Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Good

About phantomphixxer

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    North Devon
  • Interests
    F4’s mainly & 50’s & 60’s what ifs (mainly British

Recent Profile Visitors

217 profile views
  1. “ I think the gun pod was only used on QRA in Germany, so 19 and 92 sqns. UK QRA a/c carried acentreline tank instead.” Alhenderson I was part of an Eng Wing Exercise weapons load team (Skyflash Trophy winners in 1984) at Coningsby from 1980 until I moved to 29(F) in 1985, doing QRA several times, & stayed until they converted to Tonka’s. Our standard fit was the same as RAFG, with 2 x Fletchers, 4 ‘winders, 4 Skyflash & SUU pod. We only fitted centre line tanks for transits on deployment IIRC. Centre line tanks might have been a Leuchars QRA fit, due to their intercept ar
  2. Exactly right! When I was on VASS at Chivenor, we would put visiting Hawks (Brawdy, Valley, BAe) into the hangar after the squadrons had stacked. Very little space, like a carrier hangar deck, with not much room for a tractor & towing arm to move around in. It was quicker & easier to get it on the shed central line then push it in by hand, 1 or 2 guys on each wing. They are not big or heavy! You had to have someone on the brakes in the cockpit AND enough accumulator pressure to make the brakes work! We had to push a Phantom in one of the RUBB’s at Stanley, to get the main wheels out
  3. As memory serves, the nosewheel in the wrong position is is not a problem. They are fully castoring, like supermarket trolleys. There is no nosewheel steering on T1's & T1A's. Steering is done by braking one wheel or the other. Its back to front because the cab has pushed into position by hand with out using a towing arm or steering adaptor. You just need to push the nose to one side to make the wheel follow the axle. There is a centralising cam on the nose leg that will place the training link in the correct position when the weight comes off the leg. How do I know? Ex Chivenor ASF &
  4. Definitely the best Squadron to pick! But I am a biased ex 29(F) rigger!
  5. It looks right! It looks like it was designed by Willi Messerschmidt. They certainly designed & built weirder things!
  6. As an ex 29(F) rigger, I think it is a most excellent choice of model. although I am mildly biased! I joined 29 in 86 Regarding the Fletchers & SUU pod fit, it could be en route to Armament Practice Camp (APC) at Akrotiri, Cyprus, They would have blue "ballast" Sparrows in the front stations & none on the rear, inner wing pylons & LAU's would be fitted but no 'winders fitted, They might have had a baggage pod fitted on one pylon, which was generally LH, as memory serves. Aaahh! Fond memories of ten (YES-TEN!) weeks of really busy work & almost complete destruc
  7. The SNEB pods had been discontinued by the time I arrived at Chivenor (late 87). The stresses imposed by firing them (rocket blast?) had caused cracking in the mainplane. To inspect & monitor the cracking, a "T" shaped area about 3"across & 4" down was stripped to bare metal then varnished. This allowed the cracks to be monitored without having to repeatedly strip then repaint the area. As memory serves, this was about 6" back from the leading edge, between the first & second leading edge triangular vortex generators. These were also bare metal. The cracks were logged in the A/C F
  8. As someone who used to fold these wings on a regular basis & has fitted them on numerous occasions (1980-1987), these are definitely correct. They were progressively “beefed up” as time went by. I think some of them were USAF wings but can’t be definite. I also have a recollection that they were called “Steptoe” wings but that could be due to the passage of time, excessive alcohol use (22 yrs RAF service!) & repeated head trauma!
  9. As memory serves (this was a long time ago!) the ailerons on FG1’s drooped to give more lift & reduced speed for carrier landings but FGR2’s (proper Tooms!) didn’t. As an ex 23 Sqn rigger at Stanley in 1983, we used to see them taking the RHAG pretty much every day. They would stream the drag chute on or just before touch down, to reduce the speed they hit the RHAG. It made a tremendous noise as it ran out! Also be aware that the back end (metal blast panels & hook) were very darker than usual, as we were using naval fuel (AVTAG) not AVTUR. The inhibitors & additives in thi
  10. As ex 29(F) Phantom groundcrew, I can say that we regularly did AAR & rarely did we have the probe extended on shutdown. As I recall, the drop in hydraulic pressure after shutting down meant that the probe would start to creep back & retract. Not fully but the only way to keep it out was by fitting a ground lock & you most definitely would NOT be fitting that with the engines running!
  11. The black & white stripes were an identification aid, to stop friendly fire incidents, as Typhoons resembled FW190’s from certain angles. See Typhoon page on Wikipedia
  • Create New...