# Fighter: Flop or Not



## Zipper730 (Jul 3, 2017)

I'll start with the F-84 since who could possibly have an opinion about that one?

Personally, I'd say the F-84 was a flop for the following reasons

The F-84 was an interceptor (though the initial origins of the F-84 was a jet-powered P-47, the idea was ultimately done away with because the centrifugal flow engines of the time would not fit in the P-47's fuselage): The primary role of interceptors is to shoot-down bombers (though the ability to shoot down fighters at the time was assumed), and this was achieved with a rapid rate of climb, a rapid acceleration, a high top speed and altitude, and heavy armament (i.e. cannon); while range is desirable if you can get away with it, it's not the overarching goal.
The wings were thicker than were probably prudent due to the desire to carry a large load of fuel: This thickness caused problems at transonic speeds (most all wings did to some extent, but as a rule, thinner was better than thick)

Problems with the strength of the air-frame lead to increase in weight that resulted in a heavier than ideal wing-loading: It could not turn with the F-80, nor could it climb as well due to the weight
The design was almost cancelled because it could not meet any of the requirements for which it was originally built
The fact that it had long-range made it useful as a bomber-escort in theory, but in practice, it left a bit to be desired against the MiG-15 (While the F-86 was inferior in a number of areas to the MiG-15, the F-86 was superior in several areas too giving it the ability to balance itself out), and as a result the bombers found themselves used at night.

The air-to-ground capability was its saving grace, because of it's limited air-to-air capability. I should point out that the US Navy's F2H & F9F were both able to be used in air-to-ground missions, and were probably better designs overall (the F2H was also used as a nuclear strike plane, and it was more agile).


----------



## pbehn (Jul 3, 2017)

No idea about the Sabre but the number of pilots and planes lost in early days of jets due to running out of fuel tells me that most pilots would take thick wings with fuel in them.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 3, 2017)

pbehn said:


> No idea about the Sabre but the number of pilots and planes lost in early days of jets due to running out of fuel tells me that most pilots would take thick wings with fuel in them.


Didn't the Sabre have a combat radius of around 600-700nm?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 4, 2017)

The F-84 was eclipsed by fighter development during the late 1940s. It was obvious by the Korean War the earlier models were not going to compete with the MiG-15 and like the F-80 it was used as a fighter bomber where it served well. The F-84F was playing catch up but was "too little, too late," was heavy and underpowered. The F-84G served well and I think if you sold over 7000 of them the aircraft was far from a flop.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 4, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Didn't the Sabre have a combat radius of around 600-700nm?


1,525 mi range according to Wiki


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 4, 2017)

Most of the jet aircraft of its generation were flops to some extent or another; technology was changing so fast that something spec'd as a world-beater January would be a middle-of-the-pack in May and old-fashioned in December. I think another problem may have been that the engineering culture at Republic was too conservative to adapt to the jet age. North American's engineers seemed to get jet fighters right faster than its competitors in the West, as did Boeing with jet bombers. 

I would not call the F-84 a "flop," but it was a far better attack aircraft than fighter.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 4, 2017)

Zipper you said this



Zipper730 said:


> The wings were thicker than were probably prudent due to the desire to carry a large load of fuel: This thickness caused problems at transonic speeds (most all wings did to some extent, but as a rule, thinner was better than thick).


And this



Zipper730 said:


> Didn't the Sabre have a combat radius of around 600-700nm?



I was merely stating that in view of the short range and huge number of accidents with early jets running out of fuel that "most pilots would take thick wings with fuel in them." I think those buying the planes would too. remember in those days ejector seats didnt work close to ground.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 4, 2017)

The F-84 was never designed as a interceptor, it was designed as a replacement for the P-47, which was originally designed as a interceptor, but was used as a bomber escort, but was best used as a fighter- bomber. The F-84 was designed to replace the P-47 as it was used.

And for a failure there sure were a lot of them used by our allies during the cold war era. Hundreds each by Denmark, Norway, Taiwan, France, Turkey, Greece, and several others, even strangely enough, Yugoslavia.

And once it got some swept wings with the F-84F model, it wasn't so slow either.
Not the best jet of it's era, but not a failure.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 4, 2017)

As SwampYankee has stated, if not in so many words, timing is important.

The F-84 first flew on Feb 28th 1946. A rather important distinction as this was before such planes as the Supermarine Attacker (which used a Supermairine Spiteful wing) It may have been before the Yak -17. It was 9 months before the NA FJ-Fury (with a straight wing) and 19 months before before the first F-86 Sabre. In fact production F-84Bs were being delivered to squadrons before the XP-86 ever flew. 
It was over 10 months months before the McDonnall F2H and about 20 months ahead of the F9F. 

Some books have said it had a "relatively" thick wing, key word being _relatively_ as the wing was 12% in thickness which means it was thinner than most WW II piston engine fighter wings.
As far as the armament goes, from the F-84Bs being delivered in the summer of 1947 onward the F-84 used six of the fast firing (1200rpm) M3 machineguns which meant it was equal to NINE WW II .50 cal machineguns. The intended change to to the M23 incendiary ammo (much larger filling of incendiary material ) may have helped equalize things somewhat (Navy did go to faster firing 20mm guns). 

Yes the F-84 suffered a number of problems in service for several years but then it was really the USAAFs 2nd jet fighter to go into widespread service and many other early jets also went through considerable modifications and upgrades to become effective aircraft. 

I would also caution about comparing one airplane against another using basic designations like F-84 vs F2H as the F-84 not only changed capabilities it went from 4000lb thrust engines on the B to 5600lb thrust engines on the G and the F2H went from a pair of 3000lb thrust engines to a pair of 3600lb thrust engines in the -4 model, there were also two fuselage stretches , the first of 1ft 1 1/2 inches (from the -1 to the -2) and the 2nd of 2ft 7 in (-2 to -3) to accommodate more fuel. 

Obviously capabilities of the various "dash" models varied considerably.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 5, 2017)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The F-84 was eclipsed by fighter development during the late 1940s.


I'm not sure that's an entirely accurate statement: It was inferior to the P-80, which was built earlier in terms of climb and agility. The plane had numerous structural problems, which required increasing structural weight which took away from performance. 

It could fly far and carry a load a decent distance, which made it useful as a fighter-bomber. The fact remains that it was sort of a way to salvage a fighter that wasn't able to hack it well enough as a fighter.


> The F-84F was playing catch up but was "too little, too late," was heavy and underpowered.


As for playing catch-up, you could say the same thing about the FJ-2/-3, and F9F-6. The F-84F's problem wasn't just weight: It also had to do with the wings, they didn't make them big enough, and it seemed to be about the same as the regular F-84 (just faster).


> The F-84G served well


As a tactical-bomber...


> I think if you sold over 7000 of them the aircraft was far from a flop.


I'm not sure how popular this statement will make me, but this is a bit more complicated: The USAF didn't see attack planes as being useful unless they were twin-engined.

In the 1930's this made-sense because they were on the slow-side (though to some extent, there were policy decisions that affected this as well); by the time World War II rolled along, engines like the R-3350 and R-4360 made it possible to make a single-engined attack plane work, but they didn't want them -- The USAAF/USAF didn't really see attack planes as being useful unless they were basically twin-engined aircraft and dictated substantial payload and range requirements that were beyond what were needed of a tactical-bomber.



swampyankee said:


> Most of the jet aircraft of its generation were flops to some extent or another


I'm not an authority on all early jet-aircraft, but there's some truth to that. The F-80 seemed much better when it came to climb and agility however. The F2H & F9F seemed better (could be wrong).


> I would not call the F-84 a "flop," but it was a far better attack aircraft than fighter.


As an attack-plane it was very good, but that's not a fighter though...



tyrodtom said:


> The F-84 was never designed as a interceptor, it was designed as a replacement for the P-47, which was originally designed as a interceptor, but was used as a bomber escort, but was best used as a fighter- bomber.


If I recall correctly, the XP-47A was designed as a lighter weight fighter more like the designs seen in Europe (Spitfire, Me-109), which were effectively interceptors; Republic wanted something bigger, with more firepower and longer-range, and that became the XP-47B (which was a totally different plane): The range of the P-47 ironically wasn't so good at first, but that progressively improved with time...

The roots of the F-84 started out as a P-47 with the radial removed, and a jet-engine installed in the plane: That wasn't workable because the centrifugal flow engines we had weren't adequate for the task, they were too plump even for the P-47. As time went on, they came up with a new design, using an axial flow engine to be an interceptor, far as I know.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 5, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> The roots of the F-84 started out as a P-47 with the radial removed, and a jet-engine installed in the plane: That wasn't workable because the centrifugal flow engines we had weren't adequate for the task, they were too plump even for the P-47. As time went on, they came up with a new design, using an axial flow engine to be an interceptor, far as I know.



I suppose if the engine was in the mid fuselage it might be a bit big, but the Allison J33 fitted in the P-80 and was smaller in diameter than the R-2800.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2017)

It is a little hard to say what was going on in the early stages or what the goals were. Different accounts do not agree 100%, especially as to what Republic was offering vs what the Air Force wanted. One account claims the Air Force _told _Republic to use the axial flow engine. 
In any case three prototypes and 400 production planes were ordered in March of 1945 but in the usual round of cancellations and reinstatements at the end of WW II the program was delayed. 

In one sense the the USAAF was stuck with the F-84 as it was in production in large numbers before the F-86 and canceling it and trying to retool the factories and all their suppliers would have caused a massive delay in planes delivered in the time period of post Berlin Crises and early Korean war. 
The F-84 was partially crippled by the J-35 engine which took too long to reach higher levels of power at acceptable overhaul life. 
Also be sure you are comparing apples to apples as some performance listings for the F-84 (like climb) sometimes are for the plane in strike mode or with drop tanks. Being under powered it's climb rate was very dependent on weight but it could reach 30,000ft in about 12.2 minutes when loaded and operated as an "interceptor" for a F-84D with a 3750lb thrust engine.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 5, 2017)

The F-84 was designed to meet a USAF general operation requirement for a day fighter with a top speed of 600 mph. It met that.

What is the USAF's exact definition of a "fighter", not Zipper730's definition, or mine, but the USAF's ?

The F-80 had a shorter take off roll, better low altitude climb rate, and was more maneuverable. The F-84 had a higher bomb load, was faster, and had better high altitude performance.

As a side note, the F-84 was the first single place aircraft that could deliver a nuke, and according to the USAF, of all the ground targets destroyed by aircraft during the Korean action, 60% were taken out by the F-84.

Early models of the F-84 had problems, but so did early model F- or P-80's .


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2017)

Again, over time, roles changed and capabilities changed.

The F-84Ds "mission" was described as " The Principal mission of the F-84D is the destruction of hostile aircraft, it is also designed to function as a fighter-bomber and escort fighter."

This is from a USSAF standard aircraft characteristic sheet dated Jan of 1950 as shown here:

http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-84D_Thunderjet_SAC_-_20_January_1950.pdf

other standard aircraft characteristic sheets are available and the one for the F-84E block 25 and 30 shows a climb of 8.3 minutes to 30,000ft from a standing start on the runway. Of course this version had a 5200lb thrust engine vs the 3750lb thrust engine in the D. 

By the time you get to the F-84G I don't know what they were saying the principal mission was.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm not sure that's an entirely accurate statement: It was inferior to the P-80, which was built earlier in terms of climb and agility. The plane had numerous structural problems, which required increasing structural weight which took away from performance.


 It was accurate and was designed under an entirely different design spec than the P-80. It did have issues but many of those issues were worked out 



Zipper730 said:


> As for playing catch-up, you could say the same thing about the FJ-2/-3, and F9F-6. The F-84F's problem wasn't just weight: It also had to do with the wings, they didn't make them big enough, and it seemed to be about the same as the regular F-84 (just faster).
> As a tactical-bomber...


 They as well, look how long they were in service.


Zipper730 said:


> I'm not sure how popular this statement will make me, but this is a bit more complicated: The USAF didn't see attack planes as being useful unless they were twin-engined.


 By the late 40s/ early 50s that was not really true.




Zipper730 said:


> I'm not an authority on all early jet-aircraft, but there's some truth to that. The F-80 seemed much better when it came to climb and agility however. The F2H & F9F seemed better (could be wrong).
> As an attack-plane it was very good, but that's not a fighter though...


 It was a fighter bomber. It's primary mission was to drop bombs and then had a secondary role as an air to air fighter (which it was not the best at) It did shoot down 8 MiG-15s but over 60 were shot down by MiG-15s, mostly when they were attacking ground targets.



Zipper730 said:


> The roots of the F-84 started out as a P-47 with the radial removed, and a jet-engine installed in the plane: That wasn't workable because the centrifugal flow engines we had weren't adequate for the task, they were too plump even for the P-47. As time went on, they came up with a new design, using an axial flow engine to be an interceptor, far as I know.


Errrr, no. You just don't remove a round engine and start building a jet. the F-84 ( Republic Model AP-23) started out as a jet from the get-go. Do you know who Alexander Kartveli was?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 5, 2017)

Nice Joe730


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 5, 2017)

wuzak said:


> I suppose if the engine was in the mid fuselage it might be a bit big, but the Allison J33 fitted in the P-80 and was smaller in diameter than the R-2800.


You're right: I have the numbers with me right now

R-2800
Diameter: 52.8"
Length: 81.4"
Weight: 2360 lbs.

J33
Diameter: 50.5"
Length: 107"
Weight: 1820 lbs.

I'm not sure what to make of this, unless the engine was re-positioned to the mid-fuselage instead of the forward fuselage, or the USAAF just didn't like the idea of a P-47 with a jet-engine and wanted a new aircraft.



Shortround6 said:


> It is a little hard to say what was going on in the early stages or what the goals were. Different accounts do not agree 100%, especially as to what Republic was offering vs what the Air Force wanted.


Do you have anymore information on this subject? I'm curious about trying to tease out what's true and not.


> One account claims the Air Force _told _Republic to use the axial flow engine.


That might very well be true


> In one sense the the USAAF was stuck with the F-84 as it was in production in large numbers before the F-86 and canceling it and trying to retool the factories and all their suppliers would have caused a massive delay in planes delivered in the time period of post Berlin Crises and early Korean war.


The F-80 was still in production?


> Also be sure you are comparing apples to apples as some performance listings for the F-84 (like climb) sometimes are for the plane in strike mode or with drop tanks. Being under powered it's climb rate was very dependent on weight but it could reach 30,000ft in about 12.2 minutes when loaded and operated as an "interceptor" for a F-84D with a 3750lb thrust engine.


The F-80C could reach 25,000 in 7 minutes. I'm not sure if that was from a standing start on the runway, or from liftoff, and I'm uncertain how much more time it would take to reach 30,000 feet. Though I figure it would probably only take somewhere between 1 and 3 minutes.


> Again, over time, roles changed and capabilities changed.


Of course, from fighter-interceptor, to fighter-bomber.


> By the time you get to the F-84G I don't know what they were saying the principal mission was.


Nuclear strike...



tyrodtom said:


> The F-84 was designed to meet a USAF general operation requirement for a day fighter with a top speed of 600 mph. It met that.


That's correct...


> What is the USAF's exact definition of a "fighter", not Zipper730's definition, or mine, but the USAF's ?


No idea, but as a general rule a fighter is an aircraft designed for high speed and acceleration, a good rate of roll, and turn, as well as a good rate of climb.


> The F-80 had a shorter take off roll, better low altitude climb rate, and was more maneuverable.


Yes


> The F-84 had a higher bomb load, was faster, and had better high altitude performance.


When you say high altitude performance, does that mean better agility at altitude, merely speed at altitude?


> according to the USAF, of all the ground targets destroyed by aircraft during the Korean action, 60% were taken out by the F-84.


Yup



FLYBOYJ said:


> It was a fighter bomber. It's primary mission was to drop bombs and then had a secondary role as an air to air fighter


I would have thought, at the penalty of appearing ignorant, that a fighter-bombers primary job was to be a fighter, that could be used as an attack-plane.


> Do you know who Alexander Kartveli was?


Chief engineer, Republic


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 6, 2017)

It's funny you would list the diameters of the 2 types of engines.
It seems you're not even considering the fact that jet engines require quite large intakes, and exhaust.

I'm sure Kartveli maybe took about one day's thought to see that putting a jet engine in a P-47 fuselage wasn't going to work.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 6, 2017)



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 6, 2017)

So it took a few months ! But just a paper study surely ?

I bet the pilot would feel real comfortable sitting right over where the compressor blades would fly if they failed.

Sort of like the early Yak, and Mig jets.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 6, 2017)

Plenty of space for the J-33 if they pit it up front and had exhausts either side of the fuselage.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 6, 2017)

Did that jet powered P-47 ever get to the mock-up stage ?
What was it's estimated performance ?


----------



## Graeme (Jul 6, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> Did that jet powered P-47 ever get to the mock-up stage ?



I'm thinking no. Not enough time?
According to author Bill Gunston - Kartveli was forced to turn to jet propulsion to combat the German jets and V-1 threat and spent _*"some weeks" *_looking at a jet-powered Thunderbolt but considered this too much of a compromise and started a clean sheet of paper design that drew various features from the unbuilt XP-69...

Google Translate


----------



## Graeme (Jul 6, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> It was inferior to the P-80



Just one man's opinion - but Roland Beamont flew the P-80 and F-84 in 1948 and despite describing them as both under-powered the handling of the F-84 was "viceless" and had more potential.

Roland Beamont - Wikipedia



Zipper730 said:


> I'm not sure how popular this statement will make me, but this is a bit more complicated: The USAF didn't see attack planes as being useful unless they were twin-engined.



Why then were more single-engined A-series aircraft built?


----------



## parsifal (Jul 7, 2017)

I would have to say that at the beginning of its service delivery, it was a failure, but I would draw a distinction of saying it was a flop. A flop to me suggests it had no potential for development, and clearly the f-84 did have potential for that. Its initial failure was brought about by the numerous structural failures that led the new USAF to produce a report that said it was not capable of carrying out any of the assigned roles. That was in 1948 I think, but from 1949, with the introduction of the F-84G and the swept wing version (the F-84F, these issues as well as those relating to its low performance were pretty much addressed. that said, the type continued to experience engine flameout issues in poor weather causing it to be retired early, but kept in reserve. Various emergencies in the early '60s saw it re-enter active service, where corrosion issues forced the expenditure of a lot of man hours to repair that. That could happen to any aircraft really.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 7, 2017)

I've always liked the looks of the F-84. It is the cleanest of all straight wing jet fighters. I think, because of early problems, some surprising for Republic aircraft, it seems to be underappreciated. At the start of the Korean War, the US had four straight wing fighters, the F-80C, F-84E, F2H-2, and F9F-2. All were obsolete as pure fighters by the end of the war. Of these four, the F-84 was faster, by at least 30 mph, using the least powerful engine, better empty to max weight number, and better range. So it was faster, carried more, and went farther than the other three. Very good characteristics. In addition, in comparing the swept wing F-84F to the latest F-86H, it was only a few mph slower, but with 1000 lbs less thrust, capable of carrying 2000 lbs more, and had about 60% greater combat radius. Combining that with inflight refueling and ability to carry nuclear weapons and the F-84 introduced a whole new definition of tactical fighter. It was considered effective in 1961 when it was recalled to duty during the Cuban missile crisis.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 7, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> It's funny you would list the diameters of the 2 types of engines.


It seemed a logical starting point. I figured the size of the intake would play a role in determining the size of the intake, I guess I was wrong.

As for the size of the exhaust: I figured the plan was to cut a hole somewhere in the plane's tail and let the exhaust out that way.


> I'm sure Kartveli maybe took about one day's thought to see that putting a jet engine in a P-47 fuselage wasn't going to work.


According to Bill Gunston, it would appear he took a few weeks.



fubar57 said:


>


If that's the real study, then it would appear it was an axial flow design from early on. I didn't think the engine would have been mounted so low in the fuselage. I guess the P-47 wasn't as big as it looked


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 7, 2017)

wuzak said:


> Plenty of space for the J-33 if they pit it up front and had exhausts either side of the fuselage.


Hawker toyed with the idea of bifurcated intakes and exhausts. I think you'd have to add extra length up front for the intake, and in the back to balance the plane out, but the J33 was a little lighter after all...



Graeme said:


> Just one man's opinion - but Roland Beamont flew the P-80 and F-84 in 1948 and despite describing them as both under-powered the handling of the F-84 was "viceless" and had more potential.


What did Winkle Brown think of both?


> Why then were more single-engined A-series aircraft built?


I'm not sure what time-frame you're talking about, but during the 1930's, Curtiss submitted an unsolicited proposal for a twin-engined attack plane (XA-14), which was actually well-received by the USAAC because it was faster than some fighters, and developed into a pre-production prototype known as the YA-18: It wasn't procured in the numbers desired because of the fact that there wasn't enough funding available for it, so for the time they basically bought single-engined designs, until the A-20 came around.

The USAAC didn't really see the single-engined attack planes as being all that useful because

They were slow and clumsy compared to fighters, which they felt could do the job as well and be a fighter to boot
They had little interest in dive bombing and were more interested in strafers, which is why they packed so many guns in their planes
Their design made them conducive to CAS first, interdiction second, and largely useless for strategic bombing due to the limited range of the aircraft: The USAAC wanted strategic bombing first, interdiction second, and close air-support if they could get around to it
The A-20 was basically a light bomber (with a payload to match) and a strafer all in one (even the glass-nosed variants had four guns up front), and its speed was fighter-like (345-350 earl on, around 339 mph later).

It couldn't dive-bomb, but nobody really cared about that -- strafers all the way! Right? Except WWII started and the Germans showed that they could use dive-bombers with shocking effectiveness, particularly when they were supported by fighters (who'd have ever thought?), and the USAAC even thought "Maybe we should buy some of those...", and they got dive bombers from the Navy.

Then they started developing some of their own

A-32: It's basic flying characteristics were adequate, but it was too slow, too heavy, and buffeted at high-speed. Though the removal of the rear-gunner seemed a step in the right direction, it's lack of speed meant it'd often be getting attacked from the rear without any protection; the internal bomb-bay seemed a good way to reduce drag, it's top-speed and range didn't seem to have much to show for it though. It also had issues with the exhaust stacks producing excessive glowing at night.
A-36: Mostly a hook & crook way to get around the fact that the P-51 was built by an American company for a foreign buyer; the A-36 was an American "development" of the P-51 as an attack plane, and I guess by that logic, the P-51B was an American development of the A-36 as a fighter : Despite the convoluted means to justify it's development (In politics, whether in the US, Canada, the EU, Mexico, Brazil, or Argentina, the argument is more important than the facts), it actually performed pretty well and combined a respectable degree of speed and turning performance with a dive-bomber mission.

XA-39: It was powered by a R-2800, had a maximum payload of 3000 pounds, a top-speed of 357 mph, and either 4 x 0.50 or 2 x 37mm cannon (might sound like a lot, but compared to the A-32 which had 8 x 0.50 calibur machine guns).
XA-41: It was basically a huge A-31/A-35 with no gunner and powered by an R-4360. It's top speed was around 354 to 363 mph, and was capable of outmaneuvering a P-51B. Armament was 4 x 0.50 machine guns, or 2 x 37mm cannon, was well as both internal and external provision for 3200 pounds of bombs (while theoretically this would come out to 6400 pounds, it was probably more like 4800 in practice). It's range seemed a little short: 800 miles with a 1,000 pound payload (consider the AD-1, which could achieve a radius of 970 with a ton of payload).
The XA-41 was largely felt to be too slow at low altitude (not sure if that's really valid), and the P-47 was preferred for the smaller scale of attack operations, and the A-26 was felt to be better for the larger scale: There were variants of the A-26 that were anticipated that included more powerful engines, bigger spinners, and even one design with a jet-mounted in the rear fuselage.

The XB-42 also would have probably had a role in the decision making process too (though I honestly hope they had some method devised for bailing out of that thing as you'd end up like chum if you jumped out).


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 7, 2017)

parsifal said:


> I would have to say that at the beginning of its service delivery, it was a failure, but I would draw a distinction of saying it was a flop. A flop to me suggests it had no potential for development, and clearly the f-84 did have potential for that.


As an attack-plane, not really much as a fighter aircraft. As an attack plane, it was magificent -- no one will argue with you there.



davparlr said:


> I've always liked the looks of the F-84. It is the cleanest of all straight wing jet fighters.


Of course it was beautiful and had clean lines. Usually looks and performance go together, just in this case -- it could have used more agility and a lot less weight.


> At the start of the Korean War, the US had four straight wing fighters, the F-80C, F-84E, F2H-2, and F9F-2. All were obsolete as pure fighters by the end of the war.


But not at the beginning -- the F-84 wasn't that good at the beginning.


> Of these four, the F-84 was faster, by at least 30 mph, using the least powerful engine, better empty to max weight number, and better range. So it was faster, carried more, and went farther than the other three.


But how'd it compare in turning performance?


> In addition, in comparing the swept wing F-84F to the latest F-86H, it was only a few mph slower, but with 1000 lbs less thrust, capable of carrying 2000 lbs more, and had about 60% greater combat radius. Combining that with inflight refueling and ability to carry nuclear weapons and the F-84 introduced a whole new definition of tactical fighter.


Except that "tactical fighter" usually means a nuclear-strike plane that can fight its way out of a corner if it's got to: The F-105 follows this idea to it's logical conclusion


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 7, 2017)

post WW II jet engines didn't develop as quickly or as smoothly as some people assumed or hoped. While some engines showed good thrust numbers on the test bench engine life was poor, very poor in many cases and engines were de-rated or held to lower levels in order to get some sort of service life from them. The J-35 engine was started in May of 1943 with a 3,000lb thrust goal. By June of 1943 the goal had been raised to 4,000lbs thrust. the 4,000lbs would not be seen in a service engine until the very late 40s. The -13 engines used in the F-84B,C,D being rated at 3750lbs. Even at this rating the early engines were only good for around 40-50 hours between overhauls which is one reason the _early _F-84s didn't go to Korea. Some F-84Ds were re-engined with -17B engines in place of the -13s with both improved thrust and engine life. The F-84E may have been the first F-84 with an engine of 4000lbs or more in thrust. 
J-35 engines are all over the place in thrust ratings. with dry engines, wet engine, and after burning engines. You also have "nominal" ratings and the ratings they were actually used at.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 7, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Hawker toyed with the idea of bifurcated intakes and exhausts. I think you'd have to add extra length up front for the intake, and in the back to balance the plane out, but the J33 was a little lighter after all...



Hawker did rather more than "toy" with the idea of bifurcated intakes and exhausts. They patented the design of the latter and it went into operational service with the Hawker Sea Hawk which is, IMHO, one of the best-looking early jets. There's no need for "extra length up front for the intake" in the design, indeed the whole thing is very elegant:








The bifurcated exhaust design was a vital technological advance that enabled development of the Rolls Royce Pegasus engine that later powered the Harrier (another Hawker product):

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 7, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> post WW II jet engines didn't develop as quickly or as smoothly as some people assumed or hoped. While some engines showed good thrust numbers on the test bench engine life was poor, very poor in many cases and engines were de-rated or held to lower levels in order to get some sort of service life from them.


Oh, I just figured that in some cases the numbers were deliberately fudged or misleadingly listed low.



buffnut453 said:


> Hawker did rather more than "toy" with the idea of bifurcated intakes and exhausts. They patented the design of the latter and it went into operational service with the Hawker Sea Hawk which is, IMHO, one of the best-looking early jets.


It's a gorgeous aircraft.



> There's no need for "extra length up front for the intake" in the design, indeed the whole thing is very elegant


I was talking about a P-47 with a J33 in the nose, the cowling I'd figure would need a slight adjustment to take into effect the extra length of the engine and the need for a smooth airflow to the engine.


> The bifurcated exhaust design was a vital technological advance that enabled development of the Rolls Royce Pegasus engine that later powered the Harrier (another Hawker product):


I never knew that


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 7, 2017)

Oh boy........



Zipper730 said:


> I'm not sure what time-frame you're talking about, but during the 1930's, Curtiss submitted an unsolicited proposal for a twin-engined attack plane (XA-14), which was actually well-received by the USAAC because it was faster than some fighters, and developed into a pre-production prototype known as the YA-18: It wasn't procured in the numbers desired because of the fact that there wasn't enough funding available for it, so for the time they basically bought single-engined designs, until the A-20 came around.



The Curtiss YA-18 also wasn't really that good, it took too long to get going. It was _faster than some fighters _in part, because it was a monoplane that used retracting landing gear. Just so we are clear. A-18




fighter it was faster than




Please note that the A-18 had fabric covered wings from the main spar back. Using two 9 cylinder radials was a huge drag problem. 




> The USAAC didn't really see the single-engined attack planes as being all that useful because
> 
> They were slow and clumsy compared to fighters, which they felt could do the job as well and be a fighter to boot
> They had little interest in dive bombing and were more interested in strafers, which is why they packed so many guns in their planes
> Their design made them conducive to CAS first, interdiction second, and largely useless for strategic bombing due to the limited range of the aircraft: The USAAC wanted strategic bombing first, interdiction second, and close air-support if they could get around to it





Do you have any source for this? or perhaps a time frame? policy often changed within a few years and even swung back to the original in few more more years. In the mid to late 30s the fighters could not carry the desired bomb-loads of the attack planes due to the power of the available engines. US Army also had a different idea of close support than the Germans and no it just wasn't dive bombing as the difference. The US Army wanted large numbers of small fragmentation bombs as the payload. This required internal bomb bays if the drag was not to be excessive. as an example of an attack plane using the same engine as a fighter in the late 30s.





Could carry over 1000lbs over 1000 miles using the same engine as a P-36.



> The A-20 was basically a light bomber (with a payload to match) and a strafer all in one (even the glass-nosed variants had four guns up front), and its speed was fighter-like (345-350 earl on, around 339 mph later).



again you need timing to put things in context. The Early A-20 (DB-7) used 1100hp P & W R-1830s and could barely top 300mph. Tis was in a design completion that included the NA-40, the Martin 167 (later Maryland) and the Stearman X-100, the Bell model 9( never made it to harware stage). Looking at the 4 prototypes in the fly-off gives one a better idea of what the USAAC was thinking in 1938/39. 



> It couldn't dive-bomb, but nobody really cared about that -- strafers all the way! Right? Except WWII started and the Germans showed that they could use dive-bombers with shocking effectiveness, particularly when they were supported by fighters (who'd have ever thought?), and the USAAC even thought "Maybe we should buy some of those...", and they got dive bombers from the Navy.


A bit of rearward projection here? I would note that the USMC had shown how to use dive bombing with great effectiveness well before the Germans adopted it. I would also note that nobody really knows how effective the 1938-41 US attack planes would have been in CAS combat because they were never used that way with the original armament and against original defenses. Please note the very early US A-20s (with R-2600 engines) could carry as many as *eighty *30lb chemical or fragmentation bombs or *sixteen* 100lb gp bombs in short range overload condition. The US was certainly NOT depending on _strafing only_.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 7, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> The Curtiss YA-18 also wasn't really that good, it took too long to get going.


And was too expensive for the era.


> It was _faster than some fighters _in part, because it was a monoplane that used retracting landing gear.


Of course, and the same applied for the Martin B-10's. 


> In the mid to late 30s the fighters could not carry the desired bomb-loads of the attack planes due to the power of the available engines.


That had to do with power-loading and overall range. Regardless, there were some guys in the USAAC that wanted longer-ranged fighters because they could be used as attack planes.


> US Army also had a different idea of close support than the Germans and no it just wasn't dive bombing as the difference. The US Army wanted large numbers of small fragmentation bombs as the payload. This required internal bomb bays if the drag was not to be excessive.


That's why they wanted the bomb-bays? I figured they were always trying to allow a faster cruising speed and range with payload.


> The Early A-20 (DB-7) used 1100hp P & W R-1830s and could barely top 300mph.


As I understand it, the A-20 was a DB-7 derivative the French had interest in with R-2600's. I'm not sure when the R-2600's first flew in the DB-7's.


> A bit of rearward projection here?


Not really, there was at least one case where the USAAC specifically asked if the A-20 could-dive bomb, and was told that it was not possible, and a 30-degree dive-angle was the maximum. I want to be clear that I didn't think the A-20's could only strafe: I know they carried bombs. They usually would do level bombing, glide-bombing, which was followed with strafing. The point I was getting at was many attack planes in the USAAC inventory had very large amounts of guns because they were designed with strafing as an additional goal.


> I would note that the USMC had shown how to use dive bombing with great effectiveness well before the Germans adopted it.


The USMC first adopted dive-bombing in 1919 AFAIK.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 7, 2017)

I suspect that there was more than one case where domestic developments were ignored until they were used by a foreign power. I don't know if this could have happened with dive bombing and the USAAC (I suspect the answer, if it exists, is complex, _e.g._, the USAAC may have decided the USMC's experience in dive bombing insurrectionists [or whatever the he** they called them] in Central America wasn't applicable against a European country or Japan, or the USAAC may have found he Marines' evaluation of effectiveness dubious, or the USAAC didn't even know the USMC was doing dive bombing from sources they considered reliable.)

As an aside, the A-36 was probably much better suited to European land combat conditions than were the USN/USMC dive bombers, simply because they would be much less vulnerable to enemy aircraft after dropping their bomb loads. The Lutwaffe found out that Ju87 + enemy fighters was not healthy for stuka pilots -- about the only time the aircraft wasn't vulnerable to fighters was in its dive, but it couldn't dive forever (well, it could. Once).

A second aside: I'm not sure I like the term "flop" when an aircraft is found unsuitable for its original role, but finds success in another role, where by "success" I mean an aircraft, like the F-84, that became a successful attack aircraft, even though it was not a successful fighter. Another example may be the A-5 Vigilante, which was not successful in its original role, but became a successful recon aircraft. Not every aircraft so perfectly matches mission and design as the A-4 or the A-7

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 7, 2017)

Did the Marines ever use their Corsairs as 'dive' bombers?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 7, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> That had to do with power-loading and overall range. Regardless, there were some guys in the USAAC that wanted longer-ranged fighters because they could be used as attack planes.



Can you be a bit more specific as to when this was? In the 30s the US wanted more range simply for deploying the fighters around the country. The tank behind the pilot's seat on the P-36 and early P-40s was an _overload _tank for ferrying or long range missions, to be used first before combat was joined or not even filled for intercept missions. 



> That's why they wanted the bomb-bays? I figured they were always trying to allow a faster cruising speed and range with payload.


Different way of saying the same thing. More drag means lower cruising speed and shorter range. Lots of small bombs have lots more drag than a few big bombs. P-51D with two 500lb bombs is still pretty slick. P-51 with under wing rockets is like deploying a parachute. 
we are also back to the rapid pace of engine and aircraft development. The YA-18 was being delivered in the summer of 1938 with 930hp engines, in four years engines of 1700-2000hp were available. That plus the rapid development in flaps (from split to double slotted) and in airfoils allowed the _possibility _of single engine aircraft to have the speed, payload and range of twin engine planes only few years older. 




> As I understand it, the A-20 was a DB-7 derivative the French had interest in with R-2600's. I'm not sure when the R-2600's first flew in the DB-7's.



The USAAC, having had a four plane fly-off, decided that none of the planes met new, revised needs. They had Douglas modify the DB-7 design to use R-2600s ( using turbo chargers). North American used the NA-40 as the basis (considerably modified ) for their submission for the medium bomber competition and it became the B-25. 
Douglas was able to offer non-turbo R-2600 powered DB-7 versions to the French and British due to work already done for the USAAC version even though it hadn't flown at the time. Production for the different customers were somewhat mixed together. 
To confuse things further the A-20A flew with non-turboed R-2600s several months before the turboed A-20 no letter, and both flew before the first DB-7B with R-2600. 
The US didn't use any R-1830 powered A-20 type planes. However 3 of the four planes in the fly-off were powered by them (the fourth used P & W R-2180s) so the performance they were looking for in 1938 can be judged by them. 




> Not really, there was at least one case where the USAAC specifically asked if the A-20 could-dive bomb, and was told that it was not possible, and a 30-degree dive-angle was the maximum. I want to be clear that I didn't think the A-20's could only strafe: I know they carried bombs. They usually would do level bombing, glide-bombing, which was followed with strafing. The point I was getting at was many attack planes in the USAAC inventory had very large amounts of guns because they were designed with strafing as an additional goal.



There very well could have been an inquiry from somebody in the USAAC asking if the A-20 could dive bomb but I doubt it was from any engineering officer worth his slide rule. Dive speeds and "G" loadings were known pretty well near the beginning of the project and no twin engine bomber/attack plane was built to handle 6 "G" plus pull outs without much heavier reinforcement, see JU-88 and the saga of German dive bombing twins. There may have been an inquiry as to if was possible to modify the A-20.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 7, 2017)

michaelmaltby said:


> Did the Marines ever use their Corsairs as 'dive' bombers?



Yep,







Yes it is a Vought Corsair 

The pilot in the picture won the congressional medal of honor for his flying exploits in Nicaragua in 1928, although not for dive bombing. It is a little hard to believe the USAAC could have remained ignorant of Dive bombing given what was going on during the late 20s and early 30s. 

F4U Corsairs could use their landing gear as dive brakes, there was a selector in the landing gear controls that allowed the selection of main gear only. leaving the tail wheel retracted.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 7, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> I suspect that there was more than one case where domestic developments were ignored until they were used by a foreign power.


Used in a way they saw to be effective...


> or the USAAC didn't even know the USMC was doing dive bombing from sources they considered reliable.


That's odd...


> As an aside, the A-36 was probably much better suited to European land combat conditions than were the USN/USMC dive bombers, simply because they would be much less vulnerable to enemy aircraft after dropping their bomb loads.


They were faster and more agile


> The Lutwaffe found out that Ju87 + enemy fighters was not healthy for stuka pilots


Unless they were covered by fighters.


> I'm not sure I like the term "flop" when an aircraft is found unsuitable for its original role, but finds success in another role, where by "success" I mean an aircraft, like the F-84, that became a successful attack aircraft, even though it was not a successful fighter.


Okay, but regardless, it wasn't a good fighter. Frankly it should have either been re-designated as BF-84 (they didn't use the attack category anymore) or B-55 (an attack plane is a bomber unless it's a gunship).



Shortround6 said:


> Can you be a bit more specific as to when this was?


Unsure...


> Different way of saying the same thing. More drag means lower cruising speed and shorter range. Lots of small bombs have lots more drag than a few big bombs.


Yeah but I figured they were using a few 100 pound bombs instead of a whole lot of 30 pound bombs.


> The YA-18 was being delivered in the summer of 1938 with 930hp engines, in four years engines of 1700-2000hp were available. That plus the rapid development in flaps (from split to double slotted) and in airfoils allowed the _possibility _of single engine aircraft to have the speed, payload and range of twin engine planes only few years older.


Which is a point I was trying to make: In 1935 it made sense, but by 1942-1944, it didn't.


> The USAAC, having had a four plane fly-off, decided that none of the planes met new, revised needs. They had Douglas modify the DB-7 design to use R-2600s ( using turbo chargers).


Not exactly, there was the A-20 and A-20A. The first was a high altitude fast-bomber; the latter a low/medium altitude level bomber and strafer.


> There very well could have been an inquiry from somebody in the USAAC asking if the A-20 could dive bomb but I doubt it was from any engineering officer worth his slide rule.


Far as I know it wasn't from the engineering guys...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 7, 2017)

The Army tried using single engine Navy dive bombers early in WW II but lost interest real quick. A big problem was range. In the South Pacific the single engine planes just didn't have the needed range to operate island to island. Even the A-20 was bit lacking.
In North Africa they might have worked but the problem here was the opposite, ranges were so close that fighters could carry bombs and reach many of the desired targets. This changed with the invasion of Sicily when fighters from North Africa could not support the invasion forces. Once air Bases were established on Sicily the fighters were good support aircraft again. 
However with new planes taking around 3 years to go from design to operational use trying to predict where your airfields will be in relation to your enemy in 3 years gets a bit tricky. Obviously long range was desired for new designs which often meant at least some sort of Bomb-bay even if only for part of the load.
Of course with mid to late war single engine attack aircraft using R-2800s, R-3350s and R-4360s the available power was well in excess of of what even the SD2C/A-25 had. You also had twin engine medium bomber/attack aircraft in the inventory to handle the really long range missions.

Post war with the introduction of jets there were several problems. One was the above mentioned stalling of development for several years. Jet engine gave unmatched performance but they had around 1/10 the overhaul life of a good piston engine. Something happened ( or a number of somethings) and the performance and engine life uncorked around 1950 and all the promise of the jet engine came in with a rush after 4-5 years of slow progress. As in indication of how things changed the J-33 engine in the F-80 was good for about 40 hours in 1947-48. the J-35 in the F-84 wasn't any better. By the late 1950s the last J-33s being built were rated for 1400 hours between overhauls. A 35 times increase in 10 years for the same basic design while giving 25-50% more thrust.
As far as fighter vs fighter goes in Korea, once the Mig 15 showed up, *every straight wing *fighter was demoted to a distant 2nd place. 
How much the F-84 was held back by the J-35 engine I don't know but the J-35 power level stayed static for several years. Unfortunately for the F-84 those few years saw the introduction of swept wings and also saw the introduction of the J-47 engine. At which point they tried to play catch up with the F-84F.

BTW, just about every USAAC attack aircraft in the 1930s had four .30 cal guns for strafing, while more than some other Attack/close support aircraft it was hardly overwhelming or even that great a portion of the payload compared to the 1941/43 designs. The A-20s, as they left the factory, rarely had more than four .30 cal guns until the first "G" models in Feb 1943. A number of them were up-gunned in the Field much like the B-25s but that is not a reflection of USAAC policy or doctrine of 1940/41.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## K5083 (Jul 8, 2017)

Post-war the USAF didn't order any attack-designated aircraft, did it? The first in the tri-service system is the A-9. A-10 is the only one they have ordered post-WW2.

RR Nene had plenty of thrust and TBO. The supposed advantage of axial over centrifugal took a long time to materialize in the operational world.

And it is useless to compare aircraft from a time of such rapid technological change from seventy years ago, where a couple of months covers so many developments and what was going on elsewhere was secret.


----------



## Fighterguy (Jul 8, 2017)

Another thing to consider, the political climate within USAF leadership at the time. This was the era (more like error) of the "Bomber Boys," flush with success from WWII's strategic bombing campaign, along with a new bomb that wrecked entire cities, they relegated fighters to bomber intercept and ground attack. Being able to out-maneuver an opponent in aerial combat was not part of the equation. Commanders were routinely cautioned not to even discuss "dogfighting." Missiles, as the new dogma dictated, would remove the need for aerial combat training.


----------



## Fighterguy (Jul 8, 2017)

K5083 said:


> Post-war the USAF didn't order any attack-designated aircraft, did it? The first in the tri-service system is the A-9. A-10 is the only one they have ordered post-WW2.
> 
> RR Nene had plenty of thrust and TBO. The supposed advantage of axial over centrifugal took a long time to materialize in the operational world.
> 
> And it is useless to compare aircraft from a time of such rapid technological change from seventy years ago, where a couple of months covers so many developments and what was going on elsewhere was secret.


Jets, because of their higher attack speeds, weren't as successful at ground attack as their piston forebears such as the A-1 Skyraider or Hawker Tempest, capable of carrying a large array of ordinance, good loiter, and exceptional maneuverability. The A-10 came later when the U.S. Army was considering an attack helicopter (AH-56 Cheyenne) that the Air Force saw as a threat to keeping the CAS role. Here, Pierre Sprey used input from A-1 Skyraider pilots and ground commanders to develop the initial design requirements for what became the A-10.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 8, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> F4U Corsairs could use their landing gear as dive brakes, there was a selector in the landing gear controls that allowed the selection of main gear only. leaving the tail wheel retracted.


So I guess if they can keep them down safely to a high enough air-speed, you're good to go.


> The Army tried using single engine Navy dive bombers early in WW II but lost interest real quick. A big problem was range.


Which the Navy had less trouble with because they could move the base into position to attack their target.


> Obviously long range was desired for new designs which often meant at least some sort of Bomb-bay even if only for part of the load.


1. How much range was needed to operate over the Pacific in conditions from 1942-1943?
2. Regarding bomb-load: Were they still using 30 pound fragmentation bombs for antipersonnel use or larger stuff?


> Post war with the introduction of jets there were several problems. One was the above mentioned stalling of development for several years. Jet engine gave unmatched performance but they had around 1/10 the overhaul life of a good piston engine. Something happened ( or a number of somethings) and the performance and engine life uncorked around 1950 and all the promise of the jet engine came in with a rush after 4-5 years of slow progress.


What caused the delay? A matter of simple technological progression, funding shrinking post war, or both?


> As far as fighter vs fighter goes in Korea, once the Mig 15 showed up, *every straight wing *fighter was demoted to a distant 2nd place.


That I'm well aware of, but when it comes to other fighters of the era (and I feel like I'm repeating myself), it didn't perform very good.

While I'm unsure how the Meteor F.4 through F.8 and the Vampire designs from 1946-1950 performed relative to the early F-80 and F-84, and


> just about every USAAC attack aircraft in the 1930s had four .30 cal guns for strafing


Which reflects the desire for strafing-planes.


> The A-20s, as they left the factory, rarely had more than four .30 cal guns until the first "G" models in Feb 1943.


Of course, but those were very large aircraft



K5083 said:


> Post-war the USAF didn't order any attack-designated aircraft, did it? The first in the tri-service system is the A-9. A-10 is the only one they have ordered post-WW2.


First of all, the last attack designations that the USAAF had was A-45 if I recall.

Secondly, the tri-service system doesn't start with A-9: Here's the listing from A-1 to AV-8

A-1: AD Skyraider
A-2: AJ Savage
A-3: A3D Skyrwarror
A-4: A4D Skyhawk
A-5: A3J Vigilante
A-6: A2F Intruder
A-7: A-7 Corsair II (possibly the first to have the new designation scheme off the bat)
AV-8: Harrier
McNamara dictated the US Navy and Marine Corps adopt a system similar to the US Air Force because he found the USAF system easier to wrap his mind around. He created a committee of several officers from the USAF, USN/USMC, maybe a few army guys, and told them to set-up a new system.

The rules were as follows

Aircraft currently under development within the USAF that have received a designation keep their designation
Cargo planes within the USAF currently in development as well as numbers that go up to 142 (no idea why), keep their designation

Everything else goes back to 1 with the USN planes redesignated into that category
Everything after that is where all new designs start off from (except cargo planes up to 142)
The USN/USMC wanted the attack designation to remain: I'm not 100% sure why, but it's possible any of the following were possible

The USN already used the term "Attack" and didn't feel like catering to the USAF terminology unless their careers or lives were threatened

The term "Attack" is more versatile than "Bomber": Bombers attack with bombs; Attack planes attack with guns, rockets, bombs, missiles, and a kitchen sink if there's one lying around.
The USN was worried that the USAF would begin to dictate terms of what constitutes a light-bomber to the point that the USN could never hope to operate any off a carrier deck.



> And it is useless to compare aircraft from a time of such rapid technological change from seventy years ago, where a couple of months covers so many developments and what was going on elsewhere was secret.


Well, if you're evaluating excellent designs, average designs, substandard designs, or flops, you can compare from everywhere.



Fighterguy said:


> Another thing to consider, the political climate within USAF leadership at the time. This was the era (more like error) of the "Bomber Boys," flush with success from WWII's strategic bombing campaign, along with a new bomb that wrecked entire cities, they relegated fighters to bomber intercept and ground attack.


You make very good points, but I want to point out the following

The USAAF in it's last days, and the USAF in it's very early days were still interested in the idea of bomber-escort: This attitude would change with the B-47, but even into the early 1950's there would be projects like Tip-Tow for the older propeller driven aircraft designs

Most people think the F-86 interestingly was designed to be an interceptor: It actually was designed to be a medium-ranged day-fighter that could escort bombers with drop-tanks, and be an effective fighter-bomber. It turned out to be a remarkable fighter (it was a good fighter-bomber too), though it's escort capability probably could have been better (though it did work to a point).

The USAAF had several attack and light-bomber designs flying after the war-ended: The XB-42, XA-43, XA-44, XA-45, and XB-43; With the exception of the XB-42 and XB-43, the others were conceived around 1945. The XA-44 and XA-45 would be given bomber designations (XB-53 and XB-51), the XB-42, XB-43, and XB-51 would fly: The XB-42 would fly during the war (1944) as a prototype (it would remain flying until 1947), the XB-43 (a jet-powered B-42) and XB-51 would fly in the post-war era.

The A-26 Invader would be re-designated as the B-26 and would remain flying through the Korean war.



> Being able to out-maneuver an opponent in aerial combat was not part of the equation.


From 1945-1953, far as I know that was still considered highly important. Missiles seemed to appear on the scene in 1954, and that did have a strong effect on the face of aerial combat. The USAF did categorize fighters into several categories, and interceptors usually didn't carry guns; most others did however.


> Commanders were routinely cautioned not to even discuss "dogfighting." Missiles, as the new dogma dictated, would remove the need for aerial combat training.


When was this?


> Jets, because of their higher attack speeds, weren't as successful at ground attack as their piston forebears such as the A-1


Yup, turning circle, and endurance with payload are key.


> The A-10 came later when the U.S. Army was considering an attack helicopter (AH-56 Cheyenne) that the Air Force saw as a threat to keeping the CAS role.


Which is funny because they didn't even want it -- they just didn't want the Army to have it.


> Pierre Sprey used input from A-1 Skyraider pilots and ground commanders to develop the initial design requirements for what became the A-10.


Sprey actually did a good job on this, but Sprey had a tendency to risk terminological inexactitude at times.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 8, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> -- it could have used more agility and a lot less weight.


 a statement applicable to every fighter. Ruggedness often implies increased weight and the F-84 was rugged. It was indeed heavier than the F-80, slightly heavier than the F9F, equal to the F-86A, and much lighter than the F2H. I'm not sure weight was unreasonable.


> But not at the beginning -- the F-84 wasn't that good at the beginning.


 The F-84E, the plane sent to Korea, seems to have had most of the bugs worked out. Main problem seems to have been shortages of parts, especially the J-35 engine. This seems to have been caused by underestimating the F-84 utilization rate which affected spare procurement.


> But how'd it compare in turning performance?


 Turning performance does not a great fighter make. Many a great turning aircraft failed to live up to mission requirements. The F-4 was not a great dog fighter, I heard one F-4 pilot even called it a dog, indeed, it was not great at anything (except top speed). However it was good at many things to such an extent that it is just about on every ones list of great fighters. The F-84 was no worse an air to air fighter than all the straight wing jets of the day but it was a superb air to ground fighter and did great service in this role, thus not a flop.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Jul 9, 2017)

davparlr said:


> . Ruggedness often implies increased weight and the F-84 was rugged.



Absolutely...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Jul 9, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> ..
> 
> What did Winkle Brown think of both?



Dunno. But I did find one he did on the Panther - not overly impressed with it. But all the jets of the era were basically under-powered...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Jul 9, 2017)

Obviously the F-84E could get outta trouble..


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 9, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> What caused the delay? A matter of simple technological progression, funding shrinking post war, or both?


The technology was brand new and brought with it many frontiers with steep learning curves: compressor efficiency, turbine efficiency, combustion efficiency, high temperature metallurgy, lubrication, cooling, fuel metering management, etc. All the "rule of thumb" solutions that had evolved in advanced recip engines were of only limited applicability in these new blowtorches. A lot of engineering parameters that designers based their work on had to be recalculated again and again. Remember, in those days it was all laborious slide rule work, no Cray supercomputers to lean on.
Zipper stated the F-84 could have used a little more agility and a lot less weight. No. What it really needed was more thrust. The weight was necessary for ruggedness, and the reduced energy bleed in maneuvering due to more thrust would have helped out with the agility issue. Here's a dream to chew on; how about an F-84 with an afterburning RR Spey?
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 9, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> So I guess if they can keep them down safely to a high enough air-speed, you're good to go.



The F4U didn't have any trouble keeping the dive brake/main gear down. Restrictions in the pilot's manual are not to exceed 200kts for the landing gear due to damaging the tail wheel doors. No lowering of the dive brakes at over 260kts as the hydraulics won't fully lower the gear and finally no retracting the dive brakes at over 350kts (402mph). Plese note that these are indicated airspeeds. 



> Which the Navy had less trouble with because they could move the base into position to attack their target.


That and bigger long range planes wouldn't fit/fly on carriers. 



> 2. Regarding bomb-load: Were they still using 30 pound fragmentation bombs for antipersonnel use or larger stuff?



usually larger (like 100lb bombs, minimum) the small bombs had been fitted into chutes in the top of the bomb bay. 




The iconic holes in the rear of the cockpit cover are actually the very top of the chutes/tubes. With the tubes taken out and using horizontal bomb stowage room was found for up to 325 gallons of fuel in the upper part of the bombay, extending range considerably. 



> What caused the delay? A matter of simple technological progression, funding shrinking post war, or both?


This has been answered by another board member, funding was only severely cut for end of 1945 and 1946, 



> That I'm well aware of, but when it comes to other fighters of the era (and I feel like I'm repeating myself), it didn't perform very good.


Some of us feel like we are repeating ourselves also. Progress was so fast from 1946 on that a two year difference was almost a different era. As an example work started on a supersonic version of the Sabre (first flown in Oct 1947) in Feb 1949. This required not only a new (or heavily modified) airframe but new engines of much greater power. It lead eventually (two re-starts) to the F-100 which first flew in April of 1953 using an engine almost four times as powerful as the ones used in the early F-84s. In fact the preliminary studies back in 1949 had called for engines of at least double the power of the engines going into production F-84s. Yes this is extreme but you have to know what was going on behind the scenes too. 
The F2H-1 used a pair of 3000lbs thrust engines, the F2H-2 used 3250lb thrust engines, Please note that the 6000fpm climb given in wiki for a F2H-3 was achieved using less than full internal fuel, a lot less than full. 
The F9F Panther also needs a closer look. 1, it's P & W J 42 engine was about 700lbs lighter than the J-35 used in the F-84. 2, it made about 5000lbs thrust to start with instead of 3750lbs and at some point it went to just under 6000lbs with water injection. Later F9Fs got P & W J 48 engines with 7000lbs of thrust wet. and 6250lbs dry 3. while a late model F-9F could climb at 6000fpm at sea level it required no only a 6250lb thrust engine, it required a weight of 15,389lbs which was achieved by not only leaving the wing tip tanks empty but by leaving out over 20% of the normal internal fuel. Panther first flew 20 months after the F-84. 




> While I'm unsure how the Meteor F.4 through F.8 and the Vampire designs from 1946-1950 performed relative to the early F-80 and F-84, and


 Not really that hard to find. And please consider that the Derwent 5 used in the Meteor gave 3600lbs thrust each but weighed only 1250lbs. just over 1/2 what a J-35 weighed. 



> Which reflects the desire for strafing-planes.


The attack planes (from the Curtiss Shrike on) not only carried double the number of guns as a "fighter" although none of the early attack planes ever swapped a .30 cal for a .50cal like the fighters could do they also often carried double the bomb load. 
The Curtiss A-12 for example




Not only carried the four .30 cal guns but could carry twenty 30lb fragmentation bombs inside or four 112lb bombs outside. Which is not too shabby for 1933/34. Since a .30 cal gun only weighs about 25lbs and 500 round of .30cal ammo goes about another 30lbs cutting back on the guns doesn't really do much for the bomb load or overall size of the airplane. 
I would also note that German aircraft did quite a bit of strafing in both Poland and the French Campaigns. Not quite as headline grabbing (or news reel worthy) as dive bombing but caused a large amount of disruption on supply and evacuation routes for a limited weight of ordnance expended.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 9, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> What it really needed was more thrust. The weight was necessary for ruggedness, and the reduced energy bleed in maneuvering due to more thrust would have helped out with the agility issue. Here's a dream to chew on; how about an F-84 with an afterburning RR Spey?
> Cheers,
> Wes



The heck with that, how about an Orpheus engine from a Jaguar? 
even without the after burner. 5000lbs of thrust while 1600lbs lighter

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 9, 2017)

Pedal to the metal, man!


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 9, 2017)

davparlr said:


> a statement applicable to every fighter.


Probably true! But there is definitely such a thing as too little, and that's honestly way more dangerous...


> Ruggedness often implies increased weight and the F-84 was rugged. It was indeed heavier than the F-80, slightly heavier than the F9F, equal to the F-86A, and much lighter than the F2H. I'm not sure weight was unreasonable.


1. How rugged was the F-80 compared to the F-84?

2. The F2H and F9F were carrier based airplanes, both had more overall thrust than the F-84.
3. The F-86 had more thrust than the F-84 and a bigger wing


> Turning performance does not a great fighter make.


But the ability to turn & climb well are extremely useful 


> The F-4 was not a great dog fighter, I heard one F-4 pilot even called it a dog, indeed, it was not great at anything (except top speed).


It could accelerate and climb quite well, as for turning performance: It was bad under most situations owing to a high corner-velocity. It could sustain 7g under those conditions however.


> it was a superb air to ground fighter and did great service in this role


Just to be clear, I'm not disputing it's ability to move mud. I'm just pointing out that it could have been a way better fighter.



Graeme said:


> Obviously the F-84E could get outta trouble..


So, at low altitudes it could turn tighter than the MiG-15? Was this due to the heavier control forces or something else?



XBe02Drvr said:


> The technology was brand new and brought with it many frontiers with steep learning curves: compressor efficiency, turbine efficiency, combustion efficiency, high temperature metallurgy, lubrication, cooling, fuel metering management, etc. All the "rule of thumb" solutions that had evolved in advanced recip engines were of only limited applicability in these new blowtorches. A lot of engineering parameters that designers based their work on had to be recalculated again and again.


Honestly, I would not have envisioned lubrication as a major problem compared to pistons. Combustion efficiency, engine cooling, higher pressure-ratios seem to be something that would make sense, the effective of higher pressure ratios on turbines also makes sense as well. Scaling probably also makes sense.


> Zipper stated the F-84 could have used a little more agility and a lot less weight. No. What it really needed was more thrust.


