Rob de Bie

Here are two drawings from the Structural Repair Manual. The glass fiber radome (part 1) is attached with a lot of screws to the first aluminum section (2). After releasing four latches, together (4) they slide forward for radar access, or can be taken off for full access. The weights that I reported earlier are in the table. The screws and latches can be seen in the photo. Rob

Thanks for the great video link! I think it shows an M65: that would be ~2.30m / 7'7", and I think that scales reasonably with the figure. I'm currently rebuilding the bomb components, based on GW's drawing, and I hope to show progress soon. Rob

Super! Many thanks in advance. Rob

Thanks! The bomb series was used quite a bit more than I knew a couple of months ago, I'm spotting them more and more 🙂 A bit more progress on my M66: I took one of the resin bombs and built it up with 0.5 mm thick strips, to arrive at the correct diameter while maintaining the shape. I looked in my scrap models collection for a conical piece, and found an Esci 1/72 F-104 that fitted quite well, so I cut the radome off. I will now hold for GW's information. In the mean time I will apply Millliput to the bomb body to make it nice and smooth. Rob

Good thing I asked 🙂 I will PM you! Here's what I just drew up using the OP 1280 drawings plus data, plus some scaled-up measurements of an M65 bomb with a similar tail. Since I haven't seen a single good side view of this bomb+tail combinatoon, I can't do a visual judgement of the result. Rob

Ah, yes, of course! I hadn't thought about the A-6 using these bombs too. That's one impressive load, five of them - I wonder about the flying range :-) Rob

GW, thanks for the kind offer! But Jari solved the problem already 🙂 Just to be sure: since you mention 'engineering drawings with dimensions', do you mean these drawings from that manual, or something else? Rob

Jari, many thanks for the link! The manual indeed contains some very useful details to build a reasonable accurate M66 with M130 tail. Let the scratchbuilding begin 🙂 Rob

Thanks for the reply! Do you know whether that Navy manual is available online? I searched but could not find it. In the mean time I may have found a way to scratch-build the pressed sheet metal fins, more news later. I will probably have to guesstimate the dimensions, since none of the manuals that I have actually shows the M66 + M130 combination. Rob

I'm building all stores in 1/48 used for the F-84F in RNLAF service. The conventional bombs used were: AN-M65 (1000 lbs) with M129 conical tail AN-M66 (2000 lbs) with M130 conical tail You can see both in the following picture, fitted with wooden transport rings: The AN-M65 is included in the Monogram 1/48 kit and made in resin by IsraCast. The AN-M66 is available from True Details (48505) and Attack Squadron (48030), fitted with the WW2 style short box tail. Here's a picture of both resin bombs: However both AN-M66s are quite similarly undersize, around 90%, the exact numbers are reported below. That makes me wonder whether my sources are correct - I would think so since they are official manuals. Furthermore I cannot find a single photo of an AN-M66 fitted with a conical tail. Was this a very uncommon postwar weapon? Any experts out there that know something more? Rob - - - - References used for AN-M66: TM-9-1980 / AFM 136-7 'Bombs for Aircraft' (1950). Page 195: body length 71.8 in (38.0 mm). Only discusses box tail versions. OP 2216 'Aircraft Bombs, Fuzes, and Associated Components' (1960), pages 5-24 to 5-30, sketch. TM 9-1325-200 (Army) / TO 11-28 (Air Force) 'Bombs and bomb components' (1966). Page 2-25 reports for the M66 with 'fin assembly M130': length of assembled bomb 116.80 in (61.8 mm) body diameter 23.29 in (12.3 mm), fin span 32.32 in (17.1 mm) - - - - True Details 48505 diameter is 11.2 mm, 91% of the real value (or 83% in cross section area) length is 35.3 mm, 93% of the real value Attack Squadron 48030 diameter 11.3 mm, 92% of the real value (or 84% in cross section area) length is 33.9 mm, 89% of the real value

Good point about the limited time that the aircraft could so M2 - I was thinking along Concord lines.. I also checked Mil Handbook 5H, and indeed above ~130C / 266F the strength goes down with hours exposed for 2024-T3 and T4. See figure 3.2.3.1.1 and further if interested. I agree that the 'Eglin theory' is now quite unlikely. Rob

Found the weight by accident in the SRM: radome alone: 88 lbs / 40 kg radome plus aluminum section: 116 lbs / 53 kg Rob

I'm looking for a photo published in the April 1977 issue of the Italian magazine JP-4. It's a photo of the Pander Postjager that I'm researching in-depth. There's one marking remaining to be identified, and this is the best photo of it. Can anyone help? Thanks in advance! Rob

Good point about the BLC temperature. The bleed air is taken from the last compressor stage, so it must be very hot indeed. On the G-model, both wing and flap skins are made of 7075-T6. Maybe there's no aging problem with 7075 when subjected to temperatures above 130 degr C ? Regarding the radome, I'm not so sure. The radome is fitted with a ton of screws, so it's a lot of work to remove it. When we had a 104 in our lab, the radome was off, and I once tried to lift it. I found it very heavy, and extremely difficult to handle, due to the awkward shape, the length and the smooth / slippery surface. I just checked the Daco 104 book, and on page 4 it shows the radome plus first sheet metal section moved forward for access to the radar systems (not antenna). Furthermore, it shows that the radome plus first sheet metal section can be taken off together easily, without undoing all the radome screws. A special stand is shown to store the nose section. Rob

Thanks for researching this theory! Indeed only one of four Eglin 104 crashes would match the , this one: 22 Aug 1957 F-104A 56-753 Air Force Operational Test Center (AFOTC) 'crashed about two miles from the end of an Eglin runway shortly after takeoff' http://www.i-f-s.nl/accidents-incidents-1957/ The strange thing is that 56-753 is now in a museum at Hill. But I found that this is actually 56-752 painted as 56-753. As for the thermocouples in the wing: I agree that this was not installed in the G version. But are you 100% sure it wasn't installed in the A version? Or maybe the AFOTC or Lockheed wanted it installed? Who knows. I'm not dismissing this theory yet.. Regarding the aluminum: I think the 104 could do M2.2, and I think that involves temperatures above 130 deg C, which is the usual limit for 2024-T3. I think it ages to T4 or T8 condition (all from the heart from 25 years ago, have mercy), so it would not be unusual to have some warning mechanism. Coupling it to the variable guide vanes is a bit drastic, I agree. I may have found a way to contact the original poster on rec.models.scale, maybe he remembers the details. Rob