Been a very long time since they've had F-4's at Holloman. In any event, who needs a jet to fly formation?
I had it installed as part of my Tigerization project, so my plane never flew as a Tiger without it.Lopresti cowl. You see any significant increase in cruise with that Ron?
I've clocked my plane at about 143 KTAS flat out full throttle on the deck. I've also seen 125 KTAS cruise at 2000 MSL with 65% power and 137 KTAS at 75% power up around 9000 MSL. So, it all depends on altitude and power setting. Others have said they've seen small speed increases (2-3 knots). For my money, what you really get is better low-speed climb due to cooler induction air, and better engine cooling (lower CHT's).I knew a guy with that cowl and he saw about 130 KTAS. I was thinking he should be in the mid 130s with that thing.
Been a very long time since they've had F-4's at Holloman. In any event, who needs a jet to fly formation?
I think the F4 was the sexiest looking jet design ever built.
I think the F4 was the sexiest looking jet design ever built.
I think the F4 was the sexiest looking jet design ever built.
The Viper can do anything the Phantom could -- just not as far and not as fast.Until the Viper came around
Especially the back pit, which was not part of the original design.It certainly makes no compromises for non-essential things like crew comfort.
I don't know about a "power feeling," but it's very satisfying to do something successfully as part of a team.I wonder if flying formation is akin to riding a motorcycle in a pack of other motorcycles, you know, the power feeling being part of a group gives a person?
It is definitely that, too.Or is it more of a test of ones skills as an aviator?
There is indeed a feeling you get when you're in the middle of a 40-plane Alpha strike, or even a 4-ship tactical, which doesn't exist single-ship.I am sure flying a fighter jet would give a person a tremendous sense of power, but flying in formation would magnify that feeling considerably I would imagine.
Not just supersonic -- Mach 2+!I always thought the F-4 was proof that if you strapped enough thrust onto a brick it would go supersonic.
F-4 was faster than the current version fighters. We discovered that maneuverability is more important that top-end high-altitude speed for how fighters are employed post-1960's.Wow Mach 2+. I had no idea. Sweet!
F-4 was faster than the current version fighters. We discovered that maneuverability is more important that top-end high-altitude speed for how fighters are employed post-1960's.
Until the Viper came around
I wonder if flying formation is akin to riding a motorcycle in a pack of other motorcycles, you know, the power feeling being part of a group gives a person? Or is it more of a test of ones skills as an aviator? I am sure flying a fighter jet would give a person a tremendous sense of power, but flying in formation would magnify that feeling considerably I would imagine.
Anyway, just some rhetorical morning musings on my part.
-John
No. The original intent of the design that became the Navy F4H-1 Phantom II was to fulfill a USAF single-seat close air support aircraft requirement, but it didn't succeed. When the Navy Fleet Air Defense requirement came out, they redesigned it as a missile-shooting interceptor to take down Soviet Naval Aviation bomber types like Bears and Badgers carrying anti-ship weapons -- and for that, you need dash speed to get to the target before the target gets in range of its target (i.e., the fleet) and a radar intercept officer running the then-primitive radar system to find and close with the bombers -- hence, the second seat plugged into a space not originally intended for human occupation.Wasn't the initial design objective to shoot down USSR Bombers?
I was around when the name was attached, thanks to the use of footage of its cockpit as the cockpit of the Colonial Vipers in the Glen Larson TV show "Battlestar Galactica" It was later that a bunch of Academy graduates managed to shove the "Fighting Falcon" name down the throats of everyone flying them -- all of whom called it the Viper (and most of whom still called it that long after the official name was attached).No such thing as a 'viper' unless you are talking about a Dodge or a snake... You can't change the official name of your jet because it's not cool.
- resident Eagle driver.
I was around when the name was attached, thanks to the use of footage of its cockpit as the cockpit of the Colonial Vipers in the Glen Larson TV show "Battlestar Galactica" It was later that a bunch of Academy graduates managed to shove the "Fighting Falcon" name down the throats of everyone flying them -- all of whom called it the Viper (and most of whom still called it that long after the official name was attached).
The Air Force has a bad case of cranial-rectal syndrome about naming airplanes. They always wait until the folks who fly it come up with a great name that is appropriate to the plane and makes the crews flying it feel good and have used it enough to make it common language, and then they hang some other name on it to make some general happy. In my career, they did it with the Warthog, the Viper, the Aardvark, and the Lightning II. You are fortunate that they didn't wait until McDonnell put a spirit name on the F-15 before tagging it the Eagle or you'd be in the same boat as the A-10, F-16, F-111, and F-22 crews. Of course, the Lightning II name eventually got to stick on the F-35, but "Raptor" sounds more like a pterodactyl or something.I've heard where the story comes from. It's just doesn't change the fact - the name is Fighting Falcon. If you don't think your jet has a cool enough name, you should've done better in pilot training...
I love busting their balls about that one.
You are fortunate that they didn't wait until McDonnell put a spirit name on the F-15 before tagging it the Eagle or you'd be in the same boat as the A-10, F-16, F-111, and F-22 crews.
You mean an Ego-jet driver?One of the many joys of being an Eagle driver!
You mean an Ego-jet driver?