Jump to content

British Phantoms


Ash Lynx

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Heinlein said:

Was there any differences to the British phantoms other then the engine? If not i hope they just add RN skin to the naval phantom and call it a day.

There’s sufficient Phantom SMEs on here to pick up the detail…

…. but I think the name is the same…!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2022 at 8:32 AM, Heinlein said:

Was there any differences to the British phantoms other then the engine? If not i hope they just add RN skin to the naval phantom and call it a day.

 

Far from an expert in Phantoms or British variants, but from what I've learned on this forum, there was some deep differences.  The nose gear on Royal Navy Phantoms extended WAY higher than USN models, almost to the point of looking comical.  Some Brit Phantoms were basically nearly USAF models. But others featured a totally different engine, that produced a different power curve, so a lower top speed, but greater power at useable dogfighting speeds, better acceleration. That different engine needed substantial changes in size and geometry to the fuselage.

Many Brit Phantoms featured a rectangular EW fairing on top of the tail, never seen in any other country. Think some had a different radar set and different radio too.

Basically, it was still a Phantom... but a unique "cousin from across the pond" that spoke the same language but with a different accent and weird slang we'd never heard before! The same but different.

 

Edited due to mistake on my part.


Edited by Rick50
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2022 at 7:14 PM, Rick50 said:

Some Brit Phantoms were basically nearly USAF models.

That isn't true, though. All Brit Phantoms were derivatives of the naval F-4J in some form or another. One could make the case for the J actually profiting of a lot of mods that were designed for the FG.1 - the slatted stabilizer comes to mind, which in turn became necessary after drooping the ailerons which were introduced to juice a couple of knots less approach speed out of the airplane.

@G.J.S do you think the Speys had more bleed-air mass-flow for BLC over the J79s? I seem to remember reading something of the likes, but I'm not sure.


Edited by Bremspropeller
  • Like 1

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

That isn't true, though. All Brit Phantoms were derivatives of the naval F-4J in some form or another. One could make the case for the J actually profiting of a lot of mods that were designed for the FG.1 - the slatted stabilizer comes to mind, which in turn became necessary after drooping the ailerons which were introduced to juice a couple of knots less approach speed out of the airplane.

@G.J.S do you think the Speys had more bleed-air mass-flow for BLC over the J79s? I seem to remember reading something of the likes, but I'm not sure.

 

I believe that’s true. Not really up on J79 intricacies though. BLC on FGR2 available gear down, flaps full. LE blown (so if there is a failure of the system, the aircraft will pitch down - not up).

  • Thanks 1

Alien desktop PC, Intel i7-8700 CPU@3.20GHz 6 Core, Nvidia GTX 1070, 16GB RAM. TM Warthog stick and Throttles. Saitek ProFlight pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
 
But others featured a totally different engine, that produced a different power curve, so a lower top speed, but greater power at useable dogfighting speeds, better acceleration. That different engine needed substantial changes in size and geometry to the fuselage.

The geometry changes are what cut speed, not so much the engine itself. The bigger fuselage ruined the area ruling so transonic and supersonic drag was higher.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just to complicate things further, the F-4J's that were purchased for the UK were upgraded to F-4S standard. And on top of that there were some aspects of the cockpit unique to the UK models, such as an optical telescope for the navigator that poked out of the left side of the canopy divider, to help with visual ID for it's interceptor role.

I'd like a Spey engined Phantom if only for the reason that my partners dad was the MOD civil servant who organised the initial purchase of the airframes for the UK.
His knowledge of aircraft is such that if you were to show him a picture of a Phantom, he'd probably identify it about 6 out of 10 times - that's actually pretty good for an MOD civil servant, and why I don't have any inside info to share with everyone on the Spey engined variants  😄

---------------------------------------------------------

PC specs:- Intel 386DX, 2mb memory, onboard graphics, 14" 640x480 monitor

Modules owned:- Bachem Natter, Cessna 150, Project Pluto, Sopwith Snipe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The British did some other strange things to the F4J, like locking out the slats. Perhaps it was for maintenance reasons, to create a similarity with the rest of the F4 fleet.

Would like that variant of course, but I guess for Heatblur its the law of diminishing returns. You put more in, than you create value. After all,how many non Brits out there want a UK specific F4J or K? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2022 at 3:44 AM, stuart666 said:

The British did some other strange things to the F4J, like locking out the slats. Perhaps it was for maintenance reasons, to create a similarity with the rest of the F4 fleet.

 

??!?

I'd have thought the slats' usefulness would outweigh any other considerations, but seems I'm wrong about that!  So curious...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RAF were using these Phantoms for air defence of the UK, so dogfighting really didnt come into it. They seem to have wanted something with decent performance, relatively decent range (Im looking at you EE Lightning...) and the ability to carry Skyflash for Bomber plinking. I was surprised myself, but it was mentioned in a recent article in Flypast magazine IIRC.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stuart666 said:

RAF were using these Phantoms for air defence of the UK, so dogfighting really didnt come into it. They seem to have wanted something with decent performance, relatively decent range (Im looking at you EE Lightning...) and the ability to carry Skyflash for Bomber plinking. I was surprised myself, but it was mentioned in a recent article in Flypast magazine IIRC.

