Jump to content

Tony T

LSP_Members
  • Content Count

    5,787
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Tony T last won the day on February 13 2017

Tony T had the most liked content!

About Tony T

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 04/20/1958

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Brigstowe, land of seafaring Pirates
  • Interests
    RAF jets and Soviet PVO

Recent Profile Visitors

2,393 profile views
  1. Okay, in the absence of any answers have done some more research and it seems your mate was right, apologies - there did exist some kind of interlock preventing fwd Sparrows firing with the c/l tank in place, although it could be overridden by pulling the relevant circuit breakers and doing so was not forbidden. There was a similar inhibitor circuit preventing Sidewinder launch when the airbrakes were out to stop the rocket motor burning holes in the boards, but again the relevant circuit breakers could be pulled to override that. You can get back to your beer now,
  2. AFAIK the ALQ-87 was only ever carried on the c/l pylon of a few F-4D Phantoms in 1972-73 carrying GBU-8 HOBOS TV-guided smart bombs (on inner wing pylons), to avoid electronic interference. Otherwise, the pod was mounted under the inner wing pylons or fwd Sparrow well on adaptors on F-4D/Es. The ALQ-87 pod entered service around 1968, and F-4Cs going North ca.65-67 would generally have used the earlier ALQ-71, which could be mounted under the outboard wing pylon (e.g. as in Operation Bolo). Jennings does decals for the Bolo era Wolfpack F-4Cs and there's a thread on that here, som
  3. Do ask him, as it's genuinely interesting, and it would be nice to see the relevant NATOPS blurb to clear this up definitively. I have heard different versions with even F-4 pilots saying different things. I believe there was a danger in firing the fwd Sparrows with the c/l tank installed — heck, to a novice it looks a bit crowded, even if the missiles were pushed 18ins straight down from the jet before the rocket motor started — so that at some point in time the launch sequence circuitry was changed to prioritise the rear missiles. The tank would likely have to be jettisoned before firi
  4. I believe that is a myth. What I do know is that there was a limited supply of c/l bags and they were light when empty so crews were encouraged not to jettison them. The inhibitors were related to whether the target dot was within the Allowable Steering Error circle on the pilot's radarscope, and nothing to do with the fuel tank. 1972-73 the Navy's Top Guns relied more on gas-cooled Sidewinders which around 1972-73 had the '9G SEAM expanded acquisition capability, linked to the radar for initial target cueing, and shortly afterwards VTAS. They were the main MiG-killing weapon, Spa
  5. Yes, my mistake Eli, two AIM-7E-2's in just the aft wells on most Navy jets in the 1971-73 timeframe. The Navy were focusing tactics more on Sidewinder and obviously were burning off fuel from the F-4J's aft internal tank early so didn't need a missile counterbalance in the front wells (like, say, the RAF, which used dummy Sparrow body blue ballast in the front wells to counterbalance the no.7 fuel cell). All the best Tony
  6. I can see the smidgen of green now, so it's most likely European One after all, new in 1983. F-4E 74-1639 is quite possible, but why the weird hybrid data plate stencil? This must be some in-joke at Spangdahlem air base, based on spares poached from other jets so it could make Gunsmoke-83, or some such thing. Tony
  7. On reflection, that pic looks like it was taken much later than 1983: the paint looks like Hill Gray II semi-gloss gunship gray, which came in around 1985+, and it's likely a QF-4 drone from the late 'nineties or 'noughties made up from both airframes from the boneyard. More airframe in view would help. Tony
  8. Not heard of this particular Frankenphantom, but there's a possibility the formerly test status F-4E 284 received some proper operational E leftover parts after 236 was gutted going through the Class V sex change to an F-4G at Ogden in 1978. Tony
  9. Leave the wing blank, except for the pylon attach holes which are a bit different from the kit and slightly inboard of the Tamiya holes. Hopefully somebody can provide a couple of pics. Tony
  10. If Navy I'd go for four of each missile type with a c/l tank, and inboard wing pylon TERS with six Mk.82 LDGP (slick) or Mk.82 Snakeyes. I'd leave off the outboard wing pylons altogether unless doing a Marines jet. Cheers Tony
  11. Nice to see you again Eli. For 1972-73 AIM-7E-2s (with the L-stripes on the wings) and AIM-9D/Gs (whole front section in anodised metal) Tony
  12. The 1982 vintage Revell is actually quite nice as a canvas to detail-up (especially the cockpit and NLG), but is hard to find. Excellent value kit with slightly short tail fins. I have the Trumpeter F-14D unbuilt in its suitcase, complete with a host of AM including "essential" Zactomodels upgrades (inlets, wing seals and Phoenix pallet fronts) and I think it should build well when I eventually summon the courage to start it. However, if I wanted a swept wing F-14A I'd probably buy the Tamiya, with the caveat that the moulds have been updated to reflect a later configu
  13. Exactly that. The RF-4C edition is scarce but does make occasional appearances on on ebay. If Ali at Aerocraft made his (substitute Tamiya) clear parts fit the second generation Revells (via Thierry's suggested gasket, or shoe), the kit might be made to be very good indeed. Baris Tansoy was planning a big RF-4 at his Tan Models, but sadly that dream seems to have faded, along with the gorgeous vapourware Sea Flanker he teased us with. C'mon Revell, one more pop of the RF-4C/E kit. Tony
  14. I kindly ask you to understand that I was not on the beach, either — and neither were you. I read your post. I strongly suspect that if I were in the aircraft, say in the turret, I would know less than I know from seeing the ditching video. Cheers Joe — and lighten up a bit. Tony
×
×
  • Create New...