Gary.Wickham Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Hey Guys I'm planning on building the Hasegawa 1/32 "Lady Jessie" and found some photos with what look like Mk.82 loadouts with TER's etc This pic in particular shows "Lady Jessie" on the deck all bombed up. My questions are this. 1) Would bombs of this era have the ablative coating or not ? I suspect not because I understand the coating was introduced as a result of lessons learned from Vietnam. 2) Would these jets have a TER on the stb wing as well (ie would the loadout be symmetrical) ? 3) Would the TER have all three bombs loaded or would the inboard slot be free ? 4) The outboard pylon seems to have a single Mk.82. Was there a special adapter for the pylon ? 5) Anyone got any clearer pics of any Vietnam era skyhawks with this kind of loadout ? cheers Gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Check here for various pics of A-4s: http://www.usscoralsea.net/pages/flightdeck1960s.php click on Coral Sea Pics 2 on the left for more scenes from other eras. Jari Quote Link to post Share on other sites
theemodelstarter Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Hi Gary, My father-in-law flew these in the early part of Vietnam off the Enterprise on her round the world cruise. His comments were: 1) The ablative coating didn't start showing up until about a year after the Enterprise fire in 1969. So, you wouldn't want to use them on anything earlier then 1971 to be safe. 2) Most likely it would be symmetrical, but anything cleared for the Scooter, of equal weight, COULD be on opposite side. 3) No reason he could think of that the TER's would not have three 82's per rack. 4) He couldn't remember an adapter for the outboard pylons. I've never seen pics with bombs in that location before, but everything else I have seen on those stations were missiles of some kind. And they all had some sort of adapter in place to shoot it. My thinking is that the gravity bombs shackled directly to the pylon, IMHO. 5) Sorry no pics. Hope this helps a bit Gary and also that a few other folks pipe up to clean up the loose ends and photo request for you too. Best Regards, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
theemodelstarter Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Jari's photo link shows both Mk 117 and Mk82 loaded on TER's with only two per side, but at least one pic in the bunch with three Mk 82's per side. Great link Jari! Cheers Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rex Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 the various Skyhawk books all show the outside racks with Mk-82 directly on the parent rack, also many photos show if a TER or MER is on the inner pylon, it can be full that Lady Jessie must be the second of them, the first one had an AH tail code, and the third one, you can read the large BuNo on the base of the tail as has been said, the ablative coating was in response to the Enterprise, Forrestal and Oriskany fires, so, the second Lady Jessie's cruise was probably too soon for the coating almost all photos of loaded Skyhawks show a symmetrical load, except things like a Walleye strike (sometimes even they were symmetrical, though) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Here is an interesting load: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachmen...mp;d=1144708248 a Bullpup on the left o/b pylon and bombs on the other wing pylons. Jari Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rex Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 skyhawk.org is a place with tons of photos you can look at for free also http://www.a4skyhawk.org/8e/weaps-data/a4e-usmc-weaps.htm , on that Skyhawk site shows what loadouts could be carried on the E/F models hope this helps Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Netz Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 I like this one...allot. As you can see from the photo's the gear door is very close to the inner station, preventing a bomb to be loaded there. Curt Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rex Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 (edited) I dunno, I went to find a full MER Skyhawk in a book,,,,,,,,,,turns out there's a 3 full MER Skyhawk of Ginter # 51,,,,,a USN photo,,,,,on the cover, so it didn't take much digging "less than full" on an aircraft doesn't mean "can't carry",,,,,or else we'd all be building our Phantoms with 2 MER with only 2 WW2 250# on each, based on a photo from Vietnam Edited July 20, 2009 by Rex Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fenestron Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 (edited) Hi Gary, I also love the Skyhawk and have the Jesse kit, have gander at http://www.skyhawk.org/ these guys flew, worked, loaded her..they know what is what mate! Cheers Ed Edited July 20, 2009 by Fenestron Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rex Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 lol, I can't quite figure out if I "don't know what was what" or not you can go to the Skyhawk.org he posted,,,or the one I posted before that either way,,,,,while you're there,,,,not looking at the Marine load out sheet posted there by a real Marine,,,,,if you have spare time,,,,take a look at the Glenview Martd page, if you like,,,,,,the base is gone now, so our history prolly doesn't matter,,,,,but, we flew Skyhawks after 4 years of answering questions and sending people stuff to help their builds here,,,,I'm