pace51
Boom?
+194|5388|Markham, Ontario
OK, since my plane discussions turn into RWF Threads, I'll just post the good old RWF threads from now on.

Real world facts about the F-4B Phantom II (Featured in Vietnam)
I will try to put out guides concerning the F-4G and the RF-4 Variants.

This plane is pure awesomeness.
Discuss. Oh and, there are explosions below. Oorah.

Powered by: Dual 79.65 kN General Electric J79-8A afterburning turbojets
Max. Speed: 2390 Km/H
Radius: 1450 Km
Manufacturer: McDonell Douglas
Range: 3700 Km
Armament: 4 aim-7 Sparrow missiles and 4 AIM-9 Sidewinder AA (Air to Air) missiles, and various AG munitions.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/52201/0303017_3.jpg


     The F4PhantAwesome. The most famous American fighter of the Vietnam war, this napalm dropping (Here’s an explosion)

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/52201/3671060.jpg

     Mig killing, ground-strafing fighter came out in the early 1960’s. It was developed due to a US navy request for a long range interceptor that could defend it’s carrier’s. This plane was superior to other fighters in almost every single way. It was the fastest, farthest reaching, most powerful fighter at the time. The US navy did the natural thing and showed it off. Aand then, Vietnam hit.

     Phantoms carried out some of the first air strikes in ‘Nam, and still carried out missions when the war ended 12 years later. It was challenging for the Pilot and the RIO (Radar Intercept Officer) to take off and land from the carrier, especially on night raids. The phantom’s fought north Vietnamese mig-17’s and also fought the USSR’s brand new MIG-21, an interceptor arguably just as famous as the Phantom. The Mig-21 was the AK-47 of the sky, everybody started acquiring them. So, the Phantom’s had a challenge. The only Navy fighter ace during Vietnam used a Phantom. The US marine’s operated land based F-4’s from South Vietnamese bases.

     It was eventually retired in 1980. However, theres a reason it was the best fighter in ‘Nam. In May 1972, two US pilots from the VF-161 Chargers took on 2 Russian supplied North Vietnamese Mig-19’s. Also in may, Lt Curt Dose took out a mig-19 with his Phantom, shooting a sidewinder up it’s tailpipe. Also in May, Lt Robert Hughes shot down a Mig-21 “Fishbed” (NATO Codename) with his Phantom. His wingman also got a kill, before they returned to the USS Kitty Hawk.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/52201/234528~American-F-4C-Phantom-Jet-Streaming-Contrails-After-Bombing-Viet-Cong-Stronghold-During-Vietnam-War-Posters.jpg
     The F4 carried out various bombing campaigns, using munitions like the Mk 82 bombs, and napalm. The F-4 Featured a Westinghouse APQ-72 Radar. The F-4’s AIM-7 sparrow was a devastating missile, and very effective. When it worked. It was prone to malfunctioning. The sidewinder gave the F-4 an edge in dogfights, although the F-4, as an interceptor, primarily engaged targets at medium range using sparrow missiles, when things go as planned. Usually they didn’t, though, in Vietnam. There weren’t always enough attack aircraft available, but the crew’s viciously despised being sent on bombing sortie’s. Some time’s, the F-4 carried drop tanks or wing fuel tanks, which are pretty similar, though the latter were uncommon. The phantom was nicknamed “Double ugly”, because of the bulky twin J-79 engines. By the 1970’s, the Navy re-equipped, and replaced the F-4B Phantom II with F-4J Phantom’s. These new models were much improved, which really says a lot.

     Only large carrier’s could operate phantom’s, the Essex class were to small for these fighters. In the 1970’s F-14 Tomcats replaced the F-4 phantom’s.

Here are my sources:

American military aircraft: A history of innovation- General Editor Jim Winchester
Fighter Aircraft by Francis Crosby

Last edited by pace51 (2010-04-20 11:23:47)

Eagle
Togs8896 is my evil alter ego
+567|6846|New Hampshire, USA
I looooove the F4

btw is that pic from bf vietnam?
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/14407/Sig_Pats.jpg
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,741|6952|Oxferd Ohire

pace51 wrote:

This plane is pure awesomeness.
/agree
<3 the F-4 I have a poster of it
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
Dauntless
Admin
+2,249|6957|London

hmmm
https://imgur.com/kXTNQ8D.png
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6922|67.222.138.85
..except that it was shit to fly, and didn't even have a machine gun. Nearly useless in a dog fight.

This plane was dick. Hardly a good example of American military aviation engineering.
some_random_panda
Flamesuit essential
+454|6606

Please learn how to use apostrophes properly.  Other than that, alright thread.
loubot
O' HAL naw!
+470|6793|Columbus, OH

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

..except that it was shit to fly, and didn't even have a machine gun. Nearly useless in a dog fight.

