McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II

Zootycoon said:
Archibald said:
It happened to a French Crusader pilot, from a land base... he lifted off, found that the aircraft "behaved a little bizarre" landed only to be told the entire flight had been done with the wing tips folded. No kidding.
Click to expand...

Taking off with the wings folded has been done a fair few times, even more than the events detailed in the links. Given that folding wing outer panels are now seeing application beyond carrier aviation, I wonder when the first commercial aircraft will add to the list?
Click to expand...

I think it's done with the B 777X :
 
Last edited:
galgot said:
Zootycoon said:
Archibald said:
It happened to a French Crusader pilot, from a land base... he lifted off, found that the aircraft "behaved a little bizarre" landed only to be told the entire flight had been done with the wing tips folded. No kidding.
Click to expand...

Taking off with the wings folded has been done a fair few times, even more than the events detailed in the links. Given that folding wing outer panels are now seeing application beyond carrier aviation, I wonder when the first commercial aircraft will add to the list?
Click to expand...

I think it's done with the B 777X :
Click to expand...

Not the first application of folding wings to a commercial aircraft;- I was thinking about the first time a commercial aircraft takes flight with the wings inadvertently folded as per these Navy examples.
 
Zootycoon said:
galgot said:
Zootycoon said:
Archibald said:
It happened to a French Crusader pilot, from a land base... he lifted off, found that the aircraft "behaved a little bizarre" landed only to be told the entire flight had been done with the wing tips folded. No kidding.
Click to expand...

Taking off with the wings folded has been done a fair few times, even more than the events detailed in the links. Given that folding wing outer panels are now seeing application beyond carrier aviation, I wonder when the first commercial aircraft will add to the list?
Click to expand...

I think it's done with the B 777X :
Click to expand...

Not the first application of folding wings to a commercial aircraft;- I was thinking about the first time a commercial aircraft takes flight with the wings inadvertently folded as per these Navy examples.
Click to expand...

Ahh sorry then :)
Anyways, if this appends with a 777X, we will have many pictures from the passengers.
 
sferrin said:
And that was with a catapult. :eek:
Click to expand...

NOT done with a catapult. That photo is a US Air Force F-4E out of Iceland that took off from a quite long runway with its wings folded. Since the F-4E had wings that were manually folded/unfolded by the ground crew, that photo is of a monumental foul-up or somebody intentionally took off that way as a bet or a dare.
 
RetiredAFGuy said:
sferrin said:
And that was with a catapult. :eek:
Click to expand...

NOT done with a catapult. That photo is a US Air Force F-4E out of Iceland that took off from a quite long runway with its wings folded. Since the F-4E had wings that were manually folded/unfolded by the ground crew, that photo is of a monumental foul-up or somebody intentionally took off that way as a bet or a dare.
Click to expand...
F4FoldedWings_0.jpg

Apparently it's happened more than once. :D
 
One of guys I used to work with hated the phantom because of its wing loading and just generally hated the phantom calling it something like 50,000lb lead weight with wings that was uncomfortable to fly. I was really disappointed to hear someone I liked pissing all over the plane I had loved so dearly.
 
F-4 Satan,
See the attached memo for a list of the finalists among the names proposed for the F-4 in 1959. Proving that engineering and marketing talent doesn't always coexist, "Satan" was the favorite and had to be vetoed by J.S. McDonnell himself. My favorite is "Eyeball", I understand that the guy who proposed that one went to work for Ford Motor after leaving the Navy and was fired for trying to name a sports car "Spleen".
My guess is that "Ghost" was ruled out because of the dH engine and "Spook" is an archaic racial epithet in the US, probably not so archaic in 1959. "Phantom II" is next on the list. Sprite was a British rocket engine and just sounds dumb for a warplane (the beverage wasn't launched until 1961) and "Spectre" was later briefly used for the USAF variant when it was identified as the F-110.

s-l1600a.jpg s-l1600aa.jpg s-l1600aaa.jpg
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Interesting story: the fratricide shotdown of a RAF Jaguar by a RAF Phantom over Germany.

theaviationgeekclub.com

Former RAF Jaguar pilot tells the story of when he was shot down by a RAF Phantom interceptor - The Aviation Geek Club

"Only on the way back to Brüggen did I find out what had happened. The Phantom I had seen fly over the farmer's field had shot me down!" Group Captain Steve Griggs, RAF Jaguar pilot
theaviationgeekclub.com theaviationgeekclub.com
Click to expand...

