F-4’s have a RIO?

@@tacticalbacon9877 he meant WSO

@@Blink-eq3vl No I meant RIO as I was speaking to Navy jets not having a stick for the RIO. USAF E models had a WSO and he had a stick in the back cockpit.

@@billcedarheath387 the more you know, did a little research. Wso, and Rio are essentially the same essentially. Wso is an AF term, whilst rio is a navy term (for the era)

@@tacticalbacon9877 I was in the Air Force so I’m up on it all. They do share a lot of the same tasks in the cockpit. RIOs don’t have the ability to take the controls if needed so there is a significant difference there in that WSOs can and are allowed to fly the aircraft. The RIO term has gone by the wayside with the current Navy aircraft. The F-18F and G both have sticks in the back and with that they became a Weapons Systems Officer or Electronic Warfare Officer depending on F or G.

Yeah - very much still Harrier focussed. I actually have a video ready to publish....but I figured it would get lost in a million Phantom vids so will hold on for a week or so.

Sadly not

and too high

no

No launch bar for the shuttle.

This is the USAF variant, it doesn't have a launch bar

You mean heatblur? They want to do a naval phantom

1

I just created the mission in the editor

@@Pukin-Dog ahhhh thank you

Probably....its a long runway....but no catapult

No big deal. Just nose first it lol

It was - but for a first attempt in a plane that I have only flown for 20 mins practicing dogfights....better than expected.

I could not land on a salt plane form the back lol.

USAF E model. WSO not RIO. Navy F-4s had RIOs and they didn’t have sticks in the rear cockpit. Would have been really hard for a RIO to land without controls. 🤣

honestly mate, if an F-16 can land, go to the end of the deck and take off, i dont doubt a phantom can do it as well.

​@@TazziedoesWTThe Phantom is inferior in its flight characteristics to a F-16 dude. Except maybe top speed.

@@majorborngusfluunduch8694 yes, but its got two massive engines. Take 50% fuel, taxi to the end of the deck, turn around, hold brakes and go into aft burner, take off.

@@TazziedoesWT Those two massive engines are required to make this brick of a plane move. The F-16 is lighter by default, and has better aerodynamics.

Maybe with the british phantoms engines lol

@KillerKev1961 - Hmmm.... where did you get the idea that the USAF F-4 landing gears are different than Navy/Marine models? After all, the F-4 was originally a Navy design and quickly adopted by the USAF, complete with tail hook. I think the only difference in landing gear is USAF versions have wider tires for runway use, at least our F-4Es did. There's a pronounced raised area on the top of the wing to accommodate the wider tires. Ironically, later Navy/Marine F-4S models (updated F-4J) used F-4E wings, complete with leading edge slats and the fat tires.

@@Jimbo-in-Thailand do your own research. Navy Marine variants gear are much heavier duty than Air Force. They have to be for CAROPS. The gear is not interchangeable with the E variants. Also, the Air Force variants all have no launch bar on the nose gear. NATOPS manuals are specific in regard to what parts can be used. They are all different than what the E variants use. That’s how I know. I donated 12 years of my life with VMFA-531, 235 and VMFP-3 photo recon. Speaking of the p3 birds, they were RF-4B variants with heavier gear for CAROPS. The air farce photo variants were RF-4C variants. Any other q’s you may have?

@@KillerKev1961 Thanks for the info. I guess I'm not that surprised at your landing gear revelations considering how inefficient and wasteful the US government/military has always been. I helped strip a bunch of F-4S Phantoms headed for the scrap heap a couple of decades ago. While I wasn't surprised at the many differences vs the USAF versions, especially the Navy/Marine rear cockpits without flight controls, I was shocked at the F-4E slatted wings with fat tire bulges, like I mentioned. Didn't notice any significant differences in the main landing gears though, but it wasn't my focus. Have a nice day.

@@Jimbo-in-Thailand the Phantoms-as well as most any other gear we had in USMC gear, be it air, ground, sea were almost always hand me downs. The B variants were reworked several times, as were Js, sometimes re-designated with new variant designators. Js,Bs,S,N. By the time the Phantom was retired, several of our birds had been SLEP more than once. Service Life Extension Program work usually done at North Island. VMFA-314 at El Toro Ca was the first squadron to receive the F/A-18 I think in 1982. I was with 531 at the time at MAG-11, the man hour of maintenance vs flight hours in RFI status was abhorrent. Something in the realm of 80 maintenance hours to every flight hour. Almost double compared to Air Force and Natl Guard. We had several birds that never flew for 3 years due to not passing NDI (x ray) with the air frame and wings due to cracks. I don’t think they ever flew again. Duty at sea is brutal and is the true test of a design ruggedness. Some of our birds were combat veterans of Vietnam. Most of VMFP-3 photo recon birds were all Vietnam vets! Cheers.

Mostly cos the airforce guys do a shit job of carrier landings, yuck! 🤣

There navy planes too!

Little does he know the F4 was originally made for the navy lmao

Different landing gear however. Slamming AF F4 on the deck isn't gonna be viable long term.

@@VintageAviation737 US Navy NEVER had any F-4E! Stop talking BS, Karen!