Correct Weapons Loadout of Showtime 100?

I ain't Berny but maybe this will help.

I know it is for the Air Force Phantom but, I would think they would both be fairly close to the same. I was going to highlight the stations in question but, I couldn't figure out how to do it!! And, if it's any consolation, of all of the pictures I have seen I can only recall one that showed TERs on the outer pylon. I have seen a few with MERs but not TERs.

Randie,

Thanks very much for the chart, it helps a lot! I looked it over and yes it does show that TER's are mounted to stations 2 and 8 which are the inboard wing pylons and this is represented on my F-4J. The thing that confuses me are outboard pylons on stations 1 and 9 which would carry MER's for multi weapons loading other than AGM's or bombs according to the chart. U.S Navy F-4 load outs shouldnt be all that different, but there is no record that Showtime 100 carried pylons on the outboard stations. Most all pictures I have seen only show stations 2 and 8 with sidewinders and rockeye's and no pylons on stations 1 and 9.

Anyway just to be on the safe side I cut off the pylons from the wing tanks and I might fix them up and add them to the outboard stations if the configuration in the second picture is the correct one. I guess I'll have to wait for Berny to see this and let me know for sure.

Thanks again! 

HawkeyeHobbies wrote:

I hope you are building 'Showtime 100' because its a significant F-4 and not because of the guy who flew it. I have a signed print of Philip Wests painting "Showtime 100" I have it hanging in my den. I wish I had picked up Robin Olds SCAT XXVII instead. Cunningham brought shame to to everything he had been associated with. Country, US Navy and his family. Had I not had deep family ties to the Phantom program this print would have been on eBay...but I keep it only because it was a milestone in the history of the aircraft. Guess it shows even some of the best can be bought-Cunningham in particular. I wonder if his RIO stills stands proudly with him? I'll step off my soapbox. You'll have to research what mission they were flying the day you are depicting your model to represent to determine what the loadout would have been. I think a standard air to air mission would suffice. They woud have dumped the Rockeyes and fuel tanks if they encountered Migs anyway.

Hawkeye,

Politics and Models do not mix, so lets keep politics out of it. My reason for building this kit is because on that day Duke and Irish became Aces they proved that the F-4 could out proform any MiG. They used its strengths and their training and proved that even a gunless fighter aircraft can beat a MiG when flown right. I am building it because it of what they proved not because they flew it.

First of all from your post I surmised that you have not read about their mission on May 10th, 1972, the day they became Aces. Thier primary mission was an air strike against the Hai Duong Railway and storage depo. Secondary mission was to protect A-7E's on bombing strikes. After having completed both they answered a call for help from 3 Phantoms caught up in a "wagon wheel" with 8 MiG's. They engaged and broke up the wagon wheel saving 3 planes caught in it.  The rest is history. 

Second, the rockeye's had already been used but, they could not eject the TER's without ejecting the Sidwinders with them. Ejecting the centerline tank wouldn't have left them enough fuel to return to the their carrier. They were not carrying wing drop tanks.

Now, as you can see I have done my homework. My dilema centers on the exact way the Rockeyes were loaded.

stikpusher wrote:

I recall reading (at this time not sure where) that the loadout carried on the final mission for Showtime 100 was centerline fuel tank, and inboard pylons with the AIM-9s and Mk20s. The strike package had already hit the target and was on their way out of the target area when the air to air fight began. An undated photo printed in "Vietnam Air War Debrief" shows an apparent VF-96 F-4J  (a/c no.110) with a loadout of AIM-9Ds and TERs with a 'flat four" of Mk-20s on the inboard pylons and Centerline tank. No outboard pylons carried. This photo is used in the portion of the book describing the May 10 1972 air battles.

Stick,

Thats the same configuration I am showing also but....... where the  did the outboard pylons come from??? Maybe I should add them anyway.

Just for clarification Mk20's are Rockeye cluster bombs.

Thanks Stick!

