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. :)

Booty003

RAF Blue Phantoms

Recommended Posts

I am about to do the 2 RAF F-4 Phantoms that were painted up in the Blue Anniversary schemes XT899 and XV408.  I do have a shade of Vallejo Blue in mind and also know that the official BS colour was Aircraft Blue BS381C 108 - Can anyone suggest a good colour match for this - I generally use Vallejo and my local model shop stocks the full range.

 

Cheers All,

 

Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Bsc108 Aircraft Blue is the equilavent to MAP dark meditarean blue, which vallejo 899 dark prussian blue is a good match for and indeed is its own colour in the model air range 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come and see XV408 in blue at Tangmere Military Aviation Museum.

 

JOhn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Stu - that is one of the colours that I had my eye on, will pick a bottle up at the weekend.

 

If I am ever on the South Coast John I will try and call in - a good 4.5 hours away unfortunately!

 

Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jaw said:

Come and see XV408 in blue at Tangmere Military Aviation Museum.

 

JOhn

Have you repainted her ?  Last time I was there she was grey & looking a bit shabby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes she has been repainted in insignia blue as she was back in  1991 as Z of 92 Sqdn at Wildenrath. She looks very bonny now.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jaw said:

Yes she has been repainted in insignia blue as she was back in  1991 as Z of 92 Sqdn at Wildenrath. She looks very bonny now.

 

John

Oh , excellent .  I could never understand why she was repainted grey when she looked so good in blue .  She was by far the most attractive of the two blue aircraft - I always found the 19 Sqn markings a bit lacklustre  in comparison with the 92 Sqn red & yellow . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She was repainted for the 2003 "100th anniversary of Flight" display at Fairford. I suspect it was a quick overall gray rather than the proper scheme as a lot of blue still showed through and there were no unit markings. She looked good in the 29 squadron markings at Tangmere.

I didn't realise she had been repainted again so I'll drop over some time. With regard to the correct  blue I remember it was fairly matt and there was speculation they'd found some tins of blue at the back of the hangar and so the exact shade wasn't known.

 

The more Phantoms kept in good condition the better as far as I am concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking of Phantoms. Has any one seen the new Key Publications Special on the British Phantoms?  Lots of nice pics and some interesting text though I haven't read it all yet.  There are some errors in as much as saying Bentwaters is in Sussex and a couple other caption errors which should have been avoidable. Otherwise a handy reference and listing of the 20 or so survivors.

A couple pages on the special schemes etc.

All for around £6.00quid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Paul J said:

Talking of Phantoms. Has any one seen the new Key Publications Special on the British Phantoms?  Lots of nice pics and some interesting text though I haven't read it all yet.  

Ooh. Thanks for the heads-up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paul J said:

Talking of Phantoms. Has any one seen the new Key Publications Special on the British Phantoms?  Lots of nice pics and some interesting text though I haven't read it all yet.  There are some errors in as much as saying Bentwaters is in Sussex and a couple other caption errors which should have been avoidable. Otherwise a handy reference and listing of the 20 or so survivors.

A couple pages on the special schemes etc.

All for around £6.00quid.

I've just finished reading it.  It was a good read, but let down by an apparent complete lack of proof reading!  I've rarely seen so many typos and simple factual errors in such a publication.  In the article on the last APC camp held at Akrotiri in 92 there was a picture of a 74 sqn F-4J - they were retired by that point, as the preceding article made clear.  I think they also suggested at one point that 43 sqn traded in their FGR.2s for FG.1s when the Navy gave up the latter.  I'm no expert, and initially I thought they probably knew more than me, but I don't think they did.

 

Al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware XV408 only had the blue scheme for a short while and was then repainted whilst still in RAF service in the three tone air defence grey scheme when she served with 29 Sqdn. That was the scheme it was in when it came to Tangmere and was starting to look very tatty indeed, hence the repaint.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that 408 was stored at Cranwell for a while once she was out of service. I'll have to check but recall that she was still in the blue scheme when displayed at the Wattisham Photocall in the summer of 1992. I am 99.9% certain that she was not resprayed while in service - wouldn't have been worth it as the fleet was being disbanded at the end of September (October?) '92. As I said previously, you could see the blue paint showing through at Fairford in 2003.

 

The 19 squadron blue a/c - XT899 - is displayed at the Prague Air Museum; I think in faded but complete blue.

