RN Fg1 Phantom

[Blackfordhibby]

2 hours ago, Phone Phixer said:

 

Don't know the circumstances of Curtis Dose's engagement of the MiG, or what missile he used. The missile of choice in Vietnam seemed to be the AIM7 Sparrow. 

With the centreline tank left on the aircraft the forward 2 AIM7's can't be used, as they would hit the tank on release. This would severely restrict the number of the favourite missiles for use in that situation.

 

I believe that Dose used the AIM9 for his kill.

[Murph]

4 hours ago, Phone Phixer said:

 

Don't know the circumstances of Curtis Dose's engagement of the MiG, or what missile he used. The missile of choice in Vietnam seemed to be the AIM7 Sparrow. 

With the centreline tank left on the aircraft the forward 2 AIM7's can't be used, as they would hit the tank on release. This would severely restrict the number of the favourite missiles for use in that situation.

 

At that timeframe in Vietnam, the Navy preferred to use the AIM-9, since they had better versions of it (AIM-9D and AIM-9G) while the Air Force preferred to use the AIM-7, based in part on the ability to identify Vietnamese aircraft at BVR ranges due to "Combat Tree" equipment.  The Navy also had much better tactics for visual fights at that time and were more proficient at them.  The Air Force didn't catch up to the Navy in that respect till the mid to late 70s.

 

Regards,

Murph

[silverkite211]

On ‎8‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 4:12 PM, Murph said:

If you have a relevant point, feel free to make it.  I'd be more than happy to discuss fighter tactics with Dose, based on my time actually flying fighters and instructing others on the subject.  The standard in a visual fight was/is to get rid of any excessive weight and drag.  Exceptions are just that: exceptions.

 

Regards,

Murph

Allow me to quote John "Cat" Chesire, who flew F-4s with VF-151 1971 and 1972-73.

 

"Here are a couple of my thoughts:

While possible, it is very highly unlikely the CL tank was jettisoned.

Earlier in the war, tactics said to jettison tanks upon an engagement. However the Navy quickly learned that external tanks were a very limited quantity aboard ship, and took up limited storage room thus limiting spares. Therefore word went out to never jettison external fuel tanks just because you become engaged with a MiG.

By the time you went feet dry, most of the fuel in the tank had been burned anyway, so there was not a great weight penalty. Furthermore, if all the fuel had not been used from the tank, there was a real danger of the shifting fuel remaining upon jettisoning would flip the tank back into the aircraft. So we never planned to jettison, except maybe in an emergency off the catapult.

While the Air Force seemed to jettison tanks, in my timeframe of '72 and later, I knew of no Navy or Marine F-4 who ever jettisoned his tanks in an engagement, nor have I heard of any. Possible, yes. Probable? Not likely I think."

[Murph]

21 hours ago, silverkite211 said:

Allow me to quote John "Cat" Chesire, who flew F-4s with VF-151 1971 and 1972-73.

 

"Here are a couple of my thoughts:

While possible, it is very highly unlikely the CL tank was jettisoned.

Earlier in the war, tactics said to jettison tanks upon an engagement. However the Navy quickly learned that external tanks were a very limited quantity aboard ship, and took up limited storage room thus limiting spares. Therefore word went out to never jettison external fuel tanks just because you become engaged with a MiG.

By the time you went feet dry, most of the fuel in the tank had been burned anyway, so there was not a great weight penalty. Furthermore, if all the fuel had not been used from the tank, there was a real danger of the shifting fuel remaining upon jettisoning would flip the tank back into the aircraft. So we never planned to jettison, except maybe in an emergency off the catapult.

While the Air Force seemed to jettison tanks, in my timeframe of '72 and later, I knew of no Navy or Marine F-4 who ever jettisoned his tanks in an engagement, nor have I heard of any. Possible, yes. Probable? Not likely I think."

 

Allow me to quote Lou Drendel in "... And Kill MiGs", where a quick skim turned up the following:

 

 

“They went under our nose, and I immediately started a hard 180 degree starboard turn, in afterburner, punching off the centerline tank at the same time”

- LCDR Jerry “Devil" Houston MiG kill 6 May, 1972

 

“You’ve got a 17 on your tail and he’s shooting!  Get rid of your centerline, unload, and outrun him! Brian punched off the centerline and started to extend away from the MiG.”

- Lt Randy Cunningham second MiG kill 8 May, 1972

 

“We were going pretty fast, so we decided not to jettison the centerline, since we had a problem with it hitting the stabilator in high speed jettisons.”

- Lt Randy Cunningham fourth MiG kill 10 May, 1972

 

“The fight started so quickly we never had a chance to jettison the centerlines”

- Lt Mike “Taco” Bell MiG kill 18 May, 1972

 

If I bothered to go through the Osprey book on Navy F-4 MiG killers of the time period, I could probably dig up more.  Obviously Navy pilots did jettison the tanks for visual engagements during this period and at other times wanted to jettison them, and would have if they had the time.  Additionally, according to your quote, Navy crews were originally expected to get rid of the tanks prior to a visual fight.  If the Navy actually did change their procedures and institute this moronic policy, then it obviously wasn’t always followed, because it was so stupid on the macro and micro levels.  On the macro level, from January 1972 till January of 1973 the Navy scored 25 kills.  That obviously wasn’t all of their engagements, so we’ll triple that number to account for some engagements that were lost by the Navy and others that ended up with no kills by either side.   Tripling the figure would mean there were around 75 air to air engagements.  During this time the Navy flew just over 24,000 sorties, so roughly .003% of their missions would have resulted in a centerline tank being jettisoned.  If the Navy was incapable of sustaining this rate of tank usage, somebody in the supply chain needed to be fired immediately, especially since supply ships were already there replenishing things that were being dropped on a daily basis by Phantoms: namely bombs.  If the Admirals actually did allow combat tactics to be dictated by the “bean counters” in supply then they should have been ashamed of themselves.  In a similar circumstance, during Desert Storm, somebody complained about the number of HARM missiles being fired by the USAF Weasel crews and asked for a reduction; they were told in no uncertain terms where they could stick their reduction.
On a micro level it was equally inane.  The early F-4 centerline tank produced an enormous amount of drag and added weight, even when empty, putting significant maneuvering and speed limitations on the jet.   Further, the tank dictated severe restrictions on the carrying aircraft during the jettison process.  In Vietnam the F-4 was faced with opponents that could easily out turn them; consequently, they were forced to rely on tactics that maximized their energy state, so they could convert it into the vertical or into airspeed to either outmaneuver or outrun their foe.  Being forced to consciously retain a centerline tank and grossly reduce those options in order to keep the supply chain happy was nothing short of criminally stupid.  If I was told to carry a tank into a visual fight to keep the bean counters happy, my response would have echoed Ripley’s to Burke:  “They can bill me”. 

 

Regards,

Murph

[canberra kid]

This will add nothing to the ongoing debate, but the following is the anatomy of the Centre (Center?) Line Tank. 

John

[silverkite211]

To Murph; allow me to say that you have probably forgotten more about ACM than I will ever know. I also had the opportunity to question Curt about the engagement of 10 May 1972 and he admitted to me that he had intended to jettison the centerline tank when he engaged, however in the excitement of the moment he forgot, he was so focused on shooting down the MiG-21 he didn't do it, not realizing until much later, while returning to Constellation, that he hadn't. He said it sort of caught him by surprise that he forgot such a basic rule of air combat. And him a graduate of Top Gun.  So, there we are, I was wrong and I fess up to it. Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.

 

To the OP I express my regret that this thread seems to have strayed far from what you were wanting to know about FG.1s.

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

Silverkite 

2 hours ago, silverkite211 said:

To the OP I express my regret that this thread seems to have strayed far from what you were wanting to know about FG.1s.

As the original poster there is no need for apology. Im learning things from this discussion, as im sure others are as well. So i dont mind when it comes to healthy debate. So long as we all stay civil. Im learning because my personal experienceis I had talked to old F-4 phantom jockeys. I was told the Navy never carried forward sparrows because they could damage/ignite the CL droptank in the event of launch. So whos to say whos right or wrong. I still display my Navy/Marine F-4 Phantoms without them and i always will. I go with what i was told. If someone else knows or was told something different then let them go with that. No one is wrong as this discussion has pointed out at different times different policy was in effect. So again i say I wasn't bothered by any of this and as the O/P its all good. 

 

Dennis 

[PLC1966]

I really never thought of the fuel swilling around in the tanks, internal and external, and the issues this could cause.  Strange old world isn't it.

[RMP2]

I love such chat too, its great to find out the little things that we perhaps wouldnt otherwise.

 

7 minutes ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

 I was told the Navy never carried forward sparrows because they could damage/ignite the CL droptank in the event of launch. So whos to say whos right or wrong.

