Jump to content

Multiple Ejector Rack (MER) USAF(E) version question


Recommended Posts

I've bought two of the Eduard 1:48 MER kits with three MERS's in each kit.

These are for mounting on a USAFE F-105D (3x) and USAFE F-105F (1x) in the late sixties and a USAFE F-4E (2x) in the late eighties.

These MER's come with optional parts so three different versions can be made.

For assembly the instructions state: "SEE YOUR REFERENCES".

However, I'm unable to find any definitive clear information which optional parts go with which MER version and for which time period they are.

Can anybody here shed a light on this?

The parts concerned are R21 and R22 in the Eduard manual shown.

 

Thanks in advance for any reply!

Eduard_MER.PNG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Go with the second option, parts R22 for the Thud.
 

It’s possible that, by the late 1980s, the new style (R21) had been adopted by USAF.

 

Here’s a USN Intruder from 1992 with the new style sway pad supports:

 

CW3EgS6.jpg

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

Go with the second option, parts R22 for the Thud.
 

It’s possible that, by the late 1980s, the new style (R21) had been adopted by USAF.

 

Thanks, now I at least know the difference between the older and newer versions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Finn said:

In addition to what was said above, if you plan to have MERs on the wing pylons of the F-105. the inboard sides of the MERs did not have the racks installed:

 

http://aviation.watergeek.eu/images/f-105/f-105_1.jpg

 

Jari

 

Thanks, I hadn't noticed this detail and since my F-105D will get 3 TER's loaded with Mk.117's, some modifications to the TER's are in order.

Is it me, or does the MER in the picture look more simple than the Eduard MER?

 

image.thumb.png.fa35697d0771386d6f5f6d909e2b0199.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Erwin.

 

There could be a problem unless you are planning "what-if" F-105's?

I believe that the D-models were gone from USAFE before the "late" 1960's, the 36th TFW had them until 1966 and the 49th TFW had them until 1967. Over here, their mission was overwhelmingly nuclear strike. It's possible they had a secondary duty with conventional weapons, but almost everything they did or carried was dedicated to training for nuclear strike. 

They were dead serious about their Victor Alert duty. Training flights and training in Libya were seen as necessary, but regretted as it meant less aircraft were available to stand Victor Alert. 

I'm not aware of photos of USAFE F-105D's with conventional bombs. If they exist, Jari would be the guy who could find them.🙂

 

You are right about that not being the same as the Eduard MER. There was an evolution of bomb racks before the definitive MER was created. 

 

Cheers, Stefan;

  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2021 at 12:48 AM, Stefan buysse said:

Hi, Erwin.

 

There could be a problem unless you are planning "what-if" F-105's?

I believe that the D-models were gone from USAFE before the "late" 1960's, the 36th TFW had them until 1966 and the 49th TFW had them until 1967. Over here, their mission was overwhelmingly nuclear strike. It's possible they had a secondary duty with conventional weapons, but almost everything they did or carried was dedicated to training for nuclear strike. 

They were dead serious about their Victor Alert duty. Training flights and training in Libya were seen as necessary, but regretted as it meant less aircraft were available to stand Victor Alert. 

I'm not aware of photos of USAFE F-105D's with conventional bombs. If they exist, Jari would be the guy who could find them.🙂

 

You are right about that not being the same as the Eduard MER. There was an evolution of bomb racks before the definitive MER was created. 

 

Cheers, Stefan;

  

 

My f-105D will be from around 1962, just before they left the area. 

I do like an interesting loadout, but it should be a realistic one for Spangdahlem.

Therefore I think I will switch the armament to a Victor Alert nuclear strike version.

 

Did they carry B-43's/B-61's internally together with two droptanks under the inner pylons, or did they carry these in the inner wing pylons?

And what did they carry on the outer pylons: An AN/ALQ-87 and AIM-9B perhaps?

 

Any idea's?

 

Edited by Susaschka
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some info here from 1964:

 

http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-105D-31_Thunderchief_CS_-_January_1964.pdf

 

edit: if you plan to go with a internal B43, here is how the tail was:

 

Thud-Nuke960_640.jpg

 

bd1b62f6623c8d195dca6fc091b124ec.jpg

 

the top fin was removed so you would have s T configuration instead of +. Also with the time period you plan to go with no ECM pods, too early for them,  and most likely no AIM-9s either. The mission was strike not dogfight, probably the outer pylons were removed to save weight and less drag.

 

Jari

Edited by Finn
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, thanks for the pics. Interesting that the bombs lost their top fins in order to fit in the F-105 bomb bay.

 

According to your schematic, the F-105 should be able to carry:

- One Mk.28 or 43 internally or: 

- One externally on the centerline or:

- Two externally on the inboard pylons.

 

image.png.8101b4579e4c48febac95d784ad9c4db.png

 

The Smissonian website states the following: (https://www.si.edu/object/republic-f-105d-thunderchief%3Anasm_A19820064000)

The F-105D was originally intended for the nuclear strike role, with the primary armament being a "special store" (a nuclear weapon) housed in the internal weapons bay.

This weapon was usually a Mk 28 or a Mk 43. However, a Mk 61 could be carried underneath the left or right inboard under wing pylon and a Mk 57 or a Mk 61 could be carried underneath the centerline pylon.

 

The Air&Space Magazine website states: the following: (https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/thuds-the-ridge-and-100-missions-north-47278311/)

From the bases in Germany and at Kadena Air Base in Okinawa and Osan, South Korea, the pilots began standing alerts, nuclear weapons tucked into their airplanes’ bomb bays or hanging from wing pylons, waiting for the terrible moment to arrive.