I can only wonder what happened to the Phantom pilot once he got back to base?
 
I remember watching some documentary about it.
didn't they both went and got a drink together afterwards

and it also seemed the blame went to the ground crew for not properly doing their jobs according to that video
 
If you are ready to make some PHolies (we are still in 2020!):

1959 McDonnell F4H-1F Phantom II​

s/n 150310 N815WF​

"World's Only Privately Owned F-4 Phantom Capable of Flight"


$3,250,000​

Click to expand...

​

www.platinumfighters.com

1959 McDonnell F4H-1F Phantom II | Rare Vintage Aircraft

Explore the world's only privately owned flying F-4 Phantom II - the iconic McDonnell F4H-1F. This aircraft is under restoration.
www.platinumfighters.com www.platinumfighters.com

some very nice shots
 
Via FB user Dan Cullen:

"Grandpa Flew Phantoms"...

“Hey, Grandpa,” the young lad said to me; “tell me a war story. What did you do in the war?”
“I flew “Phantoms. Rhino. Big Ugly.” Fascination and concern shone in his eyes. “Phantoms?” “Absolutely,” I said, looking off into the wild blue yonder and the setting sun. “Tell me about the Phantoms, Grandpa.”
I thought for a moment about what to say. How much could he really understand? Not much, actually. But kids sure like airplanes, even big kids like Grandpa. I thought a little more about what to tell him:
Actually, they’re called F-4s. The term, “F-4,” is like a scientific definition for a giant wild animal that will level your 18-wheel truck if it feels like it. The Phantom was the biggest, loudest, meanest-looking, raw power fighting machine ever built. It was a Man’s jet.
Spectators’ innards rumbled when Phantoms took off! Wide-eyed kids instantaneously decided they were going to be a fighter pilot just like me. They didn’t understand about back-seaters and crew chiefs, but they did understand brute power and speed. You could point this airplane at the moon and for a while you thought you were going to get there. It went a mile per breath at high cruise. A mile per breath!
Phantom. The big leagues. Normal earth people never witness the splendor nor feel the terror of Big Ugly closing for guns. Over the years, my jet fought them all: Tomcats, Eagles, Falcons, Hornets, F-5s, F-106s, A-4s, A-7s, F-111s, Buffs, B-1s, U-2s, even the F-105. Yeah, my pilots lost some, but won plenty! Don’t try to run from a Thud. To win with “Big Ugly,” use power, altitude, vertical, surprise.
Don’t get slow; speed is life. Cut across the circle. Don’t bury the nose. Kill the bandit now. Take that slashing gunshot. Don’t say the pilot cheated; he got the shot. You can’t outrun the missile.
That magnificent airplane remained a major player in our nation’s defense for decades, despite sharing birthdays with early pocket calculators. Is anybody still driving a ’65 Chevy? It’s the people who bring this aircraft to life and provide the brainpower. A roomful of Phantom crews sets a unique social environment. Seemingly insignificant behaviors and unusual events create career-spanning nicknames and legends. “Two Dogs” shot the tanker. “Tripod” kissed the colonel’s dog. They remember forever! Don’t believe the dreaded words, “Your secret is safe with me.” Don’t point fingers, for if you live by the sword, you will die by it.
It’s a rare combination of he-man pilots whose egos, fangs, and foolishness are tempered by an inseparable conscience embodied in the blind, trusty WSO who almost equally share credit for the fabulous success of this durable-crew airplane. It’s a we airplane – not an I, not a me, but we airplane. “We shot the drone. We didn’t go out of our airspace – not us.” The new stuff extends off duty as well. We were at the movies when the windows shattered. You get the idea.
Riding in the “pit,WSOs are among the bravest souls on earth, betting their lives and reputation on the driver up front who will take them who knows where at a moment’s notice. The backseater lives by his cunning, competing against advanced technology with systems as old as himself. His understanding of human thought processes makes great WSO’ing an art form. He must be ready for any eventuality and provide timely information in a logical, understandable sequence for the multitasked Phantom driver to digest in small pieces. The key is to make the driver, “Mr. Sometimes Macho,” think it was his idea in the first place. The WSO must sense when his inputs have gone unheeded, yet never waste a second with unnecessary or mistimed information. He must find the target and get the frontseater’s eye on it. Then it’s grunt time, fighting the Gs while the animal frontseater maneuvers for the kill. No whimpering gents; we’re riding a Rhino! Sometimes we become the Rhino!
