Jump to content

1/32 Tamiya F-4E post-Vietnam- Kicked up a notch.


Recommended Posts

In most cases installing the carts is the last step in loading procedures, you don't want to have carts installed and accidently go off when you are loading a weapon to the rack/launcher. From the looks of it, at the aft wells, Panel 84 L & R seemed to be the most likely place to access the breeches. For the fwd wells, either Panel 114 L & R or the big panel between the wells would be the one. My guess anyway.

Jari

Link to post
Share on other sites
Both of those are scribed on the Tamiya kit. Are they painted grey like the bottom or another color?

Chuck, I've got photos where they're painted over in the local camouflage color, but by and large the pseudos were left bare fiberglass, the pale amber color which is the same color as the electroluminescent formation strip lights (slime lights). They did tend to get worn and dirty looking as you see in the Hill Gray F-4 photo.

Jari, you're probably right, in my photo above, the remove before flight tags on the live AIM-7 on the 68-0440 under tow are about where you'd think the access panels for putting carts in the breeches would be.

Scott W.

Edited by Scott R Wilson
Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone is interested in the details of the WCS (weapons control system)operation, I found a thread where a former Marine WCS tech gives a lot of detail about the AWG-10 in the F-4J and S. That radar set was quite similar to the APQ-120 in the F-4E from what I gather. I did learn that the AWG-10 could be set to one of fourteen available frequencies, so the radar cal guys set each of the squadron's 18 jets to a different frequency (obviously with a few duplicates) so the radars didn't interfere with each other. He does say if a flight happened to have two jets on adjacent or the same freqs it could cause problems. That also explains the need to hot tune the AIM-7s better than my explanation.

Here's the link:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,149.0/all.html

Edit: I went back and re-read this article; the AWG-10 had eighteen frequencies it could be set to.

Edited by Scott R Wilson
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at that pic of the Munich F-4E after I did my work, I was a little afraid that I screwed things up. Note the position of that notch beside the square cut-out in that pic. It's away from the front fin slot.......

F-4Elauncher1.jpg

Yet in Marcel's pic (and Scott's pic earlier), it's within the fin slot......

F-4Elauncher2.jpg

Any idea why- and what the heck is that square hole contraption anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at that pic of the Munich F-4E after I did my work, I was a little afraid that I screwed things up. Note the position of that notch beside the square cut-out in that pic. It's away from the front fin slot.......

F-4Elauncher1.jpg

Yet in Marcel's pic (and Scott's pic earlier), it's within the fin slot......

F-4Elauncher2.jpg

Any idea why- and what the heck is that square hole contraption anyway?

I sure wish I knew about the notch. The square contraption with the half hole in the side according to Jari is one of two attachments that held the missile in place until it fired. If you look at Jari's AIM-7 photo in post #494, look between the missile wings and you'll see a silver mushroom shaped thingy (at the right side edge of his photo) that slid into this piece's half-circle cutout. By the way, the AIM-7's forward fins were called "wings", the rear ones are fins. The large rear fins on an AIM-9 are likewise the wings. The notch you are asking about seems to be lined up with the missile wing attach point. The Munich photo is of the right hand launcher, the little mushroom attachment on the missile would be at the 10:30 position looking from the rear forward. The other photos are of the left launcher; the missile would be loaded rotated 90 degrees to the right for loading so the mushroom thingy is at the 1:30 position. The notch you're asking about seems also to be moved to align with the same missile wing when the missile is rotated 90 degrees to fit the left or right side launcher. I sure hope I'm being clear on this. Now what the notch is actually for, you got me...

Edited by Scott R Wilson
Link to post
Share on other sites

The notch you're asking about seems also to be moved to align with the same missile wing when the missile is rotated 90 degrees to fit the left or right side launcher. I sure hope I'm being clear on this. Now what the notch is actually for, you got me...

Well, I guess I just discovered another boo-boo, because in Jake's book it shows the same thing on the starboard side on another aircraft. It appears that the notch is on the "wing" slot on the port side, but on the inner fuselage side of the starboard.

