F101 “Supersonic” fuel tank drawings.

[Robin-42]

Having only recently realized that the Voodoo had two different tank designs, despite looking at photo’s of Voodoos for decades, the only reference I can find states they were the same capacity, longer and with a smaller diameter. They appear to be used later in the Voodoo’s service, although some RF101C’s appear to have been fitted with them. The nose and tail profiles are different. Is anyone aware of any drawings or info at all on them. 

[bentwaters81tfw]

You will be lucky to get any accurate drawings. References for this aircraft are almost non existent, and most have errors.

@quangster might have something.

[Space Ranger]

I have a McDonnell drawing that may help. Send me a pm.

[bobmig]

Don't know how helpful these may be... after all, I did them 37 years ago! They were for the publication "CF-101 Voodoo" in the "Canadian Profile" series.

Bob

[f111guru]

Fantastic drawing and well represented. Thank you for sharing. I myself must admit that I did not realize that the Voodoo had 2 different styles of tanks. Always thought the streamline tank was the only one as most of my reference material shows. Goes to show old dogs can be taught something new.

 

All The Best,

Ron VanDerwarker

[Robin-42]

Sadly, I actually own the Canadian profile book and flipped through it looking at photo’s. Went right past the drawings. Doh! As Homer Simpson would say. Anybody have any data on improved performance with the “Streamline” tanks. I bet it wasn’t much with all the interference drag. 

[RidgeRunner]

For my last Valom build I used a pair of F-84F belly tanks sans fins for the 450 gallon streamlined versions. They look okay in my view. 

[TheRealMrEd]

In 1/72, many of the F-101 series a/c have the 450-gal tank,with a straight taper on the rear end, which seemed most often used on F-101,  But there is an identical 450 gal tank, except that the the rear taper is an ogive curve (think olive)...

I had to make a couple of these for my Geo Laven F-100D build.

 

Ed

[exdraken]

11 hours ago, Robin-42 said:

Anybody have any data on improved performance with the “Streamline” tanks. I bet it wasn’t much with all the interference drag. 

Hmmm makes one wonder why  there were 2 designs having the same capacity... who wants to use high drag tanks if they do not  have advantages too! 🧩

 

[RidgeRunner]

There were, of course, the smaller tanks of similar shape. See the second image m

 

https://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?/topic/79844-rf-101c-auxiliary-tanks-vietnam-era/page/2/

 

this is a good thread showing the larger and longer 450 gallon tanks

 

 

Martin

 

[tempestfan]

18 hours ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

You will be lucky to get any accurate drawings. References for this aircraft are almost non existent, and most have errors.

@quangster might have something.

Apart from the Canadian Profile (which is almost impossible to get at unsilly money), there was also an Aerofax Minigraph and two Detail & Scale booklets, but admittedly all are from the early to mid 80s and somewhat thin on the ground. I‘d say the situation is (slightly) better than on the early F-5s, which has next to nothing apart from a small portion of an in action, another Canadian Profile and an „in Canadian Service“ book.

@bobmig, a pity that the CP series was not extended. Any chance for some coverage of esoteric stuff like the Argus? Anyway, many thanks for those drawings!

 

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

2 hours ago, tempestfan said:

Apart from the Canadian Profile (which is almost impossible to get at unsilly money), there was also an Aerofax Minigraph and two Detail & Scale booklets, but admittedly all are from the early to mid 80s and somewhat thin on the ground. I‘d say the situation is (slightly) better than on the early F-5s, which has next to nothing apart from a small portion of an in action, another Canadian Profile and an „in Canadian Service“ book.

@bobmig, a pity that the CP series was not extended. Any chance for some coverage of esoteric stuff like the Argus? Anyway, many thanks for those drawings!

 

 

? The F-101 Voodoo: An Illustrated History by Ronald Easley ?

[tempestfan]

I am no Voodoo priest or disciple, nor did I  mean it to be exhaustive; IIRC there was also a 200 pager by Bob Dorr (Osprey) in the 80s.

[Robin-42]

Thanks for the help guys. Bob and Micheals drawings answered all my questions except what was the performance difference between the two styles of tanks. I may finally pull my 1/72 Revell Voodoo out of the dark recesses of my stash. 

[bentwaters81tfw]

22 hours ago, tempestfan said:

I am no Voodoo priest or disciple, nor did I  mean it to be exhaustive; IIRC there was also a 200 pager by Bob Dorr (Osprey) in the 80s.

I have the D&S book, also the Bob Dore and Ronald Easley books. It's still hard to get exhaustive drawings, as quangster and I discovered when trying to get accurate dimensions for the intakes. I also have 3 views in 1/72, 1/48 and 1/32 scale, and none are accurate.

[Space Ranger]

2 hours ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

I have the D&S book, also the Bob Dore and Ronald Easley books. It's still hard to get exhaustive drawings, as quangster and I discovered when trying to get accurate dimensions for the intakes. I also have 3 views in 1/72, 1/48 and 1/32 scale, and none are accurate.

Check out Ron Downey's "Aviation Archives" blog (http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/) . He has a couple of official McDonnell drawings that you can download.

[bentwaters81tfw]

They are GA drawings, and inaccurate again. A quick glance at the intake root/wing l/e abutment shows that. Thanks anyway.