reece146 Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 Is there a mod out there for the F-86 to give it an afterburner like the Canadair Mk VI variant? I don't know much about mods - is this even possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey45 Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 No. The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. "Me, the 13th Duke of Wybourne, here on the ED forums at 3 'o' clock in the morning, with my reputation. Are they mad.." https://ko-fi.com/joey45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jocko417 Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 Production Mk.6 (Canadair model CL-13B) aircraft did not have afterburners. A Mk.6 was fitted with an afterburning engine for tests (CL-13C) but never made it past the testing stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLTeo Posted March 28, 2020 Share Posted March 28, 2020 ^Yep, only the F-86D and K had afterburners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reece146 Posted March 29, 2020 Author Share Posted March 29, 2020 I guess this page is wrong then? Says over 600 were built with AB. https://militaryaviationchronicles.com/cold-war/perhaps-the-best-f-86-canadairs-sabre-mk-6-turning-60/ I was generically researching/learning about the Sabre from a pure interest sake and stumbled over that page so thought I'd ask about it. I haven't been able to find anything else that agrees with that page. Re-reading the page/paragraph there may be a grammar fail there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLTeo Posted March 29, 2020 Share Posted March 29, 2020 Yeah I think so. There are also a few extra incorrect things: 1) It says the mk 6 had the 6-3 wing (the one we have in DCS without slats), then in the next line mentions leading edge slats (which by definition were not fitted to the 6-3 wing). 2) Only the inboard hardpoints were cleared for carrying bombs on pretty every Sabre variant as far as I know, so it wouldn't be able to carry 5300lb of ordnance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jocko417 Posted March 29, 2020 Share Posted March 29, 2020 The 6-3 wing was first introduced to RCAF Sabres with the Mk.5. Previous versions of the Canadair product (Mk.1-4) all had the slatted, narrow chord wing. The first 180-200 Mk.6 aircraft originally had the hard-edged 6-3 wing until slats were reintroduced, and all Mk.6s were eventually fitted with the slatted 6-3 wing. The other major difference was Canadair never used a dual pylon version like we have in DCS. RCAF Sabres always had a single pylon wing, regardless of type. The later USAF wing with leading edge slats also had 12” wingtip extensions which Canadair never adopted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reece146 Posted March 29, 2020 Author Share Posted March 29, 2020 Speaking of inboard and outboard pylons... I was touring around the Caucasus with four underwing tanks shooting touch-n-goes, exploring, etc. The inboard tanks don't indicate when they are empty in DCS? Is this a known thing on the F-86 in general? Have to pay attention to the main gauge starting to move to know when the tanks are not providing fuel? <was switched to inboard - no way the flight time could have been that long without drawing from those tanks> Curious... I mean, even in the 1950s... how hard can it be to wire up? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71st_AH Rob Posted March 29, 2020 Share Posted March 29, 2020 I believe that the Mk V were almost all retro fitted with the slatted wing as well. The earliest Mk V left the factory with the 6-3 slatted wing before production changed back the the fenced hard wing. As for engines, the Oranda 14 produced around 7,500 lbs of thrust, dry. The Oranda 17 was essentially the same with an afterburner that produced 8,490 lbs wet and was intended for the Sabre Mk VII of which only one prototype was produced. I would love a Sabre Mk VI, with ~50% more thrust than the F-30 it would be more competitive against the MiG-19 and completely outclass the MiG-15bis, including a higher service ceiling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71st_AH Rob Posted March 29, 2020 Share Posted March 29, 2020 That is how the tanks work. Select outboard tanks first, when they go dry the indicator light lights up and you switch to inboard tanks. When the fuel gauge begins to move you know the inboard tanks are empty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jocko417 Posted March 29, 2020 Share Posted March 29, 2020 I believe that the Mk V were almost all retro fitted with the slatted wing as well. The earliest Mk V left the factory with the 6-3 slatted wing before production changed back the the fenced hard wing. As for engines, the Oranda 14 produced around 7,500 lbs of thrust, dry. The Oranda 17 was essentially the same with an afterburner that produced 8,490 lbs wet and was intended for the Sabre Mk VII of which only one prototype was produced. I would love a Sabre Mk VI, with ~50% more thrust than the F-30 it would be more competitive against the MiG-19 and completely outclass the MiG-15bis, including a higher service ceiling. I think you might be thinking of the mass retro fit performed on the exported Mk.2 and Mk.4, where the slatted, narrow chord wing was replaced by the hard/fenced 6-3 wing before delivery to other air forces. I’m pretty sure all Mk.5s produced retained the hard edge wing throughout service life, even after being returned to Canada. Initial Mk.6 aircraft also had the hard wing but were retro fitted with the slatted version of the 6-3 wing after it became the production standard at Canadair. As far as I know the only “Mk.5” with slats was Hawk One, and she was/is a Franken-Sabre: Mk.5 aircraft with Mk.6 engine (Orenda 14 vs. 10) and with American F-40 (slatted, tip extensions, two pylons) wing. BTW, it would be interesting to hear from a Canadair employee from back in the day about the model numbering convention, I’ve seen both styles of numeral in print. I choose to use Arabic vs. Roman numerals (Mk.6 vs Mk.VI) because I’m lazy :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts