Davide Calzolari Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 (edited) this is a rare pic,the first f-104S that take off from Palmadale in 1966 fully loaded with 2 jettison tanks and well armed with 7 m117 (i guess the version of 340kg each one,not that one of 372 kg) note the strange position (look to fins)of the centerline m117 Davide from bologna Edited March 10 by Davide Calzolari 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mycapt65 Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 That's pretty heinous. Making a Starfighter a bomb truck. It just ain't right, I tell you. I'm sure this wasn't Kelly Johnson's idea. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozothenutter Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 I only see six? 2 wing, 2 fuselage, 2 wing the fuselage side by side arrangement looks a bit close..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob de Bie Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 I often wondered about this photo too: did the S-model really have structural provisions for bomb pylons under the inlets? I checked the Structural Repair manual for the G-model, and it doesn't have them. But maybe the S did? Well spotted that there's a seventh bomb on the centerline pylon, I hadn't seen that before. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 15 minutes ago, Rob de Bie said: I often wondered about this photo too: did the S-model really have structural provisions for bomb pylons under the inlets? I checked the Structural Repair manual for the G-model, and it doesn't have them. But maybe the S did? Well spotted that there's a seventh bomb on the centerline pylon, I hadn't seen that before. Rob The pylons under the intakes visible in the picture were only on the F-104S. Known as BL-22 (all F-104 pylons are known as BL-xx, where the latter is the distance from the fuselage centre), they were indeed rated for the use of bombs but this never happened during service: the bombs in that position caused a lot of drag and there were concerns about the ingestion of foreign objects in the intake when dropping the bombs. There are some pictures showing bombs under these pylons but they are all of either test flights (as above) or aircraft on static display on the ground. The same pylons were initially used to carry Sidewinders but the missiles in this position were quite close to the ground and the sensor got covered in dirt during the take-off run so the use was soon discontinued. All aircraft retained the capability of using these pylons until with the ASA-M upgrade all relevant wiring was removed 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozothenutter Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 blind man here, spotted no.7! actually missed the one left of centreline....🫣 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davide Calzolari Posted March 7 Author Share Posted March 7 7 hours ago, Bozothenutter said: I only see six? 2 wing, 2 fuselage, 2 wing the fuselage side by side arrangement looks a bit close..... no,the ventral racks in the 104s are the centerline one + 2 sided- total obviously 3. Look above the one on centerline with fins in vertical,different from the one on right side as position of fins-as u may easily imagine,there was another one in the other side , simmetrical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davide Calzolari Posted March 7 Author Share Posted March 7 11 hours ago, Mycapt65 said: That's pretty heinous. Making a Starfighter a bomb truck. It just ain't right, I tell you. I'm sure this wasn't Kelly Johnson's idea. it wasnt but the plane had certain margins of develop- add that aside t empennage (that has corner of 90° that was a radar repeater, as all the 90° angles ) the rest of the 104 airframe was truly low viz by radar,the shape of the airframe was truly enough stealth , because its rounded shapes , Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hook Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 4 hours ago, Giorgio N said: The same pylons were initially used to carry Sidewinders These were never formally certified for flight. AFAIK these were only used for airshow loadouts. Cheers, Andre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davide Calzolari Posted March 7 Author Share Posted March 7 21 minutes ago, Hook said: These were never formally certified for flight. AFAIK these were only used for airshow loadouts. Cheers, Andre not really,you may easily see old pic fo luftwaffe, netherlander ,danish and some japanese 104 flyng in the past with them- also some italian 104G at the beginning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hook Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 Just now, Davide Calzolari said: not really,you may easily see old pic fo luftwaffe, netherlander ,danish and some japanese 104 flyng in the past with them- also some italian 104G at the beginning These are different rails than the Italian BL-22's. Cheers, Andre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 37 minutes ago, Hook said: These were never formally certified for flight. AFAIK these were only used for airshow loadouts. Cheers, Andre The information I have is different: they were certified and all units had them in store. However they were never used for the reasons I mentioned and were intended as "war use" only.. although they may have well not even been used in such a case. In any case all the official documents I have related to the 104S (flight manual, maintenance manual and parts catalogue) include the BL-22 pylons. With the exception of the ASA-M manual of course. I agree that the BL-22 pylons were only really used for show and there are a few pictures showing them with various loads. One shows them loaded with BL.755 cluster bombs even if this load is not in the list I have of weapons allowed on these pylons... