Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Serenity on March 25, 2007, 05:48:55 PM
-
Alright, well, as some of you know, when I grow fond of an aircraft, I become obsessed, trying to learn everything I can about it. Well, this month its the F-4 Phantom. Fortunately several years ago my cousin gave me a book about F-4 phantoms in the Vietnam war. Unfortunately this is more about tactics and less about data. So, for all of you who know this aircraft well, I have several questions for you:
First off, power and fuel. I know what the Phantom's max speed is with afterburner (1,606.398 mph, a world record) but how many MINUTES did fuel last at afterburner? Basically, these questions are about MINUTES of fuel, not miles you can go. I know THAT already. So, fuel questions:
At FULL AFTERBURNER:
How many minutes did fuel last? (With a full internal tank, no external)
At MILITARY POWER:
What speed did MILITARY power provide?
How many minutes did fuel last? (With a full internal tank, no external)
At MAX. CRUISE:
What speed did the MAX CRUISE power setting give?
How many minutes did fuel last? (With a full internal tank, no external)
And, with the standard 600 liter centerline tank, how many more minutes of fuel did you get at all 3 settings? and with each outboard 370 liter tank?
Next, weapons. Since the F-4 was designed as a fighter, Ive got a lot of sources for A2A weapons loadouts, but remarcably even with google I can find next to nothing about bombs! So, what was the maximum NUMBER OF BOMBS (NOT maximum WEIGHT of ordenance, because a classic example, the B-17 could carry a lot more WEIGHT but due to the physical dimensions of the bombs, it only carried a limited number) the F-4 carried WHILE carrying external fuel and Sidewinders? Without external fuel? And how were the bombs mounted?
Thank you very much in advance. I know these seem quite obscure but beleive it or not these questions have kept me up at night for almost a week now. lol. I am actually haviung trouble sleeping because I dont know this!
edit: Also, what other sizes of external fuel tanks did the F-4 use, and how many more minutes of fuel and miles did these provide at the above power settings?
-
Well I don't know much but I'm going to call your 1,606.398 "world record" a tad bit false. There must be more to it or the book is a little dated. Good luck on your search.
Indeed that speed record was broken several years later according to Wikipedia. There are also the other stats on the F4 there. As always with Wikipedia, take the info with a grain of salt and explore it a little more in depth.
* Maximum speed: Mach 2.23 (1,472 mph, 2,370 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,190 m)
* Cruise speed: 506 knots (585 mph, 940 km/h)
* Combat radius: 367 nm (422 mi, 680 km)
* Ferry range: 1,403 nm (1,615 mi, 2,600 km) with 3 external fuel tanks
* Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,300 m)
* Rate of climb: 41,300 ft/min (210 m/s)
* Wing loading: 78 lb/ft² (383 kg/m²)
* Thrust/weight: 0.86
* Lift-to-drag ratio: 8.58
* Takeoff roll: 4,490 ft (1,370 m) at 53,814 lb (24,410 kg)
* Landing roll: 3,680 ft (1,120 m) at 36,831 lb (16,706 kg)
-
Originally posted by nirvana
Well I don't know much but I'm going to call your 1,606.398 "world record" a tad bit false. There must be more to it or the book is a little dated. Good luck on your search.
That record WAS broken in 1997. But at its time it WAS a world record. One of 16 (Accoridng to my data) set by the F-4 during its years.
-
Originally posted by Serenity
That record WAS broken in 1997. But at its time it WAS a world record. One of 16 (Accoridng to my data) set by the F-4 during its years.
maybe a record over some sort of circuit, plenty of planes are faster than that.
-
*cough*SR-71*cough*...
*cough*Mig-31*cough*
Sorry, I must do something about this cough of mine.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
*cough*SR-71*cough*...
*cough*Mig-31*cough*
Sorry, I must do something about this cough of mine.
Im just going by the data I have, I thought it sounded wrong too, but hey, im no expert. "Set an ultimate speed record of 1,606.398mph, a record that wasnt broken until 1997" perhaps its a fighter record, ruling out the Sr-71, but then theres the MiG-31. Perhaps ball is right. I dont know, it didnt give details as to the conditions. But, does anyone have the answers to my questions above?
-
Originally posted by nirvana
Well I don't know much but I'm going to call your 1,606.398 "world record" a tad bit false. There must be more to it or the book is a little dated. Good luck on your search.
Indeed that speed record was broken several years later according to Wikipedia. There are also the other stats on the F4 there. As always with Wikipedia, take the info with a grain of salt and explore it a little more in depth.
* Maximum speed: Mach 2.23 (1,472 mph, 2,370 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,190 m)
* Cruise speed: 506 knots (585 mph, 940 km/h)
* Combat radius: 367 nm (422 mi, 680 km)
* Ferry range: 1,403 nm (1,615 mi, 2,600 km) with 3 external fuel tanks
* Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,300 m)
* Rate of climb: 41,300 ft/min (210 m/s)
* Wing loading: 78 lb/ft² (383 kg/m²)
* Thrust/weight: 0.86
* Lift-to-drag ratio: 8.58
* Takeoff roll: 4,490 ft (1,370 m) at 53,814 lb (24,410 kg)
* Landing roll: 3,680 ft (1,120 m) at 36,831 lb (16,706 kg)
I dont even look at any google results for wikipedia. But that bit of data DOES correspond with the info I have, answering my question about cruise speed. Im still looking for minutes of fuel info... Not having any luck...
