Jump to content

RAF Phantom left behind at STCAAME


Tramatoa

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, junglierating said:

Ah which one as in wires or chaff and flare 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Too much salt water on your flares must chaff surely?.............. ex-Crab attempts Naval humour 😉

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tramatoa said:

I have obtained an Airfix FGR2 for my next build despite Ian's cautionary post as I'm currently working on regenerating my decrepit modelling skills rather than trying to build the perfect Phantom. This came from Transport Models in Preston, a place I haven't visited in many a long year and I have to report it is well worth the effort. I was smiling when I went in and I was smiling when I went out and I have a feeling that this is going to be one of my happy places. 

 

The Phantom wasn't an aircraft I have anything other than a passing interest in so I have no intention of getting carried away, however I do have a couple of questions for you;

  • There is a superbly detailed earlier post on this forum regarding Q config for weapons and tanks. Can anyone tell me what the config would be for an aircraft at MPC? i.e. the config XT 895 would likely have been in when it departed on it's last sortie?
  • Was there ever an aftermarket solution to the Airfix pylons? 
  • When you put the kit Sidewinder next to the ones on the Revell Tornado the guidance fins are clearly different, the Airfix ones have straight leading edges while the Revell ones are concave. Are both correct?
  • Lastly, for no other reason than curiosity, what is the odd shaped pod provided in the kit? 

Thanks,

Tramatoa

 

 

 

My answers for you in the same order:-

1,   I went to STCAAME with 19(F) sqn in the late 80's. Missile firings were just as much about gathering information for accuracy on firing ranges and angles, as aircrew practice. Consequentially we had to fit several camera pods to capture all aspects of the firing.

A forward looking strike camera pod was fitted in the front left fuselage missile well (this is included in the kit I think). The outboard Sgt Fletcher fuel tanks and pylons were removed and plain outboard weapon pylons were fitted. These look exactly like the fuel tank pylons, so would just need separating from the tanks in the kit. To be totally accurate the pylons would need outboard MWA's (Multiple Weapons adapters) on the lower surface. But if you're not into rivet counting its not that obvious. Then a specially designed camera pod (now I've scrolled back up to see canberra kids post, its the missile monitoring pod) was fitted to the relevant side outboard pylon according to which station the missile was going to be fired from. Unfortunately Google would not come up with any pictures of this pod to show you. There would be nothing loaded to the centreline and the regular inboard pylons and Lau-7A's launchers would be fitted as most likely some missiles to be fired would be Sidewinders.

 

2,  I am unaware of what issue requires a solution for the inboard pylons. The only thing I've seen wrong is the usual kit manufacturers error of molding in inboard MWA's on the base of the pylons. These were never fitted on the air defence  Phantoms. Hasegawa/Revell are just as guilty in 1/48. They just need cutting off to leave a flat base to the pylon.

IMG-3632.jpg

 

3,The different shaped fins are from different versions of the AIM-9 Sidewinder. The steeply raked straight edge ones are from AIM-9G missiles which were the original version for the RAF & FAA Phantoms. The one's with the kinked leading edge are AIM-9L Sidewinders. First used on the Sea Harriers in the Falklands and used on Phantoms a year or 2 later. So for the time you are representing XT895 it would be firing 9L's so you need the Revell winders.

 

4,  I don't know which pod you refer too, but I'm guessing it's the EMI recce pod used by 2 and 41 Sqn's in the tactical recce role

https://www.seekanddestroy.info/blog/the-phantom-fgr2-emi-recce-pod

 

 

Hope this helps.

Rob.

Edited by Phone Phixer
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, canberra kid said:

@Tramatoa I think this is the missile tracking pod @Phone Phixer was referring to?

spacer.png

John

The one at Duxford in front of the FGR2 is a clean satin white if that helps.

 

i had a good look at the Duxford Phantom yesterday and noticed something I wasn't previously aware of. The additional air intake doors on the side of the fuselage and underneath are definitly red inside and I always thought the underwing brakes were also red on the insdie. Not on XV474; they have been oversprayed in LAG and have a pinkish tinge to them - obviouly oversprayed becasue there is a narrow strip which hasn't been masked properly. The cylinder of the actuating jack is also pink rather than red.

 

Whether this happened on all the Phantoms on respray - no idea.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

I was stationed at STCAAME when the shack arrived., prior to the 81 Valley open day. The shack was towed over and exhibited during the open day, and made the most money, so they de ided not to scrap it and flew in a 35 sqdn Vulcan instead. One of the flight lines produced a zap with Save the Shack, burn Valley applied, hence the Vulcan was the 1st to go, towed onto the grass adjacent to STCAAME and had its undercarriage blown off soon after. Broke my Vulcan heart. Should have saved the Vulcan and burnt STCAAME.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Nigel Bunker said:

Never trust a museum aircraft for colour finishes.

XV474 has not undergone restoration work and she is as she was when she flew in so the "pink" air brake interiors are original and genuine

 

However, at some point early in her time at Duxford, when she was parked outside, a Porsche garage used her for an advertising feature and plastered stickers on the tail, fuselage and tail and if you get close you can just see the odd related mark. What has always puzzled me though are the 2 areas just below the cockpit, symmetrical on both sides, where the paint seems to have been renewed.

You can see it here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajw1970/14052509361

 

Having been prompted by this thread to do some digging I can only assume that it's the unfaded paint which was covered by the cockpit covers and didn't suffer during the time outside.

 

Pictures showing Porsche markings and the cockpit covers here:

 

https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/registration/XV474

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...