Jump to content

F-4J in Mig CAP configuration


Recommended Posts

Hello---I am working on a 72nd F-4J and want to do a "believable" Mig CAP configuration.

The time frame would be '69 to '72 on Yankee Station. Probably an Aardvark or Ghostriders

jet. I'm sure it would not have had a gazillion cluster bombs or daisy cutters. Center line or

wing tanks, maybe both? Missiles, 4 Sparrows, 4 Sidewinders? Thanks. jon

Edited by jonwinn
Link to post
Share on other sites

In the timeframe between the bombing halt of '68 and Freedom Train/Proud Alpha/ Linebacker, you can choose a fairly light load of centreline tank and 2 each Sparrow and Winder,I see many pics of VF-96 planes,even Showtime 100,in this configuration.

But there will be also exception at the rule: for example the VF-142'F-4J used by Lts. Beaulier and Barkley to claim their kill in this timeframe ( March 28 1970) was armed with three fuel tanks,three Aim-9D and two Aim-7E.

So you've different choice I think

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I also saw an image just now of Pukin Dogs and Ghostriders

side by side on carrier in '69. They had wing tanks only and what looked

like dual Sidewinders, no center line and Sparrows not visible. jon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also have seen a Be Devilers with dual rails but only one

Sidewinder on outside rail of wing pylon, had only center

line tank and rear wells not visible so no idea of Sparrows. jon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a FYI if you do decide to use the center tank don’t put sparrows in the forward bays.  Evidently when that tank was installed there was a possibility of hitting it with the sparrows when they fired them in the two forward bays. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2020 at 8:45 PM, achterkirch said:

Just a FYI if you do decide to use the center tank don’t put sparrows in the forward bays.  Evidently when that tank was installed there was a possibility of hitting it with the sparrows when they fired them in the two forward bays. 

I always thought that they dumped the fuel tanks when they engaged in a to a combat?

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, 305swag said:

I always thought that they dumped the fuel tanks when they engaged in a to a combat?

The center tank that the navy used was not jettisonable.  The Air Force used that same tank earlier on and switched to the newer F-15 style tank for that reason.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, achterkirch said:

The center tank that the navy used was not jettisonable.  The Air Force used that same tank earlier on and switched to the newer F-15 style tank for that reason.  

Ok, I thought they all where👍

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, achterkirch said:

The center tank that the navy used was not jettisonable.  The Air Force used that same tank earlier on and switched to the newer F-15 style tank for that reason.  


I have never heard this, and plenty of narratives from Vietnam pilots, both USAF and USN talk about jettisoning the centerline tank.  It seems unlikely that Cunningham could have survived a prolonged vertical fight with a MiG-17 while hauling around that big centerline tank.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dave Williams said:


I have never heard this, and plenty of narratives from Vietnam pilots, both USAF and USN talk about jettisoning the centerline tank.  It seems unlikely that Cunningham could have survived a prolonged vertical fight with a MiG-17 while hauling around that big centerline tank.

Ya I made a mistake.  You can.  The problem was that when you had the tank you had to limit your G’s. I don’t what I was thinking about. Oh well

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, achterkirch said:

The center tank that the navy used was not jettisonable.  The Air Force used that same tank earlier on and switched to the newer F-15 style tank for that reason.  

I'm throwing the challenge flag on this one.   It was jettisonable and the reason why the AF went with the later style tank was that it was rated for more G's.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, achterkirch said:

The center tank that the navy used was not jettisonable.  The Air Force used that same tank earlier on and switched to the newer F-15 style tank for that reason.  

 

The McDonnell & Royal Jet centerline tanks WERE jettisonable (at least the USAF could), just not when they were partially full (10-75%).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mrvark said:

 

The McDonnell & Royal Jet centerline tanks WERE jettisonable (at least the USAF could), just not when they were partially full (10-75%).

That’s interesting.  So pilots would have to ensure the tank was pretty much empty before going feet dry (which I guess would be normal procedure anyway).  

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, 11bee said:

That’s interesting.  So pilots would have to ensure the tank was pretty much empty before going feet dry (which I guess would be normal procedure anyway).  

 

From a separation standpoint, jettisoning partially full fuel tanks is problematic on any aircraft, not just F-4s. When the tank is jettisoned, the fuel sloshes in the tank causing its separation from the jet to be unpredictable or hazardous. In the case of the CL tank, I guess the concern was that it might pitch up and strike the underside of the jet. You'll note when they went to the F-15 tank, one of its features was a ball joint at the back of the tank that ensured when it left the jet it was pointed nose down to ensure it separated cleanly (I don't know what kind of jettison limits those tanks had, if any). The 370-gal. wing tanks also had jettison restrictions, but they weren't as restrictive as the CL tank.

 

I think the switch to the new tanks was precipitated by an accident in the Philippines in about 1980 where a CL tank imploded causing the loss of the jet, but I could be confusing two accidents. It was, after all, a LONG time ago!

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, 11bee said:

That’s interesting.  So pilots would have to ensure the tank was pretty much empty before going feet dry (which I guess would be normal procedure anyway).  

 

I always assumed the procedure was to run the external tanks (almost) dry first before switching to internal fuel.  (assumed while sitting comfortably in my armchair...)

 

.

 

Edited by habu2
(almost)
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had heard that the cl tank had a tendency to porpoise under the plane and ram in to it.  Looking at the natops manual there was a lot of thinking that had to be done to figure out if you could release the cl tank during very intense conditions.

 

 

Geoff M

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

So, I am going to resurrect this thread to add photographic evidence of a typical MIGCAP load as well as for a slightly different question. I have included a photo from the Wikipedia McDD F-4 Phantom II page of VF-96 F-4J Showtime 100 on 9 Feb 1972. I clearly shows the MIGCAP load as well as two antennae (red ovals) on the bottom outer edge of the intake trunks.  I had not seen these before.  It may be old news, but you're never too old to learn.  Anyone know what system these are and have any close-ups of the antennae?

000.JPG.21c3c280898ef96d874e5d3d51921b8f.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dutch said:

So, I am going to resurrect this thread to add photographic evidence of a typical MIGCAP load as well as for a slightly different question. I have included a photo from the Wikipedia McDD F-4 Phantom II page of VF-96 F-4J Showtime 100 on 9 Feb 1972. I clearly shows the MIGCAP load as well as two antennae (red ovals) on the bottom outer edge of the intake trunks.  I had not seen these before.  It may be old news, but you're never too old to learn.  Anyone know what system these are and have any close-ups of the antennae?

000.JPG.21c3c280898ef96d874e5d3d51921b8f.JPG


AN/ALQ-100 ECM.  
 

https://phantomphacts.blogspot.com/p/sanders-analq-51-51a-100.html

 

Note that there are two more antenna under the wings, just forward of the gap between the flaps and ailerons.

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...