Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ghb180658

  1. Sparrows (AIM-7E2/3) were white with a light gray nose. As far as I know SkyFlash didn't get into service with the RN and there were relatively few around when I joined 29 Sqn in early 1980, so assuming you are modelling an FG1 still in Navy service then white it is.
  2. My recollection from my time on the F3 is that a 4-tank fit was NOT in the Release to Service, we could fly with either the 1500ltr or the 2250ltr tanks. It may have been technically possible and BAE may have trialled such a fit (or Boscombe Down) but I am 99% certain such a fit was never used on a Squadron; it was not needed in any of our deployment scenarios with AAR available.
  3. I believe it is the impending demise of RAF Leuchars that has triggered this. No interest in the Army for looking after old airframes knocking around their "new patch", so loose ends need tidying up before the estate is handed over. It isn't even an official gate guard so it needs a new owner and home or it will be destined for the scrap man as per the link. Geoff
  4. Correct, bleed air and BLC were on both the FG1 and FGR2. A Bleed Air Duct failure was a major emergency and a BLC Malfunction was significant as you had to get the speed back below 250kts so you could put the flaps down, as bleed air was still being pushed into the wing even with the flaps up. Checking the BLC was part of the functional pre-flights as Jabba said.
  5. ghb180658


    Integration of ASRAAM onto the GR4 was first proposed around 98/99 as it would have effectively allowed the removal of the Sidewinder from the UK inventory. The quote from BAE to do a basic integration was prohibitive so it will have taken that long to either find money in the programme, get a sensible quote, or do the integration as a UOR (probably for Libya).Geoff
  6. Other way round, late on some FGR2s had FG1 (slotted) stabilators fitted. Extendable nose wheel oleo never fitted to an FGR2 as far as I am aware. Geoff
  7. By the mid 80s we were using SkyFlash and 9Ls as the primary weapons. These were loaded for QRA(I) in UK and Battle Flight in Germany but we still had Sparrow and 9Gs available.Take your pick! Geoff
  8. Fair enough, I was on the SAR working group back then and we relied on specialist inputs regarding the pros and cons and the example I quoted was given to the group, you can tell from my Avatar that my background is not SAR - more likely to have been a potential customer and we had great faith in them. Back then the case was made that mil SARops were less restricted. Sounds like CAP999 has addressed that now but it was a documented example which I used to try and answer the question about differences. Things do change and move on; this has been coming despite much resistance and I have no do
  9. Taking SAR from the RAF/RN was an issue back in the SDR in 1997. One of the arguments that won the day back then was that Coastguard Helos were on the civil register and therefore had to fly within CAA limits and rules (such as weather minima and diversions). Mil SAR flys under military rules which are less stringent - they count as "ops". Example was a mission in very poor weather in the Bristol Channel using both civ and mil assets. As the weather deteriorated the Coastguard helo had no diversion options according to CAA rules so had to RTB, Chivenor Sea King used the beach as their "dive
  10. Chris, I wasn't having a go at you. The fault lies with whoever suggested to you that MOD had shut down any investigation because it was on MOD land. They can't and that comment wherever it came from implies some sort of cover up rather than trying to find out what happened and simply isn't a reflection of what you have to do following an incident like this. The process is quite clear these days (and has been for some time) that any incident like this must effectively be treated as a potential crime scene - just like closing motorways after serious RTAs - and that the (civil) Police have prim
  11. Put simply the Police have primacy and jurisdiction regardless of whether it is MOD property or not. As the article says Lincs Police have handed a file to the CPS so the suggestion that MOD shut down an investigation I'm afraid is ill informed, albeit popular, MOD bashing. It is the outcome of the inquiry, and once the CPS decide what action, if any, it will in due course pass to the Coroner. While we are at it, on what basis is the suggestion that senior officers will develop sloping shoulders? Fact or an easy cheap jibe?
  12. Yes they did, but not sharing with the Dutch. They were on alert to cover policing the northern half of West German airspace (2 ATAF) along with the Wildenrath wing - 2 aircraft each on RS05. We called it Battle Flight. Bitburg provided the 4 ATAF element for the southern half of West Germany. The quirk here was that the German Air Force could not police their own airspace which was a legacy of the agreements by the occupying powers - USA, UK, USSR and France. France did not participate so covered by the USAF and RAF in the West and the Soviet Air Force in East Germany. The Dutch and the
  13. I have had this discussion with both FAA and RAF pilots who have done exchange tours with the USN about possible conventional carrier ops post Invincible class. True it doesn't have to be a nuclear reactor to generate steam but my understanding is that separate boilers to produce steam were not deemed efficient enough to support combat sortie rates of a modern CAG - to do that you use a nuclear reactor or you need new tech such as EMALS. That was a determining factor in original CVF options. Answering Jens's question "what technology are the French using" - nuclear reactor to generate suffi
  14. To consistently generate enough steam for jet ops you need a nuclear reactor. Once it was decided UK would not go into nuclear powered carriers steam cats were not practical. CDG is a nuclear powered ship.
  15. Your info is wrong; I was at RAF Stanley from Nov 82 to Apr 83 and I can personally confirm that info is correct. Ten FGR2s were deployed with XV468 damaged in a landing incident and was beyond repair in theatre - they had all arrived by end of Sep 82. Those three were most likely the first to arrive. In time the aircraft were rotated and of course dropped to four aircraft when it changed to 1435 Flight. Geoff
  16. Thirteen years and 2000 hours Followed by a tour on the F3 but my heart remains firmly with the Mighty Toom!
  17. No, never did a tour at Wattisham. 29, 92, 111, 64 (228 OCU) and was also the Phantom desk officer at HQ 11 Gp. Geoff
  18. The gun was a relatively rare fit on UK squadrons because it wasn't a NATO declared weapon system for the UK Air Defence Region (the extra tank was more use especially for long range QRA missions), whereas it was in 2 ATAF for the 2 RAFG Sqns (19 & 92). That's why they carried it as a normal training fit. However we trained all crews to ACE Forces Standards which required annual qualification in air-to-air gunnery hence we all got to go to Cyprus for an APC. As I recall 74 discovered there was little benefit in 3-tank fit on the J model as they could cruise much higher with the J79 comp
  19. ghb180658

