September 18, 2003 at 1:39 pm
Did anybody see/photograph any F-4’s at Leuchars last week? Last i read in w&R was that both 111 and 43 had kept an airframe. I know Black mike is still with 111 but any signs of the old 43 machine and any others lingering on?
By: PhantomII - 25th September 2003 at 03:07
I’m confused about the whole SALT thing.
I thought it only applied to big nuclear armed bombers like the B-52 or Tu-95.
Why do RAF Phantoms get taken out because of this treaty?
They weren’t nuclear capable were they?
I thought that was the Bucc’s job in the case of the RN and the Vulcan’s job in the case of the RAF.
By: redtop - 24th September 2003 at 22:54
Re: Salt treaty
Originally posted by peter
Surely they do not have to destroy all the F4s?? Could they not destroy the main spar rendering them unflyable??
Unfortunately the aircraft covered by SALT have to be verifiable by satellite, meaning terminal cuts across the airframe. The aircraft are then left for a set amount of time (not sure how long) so the passing satellites can confirm that the airframe is no longer potentially operable. After that the scrappie comes in & finishes the job. Sad but true:(
By: Peter - 24th September 2003 at 15:28
Save the F4
That F4 looks too good to be scrapped.. although it needs a repaint. Surely they could make the aircraft unflyable without hacking the wings off and then pension it off to a good museum or private collector?
Just out of interest, there is a group in the us rebuilding an early F4 to flight staus. I wonder how this could be when all ex us air force planes have to be scrapped?
By: OFMC Fan - 22nd September 2003 at 09:50
I believe that mark Hanna was very keen to get one up and going.Even to the extent of having some high speed taxi runs on their F4 .Alas CAA said no way.
By: andrewman - 21st September 2003 at 22:57
Hi ken_murray
Thanks for the pic m8 🙂
I hope that they can get an F4 to cosford would be nice 🙂
If they dont want to move the one at Coningsby put it on that carpark that people use for viewing Its just opposite the bbmf shop for those who have no idea what im talking about.
Ofmc did try to get an F4 flying but it came to nothing 🙁
By: Peter - 21st September 2003 at 18:27
Salt treaty
Surely they do not have to destroy all the F4s?? Could they not destroy the main spar rendering them unflyable??
By: Arabella-Cox - 20th September 2003 at 23:14
Re: Coningsby F-4
Originally posted by Grant
I’m certainly concerned about the Coningsby Phantom. It would be better if it went to Cosford and sat outside than let the scrapman get it. I know that it duplicates the Hendon example, but so does the Vulcan, and there is a big gap in the Cosford collection for a 70-80’s fighter.I know there are issues about F-4’s going to private collections, but the RAF museum has sucessfully placed a number of airframes into reputable museums across the country on loan. How about sending it up to Elvington? I know they have been after an example for years, but red tape has so far stood in the way.
Another thought – is the Leuchars gateguard FG1 to be replaced by a F3 too?
Technically speaking Grant, the F4’s are subject to the SALT treaty, and therefore have to be seen to be rendered inoperable. Whether this precludes existing gate guardians from being farmed out to museums I don’t know, but hopefully someone in the know might be able to assist. One of our forum members is (I think) on the BBMF staff, so as a Coningsby bod maybe they can shed some light on this on Monday?
As for F3’s going on gate duty, bloody hell, I remember being at Coningsby in 1985 when the F2’s first came on board. Surely they’re not being pensioned off already????
By: ken_murray - 20th September 2003 at 18:24
Originally posted by andrewman
Also has anyone got a recent picture of XV406 at solaway air museum ?
ask and thou shalt receive! 😎
Ken
By: Grant - 19th September 2003 at 11:58
Coningsby F-4
I’m certainly concerned about the Coningsby Phantom. It would be better if it went to Cosford and sat outside than let the scrapman get it. I know that it duplicates the Hendon example, but so does the Vulcan, and there is a big gap in the Cosford collection for a 70-80’s fighter.
I know there are issues about F-4’s going to private collections, but the RAF museum has sucessfully placed a number of airframes into reputable museums across the country on loan. How about sending it up to Elvington? I know they have been after an example for years, but red tape has so far stood in the way.
Another thought – is the Leuchars gateguard FG1 to be replaced by a F3 too?
By: andrewman - 19th September 2003 at 10:50
Hi
Is anyone else a bit concerned that the F4 at Coningsby XT891 will be scrapped when the Tornado F3 goes on as gate guard late this year ?
Also has anyone got a recent picture of XV406 at solaway air museum ?
Thanks
By: PhantomII - 18th September 2003 at 19:21
Cool.
Kinda like a mini version of the F-111’s dump and burn.
By: Arabella-Cox - 18th September 2003 at 18:14
Left Afterburner failing to ignite fuel, for a couple of seconds – resulting in a ‘flamer’ when it eventually does ignite!
A rare sight indeed, but well worth it!!
By: PhantomII - 18th September 2003 at 17:21
flamed?
By: Arabella-Cox - 18th September 2003 at 13:51
Leuchars Phantoms
I was working at the show last weekend. Black Phantom had prominent position during the show and a 43 Sqn machine could be seen at the very far end of the airfield (sorry, I didn’t get a photo).
Also, F-4 gate guardian – which again I could not photograph due to understandably tight security.
German F-4 ‘Flamed’ during friday evening practice ! unbelieveble.