It could have used both truthfully...


> The weight was necessary for ruggedness


The MiG-15 was pretty rugged, though it wasn't that heavy...


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 10, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Honestly, I would not have envisioned lubrication as a major problem compared to pistons. Combustion efficiency, engine cooling, higher pressure-ratios seem to be something that would make sense, the effective of higher pressure ratios on turbines also makes sense as well. Scaling probably also makes sense.


Lubrication, like combustion efficiency, fuel metering, high temp metallurgy, turbine and compressor performance, were all technologies very highly refined for the demands of high horsepower reciprocating engines. The jet engine was a whole different animal.
Take lubrication for example. The main function of lubrication in a recip is to to provide a viscous durable film between metal surfaces sliding against each other, such as piston rings and cylinder walls or cam lobes and cam followers or crankshaft journals and sleeve bearings. In a jet there's almost none of this sliding. The engine spool rides on roller bearings and spins at more than 10 times the RPM of a recip. The temperature range is greater than a recip and the lubricant must maintain nearly constant viscosity from -40C to 900+. A jet can't idle at 800 RPM after a subzero start while sludge-like mineral oil warms up and thins out. A typical jet idles at 60 - 65% of its full power setting of 35 - 40K RPM. It requires a high grade of synthetic oil.
So even though lubrication was highly developed for the the recip application, it required a whole new technology when it came to jets. The same goes for fuel metering. And metallurgy. And compressor and turbine performance. (Early turbocharger technology from whence the early jets came, was nowhere near efficient enough to provide useful thrust.)
Another major learning curve was designing durable efficient burner cans, yet another brand-new technology.
As mentioned earlier in this thread, a convergence of these learning curves resulted in a quantum leap in thrust output in the early 50s in the US. The Brits and the Soviets were a couple years ahead of us on this.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 10, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> 2. The F2H and F9F were carrier based airplanes, both had more overall thrust than the F-84.
> 3. The F-86 had more thrust than the F-84 and a bigger wing



We need to quite arguing in the dark (no facts) and bring some light on the subject (facts).

Plane................wing area..............thrust...............empty weight...........combat weight.......L/F.......internal fuel
F-84B.................260sq ft.............3750lbs...................9538lb.......................13,465lbs...............7.33........416 gal
F2H-2.................294sq ft...........2 x 3250lbs...........11146lbs......................15,640lbs...............6.4.........877 gal *
F9F-5................. 250sq ft.............6250lbs................10147lbs......................15,359lbs.............7.25.......763 gal*
F-86F..................294sq ft..............5910lbs...............10850lbs......................14,857lbs..............7.33........435 gal
F-84E-25...........260sq ft..............4900lbs...............10300lbs.......................14,775lbs.............7.33........452 ga

These numbers are from the "standard aircraft characteristics" data sheets I could find but they need a few notes.
1, the planes listed did not enter service at the same time, there is about a 4 year spread. The F-84B went OUT of production in June of 1948, the E went into production in May 1949. The F-86F didn't go into production until April of 1952. The F2H-2 didn't go into production until Aug of 1949 (end of production for the F2H-1). The F9F-5 went into production in Nov of 1950. The first service model was the F9F-2 which went into production in Aug 1949. A major difference was that they used a P & W J42 engine of 5000lbs thrust dry instead of the 6250lb J48 engine in the above chart. For the F-86 the first E wasn't delivered until Feb 1951, Early F-86As had problems with the engines and production was slowed/halted until the engine problems were straightened out. Second production batch of "A"s were the first to actually enter squadron service and production of this batch started in March of 1949. These aircraft used a 5340lb thrust engine.

as can be seen, comparing early jets is difficult as they changed fairly quickly and some of the changes were major.

2. The Navy planes are not not magic, they are NOT carrying full internal fuel at combat weights. At combat weight the F2H-2 is carrying about 526 gal of 115/145 gasoline for it's engines. The F9F-5 is carrying about 612 gals of 100/130 gasoline. The F-86F used JP-4 and the F-84B used either JP-1, JP-3 or 100/130.

Edit: The F-84G was in Production on June of 1951 with a 5600lb thrust J-35 engine, very few went to Korea. Most stayed state side or went to Europe so we have no (?) combat reports of F-84Gs in air to air combats. The F-84G was used as a long range escort for the SAC starting in 1952, mainly I suspect, because it was equipped for air to air refueling at the time and Sabre was not. Or the F-84 used the boom style refueling and the Sabre used probe and drogue?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jul 10, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> I'll start with the F-84 since who could possibly have an opinion about that one?
> 
> Personally, I'd say the F-84 was a flop for the following reasons
> 
> ...


Interesting factoid. I had no idea it owed its lineage to the P-47.
One thing I did notice was that there were two YF-84J's built. These were F-84's retrofitted with J-73 engines.
Obviously, the idea didn't work (or maybe the notion was just considered not worth it on the aging airframe?), but I wonder how much of an impact that engine had on the plane's performance.
The J-73 was much more powerful than the J-35.


Elvis


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 10, 2017)

The GE J73 was being used as a replacement for the Wright J-65 (Bristol Siddeley Sapphire) used in the swept wing F-84F. 
The GE 73 was the engine used in the F-86H. 

Stuffing one in an F-84 straight wing would be interesting. No doubt performance would be extraordinary. However the J-35s needed from 70-95lbs of air per second depending on model (3750lbs to 5600lbs thrust) . The J 47 engines in the F-86 needed a bit over 100lbs per second. the J-65 in the F-84F needed about 120lbs per second and the J 73 needed 150bs per second. Going to be one big intake for the J 73 engine  
F-86H fuselage had a 6 in splice put in to deepen the fuselage/airducts.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 11, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> We need to quite arguing in the dark (no facts) and bring some light on the subject (facts).
> 
> Plane................wing area..............thrust...............empty weight...........combat weight.......L/F.......internal fuel
> F-84B.................260sq ft.............3750lbs...................9538lb.......................13,465lbs...............7.33........416 gal
> ...


The F-84D/E and F9F-2 seem like they'd compare best with each other (not the F9F-5); the F2H-1 and F-84D/E would go better with each other.


> comparing early jets is difficult as they changed fairly quickly and some of the changes were major.


True


> 2. The Navy planes are not not magic, they are NOT carrying full internal fuel at combat weights.


I thought as a general rule 50-60% fuel would be typical for combat missions, 80% for interceptions post war?


> The F-84G was used as a long range escort for the SAC starting in 1952, mainly I suspect, because it was equipped for air to air refueling at the time and Sabre was not. Or the F-84 used the boom style refueling and the Sabre used probe and drogue?


I'm surprised the USAF cancelled the penetration fighter designs. Those would have been way better off than the F-84.


> The GE J73 was being used as a replacement for the Wright J-65 (Bristol Siddeley Sapphire) used in the swept wing F-84F.
> The GE 73 was the engine used in the F-86H.


It produced like 9200 lbf right?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 11, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> The F-84D/E and F9F-2 seem like they'd compare best with each other (not the F9F-5); the F2H-1 and F-84D/E would go better with each other.



They would but I couldn't find SAC or CS sheets for those models. Many of these sheets can be found here : Standard Aircraft Characteristics Arcive

the one for the F-84E is: http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-84E_Thunderjet_Block_25_and_30_SAC_-_18_July_1951.pdf

I think they are as close to "official" or primary source as you are going to get. They also have a lot of information and charts about different load conditions rather than the "snap shot" performance specifications in many websites books. 
I figure that starting form a known position and trying to work backwards or forwards is better than starting from an uknown position. 



> I thought as a general rule 50-60% fuel would be typical for combat missions, 80% for interceptions post war?



This is not a good assumption, for wartime "intercept" missions _most_ fighters would take-off with max internal fuel. Initial time to altitude (operational time) would be figured with full internal load minus warm up and take-off. Climb is also figured taking engine power time limits into account. Combat climb _may _be figured using combat power and a lower fuel load but that gets iffy as nobody really agreed on % if fuel left or tested climbs with partial fuel loads. 
For escort missions the take off was made on internal fuel and flight inbound on drop tanks, most times tanks were dropped when entering combat (and carried home if no combat) leaving the plane with a similar weight/fuel load as an interceptor near it's base. 
For the US the Air Force in the 40s was figuring intercept missions for the early jets with full internal fuel. But their planes held much less fuel than the Navy jets and so needed every drop. The Navy jets could perform a similar length (time) intercept mission with part full tanks and use the increased performance. 

Drop tanks open huge cans of worms as not all drop tanks were the same and not all planes carried the same amount of fuel (percentage wise) in drop tanks. F-84s went to four drop tanks (or wing tip tanks plus under wing/fuselage tanks) way before the F-86 did. F-86 stayed with two under wing tanks for a long time. F-84 had wing tip tanks rated for combat when either full or part full? 



> I'm surprised the USAF cancelled the penetration fighter designs. Those would have been way better off than the F-84.



they were caught in a gamble. The engines didn't improve fast enough and they were either short of power or range. The XP-88 used a pair of 3150lb thrust engines for a 21,000lb airplane (clean) and while after burners were fitted that increased thrust by about 40% and gave good (for it's time) performance, use of the afterburners could double fuel consumption per minute of military power without after burner. The next generation of engines was on the test bench when the prototype penetration fighters were flying. 
The Westinghouse J 34 engines used in the XP-88 and XP-90 had a 3.8 to 1 compression ratio compressor in most versions which means fuel economy was not good. Advantages were that it was small (24in diameter) and light (1200-1300lbs) for an axial compressor engine. But with larger single engines offering more power (and perhaps better fuel economy) in the not very distant future tooling up a factory to make one of these aircraft was a big gamble 




> It produced like 9200 lbf right?



it did but not until 1953-54. The large airflow required also meant it wasn't a drop in replacement.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 12, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> They would but I couldn't find SAC or CS sheets for those models. Many of these sheets can be found here : Standard Aircraft Characteristics Arcive


Checked


> I think they are as close to "official" or primary source as you are going to get.


They're quite well set-up.


> This is not a good assumption, for wartime "intercept" missions _most_ fighters would take-off with max internal fuel.


True enough, but fuel would be burned off during the acceleration, climb, and outbound dash, maneuvering would also be involved in attacking fighters or bombers.


> For escort missions the take off was made on internal fuel and flight inbound on drop tanks, most times tanks were dropped when entering combat (and carried home if no combat) leaving the plane with a similar weight/fuel load as an interceptor near it's base.


That I'm aware of


> they were caught in a gamble. The engines didn't improve fast enough and they were either short of power or range. The XP-88 used a pair of 3150lb thrust engines for a 21,000lb airplane (clean) and while after burners were fitted that increased thrust by about 40% and gave good (for it's time) performance, use of the afterburners could double fuel consumption per minute of military power without after burner.


Why not just use a pair of J47's? They are similar in weight to the J35, they produce more thrust, and have a better SFC.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 12, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Why not just use a pair of J47's? They are similar in weight to the J35, they produce more thrust, and have a better SFC.



The prototype Penetration fighters (XF-88 and XF-90) used Westinghouse J 34 engines which were much lighter than the Allison/GE J-35. They were also much smaller in diameter. 
The early J34s went around 1200-1250lbs without afterburners and were a nominal 24 in in diameter. 
The early J35s were around 2400lbs without afterburners and were a nominal 37in in diameter. 
The early J47s also were around 2400lbs without afterburners and were a nominal 37in in diameter. However they are later in timing.
Both the J34 and J35 seemed to take a while to develop into more powerful versions (and to increase LBO). 

I don't know what engines they were originally supposed to use and/or if the J34s were used in the prototypes because they were available and would fit. Both planes seem to have been intended to use afterburners but afterburners were still pretty much in the experimental stage in the late 40s. There are couple of CS sheets for the F-90 showing a calculated (never built) version using the Westinghouse J46 engine. 
This engine was one of the two engines that sank Westinghouse as a jet engine manufacturer. While the paper work shows an intended use as of Jan 1950 the J46 didn't actually fly until July of 1953 in a Vought F7U Cutlass and that may have been non-afterburner version. First 16 F7U-3 using non-afterburning J46s. I would note that even in 1954/55 the J46 was providing less power than the Jan 1950 data sheet shows. 
The J47s have very little difference in SFC over the Allison J35. as far as overhaul life goes. from wiki so usual disclaimer: 
"Overhaul life for the J47 ranged from 15 hours (in 1948) to a theoretical 1,200 hours (625 achievable in practice) in 1956. For example, the J47-GE-23 was rated to run 225 hours time between overhauls. As installed on the F-86F, it experienced one in-flight shutdown every 33,000 hours in 1955 and 1956." If you are planing a long range fighter in 1948/49 is the engine you want to use? 

AS far as approving or canceling programs goes a number of these early engines (Westinghouse in particular) took a number of years to go from great promise to dismal failure and and many programs were caught switching engines. Some programs were simply caught by rapid progress. The P&W J57 engine used in the B-52 was on the drawing boards in the late 40s, first run in 1950 and first flown in 1952. 
It's power to weight ratio and SPC was in a class of it's own among american engines. GE scrambling to come up with the J79. 
Sometimes the manufacturers and the Air Force/Navy simply threw out a program and started over.


----------



## Graeme (Jul 12, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Many of these sheets can be found here : Standard Aircraft Characteristics Arcive



Many thanks for that link SR! 

This may be of use to you and others interested in the early jets (dunno how to make a PDF- there is also a European chart) - from somewhere around '54.

Interesting thread and I'm looking closer at these early jets - but the more I look and learn the F-84 in my opinion was not a flop in the early role as a fighter.

Cheers.






,

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 12, 2017)

That site has been linked to by others. Tomo, for one, but deserves to be brought up again as it has so much good information. 

Thanks for the chart. A lot of the period periodicals/books were operating under security restrictions. While the P & W J57 started work in 1950 and ran on the bench in 1952 (?) and flew in 1953 any real details (including dimensions and weight) were restricted from publication for several more years, real details like pressure ratio and air flow not showing up until 1955-56 (?) at least it was not in 1954-55 Janes. 

I would also note that most (all?) of the early after burners were not throttle-able . they were all or nothing = on/off. 
There is some talk of "electronic" controls of the afterburner but given the dates this means either vacuum tubes or resistors/capacitors and relays/switches or both? Using the afte burner required a different exhaust nozzle configuration and miss matching the nozzle opening to the engine operating condition could damage the engine, not just give less than optimum thrust.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 13, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> The prototype Penetration fighters (XF-88 and XF-90) used Westinghouse J 34 engines which were much lighter than the Allison/GE J-35. They were also much smaller in diameter.


There is definitely an advantage in having an engine with a high T/W ratio, a low frontal area and diameter, as well as a low specific fuel-consumption.

The J34 had a good power-to-weight ratio for the time, it had good thrust-to-frontal area and diameter as well, and it's SFC was also quite good. The problem is that many of the penetration fighters were larger than their standard designs and required more power to do the job.


> The J47s have very little difference in SFC over the Allison J35.


That's interesting, I thought they did.


> The P&W J57 engine used in the B-52 was on the drawing boards in the late 40s, first run in 1950 and first flown in 1952.


Started out as the XT-45 in 1946. I'm not sure when they converted it into a turbojet, but it was effective regardess!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 13, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> There is definitely an advantage in having an engine with a high T/W ratio, a low frontal area and diameter, as well as a low specific fuel-consumption.
> 
> The J34 had a good power-to-weight ratio for the time, it had good thrust-to-frontal area and diameter as well, and it's SFC was also quite good. The problem is that many of the penetration fighters were larger than their standard designs and required more power to do the job.
> That's interesting, I thought they did.



Getting good fuel consumption figures is hard as sometimes the fuel consumption (SFC) is not only given at different ratings, full power or normal or cruise, but in some cases one companies "Normal" was another companies "cruise". Add that in the early days (the 40s and early 50s) the SFC was also measured on a test stand with the engine stationary (static) they got no benefit from the pressure rise in the intake (RAM for piston engines). This means actual flight numbers could vary and vary with installation, speed and altitude much more than piston engines did. Most of these engines (including WW II enignes) had a rated SFC of between 1.0 and 1.3 without after burner and at cruise or normal. Again this is for service engines, a few prototypes fall outside the range. the late 40s engines were pretty much between 1.0 to 1.1 to 1 without afterburner. 

Compression ratio or pressure ratio is one of the main factors in SFC and during the 40s the pressure ratios of the compressors was usually between 4 and 5 to 1. Older and smaller engines sometimes dipping into the 3 to 1 range and only a very few of the newest axial flow engines breaking 5 to 1 for a service engine. At this time the advantage of the axial flow compressor was largely an illusion. The J 57 started as a 6 to 1 ratio in the design process, went to 8 to 1 as a design 2 spool engine then 10 to 1 and finally underwent a total redesign to the "Wasp waist" configuration and the 12.5 to 1 ratio of the first service engines. 

Good thrust to frontal area is good in theory but in practice it tends to fade as you need so much fuel that you can't make the fuselage that skinny anyway. The J34 was never intended as a single engine powerplant, it wasn't powerful enough. The idea for the J 34 was usually two engines in the wing roots to get enough power, avoid losses due to long intake and exhaust ducts and leave room in the fuselage for fuel. 
The XP-88 and XP-90 both carried over 900 gallons of internal fuel so the question of 24in diam or 28in or 37 in dia engines becomes rather moot even if the engines were pushed to the rear or lower rear of the aircraft. The F2H-2 Banshee had tankage for 789 gallons of fuel in 3 fuselage tanks so while having slim engines compared to centrifugal engines was certainly a plus it was hardly critical.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 13, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Getting good fuel consumption figures is hard as sometimes the fuel consumption (SFC) is not only given at different ratings, full power or normal or cruise, but in some cases one companies "Normal" was another companies "cruise". Add that in the early days (the 40s and early 50s) the SFC was also measured on a test stand with the engine stationary (static) they got no benefit from the pressure rise in the intake (RAM for piston engines).


I didn't know that...


> Compression ratio or pressure ratio is one of the main factors in SFC and during the 40s the pressure ratios of the compressors was usually between 4 and 5 to 1. Older and smaller engines sometimes dipping into the 3 to 1 range and only a very few of the newest axial flow engines breaking 5 to 1 for a service engine. At this time the advantage of the axial flow compressor was largely an illusion.


I didn't know that, but it makes sense...


> The J 57 started as a 6 to 1 ratio in the design process, went to 8 to 1 as a design 2 spool engine then 10 to 1 and finally underwent a total redesign to the "Wasp waist" configuration and the 12.5 to 1 ratio of the first service engines.


Wait, I thought the J57 started out as the XT-45 which was a twin-spool turboprop, which was then reconfigured to pure-jet configuration instead.


> Good thrust to frontal area is good in theory but in practice it tends to fade as you need so much fuel that you can't make the fuselage that skinny anyway.


I was talking about the engine itself, not the plane...


> The J34 was never intended as a single engine powerplant, it wasn't powerful enough.


As I understand it, the roots of the J34 were in the J30: The J30 was designed as an auxiliary powerplant at first, because the US Navy did think turbojets were suitable for operating off a carrier-deck. They eventually had a change of heart and built, what would become, the FH-1 Phantom.

Since the engine was fairly small at first, they needed six to eight engines: They realized it would be a dumb idea to have a fighter powered by eight engines, so they began bulking up the engine and also let the engine manufacturer have a role in the design process. What previously required six-to-eight engines, now required four, and eventually two.

There had been a thought of putting one large engine in the aircraft (presumably something J34 sized), but McDonnell did not wish to go through with it because they'd already worked out the basic fuselage configuration and the fuel-tank layout.



> The idea for the J 34 was usually two engines in the wing roots to get enough power, avoid losses due to long intake and exhaust ducts and leave room in the fuselage for fuel.


The F2H was basically a super Phantom. The Phantom was impressive, but it was only capable of achieving 500 mph in level flight under limited situations, it didn't have cannon armament, and the ejection seat seemed like a good idea. Range was also a problem with early jets, so they decided they'd like more of that too.


> The XP-88 and XP-90 both carried over 900 gallons of internal fuel so the question of 24in diam or 28in or 37 in dia engines becomes rather moot even if the engines were pushed to the rear or lower rear of the aircraft.


I'm not sure I follow you there, I suppose a thinner engine would allow more room for fuel if that's what you are getting at.


> The F2H-2 Banshee had tankage for 789 gallons


Wasn't it used as an escort briefly?


----------



## wuzak (Jul 14, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm not sure I follow you there, I suppose a thinner engine would allow more room for fuel if that's what you are getting at.



I believe he was saying that a large fuselage engine would cut into the space allocated for fuel that the twin small engine configuration allowed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Wait, I thought the J57 started out as the XT-45 which was a twin-spool turboprop, which was then reconfigured to pure-jet configuration instead.



Well, it did but the XT-45 was an evolutionary step. P & W was looking for a replacement for the large piston engine and had decided to develop 3 products, a small turboprop, a large turbo jet and and a large truboprop in 1945. The large turbojet was a single spool 6 to 1 pressure ratio engine (JT3-6) of 7500lbs but it was never run. It morphed into the two spool XT-45 (PT-4 also never run) and then by loosing the propeller section/parts it was turned into the two spool JT3-8 (X-176) which was first run in the late spring/early summer of 1949. This projected started work on the JT3-10 and about the same time as the JT3-8 ran work started on the JT3-A with the wasp waist. Please note that most of these projects overlapped to a considerable extent. Work on the XT-45 didn't stop when the JT3-8 started. It stopped when the JT3-10 started and the work on the JT3-8 didn't stop until over a year after the JT3A was started. The JT3A was the J57. 

JT stands for jet engine, the number 3 stands for the design number (3rd jet engine) and the -6, -8, -10 stands for the pressure ratio. PT stands for turboprop. These are P &W designations while J57 and T45 are government designations. 



> I was talking about the engine itself, not the plane...


Low frontal area got a lot of "play or press" in the 1930s with the V-12 vrs radial engine arguments. A bit over blown as a sitting pilot (even with legs out stretched) has more frontal area than most V-12 engines although he does have to have his head (and shoulders) above the engine. But then some of these aircraft only carried 100-180 gallons of fuel. Once you switched to jets that need hundreds of gallons per engine just to stay in the air for a couple of hours the fuselage became so fat that small differences in diameter are irrelevant.
On long range jet fighters it gets worse. For an extreme example




1150 gallons of internal fuel. J33 engines about 50 in diameter. or 13.9 sq ft frontal area each. Changing to J35s of 37.5 in D and 7.7sq ft would obviously have helped _some. _going to Westinghouse J34s of 24in diameter and 3.1 sqft with that fat fuselage? 
On single engine aircraft the fat centrifugal engines could be hidden inside the fuselage of most planes that held around 400 gallons or more of fuel, 

I would note that even the Folland Gnat used an engine of 32.4 in diameter and 5.7sqft frontal area and carried 240 gallons of internal fuel. 




two seat trainer may have carried less? 

as a counter point you have the Vought F6U Pirate, J34 24in diameter engine but 370 gallons of internal fuel




tip tanks held 140 each so the fat fuselage may not be all due to the internal fuel. 





> As I understand it, the roots of the J34 were in the J30: The J30 was designed as an auxiliary powerplant at first, because the US Navy did think turbojets were suitable for operating off a carrier-deck. They eventually had a change of heart and built, what would become, the FH-1 Phantom.
> 
> Since the engine was fairly small at first, they needed six to eight engines: They realized it would be a dumb idea to have a fighter powered by eight engines, so they began bulking up the engine and also let the engine manufacturer have a role in the design process. What previously required six-to-eight engines, now required four, and eventually two.
> 
> There had been a thought of putting one large engine in the aircraft (presumably something J34 sized), but McDonnell did not wish to go through with it because they'd already worked out the basic fuselage configuration and the fuel-tank layout.



Mostly right but there may be some confusion as to which engine/s were intended for the 6-8 engine layouts. The J30 ( Westinghouse 19A=19in diameter) was giving 1135lbs on the first test run so 8 such engines seems a bit like overkill. Westinghouse did build and run a 9.5in diameter engine (the Yankee 9.5 or J32) which gave around 275lbs of thrust and *may* have had drawings for an 11.5in and/or another intermediate size. No actual work (metal cut/shaped) being done on these sizes. The 19A was changed the 19B when the compressor went from 6 stages to 10 stages. 
There was some excess enthusiasm for a short period of time during WW II for jet engines as (over simplified) they thought that such a simple basic engine, only one moving part  could be scaled up or down with relative ease to suit different applications. after a few years of laborious development that idea went out the window and only returned *after *they got a much firmer grasp on materials, manufacturing techniques, and airflow through the compressor combustion chambers and turbines. Even in the 70s and 80s engines were sometimes adjusted in power by adding/subtracting compressor stages rather than changing diameters. At any rate Westinghouse found they had quite enough on their plate just getting the A19 to run properly. Combustion problems lead to uneven temperatures around the combustion chamber lead to short life of the combustion chamber and turbine. This lead to restrictions in performance and while the FH-1 Phantom was supposed to have a 41,000ft ceiling it rarely operated over 30,000ft. Range was less than book figures and it is unknown if it ever reached it's book speed of 479mph at sea level.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Jul 14, 2017)




----------



## swampyankee (Jul 14, 2017)

Zipper, I was a development test engineer for gas turbines, and later worked on performance simulation software for them. Bearings and seals are major development concerns with gas turbines; they may be easier than reciprocating engines, due to lack of things banging back and forth, but they also tend to operate at high DN numbers.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 16, 2017)

wuzak said:


> I believe he was saying that a large fuselage engine would cut into the space allocated for fuel that the twin small engine configuration allowed.


Understood



Shortround6 said:


> Well, it did but the XT-45 was an evolutionary step. P & W was looking for a replacement for the large piston engine and had decided to develop 3 products, a small turboprop, a large turbo jet and and a large truboprop in 1945. The large turbojet was a single spool 6 to 1 pressure ratio engine (JT3-6) of 7500lbs but it was never run. It morphed into the two spool XT-45 (PT-4 also never run) and then by loosing the propeller section/parts it was turned into the two spool JT3-8 (X-176) which was first run in the late spring/early summer of 1949. This projected started work on the JT3-10 and about the same time as the JT3-8 ran work started on the JT3-A with the wasp waist. Please note that most of these projects overlapped to a considerable extent. Work on the XT-45 didn't stop when the JT3-8 started. It stopped when the JT3-10 started and the work on the JT3-8 didn't stop until over a year after the JT3A was started. The JT3A was the J57.


Okay, I gotcha.


> Low frontal area got a lot of "play or press" in the 1930s with the V-12 vrs radial engine arguments.


So the issue was more fineness ratio than actual frontal area itself?


> Once you switched to jets that need hundreds of gallons per engine just to stay in the air for a couple of hours the fuselage became so fat that small differences in diameter are irrelevant.
> On long range jet fighters it gets worse. For an extreme example
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, but I'm not sure how much. The XP-83 was an interesting design which had many problems, but it did prove the following

You could make jet-fighter with a large fuel-fraction that could withstand g-loads similar to a contemporary fighter (P-80)
Control loads though a little heavier than the P-80, were still considered acceptable



> On single engine aircraft the fat centrifugal engines could be hidden inside the fuselage of most planes that held around 400 gallons or more of fuel


The F-80 for example; the F9F actually had an internal load that was like 680-685 with 120 gallons on the tips.


> Mostly right but there may be some confusion as to which engine/s were intended for the 6-8 engine layouts. The J30 ( Westinghouse 19A=19in diameter) was giving 1135lbs on the first test run so 8 such engines seems a bit like overkill. Westinghouse did build and run a 9.5in diameter engine (the Yankee 9.5 or J32) which gave around 275lbs of thrust and *may* have had drawings for an 11.5in and/or another intermediate size.


I figured it just grew from the aux powerplant requirement to the ultimate design whether work was done on them or not.


> There was some excess enthusiasm for a short period of time during WW II for jet engines as (over simplified) they thought that such a simple basic engine, only one moving part  could be scaled up or down with relative ease to suit different applications.


That makes sense



swampyankee said:


> Zipper, I was a development test engineer for gas turbines, and later worked on performance simulation software for them. Bearings and seals are major development concerns with gas turbines; they may be easier than reciprocating engines, due to lack of things banging back and forth, but they also tend to operate at high DN numbers.


DN?


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 16, 2017)

DN is shaft diameter times rpm.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 16, 2017)

Sort of the speed of the surfaces in the bearing?

Although that would truly be diameter times Pi times rpm but since Pi is a constant (a 3 in dia shaft would have 50% more speed than a 2in shaft of the bearing surfaces for the same rpm) perhaps the simpler formula is just as effective?

Just guessing so if I am wrong I welcome the correction.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 16, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Sort of the speed of the surfaces in the bearing?
> 
> Although that would truly be diameter times Pi times rpm but since Pi is a constant (a 3 in dia shaft would have 50% more speed than a 2in shaft of the bearing surfaces for the same rpm) perhaps the simpler formula is just as effective?
> 
> Just guessing so if I am wrong I welcome the correction.



You're correct; it's a measure of speed of the bearing surfaces.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 16, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> DN is shaft diameter times rpm.


Like gear-ratio...


----------



## wuzak (Jul 16, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Like gear-ratio...



No!

