Support the show on Patreon! Join the fun from just £3+vat a month. You'll get all episodes early, ad-free and I'll send you a welcome pack with a handwritten thank you card! Join today at www.patreon.com/thedamcasters
I a Crew Chief on The F4D's and RF-4C's for 17 yrs. It's a love/hate relationship. More phantom bites than I can count. 😅 . That's an F4E Phantom model. It had slats on the outboard leading edge and a regular leading edge inboard flap. On the deck, the Rf-4c was absolutely a beast in speed. I was run qualified up to afterburner, taxi qualified, high speed qualified with crew in backseat,flight control qualified. I even got a ride in my own aircraft ( 65-0824 ). It's unbelievable what the F4 could do. Phantom Phxyer for Life.
If you care to look again, you'll notice this jet has a "soft" wing which has slats on the leading edge of both wing surfaces, the outer and inner wings. If you look you'll see the inboard slat hinges. The "C" and "D"s had "Hard" wings with the leading edge flaps you mentioned as well as Boundary layer control over those surfaces. Every "E" model as well as the "G" model had soft wings. Amazing that in your 17 years of crewing these jets that you can't tell the difference. I personally crewed an "E" that subsequently went to Depot and returned as a "G" at George AFB and yes, I flew in that jet myself. As far as folding the wing, the C and D models were hydraulic from the cockpit. The "E"s and later variants were manually unlocked from outside and muscled up by ground crew and locked with appropriate devices to hold them in position. We lost an "E" model at George AFB because the left wing wasn't locked down and folded on takeoff. The crew escaped and the jet crashed next to our fuel storage area without further damage circa 1979. per 7269 (MSN 3956) USAF 4th TFW. USAF 35th TFW. 1975: USAF 58th TFS (33rd TFW). 1979: USAF 347th TFW. With 35th TFW w/o Jul 2, 1979 . www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1969.html After leaving the Air Force, I left fingerprints on most of the F-16s in service in the world as a mechanic for General Dynamics/Lockheed before retiring. There's nothing to compare cranking a brand new engine in a brand new jet for the first time and putting them through their paces.
Turned down my incentive ride in an F4 after I had performed a major inspection on one of them and saw the condition of the engine tunnels. Looked like the only thing holding the engines in place was thrust!
@@williamhudson4938 E's were built with both the slatted and unslatted wings, it was a mid-production change, with many USAF E's refitted to the slatted wing in the depot. 71-0237 was the first production E built with the slatted wing. You can generally tell the converted E's from the ones built with slatted wings by looking for the large reinforcement strap on the underside of the wing, as that was fitted during conversion, the factory slatted wing had a thicker skin there and has a very subtle step instead of an external strap. All G's were early E's with the slat conversion. The USAF started fitting slats to older E's in 1972, with 304 airframes converted, the majority of the remaining early E fleet aside from the Thunderbird airframes which retained the hard wings. The only Phantom's that were built only with slatted wings only were the F's for Germany. The last unslatted Phantoms built were the EJ's (also the last Phantoms built).
Cool video, but that example is an F-4E, not a D. The front end is a dead giveaway, since earlier models, like the D, lacked an internal gun and had a much shorter nose and had a larger redone. The E introduced the M61 Vulcan to the Phantom, and the front end was lengthened and radome made smaller to accommodate it.
It’s carrying an F4D serial number 66-(0)287 , but that airframe is listed online a# being at Lowry TTC, and not in a museum. Which explains why it’s got the gun of an F4E. WTF do museums in the US do that (paint aircraft in fake markings)) ?
I was a crew chief on f4’s in the Air Force back in my youth the best experience ever, I’m retired and in my late 60s now it all seems like a dream when I think about it. It scared the hell out of me the first time I ever did an engine run my knees were shaking holding the brakes on.
My brother was an Air Force crew chief on F-4's in Thailand during the war. Later stateside he transitioned to F-15's. He described the F-4 as a suped up Chevy pickup truck, the F-15 as a Ferrari...
Supply clerk on USS Midway CV-41, and I never got tired of watching flight ops from the island, vultures' row. I could watch A-6 and A-7 cat shots from start to finish, but when an F-4 was launching, the jet blast deflectors threw that exhaust right at me, 50 feet up and 200 feet back. I'd look, and if the airdale was shoving the wing up and down, I knew to pull my head back and look again about 10 seconds later to see the launch. It was like a pizza oven, it was so hot, and the orange cone of the afterburner just added to it. An aircraft carrier is the best toy in the world, and Phantoms made it so much better.
Airedale shaking the wings?? Ahoy shipmate.. You were watching a squadron "troubleshooter" doing the manual "down and locked" check on the folding wing locking mechanism. The last procedure done before the thumbs up and sending her down the road.. Who knows that might have been me you we're watching.😊 VF-161
@@SeadogCVA41hal3 I figured it was something like that. Afterburners roaring, rock the plane, duck underneath, rock the other wing ... holy mackerel, how did I end up a supply clerk? Thanks for all the shows you provided. I never got tired of it. /yer appreciative audience
The F-110A was never called “Spectre”. Before it ever left the paint barn in St. Louis, the first aircraft with F-110A titles on it had “PHANTOM II” painted below it. The only use of “Spectre” I’ve ever found (in going on 50 years of research) was in the popular press. I’ve never found a single USAF or McDonnell document that used that name. I wish we could put this myth to rest once and for all.
You need to find a copy of the ballot competition to name the F4H-1 for McDonnell's employees. It has the name Spectre and Satan plus more listed on it. It didn't matter as old man McDonnell decided on Phantom II name. The ballot's had a drawing of the Phantom on it, a list of names to pick, and a write in section.
The Phantom FGRs with the Speys had more airframe drag but also about 15% more afterburning thrust. So the take-off distance was some 30% shorter, the climb rate 20% better, the fuel burn was lower, and the plane was quicker accelerating and had a higher top speed at low to medium altitudes where whe turbofan was better, but at the higher altitude regimes a turbojet is more efficient and the actual top speed is better. For the smaller deck carriers the british used, a lower high altitude mach # was an acceptable trade off for all the other performance improvements, especially given their lack of dedicated inflight refueling aircraft attached to the airwings at the time. This is also why the USN never operated any F-4s off their Essex class carriers as the decks were too short to reliably and safely get the planes off the catapult in all possible wind conditions. They also couldn't operate the A-5s, A-6s nor the F-14s for the same reason.
The F-4 was a fantastic aircraft, so versatile, powerful, and fast. It served with Navy, Marines, and the Air Force as well with just about every US ally and some of our enemies as well.
I was a jet engine mechanic/technician on KC-135, EC-135A, EC-135C, B-52F, B-52G, RF-4C, F-4D, F4-E, F-4F, F-4G, F-105F, and F-105G. Those aircraft were powered by J-57s, J-75s, and J-79s. The F-4 J-79s were lighter and more powerful than J-57s BUT did NOT take damage as well as the J-57 or J-75. The J-75 (F-105) was more powerful, hence the single engine F-105 versus the twin engine F-4 yet both had similar maximum weight. Also, talking about the wing dihedral, ALL F-4 outer wing panels fold. The Navy F-4s had power fold wing panel, the Air Force wing panels were manual. There is a red rod pop up near the wing panel break that indicated unlocked.
