Jump to content

Susaschka

Members
  • Content Count

    142
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Susaschka

  1. Now I understand where the Y stands for. 🙂 Think you could be right about the droptank, but it looks to me like it is also to bulbous for a Mk/B43 with Mod 0 nose too... I will not be using a SUU-21, because I would like my models to have a loadout without practice ordnance. 😉
  2. Thanks, however I don't really like dummy ordnance... Guess I will be building a (What-If) European One and not-updated Spang A-10A with an early nineties loadout of four AGM-65's, an AN/ALQ-131, two AIM-9's, six Mk.82's on two TER's and 4 Mk.20's to fill the gaps. My other A-10A will be the updated Ghost Grey version and will get the more sophisticated ordnance used around 2000 like the LANTIRN pod, JDAM's and LGB's.
  3. Indeed, at first glance only the markings are different.
  4. Thanks Stefan. There are quite a lot pictures to be found online from USAFE (Bitburg and Spangdahlem) F-105D's with the outer pylons removed, so I will not be installing them on my model.
  5. Thanks Jari. I think you mean this picture? It does look like there is a droptank under the right wing, which I've highlighted in green below. When loaded with only one nuke this would make sense, as the centerline fueltank would contain 650 Gal oppose to a wingtank carrying only 450 Gal thus giving more range. It indeed could be a B28, but could also be a B43. I do realize the picture below is from a model kit, but looking at the shape and location of the "Y" number it looks a bit more like a B43:
  6. Thanks for the pictures and info, another mistery solved with photoproof! I do want to build this A-10 in flight (like all my models) even if it would be a "what if" (like the F-105G at the gate), but do you have any idea what is considered a "typical weapons configuration as part of a training exercise"?
  7. The 77-0264 A-10 picture was indeed taken during the same 4th of July 1992 Open House that I made my picture and during that day there where almost no fences placed at all. Just the F-16 had some pylons with a rope around it as can be seen below: (Apologies for the quality, but these are raw and unedited scans from my slide scanner)
  8. Wow, thanks for the pics. Interesting that the bombs lost their top fins in order to fit in the F-105 bomb bay. According to your schematic, the F-105 should be able to carry: - One Mk.28 or 43 internally or: - One externally on the centerline or: - Two externally on the inboard pylons. The Smissonian website states the following: (https://www.si.edu/object/republic-f-105d-thunderchief%3Anasm_A19820064000) The F-105D was originally intended for the nuclear strike role, with the primary armament being a "special store" (a nuclear weapon)
  9. You are right, this is the very early grey/grey scheme. I wasn't able to find any pictures from the the current grey/grey scheme on any Bentwaters/Woodbridge A-10's.
  10. My f-105D will be from around 1962, just before they left the area. I do like an interesting loadout, but it should be a realistic one for Spangdahlem. Therefore I think I will switch the armament to a Victor Alert nuclear strike version. Did they carry B-43's/B-61's internally together with two droptanks under the inner pylons, or did they carry these in the inner wing pylons? And what did they carry on the outer pylons: An AN/ALQ-87 and AIM-9B perhaps? Any idea's?
  11. There is indeed a lot of info to be found, but unfortunately almost none of them are about the color schemes. I will have to rely on the available pictures online + those in my own collection and conclude that (unless proven otherwise) all Spang A-10's had the grey/grey color scheme.
  12. I didnt know this fact. They should have called them Paper Clusters. 🙂
  13. Thanks! I'll propably go for two SUU-30/CBU-52's side by side on a TER
  14. Then I guess the A-10's that were transferred to Spangdahlem were repainted prior to being moved, as I'm unable to find any pictures from grey early 90's Bentwaters/Woodbrigde or green Spangdahlem examples.
  15. There were grey examples at Bentwaters/Woodbridge, but I don't know the dates. Looking at the backgroud a very long time ago?
  16. Thanks all, now I know that this was a maintenance trainer and I guess that this is the reason for the European One camouflage. Never knew that these were designated GA-10A. Arrival date and method will most likely remain a mistery. Only found one other picture from this plane taken 31-05-1997 and at that time it definitely was not in the best condition anymore:
  17. During the open House at Spangdahlem on the 04-07-1992 I was able to shoot this 510th TFS A-10A in an immaculate European One color scheme. This is the only Spangdahlem A-10 that I've ever seen in European One colors and I've never seen any other A-10's flying from Spangdahlem in these colors. After some online searching, I found that this plane apparently was transferred from RAF Bentwaters to Spangdahlem around April 1992 and was used as a maintenance trainer. At this moment the 77-0264 is preserved as a gate guard on a pole at one of the gates at Spangdahlem. The
  18. Thanks, I hadn't noticed this detail and since my F-105D will get 3 TER's loaded with Mk.117's, some modifications to the TER's are in order. Is it me, or does the MER in the picture look more simple than the Eduard MER?
  19. Thanks, now I at least know the difference between the older and newer versions.
  20. Update: I've been in contact with a former Ukrainian Su-17 mechanic and he told me that only a few modified Su-17M4's were able to use the dual R-60 launcher. Physically they would fit and could be carried, but without the necessary modifications only one of the rails could be used. This upgrade was originally intended for the upgraded Su-17M4 (M5?), but this version was never put into service. I will not be using the dual launchers on my model.
  21. Two new questions if I may: 🙂 - Which types of cluster bombs were used on the Spang Phantoms? Only Mk.20 and CBU-87 or also other types? - I know that 3 Mk.20 could be carried on a TER, but was this also the case with the CBU-87's?
  22. I've bought two of the Eduard 1:48 MER kits with three MERS's in each kit. These are for mounting on a USAFE F-105D (3x) and USAFE F-105F (1x) in the late sixties and a USAFE F-4E (2x) in the late eighties. These MER's come with optional parts so three different versions can be made. For assembly the instructions state: "SEE YOUR REFERENCES". However, I'm unable to find any definitive clear information which optional parts go with which MER version and for which time period they are. Can anybody here shed a light on this? The parts concerned are R21 and R22 in the
  23. I really didn't know that Spang birds weren't allowed to fly with live weapons during peacetime. 😮 That explains the lack of pictures on the Internet of planes carrying live weapons. I just bought a F-100D and F-105D with corresponding decals from Spang, so these were also added to my project. Link to my project on Scalemates: https://www.scalemates.com/profiles/mate.php?id=35910&p=collections&collection=5963 It will be great fun building all of these 13 (!) planes and I will certainly post results here. Just keep in mind that I'm a relaxed builde
  24. Thanks again! Guess I'm also guilty wanting to fully load my models. 😇 I think I will go for the 2 LGB-10's with 3 tanks or a loadout of mk.82's with 2 tanks as the mk.20 loadout is altready reserved for my Spang F-4E. Your help is very much appriciated and answered a lot of my questions.
  25. Thank you very much VADM Fangschleister, this is very helpful information for me indeed! Will lose the SUU-23 on station 5 and I didn't realize that these guns were so unreliable and difficult to use. Now I'm only wondering if I should replace them by an old style fueltank or a MER with ordanance. Some last questions: - What kind of bombs were used on the MER's? I guess 6 mk.82's or 6 mk.20's? - And were these kind of bombs ever used when GBU's were carried? Thanks again!
×
×
  • Create New...