Many things have been said about the F4 Phantom, including the saying that it is proof that “Given enough power, a 10 ton brick could fly.”
It has been reported that supposedly the F4 would have had a lower drag coeffecient if it flew backwards. This has been rumoured as true.
It can’t be… can it?
I’m not sure but I have heard similar things myself like how if the wingtips weren’t bent up the plane would have been too nstable to fly but I don’t know how true any of it is.
Well, it makes sense that an unstable aircraft would actually be very maneuverable (I can comprehend that) but it just suprises me that it is possible that the drag coeffecient would be better if the airflow was reverse.
Not a chance, not at all. Period
Well, almost… 
A blunt nose and pointy tail is more aerodynamic than the reverse; the F-4 has a pointy nose and somehow blunt tail (because of the exhaust nozzles) But since when the plane is flying gasses are flowing out to the nozzles they don`t produce any drag at all, what´s left of the aft fuselage is quite pointy, although it has a rather complex cross section.
The wingtips up angle is called dihedral, it adds roll and yaw stability; the F-4 is a low winger, so the center of mass is above the center of lift, that´s an unstable configuration, think of it as a pendulum upside down, it tends to fall to the sides. So adding dihedral increases the stability. The opposite happens with high wing fighters; usually the wing tips point slightly down, that´s called anhedral, or negative dihedral. In fact a neutral stability is better for a fighter.
As for the quote about the 10 ton brick… you don`t even need power to fly it, just wings, or a lifting body ; you just need enough airflow and a well thought aerodynamic configuration.
I’ve always heard it as “Proof of the McDonnell Douglas barndoor theory - with a big enough engine, even a barndoor will fly.”
Yet I have heard pilots accounts where they say it was like flying a Lamborghini, very responsive and powerful.
No, no, no…
The F-4 quote is “Proof that with a big enough engine even a brick could fly…and the F-4 needed two!”
How to piss off an F-4 jock, ask him where they coal goes. 
I don’t know about the backwards theory but the F-4 has some aerodynmic oddities not found in other planes. They had to add a boundary layer control system where bleed air from the engine compressor stage was vented from slots in the wings. BLC was used experimentally to dramatically reduce drag but I’m not aware of any other operational plane that used it. …did a search and one place says the Mirage III used BLC.
IMHO the Phantom looks aerodynamic, at least thrown together rather than being an elegant design. Everything looks like it’s there to correct something else. The wing wasn’t right so it needed dihedral tips that that didn’t line up at the leading edges. The anhedral tail looks like it was there to correct the wings and it has a negative camber curve at the leading edge with a slot IIRC and the engine intake boundary layer diverters don’t help. The original nose was sleek but they had to switch to a bulbous radome to handle a bigger antenna then add a taller canopy.
A bit o’ history:
The Phantom first took to the air on May 27, 1958, the genius of then McDonnell Aircraft Company, now known as Boeing Aircraft. The Phantom was destined to become a legend in its own time. Over 5000 F-4’s were built, 2000 for the USAF. The F-4 entered service with the Air Force in 1963, then known as the F-110A, it soon was redesignated the F-4C. Known to those who loved her as “Double Ugly,” or “the Rhino,” the venerable Phantom served faithfully for more than 33 years. No task was to difficult, no mission to hard, the F-4 was a genuine do-all aircraft. Different variations of Air Force Phantoms were the F-4C, D, E, with an added nose gun, the RF, for reconnaissance, and finally the G, better know as the Wild Weasel.
I believe it was Israel that almost bought a new upgrade package for the Phantom that changed the engines, avionics, and beefed up the wing. The company claimed the airplane would have been competitive with whatever front-line jet Israel was looking at the time (F-16? F-18?).
The Phantom was truly one of the most successful fighters ever built.
The Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer used BLC to minimize wing area - practical for a (sometimes) carrier-based plane. Of course, when compared to the Phantom, the Buc actually looks like the design team set out with the idea that the end result should at least resemble an airplane.
