canberra kid Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 16 minutes ago, 71chally said: Lovely stuff John, what is the store in the first drawing Fig 7-28 - Napalm cannister, special? Thanks James, all the drawings are from AP. 101B.0900-3A1 Phantom Mk.1 and FGR Mk.2 Illustrated Parts Catalogue, there are some fantastic drawings in it as you can imagine. John 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLC1966 Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 On 17/02/2018 at 12:02 PM, 71chally said: LAM is Leading Aircraft Mechanic, sometimes followed by another letter denoting role such as LAM(O) Ordnance Interesting that of the six Aircrew names on the FAA Phantoms there are two F/O's & one Sqn Ldr, which are Flying Officer and Squadron Leader, RAF Ranks. I knew the Navy Buccanears were 50% RAF towards the end, but I did not realise there were RAF on the 'tooms as well. Must have pee'd off Sharkey somewhat. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 A nice view of the fuel vent mast. John 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 51 minutes ago, PLC1966 said: Interesting that of the six Aircrew names on the FAA Phantoms there are two F/O's & one Sqn Ldr, which are Flying Officer and Squadron Leader, RAF Ranks. I knew the Navy Buccanears were 50% RAF towards the end, but I did not realise there were RAF on the 'tooms as well. Must have pee'd off Sharkey somewhat. ...and 849 Gannets. According to one of the Ark Royal books the Navy had down scaled fixed-wing flying training in the mid 1970s to reflect the losss of the carriers, and so by the final commision all Sqns were about 50% RAF manned. That's why I don't swallow the whole serious service rivalry business, I get the banter and fun bit, but it was all a lot more mutual than people imagine. John, does the AP say what those stores are? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 I'll take a look later James. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sloegin57 Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 2 hours ago, 71chally said: Lovely stuff John, what is the store in the first drawing Fig 7-28 - Napalm cannister, special? The top drawing ?. It's a Light Store Bomb Carrier James, pre-dates the well known CBLS 100 and 200, which reminded me. Attached a shot of XT860 back in the day just after the F-4 entered service. The LSBC can be seen on the inboard pylon but the photo also begs the question, "How many Phantoms entered service in Dark Sea Grey as opposed to Extra DSG ?" . If you compare the tailplane colour to the rest of the airframe - is there not a distinct difference ? Dennis 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 (edited) No not that Dennis, the stores (canisters?) in Fig 7-28? Wondering if US type Napalm or Special weapon Agree, the tailplane looks a richer grey in that shot of XT860. Edited February 18, 2018 by 71chally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 4 hours ago, 71chally said: Lovely stuff John, what is the store in the first drawing Fig 7-28 - Napalm cannister, special? Have |I got the right one James, fig 7-29 item's 46 & 47 if so this is it. John 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selwyn Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 21 minutes ago, canberra kid said: Have |I got the right one James, fig 7-29 item's 46 & 47 if so this is it. John He's looking at page 7-74B item 39. It looks like a napalm tank (firebomb in UK speak) as it has a Cable Assembly fuze arming (CAFA item 42) and an arming wire (item 43) Selwyn 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 3 minutes ago, Selwyn said: He's looking at page 7-74B item 39. It looks like a napalm tank (firebomb in UK speak) as it has a Cable Assembly fuze arming (CAFA item 42) and an arming wire (item 43) Selwyn Roger! Thanks Selwyn John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 14 minutes ago, Selwyn said: He's looking at page 7-74B item 39. It looks like a napalm tank (firebomb in UK speak) as it has a Cable Assembly fuze arming (CAFA item 42) and an arming wire (item 43) Selwyn Yep, page 7-74B Fig 7-28. I was wondering if it was a Napalm canister, thank you Selwyn 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, sloegin57 said: The top drawing ?. It's a Light Store Bomb Carrier James, pre-dates the well known CBLS 100 and 200, which reminded me. Attached a shot of XT860 back in the day just after the F-4 entered service. The LSBC can be seen on the inboard pylon but the photo also begs the question, "How many Phantoms entered service in Dark Sea Grey as opposed to Extra DSG ?" . If you compare the tailplane colour to the rest of the airframe - is there not a distinct difference ? Dennis It could just be fading with the tailplanes repainted, look at the side panels, fuselage roundel and the weathered radome - however, the MDD paint drawings specified Dark Sea Grey (and used the same 337 Stores ref for the Grey on RAF Phantoms) so it's an interesting piece