I'm not sure that the obviousness of this kind could be trusted. The idea of "phallic" was popularized by Freud. It is understandable that we are now have phallic symbols and see them in any prolonged object, either it is because of our nature, or it is because Freud made us to see them.
But I'd rather not to apply this very idea to people of ancient Egypt. Or at least I wouldn't trust it's obviousness. Obvious is not a synonym of a true.
This is so weird to me. Some noses are kinda triangular; some are broad and flat... I can't think of a nose shape that even remotely looks like a phallus. Freud had an obsession with phalluses, and saw them in everything. Are eyelashes phallic? Are necks phallic? Is the upper lip phallic? What about chins? I think chins are at least as phallic as noses. Freud was a dang weirdo.
sometimes "that's a penis!" really isn't up for debate: see U+130BA: EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPH D053.
anachronistic thinking is an ever-lurking danger, though, which is why i'm not amazingly confident in this interpretation, but brought it up out of curiosity.
We do know that body-part substitutions were at least in literary use in the ancient near east, so it's not totally implausible: you can fairly confidently swap foot/thigh for genitalia in ancient hebrew texts, when contextually appropriate.
But I'd rather not to apply this very idea to people of ancient Egypt. Or at least I wouldn't trust it's obviousness. Obvious is not a synonym of a true.