///Mflossin Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Hey guys! I have a question regarding the wing mounted gas drop tanks on the Navy Phantoms. I have seen it written on here that the Navy version F-4's (F-4J II in this case) did not use or did not like to use these wing mounted tanks due to carrier landing and clearance etc. So, I have a few questions. I am finishing my build on my 1:32 VF-11 F-4J Phantom II and I am thinking about deleting the fuel tanks. My question is, if the wing drop tanks are deleted or WERE deleted, did the airframe then HAVE to carry the center mount 600 gallen jobber? Also, this Tamiya kit in particular (Navy J version) does not include bare pylons for where the wing mount drop tanks would have been. The pylons are cast onto the tanks and there is no option to build it without tanks so, is it incorrect to delete the tanks without a pylon there so that it is totally flat? I am just trying to figure out what I need to do with this thing. THANKS! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
johnnymac Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Hey guys! I have a question regarding the wing mounted gas drop tanks on the Navy Phantoms. I have seen it written on here that the Navy version F-4's (F-4J II in this case) did not use or did not like to use these wing mounted tanks due to carrier landing and clearance etc. So, I have a few questions. I am finishing my build on my 1:32 VF-11 F-4J Phantom II and I am thinking about deleting the fuel tanks. My question is, if the wing drop tanks are deleted or WERE deleted, did the airframe then HAVE to carry the center mount 600 gallen jobber? Also, this Tamiya kit in particular (Navy J version) does not include bare pylons for where the wing mount drop tanks would have been. The pylons are cast onto the tanks and there is no option to build it without tanks so, is it incorrect to delete the tanks without a pylon there so that it is totally flat? I am just trying to figure out what I need to do with this thing. THANKS! Hi, The F-4 did not have to carry any external tanks, but if they didn't carry the wing tanks, the odds are they carried the center line tank. Regarding the outer wing pylons, they didn't neccessarily have to carry outer pylons, so you could fill in the holes where the wing tank goes without worry. (FYI, I also answered your question when you posted it in the "General" forum, and I added more info there if you wanted to get outer pylons for your bird). Good Luck, John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Wing tanks on the Navy Phantoms were very rare when aboard ship. I actually corresponded with a VF-84 Phantom pilot for a while, and when I asked him about wing tanks, here is the beginning of his email: "I NEVER flrew with wing tanks - I don't think Navy Phantoms ever used wing tanks. At least not on a regular basis. I'm not sure we even owned any. On the other hand, the Air Force almost ALWAYS carried wing tanks." Now, I have a photo somewhere showing Showtime 100 with wingtanks, but it was stateside and probably being ferried, as it had all THREE tanks. But once I got that email, I checked every Phantom reference I had, and sure enough, the outer pylons are there, and usually had nothing on them! Go with the centerline tank. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ThudDriver Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Hi,The F-4 did not have to carry any external tanks, but if they didn't carry the wing tanks, the odds are they carried the center line tank. Regarding the outer wing pylons, they didn't neccessarily have to carry outer pylons, so you could fill in the holes where the wing tank goes without worry. (FYI, I also answered your question when you posted it in the "General" forum, and I added more info there if you wanted to get outer pylons for your bird). Good Luck, John +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ If you wanted to remain airborne for longer than "minutes" in the F-4, you certainly need to carry external bags ! Also, another reason for the rarity of USN wing tanks was a wing structural fatigue factor. Lastly, do NOT fill in the wing tank mounting holes. The tank set up was a male/female configuration. With the tanks/pylons removed, the female wing hole receptical was left open and was not covered over. Any drag factors (if any) caused by these open holes was a non-issue with the Rhino. My .02 cents. ThudDriver Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Thud's right. Although keep the pylons anyway; they seem to have kept them instead of removing them in most instances. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Grey Ghost 531 Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Not Navy, but... Our F-4Ns rarely used the wing tanks, even from land. The 370s were called "Sargent Fletchers", for the manufacturer. We didn't usually carry the outboard pylons. If they were installed, it was usually because they were going to hang TERs on them and move some mud. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
