British Phantoms

[Specter]

There is a lot of talk about the British Spey powered Phantom on this thread but what has not been mentioned, unless I have missed it, is the Brits had 2 distinctly different Spey powered models of Phantom.

The FG1 (aka F4K) did not have a battery so could not be operated unsupported,  It also only had a mechanical Nav Computer so no INS (or INAS as it was called) thereby relying on a second Gyro backup attitude system. It also didn’t have a long range Comms Radio system but it did have a hydraulic wingfold.  It’s extendable nose leg had been disabled by the time I got my hands on it in the RAF but the AOA traffic lights on the nose door still worked.

The FGR2 (aka F4M) did have a battery so could operate unsupported  in a limited fashion.  It also had INAS and a HF radio for long range comms.  Like the FG1 it had BLC flaps and slats but it did not have a slatted stab and it only had manual wing fold.  This model had a standard Nose leg and no AOA traffic lights. It also didn't have the catapult bridle hooks on the underside unlike the FG1 that did.

I cannot comment of the F4J(UK) as I never worked on it.
 

[Rick50]

On 9/1/2022 at 1:39 PM, Baco said:

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. 

 

...and licensing rights permission too... but yes, I agree with your post! 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Rick50

[stuart666]

On 9/1/2022 at 4:05 PM, Bremspropeller said:

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.

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

Compare this with Vandy two:

  Reveal hidden contents

___

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

 

That may be it then.

[rkk01]

I’d also pay full price for a F4K with Ark Royal….!

[Blackjack_UK]

On 9/23/2022 at 2:31 PM, rkk01 said:

I’d also pay full price for a F4K with Ark Royal….!

Hell yes!

[rkk01]

With Razbam’s S Atlantic assets and selected community mods, we would have a really good Cold War UK naval task force…

[Biggus]

Honestly, I'll buy every Phantom HB produces.  While I'm most excited for the J/S, I'm thrilled to be getting the Echo in the not too distant future.  The Spey Phantoms would be a great addition to DCS too, should HB ever have the inclination to add them. 

[Mikep821]

[Mizzy]

On 10/4/2022 at 6:02 PM, Blackjack_UK said:

Hell yes!

 

On 9/23/2022 at 2:31 PM, rkk01 said:

I’d also pay full price for a F4K with Ark Royal….!

I would pay double for a British F4, it's my favourite aircraft of all next to the Bucc.

Mizzy

[Schlomo1933]

Am 12.8.2022 um 11:44 schrieb stuart666:

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? 

Me

[Top Jockey]

1 hour ago, Schlomo1933 said:

Me

 

Again, me also.

Edited October 15, 2022 by Top Jockey

[Nodak]

Don't think anyone's clarified the difference between the J-79 vs Spey, they were low bypass 'turbofans'.  Meaning much of the fan airflow was bypassed around the burn chambers and contributed to thrust straight off the initial fan stages.  Hense the top end lowered speeds but quicker thrust available at slower speeds at higher rates of acceleration.  Going to guess with all that bypassed cooling air available the burners could throw in greater amounts of fuel allowing increased thrust in afterburner also as compared to the J79's, since they had the ability to provide some of the bypassed auxiliary cooling air into the burner can air flows allowing for it.

Always been a fan of the British Phantoms, only they could operate out of the woods off emergency highway strips in Germany for this very precise reason.  Probably couldn't have operated off those postage stamp sized carriers without this either, anyone ever see a picture or film of a US Navy Phantom land on one of their small carriers, I've only seen it the other way around.  I'd buy it in a heart beat, be interesting to compare and knife fight between the two, and a real treat on a cold war Germany map.

[Bremspropeller]

16 hours ago, Nodak said:

Probably couldn't have operated off those postage stamp sized carriers without this either, anyone ever see a picture or film of a US Navy Phantom land on one of their small carriers, I've only seen it the other way around.

[G.J.S]

[rkk01]

Got down…

…. But did it get off again…?!

