Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sundowner on August 18, 2006, 05:11:52 AM
-
One of my fondest memories is my ride in an F-4E while at Seymore Johnson AFB. I found this video and all the cool memories of the "smokin rhino" came back in a rush.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXCYqtMfm-8
Its got a hot soundtrack...smokin!
Here's some picks at Maple Flag '85 Coldlake, Canada the day I finally strapped on "the beast".
Sorry for the low quality.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/612_1097106170_jet1.jpg)(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/612_1097106208_jet2.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/612_1097106263_jet4airborn.jpg)
This last one is our wingman transitioning over our canopy as seen from the backseat. (Note the tailpipe cone programed toward closed in mil power)
The old phantom was an awesome bird in it's day.
Enjoy the video.
Regards
Sun
-
It still is one of my favorites regardless of whatever else the USAF, Navy and Marines fly. Right up there with the Tomcat.
-
Did you do any aerobatics?
-
Originally posted by Reschke
It still is one of my favorites regardless of whatever else the USAF, Navy and Marines fly. Right up there with the Tomcat.
Its more beautiful the Tomcat. But not as beautiful as the Crusader.
PHANTOMS PHOREVER!
Hey Reschke
-
one of my favorites too. the first plane model i ever did was a dark blue phantom. :aok
-
I heard that F4 backseaters had to have the strongest stomachs in the business. So what was it like? C'mon admit it!
The Phantom was always one of my favourites and one of my favourite memories of one was seeing an RF4 flying so low at an airshow that the commentators felt the heat from it afterburners!:lol
If the RAF had deigned to entertain my application to fly for them. I would have opted to fly the F4 or the EE lightning. Both classic cold warriors.
-
I miss seeing these birds at air shows. There's nothing like a formation of Phantoms doing a low, high speed pass.
-
I know I have said it here many times but growing up in Central Alabama we always had the F4 Phantoms from all over the Southeast flying over the hills and valleys where I lived. Where I grew up was out of the way and as I got older I learned from my Dad (active duty military) that the geography of where we lived was similar to a part of Germany where it was believed that the Soviets would try to push through. We had Phantoms, F-16's, all types of helicopters from UH-1 to the Chinook and all other stuff flying around there. To me jet noise and aircraft noise was a great thing to hear. I even watched a Phantom pancake on a hilltop when it was doing a training run and sheared the wingtips off by flying to low cresting a hill and running through a bunch of pine trees.
-
I've seen an F4 flying over DMAFB a couple times in the last couple weeks. I have to assume it's being refurbed for use as a drone. That's one of the functions of the base here. They can pull onje of the birds from storage, refurb for flight then check out the remote control operation before releasing it for drone duty. Still a great bird.
-
"I miss seeing these birds at air shows. "
I saw a German F4 in an airshow here in Finland in 2001. It was a dream come true to see my old favorite flying and taxi so very close. The pilot was cool as he suddenly gave the throttles a push while taxiin past us. Incredible sound!
-C+
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I've seen an F4 flying over DMAFB a couple times in the last couple weeks. I have to assume it's being refurbed for use as a drone. That's one of the functions of the base here. They can pull onje of the birds from storage, refurb for flight then check out the remote control operation before releasing it for drone duty. Still a great bird.
Did it have an orange tail?
-
Not yet. It was flying solo and just did a couple pattern passes.
-
I have this one on my HD
http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/Sir%20Franzis%20Drake/514/
it pwns, high speed low passes, on the last one a couple of people throw themselves to the ground....
-
small world.
I prolly tweaked 210's ECM gear at one time or another.
SJAFB '81-'83 ..spent '84 at K2, Korea (aka Taegu) on F-4E's ..'85 an haffa '86 at Castle AFB on b-52g's an h's.
Enlisted in '72, first 'real' base outta tech school was DM
..the tour of the bonyard was purty awesome
.. I had built models as a kid of most of the planes in there, bein up close an under a Hustler was the high point of the tour :)
..worked A-7d's there with a short stint on a drone droppin C-130, volunteered to go to Southeast asia
.. came thru for '75 (the year Saigon fell, an some other 'incidents')
..spent the year at Udorn-Thani RTAFB on F-4D's an a couple RF-4C's they had.
