Rolling In Hot!

T2 Ernie · **Posted:** Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:59 am

gary1954 wrote:

is

While not quite ugly, it is, what I like to call, purposeful looking.

sgt hawk · **Posted:** Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:10 pm

Ya gotta love that big ugly bird and having experienced a few "Danger Close" situations, they have scared the hell out of me! An "epiphany" is a "Religous" experience and I doubt if many in my platoon could spell it, but I'm certain they could describe one! As we would all scream in harmony when they were making a pass,"GET SOME".
Greg Hawkins
Woodstock, Ga

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:11 pm

T2 Ernie wrote:

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.

Most people agree that without the raw, brute power it had, the F-4 wouldn't fly.

It was a great airplane for its generation. It was the first truely dual-role fighter. It could not only deliver a vast array of ordinance on the target, but it could fight its way in and out of the target with both AIM-9s and AIM-7s. The problem was at the time, the idea wasn't realized so the F-15E became the first "true" dual-role fighter in most books becuase it was actually employed as such and not as a bomber or a fighter as the F-4 was.

corsairkid · **Joined:** Sun May 14, 2006 7:09 pm **Posts:** 52

Yeah, during my time in, the F-4 was the big dawg, and I just loved looking at them on the ramp, listening to them scream and roar, and watching them fly the pattern with those omnipresent twin streaks of smudge trailing behind them. Yes, modern aircraft are more capable, but they're cute, little pansies compared to the F-4. That a/c defined *Bad-to-the-Bone* for me with all those angles and raw, unrefined power.

The F-104 ranks pretty high on my BttB-O-Meter too.

B17news · **Posted:** Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:19 pm

someone here will probably have the info, but when I was at Keesler in 1985, an F4 and another aircraft, possibly another F4, collided over Gulfport, MS. One of the aircraft crashed (not sure of the outcome for the crew) and the other landed at Keesler, with the entire rear half of the aircraft heavily damaged. The exhaust nozzles were mangled, the horizontal stabilizers were at least 50% missing, etc. I swear I took a picture of it, but I have no idea where it is. That plane can take a LOT of punishment.
B

Pick · **Posted:** Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:07 am

banndit wrote:

someone here will probably have the info, but when I was at Keesler in 1985, an F4 and another aircraft, possibly another F4, collided over Gulfport, MS. One of the aircraft crashed (not sure of the outcome for the crew) and the other landed at Keesler, with the entire rear half of the aircraft heavily damaged. The exhaust nozzles were mangled, the horizontal stabilizers were at least 50% missing, etc. I swear I took a picture of it, but I have no idea where it is. That plane can take a LOT of punishment.
B

I'm guessing that was ours. The 183rd TFG, 170th TFS ILANG. (I was in tech school at the time, but word about the incident traveled to us........and the surviving F-4 was just coming out of depo-level repair when I returned from FTD a couple of months later.)

As I remember it, the two Phantoms were both cleared to the same runway at the same time. Both the pilot and the WSO punched out of the lower Phantom (barely missing the upper one!) and the upper one diverted and landed fairly successfully. (everyone survived and that Phantom flew again eventually anyway.)

The other part to that story is that it closed the runway at Gulfport, and we still had a bunch of airplanes in the air, low on fuel and running out of options quickly. Again, IIRC, the landing at Keelser in the damaged airplane blew both mains and subsequently closed that runway as well, so the rest were reportedly told to find alternates or to take 'em out to the gulf and ditch 'em......they all found alternates and had our crew chiefs making road trips all over the southeast to recover 'em!

That was the story told to us "pingers" as we asked questions........it may or may not be completely factual. (plus it's been 20 years......I've slept allot since then.)

If you find that picture I'd LOVE to see it!!!!!!!!!! (I'd love any other pictures anyone might have of 183rd Phantoms as well!)

Shay · **Posted:** Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:33 pm

183TFG? Here ya go....

http://www.5053phantoms.com/photos/thumbnails.php?album=search&type=full&search=183tfg

For all the other Phantom Phans out there who haven't yet. You should check out fellow WIXer Uwe Steenweg's Phantom website.

definately could kill alot of time here:
http://www.5053phantoms.com

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

Randy Haskin · **Posted:** Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:39 pm

CAPFlyer wrote:

It was a great airplane for its generation. It was the first truely dual-role fighter. It could not only deliver a vast array of ordinance on the target, but it could fight its way in and out of the target with both AIM-9s and AIM-7s. The problem was at the time, the idea wasn't realized so the F-15E became the first "true" dual-role fighter in most books becuase it was actually employed as such and not as a bomber or a fighter as the F-4 was.

The problem is that the Phantom could not carry a "full" load of both air-to-air and air-to ground ordnance AT THE SAME TIME, which is what makes a true dual-role fighter.

n5151ts · **Posted:** Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:04 pm

Shay wrote:

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"

And the "Money Shot"...

Shay

anyone can land on a 500 ft wide 10000 ft long concrete runway....I taught my dog to do it! Land on a ship at night in a snow storm...then we can talk!

______________
Semper Fortis

Django · **Posted:** Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:17 pm

Our farm was on the ANG flightpath, so I got to see them fly over quite often. Ah, those were the days.

Pick · **Posted:** Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:50 pm

Shay wrote:

183TFG? Here ya go....

http://www.5053phantoms.com/photos/thumbnails.php?album=search&type=full&search=183tfg

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

Thanks! I did a little more searching on the site and found a few more of 'em as well! (searching "SI", "170th", and various tail numbers I could remember.......66-7589, 66-7583, 66-7593, 66-7705, 66-8705, etc.)

I like that site.........and yes, I could kill entirely too much time there!

B17news · **Posted:** Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:32 pm

Pick wrote:

banndit wrote:

someone here will probably have the info, but when I was at Keesler in 1985, an F4 and another aircraft, possibly another F4, collided over Gulfport, MS. One of the aircraft crashed (not sure of the outcome for the crew) and the other landed at Keesler, with the entire rear half of the aircraft heavily damaged. The exhaust nozzles were mangled, the horizontal stabilizers were at least 50% missing, etc. I swear I took a picture of it, but I have no idea where it is. That plane can take a LOT of punishment.
B

I'm guessing that was ours. The 183rd TFG, 170th TFS ILANG. (I was in tech school at the time, but word about the incident traveled to us........and the surviving F-4 was just coming out of depo-level repair when I returned from FTD a couple of months later.)

As I remember it, the two Phantoms were both cleared to the same runway at the same time. Both the pilot and the WSO punched out of the lower Phantom (barely missing the upper one!) and the upper one diverted and landed fairly successfully. (everyone survived and that Phantom flew again eventually anyway.)

The other part to that story is that it closed the runway at Gulfport, and we still had a bunch of airplanes in the air, low on fuel and running out of options quickly. Again, IIRC, the landing at Keelser in the damaged airplane blew both mains and subsequently closed that runway as well, so the rest were reportedly told to find alternates or to take 'em out to the gulf and ditch 'em......they all found alternates and had our crew chiefs making road trips all over the southeast to recover 'em!

That was the story told to us "pingers" as we asked questions........it may or may not be completely factual. (plus it's been 20 years......I've slept allot since then.)

If you find that picture I'd LOVE to see it!!!!!!!!!! (I'd love any other pictures anyone might have of 183rd Phantoms as well!)

Sounds about right, I was a pinger at the time too. I will dig for that photo

B

Warbird Information Exchange

Rolling In Hot!

Who is online