❤ I lived in St Louis by Lambert Field and I used to see a whole Squadron of phantom sitting there and they were awesome and I always remember it and it's one of my favorite airplanes ever
I know many will disagree but the phantom is the sexist jet fighter ever!! Ive loved her since i can remember. Im not talking capabilities, im talk look ,style
I'm with you on that. When I was working on a degree in computer aided drafting and design, my project for the three dimensional design class was actually the F4. I painstakingly hand drew, measured, scaled, etc., etc. the jet then drew it on the computer, extruded everything...long story short I aced the class and the instructor literally framed my work and put it on his office wall - with my permission of course. Me? It's on a ZIP disc, which is totally obsolete! I have a ZIP drive, but my computer won't even recognize it. Thankfully, I was able to make one large printout which is tucked away and hidden so well I forgot where the hell I put it!!
I had a die-cast metal toy of one as a kid. I have always thought it looked so cool, with the angled wing and tail surfaces. It looked solid, mean, and capable; it looked like business, like a real war machine.
Yeah can’t really agree. The phantom is a good looking aircraft, but it’s not sexy. It’s not a sleek jet. It’s menacing and imposing. It’s a rook, not a bishop
I remember an interview with an Israeli pilot who described its 'tremendous acceleration' its 'tremendous kick'. I suspect there were times when you got a sense of being invincible.
There were more variants than letters in the alphabet. In stripped down trials they made mach 3.2. Once that nose gun was added it made for the PERFECT flying tiger grin. The navy loved them. The marines depended on them. The air force insisted on them against the entire USAF brass. Robin Olds and Randy Cunningham became living legends flying them. Hell, Olds staked his entire career upon absolute insistence on having them as he as adamant to not send any more guys to Hanoi Hilton by transport of Thud aka Thundercheif. You gotta love these things. Those JOLLY ROGER tail fins. The SUNDOWNER tail fins. These things were the stuff so many young men dreamed about joining service for in the 70s and 80s. I was one of those.
lol…it’s not a coincidence that every time DCS releases a module, RU-vid videos and books about it see ALOT more traffic! Almost every fighter pilot podcast/you tube content creator will tell you that DCS is what pays the bills
Many criticized the F-4 for not having a gun, but the designers were right not to include it. The main problems in Vietnam were defective sidewinders, BVR engagement limitations, and poor pilot training. As to the supremacy of the gun, even the "Last Gunfighter", the F8, only had to gun kills, with all of the rest being sidewinder kills. In fact, no US fighter has had a gun kill against an enemy fighter since 1970. All US fighter kills since then have been missile kills. So, the F-4 designers had it exactly right. No human pilot can out-maneuver a sidewider, which can pull 60 Gs.
I was an navy aviation ordnance AO2 during the Vietnam war. My specialty was both the F-4 and the A-4 I really liked how easy it was to access and repair the weapons systems on the Phantom. The F-4 was a very rugged fighter and could handle a lot of damage without going down.
@@massmike11 BS...IF you chose to get in the phone booth with a more maneuverable airplane, yup, bad news but if you flew it smart, you could defeat almost anything. Flew it for 10 years, 2400 hours in C, D, J, N, S...
It's amazing to think that in just 4 years Mcdonnell went from introducing the clumsy, underpowered F-3 Demon in 1956 to this incredible BEAST in 1960.
One of the sometimes overlooked aspects of the Phantom's design is the completely flush underside of the wings. It allowed a nearly unobstructed surface for the attachment of weapons and external fuel tanks.
The phantom was a Great Fighter, the Failure of the LBJ administrations Beyond Visual range ONLY Doctrine would have pilots maneuvering at close ranges when they was not equipped or trained for this from the beginning, However when you did have pilots who could maneuver the phantom they became ACEs. Captain Frank Ault did a report on this called the Ault report, which found the issues to be with missile Failures and lack of in close pilot training. So Dan Pedersen armed with this report stated to retrain phantom pilots at a school he started called Fighter weapons school. These phantom pilots to the 2:1 ratio and advanced it to 24:1 with the phantom by the end of Vietnam. Why this newer phantom record is never Discussed remains a mystery..
If another doc i saw is to be believed i think it's because: 1. The navy did this ("TOP GUN" as it were), they had an actual "weapons officer" in the back seat so they quickly remedied the gaps in training and tactics so their ratio improved drastically. The Airforce used the back seat as little more than glorified training for junior pilots, they gave the plane a gun pod and kind of called it a day (at least until the version with a proper gun came out). Plus they had a larger focus on the "bomber" part of the fighter-bomber role so their ratio remained less impressive. Since the vast majority of Phantoms in Vietnam were airforce planes i suspect no one wanted the highlight that "navy" 24:1 too much.
@@gusty9053 I am convinced that if the phantoms had reliable missiles and we used the same rules of engagement as our Fighters use today, the kill ratio would have been overwhelming in the phantoms favor from the beginning of Vietnam.
@dawightg9787 that's a lot of ifs. It's a meaningless argument because it ignores all of the historical context. "If my mum had balls, she'd be my dad"
the naval carrier borne F-4E Phantom II (Block 30) multi role fighter interceptor is called legendary for a reason . . . it was unwise to design the F-4 without the invaluable 20 MM internal gun . . . that are normally built into the forward lower fuselage or wing root section of fighter jets . . . during take off the front landing gear of the carrier borne F-4E Phantom II multi role fighter interceptor is raised up as the aft part of the F-4E is hunkered down with the bridal . . . would like to know why . . .
The F-4E was the Air Force’s version which did have a Vulcan 20 mm cannon. Navy phantoms raised the nose to increase the angle of attack, meaning the plane generates more lift this way when it needs it most.
I did the Revell kits that included all four Blue Angels and all four Thunderbirds. They had a special stand that put them in diamond formation. This was back around 1972. I've been trying to locate these kits through sources like Ebay and Mercari from collectors who may have them buried in a closet somewhere. No luck so far.
1970 I was 10 when we had a Christmas at grandparent's house, Nanna had glass ornaments with the grandkids name on them, " John ", I felt so loved, luckily my uncle Jack was there, on leave where he piloted the F4 Phantom in Vietnam, I was in awe, still am. God bless the United States of America 🇺🇸