johnnymac Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++If you wanted to remain airborne for longer than "minutes" in the F-4, you certainly need to carry external bags ! Also, another reason for the rarity of USN wing tanks was a wing structural fatigue factor. Lastly, do NOT fill in the wing tank mounting holes. The tank set up was a male/female configuration. With the tanks/pylons removed, the female wing hole receptical was left open and was not covered over. Any drag factors (if any) caused by these open holes was a non-issue with the Rhino. My .02 cents. ThudDriver The holes that are molded for the tanks are pretty big in this kit. What I should have said was to fill the existing holes in and then scribe in the correct mounting detail. There are photos in the ARC walkaround section that show the detail pretty clearly. Sorry! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
///Mflossin Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 Wow...thanks for all the accurate and quick replies! I really appreciate it! John, Specifically, you mention sprue K for the outboard pylons. What kit are you speaking of? I went home and got my instruction manual for kit 60306 (F-4J) and there is no sprue K. In all the sprue's that came with this kit, there are no separate pylons. Are you talking about getting these pylons from the C/D kit? If so, I'm in luck because I have one ordered and on it's way to me. Also, I know that you'd likely be airborne for a short period of time without any external fuel tanks but would I be frowned upon for not doing any external tanks. I know it's my model and all but I do want to be somewhat accurate and, with the kit being displayed as an "in-flight" model, I already planned on eliminating the center tank. I just don't want to be totally wrong. It sounds like I should/would like to get my hands on some outboard pylons though. Guys, Thanks again....what a great wealth of knowledge here! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jcunny Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 (edited) John, When I did my J (Blues, so take it with a grain of salt here, I filled the holes in the wing with CA. The "Blues" only used the tanks when they went overseas, and never used the 600 ceneter tank. The fleet birds I would think would use the 600 centerline . The 370's weren't used very ofen at all. I wouldn't see a need for the pylon if the tank wasn't there, unless it's an Israeli bird. They hung stuff off of the outboard pylon on thier E's. Jarrod Edited January 5, 2007 by jcunny Quote Link to post Share on other sites
johnnymac Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Wow...thanks for all the accurate and quick replies! I really appreciate it!John, Specifically, you mention sprue K for the outboard pylons. What kit are you speaking of? I went home and got my instruction manual for kit 60306 (F-4J) and there is no sprue K. In all the sprue's that came with this kit, there are no separate pylons. Are you talking about getting these pylons from the C/D kit? If so, I'm in luck because I have one ordered and on it's way to me. Also, I know that you'd likely be airborne for a short period of time without any external fuel tanks but would I be frowned upon for not doing any external tanks. I know it's my model and all but I do want to be somewhat accurate and, with the kit being displayed as an "in-flight" model, I already planned on eliminating the center tank. I just don't want to be totally wrong. It sounds like I should/would like to get my hands on some outboard pylons though. Guys, Thanks again....what a great wealth of knowledge here! :huh: The K sprue is from the Marines version of the F-4J , and I believe the kit number is 60308. The C/D kit has no outer pylons supplied, and anyway, even if they did, the Air Force style of outer pylon is different than the Navy/Marines pylon. I don't pretend to be a Phantom expert, but I would figure that the plane would carry the tank on its way to the mission, then jettison it once it got to its target. So if you wanted to leave the tank off, you could figure that the plane is on its way home. Anyway, it's your model! Do what makes you happy! :huh: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
///Mflossin Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 The K sprue is from the Marines version of the F-4J , and I believe the kit number is 60308. The C/D kit has no outer pylons supplied, and anyway, even if they did, the Air Force style of outer pylon is different than the Navy/Marines pylon. I don't pretend to be a Phantom expert, but I would figure that the plane would carry the tank on its way to the mission, then jettison it once it got to its target. So if you wanted to leave the tank off, you could figure that the plane is on its way home. Anyway, it's your model! Do what makes you happy! :huh: John/JC, Thanks! John, yes...I meant the Marine version kit, not the C/D kit and the kit number you stated is indeed correct. As you can see...I am no phantom expert either but you guys seem to be a whole hell of a lot more knowledgable than I am. I love the jet....one of my favorites! I think that for now I'll leave the 370's off and the centerline. Down the line, I may make some changes. Thanks again guys....great info! :huh: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
