Jump to content

British Phantom cockpits FG.1 versus FGR.2


Ali62

Recommended Posts

Hi Guys and Girls

 

I am looking for a little help, after getting the suberb new book from my sons for Christmas on the Britsh Phantoms by Double Ugly (Airdoc), I cannot wait to get part 2 when that is published.

Well being inspired I dug out my other referances and my one Hasegawa 1/48 scale kit in the stash and started looking at the various options, then I went and purchased some Aires cockpit sets and another Phantom kit, well at least then I can do at least one FG Mk.1 and one FGR Mk.2.

 

Now the main question arises in regards to the cockpits.

Aires do two cockpit sets, one for the 1 and one for the 2, and these are almost 100% different to each other, and I am sure that they have got the details correct, well as close as can be for good representations.

So first question is when and how did the cockpits change? The following is quoted out the new book as referanced above, from pg 32.

 

In conclusion, following the two YF-4K prototypes and two pre-roduction F-4K, only 48 production FG.1 would be manufactured. Of these 48 production airframes, 29 would be taken on charge by the Royal Navy (21% of the original requirement), with the balance of 19 FG.1 production going to the RAF. The RAF, following two YF-4M prototypes, would receive 116 Phantom FGR.2.

 

So now I think I can accept that all 2's had the same cockpit, I am sure small changes happend in the life time but as a rule they would all look the same.

The dilemma and interst comes about with the 1's

were the first 29 that went to the RN, fitted with the 'naval type' cockpit? (I will also maybe need to track down the serial codes)

were the other 19 that went to RAF, fitted with FGR.2 'RAF type' cockpit?

when the FG.1's went shore based did the cockpits change in any significant way?

 

Last but not least, when the FG.1's went shore based did they have the catapult hooks removed and or faired over?

Did the FGR.2 airframes from the start have their catapult hooks removed and or faired over?

 

Well I do hope that ther are some Phantom experts out there that can help, answer these questions.

 

cheers Ali

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ali,

 

I've asked one of the guys I work with as he used to be a Phantom Air Radar Tech with the RAF, the period is before his time on the Phantom but he did have some interesting comments...

 

 

"This is a bit before my time on Phantoms certainly by the time I started working on them there was very little differences between the cockpits (unlike the F4Js).  I don’t remember seeing the catapult hook on any of the RAF Mk1s but the nose leg could still extend.  All the RAF MK1s were at Leuchars (111 Sqn and 43 Sqn) during my time so it might be worth him checking photos of these 2 Sqns against 29 Sqn or 56 Sqn which had Mk2 s.

 

Not much help but I didn’t get to them until half-way through there service life."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Greased Lightning

 

Thanks for the reply, as they say it all starts of with little bits of info and then it rolls on to a little more. So your input is appreciated.

 

cheers Ali

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RAF FG1s were  FAA machines that were delivered to the RAF so they had the same cockpits as all other FG1s. The basic cockpit layout between the FGR2 and FG1 isnt all that different really. The FG1 kept its bridle hook fairings but the FGR2 was delivered with them faired over. FG1 had a different nose gear door (with the traffic lights) when compared to the FGR2 as well as the double link leg. There was no RAF or RN-type cockpit just a FG1 and FGR2 the first being for air defence and the other for strike attack and reconnaissance. If you need accurate drawings of the FG1 and FGR2 cockpits just PM me as I have the manual drawings for both.

Edited by WH904
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Guys and Girls

 

 

So now I think I can accept that all 2's had the same cockpit, I am sure small changes happend in the life time but as a rule they would all look the same.

The dilemma and interst comes about with the 1's

were the first 29 that went to the RN, fitted with the 'naval type' cockpit? (I will also maybe need to track down the serial codes)

Fitted with FG.Mk.1 cockpits.

 

were the other 19 that went to RAF, fitted with FGR.2 'RAF type' cockpit?

No - FG.Mk.1 cockpits.

 

when the FG.1's went shore based did the cockpits change in any significant way?

Apart from a couple of RAF specific instrument changes - no, they stayed as was.

 

Last but not least, when the FG.1's went shore based did they have the catapult hooks removed and or faired over?

No.  They retained most of the carrier capable fits even down to the extendable nose-leg which was made inoperative in the RAF by simply removing the fuse.  The hydraulic bay at Leuchars "de-modded" the nose legs as and when they went through servicing.

 

Did the FGR.2 airframes from the start have their catapult hooks removed and or faired over?

Never fitted.

FG.Mk.1's had slatted stabs, FGR.Mk.2's unslatted stabs.