 

The question that remains: What configuration did the -105D's use during their Victor Alert duties at Spangdahlem?

- Which types of bombs: Mk28 (B28), Mk43 (B43), Mk57 (B57) or TX61 (B61)?

- Were these loaded internally or externally?

- And if they were loaded externally did they carry one bomb on the centerline or two on the inboard wing pylons?

 

You are right about the AN/ALQ-87 jammers, these were indeed only developped around 1967.

I also wonder if anyone can confirm the removal of the outer pylons if these were not used.

 

Personally I think that a load of one nuke internally with two droptanks or one nuke on the centerline pylon combined with an bomb bay fueltank and two droptanks would be the most logical configurations considering combat range, but this is my opinion so I could be wrong.

The configuration with one (or two) external nuke(s) would definitely be one of the nicest loadouts for my model. 🙂

Edited by Susaschka
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Yes, I agree that there should be no ALQ or Sidewinder on the outboards for the 1962 Victor Alert load-out.

I can think of two reasons for keeping the outboard pylons. Possibly, they added a bit of stability. Second reason might be to keep the Soviets guessing about the nuclear load-out in USAFE. 

 

I looked for the crash of Major DeBock...the date of 3rd of August 1967 seemed familiar. Sure enough, the USAF lost 3 F-105's that day but he was not flying one of those.

He was flying an F-4C out of Cam Ranh Bay and had an engine failure on take-off. His WSO got out, he didn't.

 

Best regards, Stefan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Modern Military Aircraft Series book Thud by Lou Drendel it has a pic of a Thud in the Far East, Okinawa i think, with a Mk-28 on a wing pylon, can't see the other wing so two shapes on wing pylons would be okay. The B61 didn't show up until around 1967 so either Mk-28 or Mk-43 would be the more common ones for that early time period.

 

Jari

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

In the Modern Military Aircraft Series book Thud by Lou Drendel it has a pic of a Thud in the Far East, Okinawa i think, with a Mk-28 on a wing pylon, can't see the other wing so two shapes on wing pylons would be okay. The B61 didn't show up until around 1967 so either Mk-28 or Mk-43 would be the more common ones for that early time period.

 

Jari

 

Thanks Jari. I think you mean this picture?

 

image.thumb.png.d27d58a82f8400456878a804c730b25e.png

 

It does look like there is a droptank under the right wing, which I've highlighted in green below.

When loaded with only one nuke this would make sense, as the centerline fueltank would contain 650 Gal oppose to a wingtank carrying only 450 Gal thus giving more range.

 

image.thumb.png.5bcce7370808b21af02593734952b037.png

 

It indeed could be a B28, but could also be a B43. I do realize the picture below is from a model kit, but looking at the shape and location of the "Y" number it looks a bit more like a B43:

 

image.thumb.png.805abcd2819db831732f300f389021aa.png

 

image.thumb.png.1036e8d25b47b98d9fa80a4a4d99ce9f.png

 

 

Edited by Susaschka
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Stefan buysse said:

Hi,

 

Yes, I agree that there should be no ALQ or Sidewinder on the outboards for the 1962 Victor Alert load-out.

I can think of two reasons for keeping the outboard pylons. Possibly, they added a bit of stability. Second reason might be to keep the Soviets guessing about the nuclear load-out in USAFE. 

 

Thanks Stefan. There are quite a lot pictures to be found online from USAFE (Bitburg and Spangdahlem) F-105D's with the outer pylons removed, so I will not be installing them on my model.

 

image.png.de141f032f0b0deb584f1668bb734e60.png     image.png.8e3285f5ca3b644c1716a3ef03462f2d.png

 

image.png.c3ab95b23675e3c088b3465d9428b9c5.png     image.png.11916330f940dc87096ae33330666888.png

 

image.thumb.png.9c42901141429e5ec63bf5230c97c388.png

 

image.thumb.png.4d1fff583291106863b5efd9233b8108.png

 

image.png.c902e1d4db00bc3667232f2f8c3a2712.png

 

 

Edited by Susaschka
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mk/B28 had the Y - Yield as well:

 

img_6844.jpg

 

As per your highlight, the nose section looks too bulbous for a external tank, maybe it could be a Mk/B43 with the N43-Mod 0 nose:

 

Py2zSKy.jpg

 

or even a SUU-21 for counterweight for a training mission?

 

Jari

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2021 at 1:31 AM, Finn said:

The Mk/B28 had the Y - Yield as well:

 

As per your highlight, the nose section looks too bulbous for a external tank, maybe it could be a Mk/B43 with the N43-Mod 0 nose:

 

or even a SUU-21 for counterweight for a training mission?

 

Now I understand where the Y stands for. 🙂

Think you could be right about the droptank, but it looks to me like it is also to bulbous for a Mk/B43 with Mod 0 nose too...

 

I will not be using a SUU-21, because I would like my models to have a loadout without practice ordnance. 😉 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, arg said:

I thought a nice change-of-pace from Vietnam F-105Ds would be to do a nuclear-armed one.  Built the 1/48 Monogram F-105D with a scratch-built weapons bay, and added a Mk 28 from Belcher Bits.

 

That looks really nice, well done! To bad there is no aftermarket bomb bay available for the F-105, because I'm not that experienced with this level of scratchbuilding. 🙂

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...