F-4 (F4H-1)(F-110) Phantom

[KJ_Lesnick]

As I understood it the air force wanted a lower pressure tire for improved safety.  The early Navy Phantoms tires had very high pressures, ~450PSI 

The concern was blowouts?

[rickshaw]

As I understood it the air force wanted a lower pressure tire for improved safety.  The early Navy Phantoms tires had very high pressures, ~450PSI 

The concern was blowouts?

Kendra/Robyn the concern was many things, blowouts just one of them.  With a higher tyre pressure, there comes a rougher, firmer ride, which isn't important on a small runway like a flight deck but on a long, concrete runway it can cause problems to the runway (because of the thinner, harder edged tyre) and the aircraft and crew (the aircraft is subject to greater shocks and hence becomes less reliable and the crew suffers from back problems).   Weapons have a tendency to also fall off, if subjected to numerous heavy jolts - not a good look when its possibly a nuclear weapon.

[Weaver]

Anyone fancy making Freightdog's day by modelling this loadout?



From here: https://twitter.com/CcibChris/status/744106651137998849

[Captain Canada]

Looks like she's ready to ruin somebody's day !

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

Kendra/Robyn the concern was many things, blowouts just one of them.  With a higher tyre pressure, there comes a rougher, firmer ride, which isn't important on a small runway like a flight deck but on a long, concrete runway it can cause problems to the runway (because of the thinner, harder edged tyre)

You mean it can wreck the concrete?

and the aircraft and crew (the aircraft is subject to greater shocks and hence becomes less reliable and the crew suffers from back problems).

Then what about carrier crew?  They take harder landings and seem to be okay...

Weapons have a tendency to also fall off, if subjected to numerous heavy jolts - not a good look when its possibly a nuclear weapon.

True, but the USN could carry nuclear weapons just fine last I checked/

Regardless, on a more serious note, did the bulged doors cause trouble with the aerodynamics?

[rickshaw]

rickshaw

Kendra/Robyn the concern was many things, blowouts just one of them.  With a higher tyre pressure, there comes a rougher, firmer ride, which isn't important on a small runway like a flight deck but on a long, concrete runway it can cause problems to the runway (because of the thinner, harder edged tyre)

You mean it can wreck the concrete?

Basically, yes, it can.  Anything that continually strikes concrete with a heavy weight can knock holes in it on the landing zone/threshold.

and the aircraft and crew (the aircraft is subject to greater shocks and hence becomes less reliable and the crew suffers from back problems).

Then what about carrier crew?  They take harder landings and seem to be okay...

Because they are expected to and remember, their landings don't have long run outs whereas ground based aircraft do.   Human anatomy is resilient in the short-term but in the longer-term continuous shocks can lead to muscular-skeletal problems.

Weapons have a tendency to also fall off, if subjected to numerous heavy jolts - not a good look when its possibly a nuclear weapon.

True, but the USN could carry nuclear weapons just fine last I checked/

Again, a case of short, sharp knocks (carrier landing) as against continuous bumps/knocks (runway landing plus run out),

Regardless, on a more serious note, did the bulged doors cause trouble with the aerodynamics?

What do you think?

[PR19_Kit]

Anyone fancy making Freightdog's day by modelling this loadout?



From here: https://twitter.com/CcibChris/status/744106651137998849

Ah yes, umpteen years ago I built an FAA Phantom after seeing that pic.

It was a Revell FG1 (tells just you how long ago it was....) and it used almost my entire stock of rocket pods from numerous other kits. I had it a show we did in Sheffield and an ex-FAA Phantom crew guy came up and said there was NO way it would have ever launched with that amount of payload. 

[rickshaw]

You mean that it couldn't have melted the deck, launching with that payload? 

[Weaver]

Ah yes, umpteen years ago I built an FAA Phantom after seeing that pic.

It was a Revell FG1 (tells just you how long ago it was....) and it used almost my entire stock of rocket pods from numerous other kits. I had it a show we did in Sheffield and an ex-FAA Phantom crew guy came up and said there was NO way it would have ever launched with that amount of payload.  

Were they 68mm SNEB pods (2 rings of tubes) or 2" Mircocell pods (3 rings of tubes) though? I think I've seen RAF Phantoms flying with 6x Matra pods on the inners before now.

[Martin H]

Ah yes, umpteen years ago I built an FAA Phantom after seeing that pic.

It was a Revell FG1 (tells just you how long ago it was....) and it used almost my entire stock of rocket pods from numerous other kits. I had it a show we did in Sheffield and an ex-FAA Phantom crew guy came up and said there was NO way it would have ever launched with that amount of payload. 

