G.J.S

Higgins in the back seat

CBU-52 & 71. In the US arsenal.

Total agreement. The fact that ANY fully modelled F-4 is inbound should be a cause for celebration, not argumentative “column” measuring. Other variants are to follow, maybe not the specific model from a specific timeframe, but others are coming. Either way, it’s going to be interesting watching some cry foul when they realise that the F-4 is not a flying laptop. It will not help you, the slightest ham-fisted input will result in the aircraft actively trying to end you, but the fact that here is an aircraft with hydraulic muscles - not electrons - will take you back to PURE flight, where finesse and self control will be rewarded with an aircraft that will respond willingly. Regardless of variant, rejoice. A total disregard for enemy aircraft is coming, with twin fires and a swagger that just says “f#*k you!” to any perceived superiority. The beast is back . . .

Sgt.Pappy, yes the UK F-4 was slower, but acceleration wise we could accelerate much more rapidly than other variants, top end speed suffered though. Officially limited to M1.8, I’ve heard of crews seeing M2 - but it was a struggle to attain that. At higher altitudes the accel rates fell off, but medium alt to low alt, the UK F-4 was blisteringly quick. As for cost - they most certainly were the most expensive variants ever built! Ridiculously so, more Phantoms could have been purchased (J or even S birds which would have more than met requirements) for the same outlay. As for worst performing, I would disagree, for the UK requirement, they met the desired points (at the time). The vertical was our playground - meat on the table!

Yeah. Never saw them on USAF birds, but have seen them mounted on naval types, and mainly USMC aviation.

Weren’t Zuni’s a USN/USMC weapon? Always associated them with that rocket type anyway.

That’s some top drawer work right there!

Likely leave them in as a “last ditch” load, if sh1t and fan have met, aircraft take on a “throw-away” quality.

And the ejected brass would carpet a huge swathe of enemy trench troops below the aircraft

Fired round mass of 10 grams? From an air rifle maybe. Fired Round average is about 100 grams, and muzzle velocity was just over 1000M sec, SAPHEI a little higher. I distinctly remember scrubbing knots many off with a prolonged burst. edit: just realised you are on about 7.62 NATO. I meant Vulcan rounds.

Let’s all 21 rip . . . . . And fall out of the sky. The muzzle horsepower would far exceed the engines.

AF Phantoms had much lower MLG tire pressures, also the tires were wider. An Air Force F-4E could for sure land on a carrier . . . . . Once. The only way it would leave the deck again would be if it was shunted over the side.

XF4H-1.

Guess that is for the -120 on the Echo?

Yeah. Not a lot of ground clearance with these!

Some ground crew just never understand . . . . It’s dedication I tells ya!

Watched the flights linking up with tankers over my house in the West Country of England on their way out - was almost continuous rumbling for nearly an hour.

You owe me a new keyboard QWERTY & coffee don’t mix lol.

All look cracking , particularly like your “Jug”.

It - and a couple of others - did land on, and were shot off. Its not a mock up. Do you think it didn't happen?

VF-96 operated some flights to/from HMS Hermes in 1963. All aircraft made it back to USS Ranger, no “one-way gifting” of airframes.