This plane was dick. Hardly a good example of American military aviation engineering.
There was a 30% chance the short range heat seeking missiles hit their mark. The medium range radar guided sparrow missiles were really poop-on-a-stick; their sole mission was to fall to the earth as soon as they were released. The Navy and/or Airforce ingenuity eventually added a gun-pod to the bottom of the F-4.
Sydney
2λчиэλ
+783|7059|Reykjavík, Iceland.

pace51 wrote:

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/52201/3671060.jpg
BFV
loubot
O' HAL naw!
+470|6793|Columbus, OH
That will show em from putting those grass huts so close to the water
13rin
Member
+977|6694

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

..except that it was shit to fly, and didn't even have a machine gun. Nearly useless in a dog fight.

This plane was dick. Hardly a good example of American military aviation engineering.
A version of the F-4 had the first and only supersonic gun kill.

It did have a primitive radar and guided weapons system though. 

Below is the complete recount from the pilot who did it.  He pulled 9+ g's in a supersonic dive as well (@ 3:22 in).

He goes supersonic @ 6:15 in and @ 7:55 the cannon kill occurs.  The entire video is amazing.  I tip my hat to him.

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2010-04-15 18:04:37)

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
loubot
O' HAL naw!
+470|6793|Columbus, OH
Dog Fight is the ultimate FAP material
13rin
Member
+977|6694

loubot wrote:

Dog Fight is the ultimate FAP material
Meet Ricard Candeleria then... Oh he had several other kills that day.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
cl4u53w1t2
Salon-Bolschewist
+269|6688|Kakanien
napalm death - best band ever
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6922|67.222.138.85
Of course soldiers did great things with it, but it was despite the plane.

wiki wrote:

The Phantom gathered a number of nicknames during its career. Some of these names included "Rhino", "Double Ugly",[97]  the "Flying Anvil", "Flying Footlocker", "Flying Brick", "Lead Sled", the "Big Iron Sled" and the "St. Louis Slugger".[98]  In recognition of its record of downing large numbers of Soviet-built MiGs,[99]  it was called the "World’s Leading Distributor of MiG Parts"[97]  As a reflection of excellent performance in spite of bulk, it was dubbed "the triumph of thrust over aerodynamics."[100]  German  Luftwaffe  crews called their F-4s the Eisenschwein ("Iron Pig"), Fliegender Ziegelstein ("Flying Brick") and Luftverteidigungsdiesel ("Air Defense Diesel").[101]
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6438|Escea

loubot wrote:

That will show em from putting those grass huts so close to the water
And Charlie Don't Surf!
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5689|Ventura, California
Vietnam era AA missiles were a bad joke. The only reliable thing they had was their cannons, and until the G model they could only have gun pods, which could take up a hard point they would have used for fuel.

I like the F4, but it's not going onto my favorites list because of the bad weapons they had.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6626|'Murka

Proof that with large enough engines, even a brick can fly.

FM wrote:

Of course soldiers airmen did great things with it, but it was despite the plane.
fixed

But it was still better than just about anything else...for its time. My fave for the period is still the F-105, though.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6922|67.222.138.85
Considering the amount of money we have dumped into defense spending during and after WWII, it would be a travesty if it wasn't.

I'm just saying this wasn't exactly our finest moment in engineering.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6626|'Murka

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Considering the amount of money we have dumped into defense spending during and after WWII, it would be a travesty if it wasn't.

I'm just saying this wasn't exactly our finest moment in engineering.
It was actually quite an engineering feat. Well beyond anything else flying at the time. Too much blame for its performance is placed on the missile systems it was mated with, rather than the aircraft itself. Its use as the platform of choice for both the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels aerial demonstration squadrons shows it was no slouch WRT maneuverability and stability. Its radar and avionics were quite advanced for its time.

The missile systems just sucked for dogfighting--something they really weren't designed for to begin with. Keep in mind when these systems were designed: the 1950s and 60s. The height of the Cold War. When the primary threat was massive bomber formations coming over the poles. Massive, slow/non-maneuvering bombers. Those missiles work/worked great against those types of targets. When you have a target that "has a vote" in the matter, it's a different story. But that wasn't the situation the designers thought they would be facing when those systems (to include the F-4) were developed--hence no gun. Clearly, reality (after the design was well-entrenched) proved to be quite a bit different than projections. Missiles designed for large, slow, non-maneuverable bombers don't work as well against small, fast, maneuverable fighters (nor do tactics for the same). When you're out of missiles and you don't have a gun, you go home. The lack of gun decision was self-critiquing at that point.