Based on the pics I have seen on Navy Phantoms during that time period, it appears that outboard pylons were not carried unless they were carrying MER's. This was probably due to the proximity of the carriers to NVN from Yankee Station. The kits pylons are just carryovers from the common sprues with their F-4 C/D kits. I am planning on building the same bird in its final mission configuration too so I have been looking at the same issues. Although I plan to send the oudbord tanks/pylons to another F-4 kit I have in need of them. Yes, Air Master, the Mk20 is the Rockeye CBU.

and your very welcome post pics when she's done!

You are most likely correct Stick but I am also thinking that if outboard pylons had been present on that day they were most likely empty and were not removed before the mission and this is why there is no mention of them.

What say you?

I was just checking my books on photos of VF-96 F-4s. Based on those I would say the shot I originally mentioned was almost certainly a VF-96 F-4. Also, only one out of a dozen or so phots shows them having outboard pylons mounted. In this shot there are carrying Mk-82 slicks on an apparent medium altitude level bombing mission with TER/AIM-9s inboard and bombs only outboard, along with the stadard centerline tank. ALL other photos show only inboard pylons, centerline tank with various stores. It would apprear based off photos that the outboard pylons were either not often mounted or photographed. All the photos were in the books "Vietnam Air War Debrief", and "Phantom, Spirit in the Skies", both by Airtime publishing. Personally, based on the photos of VF-96 birds, I would go with no pylons. I doubt they would mount the pylons if there was no odinance there. I wouldn't want the drag caused by the empty pylons for no reason.

The proper loadout for Showtime 100 on their MIG killing mission is as follows.

One centerline 600 gallon tank

Two AIM-7E Sparrow missiles on the aft missile wells.  The forward missile wells were empty.

Inboard pylons loaded with TER's and 6 MK-20 Mod 1 Rockeyes.

Four AIM-9G Sidewinder missiles.

Outboard wing stations empty.  No tanks or pylons were carried.

The biggest defugity (Defined in the senior NCO dictionary as Something Ain't Right) were the markings.  The black triangle at the base of the vertical stab is shown with and without the MIG-21 outline.  No one can say for a fact it was or wasn't there.  The centerline tank is another problem as what type of markings were carried.  Some say the tank had a black stripe painted on it.  Most say the stripe was not there and had VF-96 painted on the tank.  Some say no markings were carried on the tank at all.   

Berny,

I bow before you , The Ali Babba Of Phabulous Phantom Goodness . Again you have come through with superior Guru-ness. . I will name my first grand child after you! . LOL

THANK YOU VERY MUCH Berny! This is the info I really needed.

What Choppper said!

Air Master Modeler wrote:

Hawkeye, Politics and Models do not mix, so lets keep politics out of it. My reason for building this kit is because on that day Duke and Irish became Aces they proved that the F-4 could out proform any MiG. They used its strengths and their training and proved that even a gunless fighter aircraft can beat a MiG when flown right. I am building it because it of what they proved not because they flew it.

Randy Cunningham's fall from grace has nothing to do with politics, just arrogance, corruption and greed.

Mark   

Mark,

Regarless of what Randy Cunningham did after he left the service is irrelevent here and it's of no concern of mine. I would prefer to remember him as a good fighter pilot and Top Gun instructor than a corrupt, greedy congressman. He took the best the attributes of the Phantom and won an air battle with honor. For that alone he deserves the honor of being a one of the best modern fighter pilots.

That's all that matters to me.

For everyone else, I would prefer that we do not turn this into some heated debate over what Randy Cunningham did or didnt do as a congressmen. It has no bearing on the topic and would be a waste of time better spent working on our models.

Thanks you.

Air Master Modeler wrote:

Mark, Regarless of what Randy Cunningham did after he left the service is irrelevent here and it's of no concern of mine. I would prefer to remember him as a good fighter pilot and Top Gun instructor than a corrupt, greedy congressman. He took the best the attributes of the Phantom and won an air battle with honor. For that alone he deserves the honor of being a one of the best modern fighter pilots. That's all that matters to me. For everyone else, I would prefer that we do not turn this into some heated debate over what Randy Cunningham did or didnt do as a congressmen. It has no bearing on the topic and would be a waste of time better spent working on our models. Thanks you.

I agree with you 100%.  I had the pleasure (Yes, pleasure) of talking with him at the 1976 Boise Idaho, IPMS show.  This is where I got the information on the loadout of the aircraft. 