silverkite211 Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 The C/D kit has no outer pylons supplied, and anyway, even if they did, the Air Force style of outer pylon is different than the Navy/Marines pylon. I think you mean that the inboard pylons are different between Air Force and Navy machines, except for the RF-4C, which uses the same type of pylon as Navy Phantoms do. The 370 gallon wing tank pylon is integral to the tank (when you jettison the tank, you jettison the pylon as well). The only different wing tanks that I'm aware of were the early Sargent-Fletcher manufactured tanks and the later McDonald-Douglas manufactured ones, the Sargent-Fletcher tanks were slightly shorter and fatter than the McDonald-Douglas tanks. They both held 370 gallons, though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 The 370 gallon wing tank pylon is integral to the tank (when you jettison the tank, you jettison the pylon as well). Well, SOME sort of pylon was frequently kept there on Navy Phantoms...look at this shot from the cover of the C&M book on the Navy Phantoms; inboard pylons are loaded with weaponry, outboard stations have blank pylons. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
silverkite211 Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Well, SOME sort of pylon was frequently kept there on Navy Phantoms...look at this shot from the cover of the C&M book on the Navy Phantoms; inboard pylons are loaded with weaponry, outboard stations have blank pylons. Oh. I agree, and I never meant to imply that Navy Phantoms didn't have something out there, but I thinking that the Navy kept a pylon installed that was capable of having a TER attached, I'm guessing that it would be easier to install a TER on a already in place pylon, rather than constantly removing and installing the pylon, and risking damage to the O-ring seals. But still, the 370 gallon tank and it's pylon are integral. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
johnnymac Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 I think you mean that the inboard pylons are different between Air Force and Navy machines, except for the RF-4C, which uses the same type of pylon as Navy Phantoms do. The 370 gallon wing tank pylon is integral to the tank (when you jettison the tank, you jettison the pylon as well). The only different wing tanks that I'm aware of were the early Sargent-Fletcher manufactured tanks and the later McDonald-Douglas manufactured ones, the Sargent-Fletcher tanks were slightly shorter and fatter than the McDonald-Douglas tanks. They both held 370 gallons, though. The outer wing pylons as well as the inboard wing pylons were different (however, the Air Force did use the Navy style pylon early in the Phantom's Air Force career). The Air Force pylon was completely flat on the bottom, while the bottom of the Navy pylon angled up slightly near the front. There's a great article on largescaleplanes.com by Paul Stoner that explains how he converted the Navy pylon to an Air Force style. Here's the link: http://www.largescaleplanes.com/articles/J...ildWeasel2.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kstater94 Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Oh. I agree, and I never meant to imply that Navy Phantoms didn't have something out there, but I thinking that the Navy kept a pylon installed that was capable of having a TER attached, I'm guessing that it would be easier to install a TER on a already in place pylon, rather than constantly removing and installing the pylon, and risking damage to the O-ring seals. But still, the 370 gallon tank and it's pylon are integral. Yeah What he said Quote Link to post Share on other sites
silverkite211 Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 The outer wing pylons as well as the inboard wing pylons were different (however, the Air Force did use the Navy style pylon early in the Phantom's Air Force career). The Air Force pylon was completely flat on the bottom, while the bottom of the Navy pylon angled up slightly near the front. There's a great article on largescaleplanes.com by Paul Stoner that explains how he converted the Navy pylon to an Air Force style. Here's the link:http://www.largescaleplanes.com/articles/J...ildWeasel2.html Then I submit that it was a pylon that was modified strictly for the F-4G, that the Air Force did not have and did not need a "blank" pylon before that time. Nor does that change the fact that the 370 gallon wing tank and pylon are integral. Makes me wish that I had taken a photo of the storage rack of Phantom wing tanks that the KANG still had, after transitioning to the F-16. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
