FGR.2 Phantom - 111 Sqn RAF Leuchars 1975

[gengriz]

.... next up, a dirty mud-moving Phantom, trying its best to do Air Defence.  111 Sqn formed up on the FGR.2 Phantom  at RAF Coningsby in 1974, but quickly moved to RAF Leuchars as the Phantom took over most Air Defence activities from the Lightning.

 

 

In comparison to 43 Sqn's (RN surplus) FG.1s already at Leuchars, the FGR.2 was optimised for ground attack and reconnaissance and not quite so suited to QRA.  As soon as ex-RN Phantoms became available in 1979 as HMS ARK ROYAL Paid off, 111 swapped over to the FG.1.

 

 

This and the RN's extra dark grey Phantoms are what I envisage whenever someone says Phantom.  Ugly and mean looking, they convey brute strength and aggression in a way that no modern aircraft can do.

 

 

These are a mix of Xtradecal markings with a few smaller Modeldcal ones thrown in to backfill those that were missing.  I've fitted a gorund attack weapon load just to emphasise that it is not an FG.1.  I asume that 111 retained this capability throughout their time on the FGR.2 and certainly one of the roles of the Leuchars based aircraft was support to RN ships, for which it would be a reasonable load (not as good as a Buccaneer though!).

 

 

Once again, I really love these Fujimi kits, this one being the improved (H19) version with dropped flaps and corrected auxiliary air intakes.  I didn't use the vinyl wheels as I have heard that they deteriorate quickly with age. As usual, paints are Humbrol enamel, applied by hairy stick and trembling hand.....

 

 

FredT

 

With a"pretty" F-4N:

 

 

When the sun comes out and i can find a bigger table, I will do another group shot with the rest of my F-4s,

 

 

[BerndM]

Excellent build and a stunning collection.

[cardiff guy]

nice work, well done.

[SAT69]

9 hours ago, gengriz said:

As usual, paints are Humbrol enamel, applied by hairy stick and trembling hand.....

Now if I can teach my hands to tremble so well, my paint work would look as good as yours ... and yours looks great! Very nice model and your collection is very impressive. 

[Sumosan]

Very nice Tremblers Phantom.  I think the Fujimi kits make better models than the Airfix version; the panel lines are too prominent on the latter.

 

By all means hang what you want on your creations, but I very much doubt a 111 Sqn jet ever carried anything other than an air defence load out as 111 was a dedicated air defence unit.  The support to the RN was to provide air defence of the fleet, a task the FGR2 was admirably suited to.  The extra 'R' compared to the FG1 meant that the aircraft had the capability to carry the specially developed centreline reconnaissance pod.  The other differences were the extendable nose wheel leg and slatted tailplane on the FG1 to enable operation from RN carriers, which the FGR2 lacked.  Both were equally capable in the air defence role.

[Maginot]

Crikey! There's more Phantoms than Highgate cemetery. Nice work on XV416.

[John_W]

Lived in Leuchars from 69 to 78. 

The sound of a pair of these flying over the school was a regular part of my childhood. Nice build.

[Duncan B]

A very fine Phantom collection you have there. 

 

111sqn was a dedicated Air Defence unit so never carried A to G loads. When they did swap over onto the ex 892sqn FG.1 their serviceability was so poor that they became the butt of many a joke and it got so bad that in the end a decision was made to swap some of 43sqn's aircraft over to 111sqn which did not go down well with 43sqn at all. 

 

Duncan B

[PLC1966]

Lovely set of Phantoms there, well done on having the patience to do all those stencils....

 

Not sure your thoughts around the FG1 being more suitable for the fighter role than the FGR2 have any real basis.  23, 56 at Wattisham,  19, 92 at Wildenrath, , 29 at Coningsby ,1435Flt down South  all coped with using the FGR2 rather than the FG1.  As I understand it, 111Sqn went to FG1 from FGR2  mainly so both Leuchars Sqn were flying the same variant, nothing more.

 

 

Just re-read the thread above, hand painted...wow, great work.

[gengriz]

Oops - sounds like my Matra Pods may need to do a quick swap over onto a Fleet Air Arm FG.1 !   I had assumed that the 111 FGR.2s would have retained a secondary ground attack capability, since that was the FGR.2s forte and the F-4 was always intended to be a multi-role aircraft.  But are the RAF really that inflexible (do I need to ask?0 "Thou shalt not do ground attack as you are an AD Sqn" ?    They certainly kept the SUU-23 gun pods, which the USAF had abandoned as A2A weapons because of their inaccuracy/dispersion - plenty of pictures of 111 aircraft carying them.

 

My assertion that the FGR.2 was less suited for QRA is repeated in a lot of references - e.g. the attack intertial navigation system requires some time to settle after startup  - 12 minutes for full alignment, or a few minutes on a pre-determined heading.  The ex-naval aircraft did not carry this and could (in theory) press the button and go.  I believe later FGR.2s on Air Defence duties had this system removed. 

 

However, it does seem credible that 111s swap to FG.1s was driven by standardisation and costs as much as anything - although 228 OCU retained their FGR.2s at Leuchars into the 1990s.   Mea culpa!

[Duncan B]

48 minutes ago, gengriz said:

Oops - sounds like my Matra Pods may need to do a quick swap over onto a Fleet Air Arm FG.1 !   I had assumed that the 111 FGR.2s would have retained a secondary ground attack capability, since that was the FGR.2s forte and the F-4 was always intended to be a multi-role aircraft.  But are the RAF really that inflexible (do I need to ask?0 "Thou shalt not do ground attack as you are an AD Sqn" ?    They certainly kept the SUU-23 gun pods, which the USAF had abandoned as A2A weapons because of their inaccuracy/dispersion - plenty of pictures of 111 aircraft carying them.

