Jump to content

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, silverkite211 said:

It wasn't just a matter of logistics, the Navy found that they could pull slightly more 'G' in a dogfight when using the centerline tank versus two wing tanks, with a slight reduction of fuel (600 gal centerline versus 740 gals in the two wing tanks).

 

Some of my references also state that fuel sloshing around in the outboard tanks created instability during cat shots, leading to a Navy preference for the fuselage tank.

 

HTH,

 

Andre

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Hook said:

 

Some of my references also state that fuel sloshing around in the outboard tanks created instability during cat shots, leading to a Navy preference for the fuselage tank.

 

HTH,

 

Andre

Surely if you are doing a cat shot off a carrier the tanks would be full and there would not be any room for the fuel to slosh around?

 Fuel is a very valuable resource to have with you when operating off a carrier!

 

Selwyn

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, tempestfan said:

Not doubting that, but the G in the Navy birds indicates they had ground attack duties as well - interesting the requirements differed that much in this respect. I could imagine a number of uses for a flying chainsaw in a maritime environment, like small patrol craft. 

 

How big is the external difference between E Sparrow and Skyflash?  IIRC the latter had a prominent cable duct, but was otherwise very similar. 

 

Yes, they were equipped to fire rocket pods and drop bombs, but air defence was their primary role. The Buccaneer did most of the air-ground work.

 

Regarding Skyflash/AIM-7E:

 

(from Wikipedia) Skyflash came out of a British plan to develop an inverse monopulse seeker for the Sparrow AIM-7E-2 by GEC and the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) at the end of the 1960s. Having shown this was feasible Air Staff Requirement 1219 was issued in January 1972, with the project code XJ.521. The contractors were Hawker Siddeley and Marconi Space and Defence Systems (the renamed GEC guided weapons division). Major changes from the Sparrow were the addition of a Marconi semi-active inverse monopulse radar seeker, improved electronics, adapted control surfaces and a Thorn EMI active radar fuze. The rocket motors used were the Bristol Aerojet Mk 52 mod 2 and the Rocketdyne Mk 38 mod 4 rocket motor; the latest is the Aerojet Hoopoe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Dennis,

 

if you have parts for the slotted wing in your spares box (or a friendly fellow modeller donates them for you) then of course the job will be a lot easier. I was also wondering what to do with the flaps and finally it was an easy decision to leave them in the closed position. You can still use the extended nose gear leg.

You can make the model look more interesting with the ailerons: leave one in nearly neutral position and the other fully down. Many photos show that seldom both ailerons were fully down after engine shut down.

By the way I would suggest that you use the kit's original re-heat cans. I bought resin parts for my model and they don't look right; they miss the conical part totally.

 

Best Regards,

Antti

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scimitar i do have a photo album of the time i was on Forrestal somewhere around here. Sadly i wasnt a crew member. Just a civilian guest for 8 days. I have no scanner so i cant upload those photo's but if i can help with any info on that time frame let me know. 

 

Antti i did have a question i've not seen any photo's with the Fg1's parked with the nose gear extended except for a few RAF planes taken at air shows. How often ws it done and for what reason? And im probably going to just leave the leading edge slats up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies re the RWR - I even built my RN FG1 with it fitted - no idea what I was thinking there! (then again I also built mr RAF FGR2 without it, when in fact it should have been fitted for the time frame I was aiming at...) :doh:

 

Interesting re the gun pod and the RF worry, same as the MATRA pods. Makes sense I guess as a gunless Phantom showed it wasnt the greatest idea over Vietnam...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Selwyn said:

Surely if you are doing a cat shot off a carrier the tanks would be full and there would not be any room for the fuel to slosh around?

 Fuel is a very valuable resource to have with you when operating off a carrier!

 

Selwyn

 

Selwyn,

  The fighters I've flown/instructed in do not feed the external tanks till airborne (technically "weight off wheels") due to the issue of fuel and Cg shifts during critical phases of flight, like takeoff.   We have a couple of guys here who flew the F-4 for the USAF, and it's been a long time, but they recall the external tanks not feeding till weight off wheels occurs.

 

Regards,

Murph

Edited by Murph
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

 

Antti i did have a question i've not seen any photo's with the Fg1's parked with the nose gear extended except for a few RAF planes taken at air shows. How often ws it done and for what reason? And im probably going to just leave the leading edge slats up.

 

Dennis,

I've seen photos where some Phantoms are parked on deck with their nose gears fully extended. At the same time there was also few FG.1s visible with their nose gears in the "normal" position. Check 892 Squadron's web page as I think that's where I saw the photos. Why this was done I don't know. Possibly it had something to do with the FG.1's Nose Gear Emergency Shrinkage System; that caused some trouble to Aircraft Artificers and they had to run complicated maintenance tasks and tests. Or then just some "Top Brass" was visiting the ship and yes; FG.1 looks very dramatic with nose up!