You're looking at a mid-build model F-4E - the early "E" models didn't have the large dogtooth slats you pointed out. The "E" model was also the only Phantom with a built-in cannon (the nose mounted M61 Vulcan 20mm cannon). All other Phantoms had to resort to using a pod mounted Vulcan 20mm gun (either the SUU-16 or SUU-23). About the only thing this F-4E is missing is the TISEO (Target Identification System - Electro-Optical) camera system that would be mounted on the port side (left-hand) wing about 1/3rd of the way down the leading edge from the fuselage - and that TISEO pod indicates a late model "E".
The slats (and even the gun muzzle) don't mean anything (or the TISEO for that matter). Just to point out... the serial number on the Vertical Stab is "AF 66-287" meaning this aircraft was procured in 1966 meaning it was actually built either in '66 or '67, making it one of the oldest F-4Es in existence which may explain why it doesn't have the TISEO. TISEO was first installed on F-4E AF 71-228. But the TISEO was added and removed to newer and older aircraft throughout the F-4E's life span. i.e, the F-4G had TISEO when they were once Es. The TISEO being removed when converted to the Gs. Also- older E models were modified with the slats later in their careers, and the BLC system was removed. So the only definitive way to tell an airframe's age is to look at the Serial Number, not what is installed on the airframe. Did you notice this E here has the short turkey feather engine exhaust of the Ge J79-15? All C and D aircraft had that engine. But NO production E had it. Production Es had the Long feathers of the GE-J79-17. So either this is a mistake on the Museum's part or this F-4E is so old, it still had the C/D dash 17 engines.
@@jameshastey3058 there were techincally two other models with the internal gun; the F-4EJ flown by the JASDF, and the F-4F used by the Germans. Semantics really since the airframes were basically the same as an E, but on paper still a different model.
@@wastedapathy22 The EJ was an E built in Japan by Mitsubishi; the F was an E with a number of key items removed in order to reduce weight (and Germany later had to re-add those items in subsequent modernization efforts LOL).
@@jameshastey3058Lack of AIM-7 Sparrow was one of those omissions, on the F version which shocked me when I first learned that. The story I read was that they were going to buy the F-5, but when they started learning about the Mig23 coming they wanted something better than the F-5. They even considered a single seat Phantom.
@ Wow - the Sparrow would have been the primary reason to buy the Phantom. I can't believe (well, to some degree I can) that the Germans wanted a Sparrow-less Phantom. Wow. I will say though that the Luftwaffe would have done better with the F-5 than they had with the F-104G.
Watching those F-4s fly over my house when I was a little boy (123rd ANG Louisville KY, RF-4Cs) lead to me going into the Air Force and having a wonderful 24 year career in C-130 maintenance. I got a chuckle when I noted the date code. It was made in the year I was born.
The story how the F4H-1 and the F-110A became the Navy F-4B and Air Force F-4C is a fascinating one, but the coolest plane you got there is the RF-84K. It has canted tailplanes too, but not for aerodynamic reasons, it hooks and latches designed for it to connect to a trapeze and fit into the bomb bay of a B-36...
The F-4B DID NOT become the F-110... it's the other way around. The F-4B was made and first flew for the Navy. When the Air Force adopted the F-4 they assigned the Air Force designation of F-110 which was nothing more than a borrowed Navy F-4B. When the Air Force decided to accept the F-4, made changes to the wing, wheels, engines, and avionics and that became would become the F-4C (after the gov. standardized the designation system).
@ILSRWY4 Note that I did not say the F-4B became The F-110A. I said the F-110 became the F-4C. What I was referencing was the Tri-Service aircraft designation system, a standardization of military designation that was generated by a congressional investigation into what they perceived as military appropriations fraud. The Navy's designation system had no "1" designation, for example, the Phantom I was the FH-1, the -1 being for a production model change like A, B, C for the Air Force. There were a LOT of F4s. To name just a few, there was the F4B (note no dash) Boeing biplane fighter from the 1930s, Vought F4U Corsair, and the F4D Skyray, not to be confused with the F-4D Phantom II. You might note that, even after the Tri-Service aircraft designation system was implemented, the F4D Skyray became F-6A Skyray even though it was effectively obsolete by 1962. So it was F (for fighter) 4 (4th type by...) H (company letter designator for McDonnell, Martin already had the M) -1 (1st model) I did make one error, all the pre-production F4H-1s became F-4As, it was the production F4H-2 that became the F-4B. So, the Navy was forced to adopt the Air Force's designation system and the Air Force had to start over from 1. Had there been no change, the Air Force F-35 would be the F-146 and the Naval F-35 would be the F3V-1 and possibly -1a or -2 for the Marine version. That's the Reader's Digest version, I warned that it's a long story...
What I was told during my time in Naval Air, the Air Force decided to test the F-4 for use by the Air Force. During their testing and evaluation some kind of emergency landing. The airfield they were doing the testing and evaluation flights had an arresting cable on each end of the runways. The Majority of arresting cables on airfields, back in the 70's when I enlisted, were connected to long lengths of old Navy anchor chains on each side of the runways. A length, maybe as much as 200 feet of anchor chain was laid on the outer edge of each side of the runway. The cable was stretched across the runway and attached to the first link closest to the start of the runway. When an aircraft lands and catches the cable, the cable will turn the first links 180 degrees and keep turning the next links 180 degrees and dragging them down the runway. When the Air Force test pilot landed, the Fire and rescue trucks were at the area where the aircraft stopped. The Air Force realized this is a safety factor and ordered their F-4 model with the tail hook. They also retro-fitted tail hooks onto older Air Force aircraft such as the F-106 and the F-16 also has a tail hook. I actually have an f-106 tail hook. Both the F-106 and F-16 tail hooks are gravity dropped, no hydraulics, and have to be manually reset. I do not know if the Air Force has tail hooks on their cargo, and large Bomber aircraft. Looking at your F-15 video of the tail hook it looks like it is also a gravity drop tail hook since I did not see the hydraulic piston to lower and raise the tail hook. I am glad you said how "Hefty" the F-4 tail hook is, it is a Navy tail hook. If you stop the video and look at the F-15 tail hook it reminds me of the F-106 and the F-16 tail hooks, just a flat piece of about 1/2 inch thick aluminum. The F-15 tail hook is shorter than the F-106, but a lot longer than the F-16's tail hook.
Early on there were rules against F4s dog fighting anything but F4s in training. This meant a heavy fighter only trained against a heavy fighter. Only after experience facing the much lighter Migs was the training rules changed to train against Soviet style lightweight fighters.
THANK YOU. CLASSIC American Aviation Design. My family has been involved with Aircraft since WW1. Need more indoor Museums for the Past to be conserved.
F4. Major pain to work on. Engines only good for 600 hours then rebuild time. And it didn't turn good. Pretty tough and versatile. Coul carry more bombs than a WWII bomber. Loved my time as engine mech 76 to 82.
I was stationed at Spangdahlem Air Base West Germany in 1979, which was next to Bitburg Air base. They had F-15s and we had 4s. 15s could take off vertical and the 4s at mostly a 45 degree angle. Now that I know about the tail stabilator being in the afterburner stream, it makes sense why the 4 couldn't take off at a higher angle than it did. P.S. 12:00 Spang had an arrestor cable at the end of the runway and a net just for the runaway scenario described in the video.
