F-111A and Mk.20 Rockeye

[A-10 LOADER]

Drawing #1 is correct. The fins are always in a "X" configuration in relation to the bomb's lugs.

Steve

[Finn]

Here are F-111s with bombs:

 

Mk-82:

 

 

M-117, note forward bombs are a different config compared to the rear bombs:

 

 

Mk-82 AIR:

 

 

Jari

[GW8345]

38 minutes ago, Finn said:

Here are F-111s with bombs:

 

Mk-82:

 

 

M-117, note forward bombs are a different config compared to the rear bombs:

 

 

Mk-82 AIR:

 

 

Jari

Not to contradict anyone but if you look closely, the centerline bombs fin's are in the "+" configuration while the shoulder stations bomb fin's are in the "x" configuration.

 

At least to my Mk 1 Mod 0 eyeballs that might be slightly out of calibration.

 

Also, in the first pic there's a Mk 82 Mod 2 (Thermally Protected bomb body) loaded on the inboard aft station (sub-station 1 of the BRU-3). First time I've seen a TP bomb on an AF bird.

 

We need Mr. Vark to chime in, he'll know what's going.

 

GW

[Hajo L.]

To even add...:

 

The forward bombs on the shoulders are +, while centerline forward are x, and exactly vice versa (shoulderline x, centerline +) on the aftwards bombs.

 

I wonder how the ALQ-87 is mounted on the first picture, since it appears like the bomb bay doors are open...? Or ist just the port-side bay door open, and the jammer is mounted on th estarport side?

 

 

HAJO

[Finn]

Good pick up on the TP bomb GW, it looks like the fwd upper on the inboad is another one as the yellow stripe is further back compared to the rest. The early thermal protection was internal, a goo type material. Here is another one with Mk-82s:

 

 

it appears to be an earlier MER type rack (see pg 2 of this thread) while the other one is a later BRU-3 which probably required different fin configuration. Some engineer most likely did the math of how the bombs would behave when the bombs came off so that they didn't hit the rack, aircraft or the other bombs.

 

Jari

[RCarlson]

As A-10 Loader noted, I would have assumed that the mounting would be in an "X" configuration to the lugs, but as the pictures above and these ones that I have tried to tighten in on make me question if the BRU required a different configuration. This is probably one of those "I'm focusing too much on something", but it just started making me curious on if they were different and why?

 

 

 

 

[mrvark]

This has turned into an interesting thread! It appears that the mounting protocol changed at some point. Here is a pic taken in Aug. 81 with the Mk 82 conical fins clearly in the 'x' configuration:

 

 

Here is a pic of a Combat Lancer F-111A with the high drag MAU-91 fin hinges loaded in a '+' configuration (although the fins would appear to be 'x'):

 

 

When a new weapon is authorized to be employed by an aircraft, it goes through extensive flight testing (in the USAF, it's called 'Seek Eagle'). Why they would choose to do '+' rather than 'x' (much less a mix of '+' & 'x' on the same BRU!) escapes me, but had to have been based on flight testing. Why they later changed to all 'x' is odd, but was perhaps driven by the desire to simplify the loading tasks.

 

BTW, the release sequence from MERs/BRUs was USUALLY 1) aft bottom, 2) front bottom, 3) aft outboard, 4) front outboard, 5) aft inboard, 6) front inboard. If inboard racks were left empty (like in the top pic), the load was referred to as a 'slant' load (slant 4 for MER, slant 2 for TER). If the bottom racks were left empty, they were called 'flat' loads (flat 4 or flat 2).

[mrvark]

On 3/23/2025 at 6:43 AM, Hajo L. said:

 

 

I wonder how the ALQ-87 is mounted on the first picture, since it appears like the bomb bay doors are open...? Or ist just the port-side bay door open, and the jammer is mounted on th estarport side?

ECM pods were mounted directly behind the gun pod. The original pylon, used with the Vietnam-era AN/ALQ-87 is shown in the drawing. Note that the drawing shows that the back end of the pylons ages down to match the profile of the pod. At some point after the Vietnam War ended that feature was deleted as you can see from the pic taken at the Nat Museum of the USAF as compared to the December 1972 pic (with the Mk 82/Mk 15 Snakeyes mounted in an 'x' configuration). 

 

Edited March 25 by mrvark
Corrected and added additional information.

[Finn]

Here is another one:

 

 

Jari

[Niels]

Given that in each of the examples you have provided the configuration is either +x+ or x+x, could it be so simple as either would be allowed providing you didn't mix it up as this would ensure a clean separation from the pylon?
I mean, +++ or xxx configuration would likely/possibly cause a clash of the fins on the bombs? 

Edited March 25 by Niels

[mrvark]

6 hours ago, Niels said:

Given that in each of the examples you have provided the configuration is either +x+ or x+x, could it be so simple as either would be allowed providing you didn't mix it up as this would ensure a clean separation from the pylon?
I mean, +++ or xxx configuration would likely/possibly cause a clash of the fins on the bombs? 

The MERs & TERs mounted the shoulder bombs at 45° (so +45°, 90°, -45°). Looking at the assembly tail-on with the fins installed with the normal 'x' orientation, it looks like +x+, keeping the fins from interfering with each other. You'd only get in trouble if you mixed + & x orientation on the same set of bombs.