Strike, LL Night All Weather Attack and Recce were all the order of the day. A Slotted Stab, Drooped Ailerons and Rapid Reheat would have been nice additions at a minor cost.
Dominator2,

The YF-4M XT 852 did indeed have drooped ailerons and the slotted stab (I am not sure whether or not the other YF-4M, XT 853, did or did not). Therefore, it would be interesting to know why the production F-4Ms did not. 852 died on the scrap heap at West Freugh having flown relatively few hours (probably less than 1000); it was a great airframe when it was still flying and we used to borrow it at Boscombe from BAe from time to time. Very happy days!

LOMCEVAK is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 19:50
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: outernet
Posts: 44
What do you think!!!!
twothree is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 21:45
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: florida
Age: 78
Posts: 1,399
Salute!

For some reason I always thot the Spey would have better gas mileage than the J-79. Amongst the colonists, the F-4 was well known as a gas guzzler, especially from about 1966 to 1973. That was during that miserable fracas where many of us made our bones.

Funniest story we had in the SLUF community was a radio call at Udorn when one of our flights had to land there and refuel. Bear in mind we were flying the Spey motor, minus reheat. About 14,500 lb thrust at mil, and awesome TSFC. So the guys get to the rwy and hold. After 5 or 6 minutes the tower asks about their fuel abort time. Huh? Seems the F-4 J-79's were so bad it could not even get to first refueling point for the mission. So our naive flight leader asks what that was all about. Because we had over 9,000 lb internal and two 300 gal tanks, the calculation was tough, LOL. From Udorn to Korat took about 2,500 pounds, maybe 3,000. Burning about 500 pounds per hour on the ramp, our flight lead told the tower we could hold for maybe another 8 or 9 hours. If I had been him, I woulda ordered pizza!

The only time we had to refuel at the outset of a mission was during the Christmas blitz when they took away our drops and increased the number of MK-82's. So we hit the tank on the way to Hanoi, but came home at 40K, burning about 1,500 pounds per hour. That was in your modified Spey that Allison built for us. We still had two Winders and two ALQ ECM pods, plus the drag from the MER's. Always comfortable in that plane WRT fuel.

Gums sends...
gums is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.