Rex Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Jari, just a little note. (not a criticism) , but don't you mean 1500 lbs and 3000 lbs for TER and MER? 1000 is only Two Mk 82s for each. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share Posted October 31, 2016 I was referring to the weight capacity of the individual rack itself on the TER/MER, i remember reading somewhere the racks themselves had a capacity of 1,000lb each. Jari Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rex Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 oh, yeah, each RACK on the TER or MER you are very right Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rex Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) hah, this must have been "fun" back then Each Rack has a limit, each TER, MER and MBR had a limit, each pylon had a limit, each airframe had a limit,,,,,,and you had to allow for gas if you were doing anything more than taking off from Da Nang and bombing anywhere farther than the Air Base perimeter. All while making sure that you didn't shoot missiles or rockets through Napalm tanks, or cook off bombs with the missile exhausts. Edited October 31, 2016 by Rex Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alpagueur Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Finn said: No, the Mk-84 had 30" lugs, the TER/MER racks could only take stores with 14" lug spacing not to mention a weight limit of 1,000lbs on the TER/MER racks. Just a single Mk-84 on the pylon itself. Jari thanks Jari. But IIRC once I've seen a photo of an F-4D carrying up 2 Mk.83 on the port inboard TER (probably on the In Action book)... possible? Edited October 31, 2016 by Alpagueur Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Pete Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 What Jari means is that a TER has three racks (the bit of the TER that holds the stores), and each rack can hold a maximum of 1000lbs. So a single TER can indeed carry two 1000lbs Mk.83's, provided the pylon on which the TER is mounted on the plane is capable of that weight and/or size. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share Posted October 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Alpagueur said: thanks Jari. But IIRC once I've seen a photo of an F-4D carrying up 2 Mk.83 on the port inboard TER (probably on the In Action book)... possible? I don't recall ever seeing a pic of a USAF F-4D with 2 Mk-83s on a TER, the Mk-83 was mainly a USN weapon but the F-105s did carry them as well, rarely. Navy F-4s did but not the AF Phantoms. You have to be careful with captions to photos as some times they don't match up as per this example of a Walleye on a F-14: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6509344 Jari Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rex Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 hah, that is the top secret "skinny lightweight Walleye" It has been shown to the rest of the world so that they don't know if a Tomcat has air to air or air to ground ordnance. Same deal happened back in the sixties, with "MK 28" on the centerline captions,,,,,and sometimes they looked a lottttt like an F-4 centerline tank (some were the opposite, too) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alpagueur Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 2 hours ago, Finn said: I don't recall ever seeing a pic of a USAF F-4D with 2 Mk-83s on a TER, the Mk-83 was mainly a USN weapon but the F-105s did carry them as well, rarely. Navy F-4s did but not the AF Phantoms. yes, maybe it was a F-4J sir... I don't remember now... I will try to find that photo if possible. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mrvark Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 USAF did use Mk 83s during the Vietnam War. They divested them afterwards to the Navy as the main advantage of them was that they're easier to deal with on a carrier than the Mk 84. They've come into favor again with the advent of the F-22 as they are the largest warhead that will fit in the Raptor's weapons bay. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
twong Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Were the BLU-1's ever used without the end cap? The photos I see when there are no fins it has the end caps. If I remove the fins from the Hasegawa BLU-1's, there is a flat end at the rear. Would it be OK to remove the fins and leave the flat end? The BLU-27 doesn't always use the end caps so was just making sure if it was OK to do the same on the BLU-1. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted November 2, 2016 Author Share Posted November 2, 2016 (edited) There is no reason why you couldn't leave the nose/tail caps off the BLU-1 but you may have to add the brackets although they may have been removed as well: Jari Edited November 2, 2016 by Finn BOLT-117 was supposed to be in other discussion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
