Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Dazza

Members
  • Content count

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

32 Good

About Dazza

  • Rank
    New Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Earth

Recent Profile Visitors

670 profile views
  1. Phantom FG1 auxiliary air doors

    There is often some confusion over the function of the Aux Air doors, the following is a summary of the info available from the USAF -1/USN NATOPS/RAF AP101 flight manuals. Put simply, the Aux Air on both J79 and Spey engined F-4s serve the same purpose, they provide additional cooling air at low speed and dump excess engine bay pressure when it exceeds engine bay pressure design limits, the main differences are, as I noted in my previous post, that the Spey engined FG.1/FGR.2 have the additional upper Aux Air doors (also called Ejector Doors) and are scheduled by the CADC, whereas J79 engined F-4s relied on the U/C up or down position. The excess pressure dump function was simply the pressure overcoming the hydraulic pressure of the actuator, once pressure is relieved, the actuator pulls the doors closed again, hope this helps clear things up a little... -Daz
  2. Phantom FG1 auxiliary air doors

    For those who may be interested... The Aux Air Doors on the FG.1/FGR.2 were always open below 210 KTS to provide additional air to the engines, above 210 KTS they would close but, would blip open when engine bay pressure reached +10 PSI above atmospheric, their scheduling was via the CADC. J79 engined F-4s were slightly different, firstly and most obviously, no upper aux air doors, just those on the belly, secondly, the aux air doors were controlled by gear selection, U/C down = doors open, U/C up = doors closed. Also, on J79 F-4s, when on the ground, if the engines were shut down or there was a sudden loss of electrical power the doors would literally slam shut, many ground crew have received serious injuries because of this and is why hydraulic ground locks were used. -Daz
  3. F-4C/D - Europe1 scheme

    Thanks, I'll know what to look for in future. -Dazza
  4. F-4C/D - Europe1 scheme

    Yes, Murph, that is indeed the picture I was thinking of, thanks for the clarification, weapons are not an area I am that up to speed on, among many other areas some would also argue! -Dazza
  5. F-4C/D - Europe1 scheme

    The AIM-7M was available to the F-4E/G/S, according to at least one publication, there is also a pic (official DoD) of an F-4G carrying AIM-7M but I can't find it at this late/early hour of the night/morning... -Dazza
  6. F-4C/D - Europe1 scheme

    No sweat... -Dazza
  7. F-4C/D - Europe1 scheme

    What isn't? I clearly stated that TFS's carried out both attack and fighter taskings... -Dazza
  8. F-4C/D - Europe1 scheme

    As already answered, both, an easy way to tell is by squadron, FIS = Fighter Interceptor Squadron, these only undertook the Fighter/Interceptor air defence mission, TFS = Tactical Fighter Squadron, these squadrons undertook the tactical mission which comprised both fighter and attack taskings. -Dazza
  9. RAF Typhoon display aircraft Qu.

    It was mentioned (by someone who is on 29(R) sqn) that it has nothing to do with fuel needed to transit intergalactic mileage to faraway locations on our massive island, rather it was just easier not to have to drop (see what I did there?) the tank for every display and then add it again when the display jet was flown on normal sorties, that and the fact that given the Typhoon's SEP and agility, leaving the tank on would make practically no difference to the display routine anyway... -Dazza
  10. RAF Blue Phantoms

    I see your point re: establishment of 74 sqn using F-4Js but, that requirement only arose directly because of the need to deploy aircraft to the FI and it's associated impact on our NATO commitments, without that need the available FGR.2/FG.1 airframes was adequate (to what degree is open to debate of course) to maintain current squadron levels. Another point worth considering is that, as usual, government stupidity resulted in the FG.1/FGR.2 instead of an 'of the shelf' buy of an existing J79 powered model of the F-4. As far as the argument at the time for the RN/FAA's need for more power from the engines to operate from their smaller carrier/s, which the government decided could be solved by stuffing an afterburner on the civilian Spey engine (which was strewn with reliability problems before and after entry into service for many years!), GE had already said that the J79 could be made to deliver more power but, the UK gov had spoken! The resultant cost of the highly modified FG.1/FGR.2 (the most expensive new build version of the F-4) no doubt had an impact on the numbers bought, when quite a few more airframes could've been purchased of already existing models for the same or even less cost, thus enabling the spread of airframe hours/FI across a larger, easier to support fleet, hindsight though is a wonderful thing... -Dazza
  11. RAF Blue Phantoms

    No, I haven't read any of the Air Staff or MoD files which you refer to because I don't have access to them, so I'm happy to concede that maybe there was a plan to reform 74 Sqn with 892's FG.1s, although I still find it odd that there is no mention of that in the wider published material available on the F-4s service with the RAF/RN, unless I've missed it... I also agree that the FGR.2s FBSA role did inflict more fatigue than was expected, but, by and large I stand by my points made previously. Yes the INAS could and did break and required repair, but it was an avionics item and not something which should've required significant engineering resources to the point that it was a burden, if anything the AWG-11/12 were the bigger problem as regards MTBF and a concerted effort was undertaken to improve reliability with reasonable success. The outer wings on the FG.1 and FGR.2 were identical and were interchangeable, the only difference was that all FG.1s had hydraulic wing fold, were as only a small number of FGR.2s had hydraulic wing fold (before it was deleted on the production line), the FGR.2s without the hydraulic wing fold differed only in the removal of the hydraulic jack, locking mechanism and associated hydraulic lines. Further to the fatigue issues on the FGR.2, whilst waiting for BAe to complete the new outer wing panels, the MoD acquired a number of low hour/low mod state outer wing sets for use until a new build outer wing sets were available, the belly strap was also something which was added to all F-4s except for F-4E/F/EJ and RF-4Es after 71-0237, so it wasn't a unique fitment to the FG.1/FGR.2... -Dazza
  12. RAF Blue Phantoms

    Well known facts that have been published many times over the years, there are several books that detail F-4 service with the RAF/RN, I also have several FG.1/FGR.2 AP101s detailing operating data, general differences, weapons systems, safety & servicing, ground crew handbook etc... -Dazza
  13. RAF Blue Phantoms

    The difference between the FG.1 and FGR.2 amounted to the nose gear, cat hooks (faired over), fast re-heat light up on the Speys, 7th stage bleed air for the BLC and a lack of INAS on the FG.1, the nose gear extension and fast re-heat light up were both inhibited on entry to RAF service and the INAS was never retrofitted to FG.1 (which seems ridiculous given it's role of heading far north over the sea on QRA intercepts!), none of these differences would have made one bit of difference to the engineering effort needed to support them however... The need for the F-4J(UK) was nothing to do with fatigue on the FG.1/FGR.2 either, the need for the additional 15 aircraft was as a direct result of having a squadron of FGR.2s/crews/ground support etc deployed to the Falklands after the war ended in 1982, the deployment reduced our NATO commitment and the purchase of the F-4J(UK) restored that commitment. I've also never read or heard any mention whatsoever of an initial intention to reform 74 Sqn on the ex-892 NAS FG.1s! -Dazza
  14. RAF Blue Phantoms

    43 Sqn did have several FGR.2s on strength for the last couple of years before swapping to the Tornado F.3, basically the FG.1s were all but knackered and suffering major fatigue issues so a number of FGR.2s were 'borrowed' to make up the numbers of the dwindling FG.1 fleet, XV406, XV470 and XV489 were the FGR.2s in question, they were coded AV, AW and AU respectively... -Dazza
  15. QF-4E

    The badly faded paintwork on 68-0464 is what's left of the 'Euro 1' camo it was delivered in to AMARG from the NJANG in Nov 1990... -Dazza
×