looking for British rocket pods

The Airfix Hawk has some rather nice ones (if you can find the kit). The Fujimi Phantom FGR2 also has rocket pods, but the nose is quite badly misshapen. Probably the best bet is to use the ones from the Flightpath Hawk detail set (although it's relatively expensive, it is a lot cheaper than the CMK Bucc!)

Bear in mind that the pods used by the RAF and RN were different.

The RN used 2" rockets, with 24 in each pod. The RAF used 2.75" rockets with

16 in each pod. The external difference was that the RAF pods had two rows of rockets tubes, while the RN pods had three.

Nowadays, the SNEB rockets have been withdrawn and replaced by Canadian CRV-7 rockets. The launcher for the CRV-7 is different again, with 19 tubes. CRV-7 launchers are available in the Flightpath Jaguar weapons set.

Hope this helps.

I have some flightpath set lying around (not within range as I post this), which includes very nice rocket pods, but of the 2-row variety. The nose cones on the Fujimis can be corrected easily enough with file; this is what I did on an earlier kit. Unfortunately, I'm looking for the 3-row I-got-more-rockets-than-you variant for a few of the RN Phantoms I've got in mind, so that doesn't help very much.

The ones I'm looking for are the 3-row pods. I wasn't sure the RAF also used these, but I included them in the original question just in case.

Rob

In that case, I'm in exactly the same boat as you! Mind you, the majority of photos of armed RN Phantoms that I have show them with practice bombs on twin store carriers. In the absence of any suitable 2" rocket pods, that's probably how I'll build my 892NAS. The POCU one will probably be completely clean, without even pylons!

OK group, make that two people who want 3-row rocket pods for their F-4s. Where's the Buccaneer fan with a spare parts bin full of them after building a dozen Czechmaster kits:-)?

Typical operational conditions tend to be a far cry from the armed to the teeth image often portrayed in models. On the one hand, I prefer to stick to typical loads, but on the other, I like to put on odd, but historically correct, loads just to show off those systems and create some variety. For example, I fully intend to build a USAF F-4 with 15 minigun pods slung under the pylons. This was never used operationally, but it was tested, and looks totally wierd. If the airforces around the world can go crazy on occasion, so can I :-)

Rob

I joined the RAF in the early 80s as an armourer. It was then that I learned that the "armed to the teeth" image was very unlikely. For one thing, even if the jets could get off the deck, they would only be able to carry that load just down the road! I soon realised that a load of two CBLS (Carrier Bomb Light Store - a practice bomb carrier shaped like a 1000lb bomb) was far more likely. Any sort of "heavy drop" load only occurred maybe once or twice a year when aircrews were requalified.

Then along came the Falklands war. That gave modellers of modern British aircraft the chance to put real bombs on Harriers. However, for the rest of the 80s, the chances for real war loads on other RAF jets (apart from Phantoms and Tornados on Q) were minimal.

Now, for the past 15 years, the West seems to have fought war after war after war. There is a *huge* choice of operational loads that can be applied to all sorts of aircraft. Some of those loads look very stange indeed. For instance, during the Kosovo war, RAF Harrier GR7s of IV Sqn were operating from Gioia del Colle in Italy with one 2000lb Paveway III on the starboard wing, "balanced" by a 600lb RBL755 cluster bomb on the port wing. Very strange!

I'm not enamoured of "one-off" or test weapons fits, just as I am not enamoured of special colour schemes. However, I'm very interested in building F-4E 68-339 "Chico the Gunfighter". It seems difficult to resist a weapons load comprised of wing mounted gunpods and Navy ordnance on an Air Force jet! Marine F-4Bs of VMFA-122 also regularly flew close support missions from Da Nang with *three* gunpods. That sort of firepower is simply scary!

I'm not likely to put a 'special', either paint or stores, on most types, but I've got a bad case of Phantom mania, so any excuse for an F-4 with an interesting difference will do:-) Of course, 60s and early 70s USN markings are gaudy enough without being special..

There is/was a decal set available for this specific plane. I assume you know of it, but if not, let me know and I'll dive into the stash for the details..

Why would you want to resist in the first place?