The F-4 looked like raw power like no other plane before or since. And it proved that you can design a plane that works with only small differences for the Navy and the Air Force
notice the inverted airfoil shape of the horizontal stab,,was designed to help it turn and rotate on takeoff,l worked on the D,C and the E models in the Airforce. avionics system and flight instrumentation was my specialty
That MK-83 at 1:05 makes my back and knees hurt just looking at it , Loaded many of them using a hernia bar and 3 other ordnance crew on our f-18"s back in my US Navy days , Great video and subd !
An earlier design had a T-tail, which permits a smaller rudder, for lower drag. The lower tail also gives a 'pitch down' motion as the plane crosses the edge of the carrier deck. The vertical tail was then too small, so tipping the horizontal tail down increased the effective size of the rudder. To compensate for the anhedral tail, they added dihedral wingtips.
I had a model of this aircraft when I was a kid and the box art said it was an F-110! I saw it as a continuation of the Century Series and slotting right in there before the F-111. (And I always had the urge to call the YF-12A, the F-112!) I still don't know why McNamara decided to change the way all U. S. military aircraft are designated and to start the counting over again (B-70....B-1....B-2, etc. The F-15, F-16, YF-17, F-18, F-20, F-22, YF-23....all of them should have a 1 in front of their number!! Not sure where we would then slot the oddly named F-117A, but maybe it should have been the F-119? And the F-14, being strictly a Navy aircraft, ought to have been the whatever was next in series for Grumman, (F-13F?) but let's say F-14F. And the F-35 should be the F-24...or really, the F-124! Ah, well....) There was nothing wrong with the way the individual services were doing it before (I liked the way the Navy assigned a letter code to each manufacturer) and they should have just kept on with it. But then, there were a lot of things McNamara did that I didn't understand....and I think I'm not alone.
I prefer the Navy scheme too, but it was pretty confusing having the same plane with different designations just because the manufacturer changed -- TBF/TBM, and FM/F4F.
A Navy F-4S pilot from the Midway airwing told me that "The F-4 is proof that anything will fly if you put big enough engines on it." Lots of fixes for bad aerodynamics like the outer wing dihedral, the downward cant (anhedral) of the horizontal stabilizers, etc. Quantum leap over the other fighters in service, but still with a lot of improvements to get to the F-15.
The Fury was kind of meh compared to the Sabre, from what I've read, and the B-66 was so different from the A-3 it got a new number and name, but the A-7 you are definitely right about. Also you could sneak in the F-16, which the Navy uses for aggressor training, but isn't used out in the fleet and has never been navalized. And of course multiple helicopter types are used by all 4 services to some degree, and the V-22 Osprey is used by Navy, Marines, and USAF. The C-130 Hercules is another one.
@RCAvhstape the F-4 and the A-7 also had service modifications for specific requirements, such as tires, refueling probe/receptacle. And the A-7E was derived from the A-7D's USAF requirements.
The F-4 has always had twin Martin Baker seats from the beginning. Now, a marked difference between a Navy/Marine F-4 and an Air Force F-4 is that USN/USMC Phantoms did not have a rear stick where USAF Phantoms did. Backseaters in all variants had a command select lever with which to eject the pilot, should he be incapacitated.
@@LV_FUD80 Actually, it was a single seater for at least part of the YAH-1/F4H-1 development. That's actually why the rear cockpit wall is vertical instead of slanted to match the ejection rails and why the F4H-1F/F-4A's rear canopy is so low in profile (as it was designed to replace the avionics hatch originally intended to be there. The rear cockpit area was designed as an avionics bay and converted to a rear cockpit after the basic layout was decided but before the first prototype flew. But it was always fitted with 2 ejection seats aside from the very first airframe (YF4H-1 142259) which used the space for test instrumentation, but was built with the shell of the rear cockpit present.
There were no fighters in service from 1904 to 1914 - 10 years. There were pre Phantom II fighters in service from 1914 to 1960 - 46 years. Phantom II fighters have been in service from 1960 to 2024 - 64 years.
the innovative and goofy Phantom! thats why i love it! it wasnt a great dogfighter only if you got sucked in the other guy fight! which is the horizontal, take it to the vertical and fly like an idiot just to drive him crazy, straight up he will put his butt where the sidewinder could bite just imagining the sound of those J79 spooling one after another, add alil bit of power, makes my pants my move!
I was a munitions loader on the F-4D in the Ga ANG back in the 1980's. At 3:32, the aircraft is identified as a -D model. It is not a -D model. It is an -E model with an internal 20mm Vulcan canon. For the -D and earlier models, there was a gun pod that was slung on the centerline hardpoints to give it a gun.
You are right, its not a D it is indeed an E. Albeit a very old E. One of the earliest. The serial Number on the Vertical Stab is "AF-66-287" My Flight Manual T.O. 1F-4C-1 dated 1 September 1968 includes the F-4C, F-4D & F-4E, all in the same manual and the manual is about 4 inches thick in a hardcover pole ring binder. It list ALL the production block numbers up to that date for F-4C/D/E. The first Block listed in the manual for the F-4E is "F-4E-31-MC" which covers serials AF 66-284 thru AF 66-297. So this F-4E in this video, with serial 66-287 falls right in that Block of the earliest F-4Es. Also- older E models were modified with the slats later in their careers, and the BLC system was removed. So the only definitive way to tell an airframe's age is to look at the Serial Number, not what is installed on the airframe. Did you notice this E here has the short turkey feather engine exhaust of the Ge J79-15? All C and D aircraft had that engine. But NO production E had it. Production Es had the Long feathers of the GE-J79-17. So either this is a mistake on the Museum's part or this F-4E is so old, it still had the C/D dash 17 engines.
Somewhere there is a universe where the Phantom is still in service with the US, a newer version with modern avionics and maintainability upgrades. While it's not a 5th gen fighter, it can keep up with the F-15 Strike Eagle and put bombs on target, and defend itself if it gets jumped, using AIM-9X and AIM-120 missiles and its spiffy modern radar. Phantoms Phorever.
The F-4 was originally designated as the F-110, but I think during McNamara's time, military designations were changed, one being the Phantom going from F-110 to F-4.
Wow it's almost like inlets work the same way everywhere in the world, omg. Does physics work the same around the world too??? Can't believe this. Lmao they aren't the same, they just look the same, stop saying stuff that isn't true, they aren't the same, they look similar, that's it.
If you read through comments notice all us maintenance pukes that worked on them are griping about it! I did learn plenty in my F-4 years as phase dock APG. Will point out they stuffed the wrong "short nozzle" J-79 into this E model.
What are you talking about? The F-4's wings are fixed. Yes, the wingtip rotates UP for more efficient parking on aircraft carriers, but the plane is NOT variable sweep.
20:00 blue or green is just because in USSR only those colours will be enough amount. Even other vehicles like trucks and trains was mostly blue or green.
There's not many aircraft that have served in all the services. The F4 served in the Air Force the Navy and the Marine corps. I'm pretty sure that other Air Force aircraft have a resting hooks just because they don't want to trash multimillion-dollar aircraft and yes at 15 are equipped with the tailhook when needed
The F-4 did NOT come out of the Century Series... in fact it was inserted into the Series. The F-4 flew with the Navy First as the F4H. When the Air Force adopted it they assigned it a Century Series number F-110 which was nothing more than Navy F-4B on loan. Hence it being "inserted" into the Century Series. F-110 was later redesignated F-4C when it was modified for the Air Force at the same time the government realigned and standardized aircraft designations.