 

I went straight to Google images, and a quick rummage didnt show any forward Sparrows with a CL tank on Navy a/c at least. Like this un here -

 

[Murph]

3 hours ago, silverkite211 said:

To Murph; allow me to say that you have probably forgotten more about ACM than I will ever know. I also had the opportunity to question Curt about the engagement of 10 May 1972 and he admitted to me that he had intended to jettison the centerline tank when he engaged, however in the excitement of the moment he forgot, he was so focused on shooting down the MiG-21 he didn't do it, not realizing until much later, while returning to Constellation, that he hadn't. He said it sort of caught him by surprise that he forgot such a basic rule of air combat. And him a graduate of Top Gun.  So, there we are, I was wrong and I fess up to it. Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.

 

To the OP I express my regret that this thread seems to have strayed far from what you were wanting to know about FG.1s.

No problem.  I am quite interested in whether the Navy tried to push that policy of holding on to the external tanks in a fight.  I would have expected a mass revolt if they had tried to make it an official policy.  Going back through various published accounts, they did hold on to the external tank(s) more than I would have expected, and certainly more than the Air Force did at the time.

 

Regards,

Murph

[silverkite211]

As for carrying Sparrows in the forward bays 'Silverkite 211' was armed with four Sparrows and four Sidewinders. From what I've seen the Navy didn't have as much success with Sparrows as the USAF did, for a variety of reasons. As Murph stated the USAF had equipped their F-4s with Combat Tree IFF systems, I also think that, after a A-7 had a Sparrow fired at it (thankfully it missed) the NAVY decided that visual confirmation had to be made, maybe it was a matter that if you're in visual range there was little point in expending a BVR missile. The Navy was having problems with their Sparrows even working at all, multiple launches and coming back aboard tends to do bad things to missile electronics, tends to knock things out of alignment. The USAF at least would remove a Sparrow that had been on an aircraft for ten flights and recalibrate it, once the AIM-7 was loaded on an NAVY aircraft it tended to stay there until it was launched, the aircraft went down for service, was lost, etc. As a Navy Chief, interviewed during the investigation that became the Ault Report eloquently expressed it; "You treat those things like bombs, they're gonna act like bombs."

 

You know, I'm curious about the whole Sparrow damaging the centerline tank thing, considering the first thing that is initiated, when the AIM-7 is fired, is the missile is pushed away from the aircraft by a ram arm and them the motor ignites.

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

According to my sources(pilots) they said sometimes the early Aim 7's would fail to ignite and spall (tumble) or could also begin to spall(tumble) and then ignite with the motor aiming more directly at the CL tank. Again Different pilots on different cruises and with different orders could account for these discrepancies. Also it could be that a pilot in 68-69 may have had different orders than a pilot in 72-73. 

[Phone Phixer]

I think it was to prevent the rear fins of the Sparrows hitting the C/L tank.

As silverkite211 says, the missile is ejected downwards by the Aero 7a launcher prior to motor ignition. The front missiles are closer together, as they are under the forward fuselage. The tank was a large object in the way.

The British Phantoms had an electrical lock in the circuits to prevent forward missile release if a tank or the large recce pod was fitted. On the pilots missile status panel there was a TK light to remind him.

There was no restriction when the SUU 23a gun pod was fitted on the centreline, must have been narrow enough for the missiles to pass by.

 

Rob.

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

Hello all I’ve finally gotten my FG.1 Painted and im ready to start doing some of the finesse parts and areas. So since I’m back to working on my FG.1 anyone can help me with a couple of Questions ? First off on RN Aircraft do Doors such as those around landing gear get a warning color ? The US Navy uses Red edges to do this but Did the RN ? Second Question does that cover the AUX. Intake Doors or Cooling vents Above the Spey’s towards the upper rear of the Fuselage ? As always Thanks in Advance for any and all help i recieve. 

[71chally]

The undercarriage door edges didn't get the red paint treatment, but the upper and lower aux inlet doors and the airbrake and bay surfaces did.

Also, red applied on edges of leading edge and main flaps to wing surfaces.

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

Thanks 71 greatly Appreciated 👍

[71chally]

No worries, I've been obsessing about them myself of late.

Looking at period images again, it may be just the airbrakes upper surface and edges painted red, rather than the bay as well.

 

These images are quite helpful, though of a very early trials use airframe it seems representative of service Phantoms paint wise, and is unrestored, http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/howard_mason5/fg1_phantom/index.php?Page=1

Edited September 26, 2017 by 71chally

[iainpeden]

Have a look half way down - although these are preserved airframes it looks like the air brake well interior is red.

 

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234949864-mcdonnell-fg1-fgr2-phantom/

 

 

[Selwyn]

On 11/08/2017 at 2:13 AM, Phone Phixer said:

I think it was to prevent the rear fins of the Sparrows hitting the C/L tank.

