Author Topic: North American F-100 Super Sabre (Read 15747 times)

Daryl J. · « **Reply #25 on:** January 05, 2014, 06:01:39 AM »

F-100F instead of Canada's Electric Voodoo?

PR19_Kit · « **Reply #26 on:** January 05, 2014, 07:55:41 AM »

The IDF ones look just SO right, excellent stuff.

Queeg · « **Reply #27 on:** January 05, 2014, 08:09:59 AM »

I agree, the IDF ones hit the sweet spot with the airframe ........

Brent

Jeffry Fontaine · « **Reply #28 on:** March 02, 2020, 02:11:05 PM »

I recently acquired a pair of Trumpeter 1:48th scale F-100 kits (One F-100D and one F-100F) and the kit includes a pod for the under fuselage stores pylon that I do not recognize. The pod in question has a tiny propeller at the nose and looks a bit "swooshy" with a blunt/flat end. The kit instructions identify this as some kind of fuel tank but I do not believe that to be the case. The pod looks more like it has an ECM purpose most likely, or perhaps it is an early buddy refueling store but I am leaning towards the pod being some kind of early ECM pod.

Anyone have any information on this thing? I do not recall seeing anything like it strapped to an F-100 in any of my references and on-line searches.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #29 on:** March 03, 2020, 02:43:34 AM »

Can you post a picture of the bits?

Would they look like this refuelling pod being fitted under the wing:

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #30 on:** March 03, 2020, 02:47:39 AM »

Super Sabres loaded with Sidewinders:

Jeffry Fontaine · « **Reply #31 on:** March 03, 2020, 05:31:08 AM »

Just received my package from KitLinx which contained my Trumpeter F-100F kit and the kit instructions identify that swoopie looking store as an ALQ-31 ECM Pod. So question is answered. Definitely not a buddy refueling store. :)

Quote from: GTX_Admin on March 03, 2020, 02:43:34 AM

Can you post a picture of the bits?

See image at this link: https://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/tru/images/tru_2840_parts4.jpg
Pod/Tank in question is located lower right just above the drop tank part. Above the pod/tank halves are the practice bomb dispenser SUU-21 halves.

Old Wombat · « **Reply #32 on:** March 03, 2020, 08:26:49 AM »

I was looking at the Israeli images the other day & imagining the F-100 in Czech markings (say if the 1948 coup failed).

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #33 on:** March 04, 2020, 02:43:37 AM »

Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on March 03, 2020, 05:31:08 AM

Just received my package from KitLinx which contained my Trumpeter F-100F kit and the kit instructions identify that swoopie looking store as an ALQ-31 ECM Pod. So question is answered. Definitely not a buddy refueling store. :)

Hmmm...colour me dubious. Of course, what's to stop you making it a refuelling pod?

Jeffry Fontaine · « **Reply #34 on:** March 04, 2020, 05:12:37 AM »

Quote from: GTX_Admin on March 04, 2020, 02:43:37 AM

Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on March 03, 2020, 05:31:08 AM
Just received my package from KitLinx which contained my Trumpeter F-100F kit and the kit instructions identify that swoopie looking store as an ALQ-31 ECM Pod. So question is answered. Definitely not a buddy refueling store. :)
Hmmm...colour me dubious. Of course, what's to stop you making it a refuelling pod?

I suppose you could turn it in to a refueling store but there is not a lot of volume within the store for the hose drum when compared to the Douglas Aero shape D-704 refueling store.

Maybe in [shudder] 1:72nd scale it could pass muster for a refueling store but not in 1:48th scale.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #35 on:** October 05, 2020, 02:57:49 AM »

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #36 on:** January 04, 2022, 02:46:50 AM »

Quote from: GTX_Admin on January 13, 2012, 04:23:05 AM

The Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (CAC) had a established history producing North American designs. What if in the late '50/early '60s they followed up the Avon Sabre with production of the F-100 for the RAAF.

Secondly, what if instead of the The J57, two smaller engines were used, ala the MiG-19 counterpart?

