Jump to content

A-7 External Tank Question


Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, GW8345 said:

Yes, once, when an ANG A-7D squadron (think it was either Michigan or Wisconsin) came down to Cecil Field and did a week with us (VA-82). Myself and few other ordies helped their ordies load their tanks for the return trip back home. Their tanks were basically just like ours' just painted differently.

 

Good, then you have hands on experience with the Air Force A-7 tanks. Can you please explain the four differences that I've identified above between the two tank patterns and which version of the Aero 1D each represents?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GW8345 said:

There is a D-704 in the Fujimi KA-6D Intruder kit H-15. Also, Attack Squadron (ARMA Hobby) made a D704 in 1/72 scale, kit number 72027 or 72028, before they stopped production, you might be able to find one somewhere.

 

There is also one on Shapeway;

 

https://www.shapeways.com/product/CJ3JW4BN3/1-72-scale-d-704-buddy-fuel-tank-usn

 

Thanks one more time! I found no less than three more in 1/72 scale:

 

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/modern-hobbies-mh037-a-a42r-1-air-refueling-buddy-pod--1226646

 

https://www.freightdogmodels.co.uk/freightdog-1-72-douglas-d-704-buddy-refuelling-store.html

 

https://www.aviationmegastore.com/douglas-d704-refuelling-pod-ac7203-larsenal-ac72-03-aircraft-scale-modelling-detailsets/product/?action=prodinfo&art=67875

 

The last one looks horribly short though.


Rob

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rob de Bie said:

 

Rob, the Aviation Megastore link (product by L'Arsenal) is actually the French Aeronavale buddy refueling pod, as carried by the Etendard IV and later Super Etendard (L'Arsenal identifies it only as "Douglas refueling pod" on their own website).  According to some sources the French pod is a Douglas B827.

 

More on the D704 and other FR pods

 

Super Etendard with buddy refueling pod

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hoops said:

 

Good, then you have hands on experience with the Air Force A-7 tanks. Can you please explain the four differences that I've identified above between the two tank patterns and which version of the Aero 1D each represents?

 

What's the point, anything I say you will just find something else to counter it.

 

I've explained that I have hands on experience with AERO 1D's and (a little) with A-7D's, what experience do you have.....or are you just a textpert?

 

I've also explained that the AERO-1D had various part numbers, how do you know that the USAF tanks weren't just a different part number but still identified as AERO 1D. Or the USAF just called it a different name but it was still an AERO 1D (example is the BDU-50/Mk 82 Mod 1 Inert).

 

So far you've proved that they are not like USN/USMC AERO 1D's but have not proved that they are not AERO 1D's. Again, they may be a different part number but are still identified as AERO 1D.

 

Now that you've identified the differences between the tanks, why don't you identify the designation for those tanks. What is the nomenclature for them and what is the part number?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Quixote74 said:

 

Rob, the Aviation Megastore link (product by L'Arsenal) is actually the French Aeronavale buddy refueling pod, as carried by the Etendard IV and later Super Etendard (L'Arsenal identifies it only as "Douglas refueling pod" on their own website).  According to some sources the French pod is a Douglas B827.

 

You're right, the Aviation Megastore probably added the 'D-704' bit. The L'Arsenal pod appears correct for Etendard / Super Etendard use.

 

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I've explained that I have hands on experience with AERO 1D's and (a little) with A-7D's, what experience do you have.....or are you just a textpert?

 

What impact on does having handled the tanks have on being able to identify that the tanks are different? This is a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority. You claim based on having handled Aero 1D drop tanks that the Air Force tanks are also designated as Aero 1Ds despite having significant design differences without providing any evidence to support the claim.

 

Quote

I've also explained that the AERO-1D had various part numbers, how do you know that the USAF tanks weren't just a different part number but still identified as AERO 1D. Or the USAF just called it a different name but it was still an AERO 1D (example is the BDU-50/Mk 82 Mod 1 Inert).

