Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Wolfala on February 11, 2006, 06:08:56 PM

Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: Wolfala on February 11, 2006, 06:08:56 PM
Does anyone know where I can go for a detailed description of why the F4 is the shape it is? Still an impressive machine now, but, some features do not seem to have been repeated on other military fast jets.
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
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: rpm on February 11, 2006, 06:27:42 PM
Google is your friend. F-4 Phantom (http://www.vectorsite.net/avf4_1.html#m1)
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: LePaul on February 11, 2006, 06:38:58 PM
Ha, you send me the operations manual to an F-14 Tomcat a few weeks ago and you cant find those answers for a Phantom??  :furious
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: JTs on February 11, 2006, 06:56:38 PM
F-4 Phantom proof that given a big enough engine a brick will fly.
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: StarOfAfrica2 on February 12, 2006, 12:21:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by JTs
F-4 Phantom proof that given a big enough engine a brick will fly.


And your statement is proof that people exist who can string together coherent sentences without having a clue what they are talking about.
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: Shaky on February 12, 2006, 12:38:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
And your statement is proof that people exist who can string together coherent sentences without having a clue what they are talking about.


Well Star, I guess you better look in the mirror. That statement is an old saying about the Phantom...been around for years.

Now go away.
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: Suave on February 12, 2006, 01:39:16 AM
You should try the internet. It's great, it's like the worlds biggest encyclopedia yet more convenient.
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: Replicant on February 12, 2006, 03:49:06 AM
The SEPECAT Jaguar has a similar tail section to the Phantom:

(http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/wallpaper/jag_01_0800.jpg)
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: loser on February 12, 2006, 03:58:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by JTs
F-4 Phantom proof that given a big enough engine a brick will fly.



JT meet the A-10
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: J_A_B on February 12, 2006, 04:16:37 AM
The A-10 makes bricks seem aerodynamic.  

Also, it doesn't fly.  The A-10 is so ugly that the ground pushes it away.


J_A_B
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: RAIDER14 on February 12, 2006, 10:55:00 AM
(http://www.galleryoffluidmechanics.com/conden/f4bvs.jpg)

Blue Angels F4's (http://www.blueangels.org/Aircraft/Phantoms/Phantom.html)
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: eagl on February 12, 2006, 11:10:24 AM
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JTs
F-4 Phantom proof that given a big enough engine a brick will fly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And your statement is proof that people exist who can string together coherent sentences without having a clue what they are talking about.


Little twitchy there SoA?  :)
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: StarOfAfrica2 on February 12, 2006, 11:41:41 AM
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.  :)
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: StarOfAfrica2 on February 12, 2006, 11:44:31 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Shaky
Well Star, I guess you better look in the mirror. That statement is an old saying about the Phantom...been around for years.

Now go away.


Age doesnt make it more true.  

I dont have to look in the mirror.  I'm quite aware of what an prettythang I can be, I dont have to remind myself of it.  Just one of the perks of being me.
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: Shaky on February 12, 2006, 12:25:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Age doesnt make it more true.  

I dont have to look in the mirror.  I'm quite aware of what an prettythang I can be, I dont have to remind myself of it.  Just one of the perks of being me.


:rofl OK..I changed my mind about ya.

Seriously, thats an old pilots saying about the Rhino, ya know, one of them things people who are aviation enthusiasts are supposed to like ;)
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: Mini D 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.
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: Shaky 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.


(http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f4/bluebook/images/c12-1190-105_n.jpg)

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:

(http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/f4/d4c-117088-12.jpg)
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: RAIDER14 on February 12, 2006, 12:56:51 PM
F4 phantom crash (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1584640747087205651&q=f4+phantom)
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: StarOfAfrica2 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."
Title: Re: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: john9001 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
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: cpxxx 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
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: Furball on February 12, 2006, 05:08:52 PM
(http://www.furballunderground.com/Guest/Furball/45132285.jpg)
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: eagl on February 12, 2006, 05:11:25 PM
Good old "double-ugly"...

http://www.sharpshooter-maj.com/html/twtd02.htm
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: Holden McGroin on February 12, 2006, 05:12:11 PM
Here's a picture of some British Phantom engines going Mach 1.01

(http://www.billzilla.org/thrustssc.jpg)
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: eagl on February 12, 2006, 05:16:41 PM
That shock wave is kewl.
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: Furious 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.
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: jaxxo 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
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: dmf 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.
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: Hangtime 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.
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: texace 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. :)
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: Glasses on February 13, 2006, 03:00:59 AM
I remember I saw a Documentary where the Luft pilots of the Bundes Luftwaffe AGainst F-18s  whipped their butts in F-4s, now that's shameful. :D
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: JimBear on February 13, 2006, 07:55:37 AM
The F-4 Phantom was shaped the way it was in order to give its crew chiefs back problems for years after they were done working on it and scars on their heads from whacking into every low slung pylon, antenna or open hatch that was possible to give a sharp edge too.
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: Replicant on February 13, 2006, 10:18:31 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Furball
(http://www.furballunderground.com/Guest/Furball/45132285.jpg)


Furby, notice the deliberate mistake regarding that particular Phantom?
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: Furball on February 13, 2006, 12:15:29 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Replicant
Furby, notice the deliberate mistake regarding that particular Phantom?


56 Squadron Phoenix on nose and 74 Squadron tail?
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: Reschke on February 13, 2006, 12:37:17 PM
I watched an F-4 pancake into a hill about three miles from my house in 1990. Worst damn thing I have ever seen to know two men were just killed. They were "playing" and one went to low trying to evade the other plane and they determined the plane lost both engines but they were about 400 feet over the hill when it happened.
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: Replicant on February 13, 2006, 12:50:54 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Furball
56 Squadron Phoenix on nose and 74 Squadron tail?


Yup, was a shared plane before finally going to 74 Sqn.
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: Furball on February 13, 2006, 01:03:39 PM
i noticed it when i saw the pic in the first place, had no idea why it had both.  thanks :)
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: Gunslinger on February 13, 2006, 01:37:21 PM
The F4 was a cool bird.  I hear the old timers in my shop talk about the egress system and "pulling buckets" cause you literally pulled them by hand.  The ejection seats, if not resepected, were dangerous.  They killed over 68 ground personal and maintainers.
Title: F-4 Phantom question
Post by: Mustaine on February 13, 2006, 01:42:45 PM
i just realized something....


i don't know why i didn't remember this until today, but the first plane model i did was an f4 phantom :aok

painted dark navy blue.... it was big too, almost 16" long. mani loved that model. too bad i broke it dropping it accidently one day :cry