VOODOO73 Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 I'm starting Italeri 1/48 F-4E kit soon and I want load it with Falcon missiles under the wing stations.I need close up pictures Falcon and launch rails.Can anybody help me?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 A rather well known picture of an F-4E from Bitburg with a full load Click here And various other photos: Regards, Murph Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 I can tell you it didn't happen very often. A memorable dinner with Robin Olds had us rolling in the floor hearing his stories of how big a POS the Falcon was! It was a very rare event to have had them fitted to an F-4. J Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dmk0210 Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 I can tell you it didn't happen very often. A memorable dinner with Robin Olds had us rolling in the floor hearing his stories of how big a POS the Falcon was! It was a very rare event to have had them fitted to an F-4. He goes into it in his book too. What a big waste of money, just because the Air Force got their pride dented by using a Navy missile. The Falcon should have never left the drawing board. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wayne S Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 I can tell you it didn't happen very often. A memorable dinner with Robin Olds had us rolling in the floor hearing his stories of how big a POS the Falcon was! It was a very rare event to have had them fitted to an F-4.J He thought sticking a GUN on an aircraft (F-4) was a POS too, luckily when it came to modern warfare he was not around long. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mrvark Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I can tell you it didn't happen very often. A memorable dinner with Robin Olds had us rolling in the floor hearing his stories of how big a POS the Falcon was! It was a very rare event to have had them fitted to an F-4.J Actually, more than most people think. Note the missile on the left inboard pylon of Ritchie & DeBellvue's F-4D after their first kill on 10 May 72. AIM-4Ds weren't withdrawn from service permanently until 22 August 1972. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rex Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 "Falcons and a gun pod" were the first off-topic loadout I ever saw that pulled me away from Navy aircraft long enough to "stray" I HAD to do the loadout in Airfix Magazine on the F-4D with a bare radome back in a late sixties issue, both because of the nose, and because of the Falcons,,,,,,,I didn't do it until later on, though, when Hasegawa included the pylons and missiles in their 5000th Phantom boxing Rex Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andre Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Actually, more than most people think. Note the missile on the left inboard pylon of Ritchie & DeBellvue's F-4D after their first kill on 10 May 72. AIM-4Ds weren't withdrawn from service permanently until 22 August 1972. On USAFE Phantoms, including the F-4E, AIM-4's were seen well into the late Seventies. I have pictures of a FY74 32nd TFS 'E at Soesterberg with Falcons mounted. Cheers, Andre Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JRobinsonUSAF Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I'm starting Italeri 1/48 F-4E kit soon and I want load it with Falcon missiles under the wing stations.I need close up pictures Falcon and launch rails.Can anybody help me?? Sorry, best I could find. And I'm a retired weapons guy! http://www.slobberinwolfhounds.com/galleri..._4_phantom.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
waylandcool Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I think the AIM-4's were around into the 80's as the Air Force didn't retire the F-106 until the late 80's. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tobiK Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Sorry, best I could find. And I'm a retired weapons guy!http://www.slobberinwolfhounds.com/galleri..._4_phantom.html very nice pics! Here is F-4e with falcons too: http://www.slobberinwolfhounds.com/galleri...rder=&type= What about early IIAF F-4D's? The US sold the Falcons to Iran too? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) He goes into it in his book too. What a big waste of money, just because the Air Force got their pride dented by using a Navy missile. The Falcon should have never left the drawing board. The AIM-4 family predated the AIM-9 series; in fact, it was the first guided air to air missile developed for the USAF, and at one time actually carrried a fighter designation (F-98). I'm not a big fan of the AIM-4; however, they didn't just hang it on the Phantom because "they didn't want a Navy missile." On paper the AIM-4D had a lot to recommend it over the AIM-9. It had an extremely advanced IR seeker for the time and higher flight speeds which translated to a shorter time of flight or a longer range than the AIM-9B it replaced. It's problems were twofold and involved the seeker and the fusing. The seeker had an extremely limited coolant supply (two minutes worth or something like that), which meant it could only be cooled just prior to an engagement (good luck predicting that) or once actually involved