 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / June 2006F-4 Centreline tanks
I know that in the '80s many F-4s in USAF service started to carry the F-15 fuel tanks on their centreline. However, my query concerns the earlier style of tank - was it known as the "Royal Jet" tank? Were there different sizes of this tank? The tank provided in the Hasegawa 1/72 kits seems to be a lot slimmer than tanks provided in other kits, while the tanks in the Fujimi British Phantoms seem to be a lot more bulbous than tanks in other kits. Did the Brit Phantoms have larger tanks than US ones?  SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. >I know that in the '80s many F-4s in USAF service started to carry the F-15 >fuel tanks on their centreline. Actually, they weren't exactly F-15 tanks. Their appearance was almost identical but the construction was different. The correct designation is "McDonnel High Performance Centerline". >However, my query concerns the earlier style of tank - was it known as the >"Royal Jet" tank? That's correct. >Were there different sizes of this tank? Only in the minds of kit manufacturers. ;) >The tank provided in the Hasegawa >1/72 kits seems to be a lot slimmer than tanks provided in other kits, while >the tanks in the Fujimi British Phantoms seem to be a lot more bulbous than >tanks in other kits. I don't recall offhand which kit's centerline tank is most accurate. Monogram, maybe? BTW, be careful of the wing tanks as well... >Did the Brit Phantoms have larger tanks than US ones? Not as far as I know. SignatureAl Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968 My "From" address is munged - use 'modeleral (at) swbell (dot) net' to respond via email. Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://home.swbell.net/arfunguy/index.html "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time." *sigh* With more than 200 Phantoms in my stash I think I can forget about finding the most correct wing and c/l tanks and fit them to my models. :o\ SignatureJJ >>I know that in the '80s many F-4s in USAF service started to carry the >>F-15 [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Not as far as I know. > *sigh* With more than 200 Phantoms in my stash I think I can forget > about finding the most correct wing and c/l tanks and fit them to my > models. :o\ 200 Phantoms *in your stash* !!! 8-O I thought I was bad. There are currently 67 kits in my stash. 7 of them are earmarked to provide parts for other projects. 11 of them are earmarked as "fun" builds. The remainder will be serious builds. 14 are F-4s. 11 are F-16s. 6 are Hunters. 7 are Spitfires. As the Hasegawa kits seem to pop in and out of availability (I'm still waiting for an F-4J to be re-released) I'm grabbing them as and when I can. I reckon that I will get at least another 10 Hasegawa F-4s in the next few months. I calculate that my F-4 building programme will last me between five and eight years. That's my ordinary aircraft stash. I have a Deep Stash which is located in the attic of my parents' house about 250 miles away. That isn't nearly as big as my ordinary stash. It does contain things such as a Frog Hunter in its original box, four Novo Martin Marylands and three Novo Martin Baltimores, a couple of Matchbox Meteor night fighters, a couple of Novo Gannets and a very early Esci 1/48 F-16. It is doubtful whether any of these will ever get built. As for my railway stash... I have made valiant efforts to thin the herd there in recent years. I now have two dozen Stanier coach models that I really don't have room for on my layout! :-) SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. Enzo, To be specific I have 224 unbuilt Phantoms, mostly Hasegawa 1/48 and 1/72. Added to those are my 508 other models, 107 of which are Messerschmitt Bf109s, 39 are F-104s, 38 are Spitfires, 26 are Focke Wulf Fw109s and 25 are F-16s. Most of my models are 1/48. I estimate my building programme to last me between five and eight hundred years. :o\ Regards, SignatureJJ >> *sigh* With more than 200 Phantoms in my stash I think I can forget >> about finding the most correct wing and c/l tanks and fit them to my [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > there in recent years. I now have two dozen Stanier coach models that I > really don't have room for on my layout! :-) > Enzo, > To be specific I have 224 unbuilt Phantoms, mostly Hasegawa 1/48 and > 1/72. Added to those are my 508 other models, 107 of which are > Messerschmitt Bf109s, 39 are F-104s, 38 are Spitfires, 26 are Focke > Wulf Fw109s and 25 are F-16s. Most of my models are 1/48. Good *grief* ! Where do you keep 'em all? Do you own a warehouse or summat? And I bet you still but new kits! > I estimate my building programme to last me between five and eight > hundred years. :o\ You'll have a nice collection at the end of it though... SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. Most of the Phantoms are stored in my parents' basement. I have all my Bf109s and Fw190s in my own home though. And yes...I received a package containing 3 Tamiya He162s yesterday. ;o) SignatureJJ >> Enzo, >> To be specific I have 224 unbuilt Phantoms, mostly Hasegawa 1/48 and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > You'll have a nice collection at the end of it though... >I estimate my building programme to last me between five and eight hundred >years. :o\ Piker... ;-p SignatureAl Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968 My "From" address is munged - use 'modeleral (at) swbell (dot) net' to respond via email. Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://home.swbell.net/arfunguy/index.html "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time." Well, unfortunately I speak from experience. :o( Fortunately I have been able to finish some Bf109s lately. SignatureJJ > >>I estimate my building programme to last me between five and eight hundred >>years. :o\ > > Piker... ;-p > *sigh* With more than 200 Phantoms in my stash I think I can forget about > finding the most correct wing and c/l tanks and fit them to my models. :o\ > > Another 5,000 or so, and you can have a model of every one built. :-) SignatureBill In Hamptonburgh, NY To Email, remove the double zeroes after 'at' >Another 5,000 or so, and you can have a model of every one built. :-) Hey, I just emailed you about your scanner streak website without realizing that you're one and the same guy! ;-p SignatureAl Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968 My "From" address is munged - use 'modeleral (at) swbell (dot) net' to respond via email. Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://home.swbell.net/arfunguy/index.html "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time." > > *sigh* With more than 200 Phantoms in my stash I think I can forget about > > finding the most correct wing and c/l tanks and fit them to my models. :o\ [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > In Hamptonburgh, NY > To Email, remove the double zeroes after 'at' Needs more to cover paint variations through the years. ;) Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. >> I know that in the '80s many F-4s in USAF service started to carry >> the F-15 fuel tanks on their centreline. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Not as far as I know. Thanks, Al! I have a Monogram F-4J in the stash... maybe I could cast centreline tanks for all the others from that example... On second thoughts... nah! Think I'll stick with what I've got. ;-) SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. The older centerline tanks the USAF used on the F-4 were made by a company named "Royal Jet", which is why they are often referred to as Royal Jet tanks. The US Navy used a centerline tank of the exact same shape, but I've heard it was welded instead of bolted together as the USAF tanks were, so the Navy tank could take more Gs. I don't know if that is accurate. I also don't know if Royal Jet made the Navy tanks. The British also used a tank of the exact same shape, and I don't know who made it either. The later USAF F-4 centerline tank was the McDonnell High Performance Centerline, which looked the same as the tank used on the F-15 but was not interchangeable with an F-15's tank. There were differences in the plumbing and electrical connections, and the suspension lugs were different. Of the older-design tanks in model kits, I don't know whose are more accurate, but I have photos I took of a USAF Royal Jet tank for sale at a surplus store just outside Oshkosh, Wisconsin that I can send to you. You can compare them to the model tanks and judge for yourself. One detail mostly overlooked by modelers when using the older tank is that there were two little fins on the back of the tank. There were two spring-loaded doors on the engine bay doors on the F-4 that were pulled open and the ends of the fins fit into notches in devices mounted inside the doors, the whole setup which became sway braces for the rear of the tank. The High Performance Centerline on the other hand had a pivot device at the rear of the single fin to ensure clean separation when the tank was jettisoned. Scott Wilson > The older centerline tanks the USAF used on the F-4 were made by a > company named "Royal Jet", which is why they are often referred to as [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Centerline on the other hand had a pivot device at the rear of the > single fin to ensure clean separation when the tank was jettisoned. Utterly, utterly excellent!!! Thanks very much, Scott - once again! I have five different tanks to compare against those photos. The Hasegawa 1/72 tanks are too skinny and the nose and tail are incorrectly rounded. They *do* have they little fins at the back though. The Fujimi Brit Phantom versions are slightly too wide in cross section and have an odd parallel section along their length. The Monogram tank is longitudinally assymetric. It is far too bulbous in the front half. The tanks in the Fujimi US versions, as well as the tank from the old Esci kit seem to be about the best match, but they don't have the fins and they are a bit thin on the ground these days. I think that I will have to use the Hasegawa tanks (because they are freely available). I can sharpen the noses and tails, but I'll have to live with the slightly skinny appearance. SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. As a former F4-E Crewchief you had to have a good respect for those little doors cause one little slip and they quickly became great finger masher " there were two little fins on the back of the tank. There were two > spring-loaded doors on the engine bay doors on the F-4 that were pulled > open and the ends of the fins fit into notches in devices mounted inside" > The older centerline tanks the USAF used on the F-4 were made by a company > named "Royal Jet", which is why they are often referred to as Royal Jet [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > tank was jettisoned. > Scott Wilson >>" there were two little fins on the back of the tank. >> There were two [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > little doors cause one little slip and they quickly became great > finger masher LOL I think every aircraft has its own little danger areas. The first generation Harrier had a fuel dump port on the lower starboard fuselage side which was known as the "Shark's fin". The armourers who were loading the starboard gun had to get down on their knees to do so, which left the tip of the shark's fin at about head height. An unwary plumber could strike his temple on the fin. He would then jump straight up, only to catch a smaller shark's fin from the Ground Turbine System in the back of the head! Ouch! You could always tell the armourers on a Harrier squadron. They were the ones with black eyes and bleeding scalps!!! SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. you can write a whole book on AIrcraft bites lol each aircraft has its own nomenclature there were Phantom Bites, Eagle Bites ext...... F-15s were known for the AIM 7 that stuck out from the lower sides good for head knocking and the F-4s you could write a chapter on lol I have the stitches to prove that >>>" there were two little fins on the back of the tank. >>> There were two [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > You could always tell the armourers on a Harrier squadron. They were the > ones with black eyes and bleeding scalps!!! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.