I suppose my knowledge of the American versions of the F-4 Phantom and its various subtypes is better than average. However, when it comes to the British versions, that knowledge drops off to sheer ignorance. All I know is that they were re-engined and wired for some home-grown weaponry.
Well, as fate would have it, a Hasegawa 1/48 British Phantom FGR Mk. 2 “Tiger Squadron” kit dropped in my lap and I’m expected to do a build feature article on it for a publication. Just to point me in the right direction, can some of our British friends, or you all-round Phantom Phanatics, give me the basic differences. For example, which American variant is this FGR 2 closest to resembling? The C/D model? One of the US Navy versions? Can I use any of my Eduard PE stuff on a British Phantom? Any help would be appreciated. You would save me a lot of time if I knew enough to go straight to the right reference sources for the details.
Thanks,
TOM
The FGR2 is what we called the F-4M. It’s sort of a J with modifications to incorporate the Rolls Royce Spey engine with afterburner - bigger inlets (but hard to tell) and very different AB nozzles, bigger rear end, extra aux air doors on fuselage sides along with a port to vent oil, etc. The M had an apu with intake/exhaust on the bottom of the fuselage for remote field starting, didn’t have slatted stabilizer (the K did), etc. Did have IFR probe so aft cockit has no or itty bitty right hand console.
If you can get hold of the Warpaint series published by Hall Park, Number 31 is for the F-4K (the FG.1 in UK service) and the F-4M (FGR 2 as said above). It’s written by Steve Hazell and the ISSN is 1361-0369.
Both the FG1 and FGR 2 were based on the F-4J…
There’s a preview of the Has FGR 2 kit (the first one without Tiger Sqn markings) at
http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/mod/dixonfgr2preview.htm
There’s quite a lot of useful info at this site:
http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/phantom/index.html
ACIG has info on UK F-4s here:
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_369.shtml
Bit more info from IPMS Stockholm here:
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2000/04/stuff_eng_profile_phantom.htm
The offiical RAF history of the F-4 (three pages) is here:
http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/phantom1.html
To summarise some of the info in these (or which should be in there):
The RR Spey engine was fitted to improve performance from UK carrier decks and to increase UK content in the airframe. However, burner light-up time was slower than the J79, the aircraft was slower than the J79 ones as well. As someone observed - ‘when you spey a creature, it ends up fat and slow’; Bill Gunston was less pithy but observed that the UK ended up with the slowest and most expensive Phantoms in the world.
The F-4 was originally used in what the RAF called the FBSA role - that’s Fighter-Bomber Strike Attack. When used in this role, there were 4 squadrons in Germany;
Number 2 (always written as the Roman numerals 'II) was a recce unit with a secondary strike and attack role;
Numbers 14, 17 and 31 were strike and attack, including use of nuclear weapons.
There were also three squadrons in the UK, tasked with a rapid (OK, let’s be honest - a bit quicker than other units) deployment capability. These were numbers 6 and 54 Squadrons in the FBSA role and 41 Squadron in the recce and strike/attack role.
Also, because we decided to get rid of conventional carriers, we ended up ordering more F-4K (FG 1) than required, so some went straight to 43 Squadron at RAF Leuchars for use in the air defence role. Rounding out the RAF ORBAT was the operational conversion unit, which wore the markings of 64 Squadron.
The Royal Navy had one F-4 unit (flying the FG 1), namely 892 Squadron; the training unit was 767 Squadron, but as time went on, this was disbanded and conversion training was carried out jointly with the RAF. 892 Squadron disbanded in 1978.
Right -
When the SEPECAT Jaguar was ready for service in the mid-1970s, the Phantoms were re-roled for air defence, replacing Lightnings; the FBSA squadrons re-equipped with Jaguars. Numbers 23, 29, 56 and 111 Squadrons re-equipped with FGR 2s (111 later got FG 1s) in the UK giving five (these plus 43 Sqn) ) Phantom units there, while 19 and 92 Squadrons served in Germany.
