Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

Just for information, Phantom from the Cockpit: Flying the Legend by Peter Caygill (published by Pen & Sword books) has recently hit the bookshops.
I assume that it is in the same vein as his previous books Jet Jockeys and Lightning From the Cockpit.

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

[What were the differences between the FG1 and the FGR2?? Anything significant? Anything obviously physically different? Were they both carrier capable?[/quote]

Internal differences, the FG1 had no battery, no inertial, no HF so was well equipped to get lost & incommunicado. Externally the ailerons drooped when flaps were lowered so as to reduce final approach speed to something that the Mighty Ark's 840 odd feet of runway could handle; the FG1 stabilator had a fixed slat (upside down) to maintain adequate pitch control at the lower speed. To enable less traumatic s/e go-arounds, the RN FG! engines were modified, I believe, to enable "rapid" reheat selction our Fighting Cocks machinery didn't go for this one. Without the droopaileron & slotted stabilator the FGR2 might have been uncomfortable going to a deck smaller than the USN boats.

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

Be interested to hear as an enthusiast of your opinions re the relative merits of the Spey versus the J79.

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

Spey - nice at low level, pretty bomb-proof, cr@p above block 3 (>40K+), draggy cos it's a wide bu@@er and made you look like you were crop-spraying if not in min burner. Oh and as already referred to - you could start it up without the crazy USN starter TRUCK needed for the J79.
J79B - not quite the thrust at low level, great though all the way up to well above the release to service limits (and nice dry power cruise above airliner-land), pretty bomb proof, the engine designed for the jet so nice and slim!!! = less draggy, Fast burner light if you enjoyed the hot relight bang and only made you look like you were nearly crop spraying. Nasty lack of volts if both stopped in flight though!
;) Oh and did I mention - You also got the US flying suit (one that fitted), spray painted helmet and black fin.:cool:
Where is 'gentleman John these days?:ok:

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

Other two main differences, both later removed/disabled on the FG1 when land based with the RAF.

First, the FG1 was fitted with a double-extensible nose undercarriage leg to give a high angle of attack for carrier launches. It could be extended in length by as much as 40 inches and, I am lead to believe, that pilots tended to sit well back if the gear got stuck and they had to land with it extended.....

Second, the dish for the AWG-11 radar was fitted inside the radome and swung sideways with it when it has folded in order to reduce the aircraft's length so that it could fit on the deck lifts and reduce stowage space below decks. Caused a lot of unservicable radars due to bad waveguide seals when it was closed.

Not sure on the detail differences between the AWG-11 & 12, except an embarassed new OC Leuchars had to ask his wingman how to turn on the gunsight after just arriving off the FGR2 course at CY.......

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

Certainly the FGR2 used bleed air from the 7th and 12th stages, but as to selectability.......I'll just pop up into the loft and see if my course notes are still there.
In the meantime, I recall that our Coningsby FGR2's had manual wingfold whereas IIRC the (early) FGR1's had the hydraulic wingfold. I can clearly recall an incident in the ASF hangar at Coningsby when a team of guys were folding the wings by the somewhat dodgy manual method. This consisted of about three guys underneath pushing up whilst two stood on top waiting for the outer wing to be raised sufficiently for them to grab hold. Of course, as the outer wing reached nearer and nearer to the vertical, the guys underneath had less and less leverage whilst the ones on top couldn't really help much until the wing was almost vertical and even then, as their feet were hard up against the hinge, they could only steady the wing rather than pull. Not quite sure what triggered the event, I only heard the resulting thuds as the outer wing fell from the nearly vertical, struck one of the lads underneath squarely on the head and then with considerable velocity into the fully extended position. The biggest talking points revolved around the fact that the ambulance from SSQ (a few minutes walk from the hangar) took about 15 minutes to arrive and take away the unconcious J/T. We all assumed that he would be whipped away to Nocton Hall for x-rays and were dumbfounded when he was released from SSQ that afternoon sans x-rays etc (but it was a Friday afternoon.....). I wonder what the H&S people would say about this nowadays (risk assessment? - wots one of those?). Actually, it would have been a good thing for the H&S polizei to have been around then as we had to endure, on a daily basis, the use of multiple diesel engined hyd rigs and houchins in the hangar as the electrical supply wasn't man enough to run the electrical equivalents. One had to wear ear defenders all day and breathe a diesel fume-rich atmosphere as there were never enough exhaust extensions. Ah, happy days....:uhoh:

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

At the risk of being called a spotter, and wearing my shabbiest anorak, here we go. Yes, the Spey-engined FGR2 could use both 7th and 12th stage air for boundary layer control. However, if I recall correctly, the on-speed was only 3 kts slower using both, and it casued the TGT to rise a few degrees thus adding wear and tear on the engines. So, a Bleed Control Switch was used in the Isolate position to select 7th stage air only. I'm a little hazy here in that it could have been 12th stage only, but I think I'm right in saying 7th.

Ground school on the F4 was a very long time ago, and I haven't flown one since about 1986, so forgive this humble contributor if I've got it all round my neck, as they say in Lincolnshire.

Still a great jet, though!