@@damcasterspod come on - he didn’t even realise that it’s clearly a gun-armed F4E model falsely marked up and serialled as an F4D and the walkaround analysis was very basic, which brings me to a more constructive criticism: If you’re going to run a clever headline title such as using F110 rather than the usual F4, be aware that you’re going to attract an already well-informed enthusiast viewing audience rather than kids…
@ Thanks for the feedback, the "clever" headline is there specifically to get people to click on it. It wider significance is for the series of films as a whole. Finally, this channel welcomes all, kids included. Best, Matt
The sawtooth on the wing was INVENTED by A.V Roe Canada - AVRO, and was FIRST used on the AVRO CF-105 ARROW. When the Arrow was (STUPIDLY) cancelled by the Canadian Government (Under US pressure) in 1959, most of the engineers moved to the US.
I recommend reading Alan Barnes' research paper on the Canadian Intel that Diffenbaker was presented with regarding the initial Arrow cancellation decision. It certainly has changed my perspective on the decision. What happened afterwards will forever be on the PM's shoulders.
The Dogtooth wing was not an Avro Canada invention. The Hawker Hunter F.6 had a dogtooth wing and first flew in 1954 (earlier Hunters had a straight wing). The F-8 Crusader also had a dogtooth wing and first flew in 1955. The Phantom had the dogtooth from the start and flew a mere 2 months and 2 days after the Arrow in 1958.
The greatest aerodynamic compromise that ever was forced to fly! And God sayeth, let there be aluminum, steel, and titanium. Assemble these parts to be capable of flight, of power and grace, let it be beautiful. The edict was given to engineers and they thinketh the problem and built, and toiled, and one day the hanger doors were flung wide open for all to see. Thousands were there to see what Gods edict had wrought, and the crowd gasped in horror! Gods name was used in vain, women fainted, children screamed, men soiled themselves. What was before them was a mechanical horror, wings askew, tail bent, engines capable of tearing angels from the heavens. God looked on in horror, condemning its engineers to the pits of hell. Test pilots had to be drugged, bound, and set into the beast before flight. The beast was brought to life in a cacophony of sound and fire and heat. God was ashamed, this was no angelic and beautiful machine of flight! Oh no, it was an incarnation out of the depths of hell. It flew on two tongues of flame, smoke belched forth from its guts, death hanging from all points of its skeleton. Steely men sat within her, men bent on destruction and the delivery of sudden death. God sat in the heavens, weeping, how could this have happened he pondered. Then it dawned upon the almighty, this was no angelic vehicle of the skies, it was a Phantom, a bringer of death and destruction, a harbinger. Hence and forever known as The Phantom, it would own the skies for many decades. Hauling men of conviction and steely nerves, men who cared not for mortals, but only for the delivery of souls unto God, souls in whole or in pieces. All feared this mighty Phantom of the ether, and all who faced her spoke reverently of her power, her speed, and her capacity for death. And the angels and demons all rejoiced, for there was a Phantom amoungst them.
That sure looked like an E not a D. And why do you have LIVE bombs on display? Yellow indicates that the weapon is live. Thet should have a blue stripe painted on them.
Isn't the gun story an exaggeration? The navy never added an internal gun, but the adoption of better training programs allowed them to gain similar effectiveness to the air force, which did the same but also added a gun to the -E.
I do not find the F4 beautiful. Distinctive, brutal, impressive, intimidating, but looking like a series of peripheral fixes to core decisions, as if engineered middle-out using permanent marker -- or, the natural result of building one aircraft to replace several. When I look at my favorite kind of gritty/industrial worldbuilding sci-fi machinery, it's the F4's influence that I see, more than what came before or after.
It’s not incredible. It wasn’t an interceptor, it wasn’t a fighter. It wasn’t given a gun. It was equipped with first generation (failed) A2A weapons. This airframe literally couldn’t hold a candle to the Mig21. It only takes casual reading of the Vietnam war to understand what an ineffectual airframe this was.
Most F4’s had a gun? I don’t think so. Late models did. This guy in front of the camera needs to do more research not just on this issue. Don’t know what his credentials are, but not as knowledgeable as he should be
@@jimnikodem9378 agreed, I did a double take on that too. From some quick maths it looks like just shy of 1500 E / EJ / F models with internal guns were built, while the rest of the 5,000+ plus were gun-less B, C, D, J, N, S, etc.
Flying pickup truck. Not century series. Yes unstable in the F-110 test series. Elevator is producing down force again a stability fix if memory serves. Prettiest/ perfect fighter? I can think of others!
Well it kinda was Century series as it was designated F110. F105 Thud wasn’t a “fighter” either. Does that mean F111 is a Century series-teen? They then dropped the first number 1 and went Lockheed (Y) F-12, F13 unused for bad luck, then F14 and so on before adding the first 1 back in for the F117 Nighthawk (also not a fighter) as YF17 had already been used by Northrop.
Support the show on Patreon! Join the fun from just £3+vat a month. You'll get all episodes early, ad-free and I'll send you a welcome pack with a handwritten thank you card! Join today at www.patreon.com/thedamcasters
I a Crew Chief on The F4D's and RF-4C's for 17 yrs. It's a love/hate relationship. More phantom bites than I can count. 😅 . That's an F4E Phantom model. It had slats on the outboard leading edge and a regular leading edge inboard flap. On the deck, the Rf-4c was absolutely a beast in speed. I was run qualified up to afterburner, taxi qualified, high speed qualified with crew in backseat,flight control qualified. I even got a ride in my own aircraft ( 65-0824 ). It's unbelievable what the F4 could do. Phantom Phxyer for Life.
If you care to look again, you'll notice this jet has a "soft" wing which has slats on the leading edge of both wing surfaces, the outer and inner wings. If you look you'll see the inboard slat hinges. The "C" and "D"s had "Hard" wings with the leading edge flaps you mentioned as well as Boundary layer control over those surfaces. Every "E" model as well as the "G" model had soft wings. Amazing that in your 17 years of crewing these jets that you can't tell the difference. I personally crewed an "E" that subsequently went to Depot and returned as a "G" at George AFB and yes, I flew in that jet myself. As far as folding the wing, the C and D models were hydraulic from the cockpit. The "E"s and later variants were manually unlocked from outside and muscled up by ground crew and locked with appropriate devices to hold them in position. We lost an "E" model at George AFB because the left wing wasn't locked down and folded on takeoff. The crew escaped and the jet crashed next to our fuel storage area without further damage circa 1979. per 7269 (MSN 3956) USAF 4th TFW. USAF 35th TFW. 1975: USAF 58th TFS (33rd TFW).
1979: USAF 347th TFW. With 35th TFW w/o Jul 2, 1979 . www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1969.html After leaving the Air Force, I left fingerprints on most of the F-16s in service in the world as a mechanic for General Dynamics/Lockheed before retiring. There's nothing to compare cranking a brand new engine in a brand new jet for the first time and putting them through their paces.
Turned down my incentive ride in an F4 after I had performed a major inspection on one of them and saw the condition of the engine tunnels. Looked like the only thing holding the engines in place was thrust!
@@williamhudson4938 E's were built with both the slatted and unslatted wings, it was a mid-production change, with many USAF E's refitted to the slatted wing in the depot. 71-0237 was the first production E built with the slatted wing. You can generally tell the converted E's from the ones built with slatted wings by looking for the large reinforcement strap on the underside of the wing, as that was fitted during conversion, the factory slatted wing had a thicker skin there and has a very subtle step instead of an external strap. All G's were early E's with the slat conversion.
