PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   F-4 Phantom (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/363621-f-4-phantom.html)

beachbumflyer 25th Feb 2009 03:48

F-4 Phantom
Hi guys,

Was the F-4 Phantom a really good aircraft?
If it was, why?

Pontius Navigator 25th Feb 2009 08:17

Fast, rugged, good radar, huge load carrier.

Compared with many contemporary fighters it had double the number of missiles for a start.

and with more time

In RAF service it could carry 9x1000lbs or bombs and the SUU. As an interceptor it could actually get to height.

It also outstanding as it was a naval fighter turned MRCA.

It had its problems though. Initially a hit on its aileron jack could cause total loss of flying control hydraulics. Too much burner could empty the fuselage tanks and with no wing fuel tanks you could be a glider with 14k fuel remaining. It had no fire extinguishers.

1.3VStall 25th Feb 2009 08:20

The F-4 Phantom? A triumph of thrust over aerodynamics!

forget 25th Feb 2009 08:20

Produced 19581981
Number built 5,195.

Dark Helmet 25th Feb 2009 08:55

Read and enjoy this thread (when you have a few spare hours):


kluge 25th Feb 2009 16:56

Still wonderful rereading this.... red wine helps.

thegypsy 25th Feb 2009 17:01

Come on BEagle. Where are you?

FlightTester 25th Feb 2009 17:54

The F-4 Phantom? A triumph of thrust over aerodynamics!
The aero's always win in the end though - if you've ever seen the video of the Phantom coming apart during a max Q high speed time trial around a closed course you'll know what I mean.:\

mr fish 25th Feb 2009 18:38

never saw them with the f4, but i bet the BLUE ANGELS short time with the type was a pretty awesome sight!!!

gashman 25th Feb 2009 19:21

It didn't have fire extinguishers
They don't tend to work on fires, (but are useful for mech-fails) because the air flow tends to blast the foam out of the engine before it can do its job. Because of the extra weight of a system vs usefulness, the UK Typhoon doesn't have them. Because it doesn't matter with one engine, the F16 doesn't either.

Geehovah 25th Feb 2009 21:03

Before the arrival of the F15A we had the only pulse doppler equipped, look down shoot down, beyond visual range fighter in Europe. King of the roost - for a short time anyway.

Great aircraft in its day


airfoilmod 25th Feb 2009 21:28

In 1970 used the F4. LOUD. BIG. Very large Loops. Huge ops area. Not a nimble Beast, there was plenty of SMOKE, but most of it was Black.

Did I say LOUD?

Delivered w/o a gun. Missiles, ya know?

A Friend flew it FAC in umm...... Thailand, Right?

The last of the Best.


Saintsman 25th Feb 2009 21:51

there was plenty of SMOKE
Not from the Speys there wasn't.

wiggy 25th Feb 2009 22:56

My lasting memories:

The beast had a very, very impressive envelope at lowish level ( 750 KIAS clean at Sea Level AFAIR), but with the Spey engines you could be bust said envelope very quickly if you weren't paying attention. Seem to remember somone bugging out on an Aggressors sortie and the canopies starting to melt .

The best AD weapons platform in Europe for a short while (:ok: Geehovah).

As for: "It didn't have fire extinguishers".....:{ :{ :{

wileydog3 26th Feb 2009 01:26

The F-4 fast FACs were indeed out of Thailand. A couple of the callsigns were Atlanta and Wolf. Spent many a night near the Thai/Laotian/Cambodian border providing fuel to those guys. As a former FAC in Vietnam, I could only envy them for the job they had and the airplane they had to FAC from...

BEagle 26th Feb 2009 07:07

Come on BEagle. Where are you?
Sorry, thegypsy, I was on my way home from Germany.

The F-4 was an excellent aircraft. During our OCU, the USMC exchange officer gave us some figures and said that the F-4 was regarded even by the US, with its F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18 fleets, as one of the most capable fighters around.

With a powerful radar, 4 x SkyFlash, 4 x AIM-9L and the SUU gun, it was a very potent beast indeed.

lastmanstanding 26th Feb 2009 09:49

Best beat up ever I've seen in Deci during the late 80's

Same Det as the "other" Uk visitors(XV) from RAFG decided it would be a jape to paint their no plate on our a/c. SEngo went ballistic and demanded their SEngo paint out the XV's on the a/c.

However a lot of the tail numbers were XV123 etc....

You can guess the rest :ugh:

Akrotiri bad boy 26th Feb 2009 11:54

It's the only aircraft I worked on where the groundcrew toolkit included a sledgehammer. Pass me that big hammer, pass me that big spanner: this aeroplane was BIG.

kluge 26th Feb 2009 11:59

What were the doors on the aft fuselage used for on the Spey engined F4's ?

In some pics I've seen I recall that they were open on take off. Always intrigued me.

Thank you.


Out Of Trim 26th Feb 2009 12:28

Auxiliary Air Intake Doors - I believe

All times are GMT. The time now is 18:21.

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