 

I also checked the FG.1 Aircrew Manual and found out that:

- Catapulted take-offs are allowed only with full centerline and under wing tanks

- no asymmetrical external load is allowed if rolling moment it causes exceeds 70.000 lbs.

- if launch bridle arresting system is in-operational only Lupus flare packs are allowed in inboard stations (2 and 8)

 

Flipping the pages didn't give any direct answer whether you can use fuel from external tanks during take-off or not. Using internal fuel only makes sense to me: this is the way with aircraft I'm more familiar with (Hawk, MiG-21, SAAB Draken...).

 

Best Regards,

Antti

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Murph said:

 

Selwyn,

  The fighters I've flown/instructed in do not feed the external tanks till airborne (technically "weight off wheels") due to the issue of fuel and Cg shifts during critical phases of flight, like takeoff.   We have a couple of guys here who flew the F-4 for the USAF, and it's been a long time, but they recall the external tanks not feeding till weight off wheels occurs.

 

Regards,

Murph

Precisely. So the tanks would be full on launch and the fuel in them would not "slosh around." as Hook stated

 

Selwyn

Edited by Selwyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a good interview on www.aircrewinterview.tv with Chris Bolton who flew Phantoms with the RAF but later took an exchange posting with the Royal Navy and continued flying the beast.

He's quite an interesting chap to listen to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, T7 Models said:

 

Yes, they were equipped to fire rocket pods and drop bombs, but air defence was their primary role. The Buccaneer did most of the air-ground work.

 

Regarding Skyflash/AIM-7E:

 

(from Wikipedia) Skyflash came out of a British plan to develop an inverse monopulse seeker for the Sparrow AIM-7E-2 by GEC and the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) at the end of the 1960s. Having shown this was feasible Air Staff Requirement 1219 was issued in January 1972, with the project code XJ.521. The contractors were Hawker Siddeley and Marconi Space and Defence Systems (the renamed GEC guided weapons division). Major changes from the Sparrow were the addition of a Marconi semi-active inverse monopulse radar seeker, improved electronics, adapted control surfaces and a Thorn EMI active radar fuze. The rocket motors used were the Bristol Aerojet Mk 52 mod 2 and the Rocketdyne Mk 38 mod 4 rocket motor; the latest is the Aerojet Hoopoe.

The RN Phantom did not carry Skyflash, only AIM7E-2

 

As for the Skyflash details? Not quite right,  but we are talking about Wikipedia entries!

I believe the original Skyflash rocket motor as used on the RAF phantom was the 52 mod 1. Skyflash missiles were  all modified to fit the Tornado,  the main issue being the Tornado Frazer Nash Launcher which was designed to hold the  missile more securely and rigid in the mountings in flight than the US Phantom type Launcher to reduce missile vibration problems. This involved  blocks on the launcher engaging in slots in the missile body, the missiles were modified to introduce these slots, this modified missile was designated the TEMP  (Tornado Embodied Modification Package). It had the 52 Mod 2 motor (Mod 2 was the slots) and the slotted 38 Mod 3 Warhead (not Rocket Motor as Wiki says). The TEMP missile could still be used off Phantom by the way.

Later on the  Super TEMP missile was introduced. This had  improved electronics and a K108A1 Rocket motor (the so called Hoopoe Motor).

Super temps could be identified easily as the fin mountings on the rocket motor and the rear portion of the wiring conduits on the side of the missile were streamlined, and the central wings were much thinner in section and the base section of these were painted white, to differentiate between the earlier wings.

 

Selwyn

Edited by Selwyn
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Navy Bird said:

 

Hi Dennis,

 

 

Also, I saw in this thread that the British Phantoms had the standard US cockpit colour of "Gull Gray" - pretty sure that should be "Dark Gull Gray, FS36231."

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

Thanks for the confirmation Bill: for the life of me I couldn't remember which Gull Gray I meant when I tryped my original post; now where are my Hasegawa FGR. 2s and Academy 'J(UK)?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello again Dennis,

 

one detail came into my mind. You are modelling XT864 which was a Block 32 aircraft and fitted with dual flight controls. Luckily Hasegawa provides the stick for the rear seat as well!

 

Best Regards,

Antti

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please excuse my lack of knowledge on the fuel tank sloshing issues - do they not have the anti slosh foam or internal baffle structure to minimise the effect of slosh and cg issues?????

Edited by Uncle Dick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Uncle Dick said:

Please excuse my lack of knowledge on the fuel tank sloshing issues - do they not have the anti slosh foam or internal baffle structure to minimise the effect of slosh and cg issues?????

 

Foam I think highly unlikely, but baffles probably.  Even so you've got around 2,500lbs of AVTUR or AVCAT in there and not only can it slosh fore and aft but it can also slosh sideways.  

 

Most baffle systems that I've seen are aimed at reducing the fore and aft movement of the liquid.  Although there's not much room for the fuel to travel sideways if there's enough lateral motion of the tank to get it started the fuel will slosh, a phenomenon known as free surface effect then causes it to pile up on the lower side of the tank to the point where it can no longer support its own weight and falls back across the tank where it's own momentum will cause it to pile up again and repeat the process.  

