So it looks like the back of the launcher is one of those cradles you also used to keep the tail up or rest a engine in, the front seems to be passing the main gear and connects to the reinforced bulkhead.
Looking at it once more, perhaps it just lifts up both the fwd and aft bulkhead surrounding the ldg.
EDIT: Hit the money, let’s figure out how this baby works:
So, no that exciting. 2 brackets at the rear, one double at the keel beam with no doubt sufficient reinforcements. The gear can happily retract or extend I suppose. I think it is unlikely that it has something to do with weight. The gear never moves the CG much at all if any, it’s a aerodynamic effect on the aircraft when they are extending. Perhaps it is part of the procedure to have the gear lowered, although any reason I can come up with seems easily defeated.
Perhaps the simplest reason is, is that it never left the testing phase and thus keeping the gear down was SOP?
Copy WoW is frequently used as a cut out for stuff like firing weapons…but this thing is elevated so no WoW.
So TheAlmightySnark found is probably correct about this being development SOP
…or it could be a “safety” feature for the F-104 (yes, putting the terms “Safety” and “F-104” in the same sentence seems wrong to me too).
…a kind off last ditch desperation safety thing in case the rocket flames out before you reach flying speed and you need to put it on the ground real fast…at least the gear are already down.
I wish it had gotten to the operational phase…it would have been waaaay cool to see a bunch of these “sortie” off at the same time from some German forest.
Something that reminds me of Japanese Anime.
I wouldn’t be surprised if after launch five colourful F-104 combined in a Commie-crusher Robo-Starfighter!
Ah…I was thinking more along the lines of a limit switch. Like some of our landing gear has a pin or button that gets depressed at the full up or down extension that enables or disables things. I’m probably using the term “squat switch” too loosely since there are switches that don’t really require any weight either…more just position.
Might be something to that too…if anything, landing gear tearing off does dissipate some force…so having it tear away might not be the worst thing.
Can you imagine how cool that would be seeing those rise up over the trees…wow…
I think that depends on what wheel they’d be measuring:
My bet’s still on that if you have the wheels down that’s 3 existing support points for the aircraft. You can take a mostly stock model and then figure out an appropriate bolting mechanism for the booster then prop it up on the launch platform.
No need to worry about figuring out how to “cradle” it with the gear up or create new/additional anchor points.
EDIT: Whoa, found this:
And it definitely looks like there’s some space between those rear wheels and the plates beneath. I stand corrected?
Oh come on, nobody actually clicks on detailed technical images or reports. I’ve got a number of posts with links visited by only myself and @EinsteinEP to prove it.
Well, the F-100 main mounts are definitely attached to something…looks like some type of clamps…clamps that hopefully releases the aircraft once that rocket engine kicks in. Looks like with the F-100 ZELL those clamps are supporting the aircraft so obviously wheels down is required.
I realize that the program never went operation…however, I’m sort of scratching my head as to why somebody thought the was a good idea to begin with…other than it is a waaaay cool way to take off and who doesn’t want to ride a rocket…OK, quite frankly that would be enough for me, but still…
…if the Soviet Red Horde is pouring through the Fulda Gap and the NATO airfields are being bombed or overrun, is the ability to take off from the forest really practical in the long run? Sure you get airborne and splash a couple of Migs…but if your home base runways have been cratered to hades, where do you land when the fuel needle is on E?
Probably the same amount of people that read the “README.txt” file that has come with about every piece of freeware ad pay ware I have ever gotten…and no, I didn’t read them either until, as a last resort I can’t get something to work.
Well, the idea was to just load up amunitions for a quick strike and then tail it back to friendly territory. Atleast your aircraft haven’t been bombed to bits, can be a sneaky strike and be useful. it’s a relatively cheap setup all things considered.
2006 to 2009 I served as Director of Intelligence at a place called JAC Molesworth. JAC = Joint Analysis Center and Molesworth was RAF Molesworth…previously a GLCM base.
I invite your attention to 52°22’56.81"N / 000°25’32.93"W in GoogleEarth.
The big GLCM bunkers were used for maintenance storage. Some folks did wind sprints, running up their sides…I didn’t. The warhead (nuclear) handling/loading building was our gym…one loading bay a basketball court, the other a weight room. We liked to boast that we were the only gym with nuclear blast doors…which was true. Finally the permitter security roads, between two tall fences with barbwire tops, made for great running trails. There were only a few gates so it “discouraged” taking short cuts.
So not exactly beating “Swords into Plowshares”…more or less “Nuclear Weapons into a Fitness Facility”…sort of.