Notice none of that had anything to do with radar, avionics, speed, maneuverability, reliability, or anything else specific to the F-4 (other than the no-gun decision). Different aircraft have their own strengths and weaknesses. That's where tactics and training of aircrews to leverage strengths and minimize weaknesses come into play. Knowing your own as well as the adversaries' and applying them in the fight (which led to RED FLAG and TOP GUN).

But now I digress...
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6922|67.222.138.85
Yes I realize the air to air missiles were terrible, but ignoring that the maneuverability of the plane was astoundingly poor. As the wiki said, it was a feat of thrust over aerodynamics. I really don't see how that is a bragging point. It's like saying you brute forced the encryption...yay for you.

No thought, no finesse.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6626|'Murka

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Yes I realize the air to air missiles were terrible, but ignoring that the maneuverability of the plane was astoundingly poor. As the wiki said, it was a feat of thrust over aerodynamics. I really don't see how that is a bragging point. It's like saying you brute forced the encryption...yay for you.

No thought, no finesse.
The maneuverability of the plane was not "astoundingly poor"--otherwise, the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels wouldn't have selected it as their demonstration aircraft for 4 and 5 years, respectively (only replaced, due to fuel costs, by smaller, lighter aircraft). Oh, and it wouldn't have had a 2.5-to-1 kill ratio over "more maneuverable" aircraft if it were so "astoundingly poor", given the armament situation.

If it was such a shit aircraft, it wouldn't have been so venerable (and still in use today).

Yes, I made a jab at it--it's ugly as a bowling shoe--but it is truly a marvel.

Last edited by FEOS (2010-04-16 11:12:35)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6214|Vortex Ring State
Doctrine sucked, Plane was built to doctrine, plane sucked.

Airframe was OK, only reason Luftwaffe still uses them is cause they've basically rebuilt the entire plane.

It's like the Harrier II vs. the original Harrier, it's that different.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6626|'Murka

Trotskygrad wrote:

Doctrine sucked, Plane was built to doctrine, plane sucked.

Airframe was OK, only reason Luftwaffe still uses them is cause they've basically rebuilt the entire plane.

It's like the Harrier II vs. the original Harrier, it's that different.
Doctrine doesn't decide aircraft design, it informs initial employment concepts. Operational lessons learned lead to tactics development which improve employment, which in turn improves doctrine.

Doctrine and system design are not related.

As to the planes basically being rebuilt by the Luftwaffe and others: of course. They have to be because shit wears out. The US is re-winging the A-10 and C-130 for the same reason. Doesn't mean the A-10 and C-130 sucked, now does it? Gutting the aircraft doesn't change its basic design, which means it must still be considered pretty damn sound for people to still be using it today with engine and avionics upgrades.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6214|Vortex Ring State

FEOS wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

Doctrine sucked, Plane was built to doctrine, plane sucked.

Airframe was OK, only reason Luftwaffe still uses them is cause they've basically rebuilt the entire plane.

It's like the Harrier II vs. the original Harrier, it's that different.
Doctrine doesn't decide aircraft design, it informs initial employment concepts. Operational lessons learned lead to tactics development which improve employment, which in turn improves doctrine.

Doctrine and system design are not related.

As to the planes basically being rebuilt by the Luftwaffe and others: of course. They have to be because shit wears out. The US is re-winging the A-10 and C-130 for the same reason. Doesn't mean the A-10 and C-130 sucked, now does it? Gutting the aircraft doesn't change its basic design, which means it must still be considered pretty damn sound for people to still be using it today with engine and avionics upgrades.
Well engine upgrades can dramatically improve the performance of most aircraft.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6626|'Murka

Trotskygrad wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

Doctrine sucked, Plane was built to doctrine, plane sucked.

Airframe was OK, only reason Luftwaffe still uses them is cause they've basically rebuilt the entire plane.

It's like the Harrier II vs. the original Harrier, it's that different.
Doctrine doesn't decide aircraft design, it informs initial employment concepts. Operational lessons learned lead to tactics development which improve employment, which in turn improves doctrine.

Doctrine and system design are not related.

As to the planes basically being rebuilt by the Luftwaffe and others: of course. They have to be because shit wears out. The US is re-winging the A-10 and C-130 for the same reason. Doesn't mean the A-10 and C-130 sucked, now does it? Gutting the aircraft doesn't change its basic design, which means it must still be considered pretty damn sound for people to still be using it today with engine and avionics upgrades.
Well engine upgrades can dramatically improve the performance of most aircraft.
True, but that doesn't change the nature of the basic design of the aircraft--the aerodynamics. It does affect the maneuverability, but all aircraft go through engine upgrades during their lifetimes, that is nothing new or unique to the F-4--and it is still bound by the basic design of the aircraft.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard