Author Topic: North American F-100 Super Sabre (Read 19623 times)

GTX_Admin · « **on:** January 13, 2012, 04:23:05 AM »

Folks,

A thread for your North American F-100 Ideas and Inspiration. To start with, here are a couple:

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?

Regards,

Greg

Maverick · « **Reply #1 on:** January 13, 2012, 04:43:15 AM »

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I've done a dozen or more Huns in various markings, including four RAAF examples.

Regards,

John

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #2 on:** January 13, 2012, 05:24:39 AM »

Would you mind playing that record one more time and posting them here or in your profiles thread?

Maverick · « **Reply #3 on:** January 13, 2012, 07:26:59 AM »

Nps,

Regards,

John

Empty Handed · « **Reply #4 on:** January 13, 2012, 09:02:21 AM »

Quote

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

J52s as in the A-4E and North American's own AGM-28 Hound Dog?

J57 is a good engine though. I think most re-engine options will leave it somewhat underpowered.

Maverick · « **Reply #5 on:** January 13, 2012, 09:45:30 AM »

The F-100's J57 was around the 10,000lb thrust mark, two J52s (even in their earliest incarnation at 7,500lbs thrust) would produce a total of 14,000 plus or thereabouts. One would suggest that the change would enhance the Hun's performance rather than degrade it, providing the conversion ticked all of the boxes.

Either way, I also read that there was a proposal to re-engine French F-100s with the Spey. Although the article didn't suggest which model of engine was considered, there's another alternative I guess.

Regards,

John

elmayerle · « **Reply #6 on:** January 13, 2012, 10:06:10 AM »

I'm not sure if it would've been the early Spey, as fitted to the UK's Phantoms or the later Spey (produced dry as the TF41). The latter had more demonstrated growth with reheat and internal aero improvements.

Just a thought, how about a twin-Avon F-100 to begin with, followed by a twin-J79 version as the J79 improved in reliability and power (and, like the J52, the J79 first flew in a cruise missile - the Regulus II). The J52 would need afterburning for a twin-J52 engine fit to replace the J57 but that shouldn't have been a problem for P&W given their experience with the J57 and J75.

dy031101 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 13, 2012, 10:11:57 AM »

Reposting here- tailless delta anyone?

elmayerle · « **Reply #8 on:** January 13, 2012, 10:51:30 AM »

Let us not forget the two F-100-derived "Super Fury" F2J proposals over on retromechanix.com. Between those and the FJ-5 proposal, you could do some serious NAA goodness.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #9 on:** January 13, 2012, 03:08:18 PM »

Thanks for the profiles John. Great work!

Empty Handed · « **Reply #10 on:** January 13, 2012, 09:00:35 PM »

Sorry, I meant most contemporary single-engine re-engine options from the J57 would leave it underpowered (i.e. J71, J73, J65).

With a later timeframe, yeah the Spey and J79 are your best bets. I think the J75 was a little too long for the F-100 but if you are stretching it into F-107/F2J territiory, then it is not a problem.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #11 on:** January 14, 2012, 03:28:37 AM »

Quote from: Empty Handed on January 13, 2012, 09:00:35 PM

Sorry, I meant most contemporary single-engine re-engine options from the J57 would leave it underpowered (i.e. J71, J73, J65).

True. Maybe it is an option though if the J57 was unavailable or even as an export model?

Regards,

Greg

Empty Handed · « **Reply #12 on:** January 14, 2012, 10:07:16 AM »

^ Good point. I can definitely see the J65 being used on an export version.

If Westinghouse had managed to sort the J40, it may have also come into play.

Cliffy B · « **Reply #13 on:** January 14, 2012, 10:37:28 AM »

Don't forget the navy version!

One of my very first profiles so be nice

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #14 on:** January 14, 2012, 10:58:19 AM »

Cool.

elmayerle · « **Reply #15 on:** January 14, 2012, 01:13:22 PM »

Quote from: Empty Handed on January 13, 2012, 09:00:35 PM

Sorry, I meant most contemporary single-engine re-engine options from the J57 would leave it underpowered (i.e. J71, J73, J65).

With a later timeframe, yeah the Spey and J79 are your best bets. I think the J75 was a little too long for the F-100 but if you are stretching it into F-107/F2J territiory, then it is not a problem.

Yeah, I agree there (though rather later - like circa 1990 - proposed afterburning J52 variants would work). The J75 is clearly too big, powerful, and thirsty for a simple installation in the F-100. I'd call the J79 as the most likely choice (it was chosen for the FJ-5 Fury) and, perhaps, a 300-series Avon, or RM6C, would work for export (I have to wonder if the French every trialed an ATAR from the Mirage III in a F-100 for spares commonality). In the 1960s, the afterburning Spey (presumably something similar to what was fitted to British Phantoms rather than the studied afterburning TF41 would be used - afterburning TF41 would make a great replacement for the TF30 - perhaps an Allison/Rolls-Royce/SNECMA development of the afterburning TF41 as a TF30 replacement for FAA and Aeronavale F-14s?).

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #16 on:** August 04, 2012, 02:37:53 AM »

Daryl J. · « **Reply #17 on:** May 13, 2013, 01:48:57 PM »

Khemed remained aligned with the West long after Zakaroff and flew a handful of Huns against Sheik Bab el Ehr during the early petroleum wars.

Empty Handed · « **Reply #18 on:** May 13, 2013, 07:12:13 PM »

Variable-geometry (Su-17) wings and a TF33!

upnorth · « **Reply #19 on:** May 13, 2013, 07:17:11 PM »

How about a tailed delta wing arrangement, like a MiG-21?

elmayerle · « **Reply #20 on:** May 14, 2013, 01:58:39 AM »

Quote from: Empty Handed on May 13, 2013, 07:12:13 PM

Variable-geometry (Su-17) wings and a TF33!

While the TF33 may share a common core with the J57, it's a rather larger engine and would not be a good fit. A TF30, despite its problems, likely would be.

Empty Handed · « **Reply #21 on:** May 14, 2013, 07:22:30 AM »

^ Indeed so!

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1961/1961%20-%200996.html

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #22 on:** August 04, 2013, 05:49:41 AM »

Rickshaw · « **Reply #23 on:** August 04, 2013, 03:26:33 PM »

That Motocar bloke does get about, doesn't he, Greg?

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #24 on:** January 05, 2014, 04:59:22 AM »

Here are some to get you started:

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!