Don’t think this is entirely true.AFAIK, the British phantoms were also posted to RAF Germany for low level air defense where they  in fact often did engage in mock turning fights and dogfights with other RAF or NATO fighters. Think several RAF phantom pilots mentioned this on various podcasts. Air crew interview for example.


Edited by Snappy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was at an airshow on July 24th 1986, at RAF Brawdy, Pembrokeshire.  I was just a kid watching from the side of the runway when a Phantom came by for a second low pass at what must've been just above stall speed.  I distinctly remember something falling off the plane and onto the runway as it went by.  After that it seemed to have trouble gaining power as it dipped over the horizon and out of sight of the crowd.   Tragically the two crew ejected beyond the safe envelope as the Phantom crashed into St Bride's Bay.

Anyway, I would love to see a British variant.  I built a model as a kid.  I love HB's F-14 so much their Phantom module is a guaranteed purchase for me.


Edited by JupiterJoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JupiterJoe said:

I was at an airshow on July 24th 1986, at RAF Brawdy, Pembrokeshire.  I was just a kid watching from the side of the runway when a Phantom came by for a second low pass at what must've been just above stall speed.  I distinctly remember something falling off the plane and onto the runway as it went by.  After that it seemed to have trouble gaining power as it dipped over the horizon and out of sight of the crowd.   Tragically the two crew ejected beyond the safe envelope as the Phantom crashed into St Bride's Bay.

Anyway, I would love to see a British variant.  I built a model as a kid.  I love HB's F-14 so much their Phantom module is a guaranteed purchase for me.

 

RF-4, Alconbury crew I think, last pass before RTB. 
Vaguely remember hearing crew were relatively inexperienced. 
Also something about a panel from engine underside going free - but that wouldn’t have caused a flight issue. Un-baffled CFT?

  • Like 2

Alien desktop PC, Intel i7-8700 CPU@3.20GHz 6 Core, Nvidia GTX 1070, 16GB RAM. TM Warthog stick and Throttles. Saitek ProFlight pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

A film illustrating the various commands of the RAF-four Phantoms fly escort,Nimrod XV235 goes on maritime patrol,VC-10S fly troops out of Brize Norton and Herculies and Wessex Helicopters place them on the Battlefields

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

- Jack of many DCS modules, master of none.

- Personal wishlist: F-15A, F-4S Phantom II, JAS 39A Gripen, SAAB 35 Draken, F-104 Starfighter, Panavia Tornado IDS.

 

| Windows 11 | i5-12400 | 64Gb DDR4 | RTX 3080 | 2x M.2 | 27" 1440p | Rift CV1 | Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS | MFG Crosswind pedals |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know if people already saw these threads also, but as they are related here they go :

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/285899-phantom-fg1-f-4k/

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/261951-hms-ark-royal-r09-beginning-development/

Hangar
FC3 | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C ... ... JA 37 | Kfir | MiG-23 | Mirage IIIE
Mi-8 MTV2

system
i7-4790 K , 16 GB DDR3 , GTX 1660 Ti 6GB , Samsung 860 QVO 1TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2022 at 10:56 AM, Snappy said:

Don’t think this is entirely true.AFAIK, the British phantoms were also posted to RAF Germany for low level air defense where they  in fact often did engage in mock turning fights and dogfights with other RAF or NATO fighters. Think several RAF phantom pilots mentioned this on various podcasts. Air crew interview for example.

 

The British F4's were originally intended for air defence of the UK and the Fleet. I think Air Defence over West Germany was originally fulfilled by Lightnings, just as it was over Akrotyri.

 Bear in mind, we only bought something like 12 F4J's, it was purely to help fill out the requirement of deploying a flight down to the Falklands (which themselves would have been non F4J's). From the article in Flypast, the RAF F4J's were just doing air defence of the UK. They may well have done dogfighting in that time, and I read they certainly did (Including once remarkably with a Spitfire..) against over NATO nations over the UK, but it doesnt mean it makes sense to activate slats which would have made them wholly dissimilar to the rest of the RAF Phantom fleet. It was bad enough having different engines.

Hey, just repeating what I read. Im sure the RAF had their reasons, but along with other detail changes, the F4J had the slats locked out. From what they said, they received incomplete documentation (Or at least poorly photocopied) and it was an absolute pain at times getting parts. They did like them though, they were rather faster than the Spey powered Phantoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stuart666 said:

. They did like them though, they were rather faster than the Spey powered Phantoms.

Only at altitude. 25 down, Spey rules. Quicker acceleration, mucho greater thrust. Top end suffered somewhat, but you really don’t need to be above M1.4 for too much.
No point blasting out to M2 dash, get to intercept point and have no fuel for the return. The North Sea is no place to join the M2 club if you have to swim home 😆

At altitude though, the J was in its element, the engines preferred it up there. 

