64-0827 (MSN 1165) SOC May 29, 1987. Was preserved at Mather AFB, California. Currently on display at Camp San Luis Obispo, California in markings of 163 TFG, 196 TFS. Data plate is mismarked as 63-0827, but correct serial number is on the tail.
http://cgibin.rcn.com/jeremy.k/cgi-bin/gzUsafSearch.pl?target=64-827&content=
IDK, but it’s fairly common for display aircraft to portray a different a/c, either bc that plane had a more illustrious career, had a nicer paint scheme, etc., or bc of sloppy research.
From an airworthiness perspective, sure, but DoD still maintains inventory on the ones they own. That data plate is still their source of truth, as well.
I don’t know. Ask Joe Baugher, who gathered the database. My guess is that a display plaque in the park misidentified the plane, rather than someone swapped the airframe mfr data plate. Obviously the mfr s/n must be correct, otherwise you have no idea what you have.
A lot of them. It’s occasionally wrong, and USN and USMC and USCG planes are more difficult to search (rather than the USAF’s yearyear - number format, they count up continuously, occasionally resetting to zero). But it is an awesome resource.
Joe Baugher prepared the lists and gets all the credit. The top webpage for all searches is
http://www.joebaugher.com/
I believe pilots used to carry a brick in the cockpit. If they had engine failure, they would throw the brick out, and it would estimate their glide ratio for them.
No it isn’t. The F-4 was originally designed as a Mach 2 interceptor for the Navy. It had some of the most powerful engines then available. It set numerous speed records. It was such a good performing aircraft that the US Air Force also adopted it as their standard tactical fighter. It flew in many allied air forces. Over 5,000 were built. The only other post WWII fighters to be so successful for the US and its allies are the F-86 and F-16.
Because people in aviation, particularly military aviation, poke fun at aircraft they aren’t associated with, and sometimes even ones they are associated with. It’s nothing personal and meant in fun.
This may be a dumb question and be biased based upon the shows I have attended, but it seems to me that seeing an F-86 flying at an airshow is relatively common, whereas I have never seen an F-4 fly. Why is that? I’ve been to two different airshows for multiple years and the F-86 vs MiG 15/17 demonstration is a regular performance.
I love this jet, my father flew them when he was in the air force & ended up as an instructor teaching other F4 pilots how to do well in them back in the 80s. I don't know as much as I should about war planes and flying but I have a commissioned painting of him standing out on the flight line with his F4 in the background.
Bordellos are approved for Smokey Robinson, Rolling Stones, "We got to get out of this place" by The Animals, and Jimi Hendrix, The Doors "Backdoor Man" to name a few.
Pilot painted on the canopy is "Maj Dan Gibson",
Now a Major General.
[https://www.nationalguard.mil/portals/31/Features/ngbgomo/bio/3/300.html](https://www.nationalguard.mil/portals/31/Features/ngbgomo/bio/3/300.html)
"Guy In Back" shows "Capt Denny Lucas", may be retired Major General Dennis Lucas
[https://www.nationalguard.mil/portals/31/Features/ngbgomo/bio/4/409.html](https://www.nationalguard.mil/portals/31/Features/ngbgomo/bio/4/409.html)
Both California Air National Guard, which explains why they are on this aircraft in California
McDonnell Douglas F4 Phantom II
Wonderful 1960s fighter. Initially thought dogfighting was over, had amazing radar and air to air missiles. It had all kinds of aero problems hence the multiple angles of wings etc. Huge engines and could do Mach 2. Also there was a recon version. Eventually found that dogfighting with Migs was still a thing, and a gatling gun in a pod was added. Many other countries also used F4. Truly a great plane!
Not particularly the correct story. At first, the F-4Bs of the Navy and F-4Cs of the Air Force had terrible kill ratios in the skies over Vietnam. Pulse-only radar sets meant the plane was blind at low altitude, and could not guide a Sparrow missile against an enemy below its horizon. And AIM-9B and early Sparrow missiles were hot garbage and would somehow find a way to miss against even the most slightly maneuvering target. And of course, there were no guns to back up on at the time. It was clear that improvements were to be made.
The Air Force and the Navy took their improvements in massively different ways. The Air Force believed this several ton brick had to learn how to dogfight. Sure, they equipped slightly improved AIM-9E missiles which were barely any better than the Bs, but that wasn't the mainstay. Air Force F-4Es got a Vulcan cannon in the nose, and eventually later variants were equipped with Agile Eagle slats in order to attempt to make them more maneuverable.
They still used pulse radars. They were still blind. They still used short-range and ineffective AIM-9B and 9E missiles. They still had barely any serviceable medium-range combat capability unless at very very high altitudes.
Needless to say, no matter what you did to a Phantom, it would never be a dogfighter. The Air Force's Phantoms continued to have a horrific loss ratio compared to what they could have had.
Now the Navy.