-
Originally posted by Ball
maybe a record over some sort of circuit, plenty of planes are faster than that.
It was done on a 15 mile circuit.
Here is some other info on the records the Phantom II broke.
On 06 December 1959 Commander L.E. Flint, piloting a McDonnell F4H-1 Phantom II powered by two GE J-79 engines bettered the existing world altitude record by reaching 98,560 feet over Edwards Air Force Base.
On 05 September 1961 an F4H-1 Phantom II, piloted by Lieutenant Colonel Thomas H. Miller, USMC, set a new world record for 500 kilometers over the triangular course at Edwards AF Base with a speed of 1216.78 mph.
On 25 September 1961 an F4H-1 Phantom II, piloted by Commander John F. Davis, averaged 1390.21 mph for 100 kilometers over a closed circuit course, bettering the existing world record for the distance by more than 200 mph.
On 25 May 1961 three F4H Phantom II fighters competing for the Bendix Trophy bettered the existing record for transcontinental flight from Los Angeles to New York. The winning team of Lieutenant R. F. Gordon, pilot, and Lieutenant (jg) B. R. Young, RIO, averaged 870 mph on the 2,421.4 mile flight and set a new record of 2 hours, 47 minutes.
A Phantom set a world absolute speed record of 1,606.505 mph at Edwards on 22 November 1961.
In March 1962 new world climb records to 9,000 and 12,000 meters were established at NAS Brunswick, Maine, when an F4H-1 piloted by Lieutenant Colonel W. C. McGraw, USMC, reached those altitudes from a standing start in 61.62 and 77.15 seconds, respectively.
The F4H-1 continued its time-to-climb records at NAS Brunswick as Lieutenant Commander D. W. Nordberg piloted the Phantom II to 15,000 meters altitude in 114.54 seconds.
Lieutenant Commander F. Taylor Brown piloted the F4H-1 Phantom II at NAS Point Mugu, to a new world time-to-climb record for 20,000 meters with a time of 178.5 seconds.
ack-ack
-
Although, most of those records were stripped down versions.
I know that a specially stripped down F-15 broke the time to alt records later (of course, it came after the F-4), and I think it's standard practice to lighten the frame or remove dead weight in circumstances like this.
Who needs a 5 mode look-down shoot-down radar slowing your climb by 30 seconds, eh? :P
-
The Phantom's records were broken by the MiG-25 (the MiG-31 is slower than the 25), then by the F-15, then by the MiG-29, and who knows what plane currently holds most of the records? The F-22 perhaps? Eurofighter?
I don't think the SR-71 was ever used for official record-breaking because its performance was classified, but obviously it is faster than all planes mentioned so far. I don't think it can beat the MiG-29 in the climb though.
-
I think the Mig31 Foxbat was way faster than the Mig25. It was the Mach2.5 intercepter. Short duration but high speed.
-
I have a book here that has some pretty good data on the Phantom. The following is what I have found dealing with ordiance loads. I'll try and answer your questions.
Max bomb load for an F-4 Phantom is 22 500lb bombs. Centerline bomb rack with 6 weapons, inboard wing pylons with 3 weapons each, outboard wing pylons with 6 weapons each. Strangely enough the outboard wing pylon attach points are rated for a heavier weight than the inboard pylons were. This is explained as the outboard pylons were designed to carry an external fuel tank and the inboard pylons were initialy designed to only carry 2 AIM-9 missiles in the original interceptor role.
With 3 external tanks max load was 6 500lb bombs carried on the inboard pylons or 12 250lb bombs or 2 1000lb or 2000lb bombs. Mind that the number of bombs is divided between the 2 pylons so for the 500lbrs it would be 3 on each wing.
The Phantom was equiped with 5 external hardpoints, 1 centerline, 2 per wing, and 4 semi recessed bays under the fuselage for the AIM-7 Sparrow missile.
The first production variant to be fitted with an onboard cannon was the F4E armed with the M61 20mm Vulcan cannon with 639 rounds of ammunition. The first Phantom to have this weapon installed however was an F4B model #62-12200 and that aircraft served as a flying testbed for the Phantom series and is now a museum exhibit at Wright Patterson AFB.
Fuel consumption data is highly varried due to the many different types of engines that have been used in the Phantom. I've been able to find evidence that over the years the Phantom has been equiped with 7 different versions of the GE J-79, 3 versions of the Rolls-Royce Spey Turbofan, and a handfull of Phantoms were equiped with the Pratt & Whitney 1120. With each succesive type of engine performance increased in fuel consumption, range, and exceleration.
Sorce for this info can be found in The Great Book of Modern Warplanes published by Portland House printed in 1987.
Hope this helps.
-
Originally posted by Viking
The Phantom's records were broken by the MiG-25 (the MiG-31 is slower than the 25), then by the F-15, then by the MiG-29, and who knows what plane currently holds most of the records? The F-22 perhaps? Eurofighter?
I don't think the SR-71 was ever used for official record-breaking because its performance was classified, but obviously it is faster than all planes mentioned so far. I don't think it can beat the MiG-29 in the climb though.
1965
YF12A Interceptor (interceptor version of the SR-71)
Absolute Altitude: 80,257.86 ft (24,390 meters)... YF-12A # 60-6934
Absolute Speed Over a Straight Course: 2,070.101 mph...YF-12A #60-6936
Absolute Speed Over a 500km Closed Course: 1,688.889 mph...YF-12A #60-6936
Absolute Speed Over a 1,000km Closed Course: 1,643.041 mph... YF-12A #60-6936
September 01, 1974
SR-71A #61-17972
New York to London (World Record-Speed Over a Recognized Course): Distance: 3,461.53 statute miles...Time: 1hr 54 min 56.4 secs. Average Speed 1,806.95 statute mph.