I have to say that when I saw the term DN I wondered what pipe sizes had to do with anything.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 16, 2017)

Okay, regarding the F-84 the following that I get out of it from my position and others is the following

A. Positives
1. Range: Though designed largely to interceptor specification (excluding the earliest internal studies of a jet-powered P-47), Republic was often committed to long-ranged aircraft-designs, and the F-84 emerged with a range superior to that of the F-80 and F-86
2. Ruggedness: Borne both out of the earliest internal studies, and structurla problms early on, the operational F-84 variants proved to be quite rugged and damage resistant, making them useful for low altitude operations
3. Effective as a fighter-bomber: Though designed to be an interceptor, it's range at low altitude, rugged construction, and bomb-carrying capability made it quite suitable as a fighter bomber, and eventually a nuclear-strike plane once IFR was added.
4. Aerial-Refuelling: It was the first USAF plane to be so configured.

B. Negatives
1. Early Problems: It had structural issues and bad-stall characteristics. Not sure if the stall characteristics were ever ironed out, though a RAF test pilot said the plane was viceless in handling by the time he flew it, so it might be yes.
2. Climb-performance was inferior to the Gloster Meteor, DH Vampire, F-80 Shooting Star, Supermarine Attacker, and Hawker Seahawk.
3. Turning performance, while able to ironically beat out a MiG-15 at low altitude (whether it be due to aerodynamics, strength, or control load), it was generally inferior to the F-80 under most circumstances.
4. While it was used as an escort-fighter, it didn't seem to be very good at it

*Personal Opinion*
While I personally believe it would have been better off had it been designed smaller and lighter for the interception mission and constructed with more care early on, it would have likely been rugged enough to survive combat and agile enough to not get hit too often: I would not consider it a flop, though I would not say I think highly of the design as a fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 17, 2017)

You keep posting the F-84 was designed as a interceptor, and was a failure as a interceptor.

It was designed to a late 1944 General Operational Requirement for a day FIGHTER capable of 600 mph, and a 700 mile range.
Never designed as a interceptor, never attempted to be used as a interceptor, so never failed as a interceptor.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 17, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> 2. Climb-performance was inferior to the Gloster Meteor, DH Vampire, F-80 Shooting Star, Supermarine Attacker, and Hawker Seahawk.
> 3. Turning performance, while able to ironically beat out a MiG-15 at low altitude (whether it be due to aerodynamics, strength, or control load), it was generally inferior to the F-80 under most circumstances.
> 4. While it was used as an escort-fighter, it didn't seem to be very good at it



2. Once again you fail to say which versions of which aircraft you are comparing to. Climb-performance of the F-84 varied considerably between the B-C- early D models (around 4100fpm for initial climb) to the late D-E (6000-7050fpm) to the G (initial climb unknown but time to 35,000ft 9.4 minutes). 
Of course the Meteor MK 8 out climbs the early F-84, a pair of 3600lb thrust engines in a similar weight plane, however the MK had a major shortcoming, lack of range. it held 420 imp gallons for it's two engines. there was a 175 imp gallon belly tank and one has to be rather careful as performance figures are often for internal fuel only. There were two 200imp gallon under wing tanks. 
Yes the Vampire could outclimb the early F-84s. But it was a small, light aircraft which also had a fuel problem and was slow to boot. max speed 540mph? 
Supermarine Attacker is a real stretch, 3rd prototype doesn't even fly until Jan 1950. Pretty poor interceptor in 1948-49-50 if it is not in squadron service. tail wheel landing gear and a wing with a lower mach number than a Spitfire. It's 226sq ft wing also means a wing loading not much different than an F-84. 
Hawker SeaHawk, doesn't enter squadron service until 1953. 
If I was picking an ideal interceptor for 1948-50 and could use a time machine to use 1953 fighters I too would pick something other than an F-84. 

I would also note that the *first *duty of an escort fighter is to actually show-up where the bombers are. Then we can talk about how effective they are.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 17, 2017)

It is often hard to separate the the performance of an aircraft from it's engine. Unfortunately for the F-84 it's engine essentially stagnated in thrust development for over 4 years while reliability/durability issues were straightened out. 
Also unfortunately the US only had 2 other engines of the even close to the power needed in flyable condition/status until 1948/49. The J33 was too fat to replace the J35 without major redesign and the J34 made less thrust than the J35. The P& W J42 only shows up at the end of 1948 and it also too fat. By 1951 the J42 is setting new standards in both durability (first turbine engine rated at 1000hrs between overhauls) and reliability (ingesting foreign objects and battle damage). 

What Allison was promising behind closed doors as far as thrust development is unknown. F-84s with 3750lb thrust engines were last delivered in April 1949 with last of the "D"s. The 4900lb thrust engines being installed the next month with the first Es. By June of 1951 the Gs were being delivered with 5600lb thrust engines. about a 50% increase in power in two years. None of these used afterburners Many of the D's were re-engined with the -17B engine if 4900lbs thrust. 
4000lbs had been set as a target goal in the summer of 1943. The engine exceeded 3000lbs the first time it ran in 1944. 

I would note that even in 1947 P&W was going to refuse to license and produce the Nene (J42) unless Rolls-Royce designed and did initial development on a more powerful engine. P&W got what they wanted with the Tay (J48)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Jul 19, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> 2. Once again you fail to say which versions of which aircraft you are comparing to.


An error often made in comparisons. Another common error is comparing performance at gross weight, e.g., in comparing a Mustang to a Bf 109, the Mustang would be carrying 269 gallons of gas compared to the Bf 109 carrying 105 gallons, skewing actual performance capability. For the model comparisons I used, I picked the models operational at the start of the Korean War, 1950. This was the time when late WWII types and early jet's metal was was going to be tested in the crucible of war.

The period of time from 1945 to about 1957 is of great interest to me due to amazing demands that advancing technology made on engineers, piloting procedures and training, and planning mission planning. Also, probably because my interest in modeling was peaking at that time!

In those 12 years jet aircraft went from stumbling along with poor operational direction to what I consider modern application. By 1957 the century series jets, the F8U, and the KC-135 had flown. The J57, J79, and the J75 engines had been run and produced. Operational concepts were pretty well established. Performance wise, airspeed had gone up from 500-600 mph to 1500+ mph, approach speeds went up from 100 mph to 200+ mph, max altitude from 30-40k ft to 80+k ft. Throttle response went from an almost instantaneous 2800 hp kick in the rear to, well, I'll get a little push in a minute or two, and then back to OK, that afterburner really kicks in. All of these required significant adjustments to pilot training and operations (I'm reading "Night Fighters over Korea", and the F3D Skyknights were banned from many airfields because the engines were canted down and tended to melt the taxiways.)

Engineering wise, the challenge was even more difficult. Major change to engines and the appearance of new aerodynamic problems associated with its increase in speed capabilities all caused intense effort. Conquering trans-sonic problems with swept wings and Whitcomb area rule, new challenges in inlet duct design to handle mach airflow, and new requirements to design exhaust nozzles was intensive. Knowing all the problems of defeating the "sound barrier", it amazed me how effortless the T-38 went through the sound barrier. You had to work at not doing it while flying aerobatics. Work was done on improving the operational envelop with canted decks on carriers to inflight refueling. Avionics was leap frogging. I'm sure it was exciting time to be working in the aeronautical field, as a pilot and as an engineer. Today, we can't even build an airplane in 12 years!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 19, 2017)

davparlr said:


> Today, we can't even build an airplane in 12 years!


Today we can't build an airplane unless it's a DO EVERYTHING machine!
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 19, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Today we can't build an airplane unless it's a DO EVERYTHING machine!
> Cheers,
> Wes


....does everything AND has every shiny new piece of bleading edge technology.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 21, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> You keep posting the F-84 was designed as a interceptor, and was a failure as a interceptor.
> 
> It was designed to a late 1944 General Operational Requirement for a day FIGHTER capable of 600 mph, and a 700 mile range.


Where did you get this from?



Shortround6 said:


> 2. Once again you fail to say which versions of which aircraft you are comparing to. Climb-performance of the F-84 varied considerably between the B-C- early D models (around 4100fpm for initial climb) to the late D-E (6000-7050fpm) to the G (initial climb unknown but time to 35,000ft 9.4 minutes).


I was just using the only available data I had for the F-84G


> Supermarine Attacker is a real stretch, 3rd prototype doesn't even fly until Jan 1950. Pretty poor interceptor in 1948-49-50 if it is not in squadron service.


I was just trying to list anything that was built in the same time period


> Hawker SeaHawk, doesn't enter squadron service until 1953.


I was just looking at when it first flew


> I would also note that the *first *duty of an escort fighter is to actually show-up where the bombers are.


But the F-80, F-84, and F-86 could all do that...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> But the F-80, F-84, and F-86 could all do that...




Really?????

F-80C could hold 425 gallons inside and totaled either 885 gal or 955 gallons of fuel depending on the size of the drop tanks. 
F-86F-20 held 435 gal inside and pair of 200 gallon drop tanks. 835 gallons total.

F-84E held 452 gallons inside and a total of 920 gallons in four external tanks, total 1372 gallons The wing tip tanks being rated for combat, either no or few restrictions on speed or maneuvers? 

Before air to air refueling, which most (all?) F-84Gs could do, which plane makes the better "escort" fighter.

Granted the earlier F-84s could only use two drop tanks.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 21, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Really?????


They could all make it to the rendezvous point... they might not be able to stay all the way, but they could make the rendezvous


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 21, 2017)

Not much good then. Show up at the rendezvous, say "adios", bug out and leave the bombers at the mercy of EA

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2017)

Spitfires could do that in WW II and didn't even need drop tanks


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 21, 2017)

Zipper730, where did you get that the F-84 was designed as a interceptor ??

I get that it was designed for other requirements in " Kartveli, innovator in aviation" also Wiki, and off line in Janes , 1951.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 21, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> Zipper730, where did you get that the F-84 was designed as a interceptor??


I'd have almost sworn it was joebaugher and wikipedia, but it's not there... weird.


> I get that it was designed for other requirements in "Kartveli, innovator in aviation" also Wiki, and off line in Janes, 1951.


Ok


----------



## pbehn (Jul 21, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> I'd have almost sworn it was joebaugher and wikipedia, but it's not there... weird.



Zipper, the most unreliable source possible is what you thought you read on wiki, please just check it is there before posting.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2017)

The F-84 _may _have started as an interceptor, without original project notes it is hard to say, but this would have been the converted P-47 version.
From Joe Baugher's web site

"
he series had its origin in a 1944 company-financed design study for a jet-powered replacement for the famed P-47 Thunderbolt. At first, Alexander Kartveli and his team at the Republic Aircraft Corporation considered a straightforward jet adaptation of the P-47 airframe, but soon decided that such a design was impractical and began over again from scratch. They settled on a cantilever low-wing monoplane with straight, laminar-flow wings and cantilevered horizontal tailplanes mounted halfway up the vertical tail. A large airbrake was to be installed in the belly of the aircraft, just underneath the cockpit. The engine selected was the General Electric TG-180 (J35) turbojet. This engine had an *axial flow*, *which offered less fuel consumption than that of the centrifugal-flow engines of earlier jet fighters such as the Lockheed P-80 *Shooting Star. The smaller diameter of the axial-flow engine had the additional advantage in that it allowed the use of a more streamlined, low drag fuselage. The intake for the jet engine was to be mounted in the nose. The pressurized cockpit was to have a teardrop canopy and was to be equipped with an ejector seat.

Since *range* as well as high speed was an important consideration, it was necessary to forego a thin profile wing in favor of an* airfoil section that was thick enough to carry fuel tanks* and landing gear. The critical Mach number of this wing was considerably lower than that of the fuselage, and was the primary limiter of performance on early P-84 models.

The USAAF liked what they saw, and ordered three prototypes and 400 production examples in March of 1945."

Notice the bolded parts (by me) and what they mean. The Axial flow engine/s offered/promised better fuel consumption. They didn't actually deliver better fuel consumption for a number of years. Also note that a J35 weighed about 2400lbs for 4000lbs or less thrust while the J33 in the F-80 weighed about 1875lbs for 3825lbs thrust, a DH Goblin weighed 1500lbs for 3,000lbs thrust the Ghost went 2010lbs for 5000lbs thrust, A Derwent V went around 1250lbs for 3500lbs of thrust. 

For a fast climbing "interceptor" the Axial flow engine was NOT the way to go in 1945-46-47. 
If you were trying for a long range aircraft you went for the axial flow engine. Better fuel consumption would cancel the extra engine weight on long range flights and the more streamline engine would offer lower drag further improving range. 
For actual results the better fuel consumption remained an illusion for most/all of the 1940s but it was too late to change engines (and the engine makers were all promising that the _next _revision/modification would improve the fuel consumption


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 24, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Zipper, the most unreliable source possible is what you thought you read on wiki, please just check it is there before posting.


Well, Wikipedia generally is: Joebaugher seems more reliable. As for the interceptor claim, I either misremembered, or a disruption in the space-time continuum occurred J/K, whereby somebody retroactively edited a few online articles J/K.



Shortround6 said:


> The F-84 _may _have started as an interceptor, without original project notes it is hard to say, but this would have been the converted P-47 version.


I doubt it, the P-47 variant was underpowered as hell...


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 24, 2017)

With all that covered... what do you guys think of the F7U? Flop or not?


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 24, 2017)

Over a quarter destroyed in accidents and responsible for over 20 pilot deaths???????????????????????????????????????

EDIT: forgot a question mark

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 25, 2017)

......the alphabetized list of what is wrong with the XF7U-3 is so long, they had to start the alphabet over: "d. Pilots with short arms have _difficulty _reaching the power lever in the MAXIMUM thrust position. Also, 3 years or so of squadron service hardly makes for a successful aircraft


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 25, 2017)

Wiki actually sums it up.
"The poor safety record was largely the result of the advanced design built to apply new aerodynamic theories, insufficient thrust and unreliable engines."

How much of the blame is due to the engines? and how much to the layout of the aircraft? 

Using low thrust and unreliable engines in an airframe that doesn't fly the same way conventional aircraft do at low speeds is a recipe for disaster. For example the F-102 was lighter (clean) had a lot more wing area and it's_ reliable _single engine gave over 25% more thrust (non afterburning) than the two engines in the F7U. They also weren't trying to operate it from a carrier deck.

The J40 engine was even worse and Westinghouse went out of the Jet engine business effectively in 1955-56 although legacy support for engines already built kept the doors open until 1960 after which the doors closed and any remaining personnel went to the industrial gas turbine division.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 26, 2017)

The USN had more than one not-entirely successful aircraft in that generation,but the F7U Cutlass was probably the worse.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 26, 2017)

Depends on what you call a generation but they certainly had a number of less than successful jets over a period of around 10 years.

A good deal of the problems stem from being underpowered and most of the underpowered or planes that were late entering service use Westinghouse engines. 

In an amazing display of inter-service co-operation (sarcasm) General Electric/Allison produced engines for the Air Force, Westinghouse made engines for the Navy and P & W after licencing Rolls Royce engines did sell to both. On occasions this arrangement was broken but usually only after the original engine for a design didn't work and they were looking for a substitute. 

By the mid 50s the Navy had lost all faith in Westinghouse and went to GE and P & W engines. Allison had also dropped out of the turbo jet business but remained in the turbo prop area.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 26, 2017)

Westinghouse's AGT division's history should be studied in business schools as an example of how not to do it.

One place to find out a bit is http://enginehistory.org/GasTurbines/EarlyGT/Westinghouse/WestinghouseAGT.pdf
I'd recommend looking farther, but to some extent it seems that Westinghouse's gas turbine failure can be lain at the feet of management that's quite short-sighted. I think Curtiss-Wright had the same problem, especially post WWII.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 26, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> The USN had more than one not-entirely successful aircraft in that generation,but the F7U Cutlass was probably the worse.


They didn't call it "the Gutless" for nothing. On a USAF base with two-mile runways and with a slightly shorter nose strut it MIGHT have worked....sort of.
Now how about a pair of J-79s?
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 28, 2017)

fubar57 said:


> Over a quarter destroyed in accidents and responsible for over 20 pilot deaths?


Technically, the F8U had something like 50% destroyed in carrier-landings and it was considered a great aircraft.

Of course the F8U had a number of differences

It had a better forward visibility
It had a much better T/W ratio
It had a much more successful combat-record
It had a combat record
It had better PR (let's be honest, some aircraft get better reputations than others, and that reputation spreads -- the F-104 was better than most gave it credit for even though it definitely was lacking some things)



> ......the alphabetized list of what is wrong with the XF7U-3 is so long, they had to start the alphabet over


The pitfall of using alphabetized lists 


> Pilots with short arms have _difficulty _reaching the power lever in the MAXIMUM thrust position.


Human factors issues are often neglected, when they are in fact so important.


Shortround6 said:


> How much of the blame is due to the engines? and how much to the layout of the aircraft?


And how much to the Navy?

Keep in mind

They selected Vought over McDonnell
They selected Vought's tailless design over the tailed-design seeing it, ironically, as lower risk.



> For example the F-102 was lighter (clean) had a lot more wing area and it's_ reliable _single engine gave over 25% more thrust (non afterburning) than the two engines in the F7U.


It's interesting how the F7U's weight creeped up so much from the initial estimates and when the contract was signed, to when the aircraft began testing to operational service.


swampyankee said:


> The USN had more than one not-entirely successful aircraft in that generation,but the F7U Cutlass was probably the worse.


I beg to differ, the F6U was way worse... it didn't even enter service


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 28, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Technically, the F8U had something like 50% destroyed in carrier-landings and it was considered a great aircraft.
> 
> Of course the F8U had a number of differences
> 
> ...


The F6U wasn't really an airplane, more like a winged turd.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 28, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> The F6U wasn't really an airplane, more like a winged turd.


It was sort of both: Airplane and winged turd


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 24, 2017)

Okay... next.

F-89 Scorpion: Flop or Not


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 24, 2017)

F-89 vrs _______?????
F-86D
F-94
F-102

first _designed_ as such, jet all weather interceptor (Night fighter) and as such *did NOT *require fast climb to altitude as it was supposed to be already in the air when the enemy arrived. 

So what else could do the job and how much of the 'failure' of the F-89 was due to either engines or weapons systems.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 24, 2017)

The F-89 had the most capable AI radar that had been attempted up to its time, able to do deflection and head on shots in addition to the traditional tail chase approach. With the electronics of the time, this entailed a heavy, bulky, power-hungry radar and fire control computer. Add to that the engines dictated by USAF didn't develop as projected, and the "barrage of little rockets" weapons system had issues, and it's a wonder it ever reached service status. Only in the pressure cooker of the cold war with Tupoleva-phobia running rampant! A program with that many issues wouldn't survive today. Makes F-35 seem a piece of cake.
Eventually it got sorted out and with the later Genie and Falcon missiles achieved some level of respectability. Our local Air Guard had them and found them to be a maintenance nightmare. But they got so good at it they were designated a rework facility and upgraded all the AF's F89s to the newer missiles. Flop,...or not? Eyes of the beholder.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 24, 2017)

During the 1950s, technology was changing so rapidly that an aircraft could be obsolescent before the ink on the final specs dried. I think somebody could write a paragraph claiming that the AJ Savage, A3D, B-66, F6U, F7U, F-94, F-104, C-5 (it took the USAF longer to get tanks from the US to Israel by C-5 than it took Israeli merchant ships to do so), C-133, F3D Demon, (it looks like the Navy does worse here....), and many others were flops and somebody, with equal conviction and equal validity could write that they weren't (well, it would be very hard to write a defense of the F6U Flying Turd) .

Later, it's more difficult, mostly as relatively few development programs were run, but also because engine and and aerodynamic technology are more mature. But then, there was the A-12 Dorito Chip.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 24, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> F3D Demon, (it looks like the Navy does worse here....),


Did you mean F3D Skyknight or F3H Demon? Naturally the Navy does worse; their operating environment puts more challenging demands on aircraft design. Besides, USAF procurement process was more sophisticated than USN, and AF had more money to play with.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 25, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Did you mean F3D Skyknight or F3H Demon? Naturally the Navy does worse; their operating environment puts more challenging demands on aircraft design. Besides, USAF procurement process was more sophisticated than USN, and AF had more money to play with.
> Cheers,
> Wes



F3H Demon (got the name and designation wrong  ). Its big problem seemed to be its engines. Like a lot of aircraft of the era, it got bitten by the crappy Westinghouse J40, then the barely acceptable J71; the quite good J57 wouldn't fit and the J79 wasn't ready yet (and early versions of that engine had their own issues). The F3D was never designed as a high-performance aircraft, so the fact that it was a slouch wasn't surprising.

I think that you're absolutely right in the problem being a mix of the Navy's more demanding environment and problems with their procurement process. One problem was certainly the Navy's insistence on the Westinghouse J40, which was probably showing itself a failure well before some of these designs were fixed, although I think the F7U Cutlass also had some serious problems related to its configuration, which no amount of power could fix.

Flops due to engine: F3H Demon
Flops due to configuration: F7U Cutlass
Flops in original role: F-84, A3J Vigilante (impracticality of the "tunnel" bomb bay)
Flops due to bad design: F6U Cutlass

Two more nebulous categories are aircraft that were "flops" because they had superior contemporaries and those because they were badly specified The first group probably includes the AM Mauler and the F11F, among USN aircraft, and possibly the F-101 for the Air Force. The second group -- excluding those where the Westinghouse J40 was specified -- may include things like the F2Y Sea Dart and the P6M SeaMaster, although neither got past flight testing.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 25, 2017)

fubar57 said:


> ......the alphabetized list of what is wrong with the XF7U-3 is so long, they had to start the alphabet over: "d. Pilots with short arms have _difficulty _reaching the power lever in the MAXIMUM thrust position. Also, 3 years or so of squadron service hardly makes for a successful aircraft



Vought seemed to dislike average-height pilots: some reports said the Corsair's cockpit setup was difficult to use for a pilot under about 6 ft tall, and the seat wasn't vertically adjustable, making the forward visibility problem even worse. Median (and average) height of US white males was about 5 ft 8 in tall; Vought was designing for a fairly small minority of the naval aviator pool

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 25, 2017)

On the subject of flops, one has to consider the timing of an aircraft among other things. The F-89 may very well have not performed as well as hoped but what else was available to perform the the same mission/s in the same years _NOT _what was available even two or three years later. 
The threat of nuclear armed Russian bombers was all too real in the very late 40s and during the 50s and a variety of defense systems were rushed into service, many of them too quickly but waiting for perfection (or even decent reliability) meant no defense at all for a number of years. 

The F-89 went through 4 different but sometimes overlapping armament systems and a number of different radar/fire control "computers" (and in the days of vacuum tubes/valves that was a nightmare) so one has to be careful about calling the entire program a "Flop". 
Some combinations worked better than others.
Over 30 USAF squadrons used at least some version of the F-89 and while service use alone is no guarantee of success (or _non-flop status _see F7U) the last F-89s did not leave ANG service until 1968/69 (drone use lasted longer) so a service life of over 15 years has to count for something. 
I would also note the curious fact that most of the F-89 use was in the northern states, defending against threats coming in over the arctic. 
Maintenance being rather difficult a fair amount of the time. (changing vacuum tubes or circuit boards in Minnesota in December?)


----------



## michaelmaltby (Aug 26, 2017)

The Grumman XF10F-1 Jaguar | Defense Media Network


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 26, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> (changing vacuum tubes or circuit boards in Minnesota in December?)


How about Limestone Maine, or Thule Greenland?

Reference Swampyankee's "potential flop list", one could argue that the F8's and RA5's tendency to "flop" onto carrier decks or into the water off the angledeck would qualify them as legitimate flops. The Crusader suffered an inordinate number of landing gear failures, and the Vigilante was such an unwieldy beast in approach configuration that it was prone to unsuccessful bolters, ramp strikes, cable breaks, and all sorts of flight deck mayhem. The Vige had the highest landing weight, highest approach speed, and wobbliest approach of any jet in the fleet. It was called "the Ensign eater" and "the LSO's curse", and became off limits to first-tour pilots. With two J79s like an F4, it weighed 20,000 lbs more, cruised 30 knots faster, had an hour more endurance, and nearly twice the kinetic impact on the arresting gear. Its limited maneuverability made it SAM fodder, and it joined the Thud on the EPA list of endangered species of birds. Nothing, except maybe the Thud, could touch it for "speed in the weeds". But it was arguably the prettiest tactical jet ever made. Certainly the prettiest flop on the list. Eyes of the beholder again.
Cheers,
Wes

PS: And oh yes, the Sea Dart and Seamaster never finished flight test due to a political decision not to pursue that avenue of sea/air power.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 26, 2017)

XF10F-1! And I mistakenly thought all these years that word was spelled U G L Y! Silly me!


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 27, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> How about Limestone Maine, or Thule Greenland?
> 
> Reference Swampyankee's "potential flop list", one could argue that the F8's and RA5's tendency to "flop" onto carrier decks or into the water off the angledeck would qualify them as legitimate flops. The Crusader suffered an inordinate number of landing gear failures, and the Vigilante was such an unwieldy beast in approach configuration that it was prone to unsuccessful bolters, ramp strikes, cable breaks, and all sorts of flight deck mayhem. The Vige had the highest landing weight, highest approach speed, and wobbliest approach of any jet in the fleet. It was called "the Ensign eater" and "the LSO's curse", and became off limits to first-tour pilots. With two J79s like an F4, it weighed 20,000 lbs more, cruised 30 knots faster, had an hour more endurance, and nearly twice the kinetic impact on the arresting gear. Its limited maneuverability made it SAM fodder, and it joined the Thud on the EPA list of endangered species of birds. Nothing, except maybe the Thud, could touch it for "speed in the weeds". But it was arguably the prettiest tactical jet ever made. Certainly the prettiest flop on the list. Eyes of the beholder again.
> Cheers,
> ...



The A3J/A5 Vigilante would have been a great aircraft if it had a sensible bomb bay system and some land-based air force took put it into service as a strike aircraft. Beautiful airplane, easily the prettiest strike aircraft built (well, it's competition includes the Tornado and the F-111, neither of which would win a beauty pageant....) but stuffed with bleading edge electronics, aerodynamics, and even materials (Al-Li alloys!) 

And for the Sea Dart and Seamaster? It may have been a political decision, but the politics may have been more within the USN than on Capital Hill.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 27, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> And for the Sea Dart and Seamaster? It may have been a political decision, but the politics may have been more within the USN than on Capital Hill


The Seamaster and its escort were a threat to almighty SAC and its monopoly on the Strategic Nuclear Deterrent. Gospel according to SAC was that SND rendered the Navy and the Marines obsolete. After Korea there would be no more "conventional" war. In that they were correct; they just didn't realize how wrong they could be.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 27, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> The A3J/A5 Vigilante would have been a great aircraft if it had a sensible bomb bay system and some land-based air force took put it into service as a strike aircraft.


That tubular bomb bay was designed with the idea of ejecting the bomb while going supersonic at zero altitude without endangering the aircraft. (Time delay of course) The designers' "slipstick math" failed to accurately predict the power of the slipstream pocket behind the aircraft.
If you've ever seen a Vige with all its panels stripped and engine bays empty you'd understand why it was structurally impossible to retrofit a conventional bomb bay without burdening an already overweight aircraft with intolerable additional weight. The Vige was one of a very small fraternity of aircraft designed to deliver nuclear ordnance at extreme low level in excess of mach 1. Most mach-capable nuclear bombers were limited to weapons release at high subsonic speeds.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 27, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> That tubular bomb bay was designed with the idea of ejecting the bomb while going supersonic at zero altitude without endangering the aircraft. (Time delay of course) The designers' "slipstick math" failed to accurately predict the power of the slipstream pocket behind the aircraft.
> If you've ever seen a Vige with all its panels stripped and engine bays empty you'd understand why it was structurally impossible to retrofit a conventional bomb bay without burdening an already overweight aircraft with intolerable additional weight. The Vige was one of a very small fraternity of aircraft designed to deliver nuclear ordnance at extreme low level in excess of mach 1. Most mach-capable nuclear bombers were limited to weapons release at high subsonic speeds.
> Cheers,
> Wes



I would never have considered retrofitting a conventional bomb bay as that would be a clean-sheet design of the fuselage; that's a different aircraft. The bomb tunnel was an unconventional solution that seemed to be a Good Idea at the Time, and would have gotten the head of the design team kudos had it worked right (and everybody would have copied it. Somebody was the first person to come up with the conventional bomb bay). There were also mechanical problems with the bomb tunnel which were pretty much impossible to correct, leading to the tunnel contents remaining behind during some catapult launches. For the aero issues, the only thing they could have done -- and they should have, as it was known that the flow in that region of the aircraft was very complex, almost certainly unsteady, and anything ejected from the tunnel would need to go through there, possibly with the engines in afterburner or with one engine inoperative -- was a lot of tunnel testing. The problem with that is that this would require a complex model, accurately replicating the flow around the rear of the aircraft, including the jet flows. This would probably require something like the Variable Density Wind Tunnel to get to the full-scale Reynolds' number. Stores ejection is a pretty difficult problem from either external carriage or from conventional bomb bays; there are fixes for either that can be added during flight testing without too much impact on the air frame. I don't think they could have gotten the bomb tunnel to work aerodynamically without major redesign of the rear end of the aircraft.