 
Well I do hope that ther are some Phantom experts out there that can help, answer these questions.
cheers Ali

 

DR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Dennis

 

Trust that you are well up there in Cupar. Thank you for that input, I think just about all or most of the questions are now covered and confirmed with your input.

Oh well, now I wonder when I will get some time to BUILD the models..............

Best get back to my pattern making for the next Alley Cat and Rotor Craft releases...........

 

Thanks once again for the replies, will keep watching if any other interesting facts emerge.

 

cheers Ali

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FG.Mk.1's had slatted stabs, FGR.Mk.2's unslatted stabs.

 

True, and I believe one or two FGR2s eventually received slatted stabs but nobody seems to know why!

Edited by WH904
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FG.Mk.1's had slatted stabs, FGR.Mk.2's unslatted stabs.

 

True, and I believe one or two FGR2s eventually received slatted stabs but nobody seems to know why!

 

Shouldn't that be slotted........... 56 Sqns XV420 BT being one of them ......(not a great pic I'm afraid...

 

 

 

XV420BT.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't that be slotted........... 56 Sqns XV420 BT being one of them ......(not a great pic I'm afraid...

Interesting point young Bill - Slats or Slots.  Both Dick Ward and Peter Foster in their respective publications on the type refer to them as "Tailplanes with inverted slats on the leading edges" (Pete Foster referring to the FG.Mk.1) or "unslatted tailplanes (Dick Ward referring to the FGR.Mk.2).  The brief course that I did on the type also referred to them as "slatted tabs" (no 's').

 

Strictly speaking of course they were "inverted slots" as slats are/were moveable as I recall but the phrase "slatted" or "unslatted" with respect to the UK Phantom appears to have stuck.

 

One thing I did learn from my years at Leuchars and the Phantom was : -

 

"Should never have left the Harrier fleet".  

 

Dennis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't that be slotted........... 56 Sqns XV420 BT being one of them ......(not a great pic I'm afraid...

 

 

 

XV420BT.jpg

FG1 s had a different rear cockpit more basic with no RHS console large bank of fuses,smaller LHS console central position, different radar array . The RAF 43sqn machines didnot have launch hooks under intakes ,faired over & wheel extension in nose wheel was fixed to not extend. More basic bomb aiming system ,upgrades were denoted by yellow arrow heads on the Port small intake behind the radar scanner for cockpit ventilation. By the end three arrows were carried,there was no need to upgrade the RN machines as there role was by then Air Defence the role they were built for ,they did receive Sky Flash & optical sight. Regards Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ali,

The Aires set for the FG1 is not completely accurate in that it is modelled on a late F-4J/S. The FG1 (and early build F-4Js) are closer in layout to the F-4B, which is a detail missed by most of the aftermarket cockpits, except Black Box\Avionix. I believe Aires used the 'Lock-on' book from Verlinden as reference since they repeated the spurious 'FGR1' designation used in the book and assumed that, as the FG1 and F-4J are first cousins, they have the same cockpits. The Aires FGR2 cockpit is very good for a non-dual control aircraft and matches the drawings below very closely.

 

One of the biggest changes in layout resulted from installation of the RWR system (the big oblong box on the top of the fin). When this was fitted, the threat indicator (items 37,38A & 41 below) displaced the radio control panel to the top of the rear instrument panel reducing the already limited forward  view.

RN FG1 Phantom standard rear with RWR fit:

 

RNPhantomFG1RearIPstd.jpg

RN FG1 Phantom dual control rear no RWR fit:

 

PhantomFG1-twostick01.jpg

FGR2 cockpits (both post RWR):

Standard; this also has the telescope that was fitted late in service.

 

PhantomFGR2-standard01.jpg

Dual control

PhantomFGR2-dualrear02.jpg

 

 

I posted some additional details here:

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=234910834&&page=2#entry940692

HTH

Jonathan

Edited by XV571
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't that be slotted........... 56 Sqns XV420 BT being one of them ......(not a great pic I'm afraid...

 

Yup, slotted is the term. I remember this by thinking "slats" on the wing, "slots" on the stabilizers. Here is a nice discussion of the flap/stabilizer changes by Tailspin Turtle (Tommy Thomason). If you're not acquainted with his Tailspin Topics blog, check it out.

 

Cheers,

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone cares what name people decide to use for the stab slats - the mystery is why they were fitted to some FGR2s. nobody seems to know why

If something has a proper name, why not use it? If people use the correct term, that avoids misunderstandings and confusion - which is hard enough as it is with verbal/written only communication.