After looking at the profiles of Showtime 100 again, I noticed profile number two has the black stripe on the AIM-7 missile forward wings.  That is not correct.  The stripe was used on the AIM-7F only, not the AIM-7E.  The AIM-7E was carried by Showtime 100.  Only one unit carried the AIM-7F in combat, the 33 TFW, 58 TFS.  We had the only aircraft modified to carry the F model (two circuit breakers and one relay). 

The missile radome was also different.  The AIM-7E was more pointed and had a buff colored (three parts flat white, one part flat radome tan) radome.  The AIM-7F had a radome that wasn't as pointed, much longer, and was a darker buff color (two parts flat white, one part flat radome tan).  Later AIM-7E remanufactured to AIM-7F standards had a flat white radome and black stripe on the wings. 

Air Master Modeler wrote:

Berny, I bow before you , The Ali Babba Of Phabulous Phantom Goodness . Again you have come through with superior Guru-ness. . I will name my first grand child after you! . LOL THANK YOU VERY MUCH Berny! This is the info I really needed. What Choppper said!

Glad I was able to help.  William or Bill wouldn't be such a bad name for a boy, not a girl.    Just don't give him a middle name of Clinton. 

berny13 wrote:

Air Master Modeler wrote: Glad I was able to help.  William or Bill wouldn't be such a bad name for a boy, not a girl.    Just don't give him a middle name of Clinton.

Gotcha!

Very interesting thread- I did not know anything of this story but that is the beauty of it, forums I mean.

If I understand it correctly, this aircraft was lost in the 3-kill mission(?).

So are you modeling a very brief window between the bombing and the crash?

Very interesting...

Bondoman 

Air Master Modeler wrote:

Mark, Regarless of what Randy Cunningham did after he left the service is irrelevent here and it's of no concern of mine. I would prefer to remember him as a good fighter pilot and Top Gun instructor than a corrupt, greedy congressman. He took the best the attributes of the Phantom and won an air battle with honor. For that alone he deserves the honor of being a one of the best modern fighter pilots. That's all that matters to me. For everyone else, I would prefer that we do not turn this into some heated debate over what Randy Cunningham did or didnt do as a congressmen. It has no bearing on the topic and would be a waste of time better spent working on our models. Thanks you.

No heated debate from me.  I was just pointing out that Cunningham's troubles are criminal, not political as you stated.  I think that is a very important distinction.

To be fair, reading about Cunningham and Driscoll's exploits in Naval Aviation News helped to influence my decision to apply to AOCS when I was in college in '74.

We'll just leave things at that.

Mark

RedCorvette wrote:

Air Master Modeler wrote: Mark, Regarless of what Randy Cunningham did after he left the service is irrelevent here and it's of no concern of mine. I would prefer to remember him as a good fighter pilot and Top Gun instructor than a corrupt, greedy congressman. He took the best the attributes of the Phantom and won an air battle with honor. For that alone he deserves the honor of being a one of the best modern fighter pilots. That's all that matters to me. For everyone else, I would prefer that we do not turn this into some heated debate over what Randy Cunningham did or didnt do as a congressmen. It has no bearing on the topic and would be a waste of time better spent working on our models. Thanks you. No heated debate from me.  I was just pointing out that Cunningham's troubles are criminal, not political as you stated.  I think that is a very important distinction. To be fair, reading about Cunningham and Driscoll's exploits in Naval Aviation News helped to influence my decision to apply to AOCS when I was in college in '74. We'll just leave things at that. Mark

Fair enough.

Thank you Mark.

bondoman wrote:

Very interesting thread- I did not know anything of this story but that is the beauty of it, forums I mean. If I understand it correctly, this aircraft was lost in the 3-kill mission(?). So are you modeling a very brief window between the bombing and the crash? Very interesting... Bondoman

Yes Bondo, A SAM got the aircraft but Duke and Irish managed to keep the plane in the air just long enough to get over the water in the Gulf of Tonkin. They punched out and were rescued.