 

My assertion that the FGR.2 was less suited for QRA is repeated in a lot of references - e.g. the attack intertial navigation system requires some time to settle after startup  - 12 minutes for full alignment, or a few minutes on a pre-determined heading.  The ex-naval aircraft did not carry this and could (in theory) press the button and go.  I believe later FGR.2s on Air Defence duties had this system removed. 

 

However, it does seem credible that 111s swap to FG.1s was driven by standardisation and costs as much as anything - although 228 OCU retained their FGR.2s at Leuchars into the 1990s.   Mea culpa!

Don't go putting the Matra pods on the FFA aircraft either, they were never carried by FAA aircraft. The FAA had their own 2" rocket pods that were designed specifically for operating from Carriers. I wasn't an Amourer so can't tell you what the issues were but the RAF SNEB pods were not cleared for Carrier Ops (with the exception of the Falklands conflict and even then the RN weren't happy). I think I'm correct in saying that any reference to the Attack INS start up times on QRA would have been with regards to QRA in the Strike role in Germany and not in Air Defence but stand to be corrected on that one as I wasn't a Nav-Insty either lol.

 

With regards to the SUU guns, the FAA FG.1s never carried them, they weren't even wired up for them. The Leuchars based RAF FG.1s went through a modification program to introduce them in the mid 70's.

 

The decision to switch 111sqn onto the FG.1 was purely to simplify logistics at Leuchars as the FG.1 had a whole host of unique parts, some significant like the mark of engines used. The arrival of 228 OCU was at the very end of the Phantom era and  came about with the need to free up Coningsby for the ramp up in Tornado F3 operations.

 

Anyhow none of the above takes away from that grand collection of Phantoms you are amassing.

 

Duncan B

 

 

[Tony G]

4 hours ago, Duncan B said:

A very fine Phantom collection you have there. 

 

111sqn was a dedicated Air Defence unit so never carried A to G loads. When they did swap over onto the ex 892sqn FG.1 their serviceability was so poor that they became the butt of many a joke and it got so bad that in the end a decision was made to swap some of 43sqn's aircraft over to 111sqn which did not go down well with 43sqn at all. 

 

Duncan B

Typical the Navy give the RAF their cherished phantoms and they constantly break them.  Moral of the story never let a RAF near your toys, they will crash or break them.

[Duncan B]

19 hours ago, Tony G said:

Typical the Navy give the RAF their cherished phantoms and they constantly break them.  Moral of the story never let a RAF near your toys, they will crash or break them.

....or don't buy second hand rubbish from the Royal Navy 🤣. Every landing on the Ark was a 'crash', why couldn't they have built it the size of a proper runway lol?

 

Duncan B

[ColinChipmunkfan]

Love the new Phantom- paintwork is excellent.  A very impressive Phantom collection!!

Colin

[Adam Poultney]

On 01/05/2022 at 14:41, gengriz said:

When the sun comes out and i can find a bigger table, I will do another group shot with the rest of my F-4s,

 

Nice collection of Phantoms! It's a great start but I think you need to build a few more though...

Do you have any more photos of those fantastic (phantastic?) Royal Navy ones? 

[Tony G]

6 hours ago, Duncan B said:

....or don't buy second hand rubbish from the Royal Navy 🤣. Every landing on the Ark was a 'crash', why couldn't they have built it the size of a proper runway lol?

 

Duncan B

Its not the size it is what you can do with it.

[gengriz]

On 5/3/2022 at 11:39 AM, Adam Poultney said:

Do you have any more photos of those fantastic (phantastic?) Royal Navy ones? 

Lots of pictures of all of them on my website (link on my signature - then go to "Specific Types" on the menu and choose "F-4 Phantoms") :

 

I'm aiming at a 700P one next!

 

FredT

Edited May 16, 2022 by gengriz
direct link to my website removed as per site policy

[Tony G]

On 02/05/2022 at 13:25, Duncan B said:

Don't go putting the Matra pods on the FFA aircraft either, they were never carried by FAA aircraft. The FAA had their own 2" rocket pods that were designed specifically for operating from Carriers. I wasn't an Amourer so can't tell you what the issues were but the RAF SNEB pods were not cleared for Carrier Ops (with the exception of the Falklands conflict and even then the RN weren't happy). I think I'm correct in saying that any reference to the Attack INS start up times on QRA would have been with regards to QRA in the Strike role in Germany and not in Air Defence but stand to be corrected on that one as I wasn't a Nav-Insty either lol.

 

With regards to the SUU guns, the FAA FG.1s never carried them, they weren't even wired up for them. The Leuchars based RAF FG.1s went through a modification program to introduce them in the mid 70's.

 

The decision to switch 111sqn onto the FG.1 was purely to simplify logistics at Leuchars as the FG.1 had a whole host of unique parts, some significant like the mark of engines used. The arrival of 228 OCU was at the very end of the Phantom era and  came about with the need to free up Coningsby for the ramp up in Tornado F3 operations.

 

Anyhow none of the above takes away from that grand collection of Phantoms you are amassing.

 

Duncan B

 

 

You can never have enough rocket pods

[Bertie McBoatface]

Nice model, shame about the choice of squadron. (43 Forever!)

 

Seriously, that's a lovely build.

[Notty]

I think I’m in love. Always have been with Phantoms, esp immaculate & flawlessly presented RAF examples like this 😍