F-4 Phantom Retiring

GRG55 said:
That F-4E gun looks lethal. But...
...personally, my vote goes to the gun on the nose of the A-10 :cool:
Click to expand...

It's not the gun, it's the teeth that'll get ya!

As far as F-4E vs A-10, different missions as the F-4E's gun is primarily for air-to-air dog fighting while the A-10's 30mm is designed to blow **** up on the ground, like tanks. Not that the F-4E can't do ground with the gun but that's really the difference.
 
The firstt F-4 I saw crashed - Thunderbird at Dulles, the show was "Transpo72" I beleive. Worked on the RF-4C, liked the airplane, though it lacked the features for ease of maintenance of later airplanes. . .The F-111 was a failure, more or less, neither a great fighter or a good bomber - the TFR "announced" the airplane's arrival to defenses. One of MacNamara's bone headed ideas. Proof that a smart guy can consistently make stupid decisions. And he was consistent. . .I think tne Aussies made good use of it as a bomber, with decent range.
 
Velocity173 said:
Unfortunately never got to see an F-111 fly nor worked one ATC. Seen a couple as statics in the early 90s before they retired them. Checkered past but I always liked the Ardvark. Too me it seems like it would be like an old muscle car. Power and speed but not very nimble and always breaks. :)

Got a 30 year old strip on one from my brother's AF ATC days.
Click to expand...

There's one parked out back at Pima for anyone who wasn't around back then and wants to see one up close. Quite some interesting airplanes out in their back 40, really.
 
There is also a random EF-111 parked at Silver Springs, NV muni. Don't know the story, and it is in dire need of a restoration…..I'm guessing at one point that was the intent.
 
Shepherd said:
Sigh.....
I've got too much time, blood, sweat, tears, and emotions invested in that aircraft not to be feeling a little sad about this announcement.
I'm sure there are a bunch of "Double Ugly" drivers out there feeling the same way.
Click to expand...

I feel the same about the P-3 Orion. Changed an engine in a F-4 in the late 70's, always liked that fuel guzzler.
 
Timbeck2 said:
Are you kidding? The F-111 had an ash tray! Loudest afterburner I ever heard, second only to the SR-71.
Click to expand...

When deployed to Okinawa, Japan with VP-90 I loved to watch the tankers take off and 30 minutes later the SR-71 would launch.
 
That's where I saw it too. As a student, I had to hold in my Cessna 152 while the SR-71 did a few touch and goes one time. I didn't mind that much although it was costing me forty dollars an hour!
 
Timbeck2 said:
That's where I saw it too. As a student, I had to hold in my Cessna 152 while the SR-71 did a few touch and goes one time. I didn't mind that much although it was costing me forty dollars an hour!
Click to expand...

The horror! ;)
 
Timbeck2 said:
That's where I saw it too. As a student, I had to hold in my Cessna 152 while the SR-71 did a few touch and goes one time. I didn't mind that much although it was costing me forty dollars an hour!
Click to expand...

$52 an hour when I was there. Along with a $25 per month club fee! :eek:
 
At Osan Aero Club in 1974 I paid CFI $5 and the C150 was $9 an hour if you bought by 10 hour block. :D
 
I wonder how many of those I cleared to land for the last time. A few years back they were refurbishing them as target drones. Now they're doing F-16s.
 
Timbeck2 said:
That's where I saw it too. As a student, I had to hold in my Cessna 152 while the SR-71 did a few touch and goes one time. I didn't mind that much although it was costing me forty dollars an hour!
Click to expand...
Where were you flying to watch an SR-71 do touch and goes?
 
RF-4Cs at Zweibruken Air Base, 70s, when I was stationed there.

Rf-4c-68-0568-zr.jpg RF-4C.jpg Rf-4c-69-0562-zs.jpg
 
Sundancer said:
The firstt F-4 I saw crashed - Thunderbird at Dulles, the show was "Transpo72" I beleive. Worked on the RF-4C, liked the airplane, though it lacked the features for ease of maintenance of later airplanes. . .The F-111 was a failure, more or less, neither a great fighter or a good bomber - the TFR "announced" the airplane's arrival to defenses. One of MacNamara's bone headed ideas. Proof that a smart guy can consistently make stupid decisions. And he was consistent. . .I think tne Aussies made good use of it as a bomber, with decent range.
Click to expand...

Full disclosure, flew F-111 right seat for a number of years. F-111 was a good, long range fighter bomber. I don't know where you got the TFR announcing plane's arrival to defenses. Defenses learned of the F-111's arrival by the thing that was being defended disappearing in smoke and flames. F-111s dropped a lot of precision guided bombs on Saddam in the Gulf War and before that conducted a surprise visit to Moamar in Libya. The F-15E took over the -111's mission but one thing the -111 had more of was unrefueled range. During Northern Watch the -111 was the only tactical aircraft that could fly a mission in northern Iraq from Incirlik without tanker support.
 