Back to the drawing board (again)! :bandhead2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any good photos that might show what the notch is for. If you look at the left rear missile well in this photo you can see the same notch in the same position as the other forward left missile well photos:

F-4EBDU-38B61ScottWilson.jpg

I have some photos that might be of interest to the other modelers here who want to put AIM-7s and AIM-9s on their models. Here's a couple of photos I took at George AFB in October 1982 during a load training session:

AIM-7E-2

AIM-7E-2GeorgeAFBOctober1982ScottRWilson.jpg

AIM-9P-3

AIM-9P-3GeorgeAFBOctober1982ScottRWilson.jpg

Captive AIM-7E on the F-4C at the Minnesota ANG Museum, Minneapolis, my photo:

AIM-7EonF-4C.jpg

Photo from the web of an AIM-7F on an F-4G, a captive trainer painted like live ordnance at the AF Museum. The red stripe should be brown:

AIM-7.jpg

Edited by Scott R Wilson
Link to post
Share on other sites

Chuck, here's another photo I took at Zaragoza showing the two dielectric panels by the right forward missile well:

74-1630rightnose.jpg

For whatever reason, the F-4E only had one pseudo feed horn dielectric panel on the left side:

ALQ-131NellisMarch1982ScottRWilson.jpg

Off the current topic, but I just found this photo I took awhile back of a QF-4E showing the gap between the stabilator and fuselage as well as the slotted leading edge, in case it's useful:

Scan925.jpg

More photos I took at Ramstein for the guys putting live missiles on their Phantoms, note the AIM-7Fs on the left have different exhausts than the AIM-7E-2s on the right. The AIM-7E-2 had a styrofoam plug in the exhaust that was stenciled in red "DO NOT REMOVE":

AIM-7E-2AIM-7FAIM-9P-3Sept181985-1.jpg

AIM-9P-3seekerandexhaustRamstein-1.jpg

I took the dome cover and fuse cover off this AIM-9P-3 for this photo:

AIM-9P-3seekerwarheadproxfuseRam-1.jpg

AIM-9P-3pairRamsteinSeptember181-1.jpg

AIM-9P-3missilesRamsteinSept1819-1.jpg

The wings and tail fins were kept in a metal case while the AIM-7E-2 was in storage:

AIM-7E-2andAIM-9P-3RamsteinSept1-2.jpg

Edited by Scott R Wilson
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great reference pics as usual Scott (right click/ save, right click/ save, right click/ save). I actually have one of my own- and it's of the rear starboard missile well on the QF-4 I photographed at Nellis a few years ago. Like the front missile well, the notch is inward just below the square hole and not in the wing slot. Note that I'm now calling it a "wing slot" rather than a "fin slot". :salute:

SparrowLauncher11.jpg

To replicate this I would have to extend the square hole to make it a larger rectangle, which I think would mess up the look I've tried to create and would like poor work. Sometimes what is real isn't always what looks good, so I'll fill in the notch on the wing slot on both starboard missile wells and then call it a day. I can hardly wait until a contest judge docks me for "inconsistent details on fuselage bottom". You could hardly blame them without a lot of these pics.

Re-reading Jari's Post #494, it appears that this square notch has a hanger within it that crabs the circular pin on the right between the wings below. This still doesn't give me a clue as to why that notch is cut-out differently on either side of the aircraft though.....

F-4Elauncher3.jpg

Edited by chuck540z3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great pics of those sparrows. I'm surprised at how beat up and weathered looking they are. Definitely not a case of just hitting them with a quick coat of glossy white!

