Jump to content

Airfix 1/72 Phantom FG.1 in Stock at Hornby


VMA131Marine

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, eng said:

I remember hearing that was where they ended up, 10 mins from where we live, and like yourself wished I'd asked to go and see if I could have a souvenir 😢

 

Eng

I know a couple of guys that got bits, but it all stopped fairly quickly as the scrappies got fed up with people asking to view/take a panel or two and also the term of the contract were they had all to be scrapped completely. They went through the process pretty quickly after that.

Edited by Dave Fleming
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jazzie said:

Its at times like this that i wish that my days spent on the fence at Leuchars were covered by more comprehensive jottings on what i was looking at. 

 

Regarding the 2 43 sqn FGR2s, i seem to remember XV470 as working out of 111 more often than not during my frequent visits. My recollection is that 111 had an FGR2 in 43 sqn marks for longer than is documented for XV470 so can anyone confirm how long XV406 was in 43 marks for.

Arabest,

Geoff.

Delivered to 23 MU on October 29, 1968; toc on October 30, 1968; to HSA HoSM on November 25, 1968, on to Ministry of Technology for EMI reconnaissance pod trials during 1969, first flight with pod in June; A&AEE EMI reconnaissance pod continued in January 1970; to 228 OCU on September 18, 1972; to 54 Sqn as D by March 1974, also saw periods with 41 Squadron; to 111 Sqn as D; to BAe for mods in June 1974; to 111 Sqn as M in October 1977; to 23 Sqn as A in January 1978; overhauled and repainted at St. Athan in air defence three-grey finish; to 29 Sqn as D in July 1983; to 228 OCU in August 1983 as K, to CK in May 1987; to 43 Sqn as AV in July 1987 due to the shortage of FG.1; returned to 228 OCU as CK in January 1989; sos and allocated maintenance number 9098M; and displayed Solway Aviation Museum, Carlisle – current. c/n 2928 Noted as EMI pod capable aircraft.

In the bigger scheme of things - what matters more - how an aircraft is painted (in who's markings) - or to which unit assigned/flown by/to?

 

PM

Just now, Patrick Martin said:

Delivered to 23 MU on October 29, 1968; toc on October 30, 1968; to HSA HoSM on November 25, 1968, on to Ministry of Technology for EMI reconnaissance pod trials during 1969, first flight with pod in June; A&AEE EMI reconnaissance pod continued in January 1970; to 228 OCU on September 18, 1972; to 54 Sqn as D by March 1974, also saw periods with 41 Squadron; to 111 Sqn as D; to BAe for mods in June 1974; to 111 Sqn as M in October 1977; to 23 Sqn as A in January 1978; overhauled and repainted at St. Athan in air defence three-grey finish; to 29 Sqn as D in July 1983; to 228 OCU in August 1983 as K, to CK in May 1987; to 43 Sqn as AV in July 1987 due to the shortage of FG.1; returned to 228 OCU as CK in January 1989; sos and allocated maintenance number 9098M; and displayed Solway Aviation Museum, Carlisle – current. c/n 2928 Noted as EMI pod capable aircraft.

In the bigger scheme of things - what matters more - how an aircraft is painted (in who's markings) - or to which unit assigned/flown by/to?

 

PM

XV406 that is ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rabbit Leader said:

@Patrick Martin

Penny drop moment time!! 

Just realised your the same Patrick Martin who penned the Double Ugly Phantom books. I’ve got the two Spey Phantom bibles in my private aero library and just want to say thanks for putting these excellent books together. I’m not quite sure if they are still readily available, however I would think that a re-print to coincide with this latest kit would be quite timely. 

 

For those out there who do not own this set, they are well worth having. 

 

Cheers and thanks.. Dave 

...and Sloegin57 contributed a few of his excellent photos to the books too. This thread is graced with Phantom Royalty as we also have seen comments from Tailspin Turtle who, if I remember correctly, worked at McDD on the F-4K/M project.

 

With regards to the teeny window on the stbd side above the stab it was for checking the pressure gauge of the arrestor hook accumulator I think (I have to qualify every statement like that nowadays as my memory isn't something that it used to something!)

 

Duncan B

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Duncan B said:

With regards to the teeny window on the stbd side above the stab it was for checking the pressure gauge of the arrestor hook accumulator I think (I have to qualify every statement like that nowadays as my memory isn't something that it used to something!)

