052 - F-4 Phantom II (part 1)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 июл 2019
- Few aircraft so prominently define their eras as the McDonell F-4 Phantom II does the 1960s and the Vietnam conflict. Initially imagined as a fighter and later an interceptor, the Phantom II eventually entered service as a fighter-bomber that set numerous speed and altitude records, was responsible for much of the bombing and air-to-air kills over Vietnam, and was later used extensively in SEAD and reconnaissance roles. The F-4 was a truly versatile-and effective-aircraft.
On this episode, former US Navy F-4 Phantom pilot Rear Admiral John “Tiger” Kerr and RIO Captain Jack “Fingers” Ensch, both since retired, join us to answer our standard ‘aircraft series’ questions on this iconic aircraft and what it was like to fly and fight it. They return on the next episode to continue the stimulating discussion.
This week, hosts Jell-O and Sunshine catch up on phoned-in listener questions offering advice for getting the most out of the ROTC program, answering when we will feature certain aircraft on the show, opining on career paths for TOPGUN graduates, and discussing what happens when military aircraft crash into civilian infrastructure.
Bumper music by Jaime Lopez / announcements by Clint Bell. Episode artwork by Janek Krause. 
Наука
One of my absolute favorite planes of all time. Fast, powerful, highly advanced for its time, as omnirole as its technology would allow, surprisingly maneuverable, and unconventionally beautiful. It defined the air services of the US and our many allies for many years.
Great summary. Shoot, I could have used that in episode description!
I Cant believe they took my drunk call in! 😂
You are a good talker bud.
Minimal slurring, good job!
You're not drunk unless you admit it (or someone catches you).
This has been my first podcast and I really enjoyed it and have watched many more since listening to this in the space of two days, I don't know why its taken this long to find a channel like what you and Sunshine have but I'm glad I finally did.
I hope you get an chance to interview those involved with aircraft such as the Space Shuttle, YF23, F-15 Variants, Eurofighter Typhoon, Harrier jumpjet, Avro bomber, maybe even some Soviet pilots that flew famous aircraft like the MIG 31 Foxhound or Foxbat and perhaps some older generation ww2 vets, I'd love to hear stories about the Spitfire and P38 Lightning etc. All in good time :), keep up the good work!
As a guy who couldn't serve I still got to have a lot of exposure to the Phantom. Kaneohe Bay, Hickham AFB and also Portland Oregons ANG C models. Love the howl of the J79. The museum in McMinneville has "Miss Piggy", the F-4c that was the only Phantom to shoot down three Migs with all three weapons systems: Sidewinder, Sparrow and the pod mounted 20mm.
That's quite a feat!
I’m glad I found this channel. Fantastic work. As an aside, love the left, right, middle audio separation.
Thank you for doing the F-4, my dad was a USAF F-4 crew chief for many years in the 70’s and knows that aircraft inside and out, he really loved the F-4 and I inherited that love for the F-4. I have fond memories of seeing the battle damage repair F-4 parked in his hangar. He also had many years on the F-111, would love to hear a show on this unique aircraft that pioneered much of the technology that has become incorporated on other airplanes. My uncle who is now retired from the airlines also flew F-111’s during the Vietnam era.
We're certainly on the lookout for Aardvark pilots willing to be on the show...
The Fighter Pilot Podcast I’ll reach out to my uncle and let him know, he also flew A-10’s in the 80’s and early 90’s
My brother flew C-130's in the Airforce. He now flies for American Airlines and recently became Left seat Qualified..he flies out of Dallas.. He loves LOVES hangliding and has 2 Ulta Lights. Anyways Just about all pilots are engineers (my dad was an a Mechanical engineer for Pratt & Whitney).. my brother went to Emory Ridddle.. anyways pilots are amazing people good luck to all.
Thanks, Lauren. While many pilots did indeed study engineering in college, many study other subjects: I was a math major and I know many political science or history majors. Our episode 5 guest Fitz "Dud" Lee was a music major.
Lauren Middleton
Most of the Apollo Astronauts are a good example of what you're saying.
@@dukecraig2402 (now, all that said, I bet engineers have an advantage!)