One question that has not been addressed in this thread is:  "At what point in the mission are you depicting for the model?"  Configuration at launch would be with all weapons as Berny listed.  Configuration after the 3rd Mig was shot down would be with the centerline tank, empty inboard pylons and the two Sparrows.  It has been a long time since I have read the blow by blow account of the fight, but IIRC, Lt Cunningham stated that he did not punch off the empty centerline tank because he was transonic when it started and they had historically had trouble with the centerline striking the aft fuselage when jettisoned at that speed.  During the rest of the fight, he was too busy to worry about getting rid of the tank.

Darwin, O.F.

Air Master Modeler wrote:

berny13 wrote:  Air Master Modeler wrote: Glad I was able to help.  William or Bill wouldn't be such a bad name for a boy, not a girl.    Just don't give him a middle name of Clinton.  Gotcha!

Ack! Now who's getting into politics!

yardbird78 wrote:

One question that has not been addressed in this thread is:  "At what point in the mission are you depicting for the model?"

That's a really good question. I've always thought an in-flight diorama of the plane after it got hit would make a very dramatic display. If I recall correctly, Cunningham was able to nurse the stricken plane for quite a ways before the crew had to eject.

Regards, 

yardbird78 wrote:

One question that has not been addressed in this thread is:  "At what point in the mission are you depicting for the model?"  Configuration at launch would be with all weapons as Berny listed.  Configuration after the 3rd Mig was shot down would be with the centerline tank, empty inboard pylons and the two Sparrows.  It has been a long time since I have read the blow by blow account of the fight, but IIRC, Lt Cunningham stated that he did not punch off the empty centerline tank because he was transonic when it started and they had historically had trouble with the centerline striking the aft fuselage when jettisoned at that speed.  During the rest of the fight, he was too busy to worry about getting rid of the tank. Darwin, O.F.

The first and second kill was made with the centerline tank still onboard.  He did jettison the tank prior to the third engagement because of going vertical against the MIG-17.  With the tank installed, the aircraft is limited to certain maneuvers and G forces.  He had to get rid of the tank to maneuver against the MIG.  Most of the fight was in the vertical and zoom, pulling a lot of G forces.

yardbird78 wrote:

One question that has not been addressed in this thread is:  "At what point in the mission are you depicting for the model?"  Configuration at launch would be with all weapons as Berny listed.  Configuration after the 3rd Mig was shot down would be with the centerline tank, empty inboard pylons and the two Sparrows.  It has been a long time since I have read the blow by blow account of the fight, but IIRC, Lt Cunningham stated that he did not punch off the empty centerline tank because he was transonic when it started and they had historically had trouble with the centerline striking the aft fuselage when jettisoned at that speed.  During the rest of the fight, he was too busy to worry about getting rid of the tank. Darwin, O.F.

Yard, I am planning weapons load out at launch so, it will be fully armed minus sparrows on forward recesses. I cant see doing it any other way to show what stages they flammed MIG's. Fully armed is the only way I can see building it.

Air Master Modeler wrote:

yardbird78 wrote: One question that has not been addressed in this thread is:  "At what point in the mission are you depicting for the model?"  Configuration at launch would be with all weapons as Berny listed.  Configuration after the 3rd Mig was shot down would be with the centerline tank, empty inboard pylons and the two Sparrows.  It has been a long time since I have read the blow by blow account of the fight, but IIRC, Lt Cunningham stated that he did not punch off the empty centerline tank because he was transonic when it started and they had historically had trouble with the centerline striking the aft fuselage when jettisoned at that speed.  During the rest of the fight, he was too busy to worry about getting rid of the tank. Darwin, O.F. Yard, I am planning weapons load out at launch so, it will be fully armed minus sparrows on forward recesses. I cant see doing it any other way to show what stages they flammed MIG's. Fully armed is the only way I can see building it.

Thanks Yardbird, I was going there.

Sure, any other scenario you'd need a crew, gear up, various surfaces doing their thing, a hot exhaust section. 

You'll want a carrier deck and a bunch of RBF tags.

I'm not an inflight modeler, but it raises a bunch of possibilities given the information now available, like Pardo's Push...

Bondo, I dont think I am going to go that far and make a carrier deck diorama for it, just gear down and armed for its mission. Although your suggestion IS something for me to consider later down the road.  

Thanks!