Phantom Friday
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 70
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Ok I am familiar with all of the noms de plume above except 'Max Burner' which surprises me somewhat as I was there too. Perhaps you could clarify without giving name in clear e.g 2nd from right 2nd row.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Royal Navy Phantom Weapon Loads
I appreciate that often used publicity photographs may not portray aircraft in representative operational condition. However, can anyone explain why there are virtually no pictures of Royal Navy FG1's with missiles loaded, even acquisition rounds or drill rounds? Am I right in thinking that RAF Phantoms usually carried at least two forward sparrow drill rounds,as it was beneficial to the C of G? If so, why not Navy Phantoms?
Also, given the FG1's role why were they never wired for the SUU-23/A gun? I know the FG1's were updated to include this facility when they were transferred to the RAF. Would it have not been a more versatile weapon than the Matra pods and bombs that there seem to be quite a few pictures of?
If anyone has some good pictures of Royal Navy Phantoms with a full missile load (that isn't on display at some shore based air show), can they please post some here?
Also, given the FG1's role why were they never wired for the SUU-23/A gun? I know the FG1's were updated to include this facility when they were transferred to the RAF. Would it have not been a more versatile weapon than the Matra pods and bombs that there seem to be quite a few pictures of?
If anyone has some good pictures of Royal Navy Phantoms with a full missile load (that isn't on display at some shore based air show), can they please post some here?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: England
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't got any photos of RN FG1's armed with 4x4 sparrows/ sidewinders but I can confirm that 892 sqn took thier turn doing Northern QRA in 1973 after they arrived at Leuchars in 1972.
Posted from PPRuNe.org App for Android
Posted from PPRuNe.org App for Android
Join Date: Aug 2010
Age: 90
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F4Uk
Never start with an apology - so I won't
F4Uk is available from Home | Firestreak Books
If you are a member of PPRuNe I'm happy to donate the postage and packing to the charity of your choice - let me know
If anyone can give me a simple heads up how to post images I will gladly
do so got lots of UK F4 pictures
The reason the FG1 didn't have the gun I'm told is that it would have be v hard to harmonise with a carrier landing performed and knocking the gun about
Hope I can put some nice images on here
Kind rgds
Ian black - scruffy fanny was what my mother called me !
F4Uk is available from Home | Firestreak Books
If you are a member of PPRuNe I'm happy to donate the postage and packing to the charity of your choice - let me know
If anyone can give me a simple heads up how to post images I will gladly
do so got lots of UK F4 pictures
The reason the FG1 didn't have the gun I'm told is that it would have be v hard to harmonise with a carrier landing performed and knocking the gun about
Hope I can put some nice images on here
Kind rgds
Ian black - scruffy fanny was what my mother called me !
RAF & RN Phantom Mark / Type Designations
John Eacott,
F-4K and F-4M were the US designations for UK Phantoms which had the UK military mark / type designations Phantom FG1 and FGR2 respectively.
F-4K and F-4M were the US designations for UK Phantoms which had the UK military mark / type designations Phantom FG1 and FGR2 respectively.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RH Phantom picture
Great picture "RAFEngO74to09", just the sort of thing I had in mind! However, is this a very unusual configuration? Four Sidewinders, Two Sparrows, Two drop tanks, two luggage pods and three Matras on the centreline hard point!
Also, is the patch underneath the port wing by the roundel, evidence of wing strengthening?
Also, is the patch underneath the port wing by the roundel, evidence of wing strengthening?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FG 1 Piccy
Rockets on the centreline - never very accurate. Problem was that the airflow around the fuselage gave the rockets a disturbed air mass for a significant part of their initial flight. With relatively low initial velocity this resulted in much more dispersion than from the wing stations and on 6 Sqn we stopped using the centreline station for Sneb in 1970.
Useful for carrying them somewhere if your usual stations have baggage pods on though?
Anyway - I really enjoy this thread and the other similar threads.
One of my earliest aviation memories was a 3 or 4 ship blasting off over the car from an air show (maybe very early Fairford) whilst we were waiting to get off the airfield. I think they were 226 (correction 228, thanks Captain) OCU.
Anyway - I really enjoy this thread and the other similar threads.