Magnificent aircraft, though. 

The Good Idea at the TimeTM​ is probably one of the more fertile bases for flopdom. 

Onto a more unambiguous flop, although it may be before the time frame: the Curtiss SO3C!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 27, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The Seamaster and its escort were a threat to almighty SAC and its monopoly on the Strategic Nuclear Deterrent. Gospel according to SAC was that SND rendered the Navy and the Marines obsolete. After Korea there would be no more "conventional" war. In that they were correct; they just didn't realize how wrong they could be.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Well, within the Pentagon, then. Armed forces are bureaucracies, and the most important battle they have is for funding, preferably at the expense of their rivals.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 27, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> For the aero issues, the only thing they could have done -- and they should have, as it was known that the flow in that region of the aircraft was very complex, almost certainly unsteady, and anything ejected from the tunnel would need to go through there, possibly with the engines in afterburner or with one engine inoperative -- was a lot of tunnel testing. The problem with that is that this would require a complex model, accurately replicating the flow around the rear of the aircraft, including the jet flows. This would probably require something like the Variable Density Wind Tunnel to get to the full-scale Reynolds' number.


When the Vige was designed computers were very primitive and computer modeling a futuristic concept. The good old slide rule was the order of the day, and accurate calculation of the details of airflow around the tail end of the fuselage an approximation at best.
Another curiosity was the decision to mount the fuel dump tube under the bomb tube portal between the afterburners rather than at the wingtips, as was the general practice at the time. This led to a number of spectacular demonstrations of aerial fireworks. One night a cocky young instructor pilot "Hurricane" Carson, set out with a student RAN (Radar Attack Navigator) from the training base in Albany GA for a night low-level navigation exercise around the southern states. As they're climbing the ladders to the cockpits, the student's handheld flashlight failed. It was a long walk back to Ops, and launch time loomed, so the IP gave the student his flashlight. Well, the wheels had no sooner hit the wells when both generators and the battery bus ties failed. Instant darkness, and most of the instruments dead. The RAT deployed, but could only power the items on its sub bus, as all the bus ties were down. No lights, no coms, no navs, no engine or calculated value instruments (TAS, ADC, fuel totalizer, etc), and twenty thousand pounds of fuel above safe landing weight. Gotta get rid of fuel - quick! Well, the burners are still lit, so that plus dump should hurry things along. Suddenly a thousand foot comet of flame lit up the city of Albany and threw enough light into the cockpit so Hurricane could see that his airspeed was approaching mach. He didn't want to lose the light, so he pulled up into a loop to check his acceleration. Once inverted, enough light shone through the canopy to show the airspeed increasing rapidly, so he killed the burners, throttled back and completed his loop, meanwhile rapidly guestimating how much fuel he must have burned and how much to go. The answer wasn't reassuring, so power up, burners lit, here we go again. Meanwhile the good citizens of Albany were wondering if this was WWIII, War of the Worlds, or the Second Coming! Hurricane and his hostage spent over half an hour flying flaming arcs over the city until the squadron CO launched in another RA5C to fly formation and bring them down to the runway. The student RAN opted out of the NFO program, and Hurricane was reprimanded for his Delta Sierra stunt, then commended for saving the aircraft and not ejecting over a populated area. A night to remember.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 27, 2017)

Yeah, I remember doing aero with a slide rule, then a pocket calculator. The base area would have very complex flow, probably separated, and likely unsteady, especially with the engines running. It would be a very difficult problem with CFD today. 

Hence, the need for tunnel testing, which was never cheap or easy.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 28, 2017)

I saw one of the first pocket calculators in a store in 1971. It was a Sharp, bulky, about the size of a TI student scientific today, had four functions: add, subtract, multiply, divide, had red LEDs, and cost $400! Oh, and it required you to enter your data in some weird sequence, not the normal way you would write it down.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 7, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> F3H Demon (got the name and designation wrong  ). Its big problem seemed to be its engines.


Yeah, the J40 only produced 2/3 the advertised thrust, and had various problems that made the thing into an overpriced pipe-bomb.


> One problem was certainly the Navy's insistence on the Westinghouse J40


Why were they so insistent when the J57 was in the pipeline?


> the quite good J57 wouldn't fit


I was told by some that the problem was volume and the others said it had to do with the demand for J57's. I'm not sure which is true.



> Flops due to engine: F3H Demon
> Flops due to configuration: F7U Cutlass
> Flops in original role: F-84, A3J Vigilante (impracticality of the "tunnel" bomb bay)
> Flops due to bad design: F6U Cutlass


Good summary...


> Vought seemed to dislike average-height pilots: some reports said the Corsair's cockpit setup was difficult to use for a pilot under about 6 ft tall, and the seat wasn't vertically adjustable, making the forward visibility problem even worse. Median (and average) height of US white males was about 5 ft 8 in tall


While this might sound silly, but how tall were Voughts test pilots?


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 7, 2017)

My thoughts are basically this…

F7U-Cutlass
An example of being hoist by their own petards: The USN actually chose the design because it was tailless (there was a school of thought that it would be better for transonic flight): Tailless aircraft need bigger wings and higher angle-of-attack compared to tailed aircraft, which was compounded by the slat-configuration

It was an aircraft of gadgets and interesting features, some appeared from the start, others added as the design proceeded, including the following (far as I know)

*Tail-hook:* Designed from the outset to be mounted over the top, with a hook that could be jettisoned for ease. It was ultimately repositioned down below. The ability to jettison the hook was arguably useful, it was also unnecessary and removed.
*Landing-Gear:* Designed with a device to spin the nose-gear prior to touchdown to reduce landing-loads, means to jack the nose-gear up for catapult-shots, and the ability to pivot the main-gears forward to increase elevator authority for takeoff. Item one appeared in development when weight increased, the last item appeared in flight-test. The last seems more like it would be satisfied by a total redesign (Which was done on the F7U-3), the middle-item seems unnecessary (carrier aircraft were able to do deck-runs at the time, and it was able to do so without jacking the gear).
It also had a variety of problems as well

*Control Power:* It didn't have enough to make the plane stall.
*Hydraulic Systems:* Early on the null points were too large, so it made it possible to over-control the aircraft; later on it was noted that it took about 10-15 seconds to transition from hydraulic power to manual reversion which remained with the aircraft throughout its life.
*Inadequate Forward-Visibility:* The shape of the nose and position of the pilot essentially were inadequate. How it passed is unclear but it appeared to be based on the requirements for aircraft with conventional-gears -- I'm not sure if the higher AoA was factored in.
*Weight:* It creeped up, at first due to overly optimistic (if not deceptive) weight estimates, then modifications during flight-test. Weight would go up from around 16,000-18,000 pounds by the start of the flight-test period, and eventually to 22,000-24,000. This would make the aircraft go from having a pretty respectable power/weight ratio to one that was low.
*Dutch-Roll:* Ironically, it seemed okay at first, with modifications later causing it to suffer from rapid onset effects that required yaw-damping. Not sure why they did this.
While the F7U-2 was cancelled, and the F7U-3's nose was reshaped, landing-gear redesigned, wings-reshaped, and was carrier-suitable, it wasn't until 1956 that it was ready for service, and was now flying among planes like the F4D, F3H, and F11F, of which all were supersonic. The more powerful engines didn't help because the aircraft continued to gain weight and the engines didn't live up to specification, so the T/W ratio didn't really seem to change much.

*Verdict:* It was pushing the aerodynamic limits for the time, which lead to all sorts of problems from weight and controlability. The design featured some excessively complicated features. It was difficult to fly despite having an excellent rate of roll and tight turn-rate at altitude, and came too late to really shine. Ironically, the F4D was probably more dangerous in a number of ways, except that it had plenty of power.

F-89 Scorpion
My impression was that the F-89's could best be compared to the US Navy's F3D Skyknight based on the initial role as a night-fighter.

The F-89 was larger and heavier, probably more underpowered at first, though the upgraded J35s provided a similar T/W ratio on dry-power, superior on AB, and a superior climb rate; the F3D might have had a superior rate of turn, as it could get inside a MiG-15. The F-89 seemed faster, and I'm unsure who had better range.

Both aircraft had problems early on: The F3D had roll-control problems, which were fixed with spoilers; the F-89 initially had an overly complicated nose-turret system that was deleted, its tail was prone to flutter due to exhaust gas striking them, and was fixed with mass-balances. The wings had elasticity issues while carrying drop-tanks, that were ultimately fixed as well.

I'm not sure how the radar of the F-89C compared to the F3D-1/2, but both seemed impressive. The F-89D had better features, but flew later and had no guns, which made it all but useless against fighter-planes, and not terribly good against bombers.

The rockets were also lousy owing to the fact that they were designed to fly larger ranges than the German R4M that inspired it, they miscalculated the spin-rate and fin-size, and ripple firing forces the rockets to fly through the turbulent airflow from earlier fired rocket: Even the ability to spit out 104 didn't produce much of a chance of a hit: An F6F-5K wandered off course, and they were tasked with shooting it down -- they made pass after pass and failed to hit a plane going in a perfectly straight line. It reminds me of a Ron White bit about the California Highway police getting into a massive shoot-out at nearly point-blank range and missed: Great shooting Elmer Fudd!

*Verdict:* The F-89 took a long period of time to work out it's quirks, though would have been okay as a night fighter (I'd have preferred having the F3D) until the F-89D (guns were removed). As an interceptor, the F-89D's lack of guns were problematic due to their accuracy until missiles came along.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 8, 2017)

Judging how effective the F-89 would be against bombers by a incident it had with a fighter drone about 1/4 the size of the targets it would be going against isn't too well thought out isn't it ?
Matter of fact some of those rockets did hit the drone, but they didn't detonate.

The F-89 was designed as a bomber interceptor. Designed to shoot down bombers coming to the USA via the polar route.

Did any nation have fighters ( of that era ) capable of escorting bombers for the distance required for a polar route mission from Russia to the US ?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 8, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> Matter of fact some of those rockets did hit the drone, but they didn't detonate.


Now I didn't know that


> The F-89 was designed as a bomber interceptor.


Night fighter at first actually: This would include defensive operations against bombers, and offensive against fighters.


> Did any nation have fighters ( of that era ) capable of escorting bombers for the distance required for a polar route mission from Russia to the US ?


Not that I know of


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 8, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> The F-89D had better features, but no guns, which made it all but useless against fighter-planes, and not terribly good against bombers.


In those days fighter vs fighter wasn't in the picture for an interceptor. It was all about fleets of TU-4s (glorified B-29 clones) coming over the North Pole. None of the "radar truck" interceptors of the time would have stood a chance against a MiG in visual combat. Yes, a couple of them (F3D and F-94) could theoretically turn with a MiG, but that's not a free ticket home; none of them would escape once the MiG decided to go vertical. There just wouldn't be any MiGs over northern Canada when they came to the merge. Their legs were too short.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 8, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> In those days fighter vs fighter wasn't in the picture for an interceptor.


Yes, but the plane was designed originally as a night fighter that included both offensive and defensive operations.

Offensive operations would include intruding into enemy airspace to take-out fighters in the dark.



> Yes, a couple of them (F3D and F-94) could theoretically turn with a MiG, but that's not a free ticket home; none of them would escape once the MiG decided to go vertical.


The F-94 could turn with a MiG?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 8, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Yes, but the plane was designed originally as a night fighter that included both offensive and defensive operations.
> 
> *Offensive operations would include intruding into enemy airspace to take-out fighters in the dark*.


 Is that your own opinion or recorded USAF doctrine at the time?


Zipper730 said:


> The F-94 could turn with a MiG?



What model? With out tip pods? Maybe. 

Why would you want to turn with a MiG when you could sneak up on him and blast away with a salvo of rockets? (providing they all worked)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 8, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Yes, but the plane was designed originally as a night fighter that included both offensive and defensive operations.


----------



## Graeme (Sep 8, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> While this might sound silly, but how tall were Voughts test pilots?



One was at least 6'4".
Needless to say - Brown was not a fan of the Corsair.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 8, 2017)

Didn't the RAF move the seat upwards a few inches to aid carrier landings?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 8, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> Did any nation have fighters ( of that era ) capable of escorting bombers for the distance required for a polar route mission from Russia to the US ?


Considering that the TU-4 was a degraded performance B-29 clone (The Soviets didn't have the technology to copy all of B-29's features) and nuclear strikes against US were planned max range one-way missions, fighter escort was just not an option. Remember, the Badger, the Bear, and the Bison were still in the future, as was Cuba for a recovery base. The only option might have been to drag "long range" fighters such as Yak-25s with a fleet of tankers three quarters of the way to the targets. Being as the Soviets didn't have dedicated long range tankers a la KC-97, they would have had to use converted bombers like our KB-50, and they had barely enough TU-4s to make a credible nuclear strike force. (If we had only known that at the time!)
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 8, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Considering that the TU-4 was a degraded performance B-29 clone (The Soviets didn't have the technology to copy all of B-29's features)



Not really Wes - the B-29 performed marginally better, the Tu-4 was definitely heavier, a bit slower but it had a higher service ceiling but its engines weren't as problematic as the 3350. The Soviets did well in their thievery.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 8, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> While this might sound silly, but how tall were Voughts test pilots?


The manager of one of our state airports back in the seventies had been a Vought test pilot during the war. He was six foot two or three and built like a tank. He told me he had been a contract instructor in the USAAF initial flight training program and was fired when the program was cut back. Said he got his draft notice two days before he got his pink slip and termination of deferment notice. A former instructor buddy of his got him the job at Vought, which re-instated his deferment. Started out in production test, then went to engineering. Said over half his former instructor buddies wound up as infantry KIA in Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and Belgium. (Shook his head; "What a waste of talent.")
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 8, 2017)

FLYBOYJ said:


> the Tu-4 was definitely heavier, a bit slower but it had a higher service ceiling but its engines weren't as problematic as the 3350. The Soviets did well in their thievery.


Not so well as all that. The Sovs couldn't duplicate the power to weight ratio of the magnesium 3350, nor could they match its specific fuel consumption. They made a heavy, thirsty engine that put out more power but needed a LOT more fuel to match the B-29's range.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 9, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Yes, but the plane was designed originally as a night fighter that included both offensive and defensive operations.
> 
> Offensive operations would include intruding into enemy airspace to take-out fighters in the dark.


You're missing the point here. Fighter vs fighter (in the visual ACM sense) wouldn't have been a design consideration here, as night fighting is a radar game, not an ACM one. So if the embryonic F-89 was in fact used to interdict enemy night fighters, it would still be a contest of radar sets, operators, and GCI controllers, not aircraft maneuverability and crew dogfighting skill. In its role as a long range interceptor defending North America from intercontinental bombers, it doesn't matter whether the merge occurs night, day, or IMC, there won't be any opposing fighters, so ACM performance is not a consideration.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 9, 2017)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not really Wes - the B-29 performed marginally better, the Tu-4 was definitely heavier, a bit slower but it had a higher service ceiling but its engines weren't as problematic as the 3350. The Soviets did well in their thievery.



Reverse engineering it (well, stealing and copying it) was very challenging, and some of the Soviet engineers thought that some of the aircraft's structural design was sub-optimal, but Stalin insisted on an exact copy, not an improved copy


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 10, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Stalin insisted on an exact copy, not an improved copy


But ol' Tupolev was enough of a sly fox to make a few hidden changes where he couldn't match the B-29's technology, while duplicating the appearance exactly. Even improved a thing or two, like upgrading the defensive armament.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 10, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Not so well as all that. The Sovs couldn't duplicate the power to weight ratio of the magnesium 3350, nor could they match its specific fuel consumption. They made a heavy, thirsty engine that put out more power but needed a LOT more fuel to match the B-29's range.
> Cheers,
> Wes


I don't have time to post but compare the performance of both aircraft. The Tu-4 wasn't that far off the mark.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 10, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> But ol' Tupolev was enough of a sly fox to make a few hidden changes where he couldn't match the B-29's technology, while duplicating the appearance exactly. Even improved a thing or two, like upgrading the defensive armament.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Even in 1944, there were better air-to-air weapons than the USA's M2, and some of them were Soviet. I remember reading that there were also some changes in the internal structure to better match Soviet practice and available alloys.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 10, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Even in 1944, there were better air-to-air weapons than the USA's M2, and some of them were Soviet.


Yes, like turret-mounted NS-23 and (later) NR-23 cannons.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 22, 2017)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Is that your own opinion or recorded USAF doctrine at the time?


It's based on practices of the USN, RAF, and presumably the USAAF in WWII, and the practices of the USN/USAF during Korea.

During WWII the RAF used it's night-fighters in the following roles

Defensively: As interceptors, often doing standing patrols
Offensively: Perching itself over the fighter-fields and blowing up those unfortunate enough to be taking off with them overhead.

Offensively: Hunting in the dark for enemy fighters
Offensively: Covering bomber streams
And probably a few other things that I basically forgot. During the Korean war, I have no idea what the RAF were doing.

During WWII the USN (probably the USMC) used it's night-fighters in the following roles

Offensively: Hunting enemy fighters in the dark
Offensively: Attacking ships, during the first night-fighter ops, a night-fighter successfully blew out the boiler on a smaller ship mostly with gunfire and at the very least left it dead in the water if not sank it
They probably also used them defensively to protect carriers, though I'm not clear on specifics. During Korea, they were used

Defensively: Protect the carrier
Offensively: CAP/BARCAP, possible bomber escort
During WWII the USAAF used it's night fighters at the very least for

Defense: Protecting air-bases
Probably offensively as well with Beaufighters, Mosquito NF's, and possibly a P-61 here and there. During the Korean War, the night-fighters were employed in an offensive fashion, and probably defensive too.



> What model? With out tip pods? Maybe.


F-94C with or without tip-tanks


> Why would you want to turn with a MiG when you could sneak up on him and blast away with a salvo of rockets?


When used defensively against bombers, rockets were used; when used offensively against fighters, cannon were generally used. The F-94C actually could be configured to carry 4x20mm or 48 rockets. The odds of a successful rocket-hit on a fighter-sized target are small, but guns are better.



fubar57 said:


> View attachment 382526​


I'm sure you could do a battle of the quotes, but the fact is it's roots were back in 1945 as an all weather aircraft. It carried bombs so it could be used for both air to air and air to ground. It was definitely used as an interceptor, but not as originally designed.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 22, 2017)

*Graeme & XBe02Drvr*

So, the F4U's principal project leader was 6'4", and another WWII era test-pilot was 6'2"? I had a hunch that they probably had somehow hired seemingly every tall pilot that lived. While there's nothing wrong with an airplane that can accommodate tall aircrew, it's important to be able to encompass the largest range as possible. The Federal Aviation Administration generally uses 5'2" to 6'4" as a guideline and while people certainly fall outside that, even I fit within that zone (I'm a little over 5'7").


----------



## pbehn (Sep 22, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> During WWII the RAF used it's night-fighters in the following roles
> 
> Defensively: As interceptors, often doing standing patrols
> Offensively: Perching itself over the fighter-fields and blowing up the suckers that takeoff
> ...




The night war lasted from 1940 to 1945, and covered the RAF sending up Hurricanes to look for bombers to being a very formidable force over Germany using highly sophisticated RADAR and navigation systems (for the time). During that time the conflict ebbed and flowed with technical advances. There was no time that the RAF had complete superiority, most of the time its job was to keep losses at a tolerable level. As the nephew of a Bomber Command veteran I would take exception to him being called a "sucker" as I do his old adversaries.


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 22, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You're missing the point here.


Actually, I think we are both in a communications gulf of sorts.


> Fighter vs fighter (in the visual ACM sense) wouldn't have been a design consideration here, as night fighting is a radar game, not an ACM one. So if the embryonic F-89 was in fact used to interdict enemy night fighters, it would still be a contest of radar sets, operators, and GCI controllers, not aircraft maneuverability and crew dogfighting skill.


As a general rule, that is indeed correct: It does require the mention that the aircraft is should be a stable gun-platform.

Circumstances that would involve equal radar capability and GCI capability, the determining factor would be pilot/radar operator skill, and the A/C performance.

Atypical circumstances also exist, as both sides usually try to pull fast ones on each other to get any form of advantage they can get: January 12, 1953, an F3D flying BARCAP noticed a lone MiG-15 flying around in the dark. This was actually a lure for night-fighters, and interestingly, the F3D-2's pilot (Major Elswin P. Dunn) suspected it, but went for it anyway: Next thing he knew it, search lights popped up everywhere attempting to illuminate him, and he was basically dancing the plane between the search lights while trying to maneuver in for an attack position on the MiG-15. The fact that the F3D-2 could turn inside the MiG-15 was integral in getting into a firing position.


> In its role as a long range interceptor defending North America from intercontinental bombers, it doesn't matter whether the merge occurs night, day, or IMC, there won't be any opposing fighters, so ACM performance is not a consideration.


That's a pretty safe assumption. However, I would still consider it desirable for the ability to turn well at low airspeed even at high subsonic speed for the following reasons...

Bombers were often designed to fly efficiently at high altitude, allowing great range: Flight at high altitude produces lower indicated air-speed, strongly favoring a wing with high aspect-ratio, which generates more lift at low-AoA.
Both T/W and structural strength ratios tend to favor the light: Bombers usually have less engine power than fighters, and have lower g-load. Higher L/D ratio is, thus greatly preferred, and high aspect ratios are usually more of a problem on aircraft to pull high g-loads than low.
Fighter-aircraft are usually designed to pull high g-loads, and are more dependent on being able to accelerate and climb faster: Higher aspect-ratios produce excessive wing-flexing and lower aspect-ratios with lighter wing-loading are favorable, higher T/W ratios partially compensate for a lower L/D ratio.

The F-86 vs B-47 at low altitude would be no comparison: The B-47 was able to pull a maximum load of around 5.25g (3.5x1.5) at combat weight, whereas the F-86 could pull around 9.495-10.995g (6.33-7.33 x 1.5), with a superior T/W-ratio and climb-rate that would leave it in the dust, as well as be able to dive through the mach and live to tell about it. It can out turn it, out accelerate it, out-climb it, and out-roll it.

The F-86 vs B-47 at high altitude are quite different: Both aircraft are above their corner velocities, and high aspect-ratios tend to do better in this configuration. Despite the heavy wing-loading of the B-47 at takeoff, it's higher fuel-fraction results in a larger change in wing-loading (and power-loading too). As funny as this sounds, the B-47 retains enough maneuverability to get inside the F-86, and might have been able to fly higher (not sure about that part).
While corner velocity is dictated by stall speed multiplied by the square root of the maximum g-load: At high altitude mach-number enters the equation and if the aircraft has severe buffet problems, it will limit the maneuverability. It also produces issues with gun-aiming.


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 22, 2017)

pbehn said:


> The night war lasted from 1940 to 1945


I was talking about the practices used throughout the war.


> As the nephew of a Bomber Command veteran I would take exception to him being called a "sucker" as I do his old adversaries.


I concede to your point and will rewrite it...


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2017)

You are continuing to lump all the different models of one type of aircraft together and make a judgement on the entire series.
The F-89 first went into service in June of 1951, all but a few of the first 212 built carried six fixed 20mm cannon. The ones that didn't were all experimental installations. 
The first rocket armed F-89Ds didn't enter service until Jan 1954. 2 1/2 years after the first operational squadron started with F-89s. Over 600 of the rocket armed F-89Ds were built before production was shifted to the F-89H which was armed with SIX Falcon air to air missles and a few rockets. Around 156 of the H model were built, over 500 of the "D"s were modified into the F-89J which were armed with two nuclear warhead Genie rockets and at times, up to four Falcons. 

There were multiple changes to the radar and fire-control computer set ups with the different models which also makes evaluating their performance difficult. 

While some of your theoretical missions make sense some don't. In a Nuclear war you either stop the enemy bombers or you don't and you loose the war in one day. You don't get to fly night fighters over the Arctic and fly around Russian airbases waiting for the Tu-4s or their replacements to return. EVERY *ONE* that returns is one or more American cities that got nuked. You also don't have the range or refueling capability to under take such missions and in the _sudden _start of the war scenarios in fashion in the 50s you sure don't get 3-4 hours (or more) warning to fuel up the planes and fly them to Russian airspace to loiter around. 

yes the F-89 took a long time to develop but some of that was because the weapons and electronics took so long. The Falcon missile was started in 1947, it didn't become operational until 1956, what do you do in the mean time? And it might not have been very good even in 1956. It was a pretty miserable excuse for a missile in Veitnam in the 60s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 22, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> That's a pretty safe assumption. However, I would still consider it desirable for the ability to turn well at low airspeed even at high subsonic speed for the following reasons...


I get your point, but understand, a lightweight high L/D long range interceptor wasn't possible with the radar technology of the time. The electronics were too bulky, heavy, and power-hungry, and the fuel requirement made the plane too heavy to fit your lightweight nimble fighter scenario. Your F-86 vs B-47 hypothesis bears no relevance to the real world F-89 vs Tu-4 scenario. "Long range" bears a little elaboration. In a world where interceptors were understood to be point-defense weapons, an interceptor designed to engage incoming bombers out over the DEW Line would be considered long range. But that was nowhere near enough range to penetrate enemy airspace on interdiction missions.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 22, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm sure you could do a battle of the quotes, but the fact is it's roots were back in 1945 as an all weather aircraft. It carried bombs so it could be used for both air to air and air to ground. It was definitely used as an interceptor, but not as originally designed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 23, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> I was talking about the practices used throughout the war.


You cannot describe the RAF night time defensive activities in one sentence. In 1940 they lost more aircraft in night time training and operations than they shot down. Despite all the massed raids on UK cities the RAF only shot down more than one aircraft on one night. Total claims of aircraft destroyed by fighters was about 12.

By contrast in 1944 (Jan to Jun) the "Baby Blitz" by Germany used 524 bombers and lost 324. RAF losses were 1 in combat plus 5 damaged. 1 lost to friendly fire. 7 were lost to unknown causes and 14 to intruder operations against enemy territory in the same period.
UK civilian casualties were 1556 killed and 2916 injured.

Between 1940 and 1944 the RAF went from being completely ineffective to routing the LW over the UK.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 24, 2017)

I think the F-101's design ancestry was as a long-range escort fighter. Considering that it had serious problems with pitch-up and almost certainly had problems with deep stalls, it's unlikely to have been terribly successful mixing it up with fighters except maybe Tu-28P's.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 25, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> It's based on practices of the USN, RAF, and presumably the USAAF in WWII, and the practices of the USN/USAF during Korea.
> 
> During WWII the RAF used it's night-fighters in the following roles
> 
> ...



All this is based on YOUR opinions - show some military document or publication to back it up. Do you also realize that operational doctrine might vary from unit to unit?

*Instead of trying to BS us with your personal take based on publications written by armchairs who never served in the military, why don't you do some research and quote documents like this...*

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a515089.pdf




Zipper730 said:


> F-94C with or without tip-tanks
> When used defensively against bombers, rockets were used; when used offensively against fighters, cannon were generally used. The F-94C actually could be configured to carry 4x20mm or 48 rockets. The odds of a successful rocket-hit on a fighter-sized target are small, but guns are better.
> 
> I'm sure you could do a battle of the quotes, but the fact is it's roots were back in 1945 as an all weather aircraft. It carried bombs so it could be used for both air to air and air to ground. It was definitely used as an interceptor, but not as originally designed.



Again, with or without tip tanks? You're rattling off stuff that has nothing to do with your original question!!!!


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 25, 2017)

I would note that without tip tanks the fuel capacity is limited.

Fuel capacity without tip tanks is 366 gallons but that has to be balanced against the fuel consumption of 56 gallons a minute in afterburner. 
At military power without afterburner the engine used about 16.3 gallons a minute. 

If you are trying to dogfight without tip tanks you better be doing it over your own airfield.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 25, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> F-94C with or without tip-tanks
> When used defensively against bombers, rockets were used; when used offensively against fighters, cannon were generally used. The F-94C actually could be configured to carry 4x20mm or 48 rockets. The odds of a successful rocket-hit on a fighter-sized target are small, but guns are better.



Could you give a source for the F-94C being configured to carry four 20mm guns _ever???
_
If you are thinking the F-94C is just a slightly modified F-94B think again (and the F-94B didn't carry 20mm cannon.)


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 28, 2017)

*Shortround6*



> You are continuing to lump all the different models of one type of aircraft together and make a judgement on the entire series.


I was unaware that the F-89D entered service in 1954. I was under the impression that, since the F-89D was the first mass-production model, it had entered service shortly after the others.


> Over 600 of the rocket armed F-89Ds were built before production was shifted to the F-89H which was armed with SIX Falcon air to air missles and a few rockets. Around 156 of the H model were built, over 500 of the "D"s were modified into the F-89J which were armed with two nuclear warhead Genie rockets and at times, up to four Falcons.


I was always under the impression that the gap between the F-89D, F-89J and F-89H were greater.


> While some of your theoretical missions make sense some don't. In a Nuclear war you either stop the enemy bombers or you don't and you loose the war in one day. You don't get to fly night fighters over the Arctic and fly around Russian airbases waiting for the Tu-4s or their replacements to return. EVERY *ONE* that returns is one or more American cities that got nuked. You also don't have the range or refueling capability to under take such missions and in the _sudden _start of the war scenarios in fashion in the 50s


Wars can start abruptly, and for defensive purposes, a quick response is needed.

As a general rule, with things not occurring by themselves, and based on other events, tensions begin to build which leads to defensive/offensive posture being ratcheted up: This would involve the possibility for the defensive role of both standing patrols, and rapid-response. A combination of both is probably best in truth aircraft, crew, and fuel permitting.

The use of fighter planes in the offensive role (day/night/all-weather fighter), revolves around the doctrine of the US Air Force, and US Navy: Both were able and willing to fight a total-war, but the US Navy was more versatile and able/willing to fight wars of varying size from small regional conflicts to World War III.

During the Korean War: Nuclear bombs were huge so only a few aircraft could carry them (not even all bombers); enemy SAM's were non-existent, so the overarching threat to bombers were fighters first, then AAA second; with the possible concern of Korea expanding into a nuclear-war: The USAF held-back a lot of it's capability for fear the USSR would get some skill in countering our abilities (jamming techniques were limited or restricted, even when other variables weren't causing trouble; the B-36's, B-47's and B-50's weren't used for conventional bombing, though they could all be configured if need be for this purpose).

After the Korean War: Nuclear bombs became small enough that fighter-bombers and attack-aircraft could carry them, and the overarching aim became nuclear-strike, with a rather disturbing attitude that nuclear war was the wave of the future (a wave that would have extinguished much of mankind), conventional war was largely unnecessary; SAM's came online and soon proved more dangerous to the bombers than the fighters (particularly when one considers the USSR's fighters performed well, but had primitive radar and missiles), combined with our proposed escorts leaving a lot to be desired, it was decided that air-superiority wouldn't be important.

The US Navy developed a nuclear-strike and strategic deterrent capability, but still retained a respectable conventional bombing ability and proved itself able to do both quite well.


> yes the F-89 took a long time to develop


My critique was mostly that they removed the guns...


> The Falcon missile was started in 1947, it didn't become operational until 1956, what do you do in the mean time? And it might not have been very good even in 1956. It was a pretty miserable excuse for a missile in Veitnam in the 60s.


The problems with the AIM-4 (and others) were due to the following facts (as I understand them).

Reliability issues due to hot & humid air, maintenance facilities off base (long drives were needed to and from the test facilities in vehicles that often lacked shock-absorbers), and the missiles were often not maintained as well as desired (not out of malevolence, but because they were just seen as another round of ammo, not a sensitive piece of electronics), though it should be noted that missiles sometimes did pass inspection (contraction as the missile went up to altitude often was to blame)
The AIM-4 as used on the F-4's did not have the degree of coolant as on the F-102's and F-106's: I'm not sure if the cooling system was as good on the F-4 either. This meant the seeker head didn't cool down quickly enough to be useful, and if they didn't have enough coolant, they couldn't hold the lock
The AIM-4 lacked a proximity fuse: So they either hit or missed with no in between. They also had a fairly small-warhead which does raise questions as to what it'd do to a bomber-sized target.
Missiles in the US would presumably be better maintained with aircraft designed to use them.


> Could you give a source for the F-94C being configured to carry four 20mm guns _ever???_


The earlier F-94's could carry 4 x 0.50. I was under the impression the F-94C could carry either one or the other; the F-86D was originally conceived around this but converted operationally to rockets only (personally, I think it was stupid to do so, but...)


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 28, 2017)

FLYBOYJ said:


> All this is based on YOUR opinions


The use of night-fighters in WWII is well documented...


> Do you also realize that operational doctrine might vary from unit to unit?


Now that I figured was determined much higher up...


> *why don't you do some research and quote documents like this...*
> 
> http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a515089.pdf


I did a brief read-over, so my responses might not be as ideal as desired. This is an interesting document, especially the fact that the USAF was so paranoid about maintaining its independence, and that they understood the technology more than its use.


> Again, with or without tip tanks? You're rattling off stuff that has nothing to do with your original question!!!!


I mentioned somewhere that the F3D could turn inside a MiG-15, and you commented the F-89 or F-94 might have been able to, so I asked a question to verify this, and you said it might have, and it depended on circumstances. So...


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 28, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> American Military Aircraft[/URL]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 28, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I get your point


That's good 


> a lightweight high L/D long range interceptor wasn't possible with the radar technology of the time. The electronics were too bulky, heavy, and power-hungry, and the fuel requirement made the plane too heavy to fit your lightweight nimble fighter scenario.


I wasn't necessarily talking about a light-weight design: What I was talking about was a night-fighter that had maneuverability, and it's inherent advantages.

While agility tends to favor the small, there have been big aircraft with substantial agility: The P-61 was huge for it's time, but it was still capable of pulling an ultimate load of 10.95g at combat weight, had good low-speed handling characteristics, and could turn inside a P-38 and (possibly) the De Havilland Mosquito (from what I've heard, the P-61 could turn inside the Mosquito, and the Mosquito could out-roll the P-61), which despite being a big aircraft in and of it's own right, could turn inside the Fw-190 at 21,000 to 28,000 feet.


> Your F-86 vs B-47 hypothesis bears no relevance to the real world F-89 vs Tu-4 scenario.


Fortunately, the Tu-4 wasn't all that agile, but what about the Tu-16 and Mya-4?




swampyankee said:


> I think the F-101's design ancestry was as a long-range escort fighter.


That's correct.


> Considering that it had serious problems with pitch-up and almost certainly had problems with deep stalls


Not sure about the deep-stall, but it did have bad-pitch up and post-stall gyration.


> it's unlikely to have been terribly successful mixing it up with fighters except maybe Tu-28P's.


Yeah, it wasn't very maneuverable except at altitudes below 20,000 feet (corner velocity was around 420 kts).


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 28, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> This rather ignores geography. The US Navy had floating air bases (called carriers) that could bring it's aircraft reasonably close to targets anywhere in the world.


Correct


> The USAAF had to base it's aircraft either in the US, it's territories, or in countries of varying "friendliness". Some might permit nuclear weapons, some might not.


True


> In fact the method used to refuel the _Lucky Lady II_ (A B-50) in it's round the world non-stop flight in 1949 that resulted in the USAAF being selected over the US Navy as the Nuclear deterrent force was unusable by fighter aircraft.


Wait, that's what gave them the leg-up? I thought it was the B-36? Still, I'm surprised that the USN didn't notice the refueling methods and say "that system's a piece of crap, you need fighter escorts and you can barely fuel a bomber!


> Flying night fighters might work from Europe or Turkey


Correct, and as in-flight refueling: It became possible so long as the distance from refueling to refueling left the plane with fuel.


> I would also note that the F-94C was so different from the F-94B that it was originally called the F-97 and was only changed to the F-94C in an attempt to secure funding from Congress (successfully) by making them think it was a continuation of the F-94 program. the F-94C used a different wing, a different fuselage, a different engine, different horizontal stabilizer/elevator system and the different armament and fire control system and probably a few other differences.


I didn't know the differences were that extensive, but in politics, the excuse matters more than the facts.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 28, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> I mentioned somewhere that the F3D could turn inside a MiG-15, and you commented the F-89 or F-94 might have been able to, so I asked a question to verify this, and you said it might have, and it depended on circumstances. So...



NO - you asked if a MiG-15 could turn inside an F-94. My response was "WITH OR WITHOUT TIP TANKS."


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 28, 2017)

All other things equal, _i.e._, same airfoil, same wing loading, same flaps, same effective aspect ratio, same thrust, the straight-winged aircraft will be able to turn more tightly, as the wing will hang in until greater lift coefficients. When that straight wing starts getting drag rise, the surplus thrust will drop and sustained maneuverability will get worse, but slow, straight beats sweep, all else being equal.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 29, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Fortunately, the Tu-4 wasn't all that agile, but what about the Tu-16 and Mya-4?


Those two weren't in the picture when the F-89 was being designed. When they showed up the Scorpion was already cast in stone. While faster than the TU-4, neither of them was a gold medal contender in gymnastics.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 29, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Wait, that's what gave them the leg-up? I thought it was the B-36? Still, I'm surprised that the USN didn't notice the refueling methods and say "that system's a piece of crap, you need fighter escorts and you can barely fuel a bomber!


There was more to it than that. A-bombs of the time were big and heavy, the AF had the B-36 about to become operational, the B-47 in prototype form and the B-52 on the drawing board. What did the Navy have? The pathetic AJ-1 Savage, the paper Skywarrior, the paper Seamaster, and dreams of a future probe and drogue aerial refueling system that the AF rightly pointed out could never handle the large quantities of fuel needed for an intercontinental nuclear mission. To this day, it's a "buddy pack" top-off system only.
The Navy was never a credible player in the deterrence game until Polaris came along. (Which the AF fought tooth and nail, BTW) And now it was USAF's turn to look foolish in the public eye for self-servingly opposing an obvious win-win solution.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 29, 2017)

A lot of these programs were multi year. Meaning that they knew it would be 3-5 years from first sketch to squadron service and then a numbers of years of squadron service. Planning and building aircraft to combat what the Russians (also working on multi year plans) had flown in the last May Day fly over is going to get you caught with your pants down even more often than really happened. Once they had the TU-4 some sort of jet bomber was going to be a few years behind. You estimate your defense needs on what you think you can build several years in the future and adjust somewhat based on what you think the enemy can do. If you have swept wing multi engine jet bombers in prototype form and in the last stages of paper design you better be planing that the enemy is only a few years behind and not that he will never get there. 

As to the Air Force vs Navy battle.





A class of 5 of these _Super Carriers_ to carry nuclear capable bombers had been planned but the 1st was canceled 5 days after the Keel was laid (in 1949) and the Air Force given the Mission. At least one Admiral resigned in protest and several others were fired or punished for opposing the secretary of defense. The Korean war broke out 6 months later, Navy Carriers provided air support to the ground troops Both the Secretary of defense and his right hand man in this decision, the secretary of the Navy wound up resigning. 
Nuclear bombs and the planes needed to carry them got smaller very quickly and more conventional carriers could accommodate them.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 29, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Nuclear bombs and the planes needed to carry them got smaller very quickly and more conventional carriers could accommodate them.


The Navy's carriers were never more than a DINO (Deterrent In Name Only), mere bee stings in the Russian bear's thick hide. Knock-out blows had to wait for the SSBNs.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 29, 2017)

True but in the days of the "Davy Crockett"





If you didn't have a nuclear weapon in your command you weren't "Legit"

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 29, 2017)

So that's where the RPG design came from! BINO! (Bazooka In Name Only?) (And a 2.5 mile lethal radius, right?)


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 29, 2017)

In hindsight, the admirals missed the boat. The US had been involved in dozens of armed interventions where nuclear weapons would have been worse than useless (the banana plantations would get ruined, for example), as opposed to a war with competing great powers. All the conflicts were on the periphery; the core of neither the US nor the USSR may have been with daggers drawn at times, possibly closest once, during the missile crisis, which could not have been resolved as peacefully as it was with only nukes on hand.

Rephrasing those last two sentences in something resembling English as written by a literate person:

All the conflicts between the US and the USSR were on the periphery, while the US and USSR may have been, at many times, at daggers drawn, there were only a very few incidents were direct conflict was likely, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis (I remember those circles indicating where the missiles based on Cuba would reach. I was in range). The Navy, with its ability to apply fine gradations of force, from hanging around threateningly, through blockade, to actual shooting, was probably critical in that crisis's peaceful resolution: an air force doesn't have those increments, as there's really nothing between threatening, but brief, visits, and large explosions.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 29, 2017)

Remember, the cold war was brand new, and the "rules of the game" were still working themselves out. Curt LeMay and his bomber boys were the biggest boys on the block with the biggest clubs in their hands, and drunk on the power of strategic bombing, were convinced no one would dare challenge the US in any way. "Who needs an army or a navy? Just fly over n' nuke 'em into the stone age!"
The prospect of a conventional or guerrilla war under the nuclear umbrella just didn't seem plausible. "They wouldn't DARE!!"
We downsized our armed forces so fast and so completely after War II in an attempt to save money that we left ourselves vulnerable all around the globe, and Kim Il Sung dared. The USAF had almost no presence on the Korean peninsula and had to fly long range missions out of Japan. The Navy finally managed to scrape up a carrier and started supplying close air support. The Army and Marines stripped their occupation forces of assets to try and stop the onslaught. It was nip and tuck for awhile until forces could be mobilized from stateside. Suddenly the idea of nuclear bomber as sole weapon in the arsenal didn't look so good.
Cheers,
Wes

PS: Even well into the Korean War, USAF was still publicly asserting that this "UN police action" was a one-off anomaly that shouldn't affect future defense planning.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 30, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Remember, the cold war was brand new, and the "rules of the game" were still working themselves out. Curt LeMay and his bomber boys were the biggest boys on the block with the biggest clubs in their hands, and drunk on the power of strategic bombing, were convinced no one would dare challenge the US in any way. "Who needs an army or a navy? Just fly over n' nuke 'em into the stone age!"
> The prospect of a conventional or guerrilla war under the nuclear umbrella just didn't seem plausible. "They wouldn't DARE!!"
> We downsized our armed forces so fast and so completely after War II in an attempt to save money that we left ourselves vulnerable all around the globe, and Kim Il Sung dared. The USAF had almost no presence on the Korean peninsula and had to fly long range missions out of Japan. The Navy finally managed to scrape up a carrier and started supplying close air support. The Army and Marines stripped their occupation forces of assets to try and stop the onslaught. It was nip and tuck for awhile until forces could be mobilized from stateside. Suddenly the idea of nuclear bomber as sole weapon in the arsenal didn't look so good.
> Cheers,
> ...



I really don't disagree with you, although I think that we sometimes forget that the US had intervened in many countries before WW2 and even before the Russian Revolution. The newly-minted USAF seemed to have forgotten that these quasi-colonial wars had been a significant role of the US military and were the main activity of the US Marines. Nuking Haiti because a 1950s equivalent of Jean Vilbrun Guillaume Sam killed a lot of his political opponents would seem a bit disproportionate.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 30, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Nuking Haiti because a 1950s equivalent of Jean Vilbrun Guillaume Sam killed a lot of his political opponents would seem a bit disproportionate.


That would be "Papa Doc" Duvalier, n'est ce pas? He made Josef Stalin look like a choirboy with his Toutons Macoutes in place of "uncle Joe's" NKVD. Better than 50% of the population fit his definition of "political opponents". The gutters ran with blood. I was in high school at the time and remember the pictures in the news almost every night. Too bad we didn't have assassination drones back then.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 30, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> That would be "Papa Doc" Duvalier, n'est ce pas? He made Josef Stalin look like a choirboy with his Toutons Macoutes in place of "uncle Joe's" NKVD. Better than 50% of the population fit his definition of "political opponents". The gutters ran with blood. I was in high school at the time and remember the pictures in the news almost every night. Too bad we didn't have assassination drones back then.
> Cheers,
> Wes



The Marines were sent in by Wilson because Haiti's leader had executed (in acts of judicial murder) about 170 of his political opponents and because of excessive German influence there (this was before US involvement in WW1, because Germany was gaining influence in the Caribbean and Latin America at the expense of the US. Shades of the Cold War).


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 1, 2017)

FLYBOYJ said:


> NO - you asked if a MiG-15 could turn inside an F-94. My response was "WITH OR WITHOUT TIP TANKS."


Okay... so can it? I'm not trying to be a dick, it's an honest question!



XBe02Drvr said:


> Those two weren't in the picture when the F-89 was being designed. When they showed up the Scorpion was already cast in stone. While faster than the TU-4, neither of them was a gold medal contender in gymnastics.


While this takes me a little off topic: What range could the 23mm cannon installed accurately hit a target the size of an F-89?

As for the USN vs USAF post-war budget battles & nuclear-deterrent stuff...


> There was more to it than that.


Okay, I thought it had to do with the supposed ability of the B-36 to fly high enough that it would be able to turn inside fighters and the secretary of defense having once sat on the Convair board of directors...


> A-bombs of the time were big and heavy, the AF had the B-36 about to become operational, the B-47 in prototype form and the B-52 on the drawing board.


They also had the B-29 & B-50 in service as of 1949...


> What did the Navy have? The pathetic AJ-1 Savage


From what it appears it was faster than the B-29, B-50, and B-36, and could pull an ultimate load of 6g at combat weight. It's service ceiling didn't seem so good if the SAC sheet is accurate. The problem with the plane if I recall had to do with the hydraulic systems.


> the paper Skywarrior


Actually, the A3D was built because the USN wanted a 100,000 pound aircraft to operate off carrier-decks, and that required a special carrier for the purpose. The A3D was built to operate off Midway Class decks.


> the paper Seamaster


The proposal for the P6M wasn't until 1951 if I recall...


> and dreams of a future probe and drogue aerial refueling system that the AF rightly pointed out could never handle the large quantities of fuel needed for an intercontinental nuclear mission.


The proposed looped-hose and grapnel line was less capable than the probe-and-drogue, and the RAF had already tested the system in 1949 on a Gloster Meteor...


> The Navy was never a credible player in the deterrence game until Polaris came along. (Which the AF fought tooth and nail, BTW)


Of course they'd fight tooth and nail... that was their business.


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 1, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> A lot of these programs were multi year.


Aren't most all defense programs multi-year?


> Planning and building aircraft to combat what the Russians (also working on multi year plans) had flown in the last May Day fly over is going to get you caught with your pants down even more often than really happened. Once they had the TU-4 some sort of jet bomber was going to be a few years behind. You estimate your defense needs on what you think you can build several years in the future and adjust somewhat based on what you think the enemy can do.


Sounds logical


> If you have swept wing multi engine jet bombers in prototype form and in the last stages of paper design you better be planing that the enemy is only a few years behind and not that he will never get there.


Unless you have good reasons to suspect that they are further behind (or ahead)



> As to the Air Force vs Navy battle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That sounds about right, if I recall carrier #4 would have had a nuclear reactor in it. I think the design had many flaws based around the fact that they based everything around the presumption that the bomber would have a wingspan equivalent to the P2V (100 feet, roughly 16-feet short of a B-47), which lead to a flight-deck that was flush and a dependency on a command ship to do what the carrier had previously done by itself.


> The Korean war broke out 6 months later, Navy Carriers provided air support to the ground troops Both the Secretary of defense and his right hand man in this decision, the secretary of the Navy wound up resigning.


While this might sound stupid but why? They did a good job in supporting troops?


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 1, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The Navy's carriers were never more than a DINO (Deterrent In Name Only), mere bee stings in the Russian bear's thick hide. Knock-out blows had to wait for the SSBNs.


I'm not so sure about that when one nuke equals one city half flattened by blast, and the rest by firestorms blowing everything apart...

It's not quite the level of destruction the USAF was capable of, but nuclear weapons are unbelievable in terms of destruction: What previously required 200-750 bombers to do, one plane could now do.



> Remember, the cold war was brand new, and the "rules of the game" were still working themselves out.


It's still surprising that common sense was left out. The US had been involved in loads of conflicts ranging from armed interventions to all out total-war: The USN understood that better than the USAAF/USAF.


> Curt LeMay and his bomber boys were the biggest boys on the block with the biggest clubs in their hands, and drunk on the power of strategic bombing


That might be an astute observation


> The prospect of a conventional or guerrilla war under the nuclear umbrella just didn't seem plausible. "They wouldn't DARE!!"
> We downsized our armed forces so fast and so completely after War II in an attempt to save money that we left ourselves vulnerable all around the globe, and Kim Il Sung dared.


And damn near pushed South Korea into the water...


> The USAF had almost no presence on the Korean peninsula and had to fly long range missions out of Japan. The Navy finally managed to scrape up a carrier and started supplying close air support. The Army and Marines stripped their occupation forces of assets to try and stop the onslaught. It was nip and tuck for awhile until forces could be mobilized from stateside. Suddenly the idea of nuclear bomber as sole weapon in the arsenal didn't look so good.


And yet the lesson they learned wasn't: Invest more in tactical air-power and start developing more CAS resources because we'll probably need it; it instead was: Use more nukes, and avoid a conventional war again 


> Even well into the Korean War, USAF was still publicly asserting that this "UN police action" was a one-off anomaly that shouldn't affect future defense planning.


Mheh...



swampyankee said:


> In hindsight, the admirals missed the boat. The US had been involved in dozens of armed interventions where nuclear weapons would have been worse than useless (the banana plantations would get ruined, for example), as opposed to a war with competing great powers. . . .All the conflicts between the US and the USSR were on the periphery, while the US and USSR may have been, at many times, at daggers drawn, there were only a very few incidents were direct conflict was likely, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis (I remember those circles indicating where the missiles based on Cuba would reach. I was in range). The Navy, with its ability to apply fine gradations of force, from hanging around threateningly, through blockade, to actual shooting, was probably critical in that crisis's peaceful resolution: an air force doesn't have those increments, as there's really nothing between threatening, but brief, visits, and large explosions.


Yeah... the problem with independent Air Forces could be a subject unto itself... at least the RAF had the ability to apply some degree of force gradients because of their colonial operations, and their lack of a nuclear bomb until the 1950's, though they also tended to gravitate towards "bomb 'em and burn 'em 'till they quit".


> I think that we sometimes forget that the US had intervened in many countries before WW2 and even before the Russian Revolution. The newly-minted USAF seemed to have forgotten that these quasi-colonial wars had been a significant role of the US military and were the main activity of the US Marines.


It is fascinating that nobody ever noticed this glitch in the air-power mind-set...


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 1, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> The proposed looped-hose and grapnel line was less capable than the probe-and-drogue


Of course it was, but it was also understood that the hose and grapnel was just a temporary demonstrator. The flying boom and the probe and drogue systems were both on the drawing boards, but it was easy for the AF to persuade Congress that their system had more potential.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 1, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Okay... so can it? I'm not trying to be a dick, it's an honest question!


And I'm trying to give you a "non-Osprey Book" answer!!!

And to answer your HONEST question, you need to be SPECIFIC!!! It's possible that an F-94C without tip tanks might be able to out turn a MiG-15 at higher speeds!!!!!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 1, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm not so sure about that when one nuke equals one city half flattened by blast, and the rest by firestorms blowing everything apart...


But what's one coastal city or naval base against the dispersed vastness of the Soviet Union? Given that carriers have to keep their distance off a hostile coast, and the limited fuel load possible for a heavily loaded bomber launched from the deck, and the limited additional top off they can get from a buddy pack tanker, the strike arcraft isn't going to penetrate very far inland, especially if it's a short-legged Savage. The major targets are out of reach of carrier aviation
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 1, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> .
> While this might sound stupid but why? They did a good job in supporting troops?


They resigned because it became evident that they had erred massively in buying lock-stock-and-barrel the USAF line on the obsolescence of conventional forces, downsizing the Army, Navy and Marines to the point of strangulation. They were both political hacks with no knowledge or experience of military or international affairs. SecDef was an accountant and former campaign finance manager worried about the national debt, and SecNav was a former campaign organizer with no naval or military experience worried about his political career. He was given the job of "putting the Navy to bed" and did as he was told. Both of them had been instrumental in Truman's razor-thin victory over Dewey in 1948. And the whole Korean War fiasco was instrumental in Eisenhower's 1952 victory.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 1, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> While this takes me a little off topic: What range could the 23mm cannon installed accurately hit a target the size of an F-89?


A 23mm canon fired a 175gram projectile and had roughly twice the explosive of a 20mm projectile. The Muzzle velocity was a bit low but then the interceptors pretty much had to use a tail chase pursuit. 
The "idea" that one airplane or another could be armed with longer ranged guns and "hold" it's position/range seems to have been popular at times but putting it into practice was almost impossible. A TU-4 had 10 cannon and an interceptor would be in the field/s of fire of 4-6 of them most of the time. At long ranges time of flight for the shells could be between 1 and 2 seconds, and the planes were fling at hundreds of feet per second. 
The question isn't so much that of accurate range of of 23mm cannon but if the interceptor (of whatever kind) could get in a firing pass and escape without getting hit badly by the defensive guns. Ad if the interceptor's guns could inflict fatal damage in a single firing pass. 



> Okay, I thought it had to do with the supposed ability of the B-36 to fly high enough that it would be able to turn inside fighters and the secretary of defense having once sat on the Convair board of directors...



I have no idea where this comes from, a B-36 out turning a fighter? Aside from your strange fascination with large aircraft out turning small ones the B-36 as originally conceived and built had no hope of doing such a thing. Remember the multi-year programs? The B-36 project started before Pearl Harbor. First prototype was rolled out of the factory (but not flown) on Sept 8th 1945, less than a month after the Japanese surrender. Performance of the early models was hardly sparkling. SO much so that in 1948 Convair suggested adding the underwing jet engines. Things promptly got turned on their heads when the Soviets flew Mig-15 fighters in the May 1949 fly-over. The First operational Mig 15 would not be examined by the US until late 1953. However it is highly doubtful that a B-36 without jet engines could perform any sort of maneuvers at the high end of it's altitude range that would enable it to even avoid Mig-9s or Yak-23s. 
There were a number of congressional hearings about the Navy/Air Force "battle" but the idea that the B-36 was the deciding factor (or profits from it) were a deciding factor seems rather dubious when one looks at the contracts Boeing was getting (and continued to get) for the B-50, B-47 and B-52 (a 30 million dollar contact for design and construction of two prototypes in 1948?)


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 1, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> But what's one coastal city or naval base against the dispersed vastness of the Soviet Union?


While I'm not a big fan of nuclear weapons: How many AJ-1's would be carried aboard the CVA-41 class? How many were proposed for the CVA-58 class? How effectively could they operate in the arctic with ice-breakers?

That being said, there were numerous coastal targets that would be quite ripe for the US Navy to use nuclear warheads on for several reasons

There were many naval bases, shipping & transportation hubs, and submarine pens there

They didn't have capacity for the 12000 pound tall-boy or 22000 grand-slam
The ability to destroy cities was in vogue at the time as a means of killing morale: The US Navy wanted in on the action at the very least so they can say "I can blow up cities too!"
Furthermore

Thought he USSR (and now Russia) is gigantic from east/west, from north/south is nowhere near as large. It seems about 600-900 miles from the coast to dead center.
Moscow would likely be in striking range: The political center of gravity, and they were not well equipped to handle decapitation strikes
The death toll caused by wiping cities off the face of the earth would far outweigh the loss of personnel on a carrier, and likely it's whole battlegroup (sociopathic as that sounds, we are talking about a no-holds barred operation where military/civilians are not distinguished from one another).
Carriers equipped with the F2H were capable of defenses that could go up to around 50,000 feet



> Given that carriers have to keep their distance off a hostile coast


What would have been the typical distance at the time?



Shortround6 said:


> A 23mm canon fired a 175gram projectile and had roughly twice the explosive of a 20mm projectile.


And the HS.404's were around 135g


> The Muzzle velocity was a bit low but then the interceptors pretty much had to use a tail chase pursuit.


For the 20mm it's around 2900 fps at the time, and 2300 for the 23mm.


> The question isn't so much that of accurate range of of 23mm cannon but if the interceptor (of whatever kind) could get in a firing pass and escape without getting hit badly by the defensive guns. Ad if the interceptor's guns could inflict fatal damage in a single firing pass.


Could 6 x 20mm do the job? 


> I have no idea where this comes from, a B-36 out turning a fighter?


The B-36 was not maneuverable a fighter-sized aircraft under most conditions: It's g-load capability seemed about the same as other bombers of the time; now up at high altitudes, say 45,000-48,000 feet, it retained more agility than fighter planes did at that altitude. In other words, it merely sucked less than a fighter at that altitude.


> The B-36 project started before Pearl Harbor.


The B-36 started out as an ultra-long ranged bomber able to fly 12,000 miles with a 4,000 pound load; this was eventually changed for some reason to a 10,000 mile range with a 10,000 pound load. Desired speed was 450 mph, a cruise no lower than 275 mph, with self-defending armament, and a maximum altitude of at least 40,000 feet. As time went on the maximum desired altitude was bumped up to 50,000 feet and range to 10,000 nm.

The goal seemed to be to be able to fly from the US and hit Germany, and fly back; later hit both Germany and Japan.


> First prototype was rolled out of the factory (but not flown) on Sept 8th 1945


Supposedly it had a structural issue that kept it on the ground for awhile.


> Performance of the early models was hardly sparkling.


Early on the performance was particularly bad due to a lack of a suitable supercharger. With time, this was rectified, but the top-speed was never what they wanted. I'm not sure exactly how high the early B-36's could fly but I do remember seeing in a documentary, a nuclear weapon was released around 46,000 feet up, and an F2H at 52,000 feet successfully engaged it in mock combat. An F7U-1 also supposedly bagged one.


> SO much so that in 1948 Convair suggested adding the underwing jet engines.


The B-36D...


----------



## pbehn (Oct 1, 2017)

my eyes hurt


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 1, 2017)

pbehn said:


> my eyes hurt



Yep


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 1, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> While I'm not a big fan of nuclear weapons: How many AJ-1's would be carried aboard the CVA-41 class? How many were proposed for the CVA-58 class? How effectively could they operate in the arctic with ice-breakers?[



Operate with Ice breakers in the arctic????? Please tell me you are joking.
Carriers need to do around 30 KTs to launch/retrieve these large aircraft, even with catapults. They also need to be able to steam into the wind. Being stuck in a narrow channel at a restricted speed means severely compromised operations. 



