ShaunBD Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 A quick question about the shape of the bagage pods fitted to USAF aircraft. I'm planning to use a pair of the Hasegawa 1/48th pods on my current A-10 build. I have a photo of a pair of pods fitted to the underfuselage shoulder pylons (stations-5 & 7)of the A-10. One of the pods is mounted backwards, I presume this is to allow access to the loading door. When I put both pods togeather the nose is more pointed than the rear, is this corect or are the Hasegawa items the wrong shape? Shaun. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reddog Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Going out on a limp here but I would say that both the nose and tail should be the same shape. IIRC the USAF uses the MXU-648A/A and C/A baggage pod, which is no more then a BLU-27 Firebomb canister converted to a baggage pod. If you google MXU-648 baggage pod you can see what shape they are suppose to be. I can be wrong, not an expert on USAF pods so standing by to be corrected. Reddog :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mrvark Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 There seems to be a slight difference between the front and back end, based on published information. On the BLU-27, the mounting lugs are set about 1 inch forward on the cylindrical section and the aft conical section is about an inch shorter than the front section. Don't know the reason. The difference appears even more pronounced on the earlier BLU-1, but I don't have firm data on it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I have a question here. Well, maybe two or three, regarding these baggage pods. 1. How long has the BLU-27 been out of the inventory? My guess is at this point probably 30 or more years. 2. Are *all* existing baggage pods *really* made out of old BLU somethingorother napalm shells? 3. Is the MI ANG crew chief who told me they fabricated their own travel pods full of BS then? I find it hard to believe that every USAF travel pod is an old (verrrrry old) napalm canister. That sounds like a 343rd FG P-40E with a plan white star and no blue disk to me. In other words, long perpetuated myth. But perhaps I'm wrong?? J Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rodney Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 3. Is the MI ANG crew chief who told me they fabricated their own travel pods full of BS then? I find that hard to believe given how much testing goes into making sure a piece of equipment is airworthy to get certification. Rodney Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle21 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I have a question here. Well, maybe two or three, regarding these baggage pods.1. How long has the BLU-27 been out of the inventory? My guess is at this point probably 30 or more years. 2. Are *all* existing baggage pods *really* made out of old BLU somethingorother napalm shells? 3. Is the MI ANG crew chief who told me they fabricated their own travel pods full of BS then? I find it hard to believe that every USAF travel pod is an old (verrrrry old) napalm canister. That sounds like a 343rd FG P-40E with a plan white star and no blue disk to me. In other words, long perpetuated myth. But perhaps I'm wrong?? J Many of the pods we used on the F-15 were still the old napalm canister shells, I don't know what percentage. But you could get new ones once those became beat up too bad. I don't know about any base fabricating them locally, I suppose it could be done as long as the proper blueprints were followed. If the pods that were locally built met all the specs as outlined by the AF then they wouldn't necessarily have to be tested-since the were copies of an already approved design. I don't remember seeing very many "new" pods over the years, they were a pain to get and very expensive. JMC Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ShaunBD Posted January 12, 2009 Author Share Posted January 12, 2009 There seems to be a slight difference between the front and back end, based on published information. On the BLU-27, the mounting lugs are set about 1 inch forward on the cylindrical section and the aft conical section is about an inch shorter than the front section. Don't know the reason. The difference appears even more pronounced on the earlier BLU-1, but I don't have firm data on it. Maybe they are correct then. Thanks Shaun. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DonSS3 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I don't know if it will help, but here's one on a T-38: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle21 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I don't know if it will help, but here's one on a T-38: As far as I know that is the standard travel pod that is used throughout the AF. It looks like the ones we used on the F-15. I was always told the small circular patch (over the New Mexico state decal) was where the napalm was put in. JMC Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Paolo Maglio Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Same pod with Italian colours cheers PAolo Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flyboyf18 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Just to add a bit to this, for the Canucks, I asked about the pods we (CAF) used and was told the same thing - former naplam cannisters with the door added to put in the luggage. Also advised by a pilot that the rear end was removable for long items like skis and golf clubs!! See story below. A little story about the pods, they have a forward end!! A 410 Sqn crew borrowed one of our (AETE) pods once and mounted it on the jet (F-18) backwards, i.e. nose to the rear. As I was told by our maintenance crew after the incident, the nose is sealed so air cannot leak in. When one is travelling at 300 - 400 Kts the slightest air leak can be a big problem. What happened to our 410 pilot was that the pod pressurized and blew the door open somewhere over Northern Ontario and 'bombed' somewhere with some (most) of his luggage!?!? He discovered the probelm on landing, ooops. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MoFo Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) 2. Are *all* existing baggage pods *really* made out of old BLU somethingorother napalm shells? No. Sargent Fletcher makes baggage podss - honest to goodness MXU's, though they still look like the old napalm cannisters. http://www.sargentfletcher.com/spp.htm (special purpose pod page) http://www.sargentfletcher.com/bus_dev/flyer_mxu_ctp.pdf (MXU PDF) http://www.sargentfletcher.com/bus_dev/flyer_ngcp.pdf (next generation baggage pod - I've seen these on European aircraft) If I were to *guess*, I'd say the pods with filler caps on top were probably old nape cans. New baggage pods are being made, but why go to the trouble and expense of adding superfluous filler assemblies when you can just weld the formed sections together? (incidentally, that Sargent Fletcher site is worth flipping through. Some interestin info on recce pods, buddy stores, drop tanks and the like) Edited January 13, 2009 by MoFo Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spellbinder99 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I have a bunch of pictures I took of the first two Omanii F-16's the day after they were delivered. They both carried baggage pods and the one I specifically took pictures of had a black arrow with "FRONT" labelled on the side. Pity is it was pointing to the back of the aircraft. Honestly, I would put the pod on any way you like. When I do a RAFO F-16 model I will be mounting the baggage pod backwards just to have a competition judge tell me it is wrong.... Cheers Tony Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ShaunBD Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 Just to add a bit to this, for the Canucks, I asked about the pods we (CAF) used and was told the same thing - former naplam cannisters with the door added to put in the luggage. Also advised by a pilot that the rear end was removable for long items like skis and golf clubs!! See story below.A little story about the pods, they have a forward end!! A 410 Sqn crew borrowed one of our (AETE) pods once and mounted it on the jet (F-18) backwards, i.e. nose to the rear. As I was told by our maintenance crew after the incident, the nose is sealed so air cannot leak in. When one is travelling at 300 - 400 Kts the slightest air leak can be a big problem. What happened to our 410 pilot was that the pod pressurized and blew the door open somewhere over Northern Ontario and 'bombed' somewhere with some (most) of his luggage!?!? He discovered the probelm on landing, ooops. They appear to mounted backwards on the A-10, but I don't think airspeed is going to make a lot problems for these pods! When I first posted the topic, I though there would be no intrest but the amount of replys have surprised me. Thanks for all the great info Shaun. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reddog Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Some side notes to add for info purposes. 1. Once the BLU-27 canister is converted to a baggage pod, it is designated a MXU-648. 2. The new SFI 402136 (MXU-648C/A) baggage pod has the exact outer mold line as the ealier BLU-27 converted to MXU-648's with the exception to the thinckness of the metal in certian places and deletion of the filler holes. 3. This pod is also cleared on USMC AV-8B's. 4. MXU-648A/A and MXU-648B/A are converted BLU-27's, the MXU-648C/A's are new production versions. HTH Reddog Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 To add further on luggage carriers on the CF-18, they were installed with the removable cone facing aft because in case it came off, they prefered it to go straight back rather than being on the front and bouncing off parts of the airframe. In the early 90's there was a rash of L/C doors opening inflight and was mainly due to the fact that the pods were g limited and pilots tended to crank the jet around until the word came down to take it easy with a pod installed. Jari Quote Link to post Share on other sites
C-130CrewChief Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Honestly...I never thought about how the pilots got there civies to the bar. Oh wait.....We have a cargo compartment. Oh boy I remember this one time in Puerto Rico when we stowed 8 cases of rum under our baggage. Customs looked at the pile and passed right on by it....lol I guess I'm off topic. Did the Tweet ever carry a baggage pod? Have any pics? Okay I feel better now, it's been weeks and no mention of the Tweet. Curt Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 (edited) No. Sargent Fletcher makes baggage podss - honest to goodness MXU's, though they still look like the old napalm cannisters. THANK YOU!! That's what I've *always* thought, but never got it confirmed. Kewl beans. Another urban myth exploded... Re the 'sneaking' - there's plenty of instances of BUFFs coming back to CONUS with Japanese motorcycles, beer, etc in the bomb bays. J Edited January 14, 2009 by Jennings Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andre Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Re the 'sneaking' - there's plenty of instances of BUFFs coming back to CONUS with Japanese motorcycles, beer, etc in the bomb bays. I once spoke to a ex-RAFG Buccanneer navigator who told me that the bulged bomb bay door of the Brick made an excellent cargo compartiment, but that the area did have a nasty tendency to spring leaks. According to him, on deployment at the bar you could always tell the Buccanneer guys by the permeating stench of JP4 on their clothes... Cheers, Andre Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Huey Gunner Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Re the 'sneaking' - there's plenty of instances of BUFFs coming back to CONUS with Japanese motorcycles, beer, etc in the bomb bays. :) J On deployments to Korea we would bring stuff back in engine containers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reddog Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 On Tomcats, the forward left Phoenix fairing is a grea place to "hide" stuff when we were coming back from Puerto Rico and other places. All you had to do is roll down the rail about a foot and put your "whatever" there, it would still be there when we got home. Reddog :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.