432nd TFW there ..first time I had seen F-4's
..an a lot of 'em had red stars on the vari-ramps
.. Steve Richie's F-4 had 5 red stars.
We had some crazy parties ..rumor was that one of our F-4 jocks had landed at Pnom-Phen airport, popped the canopy, and thrown a his glove out on the runway darin any of 'em to come up an fight (this was during the 'Mayaguez' incident). Yes .. I beleive it.. they were *that* crazy :)
Went to George AFB from '76 - '80 ..F-105g weasels, F-4E's, an later F-4g's.
Most of the guys flyin 'em had 100 mission route pac 6 patches. Some of the most boresighted people on the planet.
to Lucky, Olin, Zolondek and all the others ..it truly was my pleasure to keep the ECM gear up an runnin.. the time I spent in debreif was golden.
..an some of those 105's had red stars, too.
-GE
-
After watching the video...
Does F-4 really roll that slow?
-
I saw that German F4 video before, great stuff. German pilots are crazy :aok
Some of the most spectacular flying I've seen has been by Luftwaffe or Marineflieger pilots mostly Tornados. They often come to airshows in Ireland and are always one of highlights. I used to work overlooking an airbase. The day after an airshow a Luftwaffe Tornado performed the traditional goodbye flypast down the flightline. I wish I had a video, it was ten to twenty off the ground at a very high mach number. Apparently it set off every burglar and car alarm in the nearby town. Spectacular but crazy Germans.:O
-
The Phantom is sertainly beautiful in its own way, and could take punishment well i belive.
-
Israelis used the F-4s in war and made them effective, but US record of F-4s (along with F-105s) were no good against MiGs :(
-
F4 U.S. Governments proof to the world that given a big enough engine a brick will fly. rode in the backseat from okinawa to da nang 10/70
-
saw the T-birds perform in F-4's at the USAFA graduation of 1972. Best show ever.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
Israelis used the F-4s in war and made them effective, but US record of F-4s (along with F-105s) were no good against MiGs :(
The record of US F4s had alot more to do with the Charlie Sierra ROE
in Vietnam than fault with US pilots. For example, the most famous
incident refuting your statement would be...
Operation Bolo (http://www.acepilots.com/vietnam/olds_bolo.html)
-
Fortunately for us Phantom Phans, the USAF has refurbished about 4
QF-4 drones back into F-4E configuration for use in Heritage Flight.
(http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/060304-F-2295B-206.jpg)
-
(http://tech-rep.org/images/f4truck.jpg)
(http://tech-rep.org/images/A4ferrari.jpg)
-
Rolex,
You look less smart the older you get.............
Either that or you have a significant problem associating things properly.
:p
-
F-4 rolling:
Has ailerons, but also spoilers .. so rolls aren't exactly symetrical.
(spoilers drop lift quotient on one wing ..with no corresponding boost of opposite wing lift)
For rate of roll ..the Rhino winds up.
Initial roll input even slammin the stick alla way over (only in the maneuvering envelope .. cause that stick don't slam at *all* at mach numbers) ..results in only 'some' aileron-spoiler displacement . . as the air flow changes during the roll, more aileron-spoiler comes out ..roll rate accelerates.
If you are in the maneuvering envelope, and you hold full deflection with the stick past ~270 degrees of roll.. she will make yer head spin for a fact :)
-GE (clean, with no iron hangin in the breeze, the Phantom is quite a joy to fly at ~350ias.. er ..or so I hear) (no .. I never flew one or in one .. I did however spend a lot of time in the F-4 sims here an there.. for fun :)
..and the Thunderbirds in F-4's ..they scared the CRAP outta crowds with that sneaker comin over durin the show ..the F-16 is amazin .. but .. the Rhino was just an awesome performer ..the gut-vibrating formation pass just isn't the same in the Vipers.