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 Nice picture, I must admit I thought that all 104S were Fiat/Aeritalia developed and built, until now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob de Bie Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 7 hours ago, Giorgio N said: The pylons under the intakes visible in the picture were only on the F-104S. Known as BL-22 (all F-104 pylons are known as BL-xx, where the latter is the distance from the fuselage centre), they were indeed rated for the use of bombs but this never happened during service: the bombs in that position caused a lot of drag and there were concerns about the ingestion of foreign objects in the intake when dropping the bombs. There are some pictures showing bombs under these pylons but they are all of either test flights (as above) or aircraft on static display on the ground. The same pylons were initially used to carry Sidewinders but the missiles in this position were quite close to the ground and the sensor got covered in dirt during the take-off run so the use was soon discontinued. All aircraft retained the capability of using these pylons until with the ASA-M upgrade all relevant wiring was removed Thanks Giorgio. But I phrased my question unclear. Here's the 'Fuselage Pylon Assembly' of the G-model, from the Structural Repair manual. The assembly attached in the slot for the centerline pylon, i.e. in the middle, with a cover plate over the centerline pylon slot. That's not clearly shown in the drawing BTW. The flight manual indicates that only AIM-9s could be carried on the pylons. My real question was whether the 'BL22' pylons of the S-model are also connected by cross braces and attached on the centerline, or did they connect directly to the fuselage? Here are a few hi-res photos of the G-model installation on RNLAF 104s: https://beeldbank.nimh.nl/foto-s/detail/0faf4de7-f0d4-6f42-b5eb-5e636bb6bd61/media/d32fb99c-2822-e492-da44-52ef7e8a3219 https://beeldbank.nimh.nl/foto-s/detail/c15adb96-eca2-6b89-cf77-748dc1f546ee/media/ec0aad96-e854-b333-15b4-72052387b779 https://beeldbank.nimh.nl/foto-s/detail/50896240-2600-0600-21f7-ad3ce1950c11/media/4dd838f3-1e59-d733-b3fb-31b255781e36 Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 11 minutes ago, Rob de Bie said: Thanks Giorgio. But I phrased my question unclear. Here's the 'Fuselage Pylon Assembly' of the G-model, from the Structural Repair manual. The assembly attached in the slot for the centerline pylon, i.e. in the middle, with a cover plate over the centerline pylon slot. That's not clearly shown in the drawing BTW. The flight manual indicates that only AIM-9s could be carried on the pylons. My real question was whether the 'BL22' pylons of the S-model are also connected by cross braces and attached on the centerline, or did they connect directly to the fuselage? Here are a few hi-res photos of the G-model installation on RNLAF 104s: https://beeldbank.nimh.nl/foto-s/detail/0faf4de7-f0d4-6f42-b5eb-5e636bb6bd61/media/d32fb99c-2822-e492-da44-52ef7e8a3219 https://beeldbank.nimh.nl/foto-s/detail/c15adb96-eca2-6b89-cf77-748dc1f546ee/media/ec0aad96-e854-b333-15b4-72052387b779 https://beeldbank.nimh.nl/foto-s/detail/50896240-2600-0600-21f7-ad3ce1950c11/media/4dd838f3-1e59-d733-b3fb-31b255781e36 Rob Sorry Rob, I misunderstood your post. The BL-22 pylons of the S attached directly to the fuselage undersides and are independent of the central pylon. Here's a drawing of the pylon from the parts catalogue: I'm looking at the section of the catalogue describing the fuselage, there should be the attachment points shown. However the fuselage section is several pages long and finding the right details is not a quick job... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob de Bie Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 59 minutes ago, Giorgio N said: Sorry Rob, I misunderstood your post. The BL-22 pylons of the S attached directly to the fuselage undersides and are independent of the central pylon. Here's a drawing of the pylon from the parts catalogue: I'm looking at the section of the catalogue describing the fuselage, there should be the attachment points shown. However the fuselage section is several pages long and finding the right details is not a quick job... Thanks Giorgio for clearing that up! I learned something new about the 104. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davide Calzolari Posted March 8 Author Share Posted March 8 (edited) On 07/03/2024 at 18:36, 71chally said: Nice picture, I must admit I thought that all 104S were Fiat/Aeritalia developed and built, until now. 165 for am/italian airf force and 40 for turk hava kuvveteleri turkish air force last one released in 1980(...too late for a design operationally already overrun/dated/surpasse perhaps obsolete in 1970) Edited March 8 by Davide Calzolari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davide Calzolari Posted March 8 Author Share Posted March 8 On 07/03/2024 at 11:49, Giorgio N said: The pylons under the intakes visible in the picture were only on the F-104S. Known as BL-22 (all F-104 pylons are known as BL-xx, where the latter is the distance from the fuselage centre), they were indeed rated for the use of bombs but this never happened during service: the bombs in that position caused a lot of drag and there were concerns about the ingestion of foreign objects in the intake when dropping the bombs. There are some pictures showing bombs under these pylons but they are all of either test flights (as above) or aircraft on static display on the ground. The same pylons were initially used to carry Sidewinders but the missiles in this position were quite close to the ground and the sensor got covered in dirt during the take-off run so the use was soon discontinued. All aircraft retained the capability of using these pylons until with the ASA-M upgrade all relevant wiring was removed giorgio ciao may u confirm the m117 in the pic above are three? there s was the drawing also in the old booklet "monografie aeronautiche italiane" with the same configuration fully loaded, 7 M-117, u surely recall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now