September 13, 1974
SR-71A #61-17972
London to Los Angeles (World Record-Speed Over a Recognized Course): Distance: 5,446.87 statute miles...Time: 3hrs 47min 39secs. Average Speed: 1,435.59 mph
March 06, 1990
SR-71A #61-17972
West Coast to East Coast of USA (National Record-Speed Over a Recognized Course): Coast to Coast Distance: 2,404.05 statute miles...Time: 1 hr 07 min 53.69 secs...Average Speed: 2,124.51 mph
Los Angeles To Washington D.C. (World Record): Distance: 2,299.67 statute miles...Time: 1 hr 04 min 19.89 secs...Average Speed: 2,144.83 mph
St Louis To Cincinnati (World Record): Distance: 311.44 statute miles...Time: 8 mins 31.97 secs...Average Speed: 2,189.94 mph
Kansas City To Washington D.C. (World Record): Distance: 942.08 statute miles...Time: 25 mins 58.53 secs...Average Speed: 2176.08 mph
On November 20, 1965 an A-12 Blackbird exceeded Mach 3.2 and a sustained altitude of 90,000 feet. A stripped down, highly modified Soviet Mig-25 did break some of the Blackbirds records, however the SR-71 regained those records in July, 1976.
The 1989 Guinness Book states that a record airspeed of 2,193.167 mph (980 m/s) was achieved by a Lockheed SR-71-A
The SR-71 "Blackbird" holds the official Air Speed Record for a manned airbreathing jet aircraft with a speed of 3,529.56 km/h (2,188 mph). It was capable of taking off and landing unassisted on conventional runways. The record was set on 28 July 1976 by Eldon W. Joersz near Beale Air Force Base
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
I have a book here that has some pretty good data on the Phantom. The following is what I have found dealing with ordiance loads. I'll try and answer your questions.
Max bomb load for an F-4 Phantom is 22 500lb bombs. Centerline bomb rack with 6 weapons, inboard wing pylons with 3 weapons each, outboard wing pylons with 6 weapons each. Strangely enough the outboard wing pylon attach points are rated for a heavier weight than the inboard pylons were. This is explained as the outboard pylons were designed to carry an external fuel tank and the inboard pylons were initialy designed to only carry 2 AIM-9 missiles in the original interceptor role.
With 3 external tanks max load was 6 500lb bombs carried on the inboard pylons or 12 250lb bombs or 2 1000lb or 2000lb bombs. Mind that the number of bombs is divided between the 2 pylons so for the 500lbrs it would be 3 on each wing.
The Phantom was equiped with 5 external hardpoints, 1 centerline, 2 per wing, and 4 semi recessed bays under the fuselage for the AIM-7 Sparrow missile.
The first production variant to be fitted with an onboard cannon was the F4E armed with the M61 20mm Vulcan cannon with 639 rounds of ammunition. The first Phantom to have this weapon installed however was an F4B model #62-12200 and that aircraft served as a flying testbed for the Phantom series and is now a museum exhibit at Wright Patterson AFB.
Fuel consumption data is highly varried due to the many different types of engines that have been used in the Phantom. I've been able to find evidence that over the years the Phantom has been equiped with 7 different versions of the GE J-79, 3 versions of the Rolls-Royce Spey Turbofan, and a handfull of Phantoms were equiped with the Pratt & Whitney 1120. With each succesive type of engine performance increased in fuel consumption, range, and exceleration.
Sorce for this info can be found in The Great Book of Modern Warplanes published by Portland House printed in 1987.
Hope this helps.
If the centerline tank was mounted the MER rack could not be fitted.
At Moody, we used F-4Es with the two 370 gallon droptanks. We also
usually mounted a Pave Spike laser designator pod in the forward left
AIM-7 mount, so only 3 Sparrows could be carried.
Being basically mud-movers in the early 80s, we didn't mount the
Sparrows much, but always had the 4 Sidewinder rails mounted above
the inboard triple ejector racks.
This is completely anecdotal, but I had pilots tell me that both droptanks
would be empty after takeoff and climbout from using the burner. Since we
had the air-refueling port behind the WSO's pit, it wasn't a big concern.
Btw, go fast mode was really only used to catch something, or run
away from trouble. Oh yeah, on takeoff too as it was the heaviest the
bird would be all mission.
I'm curious about the usefulness of Mach 2+ sprints for interceptors...
the AN/APQ-120 I worked on would break lock with a 2700 mph closure
rate. Of course only a lunatic would try to toss a missile at those speeds
anyway. The AIM-7 had to be blown off the bird and the AIM-9 was very
close to both the wing and any ordnance on the rack.
Amazing the garbage you retain after 23 years out, huh? :D
P.S. Just remembered that the E model carried an extra dorsal fuel tank
by the tail compared to the earlier models. They also deleted the Ram
Air Turbine emergency generator in the nose that the earlier C
and D models carried, so the weight must have moved aft a bit.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
I have a book here that has some pretty good data on the Phantom. The following is what I have found dealing with ordiance loads. I'll try and answer your questions.
