RF-4B photos needed 153114 or 153115 Options

[Julien (UK)]

Hi,

there is some confusion and conflicting notes on RF-4B's published on the www

Some say only the last 10 were built with the thick wing, some say the last block of 10 plus 153114 & 153115

Does anyone have any hard evidence on this, or pics of either of these 2 airframe, i cant seem to find any.

Thanks

Julien

[GreyGhost]

I found this ....

>>> Clicky <<<

HTH ...


Gregg

[JEN722]

This is

It has been confirmed long ago that the correct number is 10, not 12. If people who keep claiming it was 12 airframes that had the wider wheels and bulged wings would only study the build sequence of the RF-4Bs they would (hopefully) notice that there is absolutely no logic in 153114 and 153115 having the bulged wings. There is, however, logic in the last 10, as they were built years after the initial blocks (the 36 airframes) to cover for the losses from SEA.

Apart from the logic in it, in 2005 Mr. Bill Spidle confirmed that 153114 and 153115 had the narrow wheels:

"I found my F-4 Configuration chart and it offers the following on wheels:

30 x 11.5 Wheels & Tires (Blk 41) which included RF-4B-41-MC 157342 to 157346

153114, 153115 were Block 27 with the 30 x 7.7 Wheels & Tires"

Could we please stop repeating this obvious error over and over again?


Jens

[jinxx1]

This is

It has been confirmed long ago that the correct number is 10, not 12. If people who keep claiming it was 12 airframes that had the wider wheels and bulged wings would only study the build sequence of the RF-4Bs they would (hopefully) notice that there is absolutely no logic in 153114 and 153115 having the bulged wings. There is, however, logic in the last 10, as they were built years after the initial blocks (the 36 airframes) to cover for the losses from SEA.

Apart from the logic in it, in 2005 Mr. Bill Spidle confirmed that 153114 and 153115 had the narrow wheels:

"I found my F-4 Configuration chart and it offers the following on wheels:

30 x 11.5 Wheels & Tires (Blk 41) which included RF-4B-41-MC 157342 to 157346

153114, 153115 were Block 27 with the 30 x 7.7 Wheels & Tires"

Could we please stop repeating this obvious error over and over again?


Jens

Well said! Your post has pretty well nailed he issue.

[Julien (UK)]

I am NOT repeating the error, I am asking for clarification, there is a difference you know!

Thats why I am looking for pics, to prove one way or the other. All my books and web sources say 12 not 10, are they all worng? maybe? does anyone actually have any photographic proof one way or the other?

Julien

[scotthldr]

From all my sources(some being official sites), it clearly states that the last 12 a/c were modified. As for photos of 153114 and 153115 they may be hard to come by as both a/c didn't have long service lives, just a year each which is where maybe the confusion is stemming from

153114 crashed 25/12/67
153115 shot down 02/03/68

This post has been edited by scotthldr: Jul 30 2010, 12:21 AM

[jinxx1]

I am NOT repeating the error, I am asking for clarification, there is a difference you know!

Thats why I am looking for pics, to prove one way or the other. All my books and web sources say 12 not 10, are they all worng? maybe? does anyone actually have any photographic proof one way or the other?

Julien

In short I believe they are wrong. There is no reason for those two RF-4Bs to have fat tires. As Jens quoted Bill:

"I found my F-4 Configuration chart and it offers the following on wheels:

30 x 11.5 Wheels & Tires (Blk 41) which included RF-4B-41-MC 157342 to 157346

153114, 153115 were Block 27 with the 30 x 7.7 Wheels & Tires"

Those two airplanes were among the RF-4B-27 prodution lot, Bu. No.s 153108 - 153115. If they differed from the other -27s they would heve had different block numbers. Photos will be great if anyone has them, but they will more than likely show they are the same as the other -27s.

This post has been edited by jinxx1: Jul 30 2010, 12:58 AM

[scotthldr]

Those two airplanes were among the RF-4B-27 prodution lot, Bu. No.s 153108 - 153115. If they differed from the other -27s they would heve had different block numbers. Photos will be great if anyone has them, but they will more than likely show they are the same as the other -27s.

Out of the last production Block of 5 a/c the last three RF-4B's 157349/157350/157351 had the rounded under nose camera housing similar to the RF-4C, these a/c along with 157347 and 157348 where all referred to as Block 43.

So with your logic of " if 153114 and 153115 were different they would have a different Block No" doesn't stand up, Not saying that your wrong, just that there is discrepancies throughout the entire production/block lists.