A flight of F-4s paired against multiple bogies creates instant comm jamming when only half the crewmen are talking. Hit the merge and they’re all start yakking away, like a gaggle of geese sorting out the variables. Phantoms somehow excel in defeating large numbers of superior aircraft under severe comm conditions. The more targets, the better. Rhinos charge the fight, shoot bogies and accept a few losses. There’s no way to recall everything that happened in a multi-ship merge, but each crewman brings back various recollections to defend vigorously at the debrief. At the height of the discussion, several pilots talk at once while gesticulating hands “gun” each other. The WSOs nod approvingly. Somehow, most participants emerge from the debrief with the positive notion that “we did fairly well…considering the circumstances.”
Computers changed the flying professional, but an evolution of slippery Phantom tactics continued to confound the sometimes embarrassed good pilots in modern machines. There was a lot of challenge. You were always up against supposedly better aircraft. Phantom crews shriek with delight, like the wide-eyed kid, when describing unobserved stern missile launches or tracking gunshots against a magic dream machine. Yet, satisfaction is rarely displayed in the presence of your opponent. The adversary must think that Phantoms gunning Hornets is fairly common, which it is, if you don’t keep exact score.
Let’s see now, 14 years and 2,500 hours flying Phantoms. No wars, only one engine problem, only one hydraulic failure (on the ground). Hot brakes once (my fault). Never lost a generator, no gear problems, never diverted, two fire lights (both false), no high speed aborts, can’t remember my last air abort (it’s been years). Can’t remember my last ground abort, either.
Never had a compressor stall. Killed a horse once. Popped circuit breakers a few times (usually they reset). Took the cable once for antiskid (no big deal). What a great airplane! Dependable with a capital D. Weather? No problem. Ice? Wind? No problem. The F-4 has done the job as an all-weather, day/night fighter extraordinaire.
Big ugly. Been my friend. Never scared me, never hurt me. Knock on wood. I suppose we’ll launch missiles at her at Tyndall – from some new magic jet. They’ll miss; too bad. Or, Big ugly will drag them back home stuck in her sides like porcupine quills. And someday we’ll look back at our Rhino pictures and remember her as we do steam locomotives.
I never knew an engineer or assembler who built the Phantom, and probably never will. But thanks, folks! Helluva job! What a great airplane! It’s been my everlasting pleasure and privilege to fly her. You just can’t imagine.
“Hey, Grandpa,” the little voice urges. “I thought you were going to tell me a war story. I began to tell. “So there we were, trying to dig this F-111 out of the canyon. We spot him flying along the cliff, fast and too low for a missile shot…” I swallowed hard and lost my voice there for a second. Kitchen clatter broke the silence with the distant call, “Food’s ready!”
Okay, guy,” I said quietly. “It’s time to wash your hands. Your mom’s calling for supper.” “I didn’t hear her,” he claimed, with a twinkle in his eye and a knowing smile like my old buddies had. Food’s ready tiger; wash up. I’ll be along shortly.” A couple of minutes slid by. Then I heard the voice from a distance. Grandpa? Grandpa. You okay?” A tear plopped on the window sill. “Yeah, yeah, be there in a minute. Just checking the moon.”
By Major Tom Tolman.
Click to expand...
 
datafuser said:
This MD ad in the 30 April 1973 issue of AW&ST shows a single-seat F-4E with a claim that a look-down/shoot-down radar would soon be added. I guess it just ended up as a proposal that has never been taken up by anybody.View attachment 682718
Click to expand...

So, the single seat F-4 was the F-4(E)F that ended up as the F-4F in Germany. They decided it was cheaper to build the rear cockpit and not use it than to plate it over. They kept the slats, though, and lost Sparrow capacity and one of the fuel cells. Strangest damn Phantom that actually reached service ever, IMO.

There are persistent internet rumors that late versions of AWG-120 added some degree of LD-SD. But I don't know if that is what McAir would be talking about in 1973.
 
TomS said:
datafuser said:
This MD ad in the 30 April 1973 issue of AW&ST shows a single-seat F-4E with a claim that a look-down/shoot-down radar would soon be added. I guess it just ended up as a proposal that has never been taken up by anybody.View attachment 682718
Click to expand...

So, the single seat F-4 was the F-4(E)F that ended up as the F-4F in Germany. They decided it was cheaper to build the rear cockpit and not use it than to plate it over. They kept the slats, though, and lost Sparrow capacity and one of the fuel cells. Strangest damn Phantom that actually reached service ever, IMO.

There are persistent internet rumors that late versions of AWG-120 added some degree of LD-SD. But I don't know if that is what McAir would be talking about in 1973.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that look-down/shoot-down radar could have been Westinghouse WX-200 in development at that time.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1-1973-PUB...-SYSTEM-TEST-ORIGINAL-AD-/301347202571?_ul=IL

Below is from a hearing dated 8 May 1973.

1973.png
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
datafuser said:
This MD ad in the 30 April 1973 issue of AW&ST shows a single-seat F-4E with a claim that a look-down/shoot-down radar would soon be added. I guess it just ended up as a proposal that has never been taken up by anybody.View attachment 682718
Click to expand...

So, the single seat F-4 was the F-4(E)F that ended up as the F-4F in Germany. They decided it was cheaper to build the rear cockpit and not use it than to plate it over. They kept the slats, though, and lost Sparrow capacity and one of the fuel cells. Strangest damn Phantom that actually reached service ever, IMO.

There are persistent internet rumors that late versions of AWG-120 added some degree of LD-SD. But I don't know if that is what McAir would be talking about in 1973.
Click to expand...
Perhaps that would be the aborted CORDS (Coherent On-Receive Doppler System) that was left in the APQ-120 but left disconnected because it could never be made to work by the Westinghouse/Hughes team developing the capability for the radar?

IIRC the story was that CORDS development was lagging when the F-4E with the APQ-120 was fielded so it was disconnected "Until it was fully developed". Then CORDS would be installed in new production aircraft and added to existing aircraft.

But the effort never produced a working capability and eventually fell by the wayside with efforts concentrated on giving F-15s LD-SD capability.
 
F.L. said:
Found this surprising text in an "Air Enthusiast" from March 1974.
View attachment 692340
Click to expand...

Apparently got as far as a test fit with two DEFA replacing the nose M61 (none aft).

F-4E & the 30mm DEFA cannon

Ive recently bought some old bound volumes of Air Enthusiast/ Air International, and while browsing through the March 1974 issue, found the following: The Heyl HaAvir is evaluating a re-armed version of the F-4E Phantom with two 30mm DEFA cannon mounted internally aft of the engine air intakes an...
www.arcforums.com www.arcforums.com
 
datafuser said:
John Hay, Civil Lord of the Admiralty in 1963-1964, said on 2 March 1964 that "Our present information and advice is that the aircraft should be able to operate from "Hermes" after she has undergone her refit."

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1964/mar/02/vote-a-numbers#S5CV0690P0_19640302_HOC_423

Mr. Hay

(snip)

I was asked how many Phantoms we intended to buy and how much the aircraft would cost. I shall not give either the cost or the total numbers. I cannot divulge this information, because it would not be in the public interest and it would be contrary to precedents. I can say a little about the phasing out of the Sea Vixen which the Phantom, if we get it, will replace. We expect the Sea Vixens to be phasing out between the end of the 1960s and the early 1970s. The last carrier to operate Sea Vixens will be "Ark Royal". Phantoms will be operated from "Hermes", "Eagle" and the new carrier when it is built. I say "Hermes", because I made a slip of the tongue when I was interrupted earlier, in my first speech.

