Jump to content

F-4A Phantom Sparrow Missiles


Recommended Posts

I would like to ask a question of the Phantom experts out there. I am doing a 1/72 F-4a Phantom from China Lake Weapons Center (sn# 143389a 4th Phantom built) that launched a unsuccessful orbital rocket called Caleb under the code name "Project Hi-Hoe" in 1962. I have managed to get a few photos of this Phantom & have a 3D printed Caleb rocket to use. I am using a Hasegawa 4-FB kit (I know the canopy is higher in the F-4Bs than the straight canopy of the F-4A). Heres the question now that you know what I am modeling.

 

The Phantom had 4 sparrow missiles recessed into the bottom fuselage. When operating without live missiles (like launching a Caleb) the Phantom had dummy sparrows installed to help with aerodynamics of the fuselage. The photos I see of the China Lake Phantom show dummy Sparrows without fins installed at lease in the front two spots. Do you think the dummy sparrows are in all four recessed locations?

Edited by Solo7
Correct title
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not a dummy AIM-7, that is the CALEB round itself. What you think is the Sparrow is actually part of the missile's paint job. As an AO the tip off for me is the position of the 'Sparrow'.  The F-4 had four semi-recessed bays under the fuselage and the Sparrow sat in those bays with the upper vertical surfaces inside the aircraft and the horizontal surfaces flush to the belly. In operation the missiles were ejected vertically from the Phantom, the motor igniting once it was clear. There is no need to fly missiles, live or dummy, for aerodynamic reasons and while I was in the Navy it was routine for the VF squadrons to not load them unless the flight called for them. Each weapon is five hundred and ten pounds so that's 1040 pounds of dead weight that can be used for JP5 instead as well as reducing wear on the airframe during carrier ops. 

 

Aside from all that, professionally, an ordnance load on that airframe was a pain it the neck, especially the fuselage stations. Those missiles were all loaded by hand, we didn't have to powered hoists the Air Force uses as well as the fact that there was no place to hang them. So it was five or six guys hunched over as they carried those suckers under the bird before they even got into position while trying not to get stabbed by the vertical fins, the tips are very pointy. Then you all have to lift straight up on the count of three, by the way, did I mention that on a carrier the plane was usually parked over the catapult track in the exact place you have to kneel down. Taking all that into consideration it's no wonder we didn't fly missiles unless we had to.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

no no, there is clearly a dummy sparrow, look close to the front landing gear door, you'll see the tip of the dummy at the point the actuator of the gear is entering the bay... but thanks anyway!, i'm not the biggest Phantom expert over here... but nonetheless my favorite aircraft of all time...

Edited by mingwin
Link to post
Share on other sites

HI All,

 

The Wikipedia article on the Caleb has a shot of the F-4 from a different angle, and it clearly shows the forward starboard missile bay has a dummy Sparrow mounted (LINK). I can't tell from the pic above if there is also one in the forward port bay. In the photo above, there is definitely nothing in the aft bays. I once read that the British often flew their F-4s with dummy missiles in the forward bays for weight and balance purposes. I wonder if it was a similar case here, or if the dummy missiles contained instrument packages for the Caleb tests?

 

Ben

Edited by Ben Brown
Forgot the link!
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mingwin said:

no no, there is clearly a dummy sparrow, look close to the front landing gear door, you'll see the tip of the dummy at the point the actuator of the gear is entering the bay... but thanks anyway!, i'm not the biggest Phantom expert over here... but nonetheless my favorite aircraft of all time...

 

I stand corrected but, had the other shot not been posted I would've stood by my statement, in fact I still do concerning the fleet not flying them at all times, as the original picture was taken at an angle and distance that is a bit confusing. It may be possible that the shapes in the forward bays were instrumentation containers. I hung a few strange pods during my time at China Lake in the mid 90s. I never knew what they did nor was I ever told it's just that kind of place but each pod had it's own name such as Bullwinkle or Rockey. Not kidding, that's what we went by as I still have some of my loadout notes from back then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting about the pod names. I guess it was easier to say, "Load Rocky on that Phantom over there" instead of "Load pod XYZ-123." 

 

I found another pic of the F-4 with the Caleb. It doesn't have a dummy Sparrow in the port forward bay: LINK  There is another photo of the F-4 + Caleb on the China Lake site where the starboard forward bay is empty, so you could probably go with dummies or no dummies and be fine. 

 

Ben

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We flew dummy Sparrow missiles on the forward stations on the F-14 when TARPS pod was load when weapons rails were not installed for weight and balance purposes.

 

The Phantom was the same way for certain load out/stores, they would put dummy Sparrow's on the nose stations for weight and balance purposes.

 

The Bullwinkle pod is the AN/ALQ-167 Pod, it was common out in the fleet back in the 80's and 90's.

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...