Buzzer wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 07:19:28 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Yeah, Bob, but that's a post-Vietnam mod; the F-4C (including
Olds' 64-0829) could never carry AIM-9s and TERs/bombs during its
service in Vietnam, as they used the AIM-9 rack which Ed
mentioned, the one hung from the MAU-12. I can't find any photos
of any USAF F-4s in SEA up through 1972 with AIM-9s plus any
other ordnance on the I/Bs, with one exception. The 432nd
carried AIM-9s and pods on the I/B on their F-4Ds starting at
some point in 1972, so maybe they got the AIM-9 shoulder mount
mod before everyone else. Walt thinks the 366th may have had
them as well; the only shots I have of 366th a/c in 1972 show
F-4Es with pure A/G or pure A/A loads, so that's no help.

"The armament loaded on this F-4C (as displayed) consists of four
AIM-7E and four AIM-9B air-to-air missiles, and eight 750 lb. Mk 117
bombs. The aircraft is also carrying two external 370 gallon fuel
tanks on the outboard pylons and one ALQ-87 electronic countermeasures
(ECM) pod on the right inboard pylon. This was one of the typical
armament configurations for the F-4C during the Vietnam War in the
summer of 1967."

So this isn't accurate?G

Nope, it's not*. Reminds me of a friend who visited the Museum some years
back, and was delighted to note that the F-15 display claimed that the a/c
had a top speed of M2.5 at SEA LEVEL;-) Museum displays are often, IME,
wrong. About 15 years ago the Castle AFB museum used to have an F-105,
which the placard said was a D-model; I pointed out to someone who worked
there that the serial number, position of the cannon and small radome,
Tacan aerial in the canopy, etc. clearly identified it as a B-model. I
wonder if they ever changed that sign;-)

Just thinking when they went to the inboard pod they lost the ability
to carry four AIM-9 from what mid 1967 to 1972?

Now there's the odd thing -- they could carry a pod plus AIM-9s.
Discussing this with Ed some time back, we concluded that the problem with
carrying two different types of fireable ordnance on the pylon
simultaneously was most likely due to a lack of firing circuits in the
pylon, rather than a lack of electric power (of course, the early pods had
RATs). I should have remembered that the AIM-9 launcher then in use did
allow the carriage of AIM-9s plus a pod on the parent rack, although I'm
not sure how they did it if the dual AIM-9 rack used the MAU-12 hooks.

Maybe the Israelis figured two Aim-9 were better than one Sparrow?

Definitely. Once the Python 3 arrived, they essentially stopped carrying
AIM-7s on their F-4s, and left them to the F-15s; admittedly, that had a
lot to do with their F-4s being tasked almost purely A/G while the F-15s
and F-16s took over the A/A role.

Guy