in an engagement, with all the pre-HOTAS switchology fun that involved. For obvious reasons, people elected to wait till the engagement started and were in a position to shoot; unfortunately, once the missile was selected it still took several seconds to cool, which meant any chances for a fleeting shot would have passed by. So, while the seeker was a big advantage it was also the missile's achilles heel in a tactical enviroment; these limitations were nowhere near as bad when it was used in the strategic air defense role. The other problem with the missile was the fusing; it lacked a proximity fuse, which meant a near miss that would have detonated the warhead of the AIM-9 saw the AIM-4 go by with no effect. Additionally, the contact fuse, rather than using accelerometers to sense the sudden stop that meant impact, relied on the missile burying itself in the target to the point that the fuses on the leading edges of the wings (the white strips) contacted the target, so it was possible for the missile to hit the target but still not fuse. At the end of the day, the AIM-9B only had a Pk of around 9%, while the AIM-4D had one around 5%, so neither one was anything to get excited about. Regards, Murph Edited February 18, 2011 by Murph Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) BTW, if you're looking for an unusual load, check out the inboard wing pylons on this F-4D. AIM-4Ds on the inboard faces, and a TER on the bottom of the pylons carrying a pair of Mk-82s in a "flat two" configuration and an ECM pod on the bottom station of the TERs. Regards, Murph Edited February 18, 2011 by Murph Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spruemeister Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Now there's a model waiting to happen. Plop that down on a table and wait for the "ain't no such thing" comments to start. Rick L. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tony.t Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Actually, more than most people think. Note the missile on the left inboard pylon of Ritchie & DeBellvue's F-4D after their first kill on 10 May 72. AIM-4Ds weren't withdrawn from service permanently until 22 August 1972. Fabulous shot! My understanding is that Falcon could be used as a kind of IRSTS sensor. I am awaiting some notes from a guy who flew alert with Falcons Ds on F-4Ds. The AIM-4Ds used by F-4D/Es were withdrawn in August 1972, as Jim states, and his information is the most reliable around. The later F/G models were in service with the ANG until around 1986, on F-106As, which F-4s did not use. The 'D Falcons may have been cr** but they look good on a model - now to get somebody to make those, their unique pylons, and the various interations of ALQ-87 and -101 ECM pods! The photo reveals more to do! Tony T Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Various Hasegawa 1/48 F-4E kits came with the Falcon rails. Also the F-102s used them in the air to ground role. Jari Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) Don't know the dates the photos were taken but interesting ones none the less: http://366th-tfw.net/bruce-hill_photos4.htm scroll down to see some AIM-4Ds. Jari Edited February 18, 2011 by Finn Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wayne S Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 My understanding is that Falcon could be used as a kind of IRSTS sensor. I am awaiting some notes from a guy who flew alert with Falcons Ds on F-4Ds. The AIM-4Ds used by F-4D/Es were withdrawn in August 1972, as Jim states, and his information is the most reliable around. The later F/G models were in service with the ANG until around 1986, on F-106As, which F-4s did not use. Tony T The 1972 deal is most likely in theater "Nam" not the entire USAF. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wayne S Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 The AIM-4 family predated the AIM-9 series; in fact, it was the first guided air to air missile developed for the USAF, and at one time actually carrried a fighter designation (F-98). I'm not a big fan of the AIM-4; however, they didn't just hang it on the Phantom because "they didn't want a Navy missile." On paper the AIM-4D had a lot to recommend it over the AIM-9. It had an extremely advanced IR seeker for the time and higher flight speeds which translated to a shorter time of flight or a longer range than the AIM-9B it replaced. It's problems were twofold and involved the seeker and the fusing. The seeker had an extremely limited coolant supply (two minutes worth or something like that), which meant it could only be cooled just prior to an engagement (good luck predicting that) or once actually involved in an engagement, with all the pre-HOTAS switchology fun that involved. For obvious reasons, people elected to wait till the engagement started and were in a position to shoot; unfortunately, once the missile was selected it still took several seconds to cool, which meant any chances for a fleeting shot would have passed by. So, while the seeker was a big advantage it was also the missile's achilles heel in a tactical enviroment; these limitations were nowhere near as bad when it was used in the strategic air defense role. The other problem with the missile was the fusing; it lacked a proximity fuse, which meant a near miss that would have detonated the warhead of the AIM-9 saw the AIM-4 go by with no effect. Additionally, the contact fuse, rather than using accelerometers to sense the sudden stop that meant impact, relied on the missile burying itself in the target to the point that the fuses on the leading edges of the wings (the white strips) contacted the target, so it was possible for the missile to hit the target but still not fuse. At the end of the day, the AIM-9B only had a Pk of around 9%, while the AIM-4D had one around 5%, so neither one was anything to get excited about.Regards, Murph Food for thought, The jets that actually fielded both weapons AIM-9 and AIM-4 got the same percent of kills with each weapon. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JRobinsonUSAF Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Don't know the dates the photos were taken but interesting ones none the less:http://366th-tfw.net/bruce-hill_photos4.htm scroll down to see some AIM-4Ds. Jari Ah yes, rice bugs, the breakfast of champions. Held against the exhaust of a light all, they crisp up quick and taste oh so good on those long Thai nights! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dmk0210 Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 He thought sticking a GUN on an aircraft (F-4) was a POS too, luckily when it came to modern warfare he was not around long. Olds flew F-4Cs and F-4Ds. The gun on these aircraft was a pod that hung on the centerline pylon. It was a hack and was not stable for air-to-air combat. Olds felt that it wasn't worth the trade-off in fuel. There were a couple times in his book where he stated he could have gotten a kill if the F-4 had a gun. As far as I know, he never flew the F-4E with the integrated gun. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wayne S Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Olds flew F-4Cs and F-4Ds. The gun on these aircraft was a pod that hung on the centerline pylon. It was a hack and was not stable for air-to-air combat. Olds felt that it wasn't worth the trade-off in fuel. There were a couple times in his book where he stated he could have gotten a kill if the F-4 had a gun. As far as I know, he never flew the F-4E with the integrated gun. "If" it was such a hack how many kills did it have under an F-4D compared to the other close in weapons we are talking about in this thread, AIM-4 and AIM-9? I know a bit about the guy and thows that flew in other wings that dealt with other stuff he thought was a P.O.S. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 "If" it was such a hack how many kills did it have under an F-4D compared to the other close in weapons we are talking about in this thread, AIM-4 and AIM-9? I know a bit about the guy and thows that flew in other wings that dealt with other stuff he thought was a P.O.S. The pod was widely recognized as being unstable and was mainly geared towards air to ground strafing where accuracy wasn't as important. I forget how many kills were attributed to it but it wasn't very many. What Old really wanted was to fly a MiG instead of the F-4. He was quoted as saying that if he was in a MiG, he would have racked up many more kills. The Phantom was not a dogfighter, it was a big heavy, interceptor designed to shoot down Soviet bombers attacking carriers. It also did a great job as a bomber. However, it was not a particularly good platform when it came to shooting down agile fighters, as the A2A loss ratio in Vietnam will attest to. The fact that it got as many kills as it did over there is more a testament to the quality of the crews and less to the plane itself. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wayne S Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 The pod was widely recognized as being unstable and was mainly geared towards air to ground strafing where accuracy wasn't as important. I forget how many kills were attributed to it but it wasn't very many. In the F-4D it had more kills then the aim-9 and the aim-4, aim-4 and aim-9 had the same amount of kills in the F-4D. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dmk0210 Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) There certainly were guys that got kills with the gun pod and some guys were glad to have them. They were all very close-in kills due to the way that the NVAF fought. If you watch gun camera videos of this gun being fired, it is spraying all over the place. It was a hack, a quick and dirty fabricated solution to a problem that they had over there. The gun in the F-4E was the proper solution to the problem, but took longer and much more money. What I read from Robin Old's comments were, most of the guys were sent over there with very little training in the F-4. They were certainly not trained for ACM/dogfighting (and Olds is not the only one to say these things). He felt that the gun would give the pilots an opportunity to get themselves in trouble. He would rather they miss a kill than try to fight the Mig-17s fight. Olds was arrogant and opinionated, but he loved his guys and was trying to keep them alive. That is why he refused to use the gun and the Aim-4 (against orders, he had the F-4Ds in his wing re-wired for Aim-9s). Edited February 19, 2011 by dmk0210 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.