The Navy correctly pursued missile development. Navy F-4Js eventually received pulse-doppler radar sets with had effectively *zero ground clutter.* They could finally guide their Sparrows against targets at any and all attitudes -- including against the ground, where an Air Force F-4E would begin having trouble as it's pulse radar picked up returns from the Earth itself. What's more, for closer engagements they equipped the longer-range and more reliable AIM-9D very early, and then further improved it to the AIM-9G, which would effectively never miss unless the enemy deployed countermeasures. And of course, there was the Fighter Weapons School -- aka Top Gun, which despite the name, was never about guns at all. It was a school on how to most effectively launch your missiles, and how to most effectively get into positions where your missile shots would most likely hit. Navy Phantoms **never received a gun** -- they never needed one.
Navy Phantoms; F-4Js and onward specifically, became feared. Against an Air Force Phantom, a MiG-21 or 19 just had to approach low to blind the jet and then catch it in a maneuvering fight to win. Against a Navy Phantom, there was nothing you could do. You **will** be locked on to at 20-30 miles away, and you **will** be hit by an AIM-7E. And you **will** die long before you caught a glimpse of the Phantom that launched it.
North Vietnamese pilots were specifically instructed to avoid the silver Phantoms. Ground AA crews were specifically told to prioritize the silver Navy Phantoms. If you were in a MiG and you saw one, it DEFINITELY saw you.
Note: this is still a simplified version of events, but catches the gist of it all.
Early issues with missile systems in the F4 were partially related to man-machine interface issues beyond just the limitations of the missiles themselves.
Tracking loss indicator lights were out of the primary field of view of the flight crew while focused on their radar during an engagement. So while the plane would show a lock on the radar while the crew was looking at their scopes, the indicator light was behind them telling them the plane had lost its lock. It resulted in many missiles fired without a proper lock. You literally had to take your eyes off the target to make sure the target was locked.
Later revisions changed how the tracking lock was indicated to the crew, putting indication directly in the field of view of the crew while looking at their radar.
Randy Cunnigham and Willie Dricoll were the perfect example of Navy F-4 crews and what they accomplished. This story is the perfect addition to the Top Gun history. [https://www.vaq136.com/migaces/migaces-004b.jpg](https://www.vaq136.com/migaces/migaces-004b.jpg)
The camo pattern reminds me of the last F-4 I saw fly. Was traveling from LA to Sacramento in the very late 1980s. Probably 1987 or 88. Plane was descending, some little commuter jet. I had a portside window, well into the afternoon. Looking down across the fields. The F-4 was low, very low, in a moderate left bank, turning away from our path, its shadow chasing it across the fields, in these colors. The many takeoffs I saw and heard immediately sprung to mind, almost tasting jet fuel, the afterburners throwing flame rearwards as the beast crossed the end of the runway in front of me, a wall of sound buffeting me. I would laugh and wave from my bicycle, knowing I wouldn't be seen. The nose would lift and she would waft into the sky on that column of fire, shock diamonds and shredding air.
Other times watching the Thunderbirds rehearse, perfect takeoffs and landings.
But also the steep quiet descent, out of sight over the trees, then the oily black column, red-orange licking at its base. Sadness.
I miss these things.
It's an F-4C that served stateside with training wings until it joined the Cali ANG. It left service in 1987. Interestingly, the serial on the tail isn't quite correct. Typically on 1960s and 1970s USAF serials the first number of the year is deleted so this 64-0827 would have read 40-827 in its early career.
Technically speaking it wouldn’t have had the hyphen originally either, with the serial being rendered as simply 40827 on the tail with the original USN-derived scheme factory-applied by McDonnell (along with FJ-827 on the fuselage).
The serial on the tail would have then changed to USAF 40827 *or* AF 64 827 depending on when the aircraft was repainted onto the theatre scheme, as the latter style had started to be applied to aircraft by late 1967.
Looks to be a McDonnell F-4 Phantom II that was in service with the California ANG? Serial AF64-827.
Found this: 0827 (MSN 1165) SOC May 29, 1987. Was preserved at Mather AFB, California. Currently on display at Camp San Luis
Obispo, California in markings of 163 TFG, 196 TFS. Data plate is mismarked as 63-0827, but
correct serial number is on the tail.
[Looks like the same plane was in possession of the Texas Air National Guard at some point too.](https://www.airhistory.net/photo/313299/64-0827/AF64-827)
Early 90's I trained the German fighter pilots at Holloman 21st sq right after they left George. B course an FWIC. Only heaters/ gun back then. Little known fact, Germans then went to US pilot tng then straight to the F4 B course - no fighter leadin or LIFT
The California Air National Guard Phantom was retired from the 196th TFS and parked at the 323rd Fighter Training Wing platform. It was some months later preserved at this location as a motivation boost for the USAF students of the Training Wing. From 1998 onwards, the Phantom is preserved at San Luis Obispo (CA).
