JeffreyK Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 A quick Q for you Navy guys: the F-4 outer pylons were mounted vertically (as opposed to the Air Force variant), but to gain clearance from the landing gear things like MER's and TER's were angled outboard, correct? Now my question is, how was that achieved? By adjusting the sway braces asymmetrically (i.e. inboard side extended further than outboard side), or did the actual weapons adaptor have an angled lower surface (making also the sway brace arms asymmetrical)? If the adaptor itself was asymmetrical, that of course would have made it handed, i.e. a different one for port and starboard. Third option would be different types or thickness of sway brace pads on the MER's or TER's themselves... Cheers Jeffrey Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tailspin Turtle Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 My understanding is that there was an adapter to the Navy pylon. http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2016/01/f-4-phantom-outboard-pylon-and-mer.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JeffreyK Posted December 24, 2016 Author Share Posted December 24, 2016 Hi Tommy, yes, it's the adaptor that I'm talking about. But if I understand it correctly, the adaptor was ready and in use before MER's arrived, for single stores I assume... it wouldn't make sense to design the adaptor for something that wasn't yet developed...? I guess I have to go to Duxford and try to sneak close enough to the F-4J to find out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rex Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 As I understand it, the bomb dropping capability and the multiple weapons ideas were developed at the same time. When Finch was fooling around with a Multiple carriage rack for the Skyhawk (which was already carrying single bombs on a pylon), that demo was seen by the Marines and Navy brass, right around the same time that they were thinking about adding bomb dropping back onto the F-4 (it was originally the aircraft's mission design, but, taken off when they got built as interceptors, before production) So, if a person wanted to model the parts used to develop the concept for the F-4, he would use a weapons adapter on the outer pylon, and the MBR. The USAF worked at the same concept, using the MBR on their early Gray over White Phantoms. USAF is the entity that came up with the idea for 3 bombs on the inner pylon. There is a photo of a USAF Phantom with MBRs on the Wet pylon (so, obviously carried over from Navair),,,,and an early attempt at a "3 bomb inner pylon" looking beast. An actual working TER (that was a separate piece from the pylon) didn't come along until after the MER was developed. That ugly "3 bomb pylon" that the USAF tried to develop looked like a huge bomb rack and fairing on the bottom of the pylon, with a bomb rack faired in at an angle on each side, about up where the Sidewinder rail would be. Phantoms carried MBRs on the weapons adapter, on the Wet pylon,,,,,,until the Intruders went down over 'Nam from bomb separation issues,,,,,,once that happened, Intruders and Phantoms got MERs, and the MBRs all got distributed to the Crusader and Skyhawk squadrons. We still see MERs on Skyhawks after that, and still see an MBR on a Phantom for a while, though. (so, it wasn't a 100% division of the two racks between the squadron types, it was still a mix) Oh, and since the same weapons adapter was bolted onto the Wet pylon for bomb racks and missile rails, the sway braces were tightened to give the angle when a bomb rack was mounted (for MBR, MER, or TER), and tightened evenly when a missile rail was mounted out there. So, the only "handing" that a producer like you, Jeffrey, would have to do, is the type you already covered when you made your pylons before,,,ie: the top sway brace pads that you angled to match the wing on each side. If you were to file an angle on your pylons for right and left tilt, then the modeler couldn't use them for missile rails without taking off even more material,,,,,and they will wind up undersized because of that. And since you already include pylons without the weapons adapter with your McD tanks,, you won't need to make the Wet pylon work for Tank, Adapter, and Empty. Modelers like me can just "scoop out" the part to remove the Weapons adapter if we want to depict an aircraft seen in a very few photos that show "truly bare" pylons on the outerwing. ("truly bare" is just my way of saying it didn't have either of the two options installed on the pylon, for whatever reason those items were taken off) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 I think it was more the adjustment of sway braces as you can see in this pic: also note the inboard bomb(s) sit lower on the MER than the outboard bomb(s). Jari Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rex Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 Glad you agree with me. :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 Here is another one, note how the MER is angled out on the front and compare the angle of the pylon with the angle of the bottom station of the MER: Jari Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rex Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 This "angling deal" makes it pretty clear that McD and the Navy thought that drop tanks would be all that hung from the pylons out there. Both types of weapons pylons and adapters had to be angled to clear the gear, but all three tank types hang vertically. I bet they wished that they had put the pylon mounting just a touch farther out on the wing during the design phase. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rex Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 Since I think that you are asking because of a product you have in mind. I will offer a suggestion. Make your pylons with tiny slots for "sway brace pieces." Incorporate the angle into the sway braces, so that a 1/48 Z-M modeler will just have to glue them in. That way, whether they build with their MER "shifted forward" or "rear shifted", all they have to do is glue the MER on using the correct pair of pads. (All the MERs used on their F-4s should have four pad pairs on the MER, none should be so new that they only have 2 pairs) Then if some guy wants to put missile rails out there, all he has to do is substitute "squared up" sway bar pieces. Free advice, worth exactly what you paid for it, lol. And typed with the full knowledge that this will probably be a "1/48 only" type of thing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JeffreyK Posted December 25, 2016 Author Share Posted December 25, 2016 Thank you very much gentlemen and Merry Christmas! That settles it I think - no handing on the adaptor itself. I'll think about the best possible way to mould the sway braces - I don't think I can do it the same way as in 1:72, they would probably break on de-moulding so separate parts might be better anyway. The pylon masters need a little tweaking though as the wing undersurface on the ZM kit has slightly less taper than Hasegawa and Academy kits causing my existing pylons to sit very slightly off-vertical. I tried to reply yesterday btw. but was suddenly locked out for ARC everywhere and couldn't get back on, tried two computers and my phone... Cheers Jeffrey Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rex Posted December 25, 2016 Share Posted December 25, 2016 yeah, the downtime was very short,,,,,,,,but, it was right in between a couple of posts I was doing I came back an hour later, and it was all okay again Scale Plastic Aircraft Modeler (SPAM) is still down, though Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jpk Posted December 25, 2016 Share Posted December 25, 2016 Did not the Hasegawa kits, the Navy J's anyway, have the outer pylon already in the kit? Could they not be utilized on the ZM kit if one had them as spares? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nathant Posted December 25, 2016 Share Posted December 25, 2016 Sure if you had them. If not, cheaper, better detailed resin ones make more sense. Hey Jeff, how about a resin IR sensor so one could make an F-4C/D out of the ZM kit? You already make the correct Stabs... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
phantomdriver Posted December 25, 2016 Share Posted December 25, 2016 A little pointless, as there is a C/D already in the pipe... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nathant Posted December 25, 2016 Share Posted December 25, 2016 Could be soon... Could be years. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
phantomdriver Posted December 25, 2016 Share Posted December 25, 2016 definitely not years... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rex Posted December 26, 2016 Share Posted December 26, 2016 Even if someone made an "IR Sensor for the F-4C/D" there is only a 33% chance that they would make the right one, lol. (25% if we count the "EF-4C") The best chance of "getting it right" would be to make the ECM fairing with the front end having the "EF-4C" bumps on it, and the Mid F-4D with the sled shape on the bottom,,,,,,then include instructions for what to file off for the three versions this would fit. Then the Herpes as a separate item. (this is NOT a "can't see a mm thing",,,,we have all but the "EF-4C" nose in 1/72, 1/48 would be even more noticeable) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jpk Posted December 26, 2016 Share Posted December 26, 2016 You'd also need the short burner cans for the C/D. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 (edited) Here are a couple more examples of how the bombs were positioned on F-4 o/b MERs: http://www.navysite.de/cruisebooks/cvn65-66/062.htm http://www.navysite.de/cruisebooks/cvn65-66/065.htm Jari Edited April 5, 2017 by Finn Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alpagueur Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Finn said: Here are a couple more examples of how the bombs were positioned on F-4 o/b MERs: http://www.navysite.de/cruisebooks/cvn65-66/065.jpg was that an AIM-9B? Edited April 5, 2017 by Alpagueur Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 10 hours ago, Alpagueur said: was that an AIM-9B? Kind of looks like one. Jari Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Niels Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 Yes, that is an AIM-9B. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alpagueur Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 why above the MER is without adapter and below it is with adapter? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 I'm pretty sure it has one, just with the leading edge flaps down makes it hard to tell. But this one does have it: http://www.navysite.de/cruisebooks/cvn65-66/067.htm Jari Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alpagueur Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 Jari you are right... The leading edge flap down misled me. 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.