of evidence in that jigsaw puzzle. There were also reports the US paint was more prone to fading. I'd love someone to do some paint archeology on the FAA Museum Phantom. (The outer deck was also EDSG, which does show that Phantom is a lot lighter) Edited February 19, 2018 by Dave Fleming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Martin Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 3 hours ago, Dave Fleming said: It could just be fading with the tailplanes repainted, look at the side panels, fuselage roundel and the weathered radome - however, the MDD paint drawings specified Dark Sea Grey (and used the same 337 Stores ref for the Grey on RAF Phantoms) so it's an interesting piece of evidence in that jigsaw puzzle. There were also reports the US paint was more prone to fading. I'd love someone to do some paint archeology on the FAA Museum Phantom. (The outer deck was also EDSG, which does show that Phantom is a lot lighter) I would not read much into the colours seen on this photo. It look like its paler than it should be all over - including the Leander in the background (see full Wiki shot). I have looked at hundreds of FG.1 photos of the period and it just does not look right. It is a bit fuzzy and IMHO the colouring has been played with a bit. When really blown up big there is a scratch mark cross the deck into the pilots visor. This tells me it's a scan from a print. Which means you are looking at an interpretation of a interpretation, (camera to negative, to print, to scan etc.) When you go to Wikipedia caption of this photo - it states "aboard aircraft carrier USS "Ark Royal" - big groan there. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Martin Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 On 2/18/2018 at 7:50 PM, Patrick Martin said: I would not read much into the colours seen on this photo. It look like its paler than it should be all over - including the Leander in the background (see full Wiki shot). I have looked at hundreds of FG.1 photos of the period and it just does not look right. It is a bit fuzzy and IMHO the colouring has been played with a bit. When really blown up big there is a scratch mark cross the deck into the pilots visor. This tells me it's a scan from a print. Which means you are looking at an interpretation of a interpretation, (camera to negative, to print, to scan etc.) When you go to Wikipedia caption of this photo - it states "aboard aircraft carrier USS "Ark Royal" - big groan there. There was some controversy over the Extra Dark Sea Grey BS381C 640, as applied to the Phantom on entering service. When parked adjacent to Buccaneer aircraft finished in the same colour, as applied in the UK, the Phantom appeared too light. As delivered, the aircraft had been painted by McDonnell in a US equivalent colour. This was noted on the finish data plate as ‘Epoxy Enamel UK338/1527 Dark Sea Gray’ and also noted ‘17875 Insignia White’ (FS.595). The grey colour was, according to the Royal Navy, Extra Dark Sea Grey 640. Also, the Royal Navy was not a user of ‘Dark Sea Gray’ (or any ‘GrAy’) during the period in question. The difference in initial appearances is attributed to the use of an unknown US equivalent shade of gray and fading of the Extra Dark Sea Grey, on all types. Darker colours, when applied as epoxy paints during the period in question, had a ‘marked propensity to fade considerably after exposure to salty elements’. The epoxy paints were also more likely to ‘leach out’ than the cellulose and polyurethane counterparts. When repainted in the UK, in Extra Dark Sea Grey 640, the Phantom would appear more like the Buccaneer. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huvut76g7gbbui7 Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 Nothing to do with the grey colour..just another nice Phantom photo! Doesn't 010 look taller in that configuration. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomBigStu Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 (edited) Doing XV574 As it was in 86’, Can’t find any photos of it carrying a centre line tank, was there a reason for this or just happenstance? And if it is ok to fit am I right in painting It all over Light aircraft grey? Edit, pretty sure I saw I it armed with a gun pod on the centreline, is this the one the raf used on the spook? Edited February 20, 2018 by PhantomBigStu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Patrick Martin said: There was some controversy over the Extra Dark Sea Grey BS381C 640, as applied to the Phantom on entering service. When parked adjacent to Buccaneer aircraft finished in the same colour, as applied in the UK, the Phantom appeared too light. As delivered, the aircraft had been painted by McDonnell in a US equivalent colour. This was noted on the finish data plate as ‘Epoxy Enamel UK338/1527 Dark Sea Gray’ and also noted ‘17875 Insignia White’ (FS.595). The grey colour was, according to the Royal Navy, Extra Dark Sea Grey 640. Also, the Royal Navy was not a user of ‘Dark Sea Gray’ (or any ‘GrAy’) during the period in question. The difference in initial appearances is attributed to the use of an unknown US equivalent shade of gray and fading of the Extra Dark Sea Grey, on all types. Darker colours, when applied as epoxy paints during the period in question, had a ‘marked propensity to fade considerably after exposure to salty elements’. The epoxy paints were also more likely to ‘leach out’ than the cellulose and polyurethane counterparts. When repainted in the UK, in Extra Dark Sea Grey 640, the Phantom would appear more like the Buccaneer. That what was mentioned earlier in the thread, and I think what Dennis was referring to when he posted that shot of XT860 014-R. I think the 'accepted'* history is that the Phantoms were repainted EDSG early in their service history, but perhaps some examples weren't as possibly shown by 014? * not necessarily correct I do like the grAy business Edited February 20, 2018 by 71chally 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainpeden Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 13 hours ago, Scimitar said: Nothing to do with the grey colour..just another nice Phantom photo! Doesn't 010 look taller in that configuration. I suspect it probably is a little taller as the suspension on 001 will be under more load - especially if the tanks are full. Great picture. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janneman36 Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 45 minutes ago, iainpeden said: I suspect it probably is a little taller as the suspension on 001 will be under more load - especially if the tanks are full. Great picture. And it is in the front as well which helps too look bigger in perspective!! Nice pic though.. Cheers, Jan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 (edited) I've got some slides of that pair (XT868 001-R and XV587 010-R) taken, as the above shot, at Culdrose 1977. 001 was completely clean and 010 was weighed down by two Sparrows fwd, four Sidewinders, 3 2" rocket pods on the centreline, two baggage pods and the underwing tanks. They did a pairs departure and individually displayed, think they did around the country like that for the Jubillee season. I will have to double check, but I think in my shots they both took off with the leading edge flap configurations shown in the pic. Sadly XT868 was lost with fatal results during a practice display at Leuchars in the following May. Edited February 21, 2018 by 71chally 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomBigStu Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 Someone on one of the various phantom thread asked how the separate canopy pieces fit in the closed position, I shall be getting you an answer even I can't find the post or who you are also can someone answer my gunpod question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainpeden Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 6 minutes ago, PhantomBigStu said: Someone on one of the various phantom thread asked how the separate canopy pieces fit in the closed position, I shall be getting you an answer even I can't find the post or who you are also can someone answer my gunpod question? Stu I'm assuming the gun pod you have pictured is the Fujimi one; I have pictures of the pod and the kit one looks fine (my pictures usually show them in a dark green), however I have also seen some with a blunter rear end -usually in a grey finish. I am fairly sure the one on display at Duxford has the blunt end. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huvut76g7gbbui7 Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 On 20/02/2018 at 7:14 PM, Scimitar said: Doesn't 010 look taller in that configuration. I thought I had posted this yesterday so no idea where it went..anyway...I perhaps didn't word that properly! I didn't mean that it was literally taller (without allowing for the oleos) being less compressed) but just that it looked so different without the load. Appreciate your taking the trouble to reply though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huvut76g7gbbui7 Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 1 hour ago, iainpeden said: however I have also seen some with a blunter rear end Mentioned on Page 13. I thought I had seen a recent picture of a blunt one in his thread but can't find it now..typical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phone Phixer Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 That gun pod looks to be the correct one. The pod was the SUU-23A if you want to look up any pictures. They were a mix of dark green or light aircraft grey, depending if they had a repaint after the grey/green camo days. Also was a mixture of blunt or pointy rear fairings, no rule as what was on what pod. Don't know how often the Leuchars jets flew with a gun pod fitted. Definitely for APC in Cyprus. The QRA fit was 3 tanks so a centreline tank would be seen more often. 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