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

Yes Lyneham Lad, health and safety were far from top priority. I remember the lads walking along the aircraft spines to put the covers on the pitot tubes. No scaffolding, rubber soled shoes and an oily and often wet surface a long way off the ground. I'm amazed we didn't kill more guys.

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

As 74 used to say,

'What happens if you spey a Phantom?

It gets fatter and goes slower'.

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

One other significant difference between J79 and Spey was the spool-up time. The old technology axial flow turbojet was rapidly responsive to throttle demands whereas the by-pass Spey was very slow in comparison and the reheat light-up even slower. The use of idle power if high and fast on the approach would invariably be followed either by a touchdown in the undershoot or a change of underpants as the people got bigger quicker than rate of descent could be reduced. Pulling G whilst selecting reheat could wash off 50 kts in no time before the burners lit so it was always useful if the bogey could send 5 secs notice before manoeuvring.

The only good thing about the Spey in the RAF Phantoms was the British jobs saved/created - perhaps a worthwhile price to pay?

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

Can't agree that the Spey was 'pretty bombproof'. It was distinctly fragile, especially in the early days when its TBO was about 50 hours. Even though the TBO was progressively increased, the Spey's flashbacks and associated (but unspecified) damage were never really sorted out by endless mods, tweaks and interviews with RR reps. Still, it is worth remembering that it was the world's first reheated turbofan and so I suppose it was all part of the learning process. Even the F-15 had engine stall problems in its first few years of service. But the turbojet J79 was made of cast iron, with cast iron bits and pieces and cast iron moving bits. That was bombproof!

Another problem with the Spey was that it was shorter than the J79 and so the engine's weight was further aft, making for a more pitchy aircraft than the other versions. This made some precision work - such as strafe - more difficult, so BEagle's score of 52% was pretty damned good. I take my hat off to him. :ok:

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

I think I recall that it was 7 years in service before a Spey engine in Phantom ran to its scheduled TBO without removal; are we talking 200 hours? I am not sure of the figures. There was certainly a major engine shortage in the early70s - OCU closed and engines sent to RAFG to keep the strike and recce forces in the air.

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

Yes, it was in 1970 that a lot of crews at Coningsby were grounded due to shortage of engines. This followed an incident where both engines failed in the same aircraft on the same sortie. Fortunately, the second engine failed after landing.

It gave rise to a wonderful example of the late Jim McRoberts wit when, shortly after being told that he was one of the chosen few to be grounded, he announced to all present that 'for years he had been getting the !!!!ty end of the stick and now they had taken the stick away'. RIP Jim.

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

Soddim

I remember Mr McR from my time on 92sqn. Now there was a top gun, a much better man than the Hollywood/Tom Cruise image could ever hope to be. If memory serves correctly he was cleared to the max "g" and beyond that the mighty toom could pull.

Thanks for the memories and RIP

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

The only Jim McRoberts I remember was on the OCU and he then moved to 41 Sqn when it first fired up. He called himself 'TacR MacR'. Good recce puke, even though he was a nav.

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

From watching the mighty toom on Aperporth range for years during AMPC it was easier to spot the J79 engined a/c' either USAF or 74 sqdn as they had miles of sooty exhaust behind them. cough!!!:yuk:

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

The sooty exhaust from the J79 was so bad that a wise unspeyed F4 pilot lit the burners before 10 miles range to get rid of the 'here-I-am' trail.

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

I remember two instances where banging out led to a soft landing for the aircraft. One was a spin recovery trial. We were shown the video on the OCU in 1969. The F4 climbed like a rocket until eventually it slid down its contrail before entering a spin.

It rotated about 3 times then the canopies departed followed by the crew. The aircraft then did a soft, wheels up landing on the edge of the salt lake. The film showed it virtually undamaged.

The second incident was an F4J in Vietnam. After the crew departed the aircraft was seen to make a successful landing on the beach. By the time the air strike arrived - a few minutes - the aircraft had gone and Russia had a fully serviceable Doppler AI radar.

So, if in doubt bang out the nav. If that fails, bang out yourself. Yes, I know pilot had to leave straight after the nav or risk the lid staying on.

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

Some aircraft have been known to enter a stable stalled descent with 200 or 400 pounds of excess ballast removed from the nose. The F-106 in the USAF Museum did that, was recovered from a snowy field in the Frozen North (ND IIRC) and flew until the type was retired.
BTW I recall reading about the Spey-Phantom in the early days, with RR confidently predicting that it would be far better all round than the J79 and would sell in export form - I think there was even an AR.168 designation for an Allison-built AB Spey, ready for when the USAF and USN saw the light. After all, how could a ****ing LIGHTBULB COMPANY possibly beat RR?

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

I went through IOT with Greg McK's daughter, now a paid up Herc mate and quality lass, Beags.

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

QUOTE=Brian Abraham]Be interested to hear as an enthusiast of your opinions re the relative merits of the Spey versus the J79.[/QUOTE]


Of possible interest. The remaining Speys were sold onto China. The last batch went out in 2001. The old Phantom Speys were used to help in the production of FB-7As (Codename Flounder). The FB-7A went into PRC service in 2004.

http://mil.jschina.com.cn/huitong/attack/JH-7A4.jpg

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

So THAT is what would happen if a Jag and a Phantom had a child...

