overloaded folding wings

i remember seeing film of the ship that burmed..foresstal? it showed folded wings with roclets, but no bombs.

Reply to
e
Loading thread data ...

Some pretty heavy iron loads are well within the realm. Here are just two examples I quickly found while flipping through books:

1) An F9F-2 Panther from VF-52 aboard Valley Forge off the coast of Korea. With wings folded, she's loaded with four (4) 250-pound bombs under each wing. (Naval Fighters #61, Navy Panthers - Korea and Beyond, Steve Ginter, page 42) From other photos, this seems to be a fairly typical load. Other photos similarly show all of the pylons loaded on folded wings, bombs often mixed with rockets. 2) An unidentified carrier-based GSB Skyraider (AD-2?) with folded wings loaded with two (2) 500-pound bombs and three (3) 250-pound bombs under each wing. (Walk Around A-1 Skyraider, Number 27 - Squadron/Signal, page 33)

So now here's another question: Were the bombs and rockets loaded with the wings down or up? Lots of photos show ordies working on the weapons with the wings folded, but it's not clear to me if they're loading them or arming them.

Kevin

Reply to
Kevin Carroll

Photos, photos, photos......I keep telling folks look at the photos on WWII ships......"Maryland never had three color camo!".....Funny, I have several photos of her in.......you guessed it, three color camo.

That's true and those are usually ones I just let my eyes skip right past on contest tables.

Blue and warloads doesn't make sense, hell I don't usually like anything but test birds with blue loads.

About as smart as barbequing in your dining room....

Reply to
Ron

I was referring to his general "mission" statement, he seemed to digress into generalities for a bit.

Except for A-6 Ironhand loadouts, pretty much all MER's with all but two specific points loaded and those aren't loaded for gear door clearance. Desert Storm had some awesome A-6 loadouts as well.

Despite what Hasegawa weapons sets show, lawndarts and bugs tend to have goofy gas at least if not three tanks and that severely limits their other load, if the planes had legs worth a shit they mightbe able to carry useful loads for strike.

Reply to
Ron

There are photos of F9F's with folded wings and the little toylike bombs mounted....250's? Or were they 100's? Pounders.

Reply to
Ron

Some pphotos are out there showing redshirts with hernia bars loading F9F's with folded wings....the poor bastards.

Reply to
Ron

snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (PaPaPeng) wrote in :

Uh, the mission of "having fun building a model"? Yes, the model may not be entirely realistic, but who cares? All that really matters is that the person who built it is satisfied with the result. Having a varied loadout may not be realistic, but it gives the builder the opportunity to work on a variety of ordnance, instead of just mass- producing 500 lb. bombs. Same with open panels. Close everything up, and most airplanes are just a tube with wings. For the same reason, I spend hours painting the interior, engine and chassis of the cars I build, even though none of this will be visible once the model is finished.

Reply to
Harro de Jong

I'm sure I've seen a picture of an Avenger with rockets mounted and folded wings, but when I looked through my library a moment ago I couldn't find it.

Reply to
Joe Jefferson

I don't really consider these loads "heavy"...4 x 250 lb bombs vs 8 rockets...sort of in the same class. If it were 4 x 1000 lb bombs then I'd wonder.

I think I've seen a special ladder on the F9Fs for inspectng/loading rockets with the wings folded...but I'd have to think the quickest way to load would be with the wings spread.

Reply to
Rufus

Yeah...got to listen to some A-6's dropping multiple MER loads of FAE during Desert Storm. But I also know that the bring-back is also a limiting factor for F-14 strike ops...but they'll be gone...soon...and I don't know what the Tamiya folks were smoking when they made up the loadouts on the instruction sheet for thier 1/32 kit.

Even with legs (like a Super Hornet - and I don't care HOW big an iron-works fan you are, an F/A-18 of any stripe is far more response flexible), most strike missions simply don't call for that much ordnance to be effective. One pass, get rid of it all, no reattack, minimize collateral damage...use a precision weapon and kill it the first time, and quickly - with ONE shot. Then replace the jet called off station. They just plain don't need to carry it...or want to bring it back, if the planing is done right.

Tank busting with an A-10 is a different story.

Reply to
Rufus

250s and/or rockets, I think...
Reply to
Rufus

The original intent was for refueling the tip tanks with folded wings.

Reply to
Ron

Tamiya probably read an old publication with a diagram of "theoretically possible" loadouts. There were a number of really odd loadouts listed in one book on the F-16 and there was an F-14 book in the series (early

80's IIRC).

There is still a use for the loiter and have it handy when needed by the troopies mission profile. No battle plan ever survives.....etc.

Reply to
Ron

Probably, I have too much ship stuff in front of the A/C shelves to want to mess with digging up the F9F references.

Reply to
Ron

Roger that, but it's the tankers that make that possible, not the fighter - an F-14 doesn't provide any (or much...) more time on station than a Super Hornet, and when was the last time you could call in a Tomcat with a HARM for SEAD, or with rockets to mark targets for CAS? All an F-14 really has going for it anymore is speed, and even that's becoming a bit overrated now considering today's precision and standoff weapons inventory.

If you can't get and keep the contigent weapons on station in the first place, they're not much of a resouse when those plans fall apart now, are they?

...UCAVs are going to make them all obsolete one day, anyway.

Reply to
Rufus

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.