Then, in 1982, after the little fracas in the Falklands (Malvinas for any Argentine readers), Phantoms were sent there. 29 Squadron initially filled the role, but 23 Squadron was later disbanded as a unit in the UK, almost simultaneously reforming as the Falklands Islands squadron. This meant that the UK was missing an AD unit, so we bought 15 (IIRC) F-4Js from USN stocks. These served with 74 Squadron (the Tigers) and were highly regarded by their crews., As the Tornado F3 came into service, though, it was decided that the two squadrons of F-4s that were due to remain in the ORBAT after the F3 had joined the RAF ought to have a common type - so 74 Squadron re-equipped with the FGR 2 in December 1990. Last Phantoms went out of RAF service in 1992; 74 Squadron disbanding in October.
Hope that helps - if not, sorry for rambling on!
Second edit to say that this page:
http://www.vflintham.demon.co.uk/aircraft/phantom/phantom.htm
gives a bibliography that might be of use.
Wow Archie you know your stuff !!!
HIya folks,
can’t add much to the above but -quote-‘when you spey a creature, it ends up fat and slow’;- thats the polite version, the RAF pilots said when you spey a b**ch !!! 
and i have also heard it said that the spey phantons were the most expensive, most powerful, most complicated and SLOWEST Phantoms in the world!!!,
best regards.
Greg
Brings back memories of my first job after graduation, helping put a “proven engine in a proven airframe”. Lots of overtime in flight test those two years, paid and unpaid, on XT595 and XT596 (The latter is at the Fleet Air Arm Museum in Yeovilton, looking good but it was a shock to see it there several years ago; you know you’re getting old when the first aircraft you worked on is in a museum).
To be fair, by then the J-79 had many, many flight hours of experience and the interesting times it provided early on were dim memories; one of my casual acquaintances had made not one but two dead-stick landings in F-104s as a GE test pilot. The Spey in the F-4K/M was one of the first turbofans with an afterburner; the other was the P&W in the F-111 at about the same time which caused a lot of heartburn, too. Something to do with the compressor on bypass engines being a lot more sensitive to things going on at the back end.
They were also different visually - the J-79 looked like it had been built by a blacksmith by comparison. On the other hand, you could bring the throttle out of cutoff at 18% and put it all the way forward. The J-79 would light off, accelerate to mil power, and go into afterburner without a hitch or complaint. Try that with a Spey and there were a couple of different outcomes, neither of them desirable.
It turned out that the F-4 was tuned to the J-79 in more ways than expected and balked at the Spey. We wound up changing the throttle control system in the aircraft and the bleed air system gave us fits. Maximum altitude for relights wasn’t anywhere near as high. Afterburner lights even under the best of conditions were iffy and sometimes spectacular, but not in a good way. Big celebration the day we got to Mach 2 - either the airframe had too much drag or the engine not enough thrust, depending on who was doing the presentation, something which turns out to be very difficult to measure although we (McDonnell) tried. Our ancient RF-4C chase was faster.
The Spey Phantom theoretically had better range with the fan engine. I never found out if that were so. I also don’t know if they ever fixed the smoke on startup from the engine oil breather system. The tower called a few times to ask if we were okay before they got used to it.
And you spay an animal, but it’s still clever word play.
Sorry, been away for a couple of days so I wasn’t here to offer my heartiest thanks to all you guys (especially you, Archie) for this great information, none of which I knew.
Now, the question I also should have asked: Since this is a reissue (Hence, the almost reasonable suggested retail price of about $35), somebody out there ought to be able to tell me if this kit is accurate, and if not, what’s wrong with it. (Man, I’m getting lazy in my old age, asking all you nice people to do my work for me. I plead “not being British” on this one, though.)
Having built a zillion of the first of this series of kits, those being the C/D model and later an E, back when the panel lines were raised, I notice it still is broken down about the same, though this is a modern kit. And it has the extra aux-air doors on it (thanks for telling me what they are. I thought some kind of chaff/flare dispensors when I first saw them). Again, thanks.
TOM
I thank you also, Archie! I have an ancient Revell kit of the FG1 and I bought it cheap 'cause it didn’t have the decals in the box but found a set of Microscale’s(?) “Smokers” at the hobbie shop I was visiting. The kit does leave much to be desired but there are a number of AM sets I can use for it. I do have a couple of refs for the Phantom but the sites you posted are most welcome! Thanks again! - Calvin