Author Topic: F-4 Phantom II (Read 2838 times)

AWwrgwy · « **Reply #30 on:** March 27, 2007, 10:56:16 AM »

Quote

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

Rino · « **Reply #31 on:** March 27, 2007, 11:08:19 AM »

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>

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.

LEADPIG · « **Reply #32 on:** March 27, 2007, 02:17:15 PM »

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

Bronk · « **Reply #33 on:** March 27, 2007, 02:53:11 PM »

Bahhh
Phantom schmantom.

Now this is an AC .

Bronk

Serenity · « **Reply #34 on:** March 27, 2007, 02:55:52 PM »

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

)

edit: By the way, is that carrier... (I hope I spell this right...) the Oriskany?

Bronk · « **Reply #35 on:** March 27, 2007, 03:03:50 PM »

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".

Chit all they need is the kitchen sink to hang off this thing.

Bronk

B3YT · « **Reply #36 on:** March 27, 2007, 04:12:40 PM »

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) .

Rino · « **Reply #37 on:** March 27, 2007, 08:40:43 PM »

Is the osprey the same as the Rolls Royce Spey engine?

B3YT · « **Reply #38 on:** March 28, 2007, 01:30:22 AM »

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.

Ball · « **Reply #39 on:** March 28, 2007, 02:54:01 AM »

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.

Rino · « **Reply #40 on:** March 28, 2007, 07:11:26 AM »

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.

B3YT · « **Reply #41 on:** March 28, 2007, 12:56:08 PM »

certain parts of the oylimpas engine desing were used in the sprey . ege fan laypout and profile, and compresion champer profile.

Serenity · « **Reply #42 on:** March 28, 2007, 03:56:52 PM »

Quote

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".

Chit all they need is the kitchen sink to hang off this thing.

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:

Ball · « **Reply #43 on:** March 28, 2007, 04:11:06 PM »

Phantom always looked best in RAF service...

Serenity · « **Reply #44 on:** March 28, 2007, 04:15:07 PM »

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.