 

Nowhere in the A-7D or K T.O. does it reference an Aero 1D.

 

My argument follows:

Air Force drop tanks follow a consistent design philosophy: A center section with a mostly constant cross section, usually circular, with a joint at the 7 O'clock position. Attached to this center section with visible recessed panel lines are a nose and tail cone section. If applicable the tail fins are fixed, not not reconfigurable. Example that fit this pattern: the 600 gallon tanks for the F-111 and A-10, the F-16 centerline and wing tanks, the F-15 tanks also used on F-4 Phantoms, etc.

 

The Douglas designed Aero 1D is defined by the government specification (examples you have provided: MIL-T-81838(AS), NAVAIR 03–10JL–7 and ASIM AOP-12 Vol 2) as having the following characteristics:

1. 36 inch constant cross section center making up ~16% of the total length

2. 2 access doors on the port side, one on the starboard side

3. The fuel filler cap located at the 11 O'clock position

4. reconfigurable tail fin arrangement with horizontal and vertical slots

5. Raised weld beads joining tank sections

6. Pressurization vent forward and drain line aft on the bottom of the tank

7. No center section horizontal seam

 

The Air Force A-7 tank has the following observed characteristics:

1. Constant cross section center making up ~27% of it's total length (73% longer than the Aero 1D specification)

2. No access doors on either side of the tank

3. The fuel filler cap located at the 1 O'clock position

4. Fixed configuration tail fins

5. Recessed panel lines joining tank sections

6. Different vent and drain arrangement

7. Raised and bolted center section horizontal seam

 

My conclusion: the Air Force A-7 style drop tank does not meet the design and manufacturing specifications for set out in the aforementioned documents for an Aero 1D, Therefore it is not an Aero 1D. Based on significant design differences and philosophies, it is completely different tank designed to meet the Air Force MIL-T-7378 specification.

 

In the case of the BDU-50 and Mk 82 Mod 1, both are readily identifiable as having the same design. When viewed next to eachother, they can be easily identified as such. This is another logical fallacy, a straw man argument.

 

Quote

So far you've proved that they are not like USN/USMC AERO 1D's but have not proved that they are not AERO 1D's. Again, they may be a different part number but are still identified as AERO 1D.

 

This is another logical fallacy, an appeal to ignorance. I have not provided documentation to prove that the tanks are not identified as Aero 1Ds by the US Air Force, therefore my argument must be incorrect. You're also asking me to prove that something does not exist, which I can't do.

 

Quote

Now that you've identified the differences between the tanks, why don't you identify the designation for those tanks. What is the nomenclature for them and what is the part number?

 

 

MFG SKU: 27-300-3461  NSN: 1560-00-118-4243    Item Name: Tank, Fuel, Aircraft Details: Aircraft Mission Design Series: A-7D Aircraft Location: Tail section
Capacity: 300.0 gallon, us measure

 

Edited by Hoops
Updated with NSN and part numbers
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm now starting to wonder about OV-1, Bronco and A-37 drop tanks now, specially if they fell on the 150 gal range but since I don't want to steer the direction to another topic, can I ask if there were differences between standard Aero D drop tanks BECAUSE I do see some difference between the two tanks in this picture

 

lElLmRV.jpg

 

Luigi

https://imgur.com/lElLmRV

https://imgur.com/lElLmRV

Link to post
Share on other sites

By no means am I an expert on this, but I believe modellers are more worried about the size, shape, panels, access ports, curvature, straightness, etc. etc than the Navy or the Air Force are. 
They just put tanks on an airplane.  😀

Mizzar's picture above illustrates there were different configurations of the same item.

Geoff M

Edited by Geoff M
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mizar said:

I'm now starting to wonder about OV-1, Bronco and A-37 drop tanks now, specially if they fell on the 150 gal range but since I don't want to steer the direction to another topic, can I ask if there were differences between standard Aero D drop tanks BECAUSE I do see some difference between the two tanks in this picture

 

lElLmRV.jpg

 

Luigi

https://imgur.com/lElLmRV

https://imgur.com/lElLmRV

 
Luigi,

 

Actually three tanks are visible in this A-6E photo: two Aero 1D tanks under the right wing (presumably the same configuration on the left) and a buddy refueling store on the centerline station.