The Committee will recollect that I said that we were proposing to embark on a programme of technical evaluation, and one of the things about which we shall have to be completely satisfied is that the Phantom II will be able to operate from these three carriers. Our present information and advice is that the aircraft should be able to operate from "Hermes" after she has undergone her refit.

The hon. Member for Dudley and the hon. Member for Islington, North talked about the engine of the Phantom. The purpose of fitting the Spey engine is to get not a lower, but a better performance. That is why we want the Spey engine, not because we have some special national pride which we wish to satisfy but because we believe and are advised that with the Spey engine the Phantom II will have a better performance than it has now. This is the whole object of the operation and I ask the Committee to accept that.

Mr. Reynolds

According to the hon. Gentleman, it is safe to operate the aircraft with a more powerful engine from a 23,000-ton aircraft carrier, and yet Mr. McNamara has said that it cannot be operated safely with its present engine from a 31,000-ton aircraft carrier. The hon. Gentleman must have seen that speech.

Mr. Hay

I have a great respect and admiration for Mr. McNamara—as I believe every hon. Member must have—but I find it a little galling, whenever I say something at this Box, constantly to have Mr. McNamara's speech to Congress thrown in my face. I have told the Committee that the advice and information we have from those experts upon whom we are entitled to rely is that this aircraft could operate from "Hermes" and the other two carriers that I have mentioned. I must ask the Committee to accept that from me. I cannot be drawn into arguments about what Mr. McNamara has told Congress.

==========

Attached picture shows a USN F-4B Phantom doing touch-and-go on the Hermes.

Found at http://www.axfordsabode.org.uk/pdf-docs/hermes14.pdf
Click to expand...
in the alt-f-11 thread it was worked out that the F-4 COULD get on and off the Hermes at low weights, IIRC something like a light AA load out... the problem is referred to in the phrase "sufficient numbers" in another parliament speech.. you could only carry 8 of them.
 
Great document.

Fighter control pitched voice and over directive attitude probably didn't help much past merge.

Notice also how the Phantom easily ruled in brute acceleration and G over the Mirages that probably had dropped everything and were clean at the time of intercept (the Phantom seems to spiral down what normally would increase his turn radius).

Notice also the poor EW perfomance of Iraqis that weren't apparently able to track this very explicit long radio chat and alert their fighters.

It will be interesting to compare with Yom Kippur Israeli Phantoms kills radio chatters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TomcatViP said:
Great document.

Fighter control pitched voice and over directive attitude probably didn't help much past merge.

Notice also how the Phantom easily ruled in brut acceleration and G over the Mirages that probably had dropped everything and were clean at the time of intercept (the Phantom seems to spiral down what normally would increase his turn radius).

Notice also the poor EW perfomance of Iraqis that weren't apparently able to track this very explicit long radio chat and alert their fighters.

It will be interesting to compare with Yom Kippur Israeli Phantoms kills radio chatters.
Click to expand...
IIRC, the Iraqis used French-built ECM suites on their Mirages to great effect against the Phantom radars during the war, which is likely why the Phantom crew were unable to detect the Mirages on their own and had to be vectored from start to finish.
This didn't really seem to work against the Tomcats though, as the brutishly powerful AWG-9 would simply burn through the jamming and allow the Tomcat crews to engage at long range with Phoenixes, permitted that the missiles were being carried (which they sometimes weren't).
 
I understand that the Phantom is flying with its radar turned off or inoperative. There is no vectoring from the RiO and not a single attempt from ground control to direct them to radar acquisition.
This is why the Mirages are flying relatively at cte heading and speed until merge and not much of a cohesive defensive fight occurs (they are supposed to be 6 against one single interceptor).
 
sferrin said:
RetiredAFGuy said:
sferrin said:
And that was with a catapult. :eek:
Click to expand...

NOT done with a catapult. That photo is a US Air Force F-4E out of Iceland that took off from a quite long runway with its wings folded. Since the F-4E had wings that were manually folded/unfolded by the ground crew, that photo is of a monumental foul-up or somebody intentionally took off that way as a bet or a dare.
Click to expand...
View attachment 621594

Apparently it's happened more than once. :D
Click to expand...
Who was it that said that the Phantom was the “ultimate victory of thrust over aerodynamics?”