The USAF started fitting slats to older E's in 1972, with 304 airframes converted, the majority of the remaining early E fleet aside from the Thunderbird airframes which retained the hard wings.
The only Phantom's that were built only with slatted wings only were the F's for Germany. The last unslatted Phantoms built were the EJ's (also the last Phantoms built).
Cool video, but that example is an F-4E, not a D. The front end is a dead giveaway, since earlier models, like the D, lacked an internal gun and had a much shorter nose and had a larger redone. The E introduced the M61 Vulcan to the Phantom, and the front end was lengthened and radome made smaller to accommodate it.
F4 d also had leading edge flaps that blew bleed air over the wings, we would always run our hands over it on a launch to check if it was working
@@pickandstrum the wing slats were on specifically late model F-4Es, but yeah that plane is clearly not a F-4D
Yes its an E , but the nozzle its a D maybe a frankenphantom😂
It’s carrying an F4D serial number 66-(0)287 , but that airframe is listed online a# being at Lowry TTC, and not in a museum. Which explains why it’s got the gun of an F4E. WTF do museums in the US do that (paint aircraft in fake markings)) ?
👍
F-4 Phantom II. The world’s greatest distributor of MiG parts
I was a crew chief on f4’s in the Air Force back in my youth the best experience ever, I’m retired and in my late 60s now it all seems like a dream when I think about it. It scared the hell out of me the first time I ever did an engine run my knees were shaking holding the brakes on.
The F-4 was a generation unto itself. The most significant American Fighter designed between the century series and the F14
My brother was an Air Force crew chief on F-4's in Thailand during the war. Later stateside he transitioned to F-15's. He described the F-4 as a suped up Chevy pickup truck, the F-15 as a Ferrari...
A Chevy will run forever, Ferraris... Not so much. 🙂
@@damcasterspod Ever hear of the Chevy Vega?
@@johnpinckney4979 Hmmmmm, funny you would mention that one.
Supply clerk on USS Midway CV-41, and I never got tired of watching flight ops from the island, vultures' row. I could watch A-6 and A-7 cat shots from start to finish, but when an F-4 was launching, the jet blast deflectors threw that exhaust right at me, 50 feet up and 200 feet back. I'd look, and if the airdale was shoving the wing up and down, I knew to pull my head back and look again about 10 seconds later to see the launch. It was like a pizza oven, it was so hot, and the orange cone of the afterburner just added to it. An aircraft carrier is the best toy in the world, and Phantoms made it so much better.
Airedale shaking the wings??
Ahoy shipmate..
You were watching a squadron
"troubleshooter" doing the manual "down and locked" check on the folding wing locking mechanism. The last procedure done before the thumbs up and sending her down the road..
Who knows that might have been me you we're watching.😊
VF-161
@@SeadogCVA41hal3 I figured it was something like that. Afterburners roaring, rock the plane, duck underneath, rock the other wing ... holy mackerel, how did I end up a supply clerk?
Thanks for all the shows you provided. I never got tired of it.
/yer appreciative audience
The F-110A was never called “Spectre”. Before it ever left the paint barn in St. Louis, the first aircraft with F-110A titles on it had “PHANTOM II” painted below it. The only use of “Spectre” I’ve ever found (in going on 50 years of research) was in the popular press. I’ve never found a single USAF or McDonnell document that used that name. I wish we could put this myth to rest once and for all.
There is the AC-130H Spectre Gunship. Never heard the F-4 Phantom II refer to as "Spectre".
You need to find a copy of the ballot competition to name the F4H-1 for McDonnell's employees. It has the name Spectre and Satan plus more listed on it. It didn't matter as old man McDonnell decided on Phantom II name. The ballot's had a drawing of the Phantom on it, a list of names to pick, and a write in section.
I served 6 years in the USAF as an Electronic Warfare Specialist working mostly F-4Gs.
George, Spang, Clark or Nellis? Or all four? 😮
@@goratgo1970 Most of my time at GAFB and one Cope Thunder in the PI. I never made it to Spang, Nellis came much later after I was out.
@@wildweasel8564 Was phase dock APG George 87-91 🫡
The Phantom FGRs with the Speys had more airframe drag but also about 15% more afterburning thrust. So the take-off distance was some 30% shorter, the climb rate 20% better, the fuel burn was lower, and the plane was quicker accelerating and had a higher top speed at low to medium altitudes where whe turbofan was better, but at the higher altitude regimes a turbojet is more efficient and the actual top speed is better. For the smaller deck carriers the british used, a lower high altitude mach # was an acceptable trade off for all the other performance improvements, especially given their lack of dedicated inflight refueling aircraft attached to the airwings at the time. This is also why the USN never operated any F-4s off their Essex class carriers as the decks were too short to reliably and safely get the planes off the catapult in all possible wind conditions. They also couldn't operate the A-5s, A-6s nor the F-14s for the same reason.
There are some podcast interviews with British pilots who flew both versions as the RAF flew some ex-USN F-4J’s in the later years
My mother loved the F-4, she would call out, “look a phantom!!!”
I miss her
The F-4 was a fantastic aircraft, so versatile, powerful, and fast. It served with Navy, Marines, and the Air Force as well with just about every US ally and some of our enemies as well.
I was a jet engine mechanic/technician on KC-135, EC-135A, EC-135C, B-52F, B-52G, RF-4C, F-4D, F4-E, F-4F, F-4G, F-105F, and F-105G. Those aircraft were powered by J-57s, J-75s, and J-79s. The F-4 J-79s were lighter and more powerful than J-57s BUT did NOT take damage as well as the J-57 or J-75. The J-75 (F-105) was more powerful, hence the single engine F-105 versus the twin engine F-4 yet both had similar maximum weight. Also, talking about the wing dihedral, ALL F-4 outer wing panels fold. The Navy F-4s had power fold wing panel, the Air Force wing panels were manual. There is a red rod pop up near the wing panel break that indicated unlocked.
You're looking at a mid-build model F-4E - the early "E" models didn't have the large dogtooth slats you pointed out. The "E" model was also the only Phantom with a built-in cannon (the nose mounted M61 Vulcan 20mm cannon). All other Phantoms had to resort to using a pod mounted Vulcan 20mm gun (either the SUU-16 or SUU-23). About the only thing this F-4E is missing is the TISEO (Target Identification System - Electro-Optical) camera system that would be mounted on the port side (left-hand) wing about 1/3rd of the way down the leading edge from the fuselage - and that TISEO pod indicates a late model "E".
The slats (and even the gun muzzle) don't mean anything (or the TISEO for that matter). Just to point out... the serial number on the Vertical Stab is "AF 66-287" meaning this aircraft was procured in 1966 meaning it was actually built either in '66 or '67, making it one of the oldest F-4Es in existence which may explain why it doesn't have the TISEO. TISEO was first installed on F-4E AF 71-228. But the TISEO was added and removed to newer and older aircraft throughout the F-4E's life span. i.e, the F-4G had TISEO when they were once Es. The TISEO being removed when converted to the Gs. Also- older E models were modified with the slats later in their careers, and the BLC system was removed. So the only definitive way to tell an airframe's age is to look at the Serial Number, not what is installed on the airframe. Did you notice this E here has the short turkey feather engine exhaust of the Ge J79-15? All C and D aircraft had that engine. But NO production E had it. Production Es had the Long feathers of the GE-J79-17. So either this is a mistake on the Museum's part or this F-4E is so old, it still had the C/D dash 17 engines.