 

Rich

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mizar said:

I'm now starting to wonder about OV-1, Bronco and A-37 drop tanks now, specially if they fell on the 150 gal range but since I don't want to steer the direction to another topic, can I ask if there were differences between standard Aero D drop tanks BECAUSE I do see some difference between the two tanks in this picture

 

lElLmRV.jpg

 

Luigi

https://imgur.com/lElLmRV

https://imgur.com/lElLmRV

I assume you are talking about the differences as far as the nose shape, both tanks appear to be AERO 1D's, just different part numbers. The centerline is a D-704 buddy store. With that said, the inboard tank can be a CNU-188C/A Blivet (baggage pod), they were made out of old AERO 1D's and look just like a AERO 1D drop tank except his has access panels on either side.

 

As for the OV-1, not sure about what tanks they were authorized but I think the AERO 1C (150 gl) was authorized.

 

For the Bronco (using the 1992 TACMAN and 1987 NATOPS) the following tanks were authorized on centerline (station 3);

 

FPU-3/A - When carried stations 2 and 4 are limited to weapon diameter of no more than 12 inches

AERO 1C - When carried stations 2 and 4 are limited to weapon diameter of no more than 12 inches

AERO 1D (not in the 1987 NATOPS but listed in the 1992 TACMAN) when carried stations 1, 2, 4 and 5 must be empty

USAF 230 gl tank (in the 1987 NATOPS but not in the 1992 TACMAN)

 

On the wing stations (L/R Wing)

External Fuel Tank p/n 8478 16100-1 (100 gl tank)

 

BTW, the pic is of VA-35 (CVW-17) A-6E returning from Operation Desert Storm on 27 Mar 1991, I was in VF-103 (CVW-17) during Desert Storm so I worked around that aircraft (and probably helped load it, we helped VA-35 load their ordnance during the war). Good times...................

 

HTH

 

 

Edited by GW8345
Link to post
Share on other sites

This keeps getting curiouser and curiouser...

 

Earlier, I was perhaps too quick to respond to Luigi’s query regarding the the VA-35 Intruder photo above. It’s clear to me now that he was pointing out the shape differences in the two adjacent wing tanks. 
 

Sorry for stating the obvious in my first reply!

 

Getting back to the photo, could this aircraft possibly be carrying a Douglas 400 gallon tank on the outbound station? I’ve only ever seen them on Skyhawks (and maybe early Vigilantes).
 

Before I’m dismissed as being crazy for suggesting this, consider this:

 

The tank in question appears shorter in length than the adjacent inboard store (the 400 gallon tank was almost half a foot shorter than the Aero 1D 300 gallon tank).


In addition, its blunt nose, more steeply tapering tail section and the absence of fin mount holes on the latter lead me to speculate...
 

Rich

Edited by RichB63
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RichB63 said:

 
Luigi,

 

Actually three tanks are visible in this A-6E photo: two Aero 1D tanks under the right wing (presumably the same configuration on the left) and a buddy refueling store on the centerline station.

 

Rich

 

I'm ignoring the buddy pod just concentrating on the two tanks 😄

3 hours ago, GW8345 said:

I assume you are talking about the differences as far as the nose shape, both tanks appear to be AERO 1D's, just different part numbers. The centerline is a D-704 buddy store. With that said, the inboard tank can be a CNU-188C/A Blivet (baggage pod), they were made out of old AERO 1D's and look just like a AERO 1D drop tank except his has access panels on either side.

 

As for the OV-1, not sure about what tanks they were authorized but I think the AERO 1C (150 gl) was authorized.