As silverkite211 says, the missile is ejected downwards by the Aero 7a launcher prior to motor ignition. The front missiles are closer together, as they are under the forward fuselage. The tank was a large object in the way.

The British Phantoms had an electrical lock in the circuits to prevent forward missile release if a tank or the large recce pod was fitted. On the pilots missile status panel there was a TK light to remind him.

There was no restriction when the SUU 23a gun pod was fitted on the centreline, must have been narrow enough for the missiles to pass by.

 

Rob.

Sorry. Just came on to this thread so a bit late. 

The main issue of the rear AIM 7E sparrows and the tank was a combination of factors.

On firing the sparrow motor ignited at full ejector extension. Immediately on release from the launcher the missile carried out a roll manoeuvre, this turned the missile rear reference (datalink) antenna uppermost to give it a clear line of sight to the aircraft. At the same time the guidance became active and the missile began to steer to the target. 

In certain circumstances the missile as it guided would pass under the tank whilst rolling with a great danger of the wings ripping open the tank. I once many moons ago saw a F4 release release trial film in this situation, and the sparrow wings missed the nose cone of the tank by  not more than a couple of inches as it rolled!

 

Because of this known problem The missile software on the RAF Skyflash (that was derived from the AIM 7E)  had a delay incorporated so that when fired  the missile would eject down, the rocket motor would ignite, but the missile would then fly straight and level for a short set time allowing the missile to fly clear of the aircraft nose before it began the roll manoeuvre and track the target, preventing any collision with any part of the aircraft.

 

I assume similar changes were incorporated in the AIM 7F by the US?

 

Hope this helps

 

Selwyn

[Blackfordhibby]

8 minutes ago, Selwyn said:

Sorry. Just came on to this thread so a bit late. 

The main issue of the rear AIM 7E sparrows and the tank was a combination of factors.

On firing the sparrow motor ignited at full ejector extension. Immediately on release from the launcher the missile carried out a roll manoeuvre, this turned the missile rear reference (datalink) antenna uppermost to give it a clear line of sight to the aircraft. At the same time the guidance became active and the missile began to steer to the target. 

In certain circumstances the missile as it guided would pass under the tank whilst rolling with a great danger of the wings ripping open the tank. I once many moons ago saw a F4 release release trial film in this situation, and the sparrow wings missed the nose cone of the tank by  not more than a couple of inches as it rolled!

 

Because of this known problem The missile software on the RAF Skyflash (that was derived from the AIM 7E)  had a delay incorporated so that when fired  the missile would eject down, the rocket motor would ignite, but the missile would then fly straight and level for a short set time allowing the missile to fly clear of the aircraft nose before it began the roll manoeuvre and track the target, preventing any collision with any part of the aircraft.

 

I assume similar changes were incorporated in the AIM 7F by the US?

 

Hope this helps

 

Selwyn

Selwyn 

information like that makes this site a joy to behold, i'm really impressed with what you can learn. I must have read nearly every Phantom book published and never knew anything about this. This is possibly the most interesting bit of info I have read in years, thanks very much.

 

Peter

 

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

As the OP Im happy with both the level of Information ive recieved pertaining to my needs, and the FG.1 variant of the Phantom. As well as the Info I've learned or had confirmed about the Aim 7 issue. So Im quite happy that the thread has Drifted back and forth. 

Edited September 27, 2017 by Corsairfoxfouruncle

[canberra kid]

John

[71chally]

11 hours ago, iainpeden said:

Have a look half way down - although these are preserved airframes it looks like the air brake well interior is red.

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234949864-mcdonnell-fg1-fgr2-phantom/

Look again, the wells are white but in some of the shots the red of the air brake upper surfaces is reflected in the bay area.

 

That's not to say that some Phantoms may have had the wells painted  that way, but I'm finding little evidence of it.

 

 

Great missile info above!

[iainpeden]

You are right - oops. However at least it' s clear the auxiliary air intake doors are painted red inside.

[Selwyn]

2 hours ago, Blackfordhibby said:

Selwyn 

information like that makes this site a joy to behold, i'm really impressed with what you can learn. I must have read nearly every Phantom book published and never knew anything about this. This is possibly the most interesting bit of info I have read in years, thanks very much.

 

Peter

 

I learnt about this when I did my Skyflash course  many years ago, (Selwyn feels very very ancient at this point!) I had never worked on sparrow but some of the guys on the course had,  and part of the course highlighted the design differences between the two missiles and some of the reasons for the changes.

 

Selwyn