    Phantom seats

    Good point, I can't remember how long they kept the USN kit but they did change as the small numbers were hard to support and that USN flying equipment - helmets, life preservers, dinghies etc weren't to the same standard as UK kit although many of the guys liked it. There was also much banter about 74 Sqn chaps "posing" in their USN kit... Geoff
  20. ghb180658

    Phantom seats

    The other thing to consider is the period you a modelling if it is an RAF Phantom. We changed from the "torso harness" which is the US system to the typical UK "simplified combined harness" in 1980 which is the way the UK seats are now shown. So if you are modelling something pre 1980 the seat straps would look like the US ones. Hope that helps!
  21. Agreed but as I recall we had early TEMP standard down south. I joined 29 Sqn in Feb 80 and never saw a SKF with a white Sparrow motor; TEMP standard very quickly became the norm on the F4 force. I did the first firing of a SKF at 250' against a 100' target in Jun 82 as part of the trials/work-up for Op CORPORATE. I am pretty certain that was a TEMP standard but I will have to check my log book. Turning to 9L, we quickly got a bunch provided by the US as the operation developed. The main source of 9L that came later was the European build of the missile. We had both in the inventory for
  22. Yes we had 9Ls down South. I was on the Sqn at the time, and numbers were a bit limited so we had a stock of 9Gs as well but more 9Ls were delivered in early 83. While it was still "PHANDET" ie 29 Sqn, the aircraft were not carrying Sqn markings, they came along as things settled down and it became 23 Sqn. Unless you are a real detail freak the Hasegawa Sparrows are fine as SkyFlash so long as you paint them correctly.
  23. LG, at the time your Dad was Boss of 19 I was doing the OCU and then on 29 Sqn at Coningsby. Back then the aircraft were still in the green and grey camouflage (the occasional experimental grey one may have just been around then) and as I recall we didn't have names on the aircraft. We started doing it on 29 around 1982/83 post the Falklands and when I arrived on 92 in summer of 1983 we didn't have names on the jets and I'm pretty sure 19 were the same. I remember the debates about which names went on the aircraft because we always had more crews than jets but we did start putting names on d
  24. The potential updates that were being looked at were principally for the weapon system. MiG29 and Su27 with AA-10 and AA-11 were the "new threat" and before the Wall came down and the Phantom was retired it was going to stay in Service until replaced by what is now Typhoon (and the Jag which of course it has). Looking to improve reliability and performance of the radar included a possible phased array antenna, updated fire control computer which would have allowed a track-while-scan capability and potential for AMRAAM. This would have included updated displays (TVTab taken from the SHAR), a
  25. Yes and no; the XT serial FGR2s were indeed "two-stickers" which meant their layout was quite different (I would have to check references but I have a feeling the XV FGR2s with serials <399 or 400 were 2-stickers as well). While the stick was removable you had rudder pedals instead of the footrests and in the left hand console you had a throttle box which moved around the comms stuff. Above the row of flight instruments you had engine instruments and gear indicators. These were not present in the single stick FGR2s. All FGR2 had RH consoles were primarily the INAS; in the FG1 there was
  • Create New...