« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: F-4 Phantom question  (Read 983 times)

Offline Mini D

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6897
      • Fat Drunk Bastards
F-4 Phantom question
« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2006, 12:27:10 PM »
Liking the F4 doesn't make it less true. The saying has been around since the introduction of the jet. In most areas it's used, it is refferenced back to the F4. Agree with it or not, the saying has stuck. To say someone doesn't have a clue what they're talking about when they quote it is downright silly.
Logged

Offline Shaky

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 550
F-4 Phantom question
« Reply #16 on: February 12, 2006, 12:30:58 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Little.  

People bad mouthed the F-4 from the day it hit the lines, but it won over the guys that flew them.  First airshow I ever got to go to I saw the Thunderbirds in their F-4 Phantoms.  I have trouble remembering what I had for breakfast yesterday, but I can still see those birds in my mind.  I think they are one of the most distinctive and most attractive jet fighters ever built.  

Altho I have to admit the Blue Angels made em look better.  :)


OK, there is a certain charm in the ugliness, I'll agree. Hell, I remember, as a kid, trying to figure out why the TB's would go from the F4 t some dinky little trainer. Might as well put em in T-6's.




And as an Air Force brat, I'm kinda partial to the TB's over the BA's, tho I do like the F/A-18's. BTW, anyone know why the foreground plane is instantly identifiable as the #4 plane even tho you can't see a number?

One fer you, star:

« Last Edit: February 12, 2006, 12:43:09 PM by Shaky »
Logged
Political correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline RAIDER14

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2554
F-4 Phantom question
« Reply #17 on: February 12, 2006, 12:56:51 PM »
Logged

Offline StarOfAfrica2

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5162
      • http://www.vf-17.org
F-4 Phantom question
« Reply #18 on: February 12, 2006, 01:07:22 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Mini D
Liking the F4 doesn't make it less true. The saying has been around since the introduction of the jet. In most areas it's used, it is refferenced back to the F4. Agree with it or not, the saying has stuck. To say someone doesn't have a clue what they're talking about when they quote it is downright silly.


Hey now, everyone else gets to live in their own little fantasy world here, so can I.  :)

Besides, my argument stands.  Everyone at the time thought the plane was ugly and possibly as aerodynamic as a brick.  But those who flew it developed a different attitude.

Quote
US Navy Lieutenant-Commander Paul Spencer, who flew the first carrier takeoff with the Phantom, praised it to help encourage the doubters to take a second look: "The F4H is a big airplane. It is twice the weight of the F-11F Tiger and nearly three times the weight of the A4D Skyhawk, but for all its bulk, it handles better than any modern Navy fighter. Former single-engine fighter pilots will find the response of the F4H's twin J79 engines close to sensational."
« Last Edit: February 12, 2006, 01:11:29 PM by StarOfAfrica2 »
Logged

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
Re: F-4 Phantom question
« Reply #19 on: February 12, 2006, 04:32:35 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Wolfala
1) Extremely anhedral tail plane, with the aerofoil section seemingly upside down!
2) Dihedral wing tips
3) Elongated, low tail fin
4) The engine thrust line is noticeably angled downwards


that was done to confuse the russian spies.

boris:: but how can it fly?

ivan::  must be yankie tricks
Logged

Offline cpxxx

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2707
F-4 Phantom question
« Reply #20 on: February 12, 2006, 05:06:25 PM »
I do like the F4, I have several books on the aircraft but it is not pretty. I think it was an F4 pilot who said the Phantom was too ugly to be designed by Americans. It looked more like some the British would make. :lol
Logged

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
F-4 Phantom question
« Reply #21 on: February 12, 2006, 05:08:52 PM »
Logged
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline eagl

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6769
F-4 Phantom question
« Reply #22 on: February 12, 2006, 05:11:25 PM »
Logged
Everyone I know, goes away, in the end.

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
F-4 Phantom question
« Reply #23 on: February 12, 2006, 05:12:11 PM »
Here's a picture of some British Phantom engines going Mach 1.01

Logged
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline eagl

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6769
F-4 Phantom question
« Reply #24 on: February 12, 2006, 05:16:41 PM »
That shock wave is kewl.
Logged
Everyone I know, goes away, in the end.

Offline Furious

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3243
F-4 Phantom question
« Reply #25 on: February 12, 2006, 05:21:05 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Shaky
O...BTW, anyone know why the foreground plane is instantly identifiable as the #4 plane even tho you can't see a number?


While in the diamond formation, the lead's exhaust was fouling the slot's tail paint, so they went ahead and painted it black.
Logged

Offline jaxxo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1835
F-4 Phantom question
« Reply #26 on: February 12, 2006, 10:36:27 PM »
theres  a reson that the tape we used to make repairs (not "legal" any more) on militairy aircraft is called f4 tape lol....i cant speak for the pilots but it was a mechanics nightmare
Logged

Offline dmf

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2920
F-4 Phantom question
« Reply #27 on: February 12, 2006, 11:09:55 PM »
My Uncle worked on those planes when he was in the Navy and he said they were like old Chevy's, worked great when they ran but were a nightmare when they broke down. He also said the wings were too short for the plane, and thats why people say its living proof that a rock can fly. All I know about the plane is it looks really cool and I wish they still used them, along with that big prop plane the A-6 replaced.
Logged

Offline Hangtime

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10148
F-4 Phantom question
« Reply #28 on: February 12, 2006, 11:41:02 PM »
The Phantoms were the go-to bird of the free world when I was a kid.. the Navy flew 'em, the Airforce, Marines.. and in every Role the military could dream up. Before long they wound up doing yeoman duty in the service of more nations than I could name offhand. While it earned the tag 'Worlds Largest Distributor or Mig Parts' (400 mig kills world wide), other terms of endearment were 'Flying Anvils' and "Luftverteidigungsdiesel" (Air Defense Diesels).  

While I doubt it could be considered 'pretty', I never never thought of it as ugly.. it was business-like; a warbird that looked like one. A competent machine (after teething) and in the hands of competent agressive pilots properly schooled in how to use it... a damn fine bird in all it's roles.
Logged
The price of Freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, any time and with utter recklessness...

...at home, or abroad.

Offline texace

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1031
      • http://www.usmc.mil
F-4 Phantom question
« Reply #29 on: February 13, 2006, 12:44:24 AM »
I've got pictures of my dad's father flying these birds out of Carswell several years ago. Never once thought they were ugly birds. :)
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
« previous next »