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

Not many buses could travel at 750 kts/M1.2 at low level - always a fun thing to do after intercepting a Bucc who thought he was going quickly. Sailing past, waving, with your a*rse on fire - must have been an impressive sight. The subsequent vertical climb to 20,000+ ft always impressed me too!

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

But the Bucc counter was to drop a wing as if it was going to turn. F4 would roll on th ebank in a twinkle and pull, the Bucc would simply continue in a straight line :)

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

Aah meadowbank - but having been unable to get either a Fox 1 or 2 off in the process, and then having to look down him during the flyby must've pretty frustrating.

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

having to look down him during the flyby must've pretty frustrating.[/quote]

We didn't look down on Banana Bomber crews, that would have been snobbish & rude. Was it true that when designing the F4 McDonnell were trying to produce the ugliest aircraft in the world, but came a close second to Blackburn?

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

Pontius
Never saw that one, but I think it would only catch someone once.
Jindabyne
Had every respect for the Bucc defensive manoeuvring reactions when locked up by radar, but usually managed to get a Fox 1 shot in at some stage, albeit usually at close range. Not unknown to roll out in the middle of a Bucc card formation though, thinking we were behind the rear element, but then we were safe in front of a Banana Jet weren't we? Beer calls betwixt Bucc and Phantom mates were always special with the 2-man crew thing in common. Happy days! :ok:

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

With all respect to ex-Bucc aircrew, there are two types of aircraft - Fighters and Targets.

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

Meadowbank
> ***************
> Pontius
> Never saw that one, but I think it would only catch someone once.
It was one of the OCU staff around the time of Bill W.
> Not unknown to roll out in the middle of a Bucc card formation though, thinking we were behind the rear element, but
> then we were safe in front of a Banana Jet weren't we.

Yup, been there seen it. Put an F15C onto a 4-ship. Score was one-all.

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

A bit like the Shar and the GR7/9 then?

Re: F4 Phantom - Flying Bus???
 

meadow - happy days indeed

Once had a trip in your mighty Toomb, a USAF F4D in Norway c.'67, chap called Capt Gary Dryden in the front - courtesy of a winning bet in the Bodo bar at around 3am. Well hungover at the time with a T/O of around 9am. Most I can recall is thrust, INAS and RoC - and that my Hunter would never ever be the same again!

How do I post pictures on here?
Pete McC

There is a sticky in History and Nostagia which tells you how.

In retrospect, I believe I posted erroneous information. "Juliet" was almost certainly an English Electric Lightning. One of these girls -- can't be sure if it's my father's tech nemesis J-juliet or not -- is at East Fortune Museum in East Lothian, not far from Edinburgh.
My Dad's not around to ask any more. I asked my Mother, who remembers that my father was certainly involved with Lightnings, thoughs she helpfully added that he served his apprenticeship working on Mosquitoes and Wellingtons (!) :)
My family moved from RAF Leuchars in 1969/1970 when my father's time with the service came to an end (he maintained that decimalization had devalued his pension, so those dates are likely close-ish; I was just a nipper back then).
In view of that fact, and the previous post, Juliet was probably not a Phantom, and I apologize. Sorry that it took so long to circle back around and correct this.
Though my dad certainly spoke of Phantoms -- in particular, a tale of a US pilot creating a crater with one during an air show that he attended -- it seems unlikely that he was ever reponsible for any.
The error is one of my recollection.
PB

PB,
Just about every squadron has an aeroplane that proves to be more troublesome than all the rest. Nobody can quite work out why this is; perhaps they were built on a Friday afternoon or Monday morning!
As a result they spend most of their time in the hangar or HAS and get 'robbed' of all the good bits to keep the rest of the squadron's aeroplanes flying, until there is virtually nothing left to rob. When the replacement parts arrive they don't get fitted because you know you will be robbing them again! So they just sit there gathering dust with all the access panels removed and looking very sad. They are often called 'Christmas Trees' and when I was at Wattisham on 23 sqn we had a Phantom that we did indeed, decorate at Christmas time, complete with lights!

So your father would definitely have had a Christmas Tree on all the squadrons he worked on.

I guess that would have been the infamous Pops, with the tendency to put a bootfull of rudder in whenever the mood took it. I was on 23 from 79 until 82. Must admit I loved the Wattisham area.

Maybe slightly off topic but here goes anyway. I've been tidying out a load of cupboards recently and found a book on the Phantom OCU which was published for the disbandment of the Unit. If anyone here would like it please PM me, I'd like it to go to a good home.

Edit : The book has found a home and is no longer available.

On 56(F) we had 'Tits up Tango' - an F4 which went through an exciting phase of generating spurious RH engine fire indications.....

On 101, there was VC10K2 ZA143 ('D') - infamously known to the groundies as 'The Dog'.....

Any more out there?

Phantom OCU Book
 

This is still available for £4.50 from the RAF Beneveolent Fund - a useful reminder of what we all looked like in the 70s and 80s, now we are in our 50s and 60s and 70s!