Max bomb load for an F-4 Phantom is 22 500lb bombs. Centerline bomb rack with 6 weapons, inboard wing pylons with 3 weapons each, outboard wing pylons with 6 weapons each. Strangely enough the outboard wing pylon attach points are rated for a heavier weight than the inboard pylons were. This is explained as the outboard pylons were designed to carry an external fuel tank and the inboard pylons were initialy designed to only carry 2 AIM-9 missiles in the original interceptor role.
With 3 external tanks max load was 6 500lb bombs carried on the inboard pylons or 12 250lb bombs or 2 1000lb or 2000lb bombs. Mind that the number of bombs is divided between the 2 pylons so for the 500lbrs it would be 3 on each wing.
The Phantom was equiped with 5 external hardpoints, 1 centerline, 2 per wing, and 4 semi recessed bays under the fuselage for the AIM-7 Sparrow missile.
The first production variant to be fitted with an onboard cannon was the F4E armed with the M61 20mm Vulcan cannon with 639 rounds of ammunition. The first Phantom to have this weapon installed however was an F4B model #62-12200 and that aircraft served as a flying testbed for the Phantom series and is now a museum exhibit at Wright Patterson AFB.
Fuel consumption data is highly varried due to the many different types of engines that have been used in the Phantom. I've been able to find evidence that over the years the Phantom has been equiped with 7 different versions of the GE J-79, 3 versions of the Rolls-Royce Spey Turbofan, and a handfull of Phantoms were equiped with the Pratt & Whitney 1120. With each succesive type of engine performance increased in fuel consumption, range, and exceleration.
Sorce for this info can be found in The Great Book of Modern Warplanes published by Portland House printed in 1987.
Hope this helps.
THANKS! Finally some useful information! Now, again, I dont know much about this aircraft, I just started studying, but as far as the fuel consumption, any data you have for any engine. If you have multiple engines, id say the most modern engine. Thanks again SO MUCH! I might just get some sleep tonight...
-
Originally posted by Serenity
....I might just get some sleep tonight...
Just get a girlfriend!! :aok
-
Originally posted by zorstorer
Just get a girlfriend!! :aok
Had one. Still didnt get any sleep ;) At least this doesnt b*tch at me. Wait. Nevermind, I forgot about furball and Bronk.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
1965
YF12A Interceptor (interceptor version of the SR-71)
Absolute Altitude: 80,257.86 ft (24,390 meters)... YF-12A # 60-6934
Absolute Speed Over a Straight Course: 2,070.101 mph...YF-12A #60-6936
Absolute Speed Over a 500km Closed Course: 1,688.889 mph...YF-12A #60-6936
Absolute Speed Over a 1,000km Closed Course: 1,643.041 mph... YF-12A #60-6936
September 01, 1974
SR-71A #61-17972
New York to London (World Record-Speed Over a Recognized Course): Distance: 3,461.53 statute miles...Time: 1hr 54 min 56.4 secs. Average Speed 1,806.95 statute mph.
September 13, 1974
SR-71A #61-17972
London to Los Angeles (World Record-Speed Over a Recognized Course): Distance: 5,446.87 statute miles...Time: 3hrs 47min 39secs. Average Speed: 1,435.59 mph
March 06, 1990
SR-71A #61-17972
West Coast to East Coast of USA (National Record-Speed Over a Recognized Course): Coast to Coast Distance: 2,404.05 statute miles...Time: 1 hr 07 min 53.69 secs...Average Speed: 2,124.51 mph
Los Angeles To Washington D.C. (World Record): Distance: 2,299.67 statute miles...Time: 1 hr 04 min 19.89 secs...Average Speed: 2,144.83 mph
St Louis To Cincinnati (World Record): Distance: 311.44 statute miles...Time: 8 mins 31.97 secs...Average Speed: 2,189.94 mph
Kansas City To Washington D.C. (World Record): Distance: 942.08 statute miles...Time: 25 mins 58.53 secs...Average Speed: 2176.08 mph
On November 20, 1965 an A-12 Blackbird exceeded Mach 3.2 and a sustained altitude of 90,000 feet. A stripped down, highly modified Soviet Mig-25 did break some of the Blackbirds records, however the SR-71 regained those records in July, 1976.
The 1989 Guinness Book states that a record airspeed of 2,193.167 mph (980 m/s) was achieved by a Lockheed SR-71-A
The SR-71 "Blackbird" holds the official Air Speed Record for a manned airbreathing jet aircraft with a speed of 3,529.56 km/h (2,188 mph). It was capable of taking off and landing unassisted on conventional runways. The record was set on 28 July 1976 by Eldon W. Joersz near Beale Air Force Base
ack-ack
Thanks, so I guess the SR-71 still holds the speed records.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I think the Mig31 Foxbat was way faster than the Mig25. It was the Mach2.5 intercepter. Short duration but high speed.
No the 31 is a redesigned two-seat 25 derivative, re-engined with turbo-fans for cruising and loitering. The MiG-25(R) is a mach 3.2 capable (clean) plane while the 31 is mach 2.8 capable (clean).
-
Originally posted by Serenity
Had one. Still didnt get any sleep ;)
Hmmmm.....You stud you(?)
Anyway, I present you Chico....
(http://wademeyersart.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/chicothegunfighter_trannyscan_367.jpg)
linky (http://wademeyersart.tripod.com/id11.html)
wrngway
-
Originally posted by Serenity
Had one. Still didnt get any sleep ;) At least this doesnt b*tch at me. Wait. Nevermind, I forgot about furball and Bronk.
