British Phantom Aviation Group (Official Topic)

Re: British Phantom Aviation Group (Official Topic)

Postby Mister G on Tue 02 Jan 2018, 6:24 pm

Possibly digressing slightly but.......

Having just read the Key British Phantoms special a recollection has come to mind.

Many moons ago I recall being told that Spey engined Phantoms had to carry the front two sparrow/skyflash missiles or drill rounds to keep the aircraft within c of g limits due to the smaller size of the RR engines compared to J79s. Was this true or was I being fed a load of porkies?

I've never seen any confirmation or otherwise of this but then it was probably highly classified if our 8 missile fighter could only ever fire 6 of them!
If you've enjoyed this half as much as I have,
then I've enjoyed it twice as much as you!
User avatar
Mister G

Re: British Phantom Aviation Group (Official Topic)

Postby FarnboroJohn on Tue 02 Jan 2018, 6:45 pm

Mister G wrote:Possibly digressing slightly but.......

Having just read the Key British Phantoms special a recollection has come to mind.

Many moons ago I recall being told that Spey engined Phantoms had to carry the front two sparrow/skyflash missiles or drill rounds to keep the aircraft within c of g limits due to the smaller size of the RR engines compared to J79s. Was this true or was I being fed a load of porkies?

I've never seen any confirmation or otherwise of this but then it was probably highly classified if our 8 missile fighter could only ever fire 6 of them!


I don't know but secondary school physics suggests not. To have to keep a turning moment forward of the C of G would suggest the Speys were in fact heavier than the J79s and therefore exerting a greater moment aft of the C of G.

In any case, we all know our Requirements staffs would never stand for ordering a fighter aircraft that would go into battle with a lump of unusable ballast in place of usable weaponry, be it gun or missile! :wink:

John
FarnboroJohn

Re: British Phantom Aviation Group (Official Topic)

Postby FGR2 on Tue 02 Jan 2018, 7:00 pm

The Speys were bigger, and a lot of photos I have seen have the drill rounds (or Sparrows) in place.

I don't know how much difference it made, however I do know the display airframes in 1992 had the blue drill/ballast rounds in place, so it must have made some difference.
FGR2

Re: British Phantom Aviation Group (Official Topic)

Postby st24 on Wed 03 Jan 2018, 1:10 am

Invariably the display jets from 1970 carried the front 2 drill rounds, initially with the wing tanks but these were dropped (not literally!) from 1976 onwards but the inner pylons were retained, sometimes with the Sidewinder rails. I seem to recall having spoken with various display crews that this was CoG related but more aerodynamically than weight/mass..
That said the Navy jets displayed in many varying configurations; asymmetric pylons, totally clean, centre tank etc and not always with front Sparrows... :dizzy:
You caaan't trust the system... Maaan!
User avatar
st24

Re: British Phantom Aviation Group (Official Topic)

Postby BPAG on Sun 07 Jan 2018, 7:56 am

XV582 'Black Mike' all clean and back under cover, with a few pals for company.

Image

Image

Image
User avatar
BPAG

Re: British Phantom Aviation Group (Official Topic)

Postby drumm78 on Mon 08 Jan 2018, 5:52 pm

Awesome.best looking phantom in my opinion
drumm78


Re: British Phantom Aviation Group (Official Topic)

Postby Tommy on Thu 18 Jan 2018, 5:20 pm

Looks laaarverly. :up: :love:

Good to see the Wessex in the background there, too.
User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff

Re: British Phantom Aviation Group (Official Topic)

Postby Brevet Cable on Thu 18 Jan 2018, 7:31 pm

There I was thinking that either my eyesight's gone crap or you've got x-ray vision......until I realised you weren't on about the last picture published :lol:
Brevet.. Meh !!
Not an enthusiast or a spotter
trollpikken fforwm swyddogol
User avatar
Brevet Cable

Re: British Phantom Aviation Group (Official Topic)

Postby BPAG on Mon 22 Jan 2018, 5:25 pm

The BPAG polishing team and the fruit of their labours. Well worth the sore shoulders and aching elbows. Many thanks and well done to each and every single one of them.

Image
User avatar
BPAG

Re: British Phantom Aviation Group (Official Topic)

Postby drumm78 on Mon 22 Jan 2018, 8:39 pm

Missed a bit.lol
drumm78

Re: British Phantom Aviation Group (Official Topic)

Postby Tommy on Mon 22 Jan 2018, 9:10 pm

Lookin' good.

Is anything else going to be done to the 'frame/any work left to do, or will it stay "as is" until the airshow now?
User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff

Re: British Phantom Aviation Group (Official Topic)

Postby BPAG on Tue 23 Jan 2018, 8:37 am

Tommy wrote:Lookin' good. Is anything else going to be done to the 'frame/any work left to do, or will it stay "as is" until the airshow now?


The reheat cans and nozzles are due to be refitted, in order that the cosmetic appearance of the aircraft is correct. The engines themselves, however, will not be refitted for various reasons. We are, however, considering displaying them alongside but a final decision on that has yet to be made.

Fully expecting uproar from photographers at the prospect of that kind of clutter...
User avatar
BPAG

Re: British Phantom Aviation Group (Official Topic)

Postby BPAG on Thu 25 Jan 2018, 9:37 am

Lets have a short break from posts about 'Black Mike' and instead take a moment to appreciate an earlier BPAG project. Here's the cockpit section of XV490 at Newark Air Museum yesterday, still looking great despite 18 months at the mercy of the English weather.