-
For any of you guys that like Phantom pictures, have I got the site for
you!
Phantoms (http://www.5053phantoms.com/photos/)
-
Way way back, I used to work on the pointy end of this bird.
I always liked the Euro 1 camo better than the spinach ones they had
when I first got to Moody.
(http://www.5053phantoms.com/photos/albums/userpics/normal_67-0396_1_USAF_MY_Kopack.jpg)
-
Originally posted by 1K3
Israelis used the F-4s in war and made them effective, but US record of F-4s (along with F-105s) were no good against MiGs :(
That's because MD forgot to put a cannon on it initially. It was added in later models and that's why it's located in the strange buldge below the nose, instead of sunk into the body. The majority of kills in the IAF were using the cannon.
In Lebanon 1982 it got only 1 kill as F15/16 were doing all the air-to-air work. The one that got the kill was flying formation with escorting F15s (iirc) and spotted a low mig. He dived on it without radioing anything to get a head start...
in the 90's IAF was operating a localy modified, very improved version, named "kurnas 2000" (jackhammer 2000). The engines and all the avionics were replaced. It got an air-to-ground radar that allowed imaging of ground targets and modified to carry precision bombs and advanced A-to-G missiles.
Last two squadrons were closed 2 years ago.
-
The F-4 was not maneuverable compared to other fighters. I've read three or four books just on air combat in Vietnam. Heres the F-4s downfalls and heres how the problems were solved:
Poor maneuverability- Pilots switched to vertical tactics
Poor visbility- Wingman tactics and staying fast
Poor missle performance- Special training schools for pilots/ use of sidewinder
The pilots did the best they could with the wrong equipment for the job (The F-4). Top Gun taught pilots to use 2 on 1 tactics against Migs (mostly Mig-17s) in order to win.
The saving grace for the F-4 was that migs usually didnt even carry missles. Only rarely did Mig-17s carry atol heat seakers. The F-4 needed about 1500 yards seperation to stay out of cannon range.
In a horizontal fight, the F-4 pilot could go vertical, depart the plane momentarily and use cross-controlled rudder and ailerons to do a sort of strange hammerhead and get the nose pointed on or ahead of the Mig.
It could take 3 to 4 seconds to set up a radar missle lock on a Mig. The average time a Mig stayed in the pilots windscreen was .5-1.5 seconds.
So in summary, flying the F-4 required pilot training above and beyond average training to make him competent. Without this additional training, (Top Gun), F-8 Crusader pilots excelled at air to air combat.
-
Originally posted by Rino
For any of you guys that like Phantom pictures, have I got the site for
you!
Phantoms (http://www.5053phantoms.com/photos/)
daaamn look at those dials and switches:eek:
-
Phantom a remarkably modern aircraft considering it was designed in the 1950's.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
The F-4 was not maneuverable compared to other fighters. I've read three or four books just on air combat in Vietnam. Heres the F-4s downfalls and heres how the problems were solved:
Poor maneuverability- Pilots switched to vertical tactics
Poor visbility- Wingman tactics and staying fast
Poor missle performance- Special training schools for pilots/ use of sidewinder
The pilots did the best they could with the wrong equipment for the job (The F-4). Top Gun taught pilots to use 2 on 1 tactics against Migs (mostly Mig-17s) in order to win.
The saving grace for the F-4 was that migs usually didnt even carry missles. Only rarely did Mig-17s carry atol heat seakers. The F-4 needed about 1500 yards seperation to stay out of cannon range.
In a horizontal fight, the F-4 pilot could go vertical, depart the plane momentarily and use cross-controlled rudder and ailerons to do a sort of strange hammerhead and get the nose pointed on or ahead of the Mig.
It could take 3 to 4 seconds to set up a radar missle lock on a Mig. The average time a Mig stayed in the pilots windscreen was .5-1.5 seconds.
So in summary, flying the F-4 required pilot training above and beyond average training to make him competent. Without this additional training, (Top Gun), F-8 Crusader pilots excelled at air to air combat.
