Jump to content

Questions on MN-1A and CF-104D's


Recommended Posts

(I originally posted this in the Starfish thread, which is a dead thread, so I am re-posting here).

I have been looking over the DACO set and I was wondering if our Canadian 104 experts here can help with a few questions on the MN-1A and SUU-21 practice bomb dispensers. I have seen many photos of single seat CF-104's mounting the full length SUU-21 with the pointy nose cone. This unit would never allow nose gear clearance if used on the two seat version, the CF-104D Mk II. Was the difference in Canadian service, that the short nose version is the MN-1A, or were both the long nose and the blunted nose both called MN-1A? I am assuming the purpose of the short nose unit was to allow use on the CF-104D Mk.II two seaters, which, as far as I know, were the only two-seat 104's with a center line hard point.

In related question, was the CF-104D Mk I version a pure trainer, like the F-104F and F-104DJ, or did it have fire control system and allow some combat usage like F-104B, D and TF-104G models? The CF-104D Mk II would have full weapons capability as it was earmarked as a war reserve. Just wondering if the Mk I version was also weapons capable.

Also, given the rarity of the special center line rack on the Mk II, which carried its store level instead of angled nose-up like the standard single seat rack, does anybody have a good photo or drawing of the rack?

Here is the best photo of a CF-104D Mk II I could google up. Four gas bags and an MN-1A:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lockheed_CF-104D_Starfighter_Mk2,_Canada_-_Air_Force_AN1280891.jpg

Edited by Michael Vorrasi
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some answers to your questions, it was the MN-1A we used on the CF-104, the blunt nose was used mostly later on when i worked on the CF-104. Just the Mk II had weapons capability, the last 16 D's had ability and only during the early days however once a c/l pylon was put on a camo dual but just a trial. The pylon was the same as the single seat version, instead of angled up into the fuselage at the front, it was flush against the belly.

Jari

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some answers to your questions, it was the MN-1A we used on the CF-104, the blunt nose was used mostly later on when i worked on the CF-104. Just the Mk II had weapons capability, the last 16 D's had ability and only during the early days however once a c/l pylon was put on a camo dual but just a trial. The pylon was the same as the single seat version, instead of angled up into the fuselage at the front, it was flush against the belly.

Jari

Thanks Finn. Did the CF-104D Mk.I version lack radar(even for training) as well? The F-104F and the DJ both had no radar and blanking plates on their instrument panels instead of radar scopes. Was this the case with Mk.I's? Was the pylon's outer fairing for the Mk.II pylon different than single seaters? It would seem that it had to be given the "level" set of the pylon. I am surmising that the pylon itself had the angle adjusted within the recessed slot that the pylon went into in the belly, but the outer fairing seems to be different.

Edited by Michael Vorrasi
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry don't remember if the Mk I had the radar or not, it's been 30yrs since i worked on the CF-104, and then just the single seaters. Yes the nose fairing for the pylon was differet, on the single seater it was just a fairing that was flush with the bottom of the fuselage. Here is another Mk II, looks to be green, with a c/l pylon:

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/McLeod/5798L.jpg

Jari

Link to post
Share on other sites

(I originally posted this in the Starfish thread, which is a dead thread, so I am re-posting here).

I have been looking over the DACO set and I was wondering if our Canadian 104 experts here can help with a few questions on the MN-1A and SUU-21 practice bomb dispensers. I have seen many photos of single seat CF-104's mounting the full length SUU-21 with the pointy nose cone. This unit would never allow nose gear clearance if used on the two seat version, the CF-104D Mk II. Was the difference in Canadian service, that the short nose version is the MN-1A, or were both the long nose and the blunted nose both called MN-1A? I am assuming the purpose of the short nose unit was to allow use on the CF-104D Mk.II two seaters, which, as far as I know, were the only two-seat 104's with a center line hard point.