 

Duncan B

 

I am sure that you are correct if I too remember correctly. I do know that it was to look at a gauge.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Patrick Martin said:

Delivered to 23 MU on October 29, 1968; toc on October 30, 1968; to HSA HoSM on November 25, 1968, on to Ministry of Technology for EMI reconnaissance pod trials during 1969, first flight with pod in June; A&AEE EMI reconnaissance pod continued in January 1970; to 228 OCU on September 18, 1972; to 54 Sqn as D by March 1974, also saw periods with 41 Squadron; to 111 Sqn as D; to BAe for mods in June 1974; to 111 Sqn as M in October 1977; to 23 Sqn as A in January 1978; overhauled and repainted at St. Athan in air defence three-grey finish; to 29 Sqn as D in July 1983; to 228 OCU in August 1983 as K, to CK in May 1987; to 43 Sqn as AV in July 1987 due to the shortage of FG.1; returned to 228 OCU as CK in January 1989; sos and allocated maintenance number 9098M; and displayed Solway Aviation Museum, Carlisle – current. c/n 2928 Noted as EMI pod capable aircraft.

In the bigger scheme of things - what matters more - how an aircraft is painted (in who's markings) - or to which unit assigned/flown by/to?

 

PM

XV406 that is ....

Thank you very much for the reply,

The info you have provided confirms that XV406/AV was more than likely the FGR2 that i saw working out of 111.

 

In the bigger scheme of things, as i mentioned previously, my notes from my teenage years were not the greatest and usually restricted to serial/code as most of the time the code tied in to the unit an airframe was allocated to. At the time, seeing AV working out of 111 was of passing interest for the first occasion, then as it appeared to be the norm probably didnt even make the notebook! At the time though, i never ignored the 228 ocu line as they were quite regular at swapping airframes. The day i nearly forgot to check that line is the day the plane spotter in me nearly missed 4 new airframes!

 

Im sure there are others that do this, but in choosing how i want to finish the FG1 i have and the FGR2 i will buy, depicting a plain Jane airframe wont cut it for me, but the added interest of a 111 FG1 with a brown nose and FGR2 AV that i remember working with the other side will keep the 30 year old memories strong from an airfield that might not even be there in a few years time!

Arabest,

Geoff.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, for the purposes of the chart, two  FGR.2 with 43 Sqn from mid 1987?

 

XV406 actually carried the EMI pod and the photoflash/tank while wearing full 111 Sqn colours as 'D' c mid 1970s, that would make an interesting finish option.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, 71chally said:

So, for the purposes of the chart, two  FGR.2 with 43 Sqn from mid 1987?

 

XV406 actually carried the EMI pod and the photoflash/tank while wearing full 111 Sqn colours as 'D' c mid 1970s, that would make an interesting finish option.

43 also had XT902 on loan from the OCU in '69/'70.  As far as is known - no Squadron markings applied - although there are rumours to the contrary !.

 

Dennis

 

Also.......in August 1978 XT874 officially belonged to both Squadrons and had the markings to prove it.  When the dust settled and she was given to 43, the ground crew painted a large fighting cock on to a sheet of fablon and stuck it on to the port intake ramp.  She later became J of 43 after a partial repaint in ASF and finally became E of Temblers.  Throughout all that and having a serial prefixed 'XT" she still had 'XV' serialed outer mainplanes.  

Edited by sloegin57
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the small inspection window on the rear stbd fuselage, i'm willing to be corrected, as its  been almost 30 years since I had to look at one, but it contained a gauge that showed the pressure for the tail hook damper accumulator.  Happy days! 

Troffa, 43 (F) pan trash, 1987 to 1997

 

Oops, Duncan beat me to it.

 

Edited by Troffa
Not reading the thread properly.
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the kit this morning, I suddenly realised that it is forty - yes four-zero - years this year since the Phantom left Royal Naval service.  I idly wondered just how many of the team that developed this marvellous little model at Airfix, were born let alone alive, when the Phantom was around.

 

I could only find a few things to comment upon, NOT complain - comment !!.  A couple concern the plastic and one concerns the decals.  Minor points that any self respecting BMer can correct, or not as he/she feel fit. 

 

Firstly the outer mainplanes.  The large "slabs" under the outer mainplanes were not applicable to RN aircraft, these came in on 60 or 80FI mods and usually in conjunction with the RN/RAF xfer programme.

 

Secondly the outer mainplanes.  Airfix have given us plenty of choice with leading edge flaps up/down, outer wings up/down but we do not have an outer mainplane folded with the leading edge flaps deployed.  - Happened - not often but it happened.  Not a problem a bit of scoring, bending and glueing will fix.

