ROGERD Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 ror anyone confirm what type of seat was retofitted to the fury - I have an idea that it was a martin baker mk 3 or 5. any AM out there for these? also the hobbyboss kit has 4 bulpups included, was this a typical load for a marine fury? I read somewhere that when loaded with these. a designator pod was needed, what plyon would this be carried on, and if any are availible in 1/48th. many thanks Rogerd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailspin Turtle Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 ror anyone confirm what type of seat was retofitted to the fury - I have an idea that it was a martin baker mk 3 or 5.any AM out there for these? also the hobbyboss kit has 4 bulpups included, was this a typical load for a marine fury? I read somewhere that when loaded with these. a designator pod was needed, what plyon would this be carried on, and if any are availible in 1/48th. many thanks Rogerd The M-B seat, if it had one, was the Mk 5. The Bullpup pod was loaded on the right inboard pylon. I doubt that even a combat load would be more than three. This is a load out for a Navy practice mission: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Hi, The Fury had its own seat. Pavla do a nice on in 1.48 http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/PAVS48016 Not seen any pics of one with a MB seat though I have read some might have been fitted. The FJ-4B featured 6 hard points and could carry 5 bullpups with the pod. This pic shows three, the pod and 2 tanks Julien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROGERD Posted March 10, 2012 Author Share Posted March 10, 2012 thanks for the reply, is it me or are there only 4 plyons on the aircraft in the picture, the kit supplies 6, but only 4 are indictcate in the instruction diagram? also there looks like there are bracing / sway struts for the tanks Rogerd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panoz Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) also the hobbyboss kit has 4 bulpups included, was this a typical load for a marine fury? I read somewhere that when loaded with these. a designator podwas needed, what plyon would this be carried on, and if any are availible in 1/48th. many thanks Rogerd Yes a designator pod was needed. Maximum number of missiles that could be carried was 5. (Well there is a photo of one from VX-4: click to enlarge) Lookng at Ginter's Naval Fighter title on the FJ-4 there is only one photo of an operational aircraft armed with Bullpups (actually just one). (Click to enlarge) Personally and given that you don't get the pod I wouldn't bother. Most photos in the book show aircraft carrying just two fuel tanks and two AIM-9s. However there is this photo of an aircraft armed with bombs:(Click to enlarge) EDIT: By the time I finished typing other people had already replied: apologies for the duplication of photos. Edited March 10, 2012 by Panoz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailspin Turtle Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 thanks for the reply, is it me or are there only 4 plyons on the aircraft in the picture, the kit supplies 6, but only 4 are indictcate in the instruction diagram?also there looks like there are bracing / sway struts for the tanks Rogerd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailspin Turtle Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Hi,The Fury had its own seat. Pavla do a nice on in 1.48 http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/PAVS48016 Not seen any pics of one with a MB seat though I have read some might have been fitted. Julien It would appear that the retrofit of M-B seats in the FJ-4s was not as quick or complete as it was in the other Navy fighters. (see http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/02/trans...r-ejection.html) In fact, if you aren't sure whether it has a M-B seat, the way to bet is it doesn't. This one did. Also, the Bullpups were only used on the FJ-4B version, which had the extra pair of speed brakes under the aft fuselage in addition to the extra pylons, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 It would appear that the retrofit of M-B seats in the FJ-4s was not as quick or complete as it was in the other Navy fighters. (see http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/02/trans...r-ejection.html) In fact, if you aren't sure whether it has a M-B seat, the way to bet is it doesn't. This one did. Also, the Bullpups were only used on the FJ-4B version, which had the extra pair of speed brakes under the aft fuselage in addition to the extra pylons, etc. Nice one, first pic I have seen of a Fury with an MB seat. Nice blog link as well. I have found with the F-8 even some BU numbers which should have been fitted with MB seats still appear to have Vought Seats in pictures. Those few years can be confusing. Julien 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyronesdaddy Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Tailspin, where are the gun ports on the Fury in the picture? It would appear that the retrofit of M-B seats in the FJ-4s was not as quick or complete as it was in the other Navy fighters. (see http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/02/trans...r-ejection.html) In fact, if you aren't sure whether it has a M-B seat, the way to bet is it doesn't. This one did. Also, the Bullpups were only used on the FJ-4B version, which had the extra pair of speed brakes under the aft fuselage in addition to the extra pylons, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailspin Turtle Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Tailspin, where are the gun ports on the Fury in the picture? Good question. Since I'm away from home, I'm guessing that there was an airframe change late in it's career that removed the cannon in order to reduce weight. It seems to have been done in conjunction with the incorporation of those two aft-facing vents at the aft end of the armament bay doors and is not associated with the substitution of the M-B seat. I'll check when I get back home to see if I can find other examples. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 (edited) Here are few things available for the Fi-4 http://store.spruebrothers.com/148-ams-res...030-p25599.aspx http://store.spruebrothers.com/148-ams-res...034-p25602.aspx http://store.spruebrothers.com/148-ams-res...021-p25594.aspx Edited March 11, 2012 by Harold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panoz Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 (edited) Good question. Since I'm away from home, I'm guessing that there was an airframe change late in it's career that removed the cannon in order to reduce weight. It seems to have been done in conjunction with the incorporation of those two aft-facing vents at the aft end of the armament bay doors and is not associated with the substitution of the M-B seat. I'll check when I get back home to see if I can find other examples. Here are some from Ginter: (click to enlarge) EDIT: Replaced first photo with a colour version from the Detail & Scale title on the Fury. Gunless FJ-4Bs were not that common; checked the "In action", the Crowood book on the F-86, F-86 in color, Navy Air Colors 2, Carrier Air Units 2, the profile on the FJ Fury and those were the only ones I could come up with. Edited March 21, 2012 by Panoz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROGERD Posted March 11, 2012 Author Share Posted March 11, 2012 thanks for all the help and pictures, as always the , more research - morew questions tahn answers! thanks again to all those who responeded Rogerd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailspin Turtle Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Tailspin, where are the gun ports on the Fury in the picture? Ah ha! - According to Baugher's FJ-4 synopsis and Sherlock's new monograph on the Sabre and Fury (http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2012/03...sabre-fury.html), the left pair of cannon was removed to install an emergency electrical generator. That explains the pair of vents at the aft end of the gun bay. If correct, I don't know why this change was necessary so late in the FJ-4 program; presumably the requirement for a backup was not new. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 If correct, I don't know why this change was necessary so late in the FJ-4 program; presumably the requirement for a backup was not new. Donlt let things like logic come into military decisions! The RAF replaced the USN Fit in the F-4J(UK)'s to RAF fit just before they retired and scrapped them! Julien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 @Tailspin Turtle ... I remembered reading in I believe Joe Baughers pages somewhere that those vents were for the generator that powered the LABS System (Low altitude bombing system). That was the reason for the reduction of the cannon. The nuke would also be on the Port Pylon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 31 minutes ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said: @Tailspin Turtle ... I remembered reading in I believe Joe Baughers pages somewhere that those vents were for the generator that powered the LABS System (Low altitude bombing system). That was the reason for the reduction of the cannon. The nuke would also be on the Port Pylon. That makes a lot more sense than what I was thinking- that there were additional electronics required for the Bullpup installation, thus the removal of the 20mm and the vents added to exhaust heat from the electronics installed there. (Just goes to show how little I know about golden age USN weenie cookers!) Mike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 (edited) Like i said not sure where i remembered reading it. However it made sense to me as the weight of the nuke had to be compensated for. Edited November 30, 2017 by Corsairfoxfouruncle 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailspin Turtle Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 1 minute ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said: Like i said not sure where i remembered reading it. However it made sense to me as the weight of the nuke had to be compensated for. Both the Mk 7 and Bullpup capability predated this modification by quite some time. Baugher updated his FJ-4 post (http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p86_24.html) since the last time I looked: During service, some FJ-4Bs had the port pair of 20-mm cannon removed so that a standby generator system could be installed. This standby generator provided power backup in case the main generator failed--without the backup it was nearly impossible to fly at night or under instrument conditions for more than a few minutes with only battery power. At the same time, the standard ejection seat was replaced by a Martin-Baker seat that provided the ability to eject safely at much lower altitudes. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 Ok i guess im wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpk Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 Marine FJ-4's never carried the Bullpup's. The Marines only flew the FJ-4's and they were not equipped to use the Bullpup. Only the Navy's FJ-4B's were equipped with Bullpup's. Since the FJ-4B was more or less designated as a nuclear weapons carrier, the 4B was outside of the scope of the Marine's mission. As an aside, the two releases of the Grand Phoenix FJ-4B, of the two kits, the only ones correct for a FJ-4B was for VA-116. All the other markings are for FJ-4's. The lower speed brakes should be removed for the other markings on the two kits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailspin Turtle Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 2 hours ago, jpk said: Marine FJ-4's never carried the Bullpup's. The Marines only flew the FJ-4's and they were not equipped to use the Bullpup. Only the Navy's FJ-4B's were equipped with Bullpup's. Since the FJ-4B was more or less designated as a nuclear weapons carrier, the 4B was outside of the scope of the Marine's mission. As an aside, the two releases of the Grand Phoenix FJ-4B, of the two kits, the only ones correct for a FJ-4B was for VA-116. All the other markings are for FJ-4's. The lower speed brakes should be removed for the other markings on the two kits. The Marines were part of the nuke delivery force, which is why they got A4D-1s (the early Skyhawks weren't much good for anything else at the time, before the creation of multiple bomb racks). However, it is true that the FJ-4s they got were strictly fighters with very limited air-to-ground capability (the Navy had bought some but didn't need them, preferring the supersonic F11F and the F8U, and the Marines were happy to have them). It is also true that the nuke and Bullpup-capable FJ-4Bs were only issued to Navy squadrons. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpk Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 Hi Tommy. I was not aware of the Marines being part of the overall USN nuke strike force in that time period. I suppose it would make sense that they were but I would have thought probably more in a tactical battlefield environment than a deep strike semi strategic one which I thought the FJ-4B was for. Also, I always thought the Marines got the earlier model A-4's later after the USN moved up to later versions then handing them to the Marines and the reserves. In reading my Ginter book on the early A-4's in USMC/ USMCR and USNR I see they received their first A-4's in the 1956-57 time frame. I thought it might have been later. Next time I should read the text a little closer, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpk Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Hi all. With regards to the Marines never operating the FJ-4B, I was incorrect. VMF's 212, 214 and 223 operated the fj-4B. I stand corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now