In related question, was the CF-104D Mk I version a pure trainer, like the F-104F and F-104DJ, or did it have fire control system and allow some combat usage like F-104B, D and TF-104G models? The CF-104D Mk II would have full weapons capability as it was earmarked as a war reserve. Just wondering if the Mk I version was also weapons capable.

Also, given the rarity of the special center line rack on the Mk II, which carried its store level instead of angled nose-up like the standard single seat rack, does anybody have a good photo or drawing of the rack?

Here is the best photo of a CF-104D Mk II I could google up. Four gas bags and an MN-1A:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lockheed_CF-104D_Starfighter_Mk2,_Canada_-_Air_Force_AN1280891.jpg

Hi Mike,

We only used the MN-1A which was essentially a Canadianized SUU-21. The original versions had the long nose but the blunt nose became standard when the CF-104D MK II came along. The bomb dispenser used on the center line pylon on the CF-104D MK II was a shortened version of the MN-1A with the blunt nose as even the full length MN-1A with a blunt nose was too long for the MK II.

The CF-104D MK I was a fully capable weapons platform although only conventional stores with no special weapons capability and was strictly used for pilot training. The MK I could also carry the MN-1A on a wing pylon. Both the CF-104D MK I/II had the same APG-502 radar as in the single seater. The MK II was developed to carry a center line special weapon to supplement our tactical nuclear role in the 60's if things got hot.

Cheers,

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Finn and John. John, you mentioned the original MN-1A was basically the same as the SUU-21 and then a blunt nose version came out later. Then an even shorter nose version was made for the Mk.II. So, if I am reading you correctly, there were three different nose lengths? I was toying with the idea a CF-104D mounting the MN-1A on the center line using DACO's parts. Do you know if DACO's version is the right one for a Mk.II? A two seat 104 with a center line load would be pretty unique. Might have to guesstimate the pylon though!

Mike

Edited by Michael Vorrasi
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Finn and John. John, you mentioned the original MN-1A was basically the same as the SUU-21 and then a blunt nose version came out later. Then an even shorter nose version was made for the Mk.II. So, if I am reading you correctly, there were three different nose lengths? I was toying with the idea a CF-104D mounting the MN-1A on the center line using DACO's parts. Do you know if DACO's version is the right one for a Mk.II? A two seat 104 with a center line load would be pretty unique. Might have to guesstimate the pylon though!

Mike

The center line bomb dispenser on the CF-104D MK II was actually shorter in the body length but used the same blunt nose of the MN-1A. I believe it only carried 4 practice bombs instead of 6. If I were to build a modified MN-1A for a MK II I would cut off the forward section containing the 2 practice bombs and attach the MN-1A blunt nose to this.

Cheers.

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

John the MN-1A was the same body size, if you look in the first pic above you'll see the markings for all 3 stations on that side. Also if you have David Bashow's Starfighter book on pg 24 you'll see 660 in flight with a pod with fwd and aft sections opened up.

Jari

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. Very helpful. Finn, that was a great drawing. Just out of curiosity, did the little bomb bay doors slide up inside the pod when opened? I have never seen a video of them working, but I think that is how they worked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John the MN-1A was the same body size, if you look in the first pic above you'll see the markings for all 3 stations on that side. Also if you have David Bashow's Starfighter book on pg 24 you'll see 660 in flight with a pod with fwd and aft sections opened up.

Jari

I have the Bashow book. I must have missed that photo when I flipped though it at the start of my search. It is clear from the photo that the Mk.II pylon not only was level, rather than nose tipped upwards, but that it hangs much lower than on the single seaters. No doubt, this is to clear the aft nose gear retraction arc of the duals. It does not seem to have any aerodynamic fairing around it like the single seat pylon does either. Just a squarish hunk of hardware hanging in the breeze. Wish I had a close up photo!

Link to post
Share on other sites

John the MN-1A was the same body size, if you look in the first pic above you'll see the markings for all 3 stations on that side. Also if you have David Bashow's Starfighter book on pg 24 you'll see 660 in flight with a pod with fwd and aft sections opened up.

