I was a 10 year old when my father was at RAF Coningsby in 1970 , I can still remember the earth shaking when these flew over our house , great days indeed !
It's hard to appreciate what a behemoth the Phantom was until you've stood next to it. I had an opportunity to see it up close at the US Air Force museum in Dayton, Ohio. The cockpit was easily 8 ft (2.4 m) above ground level. The overall length of the aircraft was more than 60 ft (19 m). One look at the size of the air inlets coupled with an intuitive notion of its size led to the thought: this must have been a very thirsty bird. It's literally the size of a Diesel locomotive.
Phantastic video of a phabulous aircraft. And a great look back at the RAF we had in the 70’s and 80’s - a far cry from the much reduced RAF we have today. I will always remember seeing my first Phantoms whilst on holiday in North Wales near Ruthin in the mid-70’s. We were walking along a ridge line near a golf course, when there was this tremendous sound and the earth shook as a flight of four overflew us, climbing out of the valley below. I distinctly recall the lightning flash on the noses, so I learned in later life that these were from 111 Squadron. Superb machines.
The deck of the Ark Royal was roughly 100 feet shorter than a US Navy Forrestal-class aircraft carrier. Pilots of the Fleet Air Arm must have been trained to a very high level of skill to operate a Phantom on the Ark Royal.
@@montieluckett7036There is no proof of that often quoted 'fact'. VF-12 and VF-17 had completed carrier qualifications 6 months before the Royal Navy got their Corsairs. I suspect that 'fact' comes about because the US Navy said the Corsair wasn't suitable for carrier operations (despite having the aforementioned squadrons qualified, AND later training VF(N)-101) but the Royal Navy proved that it could be done and pressed on with it (largely due to Royal Navy fighters at the time being completely unsuitable) whilst the Americans waited until the F4U-1D which fixed a number of landing issues before introducing the type back to the carriers. For the Royal Navy they desperately needed a capable naval fighter, for the yanks they could just introduce the Hellcat instead and give the Corsair to the Marines who needed something better than the Wildcat. For the Americans they needed to change operating procedures to accommodate the Corsair, the Brits were already doing the curved approach due to the Seafire also having a long nose and poor (but not as poor) visibility of the deck and LSO, but there's no evidence that the US Navy used British influence to get to that solution. If anything it's pretty obvious to the first pilot landing on a carrier that 'hey, maybe I should fly this in a way so I can see the deck rather than just guessing', rather than 'hey, let's wait a year until the Brits can figure it out and make our own squadrons qualify by flying blind'
Grew up in the 70’s in Lakenheath. These would go off two at a time over a 20 minute period. Made the house shake. My dear old dad was on the Ark in 70,s in 809 on the Bucs. Loved the Air arm jets and still remember visits to the Ark at Pompey
Welcome to the scandal that was defence planning in the 1960s. The Navy wanted two large 65,000 fleet carriers to replace its existing fleet carriers (especially as Ark Ark Royal was known to be worn out). But the Treasury wouldn't agree to the costs and eventually the project was cancelled. CVA-01, was the project name, If I recall correctly.
Re the blown tires...the pilot likely missed turning on the Anti Skid in the before landing checklist. Note the tires didn’t blow on touchdown, but later when the pilot tested the brakes following touchdown. The pilot has a lot of company in this checklist omission.
@@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819 Neil It might have been possible to stay clear of the South Atlantic. I haven't got details of the aircraft range, endurance but it had to be better than the Harriers. Plus inflight refueling.
Had the Ark been kept on, there would have been no Falklands War, the costs of which would have paid for 10 modern replacements, plus one extra carrier every 8 years since 1982.
it talks about the Phantom first embarking on Ark Royal in June 1970 trouble is the film is clearly of Phantoms in 1977 as witnessed by the fin mounted RWR and the markings on the nose.
The British Spey-powered Phantoms had more powerful engines than their J-79 powered counterparts, yet were not faster than these. Did they have superior climb and acceleration?
@@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819 Out of interest, what are your figures for the F3's top speed? I see widely differing numbers from different sources - a chap on PPRuNe stated the F3 was sluggish at altitude and you'd really need the burners plugged in to sustain that altitude.
@@SPiderman-rh2zk top speed is a very hard metric to measure in modern aviation, normally the speed is far more limited by either fuel load or structural issues than the actual engines and drag. What is more significant however is acceleration which the tornado had lots of at low altitude
The Brits took a good fighter and turned it into a bomber. I love the Phantom, but they should never have changed out the engines. British politicians again, I think.