> That being said, there were numerous coastal targets that would be quite ripe for the US Navy to use nuclear warheads on for several reasons
> 
> There were many naval bases, shipping & transportation hubs, and submarine pens there
> 
> ...


Problem was getting close to those "coastal" targets. Lets see......
US carriers in the Black sea to hit Black Sea Coastal targets........not a good idea
US carriers in the Baltic sea to hit Baltic Sea Coastal targets........not a good idea
US carriers in the Arctic Ocean to hit all those coastal targets around Murmansk .....also not a good idea.
US Carriers in the Sea of Japan to hit Vladivostok?..........................Better?

US Navy was also working on the Loon missile (as proof of concept) and the Regulas missile to carry nuclear warheads.




> Furthermore
> 
> Thought he USSR (and now Russia) is gigantic from east/west, from north/south is nowhere near as large. It seems about 600-900 miles from the coast to dead center.
> Moscow would likely be in striking range: The political center of gravity, and they were not well equipped to handle decapitation strikes
> ...



Well, if you rule out using the Arctic Ocean and Baltic Sea,etc. then the distance from "coast" becomes a lot longer. To Avoid counter strikes you would probably want to keep your Carriers even out of the North Sea, (Bombers based in East Germany), Eastern Med is about as close as you want to go to the Black sea (bombers in Romania-Bulgaria) subs, mines, torpedo boats. It is almost 1500 miles from Cyprus to Moscow. Try flying from the Arabian sea or Persian gulf? I think we can rule out flying over Siberia from the sea of Japan. 



> Could 6 x 20mm do the job?[



It depends, Germans figured they needed about twenty 20mm hits to take out a B-17, they also figured about a 2% hit rate for rounds fired, or 1000 rounds fired. Russian TU-4 is bigger and tougher. Maybe easier to hit? Maybe not if not flying in formation. Even _if_ better gun sights and high velocity ammo give a 6% hit rate how long does it take the six 20mm guns to fire over 300 rounds? 5-6 seconds of firing time?



> Early on the performance was particularly bad due to a lack of a suitable supercharger. With time, this was rectified, but the top-speed was never what they wanted. I'm not sure exactly how high the early B-36's could fly but I do remember seeing in a documentary, a nuclear weapon was released around 46,000 feet up, and an F2H at 52,000 feet successfully engaged it in mock combat. An F7U-1 also supposedly bagged one.
> [



I don't think they ever changed the superchargers on the production planes. It was the addition of the jet engines that significantly improved performance. The later planes did get water injection which was only good for about 500hp per engine for take-off but doesn't do much of anything at altitude.
Performance of the B-36 is all over the place simply due the huge variations in weight you could run into. Without a specified weight most performance numbers don't mean a whole lot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 2, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> an F2H at 52,000 feet successfully engaged it in mock combat.


Do you realize what maneuvering is like near an aircraft's ceiling? Imagine two wrestlers grappling while wearing 300 pound backpacks and 80 pound arm and leg weights. The thinner the air, the higher your stall speed and the lower your critical mach becomes, until at your absolute ceiling they are one and the same. This is called the "coffin corner". Maneuvering in the coffin corner near your ceiling is practically non-existent, as even the slightest change in airspeed leads to either a stall or the onset of mach tuck or mach buffet. Any attempt at ACM turns into a slow motion dance, with the victor likely the aircraft with the higher ceiling, hence the most reserve lift and power. Nobody is pulling any G in this scenario. An aircraft with a long wingspan a la B-36 has to be especially careful in turns as the airspeed differential between wingtips can be enough to get in trouble. It isn't easy fighting at altitude.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 3, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Operate with Ice breakers in the arctic????? Please tell me you are joking.
> Carriers need to do around 30 KTs to launch/retrieve these large aircraft, even with catapults. They also need to be able to steam into the wind. Being stuck in a narrow channel at a restricted speed means severely compromised operations.


Has the USN or RN ever steamed in the arctic in combat?


> It depends, Germans figured they needed about twenty 20mm hits to take out a B-17, they also figured about a 2% hit rate for rounds fired, or 1000 rounds fired.


Do you have any statistics for 23mm cannon?


> I don't think they ever changed the superchargers on the production planes.


No, I meant the prototypes...


> It was the addition of the jet engines that significantly improved performance.


Yeah


> Performance of the B-36 is all over the place simply due the huge variations in weight you could run into. Without a specified weight most performance numbers don't mean a whole lot.


True enough


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 3, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Do you realize what maneuvering is like near an aircraft's ceiling?


You're barely flying...


> Imagine two wrestlers grappling while wearing 300 pound backpacks and 80 pound arm and leg weights.


I wouldn't be able to grapple...


> The thinner the air, the higher your stall speed and the lower your critical mach becomes, until at your absolute ceiling they are one and the same. This is called the "coffin corner".


That I'm aware of...


> Any attempt at ACM turns into a slow motion dance, with the victor likely the aircraft with the higher ceiling, hence the most reserve lift and power. Nobody is pulling any G in this scenario.


In context, I meant any g-load above 1g (1.05, 1.1), which would occur in any form of turn as I understand it.


> An aircraft with a long wingspan a la B-36 has to be especially careful in turns as the airspeed differential between wingtips can be enough to get in trouble.


Never thought about that, but it makes sense enough...


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 3, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Has the USN or RN ever steamed in the arctic in comba


Both, in nuclear subs, under the ice cap. In WWII days in surface ships it would have been suicidal. Closest thing was supply runs to Archangel and Murmansk.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 3, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> In context, I meant any g-load above 1g (1.05, 1.1), which would occur in any form of turn as I understand it.


Yes, but at or near your ceiling even that is likely to stall you or cause you to start drifting down in altitude.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 4, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> In WWII days in surface ships it would have been suicidal. Closest thing was supply runs to Archangel and Murmansk.


Did anybody other than Russia make it to Murmansk without getting killed? So, how easy would it have been from the USN to get to Murmansk from 1950-1955?


----------



## pbehn (Oct 5, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Did anybody other than Russia make it to Murmansk without getting killed? So, how easy would it have been from the USN to get to Murmansk from 1950-1955?


Yes Zipper, my father did.
Arctic convoys of World War II - Wikipedia


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 5, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Did anybody other than Russia make it to Murmansk without getting killed? So, how easy would it have been from the USN to get to Murmansk from 1950-1955?


Read "Blind Man's Bluff". It's all about the hidden war under the waves throughout the Cold War. When it first came out the government tried to suppress it, as they thought it told a little too much. Fascinating read. My radar trainer shared quarters with an ASW test and evaluation lab, so I was somewhat aware of some of the goings-on down there, but the extent of it revealed in the book was eye-opening. Once quiet nuke boats were in service, we were literally listening at Ivan's back door 24-7. In the 1950-55 time frame you mention, it wasn't so easy as our slightly modernized WWII era diesel boats didn't have the submerged endurance to operate undetected in the Barents Sea.
Aren't we rather a long ways away from the F-89 here?
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 6, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Yes Zipper, my father did.
> Arctic convoys of World War II - Wikipedia


That's actually pretty cool. It's interesting how a lot of people online don't seem to see people as people, with families, and a personal history and all that stuff, and instead just a name on a screen. Probably why people can be so awful online.



XBe02Drvr said:


> Read "Blind Man's Bluff". It's all about the hidden war under the waves throughout the Cold War.


I have the book  I wasn't talking about submarine operations, though admittedly, I wasn't particularly specific

What I was thinking of had to do, in particular, with the ability of carrier battle-groups to make it there without being constantly dinged up and wrecked by icebergs. However, the ability to defend carriers against bomber attack and penetrate enemy airspace with bombers for targets inside enemy territory. That sort of had to do with the stuff about the USS United States, and a statement about how maybe the US Navy had it right, and of course their weaknesses.


> When it first came out the government tried to suppress it, as they thought it told a little too much.


That I didn't know.


> Aren't we rather a long ways away from the F-89 here?


Well, what I was thinking of had to do with the concept of the F-89 as a night-fighter operating both offensively (penetration) and defensively (interception).


----------



## pbehn (Oct 6, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> That's actually pretty cool. It's interesting how a lot of people online don't seem to see people as people, with families, and a personal history and all that stuff, and instead just a name on a screen. Probably why people can be so awful online..



Zipper, I really wonder about your age and attitude. You can ask questions that demand a graduates knowledge of electronic or aviation engineering, and then ask a question that shows you know nothing about Lend Lease and how it was done. Lend Lease was the method by which the war was actually won.

I am British and by no means at all unusual. My father was a stoker on HMS Highlander, a Hero or "H" class destroyer. After the arctic convoys he was in the far east until 1948, part of his job was to get ex POWs ready and fit enough to be shipped home. Post war he worked as a fireman and later a driver on the railways, and towards the end of his life was one of the few people who could actually fire a steam locomotive in British rail and "fired" both the "Flying Scotsman" and the "Sir Nigel Gresley" the two most iconic steam locomotives in UK history. The Scotsman was the first to pass 100MPH and the Gresley is an A4 Pacific named after its designer, identical to the Mallard which holds the world steam loco record.

My uncle was in Bomber Command, invalided off operations with lung problems before heated suits were introduced he served on ground crew and then at D Day as a spotter on a US gunship calling in "friend or foe" to the captain or his representative.

I never knew my father in law, but neither did my wife He volunteered and served on submarines even though he was in a "reserved occupation" as a steel worker. he died in 1962 from emphysema caused by breathing acid fumes in a sub.

There are no heroes in my family but the war was not won by heroes it was won by millions from all over the world doing their bit.


As this is an aviation forum I post you a list of RAF stations to give you an idea of the scale of total war on a small island where no point is more than 75 miles from the sea.. I can walk to five of them from my home.
List of former Royal Air Force stations - Wikipedia

My wife gets her hair cut on what was Thornaby. Middleton St George is the local airport, I raced motorcycles at Croft, I went to a wedding at Catterick which is still a military base while Danby has been supeceded and cloe=se by is the UKs early warning station of Fylingdales.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 8, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Zipper, I really wonder about your age and attitude.


I'll be 34 in November...


> You can ask questions that demand a graduates knowledge of electronic or aviation engineering, and then ask a question that shows you know nothing about Lend Lease and how it was done.


That's more the result of the American education system... nobody's perfect you know...


> My uncle was in Bomber Command, invalided off operations with lung problems before heated suits were introduced


What aircraft did he fly on?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 8, 2017)

pbehn said:


> one of the few people who could actually fire a steam locomotive in British rail and "fired" both the "Flying Scotsman" and the "Sir Nigel Gresley" the two most iconic steam locomotives in UK history. The Scotsman was the first to pass 100MPH and the Gresley is an A4 Pacific named after its designer, identical to the Mallard which holds the world steam loco record.


Did those locomotives have auger feed? If they were shovel fed, your dad must have been some kind of superman! 100 MPH makes for a mighty hungry firebox not to mention boiler. I shovel fed a small 1890s steamer at a museumbahn in Denmark for five minutes and like to have died of heat exhaustion, much to the amusement of the elderly train crew. The fireman was 75 years old and made it look easy. "Kep zee eye on zee vaterglass, boy!" What a blast!
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## pbehn (Oct 9, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Did those locomotives have auger feed? If they were shovel fed, your dad must have been some kind of superman! 100 MPH makes for a mighty hungry firebox not to mention boiler. I shovel fed a small 1890s steamer at a museumbahn in Denmark for five minutes and like to have died of heat exhaustion, much to the amusement of the elderly train crew. The fireman was 75 years old and made it look easy. "Kep zee eye on zee vaterglass, boy!" What a blast!
> Cheers,
> Wes


Both are shovel fed. I have been as a passenger with the "Sir Nigel Gresley" it is used on the "North Yorks Moors Railway". Which is a preservation society line near my home and worth a trip in anyone is visiting Northern England. Firing up a big loco requires a lot of hands, not just lighting the fire but doing other checks, lubrication etc. My father worked for the state rail company British Rail. The Scotsman and Gresley are privately owned. When travelling they obviously have a driver and fireman but don't have their own maintainance staff. His place of work, Thornaby still had all the equipment needed for a big steam loco even though British Rail no longer used steam. My father and a few others volunteered to help fire them up, since it was unpaid he was allowed the "honour" of lighting the fire. The London to Edinburg express trains had two crews because it was such hard work, there was a corridor in the tender to allow them to swap.

One of my earliest very vague memories is of being on a train my father was firing, I was about four or five years old, quite an experience when daddy is driving the engine. By the time I actually knew him to remember clearly he had long since stopped working on steam but years of stoking destroyers and trains leave a mark. He had a grip like a vice, I don't know about superhuman but it was unnerving to strangers when they shook hands with him.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 9, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> I'll be 34 in November...
> That's more the result of the American education system... nobody's perfect you know...
> What aircraft did he fly on?


I honestly have no idea, like many men in the war he never spoke about it, my mother told me. When we ate together at my grans house (his mother) he always appeared at exactly 12.30 just as the food was served. He couldn't bear the smell of meat cooking, it reminded him of the smell of aircraft he had cleaned out with burned crews. I only know he was a gunner because he wasn't a pilot or navigator. the only thing he ever discussed at any length was D Day. He was with another Brit doing four hour stints spotting planes and calling in fire on a US gunship. The American gunships crew were straight from the states with no combat experience or real knowledge of allied / enemy aircraft. He only saw five minutes of action but got a written commendation from the captain, who said that Johns soft deep calm Yorkshire voice kept the whole gunnery crew calm, and justified all the time spent in training and putting him on the ship. I read it, that's as best as I can remember it. John had no rank in the US navy and no authority on a US ship, his words were therefore "advice" to the captain (even if the captain wasn't there) which the gun crews were instructed to take as advice from the captain. He called friend or foe and someone else shouted fire if it was a foe.

John was the custodian of a Norman Castle one of the best examples in UK, a local historian and amateur naturalist, it never seemed important to talk about the war because he had so many other nice things he liked to talk about.
Pickering Castle | English Heritage

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 9, 2017)

pbehn said:


> years of stoking destroyers and trains leave a mark. He had a grip like a vice, I don't know about superhuman but it was unnerving to strangers when they shook hands.


The entire crew of this Museumbahn train were railroad retirees and museum volunteers and I got four bone-crushing handshakes after my "five minutes of fame" and two breath-taking slaps on the back. The Danes aren't known for their demonstrativeness, but these old guys were a lot of fun.
Cheers
Wes


----------



## pbehn (Oct 9, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The entire crew of this Museumbahn train were railroad retirees and museum volunteers and I got four bone-crushing handshakes after my "five minutes of fame" and two breath-taking slaps on the back. The Danes aren't known for their demonstrativeness, but these old guys were a lot of fun.
> Cheers
> Wes


Yup, as a child he felt un naturally strong as if he had no idea of his own strength, I grew out of play fighting before I ever managed to move him an inch, the other thing about his hands was they were softer and smoother than most womans are, but then again people use charcoal in face packs, coal dust probably does the same thing.

I've only met a couple of Danes, they are like Germans, very few fit the national stereotype, most are a great laugh and very tactile, especially after a beer.
North York Moors Historical Railway Trust - NYMR | Home

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 12, 2017)

pbehn said:


> I honestly have no idea, like many men in the war he never spoke about it


That was a common theme in those days, come to think of it...


> When we ate together at my grans house (his mother) he always appeared at exactly 12.30 just as the food was served. He couldn't bear the smell of meat cooking, it reminded him of the smell of aircraft he had cleaned out with burned crews.


The smell of burning flesh can be really traumatic to some people (others are unaffected for some reason), and the sight of burned corpses is not pleasant to say the least.


> I only know he was a gunner because he wasn't a pilot or navigator.


Makes enough sense...


> the only thing he ever discussed at any length was D Day. He was with another Brit doing four hour stints spotting planes and calling in fire on a US gunship. The American gunships crew were straight from the states with no combat experience or real knowledge of allied / enemy aircraft. He only saw five minutes of action but got a written commendation from the captain, who said that Johns soft deep calm Yorkshire voice kept the whole gunnery crew calm, and justified all the time spent in training and putting him on the ship.


Yeah, it's important to have a cool head in charge...


> John was the custodian of a Norman Castle


That's pretty cool!


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 13, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> A 23mm canon fired a 175gram projectile and had roughly twice the explosive of a 20mm projectile. The Muzzle velocity was a bit low but then the interceptors pretty much had to use a tail chase pursuit.
> The "idea" that one airplane or another could be armed with longer ranged guns and "hold" it's position/range seems to have been popular at times but putting it into practice was almost impossible. A TU-4 had 10 cannon and an interceptor would be in the field/s of fire of 4-6 of them most of the time. At long ranges time of flight for the shells could be between 1 and 2 seconds, and the planes were fling at hundreds of feet per second.
> The question isn't so much that of accurate range of of 23mm cannon but if the interceptor (of whatever kind) could get in a firing pass and escape without getting hit badly by the defensive guns. Ad if the interceptor's guns could inflict fatal damage in a single firing pass.
> 
> ...




A friend knew a pilot who flew F-86Ds for the USAF. It was relayed to me that this pilot said the Saber Dog could not get two passes on a B-36 at its operating altitude. After the first pass, the fighter didn't have the performance to maneuver and re-engage. I think this was the driver for supersonic speeds, as the interceptor needed nearly double the bombers' speed to get a second pass.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 13, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> That was a common theme in those days, come to think of it...
> The smell of burning flesh can be really traumatic to some people (others are unaffected for some reason), and the sight of burned corpses is not pleasant to say the least.
> Makes enough sense...
> Yeah, it's important to have a cool head in charge...
> That's pretty cool!


Zipper, I am no longer going to reply to this type of post.


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 16, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Zipper, I am no longer going to reply to this type of post.


Too much cut and paste?



swampyankee said:


> A friend knew a pilot who flew F-86Ds for the USAF. It was relayed to me that this pilot said the Saber Dog could not get two passes on a B-36 at its operating altitude. After the first pass, the fighter didn't have the performance to maneuver and re-engage.


That's a major problem... could any aircraft of that era achieve two passes?


> I think this was the driver for supersonic speeds, as the interceptor needed nearly double the bombers' speed to get a second pass.


From what I remember you needed around 0.5 to 1.0 Mach over the bomber's speed


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 17, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Too much cut and paste?
> 
> That's a major problem... could any aircraft of that era achieve two passes?
> From what I remember you needed around 0.5 to 1.0 Mach over the bomber's speed


With the anemic engines of the time that just wasn't going to happen. When the Pratt J57 showed up, then it began to be sort of feasible.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 18, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> With the anemic engines of the time that just wasn't going to happen.


Well, technically there was the XF-91 Thunderceptor. It did manage to achieve Mach 1.71 at least once. That would provide against a 0.95 mach margin over a bomber doing 0.76 (around what the B-47's typically did), 0.845 mach over a target doing Mach 0.865 (B-47 maximum speed), and 0.76 over a bomber capable of doing 0.95 Mach (around the V-bombers typical speeds).

Considering the XF-91 early on had a J47 with four rocket motors; later on a J47 with afterburning and four rocket motors; and at some point a radar thimble was added to the nose: I'm not sure under what conditions, what was do-able with what.

I'm also not sure if the maximum altitude listed was subsonic or supersonic, and it's range may very well have been poor if the rockets were used.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 19, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Considering the XF-91 early on had a J47 with four rocket motors; later on a J47 with afterburning and four rocket motors; and at some point a radar thimble was added to the nose: I'm not sure under what


Sure, four rockets and a J47 might give you an impressive mach number in a one-time supersonic dash, but how practical is such a contraption as a long range interceptor? And given the technology of the time, how likely would you be able to do it with a large enough dish in the nose to give your radar the range a long range interceptor needs. Remember the battleground here is over northern Canada or the Arctic icepack where GCI won't be as capable or precise as over CONUS. Imagine running a dragster on a road course such as Monaco or Watkins Glen against Formula One cars.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 19, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Sure, four rockets and a J47 might give you an impressive mach number in a one-time supersonic dash, but how practical is such a contraption as a long range interceptor?


Well, I figured the range would be poor... I just said it could achieve enough speed  

I'm not sure how much range it had while supersonic and how that would translate to endurance (a certain amount of time/distance is acceleration and climb, a certain amount would be supersonic outbound dash and interception profile, a certain amount would include provisions for maneuvering, and the last amount would be the amount to fly home, loiter, divert).


> And given the technology of the time, how likely would you be able to do it with a large enough dish in the nose to give your radar the range a long range interceptor needs.


The XF-91 used the AN/APS-6. Same as on the F-86D.


> Remember the battleground here is over northern Canada or the Arctic icepack where GCI won't be as capable or precise as over CONUS.


Such interceptors were often designed to launch a certain number of miles out, blow up (or turn-back) a bomber. Interceptor bases were all over CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 19, 2017)

It's a long way from CONUS to the interception zone over Canada's north coast, no jet of that period could fly that kind of mission at supersonic speeds on its launch fuel, and the tankers will all be busy with the outgoing retaliatory strkes. Can you spell "one way mission"?
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 19, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> It's a long way from CONUS to the interception zone over Canada's north coast, no jet of that period could fly that kind of mission at supersonic speeds on its launch fuel


That's not what I was talking about: What I said was that interceptor bases were located all over CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii: Those based over Alaska could take care of attacks on Alaska and some coming over the pole towards Canada and the rest of the continental US; the CONUS bases could take care of attacks from the northern border, and the coasts; and Hawaii would basically defend itself.

The RCAF also had interceptor bases of it's own, and quite a number of interceptors as well: I wouldn't be surprised if they had the willingness to take our back (particularly since they have targets of value too), and could at the least thin down the numbers prior to them reaching the US border.


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 26, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> The RCAF also had interceptor bases of it's own, and quite a number of interceptors as well: I wouldn't be surprised if they had the willingness to take our back (particularly since they have targets of value too), and could at the least thin down the numbers prior to them reaching the US border.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 26, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if they had the willingness to take our back


Don't they teach history anymore? Anybody ever heard of NORAD? CF-100, CF-101, anybody?? How about DEW Line? BOMARC? SAGE? BMEWS? You listening, Zip?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 27, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Don't they teach history anymore? Anybody ever heard of NORAD? CF-100, CF-101, anybody?? How about DEW Line? BOMARC? SAGE? BMEWS?


Well, I meant before 1958 when NORAD was established.

However, I should point out that when it comes to the so called "humanities" (which includes history), it has been on quite a decline


----------



## pbehn (Oct 27, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Well, I meant before 1958 when NORAD was established.
> 
> However, I should point out that when it comes to the so called "humanities" (which includes history), it has been on quite a decline


The subject starts with Geography, far too many people think they live on a flat earth which is represented by a map that has Alaska on the left and Russia on the right, look at a map projected from the North Pole to gauge who has whos back and whos interests are where.
North Pole Arctic Map - Arctic Tundra, Arctic Circle, Arctic Ocean Map- Worldatlas.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 27, 2017)

pbehn said:


> The subject starts with Geography, far too many people think they live on a flat earth


Most of those people are either trolls, or gullible people who have fallen prey to it: I know the earth is a close enough to a sphere (it's technically slightly larger in equatorial diameter than polar due to the rotation of the earth and centrifugal force).

It is sad that one has to start with this, isn't it?


----------



## pbehn (Oct 27, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Most of those people are either trolls, or gullible people who have fallen prey to it: I know the earth is a close enough to a sphere (it's technically slightly larger in equatorial diameter than polar due to the rotation of the earth and centrifugal force).
> 
> It is sad that one has to start with this, isn't it?


Canada cannot possibly "have the back" of the USA because Canada lies between the USA and Russia with the exception of Alaska. They are not "trolls" when an engine exploded on an Airbus A380 going between France and Los Angeles many people posted that it must have been off course when the wreckage was found in Greenland.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 27, 2017)

pbehn said:


> when an engine exploded on an Airbus A380 going between France and Los Angeles many people posted that it must have been off course when the wreckage was found in Greenland.


Blessed be they that trot the globe in great circles for they shall be known as the Big Wheels!
It takes a globe to enlighten a child.
Blessed are those that accept Senor Mercator at face value, for they shall be known as the Ignorami.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 27, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Blessed be they that trot the globe in great circles for they shall be known as the Big Wheels!


What was very scary was the number of people stating that Greenland is not between Paris and L.A. and the even bigger number of people giving the posts "up votes". I must admit I was surprised when I flew over my home at 40,000ft on the way from London to Anchorage I never really thought that Anchorage is almost exactly due north when you think about it, they are 180 degrees apart on a standard map.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 27, 2017)

pbehn said:


> I must admit I was surprised when I flew over my home at 40,000ft on the way from London to Anchorage


Boston to Munich, we flew over Goose and Gander and could see Iceland off the left wingtip. Landfall over Ulster.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 27, 2017)

Mercator projections are the worst possible maps to use to teach geography, but guess what all the Boards of Ed buy because they're cheaper?

Next, start making sure that schools start teaching that Euclidean geometry is just a special case.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 27, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> guess what all the Boards of Ed buy because they're cheaper?


Not only because they're cheaper, but also because globes are awkward and fragile, and those damn "orange peel" maps are too confusing, and besides most school boards are cartographically illiterate! (as are most Americans) I was the only guy in my boot camp company of 88 sorry-ass recruits who could read a map properly. Guess who got stuck teaching "night school"? We only had 41 high school graduates in the company.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 27, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Euclidean geometry is just a special case.


They ought to call it "Euclidean Logic". It's the "Unmath"!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 27, 2017)

pbehn said:


> What was very scary was the number of people stating that Greenland is not between Paris and L.A. and the even bigger number of people giving the posts "up votes". I must admit I was surprised when I flew over my home at 40,000ft on the way from London to Anchorage I never really thought that Anchorage is almost exactly due north when you think about it, they are 180 degrees apart on a standard map.



When my wife was studying in Anchorage, Alaska I flew direct from Frankfurt, Germany to Anchorage, Alaska. Probably flew the same route. Sure as hell beat the alternative which was Frankfurt to Chicago to Seattle to Anchorage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 27, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Boston to Munich, we flew over Goose and Gander and could see Iceland off the left wingtip. Landfall over Ulster.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Flew the route to Frankfurt via Goose and Gander many times. Flying Tigers Airways...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 28, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Canada cannot possibly "have the back" of the USA because Canada lies between the USA and Russia with the exception of Alaska.


Perhaps we are having communications troubles: If I say "do you have my back" it means "will you come to my aid"?


----------



## pbehn (Oct 28, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Perhaps we are having communications troubles: If I say "do you have my back" it means "will you come to my aid"?


Canada and USA are approximately the same size (despite what the map looks like) but Canada has approximately one tenth of the population. Since Canada lies between USA and Russia there cannot be any question of "having my back" they will always be in the same fight and so must have joint arrangements and agreements for mutual benefit.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 28, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Since Canada lies between USA and Russia there cannot be any question of "having my back" they will always be in the same fight and so must have joint arrangements and agreements for mutual benefit.


And we did....long before NORAD put a name to it. And it's a shame we have to rely on a gracious British gentleman to educate one of our own.
Jees, we Americans are as illiterate historically as we are geographically. Ever since history, geography, economics, civics, sociology, psychology, and anthropology all got rolled into "social studies", it's been nothing but a downhill slide.
I spent the last 17 years of my working life as a technician at one of the better high schools in my state, and some of the things I saw were appalling. The pressure to concentrate on STEM subjects and the amount of time devoted to remediation of elementary education deficiencies made it impossible to devote the necessary resources to "social studies". To the detriment of us all, since we made a point of "involved citizenship" and registered them to vote the day they turned 18. The failure of the elementary school system to deal effectively with our large "underclass" population impacts the high school's ability to deliver graduates with a "well rounded" education.
Apologies for the rant. Not being part of the solution makes me part of the problem, so I'll call a halt here before I step into a political "pasture plop"!
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 28, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> And we did....long before NORAD put a name to it.
> Jees, we Americans are as illiterate historically as we are geographically. Ever since history, geography, civics, sociology, psychology, and


I know, I was pointing out the rather fanciful notion that the USA and Canada woke up one morning in the fifties noticed there was a cold war and decided what they would do about it. WW2 protection of convoys demanded close cooperation for mutual benefit while on D Day young men from both nations landed on what was essentially the same beach.