Hey, now! When I was a kid the F-4 was my favourite airplane! When I was a three-year-old I told my mom I would fly them when I grew up. She explained to me that there wouldn’t be any when I grew up; that there would be something better. I insisted there would be Phantoms, and I’d fly one! And as it turned out, there were Phantoms in service until recently. Unfortunately my skiing injury prevented me from joining the military. (I wouldn’t have flown the Phantom anyway, since I liked the F-14 then. 
) Anyway, I think the Phantom is a beautiful airplane!
Re: the anhedral stabs. I heard that a well-known airplane designer had a hand in those, and that they were put that way to correct a problem. Was the deigner Burt Rutan or Jim Bede? I’m thinking Bede. Also, what, specifically, is the reason for the downturned stabilators? (Padeye mentions “to correct the wings”; but there are planes with dihedral wingtips that have straight stabs, and I’d still like to know the specific reason for the F-4’s stabs.)
IIRC, the USN had the F4-A, B, J, and N. The RAF also had a version of the Phantom (fitted with Rolls-Royce engines, I think), but I don’t recall the designator. The craziest thing I ever saw a Phantom do was launch from the HMS Ark Royal; because of the short cat shot, the F4 had to employ “double nose extend” to get the correct angle-of-attack. I seem to remember that nearly all the non-skid on the deck just forward of the JBDs was burned off. I thought BLC was there to create turbulence over the leading edge of the wing… something to do with destabilizing laminar flow, I thought. It has been a long time, and I was, after all, only a spectator in all things aviation. I did wangle a hop in the back seat as the RIO, though.
When you say “hop”, I hope you meant you hopped in when it was turned off and sitting on the ground. Otherwise I may have to hurt you.
I WANNA, I WANNA, I WANNA!!!
I grew up across a bit of water from MCAS Beaufort, SC, home of a few squadrons. 4 miles away, or about 9 seconds at Mach 2. They couldn’t fire up engines until 7:30am, but at 7:30am, my bedroom window shook.
I grew up in the shadow of NAS (now MCAS) Miramar. I saw the Blue Angels there when they flew the Phantom. I remember an F-4 on a pedastal. I think it was Randy Cunningham’s (or a replica of it, anyway.)
Edwards AFB had (and still has, I think) a number of Phantoms. When I worked there I could always tell when one was flying. We called them “smokers” because they left a trail of black smoke that the newer airplanes didn’t.
UncleBill: Well, sir, it was an actual sortie on a training mission over Spain. I filled up two MAF bags, BTW. The air intercepts were interesting because of the manuevering required to maintain lock-on, but the bombing and strafing runs were really Sierra Hotel! Especially the negative g’s at the top of the climb-out!
Johnny L.A.: Even more distinctive than the smoke trail was the unique screeching the F4 made at low speeds, especially in low-speed bank and turns. You could identify that sound from a long way off.
I am seething with envy.
[sub]seethe, seethe, seethe, seethe[/sub]
I never went on a carrier with F-4s but worked on a flight line with them at Miramar in the early eighties before they were all replaced with F-14s. They were particularly hated becuse of the smokeless engines. No way to avoid jet exhaust on the flight line and for some reason the Phantoms made our eyes burn intensely, far more than other planes. We supposed it was due to unburned fuel but had nothing to back that up with.
Cat extend always baffled me. There is no need for lift until you reach the end of the catapult so why increase drag by lifting the nose? The F-14 does just the opposite with a kneel position on the catapult. The launch bar is integrated into the nose strut so it touches the deck only in kneel position. The pilot has full back pressure on the stick during launch (as if he had a choice) so the tail drops as soon as it leaves the deck, putting the plane into a high angle of attack for climb.
Johnny L.A., just my guess on the anhedral stab but just my overall impression that the F-4 was less an organic design than a collection of parts that didn’t always match up well.
my WAG for the wing design was so it had a bit flat center section that could be studded with hard points for attaching whatever you want while the tips were adjusted to give the aerodynamic qualities they wanted.
I actually like the way the F-4 looks but it gives a very different impression up close than far away.
Well, I am not sure of the F-4’s aerodynamic abilites but I do know that it doesn’t do well against walls.
See www.nci.org/media/crashtest.rm
Slee
(I just had to throw in that link. My Dad ran that test. What a job, blowing things up for money)