Were they 68mm SNEB pods (2 rings of tubes) or 2" Mircocell pods (3 rings of tubes) though? I think I've seen RAF Phantoms flying with 6x Matra pods on the inners before now.

yeah, the RAF tooms in the ground pounding role could and did carry 6 sneb pods on TER's mounted on the inboard pylon. They had a slight advantage over the RN shipboard tooms. A full length runway!

Were as the navy had to work on a reduced payload due to the maximum weight capability of the catapults the Ark Royal was using.

Photos like that are still great thou, even thou the load out is purely an open house publicity stunt.

[Weaver]

Ah yes, umpteen years ago I built an FAA Phantom after seeing that pic.

It was a Revell FG1 (tells just you how long ago it was....) and it used almost my entire stock of rocket pods from numerous other kits. I had it a show we did in Sheffield and an ex-FAA Phantom crew guy came up and said there was NO way it would have ever launched with that amount of payload. 

Were they 68mm SNEB pods (2 rings of tubes) or 2" Mircocell pods (3 rings of tubes) though? I think I've seen RAF Phantoms flying with 6x Matra pods on the inners before now.

yeah, the RAF tooms in the ground pounding role could and did carry 6 sneb pods on TER's mounted on the inboard pylon. They had a slight advantage over the RN shipboard tooms. A full length runway!

Were as the navy had to work on a reduced payload due to the maximum weight capability of the catapults the Ark Royal was using.

Photos like that are still great thou, even thou the load out is purely an open house publicity stunt.

It'd be fun to model it as it was at the open day, complete with notice boards, rope barriers and gawking kids....

[PR19_Kit]

Ah yes, umpteen years ago I built an FAA Phantom after seeing that pic.

It was a Revell FG1 (tells just you how long ago it was....) and it used almost my entire stock of rocket pods from numerous other kits. I had it a show we did in Sheffield and an ex-FAA Phantom crew guy came up and said there was NO way it would have ever launched with that amount of payload.  

Were they 68mm SNEB pods (2 rings of tubes) or 2" Mircocell pods (3 rings of tubes) though? I think I've seen RAF Phantoms flying with 6x Matra pods on the inners before now.

Pass, they were whatever I had in my spares box at the time and which looked good. They not have been all the same for all I can remember. 

The model was pretty attractive to some little tea leaf though as it was nicked right off the club stand! 

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

Basically, yes, it can.  Anything that continually strikes concrete with a heavy weight can knock holes in it on the landing zone/threshold.

I know if you put enough pressure on a small enough spot, you can bust through things.  I was just surprised the tires would on that plane.

Because they are expected to and remember, their landings don't have long run outs whereas ground based aircraft do.   Human anatomy is resilient in the short-term but in the longer-term continuous shocks can lead to muscular-skeletal problems.

What about the Marines?

Again, a case of short, sharp knocks (carrier landing) as against continuous bumps/knocks (runway landing plus run out),

Did the USN have more problems with their missiles?

What do you think?

I'd assume so, but not everything is what it seems

[ChernayaAkula]

Regarding the thicker wheels/wings issue:

From "USAF Phantoms: Tactics, Training and Weapons" by Tony M. Thornborough, p. 14:

"Other modifications included larger, softer, lower-pressure main gear landing tyres, increased in width by 3.8 in, so that a fully loaded F-4C could better distribute its weight over thinner paved concrete runways ; similarly, commensurate with the higher gross operating weights of USAF aircraft, more powerful brakes and an anti-skid system were also added. All these main undercarriage modifications required the wing roots to be enlarged in order to accommodate the bulkier landing gear assembly."

From "WAPJ: McDonell F-4 Phantom - Spirit in the Skies" by Jon Lake, p. 128:

"The high tyre pressure of the F-4B was unacceptable for USAF operations, and the wheel/tyre assembly was redesigned with lower pressure and the width increased from 7.7 in (19.5 cm) to 11.5 in 29 cm). in turn, this enabled a Hydro-Aire anti-skid braking system to be installed, considered by the Air Force to be essential even with an emergency hook. The larger wheels required shallow bulges in the upper and lower wing skins."

Another thing that might play into this (this is only my speculation, though) is that thicker, lower-pressure tyres might be more forgiving in a crosswind landing, which can be quite demanding of a tyre. While crosswinds may be less of an issue in carrier operations, they can pose difficult situations to shore-based aircraft.

[DarrenP2]

In flight refueling the phantom?

th USN, USMC & UK versions had folding probes on side of cockpits. The Airforce versions like the F4E has flying boom system.

Did any Airforce versions get the navy in flight re fueling system.