 

edit. 408 served with 29 before she went to Germany and the blue repaint. 29 had converted to F3s in 1987.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2017 at 5:29 PM, iainpeden said:

I read that 408 was stored at Cranwell for a while once she was out of service. I'll have to check but recall that she was still in the blue scheme when displayed at the Wattisham Photocall in the summer of 1992.

It was, and at Boscombe in July 92, gratuitous phantastic pic link,

1154119-large.jpg

C Stuart Lewis - Air Britain Photographs

 

It was on external display at Cranwell for a period in the blue scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that photo, the front of the plane looks to have been painted in a different blue to the wings and most of the fuselage. Is that a quirk of the conditions under which the photo was taken, or is my colour perception going the same way as my visual acuity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one colour - variation due to the light. That said, the finish wasn't up to normal spec and could show up variation. I recall the 19 squadron one looking cleaner than 92's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think by then the blue finish was quite worn, I'm guessing differing shades was from fading and wear and due to the fact that it was a 'temporary scheme'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2017 at 3:33 PM, alhenderson said:

I think they also suggested at one point that 43 sqn traded in their FGR.2s for FG.1s when the Navy gave up the latter.  I'm no expert, and initially I thought they probably knew more than me, but I don't think they did.

 

It was 111 who changed to the FG1. Originally, the Air Staff had planned to form an extra Phantom squadron with the aircraft used by 892 - this was to be the resurrection of 74 Squadron. Unfortunately for Tiger fans, the Phantom had suffered slightly greater attrition and consumed slightly more fatigue life than had been anticipated, particularly the FGR2s. This wasn't a problem to begin with, since the MRCA would be on the scene to take over before it became a cause of worry to SENGOs at various stations. Then, of course, the MRCA/Tornado ADV/Tornado F3 in-service date slipped and it was clear that unless 'gripped', a problem might arise.

 

In addition, the differences between the FG1 and FGR2 were such as to add to the engineering burden at Leuchars with two squadrons operating different marks of aircraft.

 

The no-brain-really-required decision was to put all the FG1s at LEU, and to use the 111 airframes to eek out a bit more attrition life. The eventual need for the F-4J(UK) hinted at the problem. If you look at the number of FG1 and FGR2s bought and the lack of flex to form one extra squadron in the aftermath of the Falklands, you get a sense of how careful the RAF had to be with managing the Phantom.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, alhenderson said:

Thanks for the insight @XV107 - didn't think 43 had FGR.2s!

 

Al.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, XV107 said:

 

...the differences between the FG1 and FGR2 were such as to add to the engineering burden at Leuchars with two squadrons operating different marks of aircraft.

 

The no-brain-really-required decision was to put all the FG1s at LEU, and to use the 111 airframes to eek out a bit more attrition life. The eventual need for the F-4J(UK) hinted at the problem. If you look at the number of FG1 and FGR2s bought and the lack of flex to form one extra squadron in the aftermath of the Falklands, you get a sense of how careful the RAF had to be with managing the Phantom.

 

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to info at Tangmere XV408 was issued to 6 Sqdn at Coningsby  in Feb 1969, and then to 54 Sqdn  and 228 OCU for modification to the air defence role .She then served with 23Sqdn at Wattisham until the aircraft returned to Coningsby with 29 Sqdn. From 1987 to 1991 XV408 served with 92 and 19 Sqdns at Wildenrath. It then became a gate guardian at Cranwell in 1993 and then on external display at Halton then finally to Fairford. Thereafter it was sent to Tangmere.  The Tangmere curator recalls that when it arrived at Tangmere it was in the air defence grey scheme, although you could make out the earlier overall blue colour scheme. 

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dazza said:

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

 

May I ask upon what you base the above, which is, in effect, telling other users of the site that I've made it all up, please?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, XV107 said:

 

May I ask upon what you base the above, which is, in effect, telling other users of the site that I've made it all up, please?

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 10:43 PM, Paul J said:

Talking of Phantoms. Has any one seen the new Key Publications Special on the British Phantoms?  Lots of nice pics and some interesting text though I haven't read it all yet.  There are some errors in as much as saying Bentwaters is in Sussex and a couple other caption errors which should have been avoidable. Otherwise a handy reference and listing of the 20 or so survivors.

A couple pages on the special schemes etc.

All for around £6.00quid.

 

I don't think it has reached our shores yet down under .

Share this post


Link to post
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


×