 

For the Bronco (using the 1992 TACMAN and 1987 NATOPS) the following tanks were authorized on centerline (station 3);

 

FPU-3/A - When carried stations 2 and 4 are limited to weapon diameter of no more than 12 inches

AERO 1C - When carried stations 2 and 4 are limited to weapon diameter of no more than 12 inches

AERO 1D (not in the 1987 NATOPS but listed in the 1992 TACMAN) when carried stations 1, 2, 4 and 5 must be empty

USAF 230 gl tank (in the 1987 NATOPS but not in the 1992 TACMAN)

 

On the wing stations (L/R Wing)

External Fuel Tank p/n 8478 16100-1 (100 gl tank)

 

BTW, the pic is of VA-35 (CVW-17) A-6E returning from Operation Desert Storm on 27 Mar 1991, I was in VF-103 (CVW-17) during Desert Storm so I worked around that aircraft (and probably helped load it, we helped VA-35 load their ordnance during the war). Good times...................

 

HTH

 

 

 

 

Thanks GW, and yes, just the tanks, why I picked this picture is because I went through a good chunk of A-6 pictures from Vietnam conflict and Desert Storm because it was said in the past that AV-8B tanks were different than 300gal tanks, it was probably on a Arma Hobby/Attack Squadron discussion or I missread something in the middle while scrolling, fact was people said 1/72 Hasegawa and Airfix Harrier drop tanks were off, more longer than what they should be etc... I then started to go through tons of pictures and to eyeball AV-8B panel lines against drop tanks and then did the same with Hasegawa and Airfix parts and the difference was nearly null, ok their shapes are not that good and for that I once again went through whatever kit in my stash with 300 gal drop tanks, noticed that Fujimi tanks from A-7 kits could be saved with some putty and bobtail mod, noticed that Matchbox and Hasegawa EA-6B tanks nearly matched, Hasegawa TA-4J tank or tanks also were somehow in good shape and so on, but I'm going off topic so back on Intruder tanks.

 

My gripe is, if I go and check a select few A-6A/E and EA-6A pictures from the Vietnam conflict I notice that the forward section of said tanks differs like the ones from the picture I posted, were there different production batches during the 70's?

When AV-8B and the TPS era hit the fan were said tanks simplified or built by using fiberglass or different materials which required some adjustment or they always maintained their overall shape?

 

Luigi

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RichB63 said:

This keeps getting curiouser and curiouser...

 

Earlier, I was perhaps too quick to respond to Luigi’s query regarding the the VA-35 Intruder photo above. It’s clear to me now that he was pointing out the shape differences in the two adjacent wing tanks. 
 

Sorry for stating the obvious in my first reply!

 

Getting back to the photo, could this aircraft possibly be carrying a Douglas 400 gallon tank on the outbound station? I’ve only ever seen them on Skyhawks (and maybe early Vigilantes).
 

Before I’m dismissed as being crazy for suggesting this, consider this:

 

The tank in question appears shorter in length than the adjacent inboard store (the 400 gallon tank was almost half a foot shorter than the Aero 1D 300 gallon tank).


In addition, its blunt nose, more steeply tapering tail section and the absence of fin mount holes on the latter lead me to speculate...
 

Rich

No, the A-6 was not cleared for the AERO 1E (400 gl drop tank) back then, it may have been when it first came out but the AERO 1E was only cleared on the A-4 and A/RA-5 to my knowledge. From the late 70's onward the only aircraft that was cleared for the AERO 1E was the A-4 and I never saw one on an A-4 during my time. The AERO 1E was much fatter than a AERO 1D, it looked like an over pressurized AERO 1D ready to explode. The tail cone for the AERO 1E was more rounded, never saw a pointed tail cone for a AERO 1E.

 

Yes, there was different "batches" of AERO 1D's, there were several manufactures and part numbers so not all tanks were exactly the same. While the manufactures were supposed to follow the drawings, they were allowed to deviate for "easy of production".

 

The reason why the outboard tank looks shorter is because the outboard station sits slightly back from the inboard station.

 

Also, on the AERO 1D the tail cone was removable and interchangeable, and there were several different part numbers for the tail cone which means there were several different types.

 

It looks to me that the outboard tank does not have a fin which leads me to believe it might be a Blivet and not a tank at all, not all blivets had access panels on both sides because back then, they were locally (squadron level) manufactured and there wasn't a hard standard for the tank's configuration.

 

hth

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mizar said:

 

I'm ignoring the buddy pod just concentrating on the two tanks 😄

 

 

Thanks GW, and yes, just the tanks, why I picked this picture is because I went through a good chunk of A-6 pictures from Vietnam conflict and Desert Storm because it was said in the past that AV-8B tanks were different than 300gal tanks, it was probably on a Arma Hobby/Attack Squadron discussion or I missread something in the middle while scrolling, fact was people said 1/72 Hasegawa and Airfix Harrier drop tanks were off, more longer than what they should be etc... I then started to go through tons of pictures and to eyeball AV-8B panel lines against drop tanks and then did the same with Hasegawa and Airfix parts and the difference was nearly null, ok their shapes are not that good and for that I once again went through whatever kit in my stash with 300 gal drop tanks, noticed that Fujimi tanks from A-7 kits could be saved with some putty and bobtail mod, noticed that Matchbox and Hasegawa EA-6B tanks nearly matched, Hasegawa TA-4J tank or tanks also were somehow in good shape and so on, but I'm going off topic so back on Intruder tanks.

 

My gripe is, if I go and check a select few A-6A/E and EA-6A pictures from the Vietnam conflict I notice that the forward section of said tanks differs like the ones from the picture I posted, were there different production batches during the 70's?

When AV-8B and the TPS era hit the fan were said tanks simplified or built by using fiberglass or different materials which required some adjustment or they always maintained their overall shape?

 

Luigi

The AV-8B tanks were the same AERO 1D tanks used on other USN/USMC aircraft. This I know for a fact because I wrote the Authorized Stores Configuration Tables for the AV-8B about 10 years ago. Those tables list all weapon/stores configurations authorized to be carried and released on the AV-8B, I know exactly what can be loaded on that aircraft. Those tanks are the exact same tanks carried on other USN/USMC aircraft, just with different fin configurations.

 

Yes, as stated above there was several different manufactures and part numbers for the tank so over the years it would change shape slightly.

 

No, I never saw one made out of fiberglass or any other different material, every AERO 1D I saw was metal (aluminum).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RichB63 said:

Thanks GW for setting me straight...again!

 

I’ve learned a lot from this discussion from you and other contributors. Timely too, as I’ve been hammering away at a pair of Aero 1Ds in 1/32 scale for the past several weeks.

 

Rich

 

No worries, glad to be able to help out.

 

If anyone is interested I have 1/16 scale drawings for the following drop tanks/buddy store;

AERO 1C

AERO 1D

AERO 1E

D-704

OV-10 230 gallon drop tank

F-4 (USN/USMC) wing tank

F-4 (USN/USMC) centerline tank

 

PM your email address and say you would like the drop tank drawings and I'll be happy to pass them along.

 

BTW, the pub you got your drawing from (NAVAIR 11-120-1.2) is from the late 60's so that drawing you are using is from the late 50's to early 60's (they didn't update the drawings most of the time when they released a new edition). We use to have that pub at my work and am familiar with it, use to thumb through it from time to time when I had a chance.

 

Edited by GW8345
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 10 months later...

Related question. I recently saw a 300 gallon tank likely pulled from the boneyard. It had a painted stencil that said "AERO 1B" and "VA-25". I did not get to see any other placards. The small oval side access panels are not oriented the same, but it otherwise appears to match the dimensions and contour of an AERO 1D. Google doesn't seem to recognize a 1B. Is there such a ting or is it likely a painter error?

 

I may be able to post images later.

 

KC

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...