Tornado F3 vs Phantom | Roy Macintyre

Рет қаралды 13,141

2 жыл бұрын

High-timed Tornado F3 pilot (4565 hrs), Roy Macintyre, shares his experiences of going up against RAF and German F-4 Phantoms!
Part 1 of Roy’s original interview:
www.aircrewinterview.tv/roy-t...
Part 2:
www.aircrewinterview.tv/royma...
Purchase our Aviation Art Book, Volume One - amzn.to/3sehpaP
Visit our online shop: www.redbubble.com/people/acin...
Help keep the channel going:
/ aircrewinterview
or donate
www.aircrewinterview.tv/donate/
Follow us:
www.aircrewinterview.tv/
/ aircrew_interview
/ aircrewinterview
/ aircrewtv
Original thumbnail photo by Roy Macintyre

Пікірлер: 48

@daveh1081 2 жыл бұрын

Mike......Roy has to be one of your most informative guests.......he talks in a way that's easy for the enthusiast to understand. Brilliant and many thanks to both you and Roy.👍👍

@troyledbetter6597 2 жыл бұрын

Glad to have Roy back! His knowledge of the F4 and F3 are impressive and his explanations are easy to understand!

@shirleydrury5565 11 ай бұрын

This man is tops I could listen to him all day long .he is gentlemen thank u MR MAC regards 😊😊

@Back2TheBike 2 жыл бұрын

Fascinating. I was at Warton at the time of Gulf #1 and was part of the Tornado F3 project office. I oversaw the installation of the chaff/flare system onto the aircraft. The installation of the chaff/flare system had dragged on for over a year, but when Iraq happened we got it onto the aircraft and off to Boscombe Down in 8 days. Quute emotional watching the aircraft leave the runway that day.

@bruennlein 5 ай бұрын

The german F-4 where the F-4F. Originally an F-4E without Sparrow-integration and a simplified radar without STT-mode. Later, they got the AIM-120 and the APG-65. That version was called F-4F ICE (Improved Combat Efficiency).

@distortedreality4603 Жыл бұрын

Another cracking one from Roy ! Entertaining and very informative 👍

@Belkan779 2 жыл бұрын

Fantastic! What a guy, so down to earth with mad knowledge of his trade. Love it bro.

@blooter6360 2 жыл бұрын

Wow that was captivating ! Understanding the 3 stages of engagement Roy spoke with great intensity regarding his experiences As platforms the f-3 and F-4 We’re greAt warbirds , bearing in mind the F-4 had been around since the 1960s So hearing the avionics upgrade and using amramms in the late 90s is amazing As dogfighters though they were both not as a tight as F-16 Or even our own raf HAWKS Another Fabtastic interview cheers 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

@boggy8557 2 жыл бұрын

That was excellent! I really enjoyed the technical and tactical aspects that were discussed.

@_RAF_SkyRider_ 2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, very informative! Thanks!

@micstonemic696stone 2 жыл бұрын

thank you Roy for telling us your story

@WeeRosieOurFrenchie 2 жыл бұрын

Again a fantastic blether with Roymac,😁🥃🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 well blether should read listening ! 🤨🤪😁

@couchfighter 2 жыл бұрын

how many pilots have an office in the attic, Ward CARROL

@davidruddick3346 2 жыл бұрын

Fascinating as ever👍

@thefrecklepuny 2 жыл бұрын

Great video as usual.

@Aircrewinterview 2 жыл бұрын

Cheers.

@hmfc2005 2 жыл бұрын

Great as always, so informative - Roy, all other things being equal, would the Mauser 27mm be the preferred weapon to the SUU-23/M61 in air-to-air?

@lorenzcassidy3960 2 жыл бұрын

Informative and captivating interview! Though I wonder why Roy refers to missiles as "rockets". Is it some kind of jargon or "slang"? Best from Italy!

@DAGO58 2 жыл бұрын

There was a pair of Luftwaffe F-4s at the East Fortune airshow in the early to mid 2000s, I reckon the smoke from their engines should be just about dissipating from the skies over the airfield now!