I think it has to do with there being a full load of live AIM-7s and AIM-9s inside each TAB-V as you see here, where they were exposed to dirt, jet exhaust on the first launch of each day (after the last sortie of the day the jets were "stuffed" into the TAB-V, and on the first "go" of the next day we started engines inside the TAB-V, and after somewhere between five to ten minutes of pre-taxi checks the jet taxied out of the shelter), and numerous uploads and downloads over the years during integrated combat turn exercises (which I'd never even heard of stateside). All in all, I'm sure USAFE's missiles looked much more worn than your typical stateside missile. Even stateside units with an alert commitment kept their missiles inside clean storage facilities except when they were uploaded on alert aircraft, so they weren't exposed to the dirt, handling and jet exhaust of USAFE (and I'd guess PACAF too) missiles. Compare the missiles in the TAB-V I photographed with the ones at George AFB, which certainly look a lot more pristine.

Scott W.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re-reading Jari's Post #494, it appears that this square notch has a hanger within it that crabs the circular pin on the right between the wings below. This still doesn't give me a clue as to why that notch is cut-out differently on either side of the aircraft though.....

I think I have an idea what the notches might be for, but not why they are on different locations for each side. In your photo, Chuck, the square bracket thingy with the half-circle cutout is pivoted forward as though to release the missile and let it drop. Perhaps the notch is there for the weapons guys to put a tool up inside to release this hanger bracket for loading the missile. Anyway, I agree that just leaving off the notch is probably a good thing to do. As you said without your photos right next to your model no one is ever going to know the notches are correctly done, and you're right that people who don't know better would think them a mistake.

Scott

Edited by Scott R Wilson
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it has to do with there being a full load of live AIM-7s and AIM-9s inside each TAB-V as you see here, where they were exposed to dirt, jet exhaust on the first launch of each day (after the last sortie of the day the jets were "stuffed" into the TAB-V, and on the first "go" of the next day we started engines inside the TAB-V, and after somewhere between five to ten minutes of pre-taxi checks the jet taxied out of the shelter), and numerous uploads and downloads over the years during integrated combat turn exercises (which I'd never even heard of stateside). All in all, I'm sure USAFE's missiles looked much more worn than your typical stateside missile. Even stateside units with an alert commitment kept their missiles inside clean storage facilities except when they were uploaded on alert aircraft, so they weren't exposed to the dirt, handling and jet exhaust of USAFE (and I'd guess PACAF too) missiles. Compare the missiles in the TAB-V I photographed with the ones at George AFB, which certainly look a lot more pristine.

Scott W.

Interesting. I just assumed that being a high tech weapon, they were kept in some sort of hermetically sealed container until being uploaded. I really like the they way they look, especially that AIM-7 with the cream colored body section and the general grunge all over it. Even the AIM-9's have some variation. White fins, grey fins, white noses, white forward sections, mostly grey forward sections, etc. From a modeling standpoint, it really adds some variety and color to the aircraft.

I'm actually tempted to start an F-4 after seeing all these pictures but then I'll remember how awesome this project is and I know my efforts will never come close.... sigh.......

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Aero-7A Launcher the manual lock/unlock actuator is located at the back of the launcher near the breeches and is accessed thru the panels to manually lock and unlock the launcher hooks. As for the notch being removal of the wings, all pics I’ve seen show all but the bottom wing installed during loading so there wouldn’t be any need to remove the wings prior to removing the missile.

However my theory on the notch is since it is located near the front hanger/hook, it has to do with positive locking of the launcher hooks. On the CF-18 when loading the AIM-7 there was an indicator on both the LAU-115 & LAU-115 that gave a physical indication that the missile hangers/lugs were in the proper location and it was safe to lock the hooks securing the missile to the launcher. The indicator was extended out prior to loading and would go flush when the missile was seated properly. Perhaps on the F-4 it was the same, an indicator would protrude from the notch and once the missile was aligned, the indicator would go back inside. There would be an audible click when it did and most likely the crew would be able to visually confirm it as well. My theory.

Jari

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Aero-7A Launcher the manual lock/unlock actuator is located at the back of the launcher near the breeches and is accessed thru the panels to manually lock and unlock the launcher hooks. As for the notch being removal of the wings, all pics I’ve seen show all but the bottom wing installed during loading so there wouldn’t be any need to remove the wings prior to removing the missile.

