Sabre Underwing Stores

Well it was a good shot…lol.

I don’t know how accurate this model is, but this would seem to indicate that in theory the Sabre could lift stores on six underwing pylons all at once.

For the record, I tend to agree that the inboard fuel tanks were used for ferry flights only……though I could be wrong. (Still bothers me how you always see it mentioned that the tanks were carried inboard & bombs outboard…I’d wager a photo of that configuration is impossible to find.)

The wing that was developed for the fighter-bomber version of the F-86F model in the Korean War had an extra “inner” pylon level with the outer fuel pylon. See link:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/F-86F_Terrible_Turtle_35th_FBS_Korea_c1953.jpg
This inner pylon was outboard of the main wheels (about mid-wing), and in a separate location to the later added Sidewinder pylons which were towards the leading edge and inboard of the main wheels.

At that stage in the last year(s) of the Korean conflict – I believe – the inner wing pylons were not plumbed for fuel tank carriage. In post war years with the late-F and the later H models – as seen in the photo in the link supplied in #4, even with the addition of fuel lines to the inner pylons, perhaps the airflow and weight characteristics better suited fuel tanks on the outer pylons as a regular fixture, with the inner pylons only used for fuel during longer-range ferry trips (my opinion only).

Regards, …geoff

Certainly, the Australian version carried sidewinders inboard and tanks outboard…………http://www.classicjets.com/collection/c_Sabre.html…………Digger

Wow…quite an extensive little page detailing the stuff I’m always wondering about.

It would appear that the AIM-9 pylons were distinct from the inboard pylons normally used for bombs or ferry tanks.

With that being the case it begs the question as to whether or not the aircraft could carry Sidewinders alongside bombs or tanks on those inboard pylons or if it was really an either/or situation.

I’m sure they weren’t in the habit of loading up aircraft of the F-86’s generation with both air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions, but it does make for an interesting question in my opinion.

Shot my theory down lol, see

http://www.atlantic-air-combat.com/10.001.F86.Sabre.Notes.htm

I wonder if they had problems with gas ingestion into the engine firing rockets and missiles off the inboard pylons or they had C of G problems… it is a curious one.

I don’t know but I was always under the impression that they always carried the tanks on the inboard pylons.