It was still an incredibly capable fighter, just at lower altitudes. The speys produced significantly more thrust than the American engines at the time and also produced less smoke. Also the skyflash missiles they were fitted with were significantly more reliable than the sparrow versions the Americans were fielding at the time. Remember in RAF service the lightning was still used for high speed and altitude interception which it would do better than a British or American f4. The engines were a comprise but not to the extreme you say. Also furthermore using Spey engines insured commonality with other FAA aircraft and ensured British jobs.
@Daniel Eyre I never said anything about the avionics or weapon suite of the lightning or phantom. 100% the phantom was far better in that regard and definitely fit the cold war scenario much better. The lightning however had more raw performance than the f4, especially at altitude
Those were they days and given/lent me United States of America of the Royal Navy the legend war plane Phantom to land and take off Ark Royal carrier. Military jets of the 1960s, 70s and80s was the McDonald Douglas F4 Phantom.
The British Spey-powered Phantoms had more powerful engines than their J-79 powered counterparts, yet were not faster than these. Did they have superior climb and acceleration?
The two engines were better than each other in different parts of the flight regimes - Spey at low-level and J79 at altitude. However what really made the difference was that the Spey was a wider engine and the UK Phantoms were redesigned to accommodate that, which made them wider in the rear fuselage meaning more drag and a lower top speed overall than the J79 ones
@@scottmaclean1248 Speed limit on the UK Phantoms due to drag is a load of bollocks!! Real reason was the Compressor Inlet Temperature limits on the Spey (122C) were a lower than the J79 (127C) and the Fuel Control Regulator on the Spey was fitted with a protection systems designed to stop the engine from going over its temperature limits. It clearly states this in the pilot's notes of the aircraft.
My hats off to any RN pilots and deck crew who flew off those tiny carriers. You guys all have balls of STEEL!
great post thank you from an Ark Royal rating 1975-78 now 63 rtd
It’s a tight flight deck with those small carriers, large phantoms and ENORMOUS balls.
It was 50 000 tons AR.
I was a 10 year old when my father was at RAF Coningsby in 1970 , I can still remember the earth shaking when these flew over our house , great days indeed !
👍😁
It's hard to appreciate what a behemoth the Phantom was until you've stood next to it. I had an opportunity to see it up close at the US Air Force museum in Dayton, Ohio.
The cockpit was easily 8 ft (2.4 m) above ground level. The overall length of the aircraft was more than 60 ft (19 m).
One look at the size of the air inlets coupled with an intuitive notion of its size led to the thought: this must have been a very thirsty bird.
It's literally the size of a Diesel locomotive.
It sure was thirsty. Very short range, even with drop tanks. It was hailed as a triumph of thrust over aerodynamics.
The Cockpit was way up in the air with the modified British landing gear. Saw one at the Fleet Air arm museum recently
. @admiralmallard7500 Yes - as I recall, the crew's rear ends would have been 7-8 feet off the tarmac.
Phantastic video of a phabulous aircraft.
And a great look back at the RAF we had in the 70’s and 80’s - a far cry from the much reduced RAF we have today.
I will always remember seeing my first Phantoms whilst on holiday in North Wales near Ruthin in the mid-70’s. We were walking along a ridge line near a golf course, when there was this tremendous sound and the earth shook as a flight of four overflew us, climbing out of the valley below. I distinctly recall the lightning flash on the noses, so I learned in later life that these were from 111 Squadron.
Superb machines.
The deck of the Ark Royal was roughly 100 feet shorter than a US Navy Forrestal-class aircraft carrier. Pilots of the Fleet Air Arm must have been trained to a very high level of skill to operate a Phantom on the Ark Royal.
Well, they were the ones who figured out how to land the the F4-U Corsair aboard an aircraft carrier, and taught the USN how to do it.
@@montieluckett7036There is no proof of that often quoted 'fact'. VF-12 and VF-17 had completed carrier qualifications 6 months before the Royal Navy got their Corsairs.