Alien desktop PC, Intel i7-8700 CPU@3.20GHz 6 Core, Nvidia GTX 1070, 16GB RAM. TM Warthog stick and Throttles. Saitek ProFlight pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, stuart666 said:

The British F4's were originally intended for air defence of the UK and the Fleet. I think Air Defence over West Germany was originally fulfilled by Lightnings, just as it was over Akrotyri.

 Bear in mind, we only bought something like 12 F4J's, it was purely to help fill out the requirement of deploying a flight down to the Falklands (which themselves would have been non F4J's). From the article in Flypast, the RAF F4J's were just doing air defence of the UK. They may well have done dogfighting in that time, and I read they certainly did (Including once remarkably with a Spitfire..) against over NATO nations over the UK, but it doesnt mean it makes sense to activate slats which would have made them wholly dissimilar to the rest of the RAF Phantom fleet. It was bad enough having different engines.

Hey, just repeating what I read. Im sure the RAF had their reasons, but along with other detail changes, the F4J had the slats locked out. From what they said, they received incomplete documentation (Or at least poorly photocopied) and it was an absolute pain at times getting parts. They did like them though, they were rather faster than the Spey powered Phantoms.

Ah sorry, I think I misunderstood you Stuart. Didn’t get that you were talking only and specifically about the -J variant in British use.

Thought that with “British Phantoms “ you meant all the phantom variants in British service. I should’ve read your statement more in the context of the previous posts. You may well be right then in regards to the -Js and their employment!

Regards,

 Snappy 


Edited by Snappy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2022 at 6:44 AM, stuart666 said:

... After all,how many non Brits out there want a UK specific F4J or K? 

I would be one. carrier capable and different enough to make it really interesting... 😉 Add an official HMS Ark Royal and I´ll even pay full price for it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Baco said:

I would be one. carrier capable and different enough to make it really interesting... 😉 Add an official HMS Ark Royal and I´ll even pay full price for it.

 

+ 1 here

  • Like 1

Hangar
FC3 | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C ... ... JA 37 | Kfir | MiG-23 | Mirage IIIE
Mi-8 MTV2

system
i7-4790 K , 16 GB DDR3 , GTX 1660 Ti 6GB , Samsung 860 QVO 1TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2022 at 10:14 PM, Snappy said:

Ah sorry, I think I misunderstood you Stuart. Didn’t get that you were talking only and specifically about the -J variant in British use.

Thought that with “British Phantoms “ you meant all the phantom variants in British service. I should’ve read your statement more in the context of the previous posts. You may well be right then in regards to the -Js and their employment!

Regards,

 Snappy 

 

Thats cool, I wasnt very clear.

On 8/24/2022 at 10:48 PM, Baco said:

I would be one. carrier capable and different enough to make it really interesting... 😉 Add an official HMS Ark Royal and I´ll even pay full price for it.

 

On 8/25/2022 at 11:12 AM, Top Jockey said:

 

+ 1 here

Well of course so would I. But is that enough reason to develop it based on a handful of people. Sadly not.

And its a real shame, because you could fly some truly interesting, worldbeating in some cases, aircraft off the Ark. Buccaneer, Sea Vixen. I think a Sea Hawk would be massively popular as well. But is the return going to be worth the fiscal cost of development. Sadly, probably not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-4J(UK) didn't have their slats locked out.

They were "standard hard-wing" F-4Js from strorage. They were upgraded to F-4S standard* minus the slats and supposedly minus VTAS.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/F-4J%28UK%29_Phantom_of_74_Squadron_in_flight_1984.jpg

There are no slat-track housings/ fairings on the wing.

Compare this with Vandy two:

Spoiler

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/abpic-media-production/pictures/full_size_0181/1272575-large.jpg

___

*the first 40 odd F-4S initially also didn't have the slat-upgrade, but they'd later be upgraded


Edited by Bremspropeller
  • Thanks 1

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, stuart666 said:

Thats cool, I wasnt very clear.

 

Well of course so would I. But is that enough reason to develop it based on a handful of people. Sadly not.

And its a real shame, because you could fly some truly interesting, worldbeating in some cases, aircraft off the Ark. Buccaneer, Sea Vixen. I think a Sea Hawk would be massively popular as well. But is the return going to be worth the fiscal cost of development. Sadly, probably not.

I disagree. Lots Modules made from 2021 to date are apparently "not commercially viable enough", still we got an I 16, a JF 17, a Mirage F1, we are getting an MB 339 a trainer,no less, a BO 105 helicopter while the Kiowa sits in the dark still... The only "reason" to develop a module is love an passion and Data. The excuse "its obscure" does not run any more.. India Foxtrot is working on a Fiat G.91! talk about specific and obscure... A Kfir is coming..

Its all a matter of will and getting the data for the module. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...