@@FighterPilotPodcast
Oh most certainly, that's why test pilots with engineering backgrounds were selected to be astronauts instead of "seat of the pants" test pilots like Yeager, a far less glamorous example would be when I went to truck driving school, I had already been a mechanic who had worked on trucks and had been inside the non-synchronized transmissions that they used, I had no problems shifting them using the infamous "double clutching" that's required to match gear speeds to get them into gear, the instructors at the school were like "Come on, you've driven before haven't you?", and I explained to them that having been inside of the transmissions and understanding how they work I can picture everything inside my mind about what's going on in them and why double clutching is necessary, meanwhile most of the other students struggled with shifting because what was going on inside the transmission was a total mystery that they couldn't get their heads wrapped around.
@@FighterPilotPodcast Just beware of the gender studies majors. lol
Great Ep guys, and big thanks to Tiger and Fingers for their time and more importantly their service. Looking forward to part 2.
Thanks. Have not yet decided when to release it--leaning towards next Monday.
Was thrilled to see the Phantom on deck..Great episode..Looking forward to part 2
Available now on our Patreon page for only $2! (just sayin' 😎)
www.patreon.com/posts/28520351
Really interesting podcast, heard about this channel from Aircrew Interview so well worth taking a look! Saw a pair of Turkish Air Force Phantoms fly over my house last week on their way to RAF Fairford for the airshow there last weekend!! Are you planning on going into more detail on the UK operated F4's given how different they were to the other variants?
Jack Ensch! Since we couldn't have Mugs, we get the other half of that unbeatable team. Thanks so much!
well, 9/10 of the other half! ...sorry, bad joke. (Oh yeah, you haven't heard how he earned his callsign yet, that's coming up in part 2...)
Great episode! The podcast flew buy and I was really paying attention and was not ready for it to end. The hour flew by. I'll have to listen to this again if it's going to be a week before you release part 2 just to review all the information.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks, Daniel. Yeah, we're leaning towards next Monday, July 29.
really lovin these podcasts!
🙏
Fingers was IG at CNET when I was there as a stash Ensign waiting for flight school. Wish I would have had a greater appreciation back then for the privilege of serving in the same command.
It's very interesting to see how fast design philosophies change and how they change back. The Phantom design began barely a decade after the end of WWII and within 5 years of Korea, two wars in which gunfighting was the only option, and the state of the art fighters were designed with that function mind. Both the P-51 and the F-85, for example, had bubble canopies with good visibility and were stable gun platforms. Overoptimistic thinking about missile technology coupled with supersonic flight advances led quickly to abandoning those principles and building supersonic interceptors with BVR capability and lousy visibility. Vietnam taught us that Sometime The Old Ways Are Best, and the F/A-18, F-16, and other 70s fighter designs all went back to organic guns and bubble canopies. Along comes stealth tech and here we are again, believing that finally dogfights will go away in the face of newer sensor and networking capability with the F-35. Although I suspect it's a better dogfighter than people think, who knows? I am guessing the Israeli Air Force will show us sooner or later.
We also thought we had learned the lesson of trying to make jack-of-all-trades aircraft like the F-4 instead of dedicated role aircraft like the F-14. Sec Def McNamara caught a lot of hate over the years regarding his decisions to save money by forcing the Navy/Marines and Air Force to buy the same airframes. The F-4 turned out to be a pretty good weapons system after all, but there were always complaints about how it was never the best at anything, hence the later mix of F-15s andF-16s, along with the Navy's mix of F-14s and F/A-18s. Now we have come full circle again with the F-35 being pushed on not only all three services, but on American allies as well, and even it turns out to work wonderfully, nobody would ever accuse it of saving money, even with a large number of units produced the development hell was long and pricey.
Fascinating that there doesn't seem to be a steady philosophy when it comes to force structure and procurement in the US Defense Department, despite decades of experience to draw from.
Grumman did design bomb carrying capabilities into the F-14 and it eventually served as a strike aircraft during the 90's.
Let's not forget that the F-16 originated from an extremely limited day light-fighter concept and now it's one of the most succesful aircraft despite being a multirole.
Thanks for the great podcasts. Regarding F-4 armament, in the Air Force we also carried the AGM-45 Shrike, AGM-78 Standard ARM and AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missiles and the AGM-65 Maverick missile.
Did we not mention those? Thought we did (or I did)...
@@FighterPilotPodcast I didn't hear it but I could have missed it. It could also carry a tactical nuke.