:(
-
How about SL speeds? Wasn't the Tornado supposed to be a swift one down there?
Then there is one quite fast aircraft, - the BAC Lightning. Know a former wingco who flew it, - said it was a delight and a stellar performer.
(with the naughty habit of catching fire between the engines if I recall right)
-
Note that the top speed was achieved without wing slats. The slatted models were quite a bit slower but the slats were considered such an improvement over the unslatted one that many export versions had them, too.
One of the undesired handling quality discovered during Vietnam era was the unwanted tightening of turn when the a/c decelerated in turn. The elevators sudddenly started to bite into the airstream and the turn could tighten so much that the wing could not handle it anymore and that resulted in an accelerated stall. The wing slats improved the handling and these "spectacular departures" pretty much ended.
-C+
-
The F-4 was originally designed as an INTERCEPTOR, not a dogfighter. This is why it did not come equipped with an internal gun.
My father flew F-4 C's, D's and E's in SEA in 1971-72.
Most of his missions were air to ground (which he had alot of previous experience with from flying B-57's during a previous SEA tour in 1965-66).
According to him, most of the time he carried conventional bombs and Zuni rocket pods....but sometimes he carried daisy cutters, LGB's and gun pods. The max number of bombs would depend on the type of bomb (500, 1000 and 2000 lbs .....which were dictated by the mission) carried as well as the air temp/humidity and tanker availability.
He says that the Phantom used fuel like nothing else. Because of the heat and humidity they would have to use afterburner during just about every takeoff and it was still hard to get airborne. They would then climb out and hook up with a tanker, refuel, and then run the mission route. After dropping ordinance they would roundezvous with another tanker and refuel before heading back to their base in Thailand.
Of the few Mig CAPS he flew, he said that on one, a missle flew between him and his wingman. After a little bit of frantic looking around they saw what looked like a Mig 19 nearby. The started trying to get on it and as they got close to firing off a missle they were told it was a Navy A-7 so they broke it off. The Migs were attacking the other element of the CAP flight at the same time and one of his good friends was shot down and KIA.
To this day, it still bugs him....was that really a Navy A-7 or was it one of the migs that shot down his buddy? They never got close enough to visual ID it, so he'll never know.
Originally posted by Serenity
Next, weapons. Since the F-4 was designed as a fighter, Ive got a lot of sources for A2A weapons loadouts, but remarcably even with google I can find next to nothing about bombs! So, what was the maximum NUMBER OF BOMBS (NOT maximum WEIGHT of ordenance, because a classic example, the B-17 could carry a lot more WEIGHT but due to the physical dimensions of the bombs, it only carried a limited number) the F-4 carried WHILE carrying external fuel and Sidewinders? Without external fuel? And how were the bombs mounted?
[/B]
-
Originally posted by StuB
The F-4 was originally designed as an INTERCEPTOR, not a dogfighter. This is why it did not come equipped with an internal gun.
My father flew F-4 C's, D's and E's in SEA in 1971-72.
Most of his missions were air to ground (which he had alot of previous experience with from flying B-57's during a previous SEA tour in 1965-66).
According to him, most of the time he carried conventional bombs and Zuni rocket pods....but sometimes he carried daisy cutters, LGB's and gun pods. The max number of bombs would depend on the type of bomb (500, 1000 and 2000 lbs .....which were dictated by the mission) carried as well as the air temp/humidity and tanker availability.
He says that the Phantom used fuel like nothing else. Because of the heat and humidity they would have to use afterburner during just about every takeoff and it was still hard to get airborne. They would then climb out and hook up with a tanker, refuel, and then run the mission route. After dropping ordinance they would roundezvous with another tanker and refuel before heading back to their base in Thailand.
Of the few Mig CAPS he flew, he said that on one, a missle flew between him and his wingman. After a little bit of frantic looking around they saw what looked like a Mig 19 nearby. The started trying to get on it and as they got close to firing off a missle they were told it was a Navy A-7 so they broke it off. The Migs were attacking the other element of the CAP flight at the same time and one of his good friends was shot down and KIA.
To this day, it still bugs him....was that really a Navy A-7 or was it one of the migs that shot down his buddy? They never got close enough to visual ID it, so he'll never know.
Yeah, when I said fighter, I meant as opposed to a bomber. Its a fleet interceptor, and the dogfighter was the Corsair II. The question that really bugs me is the time the fuel lasts. Thanks for all this information, and is there any way you could ask him about how long his fuel lasted? In all my searching, all fuel information is listed in liters/gallons carried, and number of miles. But I know as you increase power, you burn more fuel. AND range is fine and dandy, but since you dont have an odometer in a plane... Yeah. Basically any data on how many minutes the fuel lasted would be like christmas comming early!
-
Originally posted by AWwrgwy
Hmmmm.....You stud you(?)
Anyway, I present you Chico....
(http://wademeyersart.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/chicothegunfighter_trannyscan_367.jpg)
linky (http://wademeyersart.tripod.com/id11.html)
wrngway
Oh, and any idea what that little under-nose pod was for BEFORE the gun was added on the Echo? Is that radar?
-
Originally posted by AWwrgwy
Hmmmm.....You stud you(?)
Anyway, I present you Chico....
(http://wademeyersart.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/chicothegunfighter_trannyscan_367.jpg)
linky (http://wademeyersart.tripod.com/id11.html)
wrngway
That is a really odd weapons mix on that E model. Cluster bombs and
2 extra pods..apparently he's going after ALOT of soft targets :D
-
Originally posted by Rino
That is a really odd weapons mix on that E model. Cluster bombs and
2 extra pods..apparently he's going after ALOT of soft targets :D
I hear that people are quite soft...