Jens

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They must be slots, as they're fixed. A slat is a moveable surface that has the same effect, but only at selected points in the flight envelope; when not in use, the leading edge is clean. The thread on the new 1/48 Mirage F1 kits includes an explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys for all the information, all appreciated, Jonathan thank you very much for the pictures.

I can only think that the slotted / slatted tailplane were trialed on the FGR 2's OR, they need some spares in a hurry and had some laying around? Well maybe that is an explanation.

 

I cannot find the Black Box / Avionix FG.1 cockpit set, does anybody have one I could purchase / loan, or even send me some good pictures of it?

 

cheers Ali

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I guess they were used because they were from withdrawn FG1s and it seemed like a good idea to use them but it would be nice to know if there was any other reason behind it. 

 

As for this name definition I guess you could call the FG1 leading edge a slot if you like but its actually an inverted slat. The whole tailplane (stabilator as McDonnell call it) is basically an inverted wing. Its also not true that a slat has to move as some can be fixed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm 99 point something percent certain that a fixed slat is a slot. Slots can be placed at any point in a wing's chord. The ones at the leading edge are often preceded by a fixed surface that looks very similar to a moving slat, but that doesn't make that part of the wing a slat. It's the space behind it that counts. Either a slat moves, creating a temporary slot; or the gap is always present and it's just a slot. The same applies to tailplanes and even to inverted surfaces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify this, according to Aerospace Publishing and Jon Lake it is a "slotted stabilator" which "effectively is an inverted slat" as I said before. It's a slat but it looks like a slot because it is upside down. Slats don't always move. There's a lot of confusion on this matter - check some of the comments on Pprune for example!

Edited by WH904
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC, the F-4E (and S) outer slats are hinged, so they can move (they pivot although I am not sure if that is controlled by the pilot of flight software or whether it is aerodynamic), but they don't extend and retract as the inner slats.

Jens

Edited by jenshb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-4E outer slats move !!!! They are not fixed at all, however the range of movement is quite small so it's not easy to tell immediately in a picture if they are deployed or not.


In general a slat is a part of the wing located on the leading edge that when extended create a slot between itself and the wing. If there's no slot, then it's not a slat but a leading edge flap.

Some aircrafts have fixed slats (the Storch is a good example) and this arrangement is often called simply slotted wing (meaning there's a slot between the leading edge and the rest of the wing). It has nothing to do with the wing being inverted or not, it's used to indicate the presence of a fixed slot. Now the term can lead to confusion, as the presence of slots does not necessarily mean the presence of a fixed slat as the slot can simply be part of the wing surface.

Phantoms stabilator are classified as slotted and non slotted for the reasons above. The term "with fixed slats" could be used in a sense as the arrangement used kind of reminds of a slat structurally... however the part in front of the slot does not protrude beyond the leading edge, so in my opinion it would not be correct to call this "slatted".

The above courtesy of years spent studying aerospace engineering with dubious results....

Edited by Giorgio N
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys for all the information, all appreciated, Jonathan thank you very much for the pictures.

I can only think that the slotted / slatted tailplane were trialed on the FGR 2's OR, they need some spares in a hurry and had some laying around? Well maybe that is an explanation.

 

I cannot find the Black Box / Avionix FG.1 cockpit set, does anybody have one I could purchase / loan, or even send me some good pictures of it?

 

cheers Ali

Ali, unfortunately the BB set (#48072) is long OOP, but does come up on eBay occasionally. You can also pick them up at shows now and then; I got my last one at the Weston Super Mare show that way. This is a general shot of the contents I took a while back. If I get a chance this weekend, I'll take some detail photos and e-mail them to you:

Picture017.jpg

My take on the most likely explanation for the slotted stabilators on the 56 Sqn FGR2 would be that they were fitted as the only option available at the time. The FG1 fleet was running out of hours by then; 43 Sqn had to take on three ex-228OCU FGR2s in 1988 to replace time-expired FG1s until re-equipping with Tornado F3s. If the choice was 'fit the FG1 ones in stock or wait until we can rebuild the originals' (which would certainly have been costly), the decision would be simple - use what we've got. :)

 

Jonathan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other main difference between the FG.1 and FGR.2 was that the FGR.2 had an aircraft battery positioned in the fornt RH corner of the rear cockpit, just by the Nav's right foot rest. I think that the circuit breaker panel on the lower right hand side of the rear cockpit was also slightly different to that in the FG.1.

 

XVTonker  :pilot:

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...