@Aircrewinterview 2 жыл бұрын

😂

@uha6477 2 жыл бұрын

Roy is one of my fave guests AI has on. His interviews are always so informative, and this one, the F-3 and RAF F-4 is about of the RAF aircraft I find most interesting. Fantastic upload, and hope he's on again.

@Aircrewinterview 2 жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed them. Cheers!

@angusmcangus7914 2 жыл бұрын

Interesting but it’s fighter v fighter stuff. Much more interesting would be the fighter v mud-mover fight especially fighter response/reaction to mud-mover evasive/defensive tactics and weapons - from an ex-mud-mover (Harrier GR3 and Tornado GR1).

@rodgerlucas7528 2 жыл бұрын

‘It is a round not anything else’ 🤣🤣

@davidcarter6737 2 жыл бұрын

Pretty sad that the replacement "new" aircraft for the phantom is just slightly better on release. Good old British aircraft industry working on the politicians, as they did on the Nimrod AEW and then again on the Nimrod MR4. Sad.

@gordon7470 2 жыл бұрын

Comparison with F4J UK would be interesting?

@edisontrent5244 Жыл бұрын

M61 is a cannon not a gun. A new radar on a F4 sounds like it would have maintained as better than a much newer aircraft, especially if modernized engines.

@paulgarrad1581 2 жыл бұрын

Looks like you included a still phot of an F3 fitted with outboard pylons and a BOZ pod modified by Marconi with a towed decoy? These were a UOR for the Balkans conflict in the mid 90's.

@ianrkav 2 жыл бұрын

Weren't the F3 engines still the same as the GR1's in that they were geared for low level work? Not too good for an interceptor. Were they adjusted in any way for the interceptor role?

@roymacintyre6479 2 жыл бұрын

The RB199s in the F3 (103 variant) produced more thrust than those in the GR1/4. That said - it still wasn't enough! The only variation was in the air intake design. The left hand one was optimised for low level/high IAS, while the right hand one was optimised for high level/high AoA. This was an attempt to provide protection against engine surge, which was never welcome (at any height!)

@ianrkav 2 жыл бұрын

@@roymacintyre6479 Interesting. Thanks.

@franciscorr9080 Жыл бұрын

@@roymacintyre6479 Hi Roy, Nice interview Sir, could listen to you all day. Now... I may be wrong but I think I'm correct. It was the Mk 104 in the F3. I have a feeling the !03 as well as being in the GRs was fitted in the F2. How's that for pedantic! The 104 was lengthened by 18" or so. Don't know if that improved anything or if it was because of some alteration to the airframe. Intakes? are you talking about the strakes? My knees always wondered why they were different. Yours An ex Fighting Cock.

@roymacintyre6479 Жыл бұрын

@franciscorr9080 You are absolutely correct, it was 104s in the F3. We briefly had 106s during the first Gulf War. Yes the strakes within the intakes were different and optimised as I mentioned. Cheers!

@jeremyrichards8327 8 ай бұрын

Didn't the German pilots in WW2 do the same tactic with the Me 109 by diving in for the attack and making a quick exit.They would lose out in a turning fight with a Spitfire.

@alastairwalker5046 2 жыл бұрын

Bang bang your dead……no I’m not……….priceless

@straywolf77 2 жыл бұрын

Makes sense...he's a Scot ;-)

@starfighter1043 2 жыл бұрын

Anybody say...Tornado and Phantom 🤤🤤🚀

@roymacintyre6479 2 жыл бұрын

I tried to fight the tide on this. However, the dominant habit in the RAF is to mix RAF mark numbers with US type numbers, e.g. GR1/4 = Tornado, GR3/5/7 = Harrier, F3 = Tornado ADV, but E-3, F-4, C-130J were also there. The possibility of confusion was just ignored - GR1 = Tornado or Jaguar or Harrier, F3 = Tornado or Lightning, F6 = Hunter or Lightning etc.