about done now,,,,,,now that I have been lumped into the younger group of people that didn't really do anything Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fenestron Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 lol, I can't quite figure out if I "don't know what was what" or notyou can go to the Skyhawk.org he posted,,,or the one I posted before that either way,,,,,while you're there,,,,not looking at the Marine load out sheet posted there by a real Marine,,,,,if you have spare time,,,,take a look at the Glenview Martd page, if you like,,,,,,the base is gone now, so our history prolly doesn't matter,,,,,but, we flew Skyhawks after 4 years of answering questions and sending people stuff to help their builds here,,,,I'm about done now,,,,,,now that I have been lumped into the younger group of people that didn't really do anything Rex, LOL I´m sorry that I in my effort to help Gary missed out by not reading your post before I posted mine- I didn´t mean to step on your toe here! I mean, I´m just a younger person than you that never ever did nothing... All the best old chap, you´re my new guru Cheers Ed Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gary.Wickham Posted July 20, 2009 Author Share Posted July 20, 2009 Thanks Guys Absolutely excellent information. Looks like I have a "lot" of scope for really loading this one up !! Perhaps 3 x TER's with Mk.82 Snakeyes and a Bullpup on one outer wing pylon. That should look suitably mean Amazing how much those little scooters could carry. BTW, seems like CAM Resin is the most common game in town for 1/32 ordnance. Any other options you know of ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
THX1138 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Great shots on that Coral Sea site. I think the variety of planes during the 60's, 70's and 80's is so much more interesting then today. With the F-18 being multirole there's not as much variety these days. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rex Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 ahh,,,,,I'm just grumpy,,,,,it passes lol,,,,,only thing is,,,,,once you get old and grumpy,,,,,when the grumpy goes away,,,,you're still stuck with old Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fenestron Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 ahh,,,,,I'm just grumpy,,,,,it passeslol,,,,,only thing is,,,,,once you get old and grumpy,,,,,when the grumpy goes away,,,,you're still stuck with old Rex, Lol- That is true, but what really means anything is what we do with the time we have left. What really is so cool about this site is that one can get help from people that has done it for real... All the best Ed Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mrvark Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 When you see three bombs on the inboard TERs, I'm pretty sure they're 250-lb Mk 81s (remember, the scooter was a very small jet). According to the TACMAN, three Mk 81s were authorized on those stations, but only two 500-lb Mk 82s (on the outboard and bottom racks). Also, the thermally protected (TP) warheads had two three-inch yellow nose bands, while the non-TP (NTP) warheads had only one (all the ones I saw on the 60's page of the Coral Sea site were NTP). I agree with the previous post that the TP warheads wouldn't have shown up before the early to mid-70s. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Here is another nice all bombs load: http://www.usscoralsea.net/images/cva431967tml59.jpg Jari Quote Link to post Share on other sites
theemodelstarter Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Early on, when Skyhawks were flying with Mk117 bombs, only two could be put on the TER's because of their size. When the Mk 82's first came out as Non Thermally Protected (This wasn't even an official term yet!) they could be loaded out with three Bombs per TER because they were so munch skinnier due to the new aerodynamic shape. Once the Thermally Protected bombs made it into the fleet, they were now fatter, and although they could still fit, it was decided to limit the load to two per TER to avoid possibly wearing off the coating on the inboard bombs. Rex is correct that the addition of the coatings were a result of the three major carrier fires. The Oriskany fire was the result of an accidental flare discharge and highlighted the poor oxygen breathing systems and lack of escape breathing systems then in use. The Forrestal fire lessons learned had more to do with old outdated bombs that cooked-off so quickly as a result of the large JP-4 fire on deck. Firefighting procedure and training for all hands was also emphasized. The enterprise fire involved NPT new type bombs, not the old stuff that blew up on Forrestal. This is the proverbial straw that brought about to TP bombs we now have today. The other big factor was the way the ships fire main was isolated during battle stations. Due to a water main break, and no cross connections, the fire was able to grow enormously while the feeds were restored or hoses were dragged aft from the bow. Meanwhile the cook-off times turnout to be quicker than predicted on the new bombs, and as these went off, entire airplane were turned into a million points of light.. spraying jet fuel and shrapnel. This is what was seen as those "few extra seconds" that could have saved lives. TP bombs would have meant 30 seconds more to start beating back the flame and cooling the weapons. This is why the TP bombs didn't start showing up until mid/late 1970 and not after the Forrestal fire. Many changes came about in Naval Aviation as a result of these three incidents and many lives have been preserved since due to continuing improvements in shipboard firefighting systems and training for all ships company. We as modelers see those changes but many times aren't aware of what predicates those changes in what we strive to be the most accurate representation of the subjects we love and admire. Sometimes the tails are a bit gruesome as in this case. The book "TRIAL - Ordeal of the USS Enterprise" is and awesome story of the bravery of just some of the young men that serve our country day in and out. Be thankful every day not just at the end of May! Sorry for the soapbox but it's personal. Happy modeling to ALL! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
richter111 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Thanks, these pics are going to come in handy when I redo my 1/32 Scooter Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sauragnmon Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 I love the picture Netz posted, though if you look closely, that's not a TER in the centerline, she's six in center, two either inboard, and one on the outboard of each wing. Tempting to make one of those myself... Maybe after I finish the RCN Scooter I'm doing, and some other projects. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Netz Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 I dunno, I went to find a full MER Skyhawk in a book,,,,,,,,,,turns out there's a 3 full MER Sky hawk of Gunter # 51,,,,,a USN photo,,,,,on the cover, so it didn't take much digging"less than full" on an aircraft doesn't mean "can't carry",,,,,or else we'd all be building our Phantoms with 2 MER with only 2 WW2 250# on each, based on a photo from Vietnam This came from Skyhawk.org http://www.skyhawk.org/2c/a4parts/a4-weapons-racks.htm NOTE: The total weapons load capability on the Skyhawk is determined by the total allowed maximum weight per stores station, not total weight capability of a MER or TER.Also, a TER placed on the Skyhawk's inboard wing stations could not utilize the inboard side of the rack because of the close proximity of the Main Landing Gear doors I'm still looking for a picture of a TER fully loaded on the inboard station, but to be honest I haven't looked beyond the post's here. Thanks GuysAbsolutely excellent information. Looks like I have a "lot" of scope for really loading this one up !! Perhaps 3 x TER's with Mk.82 Snakeyes and a Bullpup on one outer wing pylon. That should look suitably mean :lol: Amazing how much those little scooters could carry. BTW, seems like CAM Resin is the most common game in town for 1/32 ordnance. Any other options you know of ? Yes that would be cool, that centerline could be bumped up to a MER, but check that total weight, and the feasibility of the 2 types of weapons being used on the same mission. Curt Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rex Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Netz, I've seen that note also I was talking about "pre-ablative" years,,,,and I think the two charts differ on that, only because they were written by different guys,,,and one was before the cut-off, and one was after before the ablative, the TER could physically carry a 500 on the inside, only because the door didn't really "hit" the bomb,,,,but, later,,,everything was done to keep the coating from getting scratched up 'during loading' and 'during gear retraction',,,,they sure didn't hit even then, while loading,,,,although no one seemed to want to be the man on the inside middle while lifting the bomb into place,,,,,the door fell right in the middle of your back (Navy and Air Force guys didn't have this problem,,,,they rarely used the physical method) one way to tell if a bomb is a 250 or 500 pounder is pretty simple,,,,,use the "percentage of length" method of photo interpretation,,,,,if the percentage is higher, it's a 500, lower, it's a 250,,,,,they were 6 and 7 feet long, but, you don't even need to use the actual length of the bomb in your photo I shouldn't have used any MER's as examples,,,,they had a "natural gap" right about where the door is, anyway having said all that,,,,,Snakes were different animals, anyway,,,,the fins stuck out wider than the body Even if it all fits, and doesn't weigh too much, there were still lots of loads that wouldn't load every rack up, just because of quantity of bombs left on the ship, and mission requirements for the planned target (you don't take 18 bombs out so you can loiter for a long time, to bomb one bunker, etc) There are lots of photos that show only one bomb on each wing pylon, with a Tank on the centerline lol, this turned out to be wayyyyy more info than you needed, Gary,,,,,,enjoy your build Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Another unusual bomb load: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachmen...mp;d=1157059840 note the different sizes of the bombs on the same TER. Jari Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Huey Gunner Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Another unusual bomb load:http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachmen...mp;d=1157059840 note the different sizes of the bombs on the same TER. Jari That is odd. Like they were trying to get rid of old stock. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.