True, but then, any Phantom rolling in on your position with hostile intent is scary. The only real advantage to the types fundamental uglyness is the huge intimidation bonus :-)

Rob

Me too! :-D

I've just finished an F-4J 155510 in VF-102 markings. I have a photo of that aircraft sat next to an RN 892NAS jet, which will make a nice display. Further research has shown that 155510 was refurbished and sold to the RAF as an F-4J(UK), so it will appear twice in my collection! Modelling F-4s is fun - and obsessive!

In my previous foray into aircraft modelling, 20 years ago, I built a couple of USN models. I found that the single colour uppersurface was very boring and that no amount of USN squadron markings over the top could stop the thing looking like a toy. Oddly enough, I've seen photographs of models built as demonstrators by Hasegawa and Fujimi that also look incredibly toylike. For that reason, I've always been somewhat wary of building classic USN schemes.

However, recent correspondence on this group has led me to reconsider. I've found that a single colour uppersurface just isn't right. Therefore I now mask off various panels and spray them either slightly darker or lighter. Add to that some restrained weathering along panel lines (using weathering powders intended for the trackbed of a model railway!) and all of a sudden the scheme comes alive! I've recently built two USN F-4s and an F-8E this way. It now seems to me that, rather than being an easy colour scheme because of the single colour uppersurface, the classic USN scheme is vey challenging indeed to do right. In fact I was so inspired by the challenge that I build an F-8E(FN) in overall light gull grey. The French markings are very restrained - one might even say plain - and that meant that I had nothing to take the eye away from a boring paint job that I may have perpetrated. I was also pleased with the way that model turned out.

I've learned recently that you have to keep trying new techniques and facing new challenges in your modelling. I'm enjoying my hobby more now then I have ever done before!

Two Bobs 72-034. Not only do I know of it... I have it! I originally bought it for the Dallager/Logan jet, but I'm no doubt going to build Chico as well. And when Trumpeter release an F-105G, the third scheme on that sheet will get used up! :-D

I was once stood on the line at Decimommanu in Sardinia. I watched a Brit Phantom beat up the whole line - starting with the Italians at the far end, then the Germans, Americans and then finally us Brits. He was pretty much transonic by the time he reached us. It was interesting to see people hitting the deck as he flew over - it looked like a wavefront was knocking people over! I knew he was coming but the noise when he arrived was terrific and still shocked me!

I once heard a story that may be apocryphal. It concerns the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Apparently Turkish forces reached the outskirts of Limassol. The RAF station commander at Akrotiri was concerned about Turkish forces encroaching on the Soveriegn Base Area, which would have to be considered an act of war against the UK. Therefore he ordered the resident Lightning squadron to make transonic low-level runs along the shoreline at Limassol. The Turkish forces didn't realise that the RAF aircraft had no air-ground ordnance but were so shocked by the sound and fury that they fell back and Limassol was never taken by Turkish forces.

Seriously cool combo. The truly obsessive might take this a step further, and do a series depicting a single airframe in all the colours and modifications it ever had. A bit like the 'all types of squadron xxx' we sometime see, but in reverse.

That might be a perception issue; they never struck me as toylike (any more than a WWI flying circus).

Weathering is one of those areas that I have yet to explore in any depth. Problem is, on the rare occasion where I finish a project I'm loath to risk the shiny new kit on a weathering experiment.

Reminds me of the time Dutch F-104s were used to scare a bunch of train hijackers out of their wits long enough for special forces to storm the train. Being buzzed by low level, close to mach 1 Starfighters is terrifying enough even when they pull their blows on a airshow..

Rob

Get thee behind me Rob! :-D

That jet also served with VF-103. In RAF service it wore two colour schemes - the odd delivery scheme, with the strange blueish "Flint Grey" and odd-shaped serial numbers, and the standard RAF air-defence scheme, but with a black fin.

