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. :)

ROGERD

fj-4 FURY

Recommended Posts

ror anyone confirm what type of seat was retofitted to the fury - I have an idea that it was a martin baker mk 3 or 5.

any AM out there for these?

also the hobbyboss kit has 4 bulpups included, was this a typical load for a marine fury? I read somewhere that when loaded with these. a designator pod

was needed, what plyon would this be carried on, and if any are availible in 1/48th.

many thanks

Rogerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ror anyone confirm what type of seat was retofitted to the fury - I have an idea that it was a martin baker mk 3 or 5.

any AM out there for these?

also the hobbyboss kit has 4 bulpups included, was this a typical load for a marine fury? I read somewhere that when loaded with these. a designator pod

was needed, what plyon would this be carried on, and if any are availible in 1/48th.

many thanks

Rogerd

The M-B seat, if it had one, was the Mk 5. The Bullpup pod was loaded on the right inboard pylon. I doubt that even a combat load would be more than three. This is a load out for a Navy practice mission:

Oriskany24may60VA-146Crop-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

The Fury had its own seat. Pavla do a nice on in 1.48 http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/PAVS48016

Not seen any pics of one with a MB seat though I have read some might have been fitted.

The FJ-4B featured 6 hard points and could carry 5 bullpups with the pod. This pic shows three, the pod and 2 tanks

f4b.jpg

Julien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the reply, is it me or are there only 4 plyons on the aircraft in the picture, the kit supplies 6, but only 4 are indictcate in the instruction diagram?

also there looks like there are bracing / sway struts for the tanks

Rogerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
also the hobbyboss kit has 4 bulpups included, was this a typical load for a marine fury? I read somewhere that when loaded with these. a designator pod

was needed, what plyon would this be carried on, and if any are availible in 1/48th.

many thanks

Rogerd

Yes a designator pod was needed. Maximum number of missiles that could be carried was 5. (Well there is a photo of one from VX-4: click to enlarge)

th_FJ-4B_Bullpup_01.jpg

th_FJ-4B_Bullpup_02.jpg

th_FJ-4B_Bullpup_03.jpg

Lookng at Ginter's Naval Fighter title on the FJ-4 there is only one photo of an operational aircraft armed with Bullpups (actually just one). (Click to enlarge)

th_FJ-4B_Bullpup_04.jpg

Personally and given that you don't get the pod I wouldn't bother. Most photos in the book show aircraft carrying just two fuel tanks and two AIM-9s.

However there is this photo of an aircraft armed with bombs:(Click to enlarge)

th_FJ-4B_2000lb-bombs_01.jpg

EDIT: By the time I finished typing other people had already replied: apologies for the duplication of photos.

Edited by Panoz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thanks for the reply, is it me or are there only 4 plyons on the aircraft in the picture, the kit supplies 6, but only 4 are indictcate in the instruction diagram?

also there looks like there are bracing / sway struts for the tanks

Rogerd

FJ-4B_frontviewSAC.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

The Fury had its own seat. Pavla do a nice on in 1.48 http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/PAVS48016

Not seen any pics of one with a MB seat though I have read some might have been fitted.

Julien

It would appear that the retrofit of M-B seats in the FJ-4s was not as quick or complete as it was in the other Navy fighters. (see http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/02/trans...r-ejection.html) In fact, if you aren't sure whether it has a M-B seat, the way to bet is it doesn't. This one did.

FJ-4withMBseat.jpg

Also, the Bullpups were only used on the FJ-4B version, which had the extra pair of speed brakes under the aft fuselage in addition to the extra pylons, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would appear that the retrofit of M-B seats in the FJ-4s was not as quick or complete as it was in the other Navy fighters. (see http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/02/trans...r-ejection.html) In fact, if you aren't sure whether it has a M-B seat, the way to bet is it doesn't. This one did.

FJ-4withMBseat.jpg

Also, the Bullpups were only used on the FJ-4B version, which had the extra pair of speed brakes under the aft fuselage in addition to the extra pylons, etc.

Nice one, first pic I have seen of a Fury with an MB seat.

Nice blog link as well. I have found with the F-8 even some BU numbers which should have been fitted with MB seats still appear to have Vought Seats in pictures. Those few years can be confusing.

Julien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tailspin, where are the gun ports on the Fury in the picture?

It would appear that the retrofit of M-B seats in the FJ-4s was not as quick or complete as it was in the other Navy fighters. (see http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/02/trans...r-ejection.html) In fact, if you aren't sure whether it has a M-B seat, the way to bet is it doesn't. This one did.

FJ-4withMBseat.jpg

Also, the Bullpups were only used on the FJ-4B version, which had the extra pair of speed brakes under the aft fuselage in addition to the extra pylons, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tailspin, where are the gun ports on the Fury in the picture?

Good question. Since I'm away from home, I'm guessing that there was an airframe change late in it's career that removed the cannon in order to reduce weight. It seems to have been done in conjunction with the incorporation of those two aft-facing vents at the aft end of the armament bay doors and is not associated with the substitution of the M-B seat. I'll check when I get back home to see if I can find other examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good question. Since I'm away from home, I'm guessing that there was an airframe change late in it's career that removed the cannon in order to reduce weight. It seems to have been done in conjunction with the incorporation of those two aft-facing vents at the aft end of the armament bay doors and is not associated with the substitution of the M-B seat. I'll check when I get back home to see if I can find other examples.

