Luca Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 compatibly to their dimensions... can you make a combination of the places please? es. fwdport, fwdstarboard, fwddown, rearport, rearstarboard, reardown my main doubt was the three closer positions (left, right, down), as IIRC I saw a F-4E photo with 2 Mk.83 placed side-by-side on a TER but no one lower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ziggyfoos Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Three. Two on sides, one on bottom, staggered. Luca 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phasephantomphixer Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Found this while Googling. I know not a MER, but are these Mk.83's? https://media.defense.gov/2015/Nov/10/2001503384/780/780/0/151110-Z-CH590-011.jpg Luca and LSP_Paul 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Paul Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Found this while Googling. I know not a MER, but are these Mk.83's? https://media.defense.gov/2015/Nov/10/2001503384/780/780/0/151110-Z-CH590-011.jpg Those are 500 lb Mk 82's the 83's are 1000 lbs Paul Swatto and phasephantomphixer 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chek Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 The most limiting factor is likely to be the airframe rather than the munitions. I've only ever seen 6 x 750 lb on an F-105 MER, 6 x 500 lb or or 4 x 750 lb or 4 x 1000 lb on A-4, A-6 and F-4, I may have seen 6 x 1000 lb on an F-111 inner pylon, but can't locate the publication that had the photo and load chart in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ziggyfoos Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Physical length of the 83 prevents having two in a row on a MER. They have to be staggered. Two on front sides and one on rear bottom. Or opposite, one on front bottom and two on rear sides. Can't have two on bottom or two on same side. LSP_Paul, phasephantomphixer and LSP_K2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luca Posted January 3, 2018 Author Share Posted January 3, 2018 Physical length of the 83 prevents having two in a row on a MER. They have to be staggered. Two on front sides and one on rear bottom. phisycally was possible two Mk.83 on front sides (plus one M.117 bottom) and two M.117 on rear sides (plus one Mk.83 bottom)? length does not interfere in this way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony T Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 phisycally was possible two Mk.83 on front sides (plus one M.117 bottom) and two M.117 on rear sides (plus one Mk.83 bottom)? length does not interfere in this way... The Mk.83 is effectively a Navy bomb and the M117 was Air Force. Are you asking if Israel mixed them? The stores likely have different ballistics and separation characteristics so this kind of mix is for static display at airshows, if done. The 432nd TRW's F-4D squadrons did some weird stuff ca.1969-1971 mixing AIM-4D Falcons, TERs, Mk.82 bombs and ECM pods but I've never seen that kind of weird thing elsewhere. Tony Luca 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ziggyfoos Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 phisycally was possible two Mk.83 on front sides (plus one M.117 bottom) and two M.117 on rear sides (plus one Mk.83 bottom)? length does not interfere in this way... At least in Vietnam, USMC used both 83s and 117s but I don't recall ever seeing mixed load MERs with both types, if it was even done. Was either one type or the other. 3x83s is pretty impressive as it is for one MER! Luca and LSP_K2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunwinglow Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Remember seeing a pic of an F106 bombed up once.... David66 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luca Posted January 3, 2018 Author Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) The Mk.83 is effectively a Navy bomb and the M117 was Air Force. Mk.82s instead of M.117s? (in an operating theater) Edited January 3, 2018 by Luca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ziggyfoos Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 What are you asking? If a MER would be loaded with three 83s plus three of any other bomb type? Why not go with the standard three? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luca Posted January 3, 2018 Author Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) yes ziggyfoos... three mk.83s plus three mk.82s (or m.117s or mk.20s). my doubt is if the upper side bomb, dropped, can "bump" the lower centerline bomb (considering the -83 size)... Edited January 3, 2018 by Luca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_t Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) You have to take into account the weight limit of the bomb rack installed in the pylon that you hang the MER/TER or munition from. If I remember correctly, the weight capacity of the MAU-12 bomb rack was 5,000 pounds ...... hang a MER, with six 500 pound bombs from it and you are looking at about 3,500 pounds, same as hanging three Mk-83 bombs from a MER. Edited January 3, 2018 by scott_t Luca 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Here is a pair of F-105s with Mk-83s on the c/l MER: as you can see the bombs take up a lot of room so there wouldn't be any room left for other bombs. Plus normally they only carried the same type on the same MER/TER although there are cases of mixed loads. Jari Luca, phasephantomphixer and Swatto 3 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