@@jameshastey3058 there were techincally two other models with the internal gun; the F-4EJ flown by the JASDF, and the F-4F used by the Germans. Semantics really since the airframes were basically the same as an E, but on paper still a different model.
@@wastedapathy22 The EJ was an E built in Japan by Mitsubishi; the F was an E with a number of key items removed in order to reduce weight (and Germany later had to re-add those items in subsequent modernization efforts LOL).
@@jameshastey3058Lack of AIM-7 Sparrow was one of those omissions, on the F version which shocked me when I first learned that. The story I read was that they were going to buy the F-5, but when they started learning about the Mig23 coming they wanted something better than the F-5. They even considered a single seat Phantom.
@ Wow - the Sparrow would have been the primary reason to buy the Phantom. I can't believe (well, to some degree I can) that the Germans wanted a Sparrow-less Phantom. Wow. I will say though that the Luftwaffe would have done better with the F-5 than they had with the F-104G.
Watching those F-4s fly over my house when I was a little boy (123rd ANG Louisville KY, RF-4Cs) lead to me going into the Air Force and having a wonderful 24 year career in C-130 maintenance. I got a chuckle when I noted the date code. It was made in the year I was born.
The story how the F4H-1 and the F-110A became the Navy F-4B and Air Force F-4C is a fascinating one, but the coolest plane you got there is the RF-84K. It has canted tailplanes too, but not for aerodynamic reasons, it hooks and latches designed for it to connect to a trapeze and fit into the bomb bay of a B-36...
Bud Anderson "Andy" was the successful test pilot for the FICON program
The F-4B DID NOT become the F-110... it's the other way around. The F-4B was made and first flew for the Navy. When the Air Force adopted the F-4 they assigned the Air Force designation of F-110 which was nothing more than a borrowed Navy F-4B. When the Air Force decided to accept the F-4, made changes to the wing, wheels, engines, and avionics and that became would become the F-4C (after the gov. standardized the designation system).
@ILSRWY4 Note that I did not say the F-4B became The F-110A. I said the F-110 became the F-4C. What I was referencing was the Tri-Service aircraft designation system, a standardization of military designation that was generated by a congressional investigation into what they perceived as military appropriations fraud. The Navy's designation system had no "1" designation, for example, the Phantom I was the FH-1, the -1 being for a production model change like A, B, C for the Air Force. There were a LOT of F4s. To name just a few, there was the F4B (note no dash) Boeing biplane fighter from the 1930s, Vought F4U Corsair, and the F4D Skyray, not to be confused with the F-4D Phantom II. You might note that, even after the Tri-Service aircraft designation system was implemented, the F4D Skyray became F-6A Skyray even though it was effectively obsolete by 1962. So it was F (for fighter) 4 (4th type by...) H (company letter designator for McDonnell, Martin already had the M) -1 (1st model) I did make one error, all the pre-production F4H-1s became F-4As, it was the production F4H-2 that became the F-4B. So, the Navy was forced to adopt the Air Force's designation system and the Air Force had to start over from 1. Had there been no change, the Air Force F-35 would be the F-146 and the Naval F-35 would be the F3V-1 and possibly -1a or -2 for the Marine version. That's the Reader's Digest version, I warned that it's a long story...
What I was told during my time in Naval Air, the Air Force decided to test the F-4 for use by the Air Force. During their testing and evaluation some kind of emergency landing. The airfield they were doing the testing and evaluation flights had an arresting cable on each end of the runways. The Majority of arresting cables on airfields, back in the 70's when I enlisted, were connected to long lengths of old Navy anchor chains on each side of the runways. A length, maybe as much as 200 feet of anchor chain was laid on the outer edge of each side of the runway. The cable was stretched across the runway and attached to the first link closest to the start of the runway. When an aircraft lands and catches the cable, the cable will turn the first links 180 degrees and keep turning the next links 180 degrees and dragging them down the runway. When the Air Force test pilot landed, the Fire and rescue trucks were at the area where the aircraft stopped. The Air Force realized this is a safety factor and ordered their F-4 model with the tail hook. They also retro-fitted tail hooks onto older Air Force aircraft such as the F-106 and the F-16 also has a tail hook. I actually have an f-106 tail hook. Both the F-106 and F-16 tail hooks are gravity dropped, no hydraulics, and have to be manually reset. I do not know if the Air Force has tail hooks on their cargo, and large Bomber aircraft. Looking at your F-15 video of the tail hook it looks like it is also a gravity drop tail hook since I did not see the hydraulic piston to lower and raise the tail hook. I am glad you said how "Hefty" the F-4 tail hook is, it is a Navy tail hook. If you stop the video and look at the F-15 tail hook it reminds me of the F-106 and the F-16 tail hooks, just a flat piece of about 1/2 inch thick aluminum. The F-15 tail hook is shorter than the F-106, but a lot longer than the F-16's tail hook.
Early on there were rules against F4s dog fighting anything but F4s in training. This meant a heavy fighter only trained against a heavy fighter. Only after experience facing the much lighter Migs was the training rules changed to train against Soviet style lightweight fighters.
THANK YOU. CLASSIC American Aviation Design. My family has been involved with Aircraft since WW1. Need more indoor Museums for the Past to be conserved.
I Love That Hanger! Where I spent 12 weeks of my early career learning to be a Weapons Troop. Memories......
I loved mt visit there made my sister take me when I came to the US love the B52 outside and the ice cream stand
F4. Major pain to work on. Engines only good for 600 hours then rebuild time. And it didn't turn good. Pretty tough and versatile. Coul carry more bombs than a WWII bomber. Loved my time as engine mech 76 to 82.
I was stationed at Spangdahlem Air Base West Germany in 1979, which was next to Bitburg Air base. They had F-15s and we had 4s. 15s could take off vertical and the 4s at mostly a 45 degree angle. Now that I know about the tail stabilator being in the afterburner stream, it makes sense why the 4 couldn't take off at a higher angle than it did. P.S. 12:00 Spang had an arrestor cable at the end of the runway and a net just for the runaway scenario described in the video.
Did you work F-4G's?
I was at Soesterberg in '78 when they transitioned from the F-4 to the F-15. That was a lot of fun.
Love the view of the F4 with the Piper Cub above. Great plane and great plane just for different reasons
The F-4 looked like raw power like no other plane before or since.
And it proved that you can design a plane that works with only small differences for the Navy and the Air Force
notice the inverted airfoil shape of the horizontal stab,,was designed to help it turn and rotate on takeoff,l worked on the D,C and the E models in the Airforce. avionics system
and flight instrumentation was my specialty
That MK-83 at 1:05 makes my back and knees hurt just looking at it , Loaded many of them using a hernia bar and 3 other ordnance crew on our f-18"s back in my US Navy days , Great video and subd !
The F4 was the hot new plane as I was growing up. Its iconic shape was unmistakable and it was very fast. And then they built the F-14. 😛
An earlier design had a T-tail, which permits a smaller rudder, for lower drag. The lower tail also gives a 'pitch down' motion as the plane crosses the edge of the carrier deck. The vertical tail was then too small, so tipping the horizontal tail down increased the effective size of the rudder. To compensate for the anhedral tail, they added dihedral wingtips.
