Posted on 01/23/2015 9:11:46 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
First, they tried an F-104. “Not enough wing or thrust,” recalls Jack Petry, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel. When NASA engineers were launching rockets at Florida’s Cape Canaveral in the 1960s, they needed pilots to fly close enough to film the missiles as they accelerated through Mach 1 at 35,000 feet. Petry was one of the chosen. And the preferred chase airplane was the McDonnell F-4 Phantom.
“Those two J79 engines made all the difference,” says Petry. After a Mach 1.2 dive synched to the launch countdown, he “walked the [rocket’s] contrail” up to the intercept, tweaking closing speed and updating mission control while camera pods mounted under each wing shot film at 900 frames per second. Matching velocity with a Titan rocket for 90 extreme seconds, the Phantom powered through the missile’s thundering wash, then broke away as the rocket surged toward space. Of pacing a Titan II in a two-seat fighter, Petry says: “Absolutely beautiful. To see that massive thing in flight and be right there in the air with it—you can imagine the exhilaration.”
***
For nearly four decades of service in the U.S. military, the Phantom performed every combat task thrown at it—almost every mission ever defined.
(Excerpt) Read more at airspacemag.com ...
Bump for napalm....
I’m glad I didn’t have anything in my mouth when I read that, or else it would be all over my laptop. :)
I heard an old F4 jockey once say that the airplane was “living proof that if you put a big enough engine on a piano, you can make it fly.”
That’s about it.
A cannon was added once that doctrine was abandoned.
I think that is exactly what led to that thinking; I guess hindsight is 20/20. I’ve seen interviews with pilots from Vietnam describing how it nearly cost them their lives.
My primary instructor was a Vietnam vet F-4 driver. He had some stories.
How about out run a North Vietnamese SAM?
Signed John McCain
But the F4 was originally built for the navy.
teeth are appropriate on the Phantom, it has a dog nose.
My mistake. Navy reaction times are at least an order of magnitude better than those of the AF, and always have been.
Everyone knows that.
WRONG: McCain was flying an A4-E Skyhawk, not an F4 Phantom when he was shot down.
Thanks for posting the photos. The top one is of VF-96 the fighter squadron I was in while serving in the Navy. At the time we deployed on USS Enterprise. When I joined the squadron we had the F4B and later the F4J which I like much better from a maintenance standpoint. By the way I worked on the flight deck for a little extra pay. We also received combat pay for being in the war zone.
In 1969 or 1970 I was standing just off the flight line having a last smoke while we finished up pre-flight. There was an F4 that had been there for a few days waiting on repairs, the pilot had been in all the bars talking about how bad he wanted to get home to Udorn. He left for home while we watched. After gear up he circled back and made a low level pass over the runway at full afterburner. At the end of the runway he pointed the nose sfraight up and disappeared in a slow spiral, almost wet myself. Then we climbed aboard our Goonie Bird. The most unimpressive takeoff ever, I almost cried.
Johnny boy was an A-4 driver. Different bird.
One thing the old F-4 couldn’t do is turn. Well, it could but it took a few square miles.
You are welcome for the photos...and thank you for your service! :-)
Similar doctrines around that time frame RE: fighter jets, though.
First time I saw an F4H was at MCAS Beaufort. We were working a rare Saturday (F8U-2NE squadron), so everyone was working off a hangover. Two F4H planes took off and immediately hit afterburners. Three guys fell on the ground holding their head, screaming.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.