One of my earliest aviation memories was a 3 or 4 ship blasting off over the car from an air show (maybe very early Fairford) whilst we were waiting to get off the airfield. I think they were 226 (correction 228, thanks Captain) OCU.
Last edited by unmanned_droid; 5th Sep 2015 at 18:50.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA did not have a great reputation whilst carrying / living firing AIM 7;-
A free-fire exercise off the East Coast of USA cost many cases of gin and apologies for bagging a B66 jammer.
MPC or similar witnessed a slow cordite burn which resulted in a delayed motor ignition thence the missile proceeded forward over the wing!
A free-fire exercise off the East Coast of USA cost many cases of gin and apologies for bagging a B66 jammer.
MPC or similar witnessed a slow cordite burn which resulted in a delayed motor ignition thence the missile proceeded forward over the wing!
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seven tank and the dummy sparrow
I appreciate that often used publicity photographs may not portray aircraft in representative operational condition. However, can anyone explain why there are virtually no pictures of Royal Navy FG1's with missiles loaded, even acquisition rounds or drill rounds? Am I right in thinking that RAF Phantoms usually carried at least two forward sparrow drill rounds,as it was beneficial to the C of G? If so, why not Navy Phantoms?
We used to have to check that the no 7 tank was disabled during refuelling and I don't think I ever knew of one being filled. Not sure the FG1 had the 7 tank which might be why they didn't carry the shape all the time.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: West of Akrotiri & the B Sours
Age: 72
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiggy - Re Phandet.
The picture may well be the damaged F4 due to the cable engagement. It was about late November/early December 1982 and I think Madsox was the pilot. I was in the tower at the time with Sheriff JS and he remarked the pilot should have bolted. When we inspected the aircraft shortly after, the cable steel coupler had gone through a major part (no 14?) of the rear end and the whole lot would have come off if he had tried to get airborne. I do believe the front end was eventually stitched to the rear end of XV 436 "E" which overshot Coningsby's runway (sans crew) earlier to make a new airframe although I am not sure - just one of those stories.
Just to put the record straight, No 29 were the first F4s in the Falklands. OC Fadge went on 17 Oct 1982 to receive the heroes welcome and I went the next day as a pair with Jim, Budgie and Laurie. After 8.30 hrs flying and 14 tankers later, and after several practice approaches, I remember OC Ops telling us to keep 93% to stay in the RAG and we were thinking what a silly bug!er. What we did not realise was that it was a Navy type arrestor (an A RAG) and it was like hitting a brick wall compared to what we were used to. A few half eaten sandwiches migrated from the rear cockpit to the front. So he was right after all.
Oh and by the way, despite what has been said, CM was NOT there at the time (or at Ascension immediately beforehand - he was in the original detachment there much earlier when the war was on I think). He came to FI when we left to go home in December 82 ISTR.
The picture may well be the damaged F4 due to the cable engagement. It was about late November/early December 1982 and I think Madsox was the pilot. I was in the tower at the time with Sheriff JS and he remarked the pilot should have bolted. When we inspected the aircraft shortly after, the cable steel coupler had gone through a major part (no 14?) of the rear end and the whole lot would have come off if he had tried to get airborne. I do believe the front end was eventually stitched to the rear end of XV 436 "E" which overshot Coningsby's runway (sans crew) earlier to make a new airframe although I am not sure - just one of those stories.
Just to put the record straight, No 29 were the first F4s in the Falklands. OC Fadge went on 17 Oct 1982 to receive the heroes welcome and I went the next day as a pair with Jim, Budgie and Laurie. After 8.30 hrs flying and 14 tankers later, and after several practice approaches, I remember OC Ops telling us to keep 93% to stay in the RAG and we were thinking what a silly bug!er. What we did not realise was that it was a Navy type arrestor (an A RAG) and it was like hitting a brick wall compared to what we were used to. A few half eaten sandwiches migrated from the rear cockpit to the front. So he was right after all.
Oh and by the way, despite what has been said, CM was NOT there at the time (or at Ascension immediately beforehand - he was in the original detachment there much earlier when the war was on I think). He came to FI when we left to go home in December 82 ISTR.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Age: 90
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XV436
Bsweeper - XV436 never flew again it was taken i think to the range at Foulness - the one at Stanley was rebuilt - somewhere I've some shots of 436 in the field it was totally written off =
