This is the place where the majority of the warbird (aircraft that have survived military service) discussions will take place. Specialized forums may be added in the new future
Post a reply

Rolling In Hot!

Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:37 pm

Image

BTDT

Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:14 pm

....too bad thats not a NAVY plane though!

Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:28 pm

I really love that plane.

B

Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:02 am

Remember the Air Force borrowed the Phantom from the Navy.
Chuck

Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:28 am

Ahhhh yes, proof that cement blocks do in fact, fly.
The F4 is a very, very cool aircraft. A flight of two departed the airfield that I worked at, requested an unrestricted climb to 12,000. it got approved, that these guys virtually went vertical and blew up and off, two hundred feet of asphalt. Awesome!

Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:36 am

There are very, very few jets that impress me..........the F4 takes first prize in my book!!!!! It even LOOKS mean and you KNOW it can do some serious damage!!! :wink: :wink: :wink:
Last edited by Beachy on Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:26 pm

Not sure where I read this but I love this quote [paraphrased]:

"The F-4 looks like it was built out of angle iron over a long weekend".

Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:37 pm

That is good...angle iron over a long weekend....
I recall the summer of 67 my Grandfather and I were traveling to California from florida, and we went by Bang Bang Maxwell AFB and I saw all of these F-4s in taxi headed to the active runway, the heat rising from them, the canopies up and the white helmets like little white dots under them....It was awesome, and I didn't have a camera, but I can still see that sight.

Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:46 pm

My Phavorite Phantom Phrase is "World's Leading Distributor of MiG Parts"

n5151ts wrote:....too bad thats not a NAVY plane though!


Too right!! So here ya go:

The Navy companion photo to Jack's "Rolling In"
Image

And the "Money Shot"...
Image


Shay
______________
Semper Fortis

Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:04 pm

Wasn't the Phantom II originally designated as the F-110 ?---Wouldn't that be USAF parlance before the USN came along? (Who's on first?)
VL

Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:27 pm

The F-4 was originally the F4H as it was originally a Navy aircraft. I believe the USAF was to designate it the F-110, but before they could the Unification took place and the aircraft became the F-4.

Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:50 pm

F4 Forever more.
Ya know, the F4 really does have some beautiful lines doesn't she

Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:35 pm

Just remember, it couldn't happen without the FAC!

Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:41 pm

While at UPT many mango seasons ago, we had a weather day & were all grounded (such was life at Columbus) for the day. After the typical ground training stuff, the flight commander, an F15 guy fresh off a tour with the 33rd & Desert Storm asked us what we would want to fly if we could fly anything. As it went around the room, there were several F15, F16 answers, the odd A10 answer (my favorite current mud mover) until it got to me. I boldly stated I'd like to fly the F4.

My flt cmdr was dumbstruck, an F15 guy just couldn't understand that thinking, so I got asked the obvious follow-up question - why?

I knew my flt cmdr was a car guy, so I used a car analogy. I said, it's like comparing a '92 Corvette ZR1 (top of the line hi-po American car at the time) & a '67 Vette with a 427, tri-power, & 4-spd. There's no real question which one is the better car if you define better simply by performance - the ZR1 will out run, out handle, & out class the older model. But I'd take the '67 Vette any day of the week & twice on Sundays because it just looks mean. It's going to give the ZR1 a run for its money & it's going to do it with raw, brute power. The F4 is the same thing - it just looks mean & it does everything reasonably well with raw, brute power.

My flt cmdr just smiled.

Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:13 pm

never did like the phantom. But having seen some clips of it dropping ordinance over Vietnam, I changed my mind. It was really a beautiful aircraft.
Post a reply