twong Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Thanks again Jari! Looks good. I have a few of the Hasegawa finned ones so I will go ahead and cut the fins off. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mrvark Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 Just a couple of quick notes here. A friend who works NASM took a few measurements of the BLU-27s hung on their F-100 and we agree that they mounted them backwards, so it looks like the BLU-27s only had a single fill cap on the front section of the bomb. He also confirmed that the front and aft sections of the BLU-27 are the same length (so my photo has some optical distortion). (Official drawings indicate the front section of the BLU-1 was longer than the rear section.) The BLU-27 center section weld seam runs down the right side of the bomb, not the bottom. An interesting thing I found on the NMAF's A-1E BLU-23 fire bombs last weekend was that the center section flange was not on the bottom of the bomb, but about 45-deg off centerline! The odd thing was that on one it was offset left and on the other it was offset right!! So, there is a pretty good likelihood that NMAF mounted one of their's backwards as well. The other thing I noticed was that the BLU-23 end caps were welded on rather than attached with screws, which makes me wonder if they might have been load trainers (or replicas) rather than actual fire bombs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted November 6, 2016 Author Share Posted November 6, 2016 Jim most likely the caps were welded when the bombs went to the museum so they couldn't be used again for their intended purpose again. A load trainer would have all functions required for loading and training, except of course for explosive content. In the case of the BLU-32, the caps would be removable to install/check the inert fuze. Jari Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alpagueur Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 12 hours ago, mrvark said: Just a couple of quick notes here. A friend who works NASM took a few measurements of the BLU-27s hung on their F-100 and we agree that they mounted them backwards, so it looks like the BLU-27s only had a single fill cap on the front section of the bomb. He also confirmed that the front and aft sections of the BLU-27 are the same length (so my photo has some optical distortion). (Official drawings indicate the front section of the BLU-1 was longer than the rear section.) The BLU-27 center section weld seam runs down the right side of the bomb, not the bottom. more appropriate the BLU-1s or the BLU-27s for the Casper? TIA. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mrvark Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 BLU-27s. BLU-1s seem to have all been expended pretty early on--about 1967 or so (that's a guess, NOT a statement of fact). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted November 8, 2016 Author Share Posted November 8, 2016 (edited) A F-105 from Bitburg with napalm: click on the pic and view the other photos there. Jari Edited November 8, 2016 by Finn Quote Link to post Share on other sites
twong Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 On 11/7/2016 at 3:54 AM, Alpagueur said: more appropriate the BLU-1s or the BLU-27s for the Casper? TIA. Alpagueur, are there decals for that F-4D in 1/48? I tried looking but found nothing except for a 1/72 Print Scale sheet but it has a different F-4D with a shark mouth from the same squadron of the one you posted. Here is the Print Scale with the shark mouth F-4D 66-755. Does anyone have info on this one? I can't find anything on it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 On 11/7/2016 at 7:32 PM, Finn said: A F-105 from Bitburg with napalm: click on the pic and view the other photos there. Jari Thanks for the link Jari, some nice pictures there. Lots of shots of early -105's. One I was curious about is this one: One of those Thuds appears to have a camo paint job but it doesn't appear to the usual SEA scheme. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted November 12, 2016 Author Share Posted November 12, 2016 It's SEA camo, fresh so it looks dark, you can see it in the background here: Jari Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alpagueur Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 20 hours ago, twong said: Alpagueur, are there decals for that F-4D in 1/48? I tried looking but found nothing except for a 1/72 Print Scale sheet but it has a different F-4D with a shark mouth from the same squadron of the one you posted. I do not know in 1/48... but in 1/32 there is a new Zotz sheet (ZTZ32076) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted January 27, 2017 Author Share Posted January 27, 2017 Here is a F-4B with M-117s including 3 on a TER on the belly: Jari Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted February 3, 2017 Author Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) Scroll down a bit to see a pair of GBU-8s on a F-4D: https://lastcow.smugmug.com/Military/J-Bemiss-USAF-Photos/ Jari Edited February 3, 2017 by Finn 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.