A6BSTARM Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Most of the photos that I have sceen and even have don't show any Navy or Marine Corps carrier based F-4J's carrying the 370 tank. Going through my own collection of a few on my computer show that not even the pylon was installed and only the 600 gal tank was being carried. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
johnnymac Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Then I submit that it was a pylon that was modified strictly for the F-4G, that the Air Force did not have and did not need a "blank" pylon before that time. Nor does that change the fact that the 370 gallon wing tank and pylon are integral. Makes me wish that I had taken a photo of the storage rack of Phantom wing tanks that the KANG still had, after transitioning to the F-16. Yes, the wing tank and pylon are integral, and no, the pylon was not modified specifically for the F-4G. The Air Force used to use an outer wing pylon for MER's and 2,000 lb bombs, as well as Gatling Gun pods. And, it was different than the Navy pylon. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kstater94 Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 For all intents and purposes the pylon that was used for weapons carriage was identical in looks to the one that was attached to the fuel tank except it did not have the internal plumbing for fuel transfer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HELLCAT11 Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Well, SOME sort of pylon was frequently kept there on Navy Phantoms...look at this shot from the cover of the C&M book on the Navy Phantoms; inboard pylons are loaded with weaponry, outboard stations have blank pylons. Hi, Good photo. Has anyone noticed something out of the norm (once airborne) regarding this particular photo ? Clue - Look just forward of the splitter plate ! I have seen this before on a VF 111 F4. Andrew Quote Link to post Share on other sites
silverkite211 Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Yes, the wing tank and pylon are integral, and no, the pylon was not modified specifically for the F-4G. The Air Force used to use an outer wing pylon for MER's and 2,000 lb bombs, as well as Gatling Gun pods. And, it was different than the Navy pylon. Well, you can color me wrong on that matter, I just found a photo of an F-4E from the 34th TFS, 388th TFW, parked in a revetment at Korat RTAFB, during the Vietnam War, and it has a MER installed on the outboard pylon. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
johnnymac Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Well, you can color me wrong on that matter, I just found a photo of an F-4E from the 34th TFS, 388th TFW, parked in a revetment at Korat RTAFB, during the Vietnam War, and it has a MER installed on the outboard pylon. Spoken like a true gentleman! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SCOUT712 Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Hi, Good photo. Has anyone noticed something out of the norm (once airborne) regarding this particular photo ? Clue - Look just forward of the splitter plate ! I have seen this before on a VF 111 F4. Andrew It can happen, that the steps fall down in flight, there is a little button on the left front cockpit console, you push it, it'll fall down. The only restrictiction the jet has with thos thingy out is 400 KIAS, otherwise full up. For the outboard tanks, the navy did not like them, because when installed, they mow the center of gravity aft. The Cat only gives you a small amount of knots above stall speed, so if you have an aft cg jet , slow on speed, it's tricky to fly, if something goes wrong with the catshot, the crew has not a lot of options left. The USAF did use the outboard weapons pylons a lot especially on "E"'s during the 1968 to very early 1970 timeframe. They just pounded South Vietnam, so there was not such a big need for more fuel, but they could carry more iron per sorty. A reason, why the USAF in the years after Vietnam and before the introduction of the HPC tank from the EAGLE did not use the Sargent Fletcher centerline tank is, because the outboard wingtank had a higher "g" restriction ( 6g's when empty compared to 5 'gs of the old centerliner ) The Eagle tank has A/C limits ( at least on the F-4) when empty and 5g's when feeding. As well, the old centerline tank had a reputation to not easily clear the jet when jettisioned, and had some very strict jettison limits. SCOUT Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jcunny Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Well, you can color me wrong on that matter, I just found a photo of an F-4E from the 34th TFS, 388th TFW, parked in a revetment at Korat RTAFB, during the Vietnam War, and it has a MER installed on the outboard pylon. You're not wrong. The Israeli's hung MER's there too. Several pics with them are out there, most in the Osprey book of F-4 aces. Israel is pretty small in the grand scheme of things (land mass wise). So the need for the tank all the time wasn't there. 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.