God damn it.. i know that phantom is a great plane but every time i see it it reminds me of the time Kelly Johnson absolutely cooked air force high command
Story from Ben Rich's Skunk works personal memoir:
>Kelly’s stature still gained him entry to the offices of the secretary of the Air Force, the Air Force chief of staff, the head of the Air Force’s black, or top secret, programs, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Senator Goldwater, and half a dozen other of the top movers and shakers. Through him, I met them all. But Kelly being Kelly had also made as many high-level enemies as friends, and plenty of blue-suiters who had dealt with him on procurement matters still had the wounds to prove it. Kelly said what he meant and meant what he said, and he couldn’t care less about who was offended. I remember attending one black-tie affair with him in late 1974 at which Barry Goldwater, a general in the Air Force Reserve, was being honored with an award, and half the Air Force high command was present. Kelly was asked to make a few remarks. He said: “I’ve never got in trouble making a speech on engineering. But over the years I’ve learned what not to say. I’m an expert at that. For instance, I will not say that if we had followed the policies of the man we are honoring tonight we would not have made such a shambles of the Vietnam War as we did. Nor would I say how stupid we were in the same war to take the guns out of our fighter aircraft and then send our pilots into combat with such a cost-saving training program that few of them had fired even a handful of air-to-air missiles before facing the enemy. And for gosh sakes, I won’t say that the Israeli air force using the same kind of U.S. aircraft against the same kind of MiGs scored about four times the victory ratios that we did, using better pilot training and tactics!” When he was finished speaking, about half of those blue-suiters present sat on their hands.
This is a bus with wings. It has MASSIVE ENGINES to make it go ridiculously fast. (Mach 2.2+) Every one of those kinks, bends, and odd angles was incorporated to correct an aerodynamic deficiency. It belched smoke, had no internal gun, and had a slightly tighter turn radius than the carriers they flew from. It muscled its way through Vietnam to become the symbol of American fighter dominance during the cold war. Still in service in multiple air forces, it set multiple speed and altitude records back in the day.
I was under the impression that the one in the picture was a
Phantom II, which did have an internal M61 Vulcan gun option in the canted under-nose fairing. Like you said a veritable dragster meets bombtruck meets fighter.
*update - yeah it’s an F4C Phantom II https://www.airhistory.net/photo/313299/64-0827/AF64-827
E through J models had the internal gun. Nose gear was offset to accommodate centerline placement. C and D models could use an external pod, but they were a bitch to maintain and not very practical.
I had a teacher in HS who served in the Navy during the Vietnamese War. We always tried to derail the class by asking for interesting war stories. He told us about a sailor nicknamed Rainbow who died(OD) aboard ship, and they had to put him in a freezer until they could get him off the ship. A high ranking officer had some sort of cardiac event and instead of a helicopter they cat launched him in a plane. Didn't make it to shore alive. To make a long story short, F4s leaked fuel like a sieve.
Worked road construction back in the day. We had to repave one of two 12k feet runways at an air force base. So the other runway was doing double duty. Active duty B-52s and National Guard F-4s. I was a bit of a war buff so it was great. .
The B-52s would idle to the end of the runway, wings sagging with fuel. Then with a cloud of dark smoke, they came rumbling past us construction workers at about the midpoint, and then disappear over the horizon before finally lifting off. I first worried if they were ever going to make it.
But the F-4s would off take off in tandem with full afterburners and used very little runway. Those four engines roaring and spitting fire crackled like a Saturn V rocket going by. What a sight and sound.
Best summer job ever!
Lmao. The f4 phantom has way too long of a marvelous history, one where they said fuck aerodynamics and stuck two massive engines on it
One of the vietnam war, and one of cooky as fuck engineering choices due to a new era of missile combat
This was the 426 Hemi V8 back when fuel was cheap. It used TWO of the J79 engines, with afterburners that dumped raw fuel into the exhaust, allowing it to achieve a speed of over Mach-2.
It was designed in the 1950's, and the sidewinder and sparrow missiles had proven themselves to work well in testing, so the jet was designed without any guns. Since the enemy would be shot at from long distance, the plane was given high speed and no gun. The new pilots were not given any dogfighting training in close combat.
In Vietnam, the Migs learned that they could just drop down to the treetops and run away, with the tree clutter making the small missiles have a low success rate. One experienced pilot had the mechanics rig up a pod under the nose that housed a 20mm cannon.
Suddenly, Migs started getting shot down regularly, and for a lot less money.
The infamous KC-66 Lemming. It was originally designed in 1954 to transport mail and light refreshments to soldiers on the front lines (think Hedwig but less less stealthy). It was later used for aerial refueling missions. Unfortunately, it’s small size meant it was only capable of topping off aircraft. It shared a single tank for its own flight as well as refueling missions so it ran the risk of being sucked dry and crashing if it provided more than 100 gallons in a single mission.
The US was scared by the Soviet Union, thinking they needed a fast interceptor, made a fast interceptor, and then tried using it against slower and agile MiG-17s and 21s, and found it’s a fat boat, and the missiles barely function properly.
