It's hard to appreciate what a behemoth the Phantom was until you've stood next to it. I had an opportunity to see it up close at the US Air Force museum in Dayton, Ohio. The cockpit was easily 8 ft (2.4 m) above ground level. The overall length of the aircraft was more than 60 ft (19 m). One look at the size of the air inlets coupled with an intuitive notion of its size led to the thought: this must have been a very thirsty bird. It's literally the size of a Diesel locomotive.
I was a 10 year old when my father was at RAF Coningsby in 1970 , I can still remember the earth shaking when these flew over our house , great days indeed !
Phantastic video of a phabulous aircraft. And a great look back at the RAF we had in the 70’s and 80’s - a far cry from the much reduced RAF we have today. I will always remember seeing my first Phantoms whilst on holiday in North Wales near Ruthin in the mid-70’s. We were walking along a ridge line near a golf course, when there was this tremendous sound and the earth shook as a flight of four overflew us, climbing out of the valley below. I distinctly recall the lightning flash on the noses, so I learned in later life that these were from 111 Squadron. Superb machines.
The deck of the Ark Royal was roughly 100 feet shorter than a US Navy Forrestal-class aircraft carrier. Pilots of the Fleet Air Arm must have been trained to a very high level of skill to operate a Phantom on the Ark Royal.
@@montieluckett7036There is no proof of that often quoted 'fact'. VF-12 and VF-17 had completed carrier qualifications 6 months before the Royal Navy got their Corsairs. I suspect that 'fact' comes about because the US Navy said the Corsair wasn't suitable for carrier operations (despite having the aforementioned squadrons qualified, AND later training VF(N)-101) but the Royal Navy proved that it could be done and pressed on with it (largely due to Royal Navy fighters at the time being completely unsuitable) whilst the Americans waited until the F4U-1D which fixed a number of landing issues before introducing the type back to the carriers. For the Royal Navy they desperately needed a capable naval fighter, for the yanks they could just introduce the Hellcat instead and give the Corsair to the Marines who needed something better than the Wildcat. For the Americans they needed to change operating procedures to accommodate the Corsair, the Brits were already doing the curved approach due to the Seafire also having a long nose and poor (but not as poor) visibility of the deck and LSO, but there's no evidence that the US Navy used British influence to get to that solution. If anything it's pretty obvious to the first pilot landing on a carrier that 'hey, maybe I should fly this in a way so I can see the deck rather than just guessing', rather than 'hey, let's wait a year until the Brits can figure it out and make our own squadrons qualify by flying blind'
Grew up in the 70’s in Lakenheath. These would go off two at a time over a 20 minute period. Made the house shake. My dear old dad was on the Ark in 70,s in 809 on the Bucs. Loved the Air arm jets and still remember visits to the Ark at Pompey
Welcome to the scandal that was defence planning in the 1960s. The Navy wanted two large 65,000 fleet carriers to replace its existing fleet carriers (especially as Ark Ark Royal was known to be worn out). But the Treasury wouldn't agree to the costs and eventually the project was cancelled. CVA-01, was the project name, If I recall correctly.
Re the blown tires...the pilot likely missed turning on the Anti Skid in the before landing checklist. Note the tires didn’t blow on touchdown, but later when the pilot tested the brakes following touchdown. The pilot has a lot of company in this checklist omission.
@@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819 Neil It might have been possible to stay clear of the South Atlantic. I haven't got details of the aircraft range, endurance but it had to be better than the Harriers. Plus inflight refueling.
it talks about the Phantom first embarking on Ark Royal in June 1970 trouble is the film is clearly of Phantoms in 1977 as witnessed by the fin mounted RWR and the markings on the nose.
The British Spey-powered Phantoms had more powerful engines than their J-79 powered counterparts, yet were not faster than these. Did they have superior climb and acceleration?
Had the Ark been kept on, there would have been no Falklands War, the costs of which would have paid for 10 modern replacements, plus one extra carrier every 8 years since 1982.
@@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819 Out of interest, what are your figures for the F3's top speed? I see widely differing numbers from different sources - a chap on PPRuNe stated the F3 was sluggish at altitude and you'd really need the burners plugged in to sustain that altitude.
@@SPiderman-rh2zk top speed is a very hard metric to measure in modern aviation, normally the speed is far more limited by either fuel load or structural issues than the actual engines and drag. What is more significant however is acceleration which the tornado had lots of at low altitude
The Brits took a good fighter and turned it into a bomber. I love the Phantom, but they should never have changed out the engines. British politicians again, I think.
It was still an incredibly capable fighter, just at lower altitudes. The speys produced significantly more thrust than the American engines at the time and also produced less smoke. Also the skyflash missiles they were fitted with were significantly more reliable than the sparrow versions the Americans were fielding at the time. Remember in RAF service the lightning was still used for high speed and altitude interception which it would do better than a British or American f4. The engines were a comprise but not to the extreme you say. Also furthermore using Spey engines insured commonality with other FAA aircraft and ensured British jobs.
@Daniel Eyre I never said anything about the avionics or weapon suite of the lightning or phantom. 100% the phantom was far better in that regard and definitely fit the cold war scenario much better. The lightning however had more raw performance than the f4, especially at altitude
Those were they days and given/lent me United States of America of the Royal Navy the legend war plane Phantom to land and take off Ark Royal carrier. Military jets of the 1960s, 70s and80s was the McDonald Douglas F4 Phantom.
The British Spey-powered Phantoms had more powerful engines than their J-79 powered counterparts, yet were not faster than these. Did they have superior climb and acceleration?
The two engines were better than each other in different parts of the flight regimes - Spey at low-level and J79 at altitude. However what really made the difference was that the Spey was a wider engine and the UK Phantoms were redesigned to accommodate that, which made them wider in the rear fuselage meaning more drag and a lower top speed overall than the J79 ones
@@scottmaclean1248 Speed limit on the UK Phantoms due to drag is a load of bollocks!! Real reason was the Compressor Inlet Temperature limits on the Spey (122C) were a lower than the J79 (127C) and the Fuel Control Regulator on the Spey was fitted with a protection systems designed to stop the engine from going over its temperature limits. It clearly states this in the pilot's notes of the aircraft.