lbellouny Posted January 9, 2024 Posted January 9, 2024 I understand that the A model Phoenixes needed the tunnel pylons to have the coolant needed for the electronics even when mounted on the shoulders. It was my understanding that the Cs did not need the coolant, and could therefore be mounted on the shoulders without the tunnel rails. If my understanding is correct, why are we suddenly restricted from having 4/2/2 load outs? If you try to place C model Phoenixes on the shoulders, you are unable to place anything in the tunnels that would require the removal of the Phoenix pylons. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Retired CO of the vCSG-3's VF-103 Jolly Rogers
Wingmate Posted January 9, 2024 Posted January 9, 2024 The C model we have still needs coolant. There is a later variant of the C model that is sealed and does not need coolant however it looks like it was only used in the F-14D. IIRC in the AIM-54 stickied thread there was a discussion about this. 1
Naquaii Posted January 9, 2024 Posted January 9, 2024 1 hour ago, lbellouny said: I understand that the A model Phoenixes needed the tunnel pylons to have the coolant needed for the electronics even when mounted on the shoulders. It was my understanding that the Cs did not need the coolant, and could therefore be mounted on the shoulders without the tunnel rails. If my understanding is correct, why are we suddenly restricted from having 4/2/2 load outs? If you try to place C model Phoenixes on the shoulders, you are unable to place anything in the tunnels that would require the removal of the Phoenix pylons. Incorrect, on the F-14A and B all AIM-54 needed the coolant. 1 2
lbellouny Posted January 10, 2024 Author Posted January 10, 2024 So that’s where my misunderstanding was. I thought ALL Cs were sealed. That clears it up, and explains it. Thank you both. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Retired CO of the vCSG-3's VF-103 Jolly Rogers
cheezit Posted January 10, 2024 Posted January 10, 2024 14 hours ago, lbellouny said: So that’s where my misunderstanding was. I thought ALL Cs were sealed. That clears it up, and explains it. Thank you both. In your defense, sources about the AIM-54C's development/history that are broadly accessible are really muddled and don't generally agree with each other. If I could write a letter to somebody who was at the program office (Dave "Hey Joe" Parsons fits the bill and occasionally does interviews, but I'm not going to try to internet-detective his email address to harass him for answers) to clear up some questions raised by eg. the old Navy history of the missile.
Recommended Posts