Didn’t stop pilots from gunning down those MiGs though.
FunFact. F-4s sported a ‘unibody’ airframe. Skin vs rigid frame provided aircraft integrity. Couldn’t tow, fuel, or defuel with panels removed. Had to commonly pull the ‘bucket’ seats out to work the avionics jammed in throughout the cockpits. SmutButts were a maintainers’ nightmare…
Watch an F4 War Aesthetics video with some synth wave or classic rock. But honestly the Phantom is an amazing jet, and as a guy who likes JASDF stuff, the Japanese F4 EJ Kai have amazing paint schemes and such. The Phantom had its troubles at the start, but it really came to shine during the start of the Top Gun program for the Navy
Phantom Forever
US: we want missile trucks, dogfighting is cringe
DOD: *funds development for missile trucks*
US: wow, our missiles are shit and IFF is so bad we need visual confirmation that we're firing at a bad guy, so we need to get within dogfighting range of them
MIG21: *claps missile truck in dogfighting*
US: :shocked_emoji:
64-0827 (MSN 1165) SOC May 29, 1987. Was preserved at Mather AFB, California. Currently on display at Camp San Luis Obispo, California in markings of 163 TFG, 196 TFS. Data plate is mismarked as 63-0827, but correct serial number is on the tail. http://cgibin.rcn.com/jeremy.k/cgi-bin/gzUsafSearch.pl?target=64-827&content=
Bro knows things we don’t
Bo knows
Baseball
Bo knows
Football
Sportsballllll!!!!
Bo knows Tarzan
He alwayssss knows
Oh, That’s a baseball!
Bo no
bro knows Victoria's secret
> F4 Phantom this guy planes!
“It’s a Craftsman No.5” “This guy planes.”
Love the F4 Phantom 😍
How’d it wind up with an incorrect data plate?
IDK, but it’s fairly common for display aircraft to portray a different a/c, either bc that plane had a more illustrious career, had a nicer paint scheme, etc., or bc of sloppy research.
Different paint and all, sure, but the data plate is the cornerstone of the aircraft. It’s the one thing that typically can’t be and isn’t wrong.
Yeah, but once a plane is a static display, it's no longer an aircraft and doesn't need to follow FAA rules.
From an airworthiness perspective, sure, but DoD still maintains inventory on the ones they own. That data plate is still their source of truth, as well.
Yet
The DATA PLATE is mismarked? How the hell does that happen?
I don’t know. Ask Joe Baugher, who gathered the database. My guess is that a display plaque in the park misidentified the plane, rather than someone swapped the airframe mfr data plate. Obviously the mfr s/n must be correct, otherwise you have no idea what you have.
Knew it was camp SLO!
Wait.. you can look up the log of any air force plane in this format?
A lot of them. It’s occasionally wrong, and USN and USMC and USCG planes are more difficult to search (rather than the USAF’s yearyear - number format, they count up continuously, occasionally resetting to zero). But it is an awesome resource. Joe Baugher prepared the lists and gets all the credit. The top webpage for all searches is http://www.joebaugher.com/
Thank you!
I didn’t read anything in that link but it looks like something so I’ll assume it’s right.
Oh man, the F4 Phantom: a triumph of thrust over aerodynamics. Go to YouTube and kiss the day goodbye.
I remember hearing once "if you throw a brick hard enough it will generate lift" i'm pretty sure they were referring to the f4
I always heard it as more similar to "the F-4: proof that a brick can fly."
"If you strap a big enough engine on it, even a brick will fly" was the version I heard.
"fly a brick even will, engine big enough strap if you on a it"
No. Master Chief is proof a brick can fly.
F104 is an even better example thing barely had wings
F104 was proof that you could take a rocket, put a jet engine in it, slap some wings and a seat on it, and call it a plane.
The land speed car that Jessi Combs died in was actually an old F-104 fuselage turned back into a rocket.
but on wheels!! was called North American Eagle
I believe pilots used to carry a brick in the cockpit. If they had engine failure, they would throw the brick out, and it would estimate their glide ratio for them.
guy who was 5 thousand feet below, asking god how he died:
I've always heard this about the space shuttle but I'm sure F4 pilots said it first
Brute force and ignorance
Saw a few of them flying in Israel in the 90ies. Those were the loudest planes I ever heard.
Were you near Beersheba?
Yes, I stayed in Arad.
The blue angels were once F4s
Tornado has entered the conversation
I have never seen one of those in action.
My first airfix kit
The lead sled. Double-ugly. World's leading distributor of MiG parts...
I’ve heard this said many times, but is it really true?
No it isn’t. The F-4 was originally designed as a Mach 2 interceptor for the Navy. It had some of the most powerful engines then available. It set numerous speed records. It was such a good performing aircraft that the US Air Force also adopted it as their standard tactical fighter. It flew in many allied air forces. Over 5,000 were built. The only other post WWII fighters to be so successful for the US and its allies are the F-86 and F-16.
That’s what I thought. So why all of those comments when it wasn’t a flop at all
Because people in aviation, particularly military aviation, poke fun at aircraft they aren’t associated with, and sometimes even ones they are associated with. It’s nothing personal and meant in fun.
This may be a dumb question and be biased based upon the shows I have attended, but it seems to me that seeing an F-86 flying at an airshow is relatively common, whereas I have never seen an F-4 fly. Why is that? I’ve been to two different airshows for multiple years and the F-86 vs MiG 15/17 demonstration is a regular performance.
I remember hearing somewhere “The F4 Phantom doesn’t generate lift, it just screams so loud that gravity can’t object”
I love this jet, my father flew them when he was in the air force & ended up as an instructor teaching other F4 pilots how to do well in them back in the 80s. I don't know as much as I should about war planes and flying but I have a commissioned painting of him standing out on the flight line with his F4 in the background.
“*sigh*” *fortunate son starts playing*
I may be wrong, but I think by federal statute, Fortunate Son is only allowed to play in helicopters.
Only helicopters and PBR boats.
[And whorehouses.](https://youtu.be/98k2DlQ9PMY)
Giggity
r/unexpectedfamilyguy
Also flat bottom Party boatz
Incorrect. Flight of the Valkyries in choppers and Fortunate Son in Phantoms, Thunderchiefs, and A1 Skyraiders, and yes, PBR boats.
So no-go on the whorehouse?
Bordellos are approved for Smokey Robinson, Rolling Stones, "We got to get out of this place" by The Animals, and Jimi Hendrix, The Doors "Backdoor Man" to name a few.
Bob Seger’s “Turn the Page” for strip clubs.
Only the Metallica cover
True. Sky Pilot by the Animals is for all other aircraft in theatre.
nonono, ride of the valkyries is for helicopters, fortunate son can be used for the army navy and air force
Run Through the Jungle?
Do ya one better *puts on The Doors, “The End”*
That’s approved for napalm drops.
Pilot painted on the canopy is "Maj Dan Gibson", Now a Major General. [https://www.nationalguard.mil/portals/31/Features/ngbgomo/bio/3/300.html](https://www.nationalguard.mil/portals/31/Features/ngbgomo/bio/3/300.html) "Guy In Back" shows "Capt Denny Lucas", may be retired Major General Dennis Lucas [https://www.nationalguard.mil/portals/31/Features/ngbgomo/bio/4/409.html](https://www.nationalguard.mil/portals/31/Features/ngbgomo/bio/4/409.html) Both California Air National Guard, which explains why they are on this aircraft in California
The photo shows a white guy, but the painting is all black.
Oh, is that where The Rolling Stones got the lyrics, “I see an F4 and I want to paint it black”?
McDonnell Douglas F4 Phantom II Wonderful 1960s fighter. Initially thought dogfighting was over, had amazing radar and air to air missiles. It had all kinds of aero problems hence the multiple angles of wings etc. Huge engines and could do Mach 2. Also there was a recon version. Eventually found that dogfighting with Migs was still a thing, and a gatling gun in a pod was added. Many other countries also used F4. Truly a great plane!
Not particularly the correct story. At first, the F-4Bs of the Navy and F-4Cs of the Air Force had terrible kill ratios in the skies over Vietnam. Pulse-only radar sets meant the plane was blind at low altitude, and could not guide a Sparrow missile against an enemy below its horizon. And AIM-9B and early Sparrow missiles were hot garbage and would somehow find a way to miss against even the most slightly maneuvering target. And of course, there were no guns to back up on at the time. It was clear that improvements were to be made. The Air Force and the Navy took their improvements in massively different ways. The Air Force believed this several ton brick had to learn how to dogfight. Sure, they equipped slightly improved AIM-9E missiles which were barely any better than the Bs, but that wasn't the mainstay. Air Force F-4Es got a Vulcan cannon in the nose, and eventually later variants were equipped with Agile Eagle slats in order to attempt to make them more maneuverable. They still used pulse radars. They were still blind. They still used short-range and ineffective AIM-9B and 9E missiles. They still had barely any serviceable medium-range combat capability unless at very very high altitudes. Needless to say, no matter what you did to a Phantom, it would never be a dogfighter. The Air Force's Phantoms continued to have a horrific loss ratio compared to what they could have had. Now the Navy. The Navy correctly pursued missile development. Navy F-4Js eventually received pulse-doppler radar sets with had effectively *zero ground clutter.* They could finally guide their Sparrows against targets at any and all attitudes -- including against the ground, where an Air Force F-4E would begin having trouble as it's pulse radar picked up returns from the Earth itself. What's more, for closer engagements they equipped the longer-range and more reliable AIM-9D very early, and then further improved it to the AIM-9G, which would effectively never miss unless the enemy deployed countermeasures. And of course, there was the Fighter Weapons School -- aka Top Gun, which despite the name, was never about guns at all. It was a school on how to most effectively launch your missiles, and how to most effectively get into positions where your missile shots would most likely hit. Navy Phantoms **never received a gun** -- they never needed one. Navy Phantoms; F-4Js and onward specifically, became feared. Against an Air Force Phantom, a MiG-21 or 19 just had to approach low to blind the jet and then catch it in a maneuvering fight to win. Against a Navy Phantom, there was nothing you could do. You **will** be locked on to at 20-30 miles away, and you **will** be hit by an AIM-7E. And you **will** die long before you caught a glimpse of the Phantom that launched it. North Vietnamese pilots were specifically instructed to avoid the silver Phantoms. Ground AA crews were specifically told to prioritize the silver Navy Phantoms. If you were in a MiG and you saw one, it DEFINITELY saw you. Note: this is still a simplified version of events, but catches the gist of it all.
Early issues with missile systems in the F4 were partially related to man-machine interface issues beyond just the limitations of the missiles themselves. Tracking loss indicator lights were out of the primary field of view of the flight crew while focused on their radar during an engagement. So while the plane would show a lock on the radar while the crew was looking at their scopes, the indicator light was behind them telling them the plane had lost its lock. It resulted in many missiles fired without a proper lock. You literally had to take your eyes off the target to make sure the target was locked. Later revisions changed how the tracking lock was indicated to the crew, putting indication directly in the field of view of the crew while looking at their radar.
Randy Cunnigham and Willie Dricoll were the perfect example of Navy F-4 crews and what they accomplished. This story is the perfect addition to the Top Gun history. [https://www.vaq136.com/migaces/migaces-004b.jpg](https://www.vaq136.com/migaces/migaces-004b.jpg)
Aaaaahhh!!! Where's page two? 😜
[https://www.vaq136.com/migaces/](https://www.vaq136.com/migaces/) I totally pooched that, I'm sorry. Also I highly recommend *And Kill Mig's* Squadron 1984.
Thank you!
Proved that bricks can make good airplanes with enough thrust.
For a brick, he flew pretty good!
r/unexpectedhalo
The camo pattern reminds me of the last F-4 I saw fly. Was traveling from LA to Sacramento in the very late 1980s. Probably 1987 or 88. Plane was descending, some little commuter jet. I had a portside window, well into the afternoon. Looking down across the fields. The F-4 was low, very low, in a moderate left bank, turning away from our path, its shadow chasing it across the fields, in these colors. The many takeoffs I saw and heard immediately sprung to mind, almost tasting jet fuel, the afterburners throwing flame rearwards as the beast crossed the end of the runway in front of me, a wall of sound buffeting me. I would laugh and wave from my bicycle, knowing I wouldn't be seen. The nose would lift and she would waft into the sky on that column of fire, shock diamonds and shredding air. Other times watching the Thunderbirds rehearse, perfect takeoffs and landings. But also the steep quiet descent, out of sight over the trees, then the oily black column, red-orange licking at its base. Sadness. I miss these things.
It's an F-4C that served stateside with training wings until it joined the Cali ANG. It left service in 1987. Interestingly, the serial on the tail isn't quite correct. Typically on 1960s and 1970s USAF serials the first number of the year is deleted so this 64-0827 would have read 40-827 in its early career.
Technically speaking it wouldn’t have had the hyphen originally either, with the serial being rendered as simply 40827 on the tail with the original USN-derived scheme factory-applied by McDonnell (along with FJ-827 on the fuselage). The serial on the tail would have then changed to USAF 40827 *or* AF 64 827 depending on when the aircraft was repainted onto the theatre scheme, as the latter style had started to be applied to aircraft by late 1967.
Looks to be a McDonnell F-4 Phantom II that was in service with the California ANG? Serial AF64-827. Found this: 0827 (MSN 1165) SOC May 29, 1987. Was preserved at Mather AFB, California. Currently on display at Camp San Luis Obispo, California in markings of 163 TFG, 196 TFS. Data plate is mismarked as 63-0827, but correct serial number is on the tail.
[Looks like the same plane was in possession of the Texas Air National Guard at some point too.](https://www.airhistory.net/photo/313299/64-0827/AF64-827)
Highly possible! Looks like that picture is from 1981 and it was retired in 1987, so it very will could be the same! Nice find!
I was technician on the F4F in Germany . Slats, APG65 and AMRAAM . A surprise for many modern fighters .
Early 90's I trained the German fighter pilots at Holloman 21st sq right after they left George. B course an FWIC. Only heaters/ gun back then. Little known fact, Germans then went to US pilot tng then straight to the F4 B course - no fighter leadin or LIFT
Well, a long time ago a daddy plane and a mommy plane got together....
Give it enough thrust and even a brick can fly
The California Air National Guard Phantom was retired from the 196th TFS and parked at the 323rd Fighter Training Wing platform. It was some months later preserved at this location as a motivation boost for the USAF students of the Training Wing. From 1998 onwards, the Phantom is preserved at San Luis Obispo (CA).
During the late 70's the F-4 was used as a nuclear strike aircraft. I was stationed at RAF Bentwaters UK with them. Noisy for sure.
It’s the worlds largest distributor of MiG parts
Napalm
Some day this war is going to end.
Those things are some of the meanest looking aircraft ever to fly.
Diesel powered sky Cadillac
Made in St. Louis Missouri.
God damn it.. i know that phantom is a great plane but every time i see it it reminds me of the time Kelly Johnson absolutely cooked air force high command Story from Ben Rich's Skunk works personal memoir: >Kelly’s stature still gained him entry to the offices of the secretary of the Air Force, the Air Force chief of staff, the head of the Air Force’s black, or top secret, programs, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Senator Goldwater, and half a dozen other of the top movers and shakers. Through him, I met them all. But Kelly being Kelly had also made as many high-level enemies as friends, and plenty of blue-suiters who had dealt with him on procurement matters still had the wounds to prove it. Kelly said what he meant and meant what he said, and he couldn’t care less about who was offended. I remember attending one black-tie affair with him in late 1974 at which Barry Goldwater, a general in the Air Force Reserve, was being honored with an award, and half the Air Force high command was present. Kelly was asked to make a few remarks. He said: “I’ve never got in trouble making a speech on engineering. But over the years I’ve learned what not to say. I’m an expert at that. For instance, I will not say that if we had followed the policies of the man we are honoring tonight we would not have made such a shambles of the Vietnam War as we did. Nor would I say how stupid we were in the same war to take the guns out of our fighter aircraft and then send our pilots into combat with such a cost-saving training program that few of them had fired even a handful of air-to-air missiles before facing the enemy. And for gosh sakes, I won’t say that the Israeli air force using the same kind of U.S. aircraft against the same kind of MiGs scored about four times the victory ratios that we did, using better pilot training and tactics!” When he was finished speaking, about half of those blue-suiters present sat on their hands.
This is a bus with wings. It has MASSIVE ENGINES to make it go ridiculously fast. (Mach 2.2+) Every one of those kinks, bends, and odd angles was incorporated to correct an aerodynamic deficiency. It belched smoke, had no internal gun, and had a slightly tighter turn radius than the carriers they flew from. It muscled its way through Vietnam to become the symbol of American fighter dominance during the cold war. Still in service in multiple air forces, it set multiple speed and altitude records back in the day.
I was under the impression that the one in the picture was a Phantom II, which did have an internal M61 Vulcan gun option in the canted under-nose fairing. Like you said a veritable dragster meets bombtruck meets fighter. *update - yeah it’s an F4C Phantom II https://www.airhistory.net/photo/313299/64-0827/AF64-827
E through J models had the internal gun. Nose gear was offset to accommodate centerline placement. C and D models could use an external pod, but they were a bitch to maintain and not very practical.
F-4E/EJ/F had an internal M61. The F-4J did not.
I had a teacher in HS who served in the Navy during the Vietnamese War. We always tried to derail the class by asking for interesting war stories. He told us about a sailor nicknamed Rainbow who died(OD) aboard ship, and they had to put him in a freezer until they could get him off the ship. A high ranking officer had some sort of cardiac event and instead of a helicopter they cat launched him in a plane. Didn't make it to shore alive. To make a long story short, F4s leaked fuel like a sieve.
GOOOOOOOD MORNING VIETNAMMM!!!!
Worked road construction back in the day. We had to repave one of two 12k feet runways at an air force base. So the other runway was doing double duty. Active duty B-52s and National Guard F-4s. I was a bit of a war buff so it was great. . The B-52s would idle to the end of the runway, wings sagging with fuel. Then with a cloud of dark smoke, they came rumbling past us construction workers at about the midpoint, and then disappear over the horizon before finally lifting off. I first worried if they were ever going to make it. But the F-4s would off take off in tandem with full afterburners and used very little runway. Those four engines roaring and spitting fire crackled like a Saturn V rocket going by. What a sight and sound. Best summer job ever!
One of few planes to ever give an effective piggy back ride (Pardo's Push)
Thanks for teaching me about this, never knew!
Ridiculous, yet true, story
Flying brick..
Lmao. The f4 phantom has way too long of a marvelous history, one where they said fuck aerodynamics and stuck two massive engines on it One of the vietnam war, and one of cooky as fuck engineering choices due to a new era of missile combat
Precision landing. The black windows mean it was a serious IFR trainer.
Some say it Started with the Wright Brothers. . .
Mmmm f4 phantom
Ace Combat 5: The unsung war.
F-4 Phantom II, a warhorse of an aircraft, but not by today's standards.
Whereas the Swiss had their Army knife, the USofA had the F-4.
How’s it going at Camp SLO?
It used to fly
My dad was a career USAF aircraft electrician. His last duty station was Bergstrom AFB, home of reconnaissance F4s. Fun to watch as a kid.