Best quote ever.
 
publiusr said:
sferrin said:
RetiredAFGuy said:
sferrin said:
And that was with a catapult. :eek:
Click to expand...

NOT done with a catapult. That photo is a US Air Force F-4E out of Iceland that took off from a quite long runway with its wings folded. Since the F-4E had wings that were manually folded/unfolded by the ground crew, that photo is of a monumental foul-up or somebody intentionally took off that way as a bet or a dare.
Click to expand...
View attachment 621594

Apparently it's happened more than once. :D
Click to expand...
Who was it that said that the Phantom was the “ultimate victory of thrust over aerodynamics?”

Best quote ever.
Click to expand...
Once again, the F-4 is proof that with enough power, even a brick could fly !
Click to expand...
sierrahotel.net

My Wings Are What??

Any pilot, or ground crew, knows the importance making sure that each item on a checklist is properly attended to. Unfortunately as professional as a one wishes to be, we are all vulnerable to one basic and unavoidable truth…that no matter how experienced, and how attentive we are, mistakes can...
sierrahotel.net sierrahotel.net
Click to expand...
 
Not the first-what was that V-tail plane called the Doctor Killer?
 
publiusr said:
Who was it that said that the Phantom was the “ultimate victory of thrust over aerodynamics?”

Best quote ever.
Click to expand...
Moreover the engines inside the F-4 were installed at an angle of about 6 degrees, if this drawing is correct:

F-4E cutaway.jpg

This gives an upward thrust of about 10 % of engine thrust, at the expense of only 0.6 % forward thrust. Pythagoras.
At increased AoA this upward thrust increases further.
 
Note that a few F-8 Crusaders also took off with folded wings (both catapult at night and from land) and most returned for a safe landing.

Also, read the comments in the first link for an A-7E that did the same (and the unsuccessful other A-7 incidents).
https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/2jhuvw
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/2jhuvw/f8_crusader_accidentally_takes_off_with_wings/

gfqf5e26wdf41.png


And the explanation for the photo here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdWings/comments/f00un4
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdWings/comments/f00un4/an_f8_crusader_flying_with_its_wings_folded_1960/


Here one F-8 pilot who forgot to unfold his wings tells the full story, in embarrassing but full detail:
https://www.flightjournal.com/f8-wings-folded/
 
Dagger said:
publiusr said:
Who was it that said that the Phantom was the “ultimate victory of thrust over aerodynamics?”

Best quote ever.
Click to expand...
Moreover the engines inside the F-4 were installed at an angle of about 6 degrees, if this drawing is correct:

View attachment 700200

This gives an upward thrust of about 10 % of engine thrust, at the expense of only 0.6 % forward thrust. Pythagoras.
At increased AoA this upward thrust increases further.
Click to expand...
And that and the droop nose gives it a hunchback look. Ugh
 
Dagger said:
publiusr said:
Who was it that said that the Phantom was the “ultimate victory of thrust over aerodynamics?”

Best quote ever.
Click to expand...
Moreover the engines inside the F-4 were installed at an angle of about 6 degrees, if this drawing is correct:

View attachment 700200

This gives an upward thrust of about 10 % of engine thrust, at the expense of only 0.6 % forward thrust. Pythagoras.
At increased AoA this upward thrust increases further.
Click to expand...
The Phantom's engines were each angled 5 degrees downward and 1/2 degree inward. Using both throttles would cause pitch changes and opposite throttles would cause a roll.
 
publiusr said:
Dagger said:
publiusr said:
Who was it that said that the Phantom was the “ultimate victory of thrust over aerodynamics?”

Best quote ever.
Click to expand...
Moreover the engines inside the F-4 were installed at an angle of about 6 degrees, if this drawing is correct:

View attachment 700200

This gives an upward thrust of about 10 % of engine thrust, at the expense of only 0.6 % forward thrust. Pythagoras.
At increased AoA this upward thrust increases further.
Click to expand...
And that and the droop nose gives it a hunchback look. Ugh
Click to expand...
I'm thinking more like supersonic banana.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom