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 :ok:

Best regards ...

Coff.

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.

If you Spey a dog it gets fat at the back end and slows down - the F4 was no different!

Thanks Geehovah ...

Great book BTW ... I have a copy :ok:

I'm sure a few M & J Guys are out there ...

Coff.

Coffman; If I read your post correctly you seem to link the arrival of the Js with the F3. In fact the Js were procured to replace the F4Ms that went south to Stanley.

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.

Were they leased, rather than bought? ISTR they went back to the US eventually?

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 !

74to09

Thanks - I stand corrected!

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?

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?

The J model for the USN is the aircraft the F-4K was nearest to. No INS fit, it had the AN-ASN-39A dead reckoning navigation set instead.

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. :ok:

-RP

There is some further information on this site:

Some F4E Phantom radar questions. - SimHQ Homepage

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 !

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.

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.

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

Or the AJB7 by selecting STBY.

Thanks Scruffy F ... Belated Happy New Year :ok:

Any joy in scanning your G90 film ?

Best regards ...

Coff.