 

Thirdly the Decals. Beautifully printed and designed and when enlarged all the maint details can be read but why, as it is a Royal Navy aircraft and especially 892Sqdn version, are there none of the prominent names of the aircrew on the right side of the canopies and none of the ground crew on the right intake ramp.  Producers of decals please note.

 

kXImNYS.jpg

Note the Red bit from the 892 fin marking grinning through also the lack of fuselage serial on this one (and quite a few others)

TrGIvEi.jpg

Duncan dun this 

 

uKhkdD5.jpg

Note the RAF rank for the Observer.  For the last two or more deployments aboard the Ark,

up to a third possibly half of the aircrew with 892 were RAF.

Dennis

(more to come)

 

 

Edited by sloegin57
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, sloegin57 said:

 

uKhkdD5.jpg

 

 

Hello Dennis!

 

Thank You for sharing this excellent photo. It clearly shows how complex the shapes are around the canopies. Back to the working bench as I got the fixed middle part wrong in my Tamiya F-4J...and I just finished painting. Lets see what can I do.

 

Kind Regards,

Antti

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sloegin57 said:

 

Note the RAF rank for the Observer.  For the last two or more deployments aboard the Ark,

up to a third possibly half of the aircrew with 892 were RAF.

Dennis

Good point and not remembered enough IMO, it was about half and half RAF RN aircrew by the last commission on Ark Royal, of the Gannet, Buccaneer and Phantom squadrons.

 

Not only is November 40 years since the Phantom retired from the Navy, but May and August of this year are the 50th anniversaries of the Phantom FG.1 entering service with the Navy (700P Yeovilton), and the FGR.2 entering service with the RAF (228 OCU Coningsby), frightening isn't it!

 

Cracking pictures Dennis.

Edited by 71chally
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/01/2018 at 9:58 AM, Irish 251 said:

Well, the squadron had two grey/green ones at Greenham Common that summer so you are probably correct in your recollection.  It took several years for the fleet to be repainted, I think.

3456148121_46f2dae750_z.jpgXV574 Phantom FG.1 by Irish251, on Flickr

 

Sorry if I'm being a bit late to the party but I've just discovered by way of a google search that this is the machine I saw at Biggin Hill in May 1983 doing a very noisey & spirited routine at that years Air Fair, definitely in the green grey camo. I recall been hugely impressed by it & it would be high up the list of one to model. Rabbit Leader's Xtradecal list had it twice, 1970 which would be in RN colours & in 1989 which from Nigel's list of Modeldecals is in AS Grey with black spine etc. Is there a sheet I can do this one from, time to start laying in Phantom stuff. :)

Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, stevehnz said:

Rabbit Leader's Xtradecal list had it twice, 1970 which would be in RN colours & in 1989 which from Nigel's list of Modeldecals is in AS Grey with black spine etc. Is there a sheet I can do this one from, time to start laying in Phantom stuff. :)

Steve.

XV574 was never with the Navy, it was one of the FG.1s that went direct to the RAF.              

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sloegin57 said:

Looking at the kit this morning, I suddenly realised that it is forty - yes four-zero - years this year since the Phantom left Royal Naval service.  I idly wondered just how many of the team that developed this marvellous little model at Airfix, were born let alone alive, when the Phantom was around.

 

I could only find a few things to comment upon, NOT complain - comment !!.  A couple concern the plastic and one concerns the decals.  Minor points that any self respecting BMer can correct, or not as he/she feel fit. 

 

Firstly the outer mainplanes.  The large "slabs" under the outer mainplanes were not applicable to RN aircraft, these came in on 60 or 80FI mods and usually in conjunction with the RN/RAF xfer programme.

 

Secondly the outer mainplanes.  Airfix have given us plenty of choice with leading edge flaps up/down, outer wings up/down but we do not have an outer mainplane folded with the leading edge flaps deployed.  - Happened - not often but it happened.  Not a problem a bit of scoring, bending and glueing will fix.

 

Thirdly the Decals. Beautifully printed and designed and when enlarged all the maint details can be read but why, as it is a Royal Navy aircraft and especially 892Sqdn version, are there none of the prominent names of the aircrew on the right side of the canopies and none of the ground crew on the right intake ramp.  Producers of decals please note.

 

kXImNYS.jpg

Note the Red bit from the 892 fin marking grinning through also the lack of fuselage serial on this one (and quite a few others)

TrGIvEi.jpg

Duncan dun this 

 

uKhkdD5.jpg

Note the RAF rank for the Observer.  For the last two or more deployments aboard the Ark,

up to a third possibly half of the aircrew with 892 were RAF.

