The Phantom - How Good was it Really?
Discussion
Tony1963 said:
Buccaneers? Knackered.
Victors? Knackered.
The first Gulf bunfight was the last straw for the old girls. The Phantom had life remaining, but remember that was 25 years ago.
Knackered in the sense that the Treasury was not going to pay to upgrade/fix/correct whatever their shortcomings were by 1993. The Phantoms could have kept going a bit longer - Germany only retired theirs a couple of years ago.Victors? Knackered.
The first Gulf bunfight was the last straw for the old girls. The Phantom had life remaining, but remember that was 25 years ago.
Of course, what should have been happening was the funding of proper replacements for the Victors and the Buccaneers - especially the Buccaneers.
It was a Treasury based decision above all. It wasn't called the "Peace Dividend" for nothing.
Badgerboy said:
The pilot of the Phantom was my instructor (SQN LDR) back in the early 2000's. Lovely guy, and a great pilot but in was considered bad form to bring it up!
And I worked, briefly, with the Jaguar pilot a few years ago. He retired from the RAF as a Gp Capt, and had been the Stn Cdr at Coltishall, I think. Steve something, cant remember his surname, but he was working as a consultant on a project I was involved with.Tony1963 said:
Eric Mc said:
The RAF retired their Phantoms in 1993 (along with the Buccaneers and Victors). It was the post Cold War Peace Dividend - you know, that new world order where there would be no more wars.
Buccaneers? Knackered. Victors? Knackered.
The first Gulf bunfight was the last straw for the old girls. The Phantom had life remaining, but remember that was 25 years ago.
Bucc and F-4 retirement was political related to the 'end of the cold war'. Both fleets could have gone to 2000 or so from the conversations I've have with those that flew them and fixed them.
Yes, the Victor tankers were knackered, and thus the end of the V-Bomber fleet was overdue.
lufbramatt said:
The Buccaneers had an avionics upgrade in the late 1980's and were expected to go on until the late 90's. The airframes had been overhauled in the early/mid 80s after cracks were found in the wing spars with some of them being re-sparred.
New Airfix Buccaneer on the way folks...Ref. Buccaneers.
They were knackered. I worked on them in the early 80s, and kept in touch with guys who worked on them til the end. The structures were finished. Also, forget the peace dividend, there was just no need for the Bucc anymore. Old aircraft cost a fortune to keep in service, so if they no longer have a role, why should we bother?
I left Marham in 1988, and the Victors were also showing signs of their retirement looking. The RAF has even stopped reporting defects on the old 720B form, just using the 720M. They knew everything they needed to know, and the first Gulf war completely finished them off. And, of course, the VC-10 still had years left, as did the Tristar I think.
Please don't go all dewy eyed over those old relics. They need to be allowed to die when their time comes.
Edit to add: avionics upgrades are all well and good, but when fatigue means that critical structure is near the end of its life, the only financially viable option is to retire the aircraft. Otherwise you're faced with completely stripping and rebuilding with new skin on new spars/frames/ribs/longerons, and mounts for landing gear etc. The list goes on. Ever seen the structure of a Bucc? I have, and I've spent hours preparing the spars for NDT. There's a lot of hefty (read extremely expensive) material in there that had a designed fatigue life. The flying in 1990-91 used up the remainder of that life.
Ok, a few aircraft from each fleet may have had a few more years left in them, but running say six Buccs is almost as expensive as running a whole squadron, but with less capability.
They were knackered. I worked on them in the early 80s, and kept in touch with guys who worked on them til the end. The structures were finished. Also, forget the peace dividend, there was just no need for the Bucc anymore. Old aircraft cost a fortune to keep in service, so if they no longer have a role, why should we bother?
I left Marham in 1988, and the Victors were also showing signs of their retirement looking. The RAF has even stopped reporting defects on the old 720B form, just using the 720M. They knew everything they needed to know, and the first Gulf war completely finished them off. And, of course, the VC-10 still had years left, as did the Tristar I think.
Please don't go all dewy eyed over those old relics. They need to be allowed to die when their time comes.
Edit to add: avionics upgrades are all well and good, but when fatigue means that critical structure is near the end of its life, the only financially viable option is to retire the aircraft. Otherwise you're faced with completely stripping and rebuilding with new skin on new spars/frames/ribs/longerons, and mounts for landing gear etc. The list goes on. Ever seen the structure of a Bucc? I have, and I've spent hours preparing the spars for NDT. There's a lot of hefty (read extremely expensive) material in there that had a designed fatigue life. The flying in 1990-91 used up the remainder of that life.
Ok, a few aircraft from each fleet may have had a few more years left in them, but running say six Buccs is almost as expensive as running a whole squadron, but with less capability.
Edited by Tony1963 on Thursday 24th May 21:01
Edited by Tony1963 on Thursday 24th May 21:03
Eric Mc said:
I wouldn't go so far. I actually think the true ancestor of the F-14 was the North American A-5 Vigilante. Indeed, in it's earlier design configuration, the A-5 had twin fins - although a single fin was selected before any metal was cut.
The Phantom to me shows a gradual evolution from all the previous McDonnell jet designs - starting with the F1H Phantom I through the F2H Banshee, the F3H Demon and the F-101 Voodoo.
If you look at the mock up of the original Phantom II it looks even more like what went before -
As you can see, in its earlier form, the Phantom lacked the upturned outer wings and the anhedral tailplanes.
I think the most striking difference is the more petite and streamlined nose - the Phantom needed a large hooter to cover the Westinghouse radar. The Phantom to me shows a gradual evolution from all the previous McDonnell jet designs - starting with the F1H Phantom I through the F2H Banshee, the F3H Demon and the F-101 Voodoo.
If you look at the mock up of the original Phantom II it looks even more like what went before -
As you can see, in its earlier form, the Phantom lacked the upturned outer wings and the anhedral tailplanes.
dr_gn said:
lufbramatt said:
The Buccaneers had an avionics upgrade in the late 1980's and were expected to go on until the late 90's. The airframes had been overhauled in the early/mid 80s after cracks were found in the wing spars with some of them being re-sparred.
New Airfix Buccaneer on the way folks...Always loved the Buccaneer
when I was about 7 and was making my first Airfix kits I used to chat to my parents next door neighbour, who had been aboard HMS Eagle when they went out to Aden in 1967. He gave me a set of photos- 6"x4" prints- from his time out there which as a young boy I thought were amazing. He didn't take them but I haven't seen any of them in print anywhere. I still have them and scanned them I a couple of years ago.Some of the Bucc ones:
Ayahuasca said:
cool toy - but this just tickles my bits (and 3.5mil in change!!)...http://www.platinumfighters.com/draken
Eric Mc said:
Indeed it was. Definitely not a "Classic British" aircraft - although the versions built for the RN and the RAF were heavily Anglicised to the point that they were pretty unique.
Pointlessly and expensively unique, shoehorning the Spey into the airframe made it a b
d to maintain and knackered the already mediocre aerodynamics; better value would have been a licence arrangement to build them here along with the J79, a fraction of the money saved could, if necessary, have been spent on a supply of RATO packs for the RN for catapult launches at full warload. Plenty of other purchasers of US designs also licence-built J79s. A gun would have been nice too.
We used to stand on the flight deck of the Ark and look down at the Buccaneers when they did a low level fly pass. When operating over land they used to come back with tops of trees in the undercarriage.
The 'Martel Missile' trainer onboard was good fun. It was used to hone the aiming skills of the rear seat occupant. It was a strange feeling guiding a missile as though you were sat on top of it.
The 'Martel Missile' trainer onboard was good fun. It was used to hone the aiming skills of the rear seat occupant. It was a strange feeling guiding a missile as though you were sat on top of it.
Speculatore said:
AER said:
Why would they dangle their undercarriage in trees? Wouldn't it have been raised?
OK.. Not quite the undercarriage but the underside of the fuselage (I couldn't think of a way to describe it).Steve
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff