F-4 Phantom Extras with David Gledhill
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2014
- Join the crew: / aircrewinterview
A run through with David Gledhill on Newark Air Museums F-4 Phantom simulator. He also gives us a brief walk round of XV490. (owned by Mike Davey)
Enjoy!
Follow us at:
www.aircrewinterview.tv
aircrewinterview
aircrewtv
Snapchat - aircrewtv - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
This is the first Phantom walkthrough I've heard from anyone except for a US Naval flight instructor or combat vet--well done, sir! It's good and comforting to know that our allied aviators are just as thorough, well-trained, detailed, and insightful.
Thanks Aircraft Interview and Dave Gledhill for the splendid video! I enjoy Dave’s explanations!
Love this guy! Great personality and knowledge.
Is used to watch the Phantoms of Wattisham take off and land. Our house was directly under the flight path. God I miss them days!
Some how I stumbled across this! Last time I met Dave many years ago, we were talking about our Corvettes!
Thank you for informative video and thank you for your service.
I just love how crispy that checklist block sounds. Must have endured spillage of sugary beverage or two :)
I met Dave couple of year ago at Coningsby to sign some of his books, lovely guy with full of tales on the Phantom and even his Corvette, he really gives a lot of detail in his book's, top man, thanks for posting ☺
He is very knowledgeable on the Tornado F2/F3 and Phantom plus a lovely bloke that I am lucky to call a friend.
thanx for posted & shared this
Great stuff.
Thanks Ai.
The simulator was built by what was then Redifon, in Crawley. My bit was the ground mapping system,
..and my bits were the ancillary systems.....so long ago !
+Don Jones If you ever fancy a project it would be wonderful to get the sim working again
I worked on M1 and M2 at Coningsby. They had a 3 axis motion system.
Awesome plane !
Best fighter ever!
Sweet jet!
My math teacher flew a F-4..... once asked him if I could ever be a fighter pilot.... told me not with my math ability....soul was crushed ☹
Your teacher was a moron for shooting you down like that. My apologies.
He was a moron. I flew F-4's and my math sucks.
Excellent! Maybe get him in an ADV - if you can find one!
Great
Thanks for the kind words, we are working on a follow up in the AVD so keep a look out soon!
what an important job yall do...people must not forget the effort an time that went into these machines...the f-4...what a beast...all buisness
@@ghostman9028 where is this museum?
Thx a lot 🙏 for giving us such great 👍 briefing on the F-4 Just curios why there was no thanking the Pilot at the following up or credits at the end ? Guys like this Pilot give us insight information without that the video would have not been possible.
I was with the F4s in Vietnam 68 69 mag 12 great plane
How about some EA-6B prowler crew interview.
I’m sure there are a few in the UK.
Nope.
Only operator was US Marine/Navy
Are Fast Jet Navigators now a thing of the past in the RAF? the new fast jets are all single seat?
I still don't understand the principle of the ramps before the engine intakes. What exactly do they, and how? And why don't have all Mach 1-2 aircraft have them?
I shall put it to Dave himself for you :)
Ramp intakes control the airflow into the engine.
Ramp intakes can be on the inside (as they were on the F-14 Tomcat) OR outside nodding intake ramps/"pseudo-canards" like the F-15 Eagle has.
They slow the speed of airflow down by controlling the cross-sectional area of the inlet ramp entrance. The faster the jet travels, the more constricted that area generally becomes to help slow down the air so that it's still traveling at subsonic speeds as it enter the engine compressor.
(I'm no engineer and my understanding of physics is basic but I think this is an application of Bernoulli's Principle.)
Jet engines CAN'T process supersonic airflow. Even in the fastest jet, the SR-71, the airflow has to be slowed down so that it's subsonic before it enters the compressor.
Any variable ramp system adds its complications (development costs, weight, complexity, and more maintenance for the plane) BUT they're more efficient over a wider range of speeds than a fixed inlet system like the F-16 and F-18 have. Fixed inlets like those are only efficient to maybe Mach 1.5, Mach 1.8 tops... Past Mach 2, a variable inlet (ex: F-14 or F-15) is virtually mandatory for the plane to top out near Mach 2.3-2.5... Every Mach 2.2+ plane that is flying today that I'm aware of has variable inlets. They are either intake cones that move or inlet ramps
The F-16 DID achieve Mach 2.12 in its trials but in routine practice they generally don't break Mach 2.
It's NOT true that a plane needs variable inlets to go past Mach 2 by much... The F-104 Starfighter had an inlet cone design that was optimized for supersonic speeds as did the Mirage III. The F-104, in fact, flew close to Mach 2.5 in some test flights made to set altitude/climbing records.
The F-16's fixed inlet from my understanding was optimized to allow the greatest efficiency in the speed ranges it was expected to fly at for the longest durations of its missions. Its inlet is NOT optimal for Mach 2+ flight BUT it's two generations later than the F-104 design and I would imagine is more economical over a wider speed range.
Thanks for your thorough explanation! You definitely made it more understandable for me
You're welcome!
Variable inlets basically aren't used as much because designers have demonstrated variable speed efficiency with fixed inlets and honestly it would be another $1billion-$2billion in development costs to equip a plane with variable inlets. And for what? So that it can speed at Mach 2.3 for 10 seconds??!? Fighters rarely fly past Mach 2 as it is!
They actually LOCKED the variable ramps on the F-14 in its later years of operation to save on maintenance. The plane could still achieve Mach 2 even with locked ramps.
I suppose you're right. How about the F-22, does it have them?
Regarding the emergency flip card procedures......
I bet I can guess what the last one is!!!
*if all of the above fail - EJECT*
ToonandBBfan Your probably right, luckily Dave never had to use that one!
Aircrew Interview
LOL - Thanks (great video)
Confused me, Radar Scanner, it's the antenna.
VMF-321 MAG 41
The US Navy did, my Father flew them for years, I have sat in them, I have heard the US AIR FORCE dis not have rear sticks.
Navy Phantoms didnt have rear controls (at least the later ones), Air Force Phantoms do. This is because the Navy felt that it was too hard to land on a carrier from the rear seat.
+135th Darksword I am referring to 1969-1972
Not true!
The original Air Force Phantom model was the dual-control version. F-4Cs COULD be flown by the backseater. That was the major difference from the Navy's F-4B besides the difference in landing gear equipment (tires). It created a bit of an issue in the Vietnam War because tendency was for the frontseater to fly the plane most of the time and backseaters got very little hands-on flight time.
Any way, with the complexity of the radar and lack of digital processing systems you really needed the backseater to handle the radar (like all Navy versions did; no Navy Phantom model I'm aware of was ever built as a dual-control version; that was also the case with every F-14 built). Later Air Force models (F-4D/E/G) were set up like the Navy versions. They just called the Air Force backseaters WSO's (weapon system operators, Whizzos) instead of RIO's (radar interceptor officers) as the Navy did.
I was a crew chief on F-4s while in the USAF and they did have rear sticks
USAF F4Es had dual flight controls.
*ADV
I noticed the RAF F-4's have no rear stick/flight controls. I remember the US Navy had rear controls
+AF VENOM
Us Navy Phantom's haven't rear flight controls.
Some did have rear controls, each squadron typically had one two stick phantom
John: No. Navy models never had rear sticks, because pilots never flew in the rear. Naval Flight Officers did. (retired NFO).
The US Navy didn't allow rear controls. They were afraid the guy in the back might panic during a carrier landing.
เครื่องบินจะแยกชิ้นส่วนชั่งน้ำหนักขาย
Why do most airplanes have such a crappy view for pilots.
Because most of the time your eyes are in the cockpit any how.