[JEN722]

I am NOT repeating the error, I am asking for clarification, there is a difference you know!

Thats why I am looking for pics, to prove one way or the other. All my books and web sources say 12 not 10, are they all worng? maybe? does anyone actually have any photographic proof one way or the other?

Julien

With all due respect I believe I have posted proof here and elsewhere by quoting Mr. Spidle's F-4 configuration chart text. I would be exited if someone could come up with a clear picture of either one of the two airframes. I have seen only one picture claimed to be of one of them, but neither the wings or the BuNo was clearly visible, so it could be any of the 46 RF-4Bs.

To answer your question, yes, the books and web sources that claim the number was 12 are wrong. They keep repeating the same error, and it has now been repeated so many times that some people (including book authors) take it as gospel.

Out of the last production Block of 5 a/c the last three RF-4B's 157349/157350/157351 had the rounded under nose camera housing similar to the RF-4C, these a/c along with 157347 and 157348 where all referred to as Block 43.

So with your logic of " if 153114 and 153115 were different they would have a different Block No" doesn't stand up, Not saying that your wrong, just that there is discrepancies throughout the entire production/block lists.

Why the RF-4Bs with the rounded nose profile do not have their own block number in unknown to me, but the very same happened with the RF-4C. I started collecting data about F-4s more than 15 years ago in order to find a pattern in things like the RF-4 nose profiles. Not an easy task, but through the years I have studied loads (= thousands) of pictures and texts, and registering the information gathered. Through this I discovered not only the RF-4B wing issue but also the fact that some RF-4Cs had both nose profiles depending on the time frame (remember, it was not an update of the RF-4C - both profiles were produced almost onto the very end of production). This also leads me to think that the structural changes between the two nose profiles are minor, so perhaps that it why they were mixed within the same production blocks.

Regards,

Jens

[jinxx1]

Out of the last production Block of 5 a/c the last three RF-4B's 157349/157350/157351 had the rounded under nose camera housing similar to the RF-4C, these a/c along with 157347 and 157348 where all referred to as Block 43.

So with your logic of " if 153114 and 153115 were different they would have a different Block No" doesn't stand up, Not saying that your wrong, just that there is discrepancies throughout the entire production/block lists.

The bulged wing vs the non bulged wing is a structural difference, whereas the nose contour is really rather minor. In any case, many "reference" books perpetuate the same mistake over and over. Some of the best known are the worst. Nose, wings, two different matters. The last block of RF-4Bs (157342 - 157351) were an oddball group. If I remember the story correctly the were bought late in USN F-4 procurement and the bulged wing was the only one still in production (F-4E, F-4J, RF-4C, RF-4E, etc). That is why they are a different beast. 3114 and 3115 had non bulged wings.

Kind of an addendum: I think all of us have wondered at times why some changes result in different block numbers and others do not. What is usually stated is that a "major" change in the airframe results in a new block (dash) number. The hard part is determining what that "major change" is. As a model builder I see things that to me should result in a new block number. The DoD doesn't see it the same.

This post has been edited by jinxx1: Jul 30 2010, 02:54 PM

[Photogator]

"What we have here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week," another post about thick or thin RF-4B wings.

Previously I have provided information from the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Configuration Chart. Normally that should have been sufficient to answer the question of what RF-4Bs have the "thin" wing and which RF-4B's have the "thick" wing. I am fairly confident the Manufacturer knows what they are producing for the customer. Thanks to Jens for re-posting that information in an attempt to answer the question.

This time I offer a page from the F-4B/J/N/S/RF-4B Structural Repair Manual NAVAIR 01-245FDA-3-1-2 that shows the "thin" and "thick" wings. If you read below the drawings it separates them by model and BuNos with reference to the RF-4Bs. I am sorry I cannot put my hands on photos of the jets in question to answer your direct request someone in Southeast Asia might able to help. This official manual page should help you along in your quest.

Have a nice day!

bill

Someone needs to share this over on Britmodeler as the same person/question combination is ongoing over there. http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.p...53213&st=20 And I am not interested in joining up there just to post this same thing.

[JEN722]

Someone needs to share this over on Britmodeler as the same person/question combination is ongoing over there. http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.p...53213&st=20 And I am not interested in joining up there just to post this same thing.

Thanks a lot for posting this Bill!

I copied your post to Britmodeller.

Regards,

Jens