Image
User avatar
BPAG

Re: British Phantom Aviation Group (Official Topic)

Postby Tommy on Sun 28 Jan 2018, 12:39 pm

Thats pretty cool, had no idea you guys were involved with that. :up:

Other than Black Mike, and the above, how many of these kind of projects are you guys involved in (if there are any others)? And what are the Group's future plans etc?
User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff

Re: British Phantom Aviation Group (Official Topic)

Postby BPAG on Sun 28 Jan 2018, 6:35 pm

Tommy wrote:Other than Black Mike, and the above, how many of these kind of projects are you guys involved in (if there are any others)? And what are the Group's future plans etc?


We are currently acting in an advisory capacity to potential owners of two other airframes. These sales have not yet been completed so it would not be prudent to comment on them further, other than to say that it is also still unconfirmed that we would manage either of these in the long term after any sale.

Black Mike is our focus at the moment though, obviously, and will be keeping us busy. With the majority of the display restoration complete, we are assessing potential sites to host the aircraft after June 2018. There are currently four options under discussion. Again, until the ink is dry on the agreement with whichever one proves to be the most suitable, we have to acquiesce to the owner's wishes and keep any details private.

We are, however, anticipating having a presence at a number of events this year so hopefully, by then, a lot more of this will be in the open. We will happily keep you informed of details when we can.
Last edited by BPAG on Sun 28 Jan 2018, 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
BPAG

Re: British Phantom Aviation Group (Official Topic)

Postby rob68 on Sun 28 Jan 2018, 6:46 pm

Take on G-APSA and move it from Coventry, you like a challenge? ;)
rob68

Re: British Phantom Aviation Group (Official Topic)

Postby rob68 on Sun 28 Jan 2018, 6:48 pm

Liverpool could be the destination:)
rob68

Re: British Phantom Aviation Group (Official Topic)

Postby ColeTheDemolisher on Mon 29 Jan 2018, 1:43 am

rob68 wrote:Take on G-APSA and move it from Coventry, you like a challenge? ;)

well its not a phantom, but i wont complain :up:
Uniden UBC125XLT

The Jacket kid

Sorry Goose, but its time to Buzz the tower...

Dudley, West Midlands
User avatar
ColeTheDemolisher



Re: British Phantom Aviation Group (Official Topic)

Postby effects on Sat 17 Feb 2018, 8:37 pm

FarnboroJohn wrote:
Mister G wrote:Possibly digressing slightly but.......

Having just read the Key British Phantoms special a recollection has come to mind.

Many moons ago I recall being told that Spey engined Phantoms had to carry the front two sparrow/skyflash missiles or drill rounds to keep the aircraft within c of g limits due to the smaller size of the RR engines compared to J79s. Was this true or was I being fed a load of porkies?

I've never seen any confirmation or otherwise of this but then it was probably highly classified if our 8 missile fighter could only ever fire 6 of them!


I don't know but secondary school physics suggests not. To have to keep a turning moment forward of the C of G would suggest the Speys were in fact heavier than the J79s and therefore exerting a greater moment aft of the C of G.

In any case, we all know our Requirements staffs would never stand for ordering a fighter aircraft that would go into battle with a lump of unusable ballast in place of usable weaponry, be it gun or missile! :wink:

John

Pretty sure we fitted ballast rounds to the J as well, usually front left.
Sony DSC-HX400V (Sony DSC-HX300 and DSC-H2 retired)
User avatar
effects

Re: British Phantom Aviation Group (Official Topic)

Postby HeyfordDave111 on Sat 17 Feb 2018, 8:55 pm

I think there’s an interesting section in one of the test books by George Marrett, where, after 3 or 4 U.S. Phantoms went in while in early service he flew a test bird and found C of G altered considerably when stores were expended, causing uncontrolled departure into terrain.

I know he, and probably others, figured a cure, but I cannot remember what.
Anyone got George’s fantastic books and can help?
Cheers
Dave
Got to love Russianhardware
HeyfordDave111

Re: British Phantom Aviation Group (Official Topic)

Postby effects on Sun 18 Feb 2018, 9:48 am

But the QRA/war fit did not feature dummy weapons.
Sony DSC-HX400V (Sony DSC-HX300 and DSC-H2 retired)
User avatar
effects

Re: British Phantom Aviation Group (Official Topic)

Postby tache3 on Mon 19 Feb 2018, 7:32 am

HeyfordDave111 wrote:I think there’s an interesting section in one of the test books by George Marrett, where, after 3 or 4 U.S. Phantoms went in while in early service he flew a test bird and found C of G altered considerably when stores were expended, causing uncontrolled departure into terrain.

I know he, and probably others, figured a cure, but I cannot remember what.
Anyone got George’s fantastic books and can help?
Cheers
Dave


Contrails Over The Mojave by George Marrett, pages 137-139 describes that after a number of aircraft were lost due to stall/spin incidents in training, the Edwards TFC were asked to investigate. He doesn't specifically mention changes in CG due to expended stores but presumably it is implied that the CG would shift as this occured. Tests were made with forward, mid and aft GC loads that found that during certain manoeuvres and at different angles of attack, wing rock and buffetting occured, sometimes severe enough to mask the rudder shaker which was installed as a warning device. Loss of control could then occur. Solution ended up being-

"I came up with a method to move the CG forward. If the external fuel tank was initially restricted from being transferred into the two aft internal fuel cells the plane was in better balance"

Cockpit displays were also modified to add new alerts and the pilots manual was re-written. Mr Marrett's conclusion of all this?

"I didn't think much of the aircraft"

It is unclear whether he is referring to all marks or just the 'C' variant that the tests were performed on.
User avatar
tache3
UKAR Supporter

PreviousNext

Return to Aviation Waffle

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cg_341, gary7890, J Cox and 35 guests