@@khcp1 Gotcha.
Oh man! This is awesome!
🙏
F-4 Phantom Records and Absolute Stats that I'm aware of --
Design Speed - Mach 2.3+; in service generally Mach 2.2; greater speed restrictions in later models because of wing modifications to improve handling and increase maneuverability
The E, G, and S (modernized J-models) were generally not as fast as the earlier F-4A/B/C/D models because of the wing modifications. The leading edge slats on the later models increased drag and reduced speed. The F-4N was a modernized B-model rebuilt to increase service life but did not have the latest avionics upgrades or revamped wing of the S-model (which was patterned after the E-wing; the main structural differences between the E-model and S besides built-in gun exclusive to the E/F-models would have been powered hydraulic fold for the wing on the Navy S-model).
I've seen Mach 2.4 quoted as the limit for the F-4B but in all honesty anytime they went above Mach 2.3 they were risking the engines. The limit there was on the temperature of the air entering the engines.
The speed, climb, and altitude records of the F-4 were set in the prototypes (XF4H-1), A, and B-models.
The second prototype F-4 (XF4H-1; colloquially an "A" model; this plane may still exist, at least the forward fuselage) set the absolute speed record of Mach 2.62 for the type. It flew to approximately 1700mph but that wasn't counted in the average airspeed the plane flew which was about 1606mph. There were two main dangers this plane (nicknamed "Skyburner") faced. One was melting the engines which was dealt with in the form of a water inlet injection system that cooled the air entering the engines and increased the redline speed. That was a one-time modification for the second prototype, not standard for production F-4s. They actually proposed using a modified form of this system for an Israeli model called the F-4X but that program never went beyond talks. The other big danger they didn't really tackle was the canopy. Even today, any time a plane exceeds Mach 2.3, the bubble canopy will heat up and can begin to soften -- it will melt. That's what ultimately limits time above Mach 2.4+ (IF you don't melt the engines first!!!!). There is no fighter that's flown faster than Mach 2.6 that can legitimately be called a dogfighter. Supposedly the F-14 matched the speed record set by the #2 F-4 with one of the F-14 prototypes. The F-15 came very close to the same speed with one of its pre-production planes, too.
A later production A-model set the low altitude speed record, an average 902mph flying above 125ft altitude. One of the planes assigned to this record attempt disintegrated and killed its pilot. The surviving test plane (nicknamed "Sageburner") is in the archives of the Smithsonian; it's in storage waiting to be restored and displayed.
The B-models set the climb-to-altitude/acceleration records for the F-4. One of these test planes was flown by the late astronaut Cmdr. John Young during his Navy test pilot days.
The maximum altitude reached by the F-4 was 98,400ft. That was set by another A- or B-model.
The normal G-limit of the F-4 was around +7.6G's (lower weights) but they didn't normally go above +6, 6.5G's unless in combat. The normal turn capability of the F-4 is nowhere near what a Fourth-Generation American plane can do. It's G-limited by frame strength and aerodynamics. All the Fourth-Generation planes have superior handling -- roll, pitch, and turn are faster than the F-4 but there was a renewed emphasis on handling after the experience of the F-4 in Vietnam! The F-14A, which is considered THE WEAKEST-turning fourth Generation American plane, still has at least 40% better turn capability than an F-4. The F-14B and D models with the higher-thrust F110 engines are even better. All the Fourth Generation planes are capable of +9G's instaneous, +7.5G's sustained; the negative G-capability (normal) ranges from -2G (F-16) to -3 (F-15, F-18). All these Fourth-Generation have exceeded their design limits easily and survived brief excursions to at least +10G's (F-15, F-16; an F-15 did +10G's in the first Gulf War) and even to -5.5G's (F-14) without serious overstressing. They normally stay well within turn and speed limits to extend service life.
An F-16 is capable of turning at least twice as fast an F-4 AND turning in half the radius of an F-4 starting at Mach 0.9 for both planes... this was graphically demonstrated by an early production F-16 against a slatted F-4E model! That photo has been published in many books and magazines.
The normal G-limit of a LOW-loaded F-4 was 8G's in later models but in a few emergencies some F-4s survived brief excursions to at least +10G's. The planes that overstressed at +10G's popped rivets and even shed slats. These planes were recovered (aboard carriers?) and repaired.