I have no idea where you are getting your numbers from Aqua, but you
can lockup a target using the APQ-120 alot faster than 3-4 seconds.
Secondly the AIM-7 has a min range and the times you speak of means
you are already in the knife-fight zone.
The F-4E had a semi-auto mode for locking up targets called auto
acquisition that was activated using the nosewheel steering button by
the pilot's pinkie on the stick. On hitting that button the radar would
boresight, then sweep down -22 degrees to +65 degrees vertically
and 2 degrees either side of the centerline at a range of 5 miles. If it
"saw" anything during the sweep it would lock it up. It worked very
quickly in my experience.
The Phantom was the modern equivalent of the P-47. The Migs were
relatively short ranged <2 were actually run out to sea and fuel starved
for kills> and low payload. Naturally they were more manuverable, they
were single purpose aircraft.
Vietnam proved the folly of allowing politicians to set combat conditions
instead of the actual operators. Waiting till SAM sites were operational
before allowing attack, leaving the Mig bases unmolested because you
were afraid you might kill some rooskies was insanity. The freaking
Russians flew combat sorties against us in both Korea and Vietnam.
Again, stupid ROE like having to visually indentify the enemy before
allowing the pilot to fire had alot to do with the mismatch in Vietnam.
In fact, if you look at the left wing of the F-4 in the Heritage flight you
will notice a big tube sticking out. That is the TISEO system, a long range
camera that was used to try to ID targets..not really that useful though.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Rolex,
You look less smart the older you get.............
Either that or you have a significant problem associating things properly.
:p
Hey! Watch it! You aren't exactly a spring chicken yourself... ;)
You're right though, I should have associated it this way:
(http://tech-rep.org/images/f4final.jpg)
Ahar!
-
Kinda humorous comparin f-4's to Migs of the 'nam era.
Very much like comparin a jug to a 109F.
A few huge steps beyond apples an oranges :)
Also cracked me up when someone mentioned '105's were ineffective against Migs' .. y'think? Just a wee bit different design parameters.
The reverse is true also .. no way could you hang anywhere near the ordnance load on a mig, or deliver it nearly as accurate as the 105 did.
Looking at a mig 21's cocpit .. it's a good thing they had ground controllers to vector them to a target .. because even the 105 has better visibility out of the cockpit.
It's no wonder the F-8 Crusaders ate migs for a lite snack. They could and did out-turn, out accelerate, outclimb, and just generally *own* them whenever they saw them. (not the recce crusaders .. they dint even have a gun and the airframe was not built for high G maneuvering so don't even go there).
I love readin about the early engagements against the last of the Gunfighters .. they spanked migs hard.
Readin about the trials and tribulations of the Phantom against the Migs in 'Nam .. we've all heard it before .. zekes .. 109's ..can't turn with 'em in American iron.
Even the Wildcat pilots worked it out .. 'special tactics' .. aye .. 'Thatch Weave' .. Lead and Wingman ..Boom an Zoom ..still as viable in 'Nam as it was in the early '40's.
Even further back .. Rickenbacker and his Spad .. said it turned like a truck compared to the Fokker's .. so he chose not to turn with them.
And aye .. the Rules of Engagement SUCKED .. North Vietnam would not have had an air force or anything else in 5-6 days or less without all the handicaps forced on the Allies. (think Arc-Light an such ..sheesh them B-52's could drop a LOT of bombs)
Just my opinion.
-GE
-
Originally posted by Grayeagle
It's no wonder the F-8 Crusaders ate migs for a lite snack. They could and did out-turn, out accelerate, outclimb, and just generally *own* them whenever they saw them. (not the recce crusaders .. they dint even have a gun and the airframe was not built for high G maneuvering so don't even go there).
I love readin about the early engagements against the last of the Gunfighters .. they spanked migs hard.
I'm relatively certain that only two of the F-8 kills were gun kills. The balance were Sidewinder kills, and it should be noted that F-8s shot down only 18 MiGs during the whole of the war. Three F-8s were lost to MiGs.