Here are some from Ginter: (click to enlarge)

th_FJ-4B_NAS-Alameda_July-1962.jpg

th_FJ-4B_VA-216_NAS-Atsugi_May-1962.jpg

th_AF-1E_Naval-Reserve-Unit_NAF-WashingtonDC_July-1963.jpg

EDIT: Replaced first photo with a colour version from the Detail & Scale title on the Fury.

Gunless FJ-4Bs were not that common; checked the "In action", the Crowood book on the F-86, F-86 in color, Navy Air Colors 2, Carrier Air Units 2, the profile on the FJ Fury and those were the only ones I could come up with.

Edited by Panoz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for all the help and pictures, as always the , more research - morew questions tahn answers!

thanks again to all those who responeded

Rogerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tailspin, where are the gun ports on the Fury in the picture?

Ah ha! - According to Baugher's FJ-4 synopsis and Sherlock's new monograph on the Sabre and Fury (http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2012/03...sabre-fury.html), the left pair of cannon was removed to install an emergency electrical generator. That explains the pair of vents at the aft end of the gun bay. If correct, I don't know why this change was necessary so late in the FJ-4 program; presumably the requirement for a backup was not new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If correct, I don't know why this change was necessary so late in the FJ-4 program; presumably the requirement for a backup was not new.

Donlt let things like logic come into military decisions!

The RAF replaced the USN Fit in the F-4J(UK)'s to RAF fit just before they retired and scrapped them!

Julien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tailspin Turtle ... I remembered reading in I believe Joe Baughers pages somewhere that those vents were for the generator that powered the LABS System (Low altitude bombing system). That was the reason for the reduction of the cannon. The nuke would also be on the Port Pylon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

@Tailspin Turtle ... I remembered reading in I believe Joe Baughers pages somewhere that those vents were for the generator that powered the LABS System (Low altitude bombing system). That was the reason for the reduction of the cannon. The nuke would also be on the Port Pylon. 

That makes a lot more sense than what I was thinking- that there were additional electronics required for the Bullpup installation, thus the removal of the 20mm and the vents added to exhaust heat from the  electronics installed there. (Just goes to show how little I know about golden age USN weenie cookers!)

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like i said not sure where i remembered reading it. However it made sense to me as the weight of the nuke had to be compensated for. 

Edited by Corsairfoxfouruncle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

Like i said not sure where i remembered reading it. However it made sense to me as the weight of the nuke had to be compensated for. 

Both the Mk 7 and Bullpup capability predated this modification by quite some time. Baugher updated his FJ-4 post (http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p86_24.html) since the last time I looked: During service, some FJ-4Bs had the port pair of 20-mm cannon removed so that a standby generator system could be installed. This standby generator provided power backup in case the main generator failed--without the backup it was nearly impossible to fly at night or under instrument conditions for more than a few minutes with only battery power. At the same time, the standard ejection seat was replaced by a Martin-Baker seat that provided the ability to eject safely at much lower altitudes.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marine FJ-4's never carried the Bullpup's. The Marines only flew the FJ-4's and they were not equipped to use the Bullpup. Only the Navy's FJ-4B's were equipped with Bullpup's. Since the FJ-4B was more or less designated as a nuclear weapons carrier, the 4B was outside of the scope of the Marine's mission. As an aside, the two releases of the Grand Phoenix FJ-4B, of the two kits, the only ones correct for a FJ-4B was for VA-116. All the other markings are for FJ-4's. The lower speed brakes should be removed for the other markings on the two kits.

Share this post


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

Marine FJ-4's never carried the Bullpup's. The Marines only flew the FJ-4's and they were not equipped to use the Bullpup. Only the Navy's FJ-4B's were equipped with Bullpup's. Since the FJ-4B was more or less designated as a nuclear weapons carrier, the 4B was outside of the scope of the Marine's mission. As an aside, the two releases of the Grand Phoenix FJ-4B, of the two kits, the only ones correct for a FJ-4B was for VA-116. All the other markings are for FJ-4's. The lower speed brakes should be removed for the other markings on the two kits.

The Marines were part of the nuke delivery force, which is why they got A4D-1s (the early Skyhawks weren't much good for anything else at the time, before the creation of multiple bomb racks). However, it is true that the FJ-4s they got were strictly fighters with very limited air-to-ground capability (the Navy had bought some but didn't need them, preferring the supersonic F11F and the F8U, and the Marines were happy to have them). It is also true that the nuke and Bullpup-capable FJ-4Bs were only issued to Navy squadrons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tommy. I was not aware of the Marines being part of the overall USN nuke strike force in that time period. I suppose it would make sense that they were but I would have thought probably more in a tactical battlefield environment than a deep strike semi strategic one which I thought the FJ-4B was for. Also, I always thought the Marines got the earlier model A-4's later after the USN moved up to later versions then handing them to the Marines and the reserves. In reading my Ginter book on the early A-4's in USMC/ USMCR and USNR I see they received their first A-4's in the 1956-57 time frame. I thought it might have been later. Next time I should read the text a little closer, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all. With regards to the Marines never operating the FJ-4B, I was incorrect. VMF's 212, 214 and 223 operated the fj-4B. I stand corrected. 

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

×