I watched something on prime about a bomber pilot that hiked to Switzerland.... It was amazing
Hi , possible to make comparison of all the stealth aircrafts in services? Your personal views with regards to the pro and cons of the design involved, and what do u think will be the advantage of any particular model? Thks
Great episode, chaps!
🙏
Now this is a plane worthy of being released on my B day!
Happy birthday, Moe!
The Memphis Belle has been fully restored and is now at the USAF museum in Dayton, OH.
Excellent!
That’s freaking awesome!
Awesome episode as always. I think F4's are probbaly the most muscular looking fighters of them al.
Hellenic air force still use F4 PHANTOM for bombing missions
Hellenic F-4E's are beautiful
Are their F-4s were really slaved with AMRAAM?
because i wonder which stations it is carrying on?
Does anyone know what happened to the second F-4 prototype, the XF4H-1 "Skyburner" (BuNo 142260)?
I was led to believe that at least part of the fuselage survived into the 1990s but now there's a claim that an F-4A -- the third actual F-4 ever built -- is THE oldest F-4 still in existence.
What happened to Skyburner? Was it eventually scrapped, or is it waiting in a hangar to be restored?
I read in the early 2000s that some aviation (parts?) company owned what was left of Skyburner. Their listing said "fuselage" without specifying more. It could be the wings in addition to the engines (or most of the airframe behind the cockpit area) were removed. It was a vague listing/description of the airframe. There was another claim in a BuNo listing of F-4s that the Skyburner airframe ended up at Gillespie Field, the San Diego Air & Space Museum Annex/restoration facility.
The F-4 Phantom was one gorgeous bird.
"is" 😎
I'm late 2 years but better late than never. Here in Greece we still operate the F4-E. We took the first aircrafts in 1975 and also in 1977 we took a bunch of RF4s. In the 90s we heavily upgraded 2 squadrons of F4-Es with AUP upgrade as well as the Peace Icarus II program. In late 90s we again upgraded the F4-Es to Peace Icarus 2000.We never got smokeless J79s. We still using the original smoky one but we overhaul them frequently.Those aircraft still operate today out of 117 Airforce base in Andravida with the 338 Ares Squadron and it's the only remaining squadron with the F4. Most other squadrons retired their aircraft in order to support other aircrafts with parts. In my local airbase in the 110 Airforce Base the 348 EYES squadron operated the RF4s in the tactical reconnaissance role and the 337 GHOST squadron operated the F4E and the F4E-SRA. Most of the aircrafts in those squadrons are retired and 348 squadron last flight was at 5th May 2017. It was a regular sight everyday and night having the F4 flying above my house. Such a beast.
Excellent!
Where did you get your RF-4's from? Were they new?
@@jcheck6 We took 8 brand new in 1980 and 27 used in 1993 from former Western German Stock.
@@ceedee9186 Thanks! I flew them out of Zweibrucken AB in the late 70's.
great 2 old gentlemen
Junkers is pronounced as "Yooon-kers" . Love this channel
Not for everyone.
dan kuettel
You're bonkers for Junkers!!!
Sir, is that Captain Ensch whose also flying the MiG-17?
Which were brought over to American possession by a North Korean defector?
Also, some exported Phantoms were modified to employ AMRAAM, but whether it's true or not, does the AMRAAM would take the same places the Sparrow canted onto?
Thank you, sir
"Fingers" Ensch was an NFO, not a pilot, so I highly doubt it.
Sepecat Jaguar's tail over exhaust is a carbon copy of F4 Phanton.
41:35 discussion about why they didn't want the gun
Fortunate son intsnsives also this is my 20th time listening to this
Thank you!
@@FighterPilotPodcast I’ve watched the f 14 episode about 100 times but then again I’m a top gun addict
@@o_gpotterhead 👍
Man I got a bit worried when I saw only an hour long episode..... not gonna lie :D
Part two is a little over an hour also!
@@FighterPilotPodcast hoooooooly.... I wasn't expecting that much, now you got me super excited. You know how to tease!