I suspect that 'fact' comes about because the US Navy said the Corsair wasn't suitable for carrier operations (despite having the aforementioned squadrons qualified, AND later training VF(N)-101) but the Royal Navy proved that it could be done and pressed on with it (largely due to Royal Navy fighters at the time being completely unsuitable) whilst the Americans waited until the F4U-1D which fixed a number of landing issues before introducing the type back to the carriers. For the Royal Navy they desperately needed a capable naval fighter, for the yanks they could just introduce the Hellcat instead and give the Corsair to the Marines who needed something better than the Wildcat.
For the Americans they needed to change operating procedures to accommodate the Corsair, the Brits were already doing the curved approach due to the Seafire also having a long nose and poor (but not as poor) visibility of the deck and LSO, but there's no evidence that the US Navy used British influence to get to that solution. If anything it's pretty obvious to the first pilot landing on a carrier that 'hey, maybe I should fly this in a way so I can see the deck rather than just guessing', rather than 'hey, let's wait a year until the Brits can figure it out and make our own squadrons qualify by flying blind'
They really had no choice did they. Not exactly overflowing with RnD projects.
@@montieluckett7036Nonsense!
Reminds me of playing "Super flight deck" as a kid, Phantom had a rubber nose. Brave folk these Navy Aviators of all Navys
I still remember seeing the F4s which took part in the air race, shortly afterwards at Bentwaters. One of the best Phantom displays I've seen.
The good old Ark Royal, she was such a lovely “war canoe”!
Nice editing of various videos to give a concise history of the Phantom in UK service. Well Done!
So cool to see Royal Navy aircraft on American carriers and vice versa!
Grew up in the 70’s in Lakenheath. These would go off two at a time over a 20 minute period. Made the house shake. My dear old dad was on the Ark in 70,s in 809 on the Bucs. Loved the Air arm jets and still remember visits to the Ark at Pompey
my dad was on 809 squadron but come out in 65
Seeing the sea vixen brought back memories of when I was a boy , looking up into the sky when hearing a jet , it often a vixen
Really quite interesting. Thanks for sharing.
The mighty Phantom alway looked great in Royal Navy colours.....
Hats off to the Navy Phantoms,even the yank navy were impressed by our boys skills and bravado....
Nice video! Love those Phabulous Phantoms!!!👍
Awesome.. thanks from NZ 👍🇳🇿
I love the Phantom. I have no idea why, I'm not an avaitor, but it has always got this civvies juices going.😀
Brilliant video showing history of royal navy phantoms
Great plane but the RN went through all that cost and time to use them for only 8 years?
Welcome to the scandal that was defence planning in the 1960s. The Navy wanted two large 65,000 fleet carriers to replace its existing fleet carriers (especially as Ark Ark Royal was known to be worn out). But the Treasury wouldn't agree to the costs and eventually the project was cancelled.
CVA-01, was the project name, If I recall correctly.
The spay Rolls engine was terrible in response. It would fluctuate on thrust when coming in on a carrier trap
Blowing both tires on the first delivery flight - well done chap.
One thinks he landed with anti skid switched off if memory serves me right.
Digging the music well into the grove man
One of the best birds ever.
Americans must have loved us, burning up their deck with the Spey engines!
We had plenty of antiskid and deck plating for you guys and were ready for a BBQ anytime.
UK armed forces have always have had excellent taste in War Colors.
🔥🔥👍👍🙌🙌🦅🏴☠️✨✨ thank you
The video must be old as I served on phantoms in the 90s, and they were detached to Cyprus during the first gulf.
Sounds like the dalorian time machine from back to the future when it lands
Re the blown tires...the pilot likely missed turning on the Anti Skid in the before landing checklist. Note the tires didn’t blow on touchdown, but later when the pilot tested the brakes following touchdown. The pilot has a lot of company in this checklist omission.
What a difference Carrier based Phantoms would have made to the
The Falklands War.
Triplex 29 if they could launch and land on the flat tops in the mids of the autumnal gales in the South Atlantic. We'll never know for sure,
The Phantom was an awkward plane to land and was replaced on USS and UK carriers for something more suitable
@@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819 Neil
It might have been possible to stay clear of the South Atlantic.
I haven't got details of the aircraft range, endurance but it had to be better than the Harriers.
Plus inflight refueling.
@@petermacpherson3424 That's news to me.
I take it you mean awkward to land on carriers.
Carrier landings are always difficult.
Well thing is the light carriers deployed ddn't have the capacity. In hindsight it was a rather big mistake retiring the Ark Royal.
FLY NAVY!
Personally I fly Emirates!