I dont think thats an E though, I dont see an opening for a gun below the nose. Thats probably a Delta. Just a guess though...
-
Originally posted by Serenity
I dont think thats an E though, I dont see an opening for a gun below the nose. Thats probably a Delta. Just a guess though...
It's an E, and the painting is signed by the pilot, so you'd think he might have noticed if Meyers misrepresented the cannon. In WWII guns were taped over. I suspect that the cannon had some cover to protect from FOD.
The D originally did not have the small radome anyway. Later D versions did.
Phantom II (http://www.vectorsite.net/avf4_1.html#m5)
The small radome of B's and N's was "called" the IR radome, but when I was in we never used it for IR. I think we once had a hop scheduled were the Com/NAV guys installed some ECM there. The rest of the time it was empty. That was from '76-'81.
Best regards
-
Originally posted by Serenity
I hear that people are quite soft...
I dont think thats an E though, I dont see an opening for a gun below the nose. Thats probably a Delta. Just a guess though...
Definitely not a D..has the long nose so E or a G model
with the radar receiver under the nose. As he calls it a gunfighter
I'm going with the E. Btw we never used a cover over the gun shroud,
the gun barrels are actually well behind the end of the shroud.
It's also a later model E because the original gun shrouds had a sharply
angled "receding chin line". They had to modify the shroud because the
engines were injesting the gunpowder residue when firing.
Just my opinion, but using twin 20mm pods on people is just plain silly.
It's been a long time, but I'm virtually certain the gunsight would be almost
useless with wing mounted guns. It's been over 20 years, but I vaguely
remember that the air-ground mode of the LCOSS sight automatically
compensated 2 mils down for the relative position of the gun under the
nose. There was no selection for left or right.
Since both guns would have to be fired together to prevent yaw, you
are talking massive amounts of overkill for people potting.
-
Originally posted by Rino
Definitely not a D..has the long nose so E or a G model
with the radar receiver under the nose. As he calls it a gunfighter
I'm going with the E. Btw we never used a cover over the gun shroud,
the gun barrels are actually well behind the end of the shroud.
It's also a later model E because the original gun shrouds had a sharply
angled "receding chin line". They had to modify the shroud because the
engines were injesting the gunpowder residue when firing.
Follow the above link in my original reply. Has a nice little article about the a/c, load-out and mission.
I thought the gunpods were an interesting and, apparently, unique load-out.
wrngway
-
The two most unique gun configs I have seen were a picture of a UK F4
with 5!!! 20mm pods mounted and I saw a USAF A-7 carrying two GE 30mm
pods in addition to it's internal M-61.
Of course if the A7 had fired those pods, it probably would have fallen
out of the sky , the didn't
call the A-7 the SLUF for nothing. rest> :D
We almost lost a Phantom at Moody due to one of these pods. The pilot
reported that he was losing all his hydraulics after a firing run down at the
range at Eglin. Turns out the pod was mounted on the centerline and the
muzzleblast had severed lines INSIDE the fuselage. Fortunately he was
able to jettison the pod and land on his drop tanks on our runway.
The plane was up and flying again 3 weeks later.
-
I don't know about you guys but i'm amazed that airplanes like this were produced 10 and 15 years after WW2 .......simply stunning
-
Bahhh
Phantom schmantom.
(http://www.avialantic.com/photogal/images/outof/f8carrierl.jpg)
Now this is an AC .:aok
Bronk
-
Thanks for all of this outstanding information and insight! Incidentally, has anyone found any fuel consumption data? Ive still been without luck... And bronk, that has to be one of the ugliest things ive ever seen. Thought so the first time I opened my "Complete History of Naval Aviation", and still think so now... (No offense to anyone who flew it. I have no idea what im talking about when it comes to fighter planes so I go by looks :D)
edit: By the way, is that carrier... (I hope I spell this right...) the Oriskany?
-
My dear boy, that F-8 is what a fighter is suppose to look like.
The f-4 has way to many bumps, bulges, and bends too look "good".
(http://www.avions-militaires.net/images/photos/f4.jpg)
Chit all they need is the kitchen sink to hang off this thing.
:p
Bronk
-
erm depends on the F4 involved.
The osprey equiped UK F4 had a much longer range . These were re-engined and retro fitted F4-N with a lendthened nose wheel for for greater AoA on take off . The osprey engine also gave 1000lb extra thrust and handled water/steam ingestion better ( hey come on it does rain over here alot) .
-
Is the osprey the same as the Rolls Royce Spey engine?
-
yup one and the same. i remember when i was in a vally looking DOWN on a pair of f4's as they did low level trainning here in wales.
the spay was a better veriant of the ospray engine, an offshoot of the oylimpus series.
-
The Spey has always been called the Spey, i doubt it has any relation to the Olympus either? The Olympus was a much larger, more powerful engine first developed by Bristol and used in the Vulcan.
-
I see Speys all the time here at the airport, Gulfstream II and III bizjets
use them. They are getting rarer though as they are quite noisy.
-
certain parts of the oylimpas engine desing were used in the sprey . ege fan laypout and profile, and compresion champer profile.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
My dear boy, that F-8 is what a fighter is suppose to look like.
The f-4 has way to many bumps, bulges, and bends too look "good".