F-105 pilots shot down 27.5 MiGs, one being shared with an F-4D. Here's an interesting fact. Of the 27.5 kills credited to F-105s, 25.5 were gun kills, two with Sidewinders. That's 12 times as many gun kills as the F-8. F-105 losses to MiGs were relatively small as it was exceptionally fast and difficult to engage. Its air to air kill to loss ratio was about 1:1, which isn't too bad when considers that the F-105 was a tactical bomber often pressed into strategic bombing and into the very dangerous Wild Weasel role. F-105s were frequently tasked with missions taking them into the highest flak concentrations ever assembled in any war.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I've always loved the look of the phantom. When i was a kid My first die cast model was of a navy f-4
Its up there in my top 5 most favorite beautiful planes ever.
It just always looked like a badass plane to me that could kick butt and fly REALLY fast.
And as a kid thats all that was important
-
Speaking of F-105s, saw my first one in 1960 when went to Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, as an AFROTC cadet. That plane was HUGE, especially after seeing the little F-104. Couldn't believe it had only one engine.
The Republic F-105 Thunderchief was a worthy successor to the P-47 Thunderbolt, sharing many of its advantages and disadvantages, e.g., basically big fast tough ordnance carrier but not an agile dogfighter.
We were lucky to see the then-new 20mm gatling cannon fired from a test stand, and then a flight demo for the Japanese Air Force chief of staff that included an F-104 going supersonic (saw a little dot streaking over the field from the Gulf of Mexico, then went vertical with orange shock waves off its wings and was almost out of sight before the sonic boom hit), and a B-36 dropping one bomb at a time from the first time you saw it in the distance from the north until it flew out of sight to the south over the gulf).
The Air Force later got a lot of mileage out of its F-4s, the first and only fighter plane the Air Force ever adapted from the Navy. That pride thing helped spur development of the USAF F-15 and F-16. Interesting the Navy eventually bought the F-18 after the Air Force rejected its YF-17 predecessor in a flyoff against the F-16.
-
Originally posted by Halo
Speaking of F-105s, saw my first one in 1960 when went to Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, as an AFROTC cadet.
I saw F-105s often, growing up on Long Island during the 1950s and 60s. During the summer of 1960, an F-105 crashed in a potato field about 1/2 mile from our home. Playing in the back yard, I watched it fly over several times and it was clear to me, even at 6 years old, that something was amiss. It was literally wobbling; rolling from side to side and pitching up and down. The last time I saw it it flew directly over our house only a few hundred feet high. Seconds later, we heard and felt a powerful "whump" and saw a huge black cloud of smoke boil up above the trees to the west.
My mother grabbed both me and my younger brother and tossed us into her '58 Ford Station Wagon and raced over to the crash site. We arrived before the local fire department and parked on the south side of the road. In the potato field on the north side, heavy smoke and fire were visible about 200 yards distant. I saw a man walking toward our car from the field to the south. I saw that he had a helmet on. I pointed to him and my mother realized that this was the pilot. Both my mother and another man who had stopped, ran to the pilot and helped him across the field (smelly cabbage on that side). The man did not appear to be hurt. He sat on the tailgate of our Ford, lit a cigarette and talked to a police officer who arrived at the same time. The cop jumped into his car and started talking on the radio.
About this time, fire trucks arrived and a crowd was growing. Some time after, a helicopter landed in the potato field and a short time later, we were told to move back from the crash scene. My mother took us home shortly thereafter.
Many years later I read somewhere that this new F-105 Thunderchief suffered a hydraulic system failure during an acceptance flight and the pilot had been trying to assess the situation. Eventually his ability to control the fighter was such that he wrestled it towards the farm and ejected.
To this day, I recall seeing that F-105 like it was yesterday. It's distinctive intake shape and the shiny bare metal fuselage were indelibly etched in my brain.