@@bac1111967 switch to Etihad!
👍👍👍👍
Had the Ark been kept on, there would have been no Falklands War, the costs of which would have paid for 10 modern replacements, plus one extra carrier every 8 years since 1982.
Jazz style music sounds like Steady Eddie the Eddie Stobart lorry cartoon - jaunty baritone sax. Maybe incongruous with the subject matter.
Original soundtrack, the director must have known what he was doing.
Typhoon and Harriers , bad ass.
it talks about the Phantom first embarking on Ark Royal in June 1970 trouble is the film is clearly of Phantoms in 1977 as witnessed by the fin mounted RWR and the markings on the nose.
The British Spey-powered Phantoms had more powerful engines than their
J-79 powered counterparts, yet were not faster than these. Did they have
superior climb and acceleration?
Here You are: ruclips.net/video/9tGDQ4O9IOk/видео.html
Thanks
thanks
Military jets of the 1960s, 70s and 80s was the McDonald Douglas F4 Phantom.
👍👍👍👍👍
the rationale behind Royal Navy's shift from CATOBAR aircraft carrier to STOVL aircraft carrier . . . why???
The slowest F 4 but is nice
They would have the harriers did one hell of a job though
Until today, I had no idea that the RAF operated the F-4
Tea lord?
What I don’t understand is who gives this a thumbs down 👎??? If you don’t like it... don’t watch it!
Funny,i was told the F4 was 100 mph faster with the Spey engine.1500 mph and 1600mph with the spey engine.
Spey's more powerfull than J79
Both of you are right. An ex Phantom pilot told me it 'choked' the engine, but improved low level performance.
Peter Lloyd at what altitude? The Tornado F.3 was faster than the F-15 but only at low level, at all other levels it was slower.
@@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819 Out of interest, what are your figures for the F3's top speed? I see widely differing numbers from different sources - a chap on PPRuNe stated the F3 was sluggish at altitude and you'd really need the burners plugged in to sustain that altitude.
@@SPiderman-rh2zk top speed is a very hard metric to measure in modern aviation, normally the speed is far more limited by either fuel load or structural issues than the actual engines and drag.
What is more significant however is acceleration which the tornado had lots of at low altitude
Grandad lore
What are you on about?
@@bac1111967 my grandad
0:32 "Sint Louis" 🤦♂️
0:48 "Sint Louie" 🤦♂️🤦♂️
In the day's when men were men, planes were planes and sheep were some what worried..
The Brits took a good fighter and turned it into a bomber. I love the Phantom, but they should never have changed out the engines. British politicians again, I think.
It was still an incredibly capable fighter, just at lower altitudes. The speys produced significantly more thrust than the American engines at the time and also produced less smoke. Also the skyflash missiles they were fitted with were significantly more reliable than the sparrow versions the Americans were fielding at the time.
Remember in RAF service the lightning was still used for high speed and altitude interception which it would do better than a British or American f4.
The engines were a comprise but not to the extreme you say. Also furthermore using Spey engines insured commonality with other FAA aircraft and ensured British jobs.
Benters weird I commented on this very comment months ago and it has disappeared. A lot of my comments strangle disappear these days...
@Daniel Eyre I never said anything about the avionics or weapon suite of the lightning or phantom. 100% the phantom was far better in that regard and definitely fit the cold war scenario much better. The lightning however had more raw performance than the f4, especially at altitude
Those were they days and given/lent me United States of America of the Royal Navy the legend war plane Phantom to land and take off Ark Royal carrier. Military jets of the 1960s, 70s and80s was the McDonald Douglas F4 Phantom.
The British Spey-powered Phantoms had more powerful engines than their
J-79 powered counterparts, yet were not faster than these. Did they have
superior climb and acceleration?
The two engines were better than each other in different parts of the flight regimes - Spey at low-level and J79 at altitude. However what really made the difference was that the Spey was a wider engine and the UK Phantoms were redesigned to accommodate that, which made them wider in the rear fuselage meaning more drag and a lower top speed overall than the J79 ones
@@scottmaclean1248 Speed limit on the UK Phantoms due to drag is a load of bollocks!! Real reason was the Compressor Inlet Temperature limits on the Spey (122C) were a lower than the J79 (127C) and the Fuel Control Regulator on the Spey was fitted with a protection systems designed to stop the engine from going over its temperature limits. It clearly states this in the pilot's notes of the aircraft.