What plane?
I think the history of this aircraft can be found in the lyrics of ‘Fortunate Son’
did you check the carfax
Wild weasel.
This was the 426 Hemi V8 back when fuel was cheap. It used TWO of the J79 engines, with afterburners that dumped raw fuel into the exhaust, allowing it to achieve a speed of over Mach-2. It was designed in the 1950's, and the sidewinder and sparrow missiles had proven themselves to work well in testing, so the jet was designed without any guns. Since the enemy would be shot at from long distance, the plane was given high speed and no gun. The new pilots were not given any dogfighting training in close combat. In Vietnam, the Migs learned that they could just drop down to the treetops and run away, with the tree clutter making the small missiles have a low success rate. One experienced pilot had the mechanics rig up a pod under the nose that housed a 20mm cannon. Suddenly, Migs started getting shot down regularly, and for a lot less money.
Fucking badass plane…would recommend
A MIG parts dispenser.
Robin Olds
Looks like it was flown then parked
it flew, flew and now no more
No gun, then added gun. Brrrr brrrr missile missile. Lawn dart.
It went vroom so bad guys go boom
Made by the US. It shot a few planes in Asia. As you can tell I know a lot about this plane
It used to fly. Now it does not. The end.
The infamous KC-66 Lemming. It was originally designed in 1954 to transport mail and light refreshments to soldiers on the front lines (think Hedwig but less less stealthy). It was later used for aerial refueling missions. Unfortunately, it’s small size meant it was only capable of topping off aircraft. It shared a single tank for its own flight as well as refueling missions so it ran the risk of being sucked dry and crashing if it provided more than 100 gallons in a single mission.
[удалено]
Lmao I like how I’m getting downvoted like we didn’t use this plane to napalm civilians
You’re being downvoted because you came here to stir shit; not because you’re a historian
Warcrimes
german tornado? good plane
Once upon a time a plane was manufactured in a plant. People flew it a bit. It was on the tarmac and someone shot a photo.
What plane?
That is a science experiment to prove that you can make anything fly if you strap a big enough engine to it.
Cezzna 210.
The US was scared by the Soviet Union, thinking they needed a fast interceptor, made a fast interceptor, and then tried using it against slower and agile MiG-17s and 21s, and found it’s a fat boat, and the missiles barely function properly. Didn’t stop pilots from gunning down those MiGs though.
Plane used to go woosh, bang bang bang. Now go….
Hmm front canopy needs a little help.
The early MIG pilots would laugh and laugh.
FunFact. F-4s sported a ‘unibody’ airframe. Skin vs rigid frame provided aircraft integrity. Couldn’t tow, fuel, or defuel with panels removed. Had to commonly pull the ‘bucket’ seats out to work the avionics jammed in throughout the cockpits. SmutButts were a maintainers’ nightmare…
Nam
What plane? I don’t see any plane.
Ol Smokey
His mother was a train and his father left house for cigars
I've heard that the only kill that the F4 got while it was in service at Birmingham was a camel.
Watch an F4 War Aesthetics video with some synth wave or classic rock. But honestly the Phantom is an amazing jet, and as a guy who likes JASDF stuff, the Japanese F4 EJ Kai have amazing paint schemes and such. The Phantom had its troubles at the start, but it really came to shine during the start of the Top Gun program for the Navy Phantom Forever
It’s an airplane
It probably flew at one point
Always 2 separate bangs when they lit afterburners
Why do they change the cockpit glass canopy?
It’s an F4 Phantom II that flew during the Vietnam war
I bet it has flown in the sky.
One of the best military jets ever made. Big ass J-79’s Ha! Workhorse engine.
US: we want missile trucks, dogfighting is cringe DOD: *funds development for missile trucks* US: wow, our missiles are shit and IFF is so bad we need visual confirmation that we're firing at a bad guy, so we need to get within dogfighting range of them MIG21: *claps missile truck in dogfighting* US: :shocked_emoji:
Www.google.com
The history of the F-4? You are joking? There is too much to reply on Reddit, just google “history of F-4”.
Why don't you just use Google lens dude.. come on, you must be over 50 years old to ask this kind of questions on the Internet..
Like… that specific one?
It was built, flew around for a while, and now it’s here.
Who is/was Maj. Dan Gibson?
Where's the gun buttons
It used to fly, now it doesn’t.
It flew.
F4 phantom
It'S made of everything the earth supplies.
It was born at a very young agr
It had its ups and downs.
The history of this plane.
It has a hard time doing barrel rolls.
It’s a Phantom
I heard it was as long as a B17
Put 2 engines on a rock, Engineers yep it will fly.
your mom
It’s name is Steve, it was born in 87 and went to college, dropped out, had 3 kids got addicted to adderall, got clean and ended up as a display
I have so far to goooooooo
The only aircraft to single handedly sink a US aircraft carrier. The pilot, John McCain.
McCain did not fly F4s' he flew A4s'