F-4C Phantom question

[32scalelover]

I have seen the lithograph of Olds 680 showing the chinless radome but never seen an actual photo.  The Litho also shows a centerline fuel tank.

 

Greg

[Finn]

This site gives some details:

 

http://www.8tfw.org/pages/8thhistory1967.htm

 

Jari

[Tony T]

4 hours ago, Finn said:

This site gives some details:

 

http://www.8tfw.org/pages/8thhistory1967.htm

 

Jari

 

According to that account the aircraft carried three fuel bags — c/l + outboard wings.

It also states the aircraft selected for the mission all featured the newer MAU-12 type "curvy" inner wing pylons (not the older "pointy" LAU-17 Navy types) and that the ECM pod was carried on Station 2 = left inner wing curvy pylon. 

 

"Curvy" and "pointy" are my terms for descriptive clarity. 

 

I believe the outboard ECM and slick nose configuration was the one Olds flew on the low-level strike on a steel works. 

 

Tony 

[thierry laurent]

There is at least one picture of the Olds slick nose Phantom. I know it as I used it when I did the research work for the Zotz set some years ago. However where did I put the copy I had... ☹️ ? 

[32scalelover]

Man it seems like there are many different versions of this same story.  I read the account by Robin Olds in his book "Fighter Pilot" last night where he said for the Bolo mission the ecm pod was put on the right outer pylon as the early Phantoms were only rigged electrically compatible for the ecm pod on that pylon.  Later missions this was changed the location to an inner station.  He had to call a rep at Sandia  to get the connector plug for the pod since it was the same plug they used for nuclear weapons and the USAF tightly controlled their availability. He also stated they carried a centerline 600 gal tank as it was needed to make it to the target. He noted it was difficult to take off with a lopsided load ( wing tank on one wing, pod on other). It never mentioned anything about the slick nose.

[Barry]

20 minutes ago, 32scalelover said:

Man it seems like there are many different versions of this same story.  I read the account by Robin Olds in his book "Fighter Pilot" last night where he said for the Bolo mission the ecm pod was put on the right outer pylon as the early Phantoms were only rigged electrically compatible for the ecm pod on that pylon.  Later missions this was changed the location to an inner station.  He had to call a rep at Sandia  to get the connector plug for the pod since it was the same plug they used for nuclear weapons and the USAF tightly controlled their availability. He also stated they carried a centerline 600 gal tank as it was needed to make it to the target. He noted it was difficult to take off with a lopsided load ( wing tank on one wing, pod on other). It never mentioned anything about the slick nose.

 

I just reread the same and it is pretty detailed as to why.

As for the slick radome there we F-4Cs with the early D model radome but without a pic it's only conjecture! I would like to see photographic evidence.

 

Barry

[Tony T]

18 minutes ago, Jennings Heilig said:

I've never seen any definitive proof that 680 lacked the 'donkey dick'.  In this photo you can clearly see the aft end of it, and it's clearly there in numerous other photos of the aircraft taken after the mission.  

 

 

 

 

That's 64-0829 — you can see the serial on the write-up notes behind the NLG door.

 

Tony 

[Cheetah11]

Hi Greg

 

You also need different ejection seats, missiles and launchers. The ones in the Tamiya kit are not correct for 1967.

Btw the IPMS 1997 decal sheet also gives the no as 64-0829

Cheers

 

Nick

Edited November 12, 2019 by Cheetah11
Additional text

[Barry]

This group of photos are "supposedly" taken after the return for the Bolo mission. As you can see the aircraft pictured has no chin radome however there is noting that identifies it as 680 though it could be. So if you go with Olds recollection of events, aircraft and configuration then the Ferris painting/print " MiG Sweep" would be accurate.

 

 

 

 

 

Barry

[Finn]

Here is F-4C 63-7710, which was on the mission - Ford 02, the photo was taken after Bolo and it still has the Navy type pylons on the inboard and outboard:

 

http://www.piccianiaircraftphotos.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/63-7710-two.238145335_large.jpg

 

Jari

 

[Cheetah11]

 

I am a little confused. Why use a photo of ScatXXVII 0829 to prove or disprove anything when the a/c in question is 680.

[32scalelover]

6 hours ago, Barry said:

This group of photos are "supposedly" taken after the return for the Bolo mission. As you can see the aircraft pictured has no chin radome however there is noting that identifies it as 680 though it could be. So if you go with Olds recollection of events, aircraft and configuration then the Ferris painting/print " MiG Sweep" would be accurate.

 

 

 

 

 

Barry

Those are awesome!!!   Thanks for posting them.

 

Greg

Edited November 13, 2019 by 32scalelover

[32scalelover]

16 minutes ago, Finn said:

Here is F-4C 63-7710, which was on the mission - Ford 02, the photo was taken after Bolo and it still has the Navy type pylons on the inboard and outboard:

 

http://www.piccianiaircraftphotos.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/63-7710-two.238145335_large.jpg

 

Jari

 

Thanks for posting.  The more info the better.

 

Greg

[Tony T]

3 hours ago, Finn said:

Here is F-4C 63-7710, which was on the mission - Ford 02, the photo was taken after Bolo and it still has the Navy type pylons on the inboard and outboard:

 

http://www.piccianiaircraftphotos.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/63-7710-two.238145335_large.jpg

 

Jari

 

 

That's a great shot which shoots another hole in that article someone posted. Slick nose and outboard ALQ-71 pod on Bolo jets it is then. 

 

I've found the whole thing quite confusing and never realised the USAF used the pointy Navy pylons with the built-in Sparrow rail and TER adaptor for quite so long, but it did offer greater clearance between Sidewinders and TER/bombs.

Was it not Olds who made a length with two fists, saying he wanted the shops to weld extensions to the LAU AIM-9 rails so that the Sidewinders on MAU-12-equipped curvy pylons offered similar clearance?

But that may have been when the 8th TFW started getting all-up F-4Ds equipped with WRCS bombing computers, and AIM-4D Falcons in lieu of Sidewinders.

 

As for the infra red sensor fairing, my understanding is that it was fitted to USAF F-4Cs sans sensor but some used it for a rear-facing camera. Then Brunswick or Bendix started supplying slick radomes at the F-4C to early F-4D production point. Then the fleetwide order for AN/APR-25 RHAWS meant the donkey schlong came back to house the fwd receivers and amplifier (aft facing being housed in a fin cap pod above the rudder). So, Bolo F-4Cs must have lacked the RHAWS.

 

So the nuke circuitry in the outboard wing pylon was used for the ECM pod, which may have been jettisoned. 

 

Fascinating, and it goes to show how much influence Olds had. 

 

Tony 

 

 

[Cheetah11]

2 hours ago, Tony T said:

 

 

 

I've found the whole thing quite confusing and never realised the USAF used the pointy Navy pylons with the built-in Sparrow rail and TER adaptor for quite so long, but it did offer greater clearance between Sidewinders and TER/bombs.

 

 

 

 

Tony the Navy had the same problem with clearances. They overcame this by loading one Aim-9 and only two bombs on the TER (on the opposite side.) Only after around 1970 did the Navy get extensions allowing two missiles and a fully loaded TER to be carried per pylon. These extensions are in the F-4J from Tamiya.

 

BTW I have not seen one period photo of USAF Phantoms in Vietnam with both missiles and air-to-ground ordnance fitted together on the inside pylon.  I also cannot recall any model with the correct pylon/launcher combination for typical USAAF Vietnam Phantoms.

 

Nick