Jari

Hey Jari,

Thanks for the heads up on the 660 photo. One thing I noticed is that the bulkhead between the forward and mid/aft bomb stations appears to be shorter in length than on the MN-1A. This could be where they shortened the MN-1A for the D Mk II as I still feel the nose gear geometry required more clearance than the standard MN-1A would have provided.

When I get a chance I'll look over some 1/48 profiles of the 104 dual and the DACO MN-1A to see what I can come up with.

Cheers,

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John, although the fwd bomb section was indeed shorter the whole body was basically one piece, when i had my CF-104 Armament course no mention was made of a "short" MN-1A and all the ones i loaded with regular length. I still have the handout of the MN-1A. Since the nose wheel retracted in an arc and as long as the nose gear doors cleared the pod then there was enough clearance. One thing about profiles, they are just drawings so they can't really be trusted.

Jari

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John, although the fwd bomb section was indeed shorter the whole body was basically one piece, when i had my CF-104 Armament course no mention was made of a "short" MN-1A and all the ones i loaded with regular length. I still have the handout of the MN-1A. Since the nose wheel retracted in an arc and as long as the nose gear doors cleared the pod then there was enough clearance. One thing about profiles, they are just drawings so they can't really be trusted.

Jari

Hi Jari,

After looking at more photos it looks like the MN-1A was mounted farther aft on the D MK II which gives the illusion that it's shorter. Looking at the photo of 653 it does look like the aft end of the pod is almost even with the main gear.

Cheers,

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jari,

After looking at more photos it looks like the MN-1A was mounted farther aft on the D MK II which gives the illusion that it's shorter. Looking at the photo of 653 it does look like the aft end of the pod is almost even with the main gear.

Cheers,

John

John, I was thinking the same thing. The front of the pylon is very close to the front of the pod, so it might have been mounted farther aft on the Mk II.

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike & John, here is a pic of 104666 with a MN-1A on it:

http://planesandchoppers.com.s3.amazonaws.com/4216.jpg

you can see where the pylon is in relation to the pod.

Jari

PERFECT!! Given that of all dual 104's, only these 16 airplanes could carry anything on the center line, that is a rare bird, both the photo and the airplane. This shot shows a rack more closely shaped to the single seater than the other shots seem to show. Finn, do you recall if there were multiple lug locations, such that a store could be mounted farther aft on the pylon, like these seem to show?

Edited by Michael Vorrasi
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, the MN-1A had multiple lug capability, 14", 20" or 30" however we used 30" for the c/l. The main difference between the pylon, besides how it was positioned, from what i can see is the nose fairing for the dual was much longer, the single seater was like this <, sort of like the front end of a small scale canoe with the bottom cut out if you know what i mean. If you look at the pic the dark area on the pylon that is where the breeches are, where the cartridges go in, that's about the middle of the bomb rack. You can also make out the swaybraces on either side of the breeches, just compare those details with the one on the single seater. The main part of the pylon was the same on the 1 or 2 seater, just different fairings is all.

Jari

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike & John, here is a pic of 104666 with a MN-1A on it:

http://planesandchoppers.com.s3.amazonaws.com/4216.jpg

you can see where the pylon is in relation to the pod.

Jari

Thanks Jari!

Great shot showing the longitudinal location of the pod and pylon. It's almost a full nose cones length aft of where a single seat CF-104 would have it mounted.

The pylon for the single seater was semi-recessed and secured in place with a bolt at the forward and aft ends. I would love to see better photo's of the D MK II pylon and how it was attached. It was a rare beast and the photos are even more rare.

Cheers,

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't that particular aircraft referred to as the beast?

LOL

Emil

Maintainers called it Triple Sick, The Evil One, The jet from Hell, while aircrew called it Triple Pig. It was a hangar queen and was finally put to rest in a non-fatal accident in 1975.

Cheers,

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...