In case you don't make it over to this thread: RAAF chooses quanity over quality

Interestingly, I was reading that Lawrence Wackett did indeed discuss licensed production of the F-100 in Australia by CAC in/around 1954. Rather than use a J57 though, they looked at two RR Avon RA-7s in a side-by-side arrangement in a widened fuselage. Apparently, NAA also showed some interest but with a single RR Avon RA-19R of 17,500lb static after burning thrust @ sea level. The increased thrust coupled with the smaller size/lower weight of the Avon promised better performance with speed, service ceiling and rate of climb all increasing:

	J57 F-100A	RA-19R F-100A
Max Power (Augmented)	15,000 lb	17,500 lb
Military Power	9,220 lb	11,400 lb
Max Speed @ 35,000ft	751 Kn (Mach 1.31)	827 Kn (Mach 1.44)
Max Speed @ 45,000ft	583 Kn (Mach 1.02)	629 Kn (Mach 1.09)
Max Rate of Climb	18,800 FPM	39,600 FPM
Service Ceiling	55,600 ft	58,050 ft

He again pushed for the RAAF to consider the F-100 in 1957. Alas nothing became of these proposals.

dy031101 · « **Reply #37 on:** January 04, 2022, 06:05:17 AM »

What are the innermost wing hardpoints rated for? I know they can at least carry a 750lb bomb each...... but what's the heaviest weapon they can carry?

(Personally I'm interested in if they can carry the AGM-78, but I reckon I'm not the only one wondering even if for different ordnance......)

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #38 on:** January 05, 2022, 02:41:17 AM »

Not sure about the exact limits but I have seen photos of F-100s carrying AGM-12s (see below) and 200 GAL drop tanks on the inner pylon and based upon that would imagine an AGM-78 might be doable.

Kelmola · « **Reply #39 on:** January 05, 2022, 06:41:30 AM »

Is that a AGM-12B (mass only 600lb) or AGM-12C or D (mass 1800lb)?

In any case, Detail & Scale #04 (old series) and #33 (new series) show pictures of Huns carrying a TER with three Mk 82's (two Slicks, one Snake) on the inners, that's 1600+ pounds. They even list TER's on the inner stations as one of the "standard" loadouts.

AGM-78 weighs from 1350 to 1800 pounds (depending on the model; I can't imagine air-launched STARM's to vary 450lb in weight so presumably the heavyweight is the shipborne RGM-66D version, probably including the liftoff booster), can't find the weight for the required LAU-78/A launch rail but for example the LAU-118/A rail for the AGM-88 weighs 135 pounds.

So based on these figures, if the missile physically fits under the plane (and you can somehow fit the required gear inside the Hun) carrying it is very plausible.

EDIT 2: careless reading, nukes could be only carried on centerline or center wing stations (which by implication are rated at 2100+ pounds), but the above figures are still valid.

Jeffry Fontaine · « **Reply #40 on:** January 05, 2022, 07:21:03 AM »

Quote from: Kelmola on January 05, 2022, 06:41:30 AM

Is that a AGM-12B (mass only 600lb) or AGM-12C or D (mass 1800lb)? <snip>

The Bullpup in the image is the smaller AGM-12B that required a launch rail. The larger AGM-12C relied on suspension lug carry on a standard stores pylon prior to launch so no launcher adapter or dedicated (as in the image) missile launch pylon was required.

Kelmola · « **Reply #41 on:** January 05, 2022, 08:24:46 AM »

One more issue might be the main landing gear, as it needs to be able to retract behind whatever is hung on the inner wing pylon. AGM-78 is 4,5 metres/15ft long, almost a third of the length of a F-100, so it will be a tight fit (or a case of extending the inner pylon forwards).

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #42 on:** January 06, 2022, 01:14:22 AM »

Quote from: Kelmola on January 05, 2022, 06:41:30 AM

pictures of Huns carrying a TER with three Mk 82's (two Slicks, one Snake) on the inners, that's 1600+ pounds. They even list TER's on the inner stations as one of the "standard" loadouts.

Yep!