USAF F-4

[TWINMAKER]

When the USAF decided to purchase the Navy F4H-1 Phantom II in 1962, what was
the reason that they decided to go with 2 pilots and flight controls in the
rear seat, vs. the Navy philosophy of pilot and NFO in the back?

W. Woodruff

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"TWINMAKER" > wrote in message
...
>
> When the USAF decided to purchase the Navy F4H-1 Phantom II in 1962, what
was
> the reason that they decided to go with 2 pilots and flight controls in
the
> rear seat, vs. the Navy philosophy of pilot and NFO in the back?
>

Because the USAF didn't have any NFOs.

[V]

NFO "NAVAL FLIGHT OFFICER" i.e. Navy!


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "TWINMAKER" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > When the USAF decided to purchase the Navy F4H-1 Phantom II in 1962,
what
> was
> > the reason that they decided to go with 2 pilots and flight controls in
> the
> > rear seat, vs. the Navy philosophy of pilot and NFO in the back?
> >
>
> Because the USAF didn't have any NFOs.
>
>

[TWINMAKER]

Technically you are right, since there were no Naval Flight Officers in the
USAF. However, for years prior to the F-4's entry into the Air Force, the USAF
had non-pilot rear seat officer navigators or radar intercept officers in
F-89s, F-94s and F-101s. These aircraft also had no flight controls in the
rear seat. So, there was quite a precidence set with pilots (not navs) in the
rear seat of a 2 seat fighter, also the USAF had to specify flight controls in
the back seat.