In those days, my parents would drive us out to Grumman's Calverton facility or over to Westhampton AFB where we would watch military planes coming and going while having a picnic on the side of the road. My father owned a house near the Air Force base, which he rented to a pilot named Oswald. He took us onto the base for a tour. All very impressive to a 3rd grader. I do recall that most of the fighters there were F-101 Voodoos. McDonnell had cool names for their fighters; Phantom, Banshee, Demon, and Voodoo. At 8 years old, I knew them all...
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
The F-4 was not maneuverable compared to other fighters. I've read three or four books just on air combat in Vietnam. Heres the F-4s downfalls and heres how the problems were solved:
Poor maneuverability- Pilots switched to vertical tactics
Poor visbility- Wingman tactics and staying fast
Poor missle performance- Special training schools for pilots/ use of sidewinder
Poor visibility was also partialy countered by having two people in it. Not a common feature at the time.
But the real advantage of the F4 was its radar (and that's the real reason for it being a two seater). Do not under estimate the importance of this, as having a proper radar in the 1960s was not trivial. Most Migs didn't have it. This was a BIG advantage - not only it could carry radar guided missiles (not very effective) but it could also located and intercept (or avoid) Migs far beyond visibility range while they couldn't.
One of the crucial things when initiating a fight is to have visual contact with the enemy. It is increadibly hard to spot a plane comming at you at closure speeds of 800-900 Knots before they blow past you. It is much easier to do when you have a decent chance of getting radar contact at 20 miles allowing you to manuver before visual range and the radar is telling you where to look.
The saving grace for the F-4 was that migs usually didnt even carry missles. Only rarely did Mig-17s carry atol heat seakers. The F-4 needed about 1500 yards seperation to stay out of cannon range.
Mig 21s certainly did carry missiles and still got whacked by the F4. At least the Egyptian, Syrian and Russian ones in 1970-1973. Missiles at that time were not very effective and very restrictive in their envelope - "1840" missiles, meaning 1800 m 40 degrees aspect and very low G to launch. Many of the killes were still credited to cannons.
Bozon
-
Widewing:
The Crusader fighter version wasn't involved in southeast asia very long, as I am sure you also know. If it had been there for the duration in significant numbers (not just one marine bird that was used for ground attack until it broke beyond fixing).. purty sure more migs woulda taken dirt naps as the Crusaders got into thier gig.
Yes .. I know they carried sidewinders.. and yes I also knew most of the other things you posted.
I also saw the picture of the Super Crusader trials against the then brand new F-4 .. as you probably have seen also.
I've also read the accounts of some of the dogfights .. as you may have also.
Yes .. the F-4 had a good radar. That's why the mig ground controllers tried to vector their migs into their rear arc.. and succeeded in most cases due to the RoE. (same time, same route, same alt every day ..it wasn't rocket science or much skill to setup a bounce)
Yes the 105's shot down migs. . I worked on 320, now sittin at the AF Museum, with two stars on its vari-ramps. One of it's kills was due to dropping it's tanks thru a cloud layer and taking out a mig below it they never knew was there.
Thud Ridge ..the book .. has an excellent account of what an attack by mig's was like in a 105. They usually didn't even know the migs were there until someone got lit up.
I talked to a few 105 pilots ..couple were in the R/C club at George when I was stationed there '76-'81 .. 4 would go in on a target .. one would make it out.. just another day in route pac 6. They sure as hell didn't go after migs looking for a fight. In AH terms ..they were buffs .. fast ones .. fairly accurate, ..somewhat survivable if they had escort and a bit of jamming so Migs, triple A and SAM's wouldn't massacre them. More often than not all they had was their speed.
Also read more than a few accounts of an F-4 attempting to shoot all 4 sidewinders at a single target, one right after another .. then his wingman doing the same ..*with* valid parameters .. and *eight* sidewinders either failing to ignite, failing to track, or stayin right there on the rail.. useless.
Then there's Steve Richie ..an Duke .. and a few dozen others .. when the missile worked .. they got kills.
Just my opinion .. the Crusader would have owned Migs given more than the couple of months they had in theater.
-GE (the Phantom did 'ok' .. but it wasn't the close in air-air fighter the Crusader was, cost much more, much bigger target, etc)