 

Free surface effect was most dramaticallyy demonstrated in the accidents involving the ro-ro ferries European GatewayHearald of Free Enterprise and the former Free Enterprise VI (other ships have also been lost due to this; these three are the Ines which I recall most).  

 

Installing baffles in the tanks is a trade off: the more baffles the less volume for fuel or bigger tanks which weigh more and need stronger structures to support them which requires a beefier airframe that needs more powerful engines that burn more fuel that has to be accommodated in bigger tanks..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antti thanks for that little info it saved me. I have the cockpit done and mounted with the targeting joystick. I can pull that out and replace it with the control stick. But i dont think i can get rudder pedals in. Will try though. I am taking photo's and will try to upload them soon. As soon as i can sort out a picture hosting account. 

 

Dennis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop Press!

 

Dennis, don't remove the radar control "joy stick" (or the radar set) just insert the stick (and pedals if that's possible). Radar control stick locates in the right hand lower corner of the observer's instrument panel.

 

Best Regards,

Antti

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Dennis,

 

As Antti says, don't remove the radar control joystick. The rear flight controls on the FG1 (and FGR2) twin stick jets were a 'bolt-on' arrangement, the rest of the cockpit was the same as the standard aircraft. A few years ago I posted the layouts from the Aircrew Manuals for each configuration here: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234932760-british-phantom-cockpits-fg1-versus-fgr2/&do=findComment&comment=1211919 . So far they seem to have survived the PhotoBucket lock-down but be quick in case they find out and block the picture links! The base colour of all Phantom cockpits are FS36321 'Dark Gull Gray'.

 

The Vulcan gun pod installation was strictly an RAF only fit. The 43 Squadron FG1s began to be modified from 1974 and as 111 Sqn transferred from the FGR2 when 892NAS disbanded. The RWR mods started around the same time. Looking at pictures of FG1s it seems that all of 892's jets had received RWR by the 1976 cruise but the Linewrights 'Phantom Squadrons' book states it wasn't added to PTF (Phantom Training Flight) aircraft due to the fact the unit had a non-operational role. However FAA Phantoms did not receive the horizontal ILS antennae (which were left on XV586/R010 after being preserved at Yeovilton).

 

On the leading edge flaps (slats were only on the 'soft-wing' Phantoms :smile:) there is a set from Wolfpack and available from Spruebrothers: http://store.spruebrothers.com/product_p/wpd48069.htm . The only photos I've seen of FG1s with the nose leg fully extended and the leading edge flaps up are at air show displays. That's not to say it never happened in operational service for maintenance, but they would have had to be deployed during the line-up for the catapult shot. Here's a Pathé News clip showing one of the early trials on HMS Eagle:

 

 

 

As I understand it, the 370 gallon tanks could cause a pitch up moment at launch which is one reason the US Navy didn't routinely launch with them from their Aircraft Carriers. The slotted stabilator was originally designed for the FG1 as it improved the pitch control at launch. It was a successful addition so it was added to the specification of the F-4J and retrofitted on the F-4B. It may be that the Royal Navy decided that following the success of the fixed slat on the stabiliator, the restricted availability of Air to Air refuelling assets together with the increased thrust (and fuel consumption) from the Speys meant that the aircraft was required to operate regularly with the tanks installed whereas the USN might have decided that it wasn't necessary to change their operational procedures after the slotted stabiliator entered service.

 

HTH,

 

Jonathan

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan, thanks very much for your post. After i read Antti's post i went looking for photos to see what the cockpit looked like. Funny thing is i found your britmodeller thread when searching had already saved the images before getting seeing your post. Im not going to be 100% on this model but with everyones help & input it will be better than on my own. 

 

Dennis

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting details on the "Frame 1" in Jonathan's post, like:

 

- the Corogard around windshield, canopies and fixed middle part windows

- the narrow DSG paint strip along the leading edge of the inner vari-ramp (painting instructions says it should be red)

- Mk. 5 ejection seats

- the black out curtain in observer's canopy

- the small non-slip patch on top of the port intake

 

this is a very good clip. I got plenty of detail info out of it.

 

Best Regards,

Antti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all,

 

just flipped through the pages of NATOPS F-4J Air Crew Manual.

 

According to the manual no gun pod is carried/allowed in the centerline pylon. Tests of course are a different story. An interesting note about catapulted take-offs also caught my eye. It is prohibited to use external fuel during launch because the acceleration can cause fuel to vent into the fuselage fuel cells at a rate the ventilation system can't cope with creating a partial vacuum in the external tanks. I guess this goes for the FG.1 as well. Compare F-4J and FG.1 launches on Youtube; for well known reasons launches from Ark Royal are some what more "aggressive".

 

Best Regards,

Antti

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...