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 28, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Not only because they're cheaper, but also because globes are awkward and fragile, and those damn "orange peel" maps are too confusing, and besides most school boards are cartographically illiterate! (as are most Americans) I was the only guy in my boot camp company of 88 sorry-ass recruits who could read a map properly. Guess who got stuck teaching "night school"? We only had 41 high school graduates in the company.
> Cheers,
> Wes



I could get into a very long rant here, but let's just say my experience is that in US schools, "student-athlete" is an oxymoron.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 28, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> "student-athlete" is an oxymoron


Not here! We have at U-32 around 70-75% student body participation in interscholastic athletics, few championship teams, and nearly all of our best students are also athletes. We have so many teams in so many sports it taxes the school busses and the budget, but it keeps the kids fit and it keeps them coming to school, and it keeps them studying if they want to stay on the team. We always have trouble finding enough qualified coaches for all the different levels of teams, but never hesitate to fire them if they pressure teachers about grades.
Soccer, football, field hockey, cross country, basketball, ice hockey, Nordic ski, alpine ski, gymnastics, indoor track, lacrosse, baseball, softball, track & field, tennis. Boys. Girls. 7th grade, 8th grade, Freshman, Junior Varsity, and Varsity. That's a lot of coaches. And a lot of busses. For a school of just over 700 kids. Somehow it works.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 28, 2017)

Hey, didn't we get a long way from Thunderjets and long range interceptors? At a glance it looks as if the CF-100 grew up to be the plane the F-89 dreamed of being, but I confess to ignorance (and arrogance) "just another copycat Canuck!". What do you think, troops?
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 28, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> And we did....long before NORAD put a name to it.


I didn't know the details..


> Jees, we Americans are as illiterate historically as we are geographically. Ever since history, geography, civics, sociology, psychology, and anthropology all got rolled into "social studies", it's been nothing but a downhill slide.
> 
> I spent the last 17 years of my working life as a technician at one of the better high schools in my state, and some of the things I saw were appalling. The pressure to concentrate on STEM subjects and the amount of time devoted to remediation of elementary education deficiencies made it impossible to devote the necessary resources to "social studies".


Well it really illustrates one fact: The powers that be (and by that I mean not heads of state, but a network of international banking, transnational corporations, foreign policy institutes, and complicit politicians) do not want us to be politically literate, capable of critical thinking, knowledgeable on economics, as well as science and technology.

They basically want a population that's smart enough to work the machines, scientifically just smart to create various gadgets useful for those in power to maintain it, but lack the critical thinking skills needed to have a meaningful say in our leadership, the wisdom to determine whether the gadgets we build should be, the ability to understand complicated political issues (like illegal immigration -- PM me if you want to take this further this is way off the scope of the matter), and and the ability to understand how basically modern banking creates money out of thin air...


> Apologies for the rant.


I don't see anything you have to be sorry for. And for not knowing what to do is not necessarily a problem -- the first step towards solving any problem is realizing there is one.


> Hey, didn't we get a long way from Thunderjets and long range interceptors?


Topics have a way of meandering. At least somebody usually realizes they've drifted off topic.


> At a glance it looks as if the CF-100 grew up to be the plane the F-89 dreamed of being


You actually do make a good point on that.


Peter
BTW: Some of the stuff I wrote about the education, the political establishment, and stuff of that nature should one desire to respond to it... send it via PM


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 4, 2018)

*Regarding the F-84*



davparlr said:


> I think, because of early problems, some surprising for Republic aircraft, it seems to be underappreciated.


I have been meaning to ask this for some time... why were the problems surprising?



XBe02Drvr said:


> Zipper stated the F-84 could have used a little more agility and a lot less weight. No. What it really needed was more thrust.


Of course, but if you can't get more thrust the best option is to trim the plane's weight...

*Regarding Dive Bombing & Tactical Bombing*



swampyankee said:


> I suspect that there was more than one case where domestic developments were ignored until they were used by a foreign power. I don't know if this could have happened with dive bombing and the USAAC (I suspect the answer, if it exists, is complex, _e.g._, the USAAC may have decided the USMC's experience in dive bombing insurrectionists [or whatever the he** they called them] in Central America wasn't applicable against a European country or Japan, or the USAAC may have found he Marines' evaluation of effectiveness dubious, or the USAAC didn't even know the USMC was doing dive bombing from sources they considered reliable.)


Why would they have found the evaluation dubious, or useless in Europe?

*Regarding USN & USAF Doctrine*



swampyankee said:


> In hindsight, the admirals missed the boat. The US had been involved in dozens of armed interventions where nuclear weapons would have been worse than useless (the banana plantations would get ruined, for example), as opposed to a war with competing great powers. All the conflicts were on the periphery . . .
> 
> . . . All the conflicts between the US and the USSR were on the periphery, while the US and USSR may have been, at many times, at daggers drawn, there were only a very few incidents were direct conflict was likely, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis (I remember those circles indicating where the missiles based on Cuba would reach. I was in range). The Navy, with its ability to apply fine gradations of force, from hanging around threateningly, through blockade, to actual shooting, was probably critical in that crisis's peaceful resolution: an air force doesn't have those increments, as there's really nothing between threatening, but brief, visits, and large explosions.


I'm curious why so few realized this from 1945-1962: There were periods of time (1950-1953; 1954-1957 where the exact role of "overwhelming force") where it would have been a logical policy.

*Regarding Aerial Refueling*



XBe02Drvr said:


> Of course it was, but it was also understood that the hose and grapnel was just a temporary demonstrator. The flying boom and the probe and drogue systems were both on the drawing boards, but it was easy for the AF to persuade Congress that their system had more potential.


When did the RAF start developing the probe and drogue?

*Regarding the A3J/A-5 Vigilante*



XBe02Drvr said:


> That tubular bomb bay was designed with the idea of ejecting the bomb while going supersonic at zero altitude without endangering the aircraft. (Time delay of course)


I thought it was for high altitude release...


> The designers' "slipstick math" failed to accurately predict the power of the slipstream pocket behind the aircraft.


I've often wondered how they failed to grasp that (you'd have a huge suction pocket behind the plane).


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Of course, but if you can't get more thrust the best option is to trim the plane's weight...



That depends on who you are talking to. The engines used in the early F-84s were well short of the promised power and durability. Until they could get the durability problem solved increasing the power was pretty much out of the question. Now do you pay Republic to redesign the aircraft to "lighten" it up (and quite possibly cut armament) or do you give Allison more money to straighten out the engine mess and deliver what they promised? 
Republic is going to claim the performance shortfall in the aircraft is not their fault, they were promised engines of at least 4000lbs thrust if not higher. The original target goal for the J-35 engine was 4000lbs back in the middle of WW-II. It took until 1949 for service engines to break that 4000lb thrust barrier. When they did they jumped to 4900lbs and then to 5600lbs pretty quickly. 

We don't know what GE and then Allison were _promising _for thrust for engines to be delivered in 1947 or 48 or 49 back in 1944 when design work started. The US had ordered 400 F-84s in March of 1945. contracts were cut with the end of the war. 

The early F-84s weighed close to what a P-47 did, had a 2400lb engine, six 50 cal guns with 300rpg and 416gal of internal fuel, what are you going to take out to lighten it up? It could also do over 590mph at sea level so cutting structural weight might not be the best idea ever.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 5, 2018)

There’s also the problem of engine/airframe integration, which is not trivial. Long inlets and long exhaust ducting and the resulting pressure losses could cause quite serious performance losses, while short inlets could cause pressure distortions at high angles of attack. Supersonic flight added more inlet woes.

An engine could easily lose 10% of its thrust from installation problems.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 7, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> That depends on who you are talking to.


davparlr was the person who said it...


> Now do you pay Republic to redesign the aircraft to "lighten" it up (and quite possibly cut armament) or do you give Allison more money to straighten out the engine mess and deliver what they promised?


I was mostly curious as to why the F-84 had so many structural problems to begin with, and why the plane gained so much weight?



swampyankee said:


> An engine could easily lose 10% of its thrust from installation problems.


WOw


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 7, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> I was mostly curious as to why the F-84 had so many structural problems to begin with, and why the plane gained so much weight?



It may have had problems because it was the first US _service_ plane to fly at those speeds. They were operating in unknown areas. 

The plane didn't really gain that much weight. Empty weight for an F-84B was 9539lbs and the last ones (of the straight wing models) were 10,300lbs for an E and 10,025lbs for a G. 

Don't go by gross weights as they added bigger internal tanks, bigger external tanks and added equipement, none of which has much of anything to do with the aircraft structure aside from some modest beefing up. 

Just for external fuel the plane went from a pair of 185 gallon wing tip tanks to a a pair of 230 gallon wing tip tanks and a further pair of 230 gallon tanks could be carried on the bomb pylons. 

All of this information is available on this web site: Standard Aircraft Characteristics Arcive

which you have been told about before. 

I would also note that the P-47 went from 9346lbs for a "B" to 9900lbs for a "C" to 10200lbs for a late model D to 11000lbs for an "N" all empty weights. 
Now how about we ask why it gained so much weight?


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 7, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> It may have had problems because it was the first US _service_ plane to fly at those speeds.


Huh? The P-80/F-80 was similar in speed...


> The plane didn't really gain that much weight. Empty weight for an F-84B was 9539lbs and the last ones (of the straight wing models) were 10,300lbs for an E and 10,025lbs for a G.


I was mostly using the F-80 as a comparison... it was considerably lighter.


> I would also note that the P-47 went from 9346lbs for a "B" to 9900lbs for a "C" to 10200lbs for a late model D to 11000lbs for an "N" all empty weights.


True enough, but if they were going for a new design, why not try and go lighter?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 7, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Huh? The P-80/F-80 was similar in speed...


Similar is not the same, aerodynamic loads go up with the square of the speed the loads at 600mph are 13.7 % higher than at 560mph not 7%.
I would also note the early P80s (April 1945) were red lined at 560mph or Mach 0.80. which ever was lower at a given altitude. in other words max speed at level flight at sea level was also the max dive speed at low altitude. This was in the pilot's manual. this restriction may have been increased later?



> I was mostly using the F-80 as a comparison... it was considerably lighter.
> True enough, but if they were going for a new design, why not try and go lighter?



Please look at intended use of aircraft and some of the details. The F-80s grossed at 14,000lbs with wing tip tanks. Even an early F-84 was allowed a gross weight of over 19,600lbs. F-84B could not only carry the tip tanks (which were larger) but could carry a pair of 1000lb bombs AND eight 5in HVAR rockets. 

to do this you need larger heavier landing gear for one thing. For another the engine in the F-84 was over 500lbs heavier than the engine in the F-80. This also translates into heavier structure and landing gear to support it. 
F-80s were eventually modified to carry heavier loads (got uprated engines to do it) but by the time the F-80C was rated at 16,856lbs the F84-D was only a few months from being delivered and would be rated at 20,076lbs. About 14 months after the F-80C was being delivered the F-84E was being delivered with a max gross of over 22,000lbs. 
The F-84 was always a more capable aircraft for ground attack than the F-80 and once they got the engine to deliver over 4000lb thrust they loaded way more fuel onto it for penetration/escort missions. 
Designing a lighter airframe near the start of the program to suit the low powered engine would have meant throwing the whole thing out and starting over once the engine problems were straightened out.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 9, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Similar is not the same


True


> I would also note the early P80s (April 1945) were red lined at 560mph or Mach 0.80.


The F-84 could reach 600 off the bat?


> The F-80s grossed at 14,000lbs with wing tip tanks.


From what I get...


F-80A
OEW: 7920 lbs
Loaded: 11700 lbs
Tip-Tanks: 14000 lbs

F-84B
OEW: 9538 lbs
Loaded: 16475 lbs
Tip-Tanks: 18954 (estimate based on fuel load)

Difference is 1618 lbs OEW, 4775 lbs loaded, and 4954 with tanks

F-80B
OEW: 8176 lbs
Loaded: 12200 lbs
Tip-Tanks: 16000 lbs

F-84C
OEW: 9662
Loaded: 16584
Tip-Tanks: 19063 lbs

Difference is 1486 lbs OEW, 4384 lbs loaded, and 3063 with tanks...

F-80C
OEW: 8420 lbs
Loaded: 12200 lbs
Tip-Tanks: 16856 lbs

F-84D
OEW: 9860 lbs
Loaded: 16862 lbs
Tip-Tanks: 19341 lbs (estimate based on fuel)

Difference is 1440 lbs OEW, 4662 lbs loaded, and 2485 lbs with drop-tanks.

The difference was worse from the start, but it's still substantially heavier even empty.
Ironically, one of the problems might very well have been more that the wings were too small. The wing loading figures are considerably heavier for the F-84 than the F-80. 


> The F-84 was always a more capable aircraft for ground attack than the F-80 and once they got the engine to deliver over 4000lb thrust they loaded way more fuel onto it for penetration/escort missions.


The F-84 was primarily designed as a fighter with a 705 staute-mile radius, a top speed of 600 mph, with a J35, and 6 x 0.50 or 0.60 caliber.

While the J35 matured much slower than the J33, the weight of the engine didn't necessarily need to add quite as much weight to the design as it did. The FJ-1 Fury for example, using the same engine managed to weigh in at 8843 empty operational, and managed a radius of 750 nautical miles.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 9, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> True
> The F-84 could reach 600 off the bat?



Close enough, 1st XP-84 flew in March of 1946, During testing it hit 592mph at sea level. 2nd XP-84 first flew in aug 1946, On Sept 7th 1946 it set a record of 611mph at sea level, the same day a GLoster Meteor hit 616mph at sea level using almost double the power. 



> F-80A
> OEW: 7920 lbs
> Loaded: 11700 lbs
> Tip-Tanks: 14000 lbs
> ...



Not sure why you are estimating, the weights are given in the SAC sheets. Late dash model B had a gross weight of 19,689lbs not including 400lbs of ATO rockets. Take off weight was often limited by available runway. 



> F-80C
> OEW: 8420 lbs
> Loaded: 12200 lbs
> Tip-Tanks: 16856 lbs
> ...



again, no need to estimate. Early F-84D had a max gross of 20,076lbs per the SAC sheet, late dash number Ds were allowed 20, 877lbs but that may include 4 ATO rockets. 




> While the J35 matured much slower than the J33, the weight of the engine didn't necessarily need to add quite as much weight to the design as it did. The FJ-1 Fury for example, using the same engine managed to weigh in at 8843 empty operational, and managed a radius of 750 nautical miles.



I wish you would compare apples to apples and quite bringing in squash or rutabaga. First flight of the XFJ-1 was Sept 11th 1946, four days after the XP-84 did 611mph. it carried 50rpg less ammo and more importantly, *NEVER *carried under wing loads (bombs or rockets). It also used an unpressurised cockpit and not very satisfactory cockpit heat. F-84s had pressurised cockpits and automatic cockpit heat. 
I would also note that the FJ-1 did NOT weigh 8843lbs empty _operational_, it weighed 8843lbs empty. Granted the weights for the various F-84s are EMPTY weights and not empty operational (which at this point in time for US aircraft was called basic weight), both types of plane could add over 500lbs of equipment (like guns) to get up to basic weight. 
You also might want to check out the FJ-1s wing loading with it's 221 sq ft wing (85% the size of the F-84 wing) Wing loading compared to an F-84 depends an awful on on how much fuel each plane is carrying. 

And please quit quoting "radius" unless it is operational radius as it only confuses things. Radius is NOT 1/2 of range. operational radius will include combat allowance and reserve for finding home field at the very least (sometimes 10% of initial fuel) , they often include warm-up, take-off and climb to some sort of operational altitude. I would also note that the F-84s clean were slightly faster than the FJ-1 despite the larger wing and greater weight.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 10, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Close enough, 1st XP-84 flew in March of 1946, During testing it hit 592mph at sea level.


Okay


> Not sure why you are estimating


Because I couldn't figure out if the MTOW figures were based on fuel, oil, armament, drop-tanks, or other stuff too. So I basically computed the weight of the fuel out.

Ironically, the correct figures show an even greater difference in weight between the two planes.


> I wish you would compare apples to apples and quite bringing in squash or rutabaga. First flight of the XFJ-1 was Sept 11th 1946, four days after the XP-84 did 611mph.


I based it on the fact that both planes flew using the same engine and flew in 1946


> it carried 50rpg less ammo and more importantly, *NEVER *carried under wing loads (bombs or rockets).


I didn't factor in the ammo (I didn't even think of that), though you make a good point about the under-wing loads (I never really understood why, considering the plane could pull over 6g). Regardless, the FJ-1 was navalized, requiring a stronger lower fuselage, landing gear, and arresting gear (ironically it did not have folding wings, but had a strange kneeler wheel instead).


> It also used an unpressurised cockpit and not very satisfactory cockpit heat. F-84s had pressurised cockpits and automatic cockpit heat.


How much does cockpit pressurization and stuff cost in weight?


> I would also note that the FJ-1 did NOT weigh 8843lbs empty _operational_, it weighed 8843lbs empty.


And OEW would include the weight of the radios and electronics, the guns but not ammo, and the pilot and equipment? I'm not sure if oil is factored in now, but I don't think it was factored in 1945-1950...


> Granted the weights for the various F-84s are EMPTY weights and not empty operational (which at this point in time for US aircraft was called basic weight), both types of plane could add over 500lbs of equipment (like guns) to get up to basic weight.


That's why there were two empty figures?


> And please quit quoting "radius" unless it is operational radius as it only confuses things.


The aircraft's listed _combat_ range was 1496 nm, so... under that term I figured it'd be an exception whereby the combat radius is 1/2 the combat range. Normally in the era of propeller planes it was like 1/3 ferry range.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 10, 2018)

Empty weight did NOT include guns, oil, trapped fuel and for some WW II planes, the gun sight , pyrotechnics (flares) and oxygen and/or oxygen equipment. 
Depending on date or service (Nation) the radios were not included so you really have to be careful and not make assumptions as to what was included. 

Ferry range was almost NEVER used to figure operational radius. Some planes had some or all guns removed for ferrying. SOme planes could use much larger drop tanks for ferrying than they were allowed to use for combat missions ( even if they kept the guns they didn't fly with ammo) SOme planes may very well of operated at 1/3 of the ferry range but that is much more of a coincidence that a general rule. 

And again, different services figured radius differently. US Navy wanted the planes to have 1 hour worth of fuel as a reserve (at most economical) in order to find the carrier if there were problems, que up for landing and then land, and if there is a crash of an early plane in the que the remaining pilots were damn glad they had that extra fuel. Fighters in europe often figured a much shorter reserve allowance. Their landing field wasn't moving, an single crash didn't take the whole field out of service and/or there were a number of other airfieds only a few miles away. 

I would note that for the Navy FJ-1 Fury they were figuring combat radius including 15 minutes of combat at full power while the Air Force was figuring 20 minutes of combat at full power. What is that 5 minutes of full power worth in miles on the cruise back??? There may be differences in other allowances (both planes had a planned 10% reserve of original fuel but both planes did carry a very similar amount of fuel at least internal. )

Some people estimated the pressure cockpit on a 109 or Spitfire was around 200lbs but then they weren't using the same pressure levels in those aircraft?


----------



## Graeme (Feb 10, 2018)

Still....not a flop in my opinion. In fact the more I read about the Thunderjet, the better it gets. Still fighting wars in 1973...


----------



## Graeme (Feb 10, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> The F-84 was primarily designed as a fighter



You keep repeating this but seem to forget that most of those early jet fighters ended up dropping bombs till better engines and airframes came along...


----------



## Graeme (Feb 10, 2018)

And the Thunderjet continue to improve...especially with the D model...


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 10, 2018)

I am not sure that is right either. But I would note that the US was not interested in very many specialized role fighters. While night fighters or all weather fighters as they would come to be known were pursued the US (both Air Force and Navy) were more interested in general purpose "fighters". That is ones that could also bomb/strafe/carry rockets rather than daylight only interceptors. Granted it sometimes took a while before the desired armament caught up with the airframes.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 10, 2018)

I would also note that between VJ day in Aug 1945 and Dec 31st 1949, just about 70 different jet, turbo-prop and rocket propelled aircraft made their first flights around the world. Some were research aircraft and many remained one (or two) "offs" and just because they were built doesn't really mean they were in any way reflective of the main thrust of thinking at the time. 

XP-79, built to ram enemy aircraft.




crashed on first flight.
XP-85




Plan for B-36 to carry it's own escort fighter. Trying to hook back onto the B-36 proved a lot more difficult than it had about 15 years earlier.





Fads and theories came and went 




First flight July 15, 1947 but didn't get very far.

One can certainly find a lot of "flops" out of this collection of aircraft. The F-84 wasn't one of them.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 11, 2018)

All I know is that my dad, who was USAF '45-'65, had a high regard for the F-84.
He thought it was a better aircraft than most gave it credit for. According to him, it was taken out of service (front line, maybe?) too soon.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 11, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Empty weight did NOT include guns, oil, trapped fuel and for some WW II planes, the gun sight , pyrotechnics (flares) and oxygen and/or oxygen equipment.


What was covered under OEW at the time...


> Ferry range was almost NEVER used to figure operational radius.


That's correct, but combat range would simply be 2 x combat radius?


> And again, different services figured radius differently. US Navy wanted the planes to have 1 hour worth of fuel as a reserve (at most economical) in order to find the carrier if there were problems, que up for landing and then land, and if there is a crash of an early plane in the que


This is not to criticize you, but it's actually spelled "queue"


> Fighters in europe often figured a much shorter reserve allowance.


What was the typical allowance?


> I would note that for the Navy FJ-1 Fury they were figuring combat radius including 15 minutes of combat at full power while the Air Force was figuring 20 minutes of combat at full power. What is that 5 minutes of full power worth in miles on the cruise back???


Good point, but what does the shorter loiter times yield?


> Some people estimated the pressure cockpit on a 109 or Spitfire was around 200lbs but then they weren't using the same pressure levels in those aircraft?


What pressure levels were used?


> I am not sure that is right either. But I would note that the US was not interested in very many specialized role fighters. While night fighters or all weather fighters as they would come to be known were pursued the US (both Air Force and Navy) were more interested in general purpose "fighters".


That's generally true. The US Navy would at some point (late 1940's to early 1950's?) listed three categories of fighter planes

All-Weather Interceptor
Night Fighter
General Purpose Day Fighter


----------



## pbehn (Feb 11, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> What was covered under OEW at the time...
> That's correct, but combat range would simply be 2 x combat radius?
> This is not to criticize you, but it's actually spelled "queue"
> What was the typical allowance?
> ...


WTF? how many books are needed to reply to this?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 11, 2018)

pbehn said:


> WTF? how many books are needed to reply to this?


Just one: "My First Book of Trolls" from Golden Books Press.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 11, 2018)

pbehn said:


> WTF? how many books are needed to reply to this?


Maybe one other: "The Trigonometry of Obtuse Angles" by Pythagoras.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 11, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Maybe one other: "The Trigonometry of Obtuse Angles" by Pythagoras.


It reminds me of this.

A pansy who lived in Khartoum
Took a lesbian up to his room,
And they argued all night
Over who had the right
To do what, and with which, and to whom.

I have no idea whos post is quoted, what they actually said, or even in some cases what the subject is.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 11, 2018)

pbehn said:


> It reminds me of this.
> 
> A pansy who lived in Khartoum
> Took a lesbian up to his room,
> ...


Dithery dithery doom,
An elephant's here in the room,
What can I say,
He just wants to play,
Dithery dithery doom.


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 12, 2018)

pbehn said:


> WTF? how many books are needed to reply to this?


I shortened it: The questions involved basically cover what was defined as OEW at the time, effects of loiter time on range (even generalized rules), and combat time on range (even generalized rules).

The rest weren't really entirely questions: Some were answers, or statements...


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 12, 2018)

Elvis said:


> All I know is that my dad, who was USAF '45-'65, had a high regard for the F-84.


That's pretty interesting? What variants did he fly by the way?

Also, what did he like about it?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 12, 2018)

ANd here is where we run into problems, "OEW" seems to be term for civilian aircraft and perhaps modern ones at that. 

From Wiki:
*Operating empty weight* ('OEW') or 'Basic operating weight' or 'Empty Operating Weight' _as is most commonly known is the standard basic weight for any particular series or any particular configuration. The aircraft is periodically weighed and its weight is listed with each structural modification order, or any configuration order which may alter the 'Empty Operating weight.'_ The EOW only includes all fluids necessary for operation such as engine oil, engine coolant, water, hydraulic fluid and the unusable fuel volume as calculated and then any extra fixed operator items and optional equipment required for flight. From there, 'any' weight 'Added' to the aircraft is the Total Payload, above the EOW, which consists of (a) Cargo (b) luggage (c) Passengers and Crew (d) stores (e) service load such as meals and beverages (f) Fuel load. The operating empty weight (OEW) is basically the sum of the manufacturer's empty weight(MEW), standard items (SI), and operator items (OI). all additional 'weight' added is computed for weight, Arm, moment calculations to determine the center of gravity."

Now in WW II for most aircraft the engine oil was NOT included in the empty weight or "trapped" engine oil was included in the "Basic" weight as engine oil was consumed at several gallons per hour. However the amount of oil needed for a flight/mission was included in the loaded (or payload) weight for American planes, but not the "light" weight for British planes. Guns were often included in "basic" or "light" categories but NOT in the empty or tare weight categories. 
Gun mounts/turrets were included in the "basic" or "light"categories however. Ammo was listed in the loaded category. 

Trying to use modern definitions/terms for 50-80 year old aircraft leads to confusion as the old data sheets use different terms/definitions. Trying to force old data into new definitions doesn't always work.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 8, 2018)

I'm curious what designs you guys would consider flops: Honestly...


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 8, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm curious what designs you guys would consider flops: Honestly...


Bell Airacuda.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 8, 2018)

Boulton Paul Defiant as a fighter, slightly better flop as a nightfighter


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 8, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> Boulton Paul Defiant as a fighter, slightly better flop as a nightfighter


Made a hell of a target tug.........................not!


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 8, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm curious what designs you guys would consider flops: Honestly...


A flop why?

1. Bad air frame?
2. Bad engine/s?
3. Bad armament/electronics? 

Post war the number of actual flops was pretty small and most could be tied to reasons 2 & 3. 

There are exceptions









Inspiration for Star Wars pod racers?
Converting a piston engine plane to jets wasn't always a good idea




Believe it or not, these were carrier planes. 

The Chance Vought F7U might be considered a flop 




First went to sea in non-testing deployments in late 1955, out off 320 built all were retired by the end of 1959. 

A lot of prototypes/experimentals were flops, but that is what they are are for. To push the boundaries of knowledge or technical limits of the time.
Production programs of scores or hundreds of aircraft that have to be yanked from service and scrapped or shuffled off to 3rd/4th tier duties (instructional airframe) were rare post war. 

A lot ot the weapons systems of the late 40s and the 50s left something (a lot of something) to be desired but that was not the responsibility of either the airframe maker or the engine maker.


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 8, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Bell Airacuda.


Agreed



fubar57 said:


> Boulton Paul Defiant as a fighter, slightly better flop as a nightfighter


Yeah, I'd support that



Shortround6 said:


> A flop why?
> 
> 1. Bad air frame?
> 2. Bad engine/s?
> 3. Bad armament/electronics?


You forgot bad handling (both in flight and landing), bad human-factors issues (who knows), some factors are specific to whether it's a carrier plane or not.


> There are exceptions . . .
> Inspiration for Star Wars pod racers?


What plane was this?


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 8, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> You forgot bad handling (both in flight and landing), bad human-factors issues (who knows), some factors are specific to whether it's a carrier plane or not.
> What plane was this?



It would take really bad handling to turn a fighter into a flop. The French D 520 was noted for some not so good handling in the air and truly vicious handling on the ground and yet doesn't seem to be considered a flop. The German use of captured versions as advanced trainers might have been pushing things. 
A number of fighters had bad human factors in WW II, The 109s small cockpit for one yet it is not considered a flop. 
Any fighter with truly bad handling probably never made it past the prototype stage. There weren't that many fighters that were ordered off the drawing board, For the US the P-47 and P-61 may have been the only production _fighters_ ordered off the drawing boards and having too much momentum in the program to stop. 

The F4U was a miserable plane for carrier landing to begin with, they did get it sorted out after a while, IS it a flop or not?


----------



## Graeme (Mar 9, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> What plane was this?



The Centre NC 1070 (piston) and Centre NC 1071 (jet).
Oddly, I've read the NC 1071 had superb handling despite its shape - being described as "ugly but pleasant to fly with good performance".
What was lacking - from what I've read - is the French at this point, didn't have an aircraft carrier for it.
The projected fighter version was to be the NC 1072 with slightly swept wings - never proceeded with.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 9, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> It would take really bad handling to turn a fighter into a flop.


Probably true, but it still qualifies as a factor...


> The French D 520 was noted for some not so good handling in the air and truly vicious handling on the ground


I don't really know anything about the D.520 except basically what it looks like, so I couldn't render an opinion.


> A number of fighters had bad human factors in WW II, The 109s small cockpit for one yet it is not considered a flop.


No, but remember it was still able to be effectively used... 


> The F4U was a miserable plane for carrier landing to begin with, they did get it sorted out after a while, IS it a flop or not?


The plane first flew in 1940, the first variants to enter service (1942) were not carrier suitable, but by 1943 they were proposing carrier operations but there was some logistic reason they didn't do it. I would say that for carrier handling, it was a flop, but on the totality, it was still a good fighter in the land-based type.



Graeme said:


> The Centre NC 1070 (piston) and Centre NC 1071 (jet).


Okay... such a weird looking plane


> Oddly, I've read the NC 1071 had superb handling despite its shape - being described as "ugly but pleasant to fly with good performance". What was lacking - from what I've read - is the French at this point, didn't have an aircraft carrier for it.


So it was not a flop per se, it just lacked a place to land


----------