However my theory on the notch is since it is located near the front hanger/hook, it has to do with positive locking of the launcher hooks. On the CF-18 when loading the AIM-7 there was an indicator on both the LAU-115 & LAU-115 that gave a physical indication that the missile hangers/lugs were in the proper location and it was safe to lock the hooks securing the missile to the launcher. The indicator was extended out prior to loading and would go flush when the missile was seated properly. Perhaps on the F-4 it was the same, an indicator would protrude from the notch and once the missile was aligned, the indicator would go back inside. There would be an audible click when it did and most likely the crew would be able to visually confirm it as well. My theory.

Jari

Thanks Jari. I think it might just be something very simple and I'm over analyzing everything. A good possibility is that the square hanger part has the notch on the right side of it (as you look at the bottom of the aircraft) so it always points towards the port side, rather than have a mirror image of itself on either side. Now that I think of it, I'm sure that's all it is and more importantly, it doesn't friggin' matter anyways! Let's got on with this build! :cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The launchers were basically the same, only difference was whether it was a left hand launcher or a right hand launcher. Of course that doesn't mean each side had their own parts, some parts were specific to a side while other parts, mostly internal, were interchangable that's why you would see things on the same side no matter which launcher it was. But as you said, let's get on with this build. So what do you plan, if anything, to hang from the pylons?

Jari

Link to post
Share on other sites

The launchers were basically the same, only difference was whether it was a left hand launcher or a right hand launcher. Of course that doesn't mean each side had their own parts, some parts were specific to a side while other parts, mostly internal, were interchangable that's why you would see things on the same side no matter which launcher it was. But as you said, let's get on with this build. So what do you plan, if anything, to hang from the pylons?

Jari

Glad you asked, because I'm almost ready to get to that stage. Since I'm doing 68-0393 during TAM 80 using the AirDOC decals, I would like to put a Pave Spike pod on the left front/port station and leave the other stations empty. That's why I'm bothering with the detail within the missile wells, because this stuff will show, unlike if I was to plug up all four stations with AIM-7's. I'll have the usual fuel tanks on the outside pylons and I'll have SUU-21 bomb dispensers on the inboard pylons, which I have already purchased. Here's how things should generally look when done (including my sig pic):

http://www.airfighters.com/photo/20625/L/USA-Air-Force/McDonnell-Douglas-F-4E-Phantom-II/68-0393/

Now the questions for you and Scott:

1) The Pave Spike pod is not available in 1/32, but an ALQ-131 pod is. Could this be used as an alternative? The Pave Spike looks like a model in itself to create, but I might be able to pull it off if it's a must.

2) On top of the SUU-21 bomb dispensers, I'd like to add a few AIM-9J practice missiles since the missile rails are sitting empty. Is this OK or a non-starter with the dispensers below?

3) I might delete the center line tank. It looks like the older "Royal" one to me which I used on my last F-4J project and I already have a spare tank from a Revell kit. Do you guys think this tank adds or subtracts from the look, considering I already have 4 tank-like things hanging below? (My sig pic doesn't have it either).

Thanks to prior input, I already know that I need to chop off the rear cone of the SUU-21's (they were made for F-104's) and to add rear fins to the center line tank.

Your input and feedback is always appreciated.

Edited by chuck540z3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some answers for you:

1. You'd have to check to see if the ALQ-131 was operational in 1980.

2. Normally only 1 practice missile would be required, any more would be extra weight unless checking of launchers is required so perhaps one on each i/b pylon. Even with air to ground equipment under the pylons, self defence capability would be nice.

3. It's up to you if you wish to add a tank or not.

Perhaps you could have a SUU-21 on one pylon and a TER on the other side with a 7 tube rocket pod it so the crew could practice bombing and rocketing on the same mission.

PM me as i have some info on the SUU-21, the CF-104 carried the MN-1A which was basically the same as the SUU-21.