@@samivwow It's available now on our Patreon page for only a couple bucks if you can't wait! 😊
www.patreon.com/posts/fpp053-f-4-ii-2-28520351
The issue of the aircraft with a gun in Viet Nam was not just a matter of results. Once the Phantom had a gun it significantly altered the tactics of the the North Vietnamese pilots. Prior to the gun they would stay inside missle minimum range where they had a significant advantage in maneuverability.
Interesting point.
I don't know if you tried or not, but I bet if you reached out to Tom Cruise you could get him on to talk about his P51.
Maybe. We have a guest lined up to discuss the Mustang whose father was a Tuskegee Airman.
@@FighterPilotPodcast That sounds awesome. Can't wait.
Man the fighter pilot podcast deserves this type of reach tbh
24:30 for the start of the actual interview.
👍
Jello, you didn't explore the F-4K (UK) powered by Speys.
Guilty as charged.
The USAF Wild Weasel version was the F-4G, not the C. Great podcast
There was a Wild Weasel F-4C variant called the EF-4C, and a handful of them actually saw action alongside the F-105Gs during Linebacker II. The EF-4C led the Air Force to develop the APR-38 (later APR-47) weasel avionics to be utilized in F-4E airframes to become the F-4G Advanced Wild Weasel.
www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f4_8.html
24:48
hoofed someone’s sassy
@@justingallegos1941 A timecode for the interview is “sassy”?
I keep hearing in my mind "If you can't take a joke..."
I volunteer with several Vietnam era pilots including a great F-4 pilot who flew with VMFA-115 Silver Eagles. Long story short they want to close the museum where these guys come to share history and tell stories like the one in this video. If you can help save it that would be awesome: SupportMarineCorpsAviation.org. It would also be awesome if you ever get time to interview some of these pilots. One pilot got past medical with a thumb that couldn't bend and ended up using in his index finger to work the coolie hat. Another pilot was in a squadron that took their mascot (a tomcat) on 20 missions so he could get an air metal. You can't make this stuff up.
The intakes of the MIG-23 Flogger are a reverse engineered copy of the F-4's.
Sounds about right.
@@FighterPilotPodcast
I was a Vulcan gunner in the Army back in the 80's, an old Army buddy of mine that lives in Texas just bought a MIG-23 and I took a motorcycle trip down to see him (from Pennsylvania), when I walked into that hangar and looked at that thing it was one of the most surreal moments in my life, I looked at him and said "Gimme your gun, I feel like I should be shooting it full of holes!!!", then I said "Jesus, I always figured if I was ever this close to one of those things it'd be dropping bombs on me", it was a great time going down to see him, got some pictures of me sitting in the cockpit, he explained to me about the Soviets reverse engineering the intakes.
I can still remember the aircraft recognition instructor during training saying about the MIG-23, "Gentlemen, expect to see these in great numbers", well, that was the understatement of the century considering that there's so many my old Army buddy from Texas got one now.
@@FighterPilotPodcast They even included the barricade cutters between the splitters and the fuselage. Even though those MiGs never landed on carriers....
Y'all should have Dan Ywo dogs Hampton on the show
He's on our list of folks to reach out to.
+1,000,000
@@FighterPilotPodcast You guys have no idea how happy that makes me. Please please PLEASE get Two Dogs to talk about his Wild Weaseling Days. This is coming from an unabashed fan of the F16 Viper. God bless.
How do you call in?
877.MACH.101
What wad the Phantom 1?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_FH_Phantom
Like the podcast but man the 26 min intros and question drive me nuts. Im here for the interview. Push questions and bonus stuff to after the guest.
That's the beauty of this medium, Christopher. The content is available for those who want it and for those who don't there are tools to skip or drag the play bar ahead.
Your podcasts need to have video, so we can see who's speaking.
Not necessarily, I don't see this as a needed item, yeah can be a good addition, but definitely not mandatory. I like having the limited face time on the special episodes :)
@@samivwow agreed. It complicates the whole process so we limit video to exclusives like our recent listener question segment with the F-8 Crusader guest.
The Fighter Pilot Podcast I like the aesthetic of the background as is, simple but clean
@@justingallegos1941 🙏
I like it audio-only, it's a podcast, not a video. I can work on something like laundry or whatever while I listen to it. Video ties you to a screen. If it were available as an actual streaming podcast (is it?) I would listen to it while driving.
How about you show some film this dialogue is completely boring
Check our more recent posts.
And thanks for the unfiltered feedback.