Witmo said:
Full disclosure, flew F-111 right seat for a number of years. F-111 was a good, long range fighter bomber. I don't know where you got the TFR announcing plane's arrival to defenses. Defenses learned of the F-111's arrival by the thing that was being defended disappearing in smoke and flames. F-111s dropped a lot of precision guided bombs on Saddam in the Gulf War and before that conducted a surprise visit to Moamar in Libya. The F-15E took over the -111's mission but one thing the -111 had more of was unrefueled range. During Northern Watch the -111 was the only tactical aircraft that could fly a mission in northern Iraq from Incirlik without tanker support.
Click to expand...
Bless you for your service; way back, the initial deployment to SEA didn't go real well, with two or three lost in pretty short order. It was a long time back, but I think the speculation was the TFR was revealing of their prescence. As I recall, MacNamara and Co. had the idea USAF and USN would share the design, but the Navy went along just far enough to drop it when convenient, as the weight grew and carrier performance suffered.
 
Sundancer said:
Bless you for your service; way back, the initial deployment to SEA didn't go real well, with two or three lost in pretty short order. It was a long time back, but I think the speculation was the TFR was revealing of their prescence. As I recall, MacNamara and Co. had the idea USAF and USN would share the design, but the Navy went along just far enough to drop it when convenient, as the weight grew and carrier performance suffered.
Click to expand...

Not the detection of the TFR at all. I worked the program when the Aardvark was deployed to SEA. One that was recovered was found with a tube of sealant jammed in the elevator control. Speculation also was monsoon level rain caused the TFR to go blind. We also lost one in the test program when the wing box failed leading to proof and cryogenic testing of every airframe in the fleet and delayed delivery of the Aussie F-111C's for years.

Unfortunately, the absolutely dumb idea of a universal fighter for everybody is being repeated in the F-35 with predictable results.

Cheers
 
While I was in SEA in 1971(?) the F-111s were grounded for awhile because General Dynamics had forgotten to install the parachute for the capsule ejection system.
 
I have to step up and correct the record concerning the F-111. It was an awesome night/imc low level bomber, especially the hot rod F-111F. I think the consensus about those early SEA loses was that they crashed due to TFR issues. The SEA deployment was probably too early in the long development of the airplane. There had never been a night/IMC low level attack bomber before, everything about the Vark was breakthrough technology. Even if the North Vietnamese detected the TFR radars they did not have a weapons system that could target an F-111 flying 500+ knots at 400 feet agl.

And of course the record of the F-111s in Eldorado Canyon and Desert Storm was outstanding, so much so it was kind of an embarrassment to the USAF, who wanted them gone for cost reasons. It was an expensive airplane to own, but worth it. The EF-111 should still be flying until and unless we ever deploy an airborne jammer effective against counter-stealth radars.
 
The F-111F was the version that finally had the thrust to weight originally planned for the Vark. The original TF30-P-3 engine made the thrust originally required but it took about four variations to get the level to meet the planned T/W. I lived thru all those SOB's development climaxing in the TF30-P-100.

Cheers
 
I'm surprised the F-4 was retired so recently. I thought they were phased out already, like back in the '90s.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I'm surprised the F-4 was retired so recently. I thought they were phased out already, like back in the '90s.
Click to expand...

They pretty much were done, even before that, once the F-15 and F-16 came on line. They've been used as drones for quite a few years now. And now they're using the first F-16s built as drones to replace the F-4 drones. A few were still flying but it's all over now.
 
X3 Skier said:
Unfortunately, the absolutely dumb idea of a universal fighter for everybody is being repeated in the F-35 with predictable results.

Cheers
Click to expand...

I agree. The B model seems to be the result of someone saying "hey, we make it even more expensive by adding a feature that will prove to be absolutely useless in actual operations".
 
Eglin AFB was set up to be the training center for all the F-35 variants. Who knows the amount of money spent to create new ramps, hangars, and other buildings to support the training. Awhile back the Marines pulled their training out as well as the Navy. Too bad we just don't have a combined military similar to Canada. It would save a ton of money, just in Generals overhead!
 
BigBadLou said:
So now they'll become available for purchase in the civilian sector?
What's the down payment, my house? :)
Click to expand...
Anyone can afford to buy one. Only the government can afford to fly one. :D
Double Ugly was a very expensive airplane to maintain and operate.
 
Cool. Now I have to convince Trump to give me half his fortune and I'll get one.
I see your funny nickname and agree that the Phantom does look unusual but there's something that draws me to that design. :)
But forget what it looks like on the outside if I can do some rolls and loops in it. That's all I ask for. :)
Is it too late to write Santa a letter?
 
BigBadLou said:
Cool. Now I have to convince Trump to give me half his fortune and I'll get one.
I see your funny nickname and agree that the Phantom does look unusual but there's something that draws me to that design. :)
But forget what it looks like on the outside if I can do some rolls and loops in it. That's all I ask for. :)
Is it too late to write Santa a letter?
Click to expand...

For only $12500 for about a 45 minute flight, you can do it in a F-4D Rhino. http://www.collingsfoundation.org/vmf-flight-experiences-flight-training-programs/
 
The A-4 Scooter is a great airplane but I'd take The Rhino every time.

Cheers
 
nauga said:
If it's your first tac jet hop you'll be so far behind either one you'll never notice the difference :D

Nauga,
who has been way behind both
Click to expand...
Probably. But I did survive an hour in a Hornet sim at NTU. Even made a successful trap. That said, the Hornet does everything for you. I suspect that both the A-4 and F-4 are much more challenging to fly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top