Jari

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some answers for you:

1. You'd have to check to see if the ALQ-131 was operational in 1980.

2. Normally only 1 practice missile would be required, any more would be extra weight unless checking of launchers is required so perhaps one on each i/b pylon. Even with air to ground equipment under the pylons, self defence capability would be nice.

3. It's up to you if you wish to add a tank or not.

Perhaps you could have a SUU-21 on one pylon and a TER on the other side with a 7 tube rocket pod it so the crew could practice bombing and rocketing on the same mission.

PM me as i have some info on the SUU-21, the CF-104 carried the MN-1A which was basically the same as the SUU-21.

Jari

My opinion? One CAP-9P if any (I don't recall ever seeing more than one on an F-4E), leave off the centerline bag unless you can get one from a Tamiya F-4J (Revell's is inaccurately shaped in my opinion), use the SUU-21s for sure. I really don't know when ALQ-131 came into service, I know I was seeing them at Red Flag in 1982. I have a photo of 68-0393 at Red Flag in February 1982 with an ALQ-131 uploaded. Pave Spike was more accurate for TAM-80 but what the heck, why not a little artistic license here and there? And who's to say that during some of the mission tasking during TAM 80 they didn't download the Spike pods and upload ALQ-131s? I went through my photos and couldn't find any with both SUU-21s and CAP-9s together, but that's not to say it wasn't possible to carry both. I believe they tended to load up the jet for a particular tasking on training sorties, and for bombing competitions they likely weren't going to waste gas in air-to-air when they'd want all their gas avalable for multiple bomb runs. I'm just speculating here, you know. Also, check out this load on a 512th bird on June 26, 1980, photo (obviously) from Airfighters.com:

68-0412June261980.jpg

Edited by Scott R Wilson
Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion? One CAP-9P if any (I don't recall ever seeing more than one on an F-4E), leave off the centerline bag unless you can get one from a Tamiya F-4J (Revell's is inaccurately shaped in my opinion),

I just love proving myself wrong. I took photos not long ago of an F-4 old style centerline tank:

100_0162.jpg

100_0159a.jpg

100_0160.jpg

Here's the Revell 1/32 tank, note how it's thicker towards the front, and differently shaped than the real tank I photographed?

004.jpg

But, as I was going through all my reference books looking for a photo of an F-4 carrying both an SUU-21 pod and CAP-9, I found these photos in a Koku Fan book, which match the shape of the Revell tank!

011.jpg

012.jpg

013.jpg

014.jpg

So I immediately fired up my computer and checked the photos I'd downloaded, and guess what? During TAM 80 the centerline tank shape matched the Revell tank shape:

68-0513TAM80.jpg

I don't know when the USAF changed the centerline tank shape. I did find quite a few photos of F-4s with the same tank shape as the real one I'd photographed, so evidently they were purchased in both flavors.

And sorry Chuck, I didn't find a single photo of an F-4 carrying both a SUU-21 and captive Sidewinder at the same time.

Scott W.

Edited by Scott R Wilson
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. I think I'll make up the Revell tank and just see how things look before I commit to attaching it. Meanwhile, I have some Cutting Edge AIM-9J/N/P missiles coming that came at GREAT cost to the management (just try and find these era-specific suckers!), so I'm sure I'll stick one on each side, just 'cause.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. I think I'll make up the Revell tank and just see how things look before I commit to attaching it. Meanwhile, I have some Cutting Edge AIM-9J/N/P missiles coming that came at GREAT cost to the management (just try and find these era-specific suckers!), so I'm sure I'll stick one on each side, just 'cause.

Sounds good. I can't recall if I put these up on this thread already, but here's photos a guy in England took of the swaybrace attachments built in to the aft fuselage that engage the rear tank fins:

sway01.jpg

sway02.jpg

sway03.jpg

sway04.jpg

sway06.jpg

sway07.jpg

And the sway braces that unscrew out from the fuselage by the aux air doors:

sway08.jpg

sway09.jpg

Here's those sway braces stowed, the oil stain is across them:

1StarterDoors.jpg

Edited by Scott R Wilson
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...