I had a model of this aircraft when I was a kid and the box art said it was an F-110! I saw it as a continuation of the Century Series and slotting right in there before the F-111. (And I always had the urge to call the YF-12A, the F-112!) I still don't know why McNamara decided to change the way all U. S. military aircraft are designated and to start the counting over again (B-70....B-1....B-2, etc. The F-15, F-16, YF-17, F-18, F-20, F-22, YF-23....all of them should have a 1 in front of their number!! Not sure where we would then slot the oddly named F-117A, but maybe it should have been the F-119? And the F-14, being strictly a Navy aircraft, ought to have been the whatever was next in series for Grumman, (F-13F?) but let's say F-14F. And the F-35 should be the F-24...or really, the F-124! Ah, well....) There was nothing wrong with the way the individual services were doing it before (I liked the way the Navy assigned a letter code to each manufacturer) and they should have just kept on with it. But then, there were a lot of things McNamara did that I didn't understand....and I think I'm not alone.
I prefer the Navy scheme too, but it was pretty confusing having the same plane with different designations just because the manufacturer changed -- TBF/TBM, and FM/F4F.
Two J79s worth of Freedom!
A Navy F-4S pilot from the Midway airwing told me that "The F-4 is proof that anything will fly if you put big enough engines on it." Lots of fixes for bad aerodynamics like the outer wing dihedral, the downward cant (anhedral) of the horizontal stabilizers, etc. Quantum leap over the other fighters in service, but still with a lot of improvements to get to the F-15.
The hook is unlocked and resting on its safety pin/wire!!😯
The A-7 was also used by the USN, USAF and ANG, long before the F-35. And we should not forget the Sabre/Fury or the A-3 and the B-66.
The Fury was kind of meh compared to the Sabre, from what I've read, and the B-66 was so different from the A-3 it got a new number and name, but the A-7 you are definitely right about. Also you could sneak in the F-16, which the Navy uses for aggressor training, but isn't used out in the fleet and has never been navalized. And of course multiple helicopter types are used by all 4 services to some degree, and the V-22 Osprey is used by Navy, Marines, and USAF. The C-130 Hercules is another one.
@RCAvhstape the F-4 and the A-7 also had service modifications for specific requirements, such as tires, refueling probe/receptacle. And the A-7E was derived from the A-7D's USAF requirements.
The first back seat installation in an F-110 was almost an afterthought. The pilot sat on an ejection seat, the GIB had a parachute.
Ridiculous. Where did you get such an idea?
@dukeford8893 from 50 years of studying. Try it.
The F-4 has always had twin Martin Baker seats from the beginning. Now, a marked difference between a Navy/Marine F-4 and an Air Force F-4 is that USN/USMC Phantoms did not have a rear stick where USAF Phantoms did. Backseaters in all variants had a command select lever with which to eject the pilot, should he be incapacitated.
@@LV_FUD80 Actually, it was a single seater for at least part of the YAH-1/F4H-1 development. That's actually why the rear cockpit wall is vertical instead of slanted to match the ejection rails and why the F4H-1F/F-4A's rear canopy is so low in profile (as it was designed to replace the avionics hatch originally intended to be there.
The rear cockpit area was designed as an avionics bay and converted to a rear cockpit after the basic layout was decided but before the first prototype flew. But it was always fitted with 2 ejection seats aside from the very first airframe (YF4H-1 142259) which used the space for test instrumentation, but was built with the shell of the rear cockpit present.
There were no fighters in service from 1904 to 1914 - 10 years.
There were pre Phantom II fighters in service from 1914 to 1960 - 46 years.
Phantom II fighters have been in service from 1960 to 2024 - 64 years.
This my friend is an F-4E.
Yeah it’s falsely painted with an F4D serial number.
the innovative and goofy Phantom! thats why i love it! it wasnt a great dogfighter only if you got sucked in the other guy fight! which is the horizontal, take it to the vertical and fly like an idiot just to drive him crazy, straight up he will put his butt where the sidewinder could bite
just imagining the sound of those J79 spooling one after another, add alil bit of power, makes my pants my move!
The Phantom - proof that with enough thrust, even a brick can fly.
I was a munitions loader on the F-4D in the Ga ANG back in the 1980's. At 3:32, the aircraft is identified as a -D model. It is not a -D model. It is an -E model with an internal 20mm Vulcan canon. For the -D and earlier models, there was a gun pod that was slung on the centerline hardpoints to give it a gun.
You are right, its not a D it is indeed an E. Albeit a very old E. One of the earliest. The serial Number on the Vertical Stab is "AF-66-287" My Flight Manual T.O. 1F-4C-1 dated 1 September 1968 includes the F-4C, F-4D & F-4E, all in the same manual and the manual is about 4 inches thick in a hardcover pole ring binder. It list ALL the production block numbers up to that date for F-4C/D/E. The first Block listed in the manual for the F-4E is "F-4E-31-MC" which covers serials AF 66-284 thru AF 66-297. So this F-4E in this video, with serial 66-287 falls right in that Block of the earliest F-4Es. Also- older E models were modified with the slats later in their careers, and the BLC system was removed. So the only definitive way to tell an airframe's age is to look at the Serial Number, not what is installed on the airframe. Did you notice this E here has the short turkey feather engine exhaust of the Ge J79-15? All C and D aircraft had that engine. But NO production E had it. Production Es had the Long feathers of the GE-J79-17. So either this is a mistake on the Museum's part or this F-4E is so old, it still had the C/D dash 17 engines.
Somewhere there is a universe where the Phantom is still in service with the US, a newer version with modern avionics and maintainability upgrades. While it's not a 5th gen fighter, it can keep up with the F-15 Strike Eagle and put bombs on target, and defend itself if it gets jumped, using AIM-9X and AIM-120 missiles and its spiffy modern radar. Phantoms Phorever.
Thumbnail says F110 not F4
The F-4 was originally designated as the F-110, but I think during McNamara's time, military designations were changed, one being the Phantom going from F-110 to F-4.
@@fortworthron that’s not the point - I too clicked expecting a documentary on the early F110 development.
The inlets on the MiG-23 are the same as the F-4 inlets. Like so exactly the same that the number of holes on the splitters is _exactly_ the same!
High time to put this urban legend to rest. They are not the same and have different number of holes.
Wow it's almost like inlets work the same way everywhere in the world, omg.
Does physics work the same around the world too??? Can't believe this.
Lmao they aren't the same, they just look the same, stop saying stuff that isn't true, they aren't the same, they look similar, that's it.
That phantom is an e model
Yep painted in fake markings and serial
@@neilturner6749 Serial is correct, 66-0287 is the 4th E built and is the airframe shown.
wing needed dihedral of 5 degrees, so tip is 12 degrees
678 lost in Vietnam. That's a staggering number.
If you read through comments notice all us maintenance pukes that worked on them are griping about it!
I did learn plenty in my F-4 years as phase dock APG.
Will point out they stuffed the wrong "short nozzle" J-79 into this E model.
When the plane looks right, ity flies right No wonder the F-117 needed many computer to just fly. . And B1-b must fly like a dream. .
Check out out interview with F-117 pilot Jon Boyd on more about flying the F-117.
The wing didn’t swing in supersonic flight. It was for the plane to go slow enough to land. At speed the wing was tucked.
What are you talking about? The F-4's wings are fixed. Yes, the wingtip rotates UP for more efficient parking on aircraft carriers, but the plane is NOT variable sweep.