Oh oh, I hear the sound of bugs biting... When you've got the history of 155510 completed, please post a link to the pictures:-)

Rob

LOL I've just done a bit of research. I'm not sure if 155510/ZE358 ever did carry the standard RAF scheme. It crashed on 16 August 1987.

shows the jet in 1986. It's a little difficult to tell, but I think that is still in the delivery scheme (with the addition of a black fin). It seems that the delivery scheme jets had radomes that were the same colour as the fuselage, whereas the standard scheme jets had a thin overspray over the standard radome tan colour. The serials on the delivery scheme were also in a very strange font, but it's difficult to tell on that photo.

Hi Rob and Enzo.

I have the CMR Buccaneer kit with 18-tube and 36-tube rocket pods. You get the

18 tube pod as a single part, with a separate front end that represent the three-row 36 tube version. In other words, the share the same body. The 36-tube front end actually looks better than the 18-tube front end, considerably sharper detail. But I don't understand yet what these pods represent!

The 18 tube version is 37 mm long and 6.4 mm diameter. Jane's Air-launched weapons gives 2340 mm length and 410 mm diameter for the 18-tube Matra 155 pod, converting to 32.5 mm and 5.7 mm in 1/72 scale, so the CMR parts are 13% too large on average.

Enzo, I hadn't heard before about a 2 inch rocket, and I cannot find anything on it in Jane's, are you sure about it? Jane's does list a 36 tube launcher for the SNEB, called F1, with a 564 mm diameter and 2180 mm length. A photo of an Alpha Jet with these pods is shown, and it looks very stubby (short) compared to the 18-tube pod, and rather different to a photo of a RN Phantom with 36 tube pods (WAPJ F-4 book, page 104). Concluding, I am totally confused..

BTW, I fought hard to get something resembling the 18 tube Matra 155 aka LR-155 aka F4 pod, and Rob helped me considerably! Read all about it here, at the end of the page:

Rob

My models:

Me 163B site: AQM-34 site:

Spoke too soon!! Did some more surfing and found that they were called Microcell

36 tube rocket packs, one source claiming 37 tubes. If someone can find the dimensions we are in business..

Rob

My models:

Me 163B site: AQM-34 site:

During my trade training at RAF Cosford, we used those pods for weapon load training. As you said in a previous post, the 2" rocket pods were identical in size to the 2.75" pods, with different nose sections.

It's quite ironic that all my initial weapon load training and ejection seat training in the RAF was carried out on Sea Vixens, which were a RN aircraft!

I only reported that CMR lets you use the same body, I have no dimensional data to judge whether that is correct. Judging from photos I think the Microcell pod is slightly larger. Do you know whether the the 2" rockets were used by RAF Phantoms too?

Rob

My models:

Me 163B site: AQM-34 site:

The RAF armament was always 2.75" SNEB rockets.

There was no reason why the RAF couldn't use 2" rockets. However, the Navy could not use the 2.75" rockets. I believe that the 2" version had an extra RadHaz filter in the firing circuit which would prevent inadvertant firing in the cluttered electromagnetic environment of a carrier flight deck. I would imagine that to simplify the supply infrastructure, the Navy were the only ones to receive the 2" weapon. The only time I have ever seen them stored at an RAF base, they have been stored "red-carded" and marked for disposal.

Certainly this was true in the late 80s. I was part of the first Harrier detachment to an RN carrier (with the exception of the Falklands) in 1987. The squadron intended to use SNEBs off the carrier but we were told in no uncertain terms not to bring them anywhere near the boat. The jets we used had been specially modified to allow alignment of the INAS on a moving deck, but the electromagnetic environment turned out to be such that the boat's radar affected the INAS as well! It's just as well we didn't use SNEBs!

The CRV-7 is even worse. Once they are loaded to the pod, the versions used by the RAF have *no* RadHaz filters whatsoever!

SNEBs could be great fun. They had a removable warhead which could be replaced with a "smokey head" for target marking. We used to get a couple of spare smokey heads from the bomb dump. While out on the line, we would break the smokey head and pour the smoke mixture on our boots. You could then wander round for the next half hour with your boots looking like they were on fire! :-D

"Enzo Matrix" wrote in news:MsqdnUjhXsJ- snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

Rob,

Turns out you were indeed the one asking for the pods. If you can provide me with a master I can cast them for you. Offer stands!

Cheers,

Dennis