(http://www.avions-militaires.net/images/photos/f4.jpg)
Chit all they need is the kitchen sink to hang off this thing.
:p
Bronk
Yeah, and that bug-catcher under the nose adds what exactly? Besides, its just too long for its features. And the Phantom is proof of power of thrust over gravity. And come on, tell me this aint sexy:
(http://www.theaircraftgallery.com/planes/f-4/f4_3.jpg)
-
Phantom always looked best in RAF service...
(http://www.f4phantoms.co.uk/hiq/1024_flypast.jpg)
(http://www.f4phantoms.co.uk/hiq/1024_xv470.jpg)
-
I was actually fortunate to see an F-4 up close last saturday, it was at an air museum out here. Definately sweet. So, does anyone have any fuel rate information? I still cannot find any.
-
My dad used to work on the F-4 during the Veitman War
-
Originally posted by b56
My dad used to work on the F-4 during the Veitman War
If hes still around, would you mind asking him about some fuel burn-rate data? I figure anyone who flew one or worked on one oughta know.
-
I Have a FM for the F-4-E, give me a day or so and ill dig up the exact flow rates
Dont remember them but at Full Blow its scary
-
He said that he didnt learn about those scintefic stuff
-
Originally posted by kpu
I Have a FM for the F-4-E, give me a day or so and ill dig up the exact flow rates
Dont remember them but at Full Blow its scary
Thanks! Im just looking for how long (in minutes) the fuel lasts at various burn rates. And thanks for trying b56!
-
And thanks for trying b56 !
Np Serenity
-
Originally posted by Serenity
If hes still around, would you mind asking him about some fuel burn-rate data? I figure anyone who flew one or worked on one oughta know.
I only know that we put about 2500 gallons onboard an E to fill it with
2 wingtanks, when it came back about 2.5 hours later we did it again. I
worked the pointy end, not the noisy end..no idea what burn rates were.
-
Originally posted by Rino
I only know that we put about 2500 gallons onboard an E to fill it with
2 wingtanks, when it came back about 2.5 hours later we did it again. I
worked the pointy end, not the noisy end..no idea what burn rates were.
Thats actually very valuable. Did the plane have more than those two wing tanks? And was that for combat runs? Or just ferrying? (Im sorry, im thinking maybe I can do some calculations and guestimation myself...)
-
That was full internal fuel plus 2 370 gallon drop tanks. Our missions
in the early 80s were generally air-mud at the ranges at Eglin in northern
Florida or up in northern Georgia somewhere.
Moody AFB is just north of Valdosta, Ga, so travel time to the "target"
was not very excessive.
-
Where can I get a fighter in AHII that climbs at 41K/minute? :D
Good discussion. The F4 was my favorite jet until the 16 came out.
-
GE J79 fuel consumption... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_J79)
Sorry it's Wikipedia...
Best Regards, and get some sleep.
[edit] If the mission called for supersonic flight, then the plane would only carry the centerline tank, and not the two wing tanks. For long ferry flights all three tanks were on.
-
Originally posted by Old Sport
GE J79 fuel consumption... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_J79)
Sorry it's Wikipedia...
Best Regards, and get some sleep.
[edit] If the mission called for supersonic flight, then the plane would only carry the centerline tank, and not the two wing tanks. For long ferry flights all three tanks were on.
Great! Thanks! Im trying to guess just what a 'Long' flight is, because all of the testimony I can find is vietnam combat, and they almost always seemed to carry the wing tanks. (Or at least all of the action reports Im reading seem to have them) Thank you SO much! School starts again soon, and ive barely slept all brake. I get really obsessive about these things, almost unhealthily so...
edit: Just read through that. It only lists fuel consumption with afterburner. Is there some mathmatical equation I can use to find out at different burn rates?
-
Fact sheets (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2324)
Go down to F-4s and check their performance.
CAP for a D:
PERFORMANCE for Combat Air Patrol (CAP) Mission:
Four AIM-7 Sparrow missiles, one 600-gal. and two 370-gal. external tanks
Combat altitude: 40,000 ft. maximum
Combat speed: 1,178 knots at 35,000 ft. maximum power
Combat weight: 36,140 lbs.
Combat radius: 250 nautical miles
Mission time (CAP): 2.48 hrs total; 1.39 hrs CAP
(the Combat speed would appear to be the combat MAX speed, and the 2.48 hours total would appear to be where most of the flight is cruise at about 550 knts, since the following is given for the F-4C)
PERFORMANCE:
Maximum speed: 1,400 mph/1210 knots at 40,000 ft. maximum power (ferry mission)
Cruising speed: 590 mph/546 knots at 35,000 ft.
Range: 1,750 miles/1528 nautical miles ferry mission with one 600 gal. and two 370 gal. external tanks
Service ceiling: 59,600 ft.
-
Originally posted by Old Sport
Fact sheets (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2324)
Go down to F-4s and check their performance.
CAP for a D:
PERFORMANCE for Combat Air Patrol (CAP) Mission:
Four AIM-7 Sparrow missiles, one 600-gal. and two 370-gal. external tanks
Combat altitude: 40,000 ft. maximum
Combat speed: 1,178 knots at 35,000 ft. maximum power
Combat weight: 36,140 lbs.
Combat radius: 250 nautical miles
Mission time (CAP): 2.48 hrs total; 1.39 hrs CAP
(the Combat speed would appear to be the combat MAX speed, and the 2.48 hours total would appear to be where most of the flight is cruise at about 550 knts, since the following is given for the F-4C)
PERFORMANCE:
Maximum speed: 1,400 mph/1210 knots at 40,000 ft. maximum power (ferry mission)
Cruising speed: 590 mph/546 knots at 35,000 ft.
