Finn Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 Some nice pics of F-4Cs here: http://www.piccianiaircraftphotos.com/f-4c_phantom_page_one also on Page Two and the F-4D, along with other a/c types. Jari Quote Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 Nice pics, but quite possibly the most distracting watermarks I've ever seen... :( Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mingwin Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 (edited) thanks for the link... but agee on "the most annoying watermarks" EVER! ...i have stop looking after 4 pictures, because it was too grossly done... Edited June 29, 2017 by mingwin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gene K Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 14 hours ago, habu2 said: Nice pics, but quite possibly the most distracting watermarks I've ever seen... :( "Possibly? Totally obnoxious. Gene K Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted June 29, 2017 Author Share Posted June 29, 2017 Yes but at least you can see the aircraft as most are clear of any marks, just look at the aircraft, clear the lettering from your thoughts: Jari Quote Link to post Share on other sites
KursadA Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 (edited) Holy smokes - that page is a goldmine; watermarked or not. Edited June 29, 2017 by KursadA Quote Link to post Share on other sites
onescale Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 1 hour ago, KursadA said: Holy smokes - that page is a goldmine; watermarked or not. Agree!! Best regards, Jens Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dehowie Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 Wow what a find. Thanks for the link. pretty amazing collection of simply beautiful quality early Vietnam F-4 C images which are rare indeed. Great to see so many images of F-4's in the dorkless config. The weathering on some of those early SEA scheme birds is pretty awesome as well. Thanks for the share! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gene K Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 1 hour ago, dehowie said: ... amazing collection of simply beautiful quality early Vietnam F-4 C images which are rare indeed. Great to see so many images of F-4's in the dorkless config. So how many of the dorkless Phantoms are D models? Gene K Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rex Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 (edited) Gene, there are only 7 photos of "dorkless Cs",,,,but only six airframes, because two of the photos are of the same serial number. I didn't check all the Fiscal Year 64 numbers,,,,but, they appear to all be Cs in that section. (this is only the linked to set, I didn't check the other C set or the D set) There are more in the second section,,,,,,,,and they also appear to check out,,,,,,,,,which shouldn't be a surprise, Ron is pretty good at his captions. Edited June 30, 2017 by Rex Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted June 30, 2017 Author Share Posted June 30, 2017 66-0249 in happier times, note AIM-4Ds and the ECM pod on o/b pylon: not so happy times a year later: the WSO, on his first famil flight of the area, was rescued the next day. After the belly landing and fire the plane was repaired and went on to serve until 1985 when it went down in the Gulf of Mexico, the crew ejected safely. Jari Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gene K Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Rex said: ... there are only 7 photos of "dorkless Cs",,,,but only six airframes, because two of the photos are of the same serial number. Also interesting to see how late the Navy inner wing pylons were used. Gene K Edit. Thanks, Finn, for the picture of "dorkless" 64-0249. Edited June 30, 2017 by Gene K Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rex Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 There's a photo of a Navair Phantom flying without a radar or radome flying in one of the books that I have. I have often thought it would look cool sitting next to that "Movie Banshee" photo aircraft. But, as in almost all the cool things we have seen in the last two years,,,,,,there are already sooooo many Phantoms already on the build list, that this stuff winds up so far down the line that I won't get to some of these ideas until about 20 years from now. (pssst, remember, Phantoms are number two or three on my list of favorite aircraft, led by Skyhawks and then Crusaders) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dehowie Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 10 hours ago, Gene K said: So how many of the dorkless Phantoms are D models? Gene K Not sure but of the 40 or so images shot in Jan-Mar 67 just on 25% have no sensor pod fitted. I believe the F-4D never arrived in country till May(?) 67 and a large portion of those arrived dorkless as well. Still intrigued why the USAF took so few images of operations in 66 and 67 particularly Bolo. Trying to minimize there profile maybe? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Grey Ghost 531 Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 7 hours ago, Rex said: There's a photo of a Navair Phantom flying without a radar or radome flying in one of the books that I have. I have often thought it would look cool sitting next to that "Movie Banshee" photo aircraft. But, as in almost all the cool things we have seen in the last two years,,,,,,there are already sooooo many Phantoms already on the build list, that this stuff winds up so far down the line that I won't get to some of these ideas until about 20 years from now. (pssst, remember, Phantoms are number two or three on my list of favorite aircraft, led by Skyhawks and then Crusaders) We had a bird lose a radome in flight over Pendleton. The radome bolt on the upper left fractured, the lower left ripped out of the frame and the radome swung to the right and down. The aircrew knew something happened because the right engine fodded but they didn't know the radome left. The angle and curvature makes it difficult to see over the barrel part of the fuselage ahead of the windscreen. The RIO said, "all of a sudden the elevation bar went to the bottom of the scope and it stopped sweeping..." Another aircraft had to tell them the radome was missing. They landed safely. All the radar needed was the replacement of the antenna reflector dish, it was folded back like a closed umbrella. We pulled the antenna and HM&S replaced the dish and it was good to go. The radome didn't damage anything on its way off except for the ECM coaxs and the hinge of course. They found the radome and the investigation decided it was metal fatigue, but, for a while we were thrashing around trying to find out who last secured that radome! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JeffreyK Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 Great archive, thanks for posting! Interesting find: several pictures show USAF Phantoms with the Navy outboard pylons, probably just prior the introduction of the USAF's own outboard pylon design: Cheers Jeffrey Quote Link to post Share on other sites
F4DPhantomII Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 Great pics except for the "watermarks". Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SCOUT712 Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 Great pics!!! What is indicated by the extra yellow stripes on the rear half of soem of the bombs. Further in the pic above which show these stripes, the bombs seem to have a different shape than a regular MK-80´s series bomb? Cheers Scout Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Craig Baldwin Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 47 minutes ago, F4DPhantomII said: Great pics except for the "watermarks". I would call them "rubberstamps" rather than watermarks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JackMan Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 Good stuff. I like the different coloured paint touch-ups on many of the airframes (gives me a great excuse the next time I screw up my paint jobs Eg: http://www.piccianiaircraftphotos.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/63-7710-three.5134833_large.jpg http://www.piccianiaircraftphotos.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/63-7442_copy.2221314_large.jpg http://www.piccianiaircraftphotos.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/63-7586-two.9235508_large.jpg Thanks for the link, Finn Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted June 30, 2017 Author Share Posted June 30, 2017 2 hours ago, SCOUT712 said: Great pics!!! What is indicated by the extra yellow stripes on the rear half of soem of the bombs. Further in the pic above which show these stripes, the bombs seem to have a different shape than a regular MK-80´s series bomb? Cheers Scout I do believe the rear stripes indicate a different explosive filling, here are some Mk-81s on a A-4 with the rear stripe: http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/22da6cc1e04e4401_large Jari Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr.Happy Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 Hello Finn & All on this thred, I am glad to see someone posting pictures of the Vietnam era birds🙏 I am Am by no means a know it all but if it is of interest to the folks on this thred , 66-0249 was the first F-4D to shoot down a MIG. Flown by at the time Maj. E T Raspberry & WSO Capt. F M Gullick, 555th TFS / 8th TFW, at Ubon, RTAB June 5th of 1967. I hope I have not come across as disrespectful or a braggart it is not my intention. Please post more pictures when possible 👍 great stuff ‼️ Cheers, Mr.Happy (In name only) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rex Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 Jeffrey, the LAU-17 pylons ("Navy pylons") stayed in the TOs for F-4C Phantoms right up until at least 1970 or so. The "Navy" outerwing pylons with McDonnell tanks or Weapons adapters stayed there, also. Someone just recently (I think it was Jari) posted a photo of an Aussie F-4E with LAU-17 and Sparrow from I think the 1970's. Pylons were sort of "always an option" with the USAF. (I'm building that load as my only Aussie Phantom) While talking about pylons, if anyone ever posts a photo of a USAF inner pylon on a Navair bird, I will start clipping parts off of sprues and gluing a model of that up the same day I see it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
F4DPhantomII Posted July 1, 2017 Share Posted July 1, 2017 10 hours ago, Craig Baldwin said: I would call them "rubberstamps" rather than watermarks. Maybe but some of the 1st responses called them water marks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dehowie Posted July 1, 2017 Share Posted July 1, 2017 The only people who complain about watermarks have never had there images stolen and republished by people generally claiming ownership of said photos as there own. Scattering them far and wide from Facebook, to Flickr etc creating a complete nightmare for the original owner. Be thankful such high quality images have not got it over the aircraft and they have taken the time to share them. 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.