@@owainwright6055 That's a very valid point! Depending on operational requirements the US Government can literally just switch the GPS signals off. There is also the possibility of it being vulnerable to an EMP attack.
The Issue with the Spey engine was airflow, it was a hot engine, ask the USS Saratoga. To stop the engines from melting the air intakes on the Phanom had to be enlarged. The increase of frontal area increased the drag and caused a lack of performance.
The British Spey-powered Phantoms had more powerful engines than their J-79 powered counterparts, yet were not faster than these. Did they have superior climb and acceleration?
I would have some aerial photographers want pics of of factories and fields. They would show me a google earth pic and i would find it by trying not to use the map.
The trainee shown, "Jim" was still under training to be a Phantom nav, which is why he has no nav brevet on his jacket. He still had a long way to go before he got in the back seat of an FGR2. The film was made to attract recruits.@@andyb.1026
think the use of the occasional map and stopwatch snippets was a trick by the film-makers, to add some backup info (there must be film-maker word for it lol) for the benefit of the viewers. Plus they might not have wanted to show use of INAS in cloeup, for security reasons. Some and possibly all RAF Phantoms had INAS.
The British Spey-powered Phantoms had more powerful engines than their J-79 powered counterparts, yet were not faster than these. Did they have superior climb and acceleration?
The British Spey-powered Phantoms had more powerful engines than their J-79 powered counterparts, yet were not faster than these. Did they have superior climb and acceleration?
From what I've heard from some pilots. The Speys were apparently more economical & down low (below 10k) they were superior to J79s. Above 10k, not so much. At all heights, though, J79s were more responsive. That trait especially came into its own during Tanking & Carrier operations. If you haven't already. Check out @Aircrew Interview on YT, more specifically, 1 of the Tony Dixon interviews on the F4, as there's a part where he actually talks about a race he had with a J79 Phantom.
The British Spey-powered Phantoms had more powerful engines than their J-79 powered counterparts, yet were not faster than these. Did they have superior climb and acceleration?
Being some what wider than their US counter parts therefor not so fast. Climb, range better but at low level not quite so good but it smoked less so not so easy to see.
![RAF Phantom low flying training part 1 - Planning [1971]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JQXy0lpsF34/mqdefault.jpg)
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.79[1/2] แก๊งไทบ้านพาบุกเมืองบั้งไฟโก้ ยโสธรรรร!!!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ldr3_fvTEXk/mqdefault.jpg)
I really enjoy these old RAF trng films.
Thank you, this one seems to be popular.
Blimey! Imagine trying to to do all that at speed. Incredible stuff. I would love to go back and tell them about GPS.
Yeah, different times, but I guess in a proper combat situation there is a good chance there would be no GPS signal.
@@owainwright6055 That's a very valid point! Depending on operational requirements the US Government can literally just switch the GPS signals off. There is also the possibility of it being vulnerable to an EMP attack.
They had INS. Not nearly as good as GPS. Also, they had ground mapping radar that can be used to sweeten the INS location..
They had a navigator.
@@flybobbie1449 Jaguar pilots didn't old chap.
Me one minute into the flight “sorry, I’m lost” 😂
Oh c'mon you werent an officer were you? You would be lost without inertial nav then lol. Paper maps are too hard at mach1!
"Where's the bloody bridge!".. LOL👍
More of a film about the new artform of toporigamyglueography!
Hahahahahaha!
Mind blowing WOW
thanks enjoyed that
ah, the good old days when you could destroy several maps per one flight :)
I have been told that could indeed happen! lol
A Discarded Quarter Mil map actually got used for a successful prison escape in the 70s.
There’s only one, what, in Scunthorpe?
Jim's a bright lad
Yah.
MOST BEAUTIFUL FIGHTER PLANE F 4
Also noteworthy is the QFI’s name badge: Luck?
The Issue with the Spey engine was airflow, it was a hot engine, ask the USS Saratoga. To stop the engines from melting the air intakes on the Phanom had to be enlarged. The increase of frontal area increased the drag and caused a lack of performance.
‘Melting the air intakes’, bah-hahahahahahah!
😳😳😳😳
Is that where the phrase 'turning on a sixpence' comes from?
This looks like post Decimalisation to me.
6 Squadron, night attack specialised unit.
The British Spey-powered Phantoms had more powerful engines than their
J-79 powered counterparts, yet were not faster than these. Did they have
superior climb and acceleration?
Have a look at "Aircrew interview"
1 of interviews, goes into this exact sinario.
6:32 Flamborough Head
Walked around flam head early 80s ,windy real windy 😮
These two blokes still with us...??
I honestly couldnt say. They arent named in the film itself .
I would have some aerial photographers want pics of of factories and fields. They would show me a google earth pic and i would find it by trying not to use the map.
All flying navigation principles are the same no matter what you fly. Bit easier moving fast, wind doesn't effect you.
These chap bit wasteful of maps.
Im most surprised at this, using paper maps, Harriers had INAS at this time.. Guess thaf what comes of using grotty American aircraft 😅😊
The RAF Phantom also had INAS. The training mission was in a Jet Provost.
@alexneil6201 silly of me,, when the Title said Phantom,, I thought it meant Phantom 👻
The trainee shown, "Jim" was still under training to be a Phantom nav, which is why he has no nav brevet on his jacket. He still had a long way to go before he got in the back seat of an FGR2. The film was made to attract recruits.@@andyb.1026
Not so sure it was in a JP. They couldn’t make 460kts…..
think the use of the occasional map and stopwatch snippets was a trick by the film-makers, to add some backup info (there must be film-maker word for it lol) for the benefit of the viewers. Plus they might not have wanted to show use of INAS in cloeup, for security reasons. Some and possibly all RAF Phantoms had INAS.
He said “it does look pretty flat”
It is indeed flat as a pancake, the earth is flat and stationary, space is fake.
You should try out for clown school, with that material. After all, you made me chuckle. 😅
@@THE-BUNKEN-DRUM 18:30 onward. 👍🤡
Awesome
The British Spey-powered Phantoms had more powerful engines than their
J-79 powered counterparts, yet were not faster than these. Did they have
superior climb and acceleration?
The British Spey-powered Phantoms had more powerful engines than their
J-79 powered counterparts, yet were not faster than these. Did they have
superior climb and acceleration?
From what I've heard from some pilots. The Speys were apparently more economical & down low (below 10k) they were superior to J79s. Above 10k, not so much.
At all heights, though, J79s were more responsive. That trait especially came into its own during Tanking & Carrier operations.
If you haven't already. Check out @Aircrew Interview on YT, more specifically, 1 of the Tony Dixon interviews on the F4, as there's a part where he actually talks about a race he had with a J79 Phantom.
The British Spey-powered Phantoms had more powerful engines than their
J-79 powered counterparts, yet were not faster than these. Did they have
superior climb and acceleration?
Being some what wider than their US counter parts therefor not so fast. Climb, range better but at low level not quite so good but it smoked less so not so easy to see.