Dennis

(more to come)

 

 

Ah photographic evidence that the RAF camo did get sprayed over the top of the FAA scheme. I was beginning to wonder if my mind was playing tricks with me when I said earlier I remember seeing the red fin coming through the RAF paint. 

 

That photo of ASF brings back memories!

 

Duncan B

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stevehnz said:

Thanks, I wasn't aware this was a thing, so green grey from the outset?

Steve.

Very basically Steve,

 

British Phantom Serials

F-4K / FG.1 48 aircraft for the Royal Navy and the RAF                     

XT595 – XT598   (4, 2 prototype YF-4K, 2 pre-production)        
XT857 – XT876   (20 acft)    
XV565 – XV592  (24 acft)

Of the above these were delivered directly to the RAF (14 acft)                                               

XT874                               

XV571                                                                                                      

XV573 – XV578                                                                                                            

XV580 – XV585

 

F-4M / FGR.2 116 aircraft for the RAF

XT852 – XT853   (2 Prototype YF-4M)
XT891 – XT914   (24)
XV393 – XV442  (49)
XV460 – XV501  (41)

 

Most of that first FG.1 serial batch (XT595-XT598) saw trials and A&AEE service.

Also, XT875 saw very limited RN service, going to the RAF in July 1969

Edited by 71chally
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Duncan B said:

Ah photographic evidence that the RAF camo did get sprayed over the top of the FAA scheme. I was beginning to wonder if my mind was playing tricks with me when I said earlier I remember seeing the red fin coming through the RAF paint. 

 

That photo of ASF brings back memories!

 

Duncan B

It was not just that one Duncan.  Most of 892's that only had a "Scuff and cover displayed the same - especially on the fin :-

GNmVIKO.jpg

Dennis

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sloegin57 said:

 

 

Thirdly the Decals. Beautifully printed and designed and when enlarged all the maint details can be read but why, as it is a Royal Navy aircraft and especially 892Sqdn version, are there none of the prominent names of the aircrew on the right side of the canopies and none of the ground crew on the right intake ramp.  Producers of decals please note.

 

 

 

uKhkdD5.jpg

Note the RAF rank for the Observer.  For the last two or more deployments aboard the Ark,

up to a third possibly half of the aircrew with 892 were RAF.

Dennis

(more to come)

 

 

Dennis,

 

A sentiment I whole-heartedly agree with. Having purchased the recent Xtradecals release X72268 and then trawled through my references (including Ward's tome on RAF and FAA aircraft amongst others) and poked around the web for images of the subject aircraft, I am rather disappointed with the low level of accuracy on that sheet. From your earlier posts on things, I was aware of the PTF/PPOCU tail emblem issue but thought it was something I could work with and modify, sadly not the case given just how far wrong the emblem as depicted on the sheet is!

 

The list of issues I have found includes the side numbers/modex (3 digits on the nose) being too narrow in their strokes, they also seem to be sized too tall and therefore placed too far forward according to the placement guide. I get the impression they should be a scale 16", would anyone be able to confirm this? The Omega symbol in the 892 tail markings sits too high (look at the relation of the horizontal strokes to the side points of the white diamond area to see what I mean). The shape of the 892 nose markings doesn't sweep back far enough and wraps around the circular badge too much. It should be borne in mid they all seem to differ slightly in how they were modified from the Jubilee markings to those displayed in the final year of operations. The two tone '77' of the Jubilee marking is incorrect, it should be a single tone (to caveat that I have found a couple of images where the lighting makes it appear to be two tone, however other images of the same aircraft in other lighting conditions clearly show it not to be the case so I can understand how the two tone has come about here). The red strokes of the White Ensign in the commemorative markings are too narrow and the font of the numbers is incorrect. There are more minor errors across the sheet, but these are some of the more obvious ones.

 

In short, unless this sheet is quite heavily corrected, it is not worth getting and I'm quite disappointed with it.

 

Mark.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, 71chally said:

Until now I hadn't realised that any ex Navy Phantoms went straight to 43 sqn, I thought that they all went to 111 sqn!

 

Ah now there is another story that Dennis can fill us in on :)

 

Duncan B

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A point I had forgotten about until Dennis' pictures appeared was that the underwing serials changed positions hence in some shots with the wings folded there doesn't appear to be one. I don't know the timescale for this change or that of the complete removal.

I found this one on the net  of a very early 43 Squadron FG1 before the advent of Squadron tail markings

fd2c3453ae8ebb658094e30c9b7641f7.jpg

  • Like 3
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...