[G.J.S]

5 hours ago, rkk01 said:

Got down…

…. But did it get off again…?!

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.

[r4y30n]

Don't think anyone's clarified the difference between the J-79 vs Spey, they were low bypass 'turbofans'.  Meaning much of the fan airflow was bypassed around the burn chambers and contributed to thrust straight off the initial fan stages.  Hense the top end lowered speeds but quicker thrust available at slower speeds at higher rates of acceleration.  Going to guess with all that bypassed cooling air available the burners could throw in greater amounts of fuel allowing increased thrust in afterburner also as compared to the J79's, since they had the ability to provide some of the bypassed auxiliary cooling air into the burner can air flows allowing for it.
Always been a fan of the British Phantoms, only they could operate out of the woods off emergency highway strips in Germany for this very precise reason.  Probably couldn't have operated off those postage stamp sized carriers without this either, anyone ever see a picture or film of a US Navy Phantom land on one of their small carriers, I've only seen it the other way around.  I'd buy it in a heart beat, be interesting to compare and knife fight between the two, and a real treat on a cold war Germany map.

The lower top speed had less to do with the engines themselves and more to do with their larger diameter breaking the area ruling so wave drag was much higher at supersonic speeds.

Burner thrust mostly comes from the combination of temperature and pressure in the can. With cooler air entering the can you need more fuel to hit the same temperature for the same thrust, all else being equal, meaning a loss in efficiency. Looking at the specific fuel consumption for both, the J79 is about 0.84 lb/hr/lb thrust in MIL vs 0.63 for the Spey, however, in max AB the J79 burns 1.13 lb/hr/lb thrust vs 1.95 for the Spey, nearly double the fuel for every pound of thrust!

[joey45]

And for the record it was only trials on Hermes... The reason why she was converted to an ASW/Commando carrier was it would cost too much to update her deck/cats and arrester equipment.

[Bremspropeller]

On 10/17/2022 at 9:16 PM, rkk01 said:

Got down…

…. But did it get off again…?!

The hook is up and no wire is caught.

[G.J.S]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

The hook is up and no wire is caught.

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? 

[Bremspropeller]

54 minutes ago, G.J.S said:

Do you think it didn't happen? 

I do think the hook ain't down and it didn't catch a wire here.

[G.J.S]

57 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

I do think the hook ain't down and it didn't catch a wire here.

 

[Ramstein]

On 3/27/2022 at 11:26 AM, Rick50 said:

Well considering the burners are tilted downwards from waterline, then add in all that angle, and finally consider that this would all position the burner nozzles physically closer to the deck...  I could imagine it scorching the deck paint!

I believe the deck is painted with an extremely durable industrial paint/coating/epoxy,  but could be only the "painted areas" with white or yellow paint. Well, nowdays.... just remembered Phantoms would have done this in much earlier decades, no idea what US carrier decks were like.

No they didn't burn anything.. all that came out that far back was the very hot exhaust gases of the JP-4. (Navy was JP-5). I spent a zillion hours around the aircraft.

[exhausted]

On 10/15/2022 at 4:07 PM, Nodak said:

Don't think anyone's clarified the difference between the J-79 vs Spey, they were low bypass 'turbofans'.  Meaning much of the fan airflow was bypassed around the burn chambers and contributed to thrust straight off the initial fan stages. 

I believe the Spey was a low bypass turbofan, but the J-79 is still in the turbojet class. I believe there could have been a difference in speed based on the optimization of each design; namely, Wiki says the top speed in the Spey was lower because of the compressor outlet temperatures... could this mean the materials in the Spey were the limiting factor?

[r4y30n]

I believe the Spey was a low bypass turbofan, but the J-79 is still in the turbojet class. I believe there could have been a difference in speed based on the optimization of each design; namely, Wiki says the top speed in the Spey was lower because of the compressor outlet temperatures... could this mean the materials in the Spey were the limiting factor?

Check my post above. The lower speed had nothing to do with the engines themselves.