Range: 1,750 miles/1528 nautical miles ferry mission with one 600 gal. and two 370 gal. external tanks
Service ceiling: 59,600 ft.
Great! Just what I was looking for! Thanks so much!
-
I read a book about an F4 pilot in Vietnam. He said that on bombing missions, the F4 would only climb at about 2000 feet per minute when loaded with bombs.
-
I can imagine that. A LOT of bombs can really weigh down on a plane, even a jet...
-
The F-4 Phantom II was really ahead of its time. The fact that it is still in service 50 years later is a testament to its greatness.
-
Originally posted by Viking
The F-4 Phantom II was really ahead of its time. The fact that it is still in service 50 years later is a testament to its greatness.
Its been 50 already? The plane I hope to get assigned to when I join the USAF (B-52) will beat that nicely I think :D
-
Originally posted by Serenity
I can imagine that. A LOT of bombs can really weigh down on a plane, even a jet...
Well the Phantom did a pretty good job of weighing down the Phantom
:D We rarely had heavy loads aboard, but they used almost all of our
9000 foot runways even using afterburner. Admittedly it was southern
Georgia which is not noted for it's cool, dry climate :)
-
Originally posted by Serenity
Its been 50 already? The plane I hope to get assigned to when I join the USAF (B-52) will beat that nicely I think :D
Probably, but then the stresses on a B-52 are usually much less than
on a fighter-bomber.
-
Bombers tend to have longer service lives than fighters due to the more competitive nature of fighters. Bombers are usually protected in the air by ... fighters. :)
-
Some amazing B-52 flying, up to the last 10 seconds.
B-52 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQa4PpIkOZU)
-
You're actually asking fairly complex questions since fuel flow changes significantly with altitude. For instance, an F-14 could burn all of it's fuel (Internal plus two external tanks = 20k lbs) in 7 minutes in full afterburner at SL while it lasted considerably longer at altitude. F-4 would have been similar.
To answer some of the other sundry questions that came up in this thread:
By the way, is that carrier... (I hope I spell this right...) the Oriskany?
The CV in the picture with the RF-8 is Forrestal class not the Oriskany which was a 27C (modified Essex class). Judging from the not to clear hull number it's probably the Saratoga. It could also be the Forrestal (CV-59), Ranger (CV-61), or Indy (CV-62). BTW, the Oriskany was just sunk off the coast near Pensacola to become a dive site and reef. Another note, the fighter in the picture is the photo-recon version, the straight F-8 was a bit better looking since it didn't have the funky lower fuselage bulge where the cameras are located on the RF-8.
The small radome of B's and N's was "called" the IR radome, but when I was in we never used it for IR. I think we once had a hop scheduled were the Com/NAV guys installed some ECM there. The rest of the time it was empty. That was from '76-'81.
The chin-pod was originally designed for an IR Search and Track system but it didn't work well and didn't last. The F-14 had a similar one for the same reasons but then they used it to house the Television Camera Set and later a dual pod was designed for the F-14D to house both the TCS and a new IRSTS. Also, most chin pods like this also incorporated a couple of antennas for the ECM system.
I'm curious about the usefulness of Mach 2+ sprints for interceptors...the AN/APQ-120 I worked on would break lock with a 2700 mph closure rate. Of course only a lunatic would try to toss a missile at those speeds anyway. The AIM-7 had to be blown off the bird and the AIM-9 was very close to both the wing and any ordnance on the rack.
The only real use of Mach 2 speed is for a straight line intercept of a large bomber formation where you dash out, launch your missiles in their face and then immediately go home because you're out of gas. Typically you only got as high as about 1.2M. 1.6M will start to burn the paint. :) As far as launching missiles above Mach 2, that's perfectly OK. We had some G-limits for certain types of launches but the top speed was LBA, which is the Limits of the Basic Airframe. Also, the faster you are at launch the better the missile range since you're giving it a "boost".
The MiG-25(R) is a mach 3.2 capable (clean) plane while the 31 is mach 2.8 capable (clean).
Yes and no. The 31 is reengined but the MiG-25 was never a Mach 3.2 airplane. There was a single MiG 25 that overflew Israel at over Mach 3 and then landed in Egypt but the engines were toast and had to be replaced before the plane could return to the USSR. Realistically, it's max is probably about 2.8M
Yeah, when I said fighter, I meant as opposed to a bomber. Its a fleet interceptor, and the dogfighter was the Corsair II.
Ahhhh...no. The Corsair II is the A-7 and, while it was a dog, it was no dogfighter. It was just a light attack derivative of the F-8 without an afterburner that was shortened and simplified to create a cheap visual bomber....not to mention the fact it was flown by attack pukes, not fighter gods.;)
-
A very good book about the phantom is Scream of Eagles by Robert K. Wilcox. This book is all about the formation of the Navy's Top Gun Program. Plus a good part of this book is stories about F-4s dogfighting with MiG 17s and 21s over Vietnam. If you like the Phantom or Top Gun, read this book.
-
The F-4 wasn't used during ww2 you idiot:p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :huh
-
Originally posted by splitatom
The F-4 wasn't used during ww2 you idiot:p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :huh
Depends which F4 you're talking about..the F4F Wildcat and F4U Corsair
sure did. :D