@ I think he was referring to the Soviet era swing wing plane while he was standing in front of the Soviet era swing wing plane.
20:00 blue or green is just because in USSR only those colours will be enough amount. Even other vehicles like trucks and trains was mostly blue or green.
There's not many aircraft that have served in all the services. The F4 served in the Air Force the Navy and the Marine corps.
I'm pretty sure that other Air Force aircraft have a resting hooks just because they don't want to trash multimillion-dollar aircraft and yes at 15 are equipped with the tailhook when needed
The F-4 did NOT come out of the Century Series... in fact it was inserted into the Series. The F-4 flew with the Navy First as the F4H. When the Air Force adopted it they assigned it a Century Series number F-110 which was nothing more than Navy F-4B on loan. Hence it being "inserted" into the Century Series. F-110 was later redesignated F-4C when it was modified for the Air Force at the same time the government realigned and standardized aircraft designations.
No no no the F-15 is the greatest
Thank you for your feedback, you're wrong, but thanks! 😉
The F-4 is the giant whose shoulders the F-15 stood on.
Nothing like guys who's knowledge came from youtube making a youtube video.
I'll pass your feedback onto the aircraft designer in the video. 👍
@@damcasterspod come on - he didn’t even realise that it’s clearly a gun-armed F4E model falsely marked up and serialled as an F4D and the walkaround analysis was very basic, which brings me to a more constructive criticism:
If you’re going to run a clever headline title such as using F110 rather than the usual F4, be aware that you’re going to attract an already well-informed enthusiast viewing audience rather than kids…
@ Thanks for the feedback, the "clever" headline is there specifically to get people to click on it. It wider significance is for the series of films as a whole. Finally, this channel welcomes all, kids included. Best, Matt
Definitely an F4E Dane
Yes it’s carrying a false serial number for odd reasons… maybe F4D 66-287 had a local connection to the Museum ?
@@neilturner6749 66-0287 was the 4th E model built. E production started with 66-0284 and the first 96 airframes were originally ordered as D's.
look at the tail of the sebecat jagua and the Kawasaki trainer
The sawtooth on the wing was INVENTED by A.V Roe Canada - AVRO, and was FIRST used on the AVRO CF-105 ARROW. When the Arrow was (STUPIDLY) cancelled by the Canadian Government (Under US pressure) in 1959, most of the engineers moved to the US.
I recommend reading Alan Barnes' research paper on the Canadian Intel that Diffenbaker was presented with regarding the initial Arrow cancellation decision. It certainly has changed my perspective on the decision. What happened afterwards will forever be on the PM's shoulders.
The Dogtooth wing was not an Avro Canada invention.
The Hawker Hunter F.6 had a dogtooth wing and first flew in 1954 (earlier Hunters had a straight wing). The F-8 Crusader also had a dogtooth wing and first flew in 1955.
The Phantom had the dogtooth from the start and flew a mere 2 months and 2 days after the Arrow in 1958.
A friend of mine was killed flying these. Mid air of South Carolina.
And the spectre is?
The F-4 Phantom II
The greatest aerodynamic compromise that ever was forced to fly! And God sayeth, let there be aluminum, steel, and titanium. Assemble these parts to be capable of flight, of power and grace, let it be beautiful. The edict was given to engineers and they thinketh the problem and built, and toiled, and one day the hanger doors were flung wide open for all to see. Thousands were there to see what Gods edict had wrought, and the crowd gasped in horror! Gods name was used in vain, women fainted, children screamed, men soiled themselves. What was before them was a mechanical horror, wings askew, tail bent, engines capable of tearing angels from the heavens. God looked on in horror, condemning its engineers to the pits of hell. Test pilots had to be drugged, bound, and set into the beast before flight. The beast was brought to life in a cacophony of sound and fire and heat. God was ashamed, this was no angelic and beautiful machine of flight! Oh no, it was an incarnation out of the depths of hell. It flew on two tongues of flame, smoke belched forth from its guts, death hanging from all points of its skeleton. Steely men sat within her, men bent on destruction and the delivery of sudden death. God sat in the heavens, weeping, how could this have happened he pondered. Then it dawned upon the almighty, this was no angelic vehicle of the skies, it was a Phantom, a bringer of death and destruction, a harbinger. Hence and forever known as The Phantom, it would own the skies for many decades. Hauling men of conviction and steely nerves, men who cared not for mortals, but only for the delivery of souls unto God, souls in whole or in pieces. All feared this mighty Phantom of the ether, and all who faced her spoke reverently of her power, her speed, and her capacity for death. And the angels and demons all rejoiced, for there was a Phantom amoungst them.
Good stuff!!!👍
It's titanium. We were making replacement horizontal surfaces at Fairchild Republic in 1985.
That sure looked like an E not a D. And why do you have LIVE bombs on display? Yellow indicates that the weapon is live. Thet should have a blue stripe painted on them.
Did everything and everybody flew it. No other jet did that !
Similar desing because similar problem to solve
You should really have someone who is more familiar with the F-4 and USAF aircraft in general to do the presentation.
Isn't the gun story an exaggeration? The navy never added an internal gun, but the adoption of better training programs allowed them to gain similar effectiveness to the air force, which did the same but also added a gun to the -E.
I do not find the F4 beautiful. Distinctive, brutal, impressive, intimidating, but looking like a series of peripheral fixes to core decisions, as if engineered middle-out using permanent marker -- or, the natural result of building one aircraft to replace several.
When I look at my favorite kind of gritty/industrial worldbuilding sci-fi machinery, it's the F4's influence that I see, more than what came before or after.
...isnt that just the f4 phantom
Do a little research/review on the bird before you highlight it for one of your videos.
Can you remember how many times you said I don't remember?
It’s not incredible. It wasn’t an interceptor, it wasn’t a fighter. It wasn’t given a gun. It was equipped with first generation (failed) A2A weapons. This airframe literally couldn’t hold a candle to the Mig21. It only takes casual reading of the Vietnam war to understand what an ineffectual airframe this was.
F101? It was all about the f4
You are commenting on the F-4 video, which started AF life as the F-110. The F-101 video is also available on the channel!
Most F4’s had a gun? I don’t think so. Late models did. This guy in front of the camera needs to do more research not just on this issue. Don’t know what his credentials are, but not as knowledgeable as he should be
@@jimnikodem9378 agreed, I did a double take on that too. From some quick maths it looks like just shy of 1500 E / EJ / F models with internal guns were built, while the rest of the 5,000+ plus were gun-less B, C, D, J, N, S, etc.
Flying pickup truck. Not century series. Yes unstable in the F-110 test series. Elevator is producing down force again a stability fix if memory serves. Prettiest/ perfect fighter? I can think of others!
You are entitled to your opinion, I just tend to disagree. 🙂
mmm, tailplanes on virtually all airplanes exert a downforce. not a fix but a feature.
Well it kinda was Century series as it was designated F110. F105 Thud wasn’t a “fighter” either. Does that mean F111 is a Century series-teen?
They then dropped the first number 1 and went Lockheed (Y) F-12, F13 unused for bad luck, then F14 and so on before adding the first 1 back in for the F117 Nighthawk (also not a fighter) as YF17 had already been used by Northrop.
@@neilturner6749This is one of the most succinct and informative comments I’ve ever read on RUclips. Thank you!
Nice if your tour guide knew SOMETHING about WHAT they were talking about 🙄🤣