F-4 wing pylon with MER

[kg4kpg]

For my Hasegawa Phantom I don't have the multiple ejector rack from Hasegawa but I do have a couple from Hobby Boss. Take a look at the pics and give some ideas what I need to modify/remove/add to mate these together please. Also curious of aligment for or aft.

Thanks,

Chris

Edited June 17, 2009 by kg4kpg

[Reddog]

I would recommend sending Phathom Ordie a PM, he would know.

Something about that pylon doesn't look right to me but I'm not the expert, he is, I just know enough to be dangerous.

V/R

Reddog

[Rhino53]

That looks like a fuel tank pylon. The MER would have been mounted on a different pylon, unfortunately I don't have a picture of it handy.

The MER would be central about the pylon though.

[Andre]

Another thing to look out for: when using the MER on the outboard wing pylon to carry bombs on the inner sway braces, the rack (or was it even the entire pylon..? I don't have my references on me) was slanted outward to give clearance with the main landing gear doors.

HTH,

Andre

[Andre]

That looks like a fuel tank pylon.

Nope - it's a standard Phantom outboard wing pylon alright. Wing fuel tanks on the outboard position had their own integral pylon attached to the tank.

Pic of the pylon on a VF-142 Phantom here, and one with a MER on it about halfway down this page.

HTH,

Andre

[JRobinsonUSAF]

Just remember, Andre's photos and the one I've attached show a Navy/Marine Phantom. USAF birdsls used differently shaped pylons, both inboard and outboard.

http://www.midwaysaircraft.org/images/Ordnance%20021.jpg

Edited June 17, 2009 by JRobinsonUSAF

[mrvark]

Not close to my references at the moment, but I'm pretty sure the MER was mounted differently fore and aft depending on what was being carried.

[Reddog]

The MER is mounted directly forward and aft as Jim stated. Also, I believe the OP is doing a US Navy F-4G from VF-213.

I do know there was a different pylon for the fuel tank, which was mounted directly to the tank. The pylon for hanging MER's and TER's had to have an adapter installed in order to hang said stores. I looked at the F-4 loading manual I have this morning but it does not show those pylons clear enough for me to make out if the pylon pictured is the right one.

V/R

Reddog

[kg4kpg]

Thanks for the replies guys, it is a Navy F-4G. JRobinsonUSAF, great pic and just what I was looking for. Thanks, Chris

[f4h1phantom]

From what I have been researching from books, pictures, etc, there were two different outer pylons used for carrying ordnance. One used by the Navy, the other by the Air Force.

Originally, the external fuel tank used by the Phantom when it entered Navy service was one produced by Sargent Fletcher. This tank had a constant curvature from beginning to end and two reinforcing strips on the sides, at the 3 and 9 o'clock positions. The pylons in this variant were NOT part of the tank, they were a separate unit. The bottom of those pylons had the same curvature of the fuel tank so there were no gaps when they were installed.

When the fuel tank was not fitted, ordnance could be carried on those same pylons via the use of an adapter. The picture you posted shows those Navy outer pylons with the adapter attached. The curved panel line seen at the bottom is actually the line that separates the pylon itself from the adapter.

The anti-sway braces on those pylons were not like the ones represented in the kit part. They had inner and outer streamlined fairings like the ones found on the inner pylons. The outer fairing was larger than the inner one and when seen from above both fairings start at the same location measured from the front tip. This non-symmetrical configuration is due to the fact that the anti-sway braces attachment points were not on a line perpendicular to the line of flight, but roughly parallel to that of the wing leading edge. The conclusion here is that they were handed and you had left and right outboard pylons.

These pylons hung vertically, but I have found at least one picture where they are canted outboard when carrying a MER with a couple of 1.000 pound bombs (maybe three, can't remember well now).

Around the time the Air Force acquired the Phantom, the new McDonnell tanks were introduced. They had the same 370 gallon capacity as the previous tank but were a different shape. The middle section was of a constant diameter and the pylon was an integral part of the tank. There was only one reinforcing strip located on the left side and at 45 degrees from the horizontal plane when seen from the front.

The Navy/Marines continued to use the original tank well into the sixties, but they also started using the McDonnell tank. The pylons from the original Sargent Fletcher tanks were retained by the Navy for carrying ordnance until the Phantom was retired from service.

Save for a few and rare very early examples, Air Force Phantoms always used the McDonnell tank with its integral pylon. The anti-sway braces on these tanks were not faired and the inner one was slightly forward than the outer one.

For carrying ordnance on the outboard pylons the Air Force introduced a totally new pylon that could only be used for that purpose. The difference with the earlier Navy pylon was that the bottom was a perfectly straight line. The anti-sway braces on those pylons was the same arrangement as on the Navy pylons. Air Force Phantoms had larger tires and to provide further clearance they were canted outboard (I don't know the exact angle). Again, unless there is something that I don't know of, the conclusion here is that the pylons were handed, so you would need one right and one left pylon for each aircraft.

From what I described above we can extract some interesting conclusions regarding the tanks and outer weapons pylons provided by kit manufacturers:

- Almost all kits provide the McDonnell tanks with their integral pylons. The only exception I know of are some very old Revell 1/72 kits, of which there were at least two versions, a F-4B and an German Air Force RF-4, which provided the earlier Sargent Fletcher tanks (of course this was incorrect for german F-4s). The McDonnell tanks usually provided are generally correct, save for the fact that the anti-sway braces are in the same location on the outer and inner faces while the inner one should be further forward than the outer one.

- Either by sheer ignorance or to keep costs down, the only external weapons pylons provided by kit manufactures represent the Navy ones (your first picture), and that doesn't prevent them from including them in Air Force versions, which is wrong. I don't know of any manufacturer that provides the Air Force version but as I haven't seen every Phantom kit out there I am the one that could be proven wrong here. The problem with the Navy outer pylons as provided is that their anti-sway braces are always oversimplified and not the correct faired, displaced units as described above. IIRC, the Navy style outer pylons were also used by british Phantoms, both Navy and Air Force.

As for the question regarding fore or aft location of MERs on the outer pylons, I just don't remember having seen any pics of them mounted on the fore mounting. The aft mounting seems to be the one most used.

Hope this is of any help.

Jorge.

Edited June 17, 2009 by f4h1phantom

[Andre]

Hope this is of any help.

It sure is - very interesting, thanks!

Cheers,

Andre

[Reddog]

Hope this is of any help.

WOW!!

Thank you, that was very informative, learned something new today.

V/R

Reddog

[f4h1phantom]

Some pics to illustrate the differences between Navy and Air Force outer pylons, all taken from the net:

first, a Navy outer pylon with weapons adapter and TER attached. Note large, faired outer anti-sway brace:

early Navy Phantom with Sargent Fletcher tank attached to outer pylon. Note the faired over anti-sway braces:

Air Force style outer pylon on an iranian E. Note the fairings for the anti-sway braces are the same style as those of the inner pylon:

Air Force outer pylon. Note straight bottom line:

Air Force E with MERs outboard. Note aft attachment is used:

And finally a most interesting pic. This shows the McDonnell fuel tank pylon... without the tank!!!? What is interesting in this picture is that the unfaired anti-sway braces can be seen very well. Note the outer one is larger and further aft than the inner one:

I am of the suspicion that the outer pylons could be configured for fitment to either wing by fitting left and right configured anti-sway braces, but have not been able to confirm this so far. In any case, they could only be attached to the corresponding wing with the correct configuration of the anti-sway braces. No kit that I know of addresses the anti-sway braces configuration correctly, be it for empty outer pylons or McDonnell tank pylons.

If somebody has better information that could correct/update my post, I'd be most interested in hearing!

Jorge.

Edited June 17, 2009 by f4h1phantom

[Huey Gunner]

Damn, I love this place!!

[Rex]

that is some great info there,,,,to help with the Early tanks,,,they are the ones included in the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds 4-pack kits from Revell, and I don't know of any other molding in 1/72 other than these and what you mentioned,,,the Revell "F-4J" kit has the McDonnell style of tanks (that F-4J kit is mostly a B, sort of)

[Julien (UK)]

I don't know of any manufacturer that provides the Air Force version but as I haven't seen every Phantom kit out there I am the one that could be proven wrong here.

Jorge.

In 1/48 Isracast Israeli Air Force F-4 Phantom Outboard Armament Wing Pylons, I think looking at the pics these are the USAF style ones.

Also in 1.72 Fujimi British Phantoms come with both the Tanks with pylons and seperate outer pylons.

Julien

Edited June 18, 2009 by Julien (UK)

[f4h1phantom]

Found the pic with the thousand pounders in the Squadron USN Phantoms in combat book.

First, a clear view of the pic. Note fore attachment of MERs:

But then, the picture proves to be more interesting than I remembered as it provides proof that the pylons are also canted outboard, at least in this instance:

I first traced a line intersecting the rear ends of the outer bombs. Then, I traced two more lines intersecting the lower ends of the lower fins attached to each MER. If the pylons/MERs were perpendicular to the ground, those lines should be parallellt to the one traced previously (in fact the same line should intersect the lower ends of the fins of all four bombs). This is not the case, so the conclusion is that the pylons are canted outboard.

Remember the pylons mount fuel tanks, and I have never seen a tank canted outboard. In fact, this is the only picture I remember seeing with Navy outer pylons canted outboard, as far as I can recall. Maybe further research will provide more examples.

In any case, I thought it was worth mentioning.

Julien, you are correct. Those look like AF pylons for sure. I was just meaning plastic kit manufacturers.

Cheers to all,

Jorge.

Edited June 18, 2009 by f4h1phantom

[Phantom ordie]

You guys are doing okay on your own.

[f4h1phantom]

Also in 1.72 Fujimi British Phantoms come with both the Tanks with pylons and seperate outer pylons.

Julien

See? That I didn't know. Any idea what type the separate pylons represent?

Cheers,

Jorge.

[Netz]

Air Force E with MERs outboard. Note aft attachment is used:

Jorge.

I think you misinterpreted this mounting, it is mounted to the center of the MER, not aft, it is that the wing pylon faring is the same length as the MER aft of the mounting point.

Also I have a photo of a F-4C with the Navy style of pylon, so that might just be due to the time frame when the different pylons were used.

But for His F-4G (Navy) the pylon he has looks correct.

True Details makes a set of F-4 wing pylons also, probably not as detailed, but far less expensive.

Curt

Edited June 18, 2009 by Netz

[kg4kpg]

Here's what I've started with, how's the alighment look? If all is well so far then I can add sway braces, clean the joint up a little and fill anything that needs filling. If not, the bond is weak so I can adjust if needed.