# F85 Goblin video clip



## syscom3 (Apr 17, 2008)

I thought this was cool.

A video clip of a F-85 "Goblin" fighter and its B29 drop ship.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PisUjsXSUZU_


----------



## yardbird78 (Jul 29, 2008)

The XF-85 was certainly a neat little machine. The US tried several different versions of the parasite fighter concept, but none of them worked well enough to become operational or widespread use.

Some photos of my 1/72 model of the F-85.






















Darwin, O.F.


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 29, 2008)

Nice video and model.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 29, 2008)

While certainly the personnel willing to risk their lives for this endeavor deserve respect, I have always said the B-36 was an interceptors dream. And whomever okayed the Goblin to go from paper to costly test article should have been held accountable on many levels. The Goblin at its BEST would have been nothing more than a suicide countermeasure to superior Soviet interceptors and would have only briefly postponed the inevitable.


----------



## yardbird78 (Jul 29, 2008)

Matt,

Your statement has some validity, but where would we be in the world of aeronautics if we didn't dream of new things and test those dreams? Now days, dreams can be tested on super computers, but in the mid 20th century, the only way to test an idea was to build the item and see if it worked. Granted, the XF-85 used up a lot of money for only a few hours of flying, but we certainly learned a lot in the process.

Darwin, O.F.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 29, 2008)

yardbird78 said:


> Matt,
> 
> Your statement has some validity, but where would we be in the world of aeronautics if we didn't dream of new things and test those dreams? Now days, dreams can be tested on super computers, but in the mid 20th century, the only way to test an idea was to build the item and see if it worked. Granted, the XF-85 used up a lot of money for only a few hours of flying, but we certainly learned a lot in the process.
> 
> Darwin, O.F.



A few hours of flying!?! You don't understand procurement programs, yardbird. This is not a program of a couple of engineers and a flight test pilot discussing an XF-85 Goblin hanger queen over a couple of beers. This is a soup to nuts development of mission profiles, B-36 modifications/ops modifications/training proviles, Goblin aircraft requirments specification, engineering fabrication... and God Almight a full up test program.

Nobody questioned the BS factor of such a program? Either too much money in the Defense coffer or politicians listening to too many Beltway Bandit lobbyists.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2008)

yardbird78 said:


> Granted, the XF-85 used up a lot of money for only a few hours of flying, but we certainly learned a lot in the process.


Yes, forget the concept and cancel the program



Matt308 said:


> Nobody questioned the BS factor of such a program? Either too much money in the Defense coffer or politicians listening to too many Beltway Bandit lobbyists.


or both!!!!


----------



## yardbird78 (Jul 30, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> A few hours of flying!?!



2 hours and 19 minutes to be exact. The total cost of the program was $3,210,664 or $23,098.30 per minute. Yes, that is expensive, but what did the XB-70, SR-71, F-15, F-22, C-17, C-5 cost to develop on a per minute scale?



> You don't understand procurement programs, yardbird.



Actually, I DO understand procurement as well as research and development.
Look back at the various aerospace programs throughout the history of manned aircraft. ie. The Lockheed XFV-1 and Convair XFY-1 Pogo combined with the Hiller XC-142, Ryan X-13 Vertijet and several other VTOL programs. Some people call these programs a failure because they did not achieve operational status. They did contribute very significantly to the development of VTOL/VSTOL airframes and culminated in the McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) AV-8 Harrier and the Bell CV-22 Osprey. If the R&D folks had not pursued the concept, those two aircraft would never have existed. Another example would be the various versions of the man-portable "jet pack", ala James Bond. Quite a bit of time, money and effort was expended on this also, before they finally admitted that it wasn't feasible. "Nothing ventured, nothing gained". If you don't pursue the dreams and ideas, you will stagnate and NEVER progress. When you DO pursue these dreams and ideas, some will work out and some won't. Unfortunately, we don't have a crystal ball to tell us ahead of time which programs fall into which category.



> This is not a program of a couple of engineers and a flight test pilot discussing an XF-85 Goblin hanger queen over a couple of beers. This is a soup to nuts development of mission profiles, B-36 modifications/ops modifications/training proviles, Goblin aircraft requirments specification, engineering fabrication... and God Almight a full up test program.



Actually the B-36 was never involved in the program. There were no B-36 airframes available for test, so ONE B-29 was modified and used as the mother ship. As far as the F-85 being a "suicide" mission, that may very well be true. If they could hold off the Soviet interceptors for a short while and allow the bomber to reach it's target, then their mission was a success. Just about ALL of the manned bomber missions to the heart of the USSR would be suicide missions. That is part of the price of waging all out nuclear war.



> Nobody questioned the BS factor of such a program? Either too much money in the Defense coffer or politicians listening to too many Beltway Bandit lobbyists.



Do you consider ALL R&D programs to be BS or only those that don't result in production contracts? Do you not consider that we also learn from our failures?

Darwin


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 30, 2008)

yardbird78 said:


> 2 hours and 19 minutes to be exact. The total cost of the program was $3,210,664 or $23,098.30 per minute. Yes, that is expensive, but what did the XB-70, SR-71, F-15, F-22, C-17, C-5 cost to develop on a per minute scale?


And all but the XB-70 went into production. BTW I could bet that at least some of the development costs you cite were absorbed by the contractor or at least initially




yardbird78 said:


> Actually, I DO understand procurement as well as research and development.
> Look back at the various aerospace programs throughout the history of manned aircraft. ie. The Lockheed XFV-1 and Convair XFY-1 Pogo combined with the Hiller XC-142, Ryan X-13 Vertijet and several other VTOL programs. Some people call these programs a failure because they did not achieve operational status. They did contribute very significantly to the development of VTOL/VSTOL airframes and culminated in the McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) AV-8 Harrier and the Bell CV-22 Osprey. If the R&D folks had not pursued the concept, those two aircraft would never have existed.


The XC-142 almost went into production - it was discovered that during hover the aircraft was shaking it self apart. NASA played with the last flyer until 1976. In actuality I would guess those programs might of helped the V-22 program, but as far as the Harrier - that came from a place far and separated from the likes of the XFV-1 or the X-13.



yardbird78 said:


> Another example would be the various versions of the man-portable "jet pack", ala James Bond. Quite a bit of time, money and effort was expended on this also, before they finally admitted that it wasn't feasible. "Nothing ventured, nothing gained". If you don't pursue the dreams and ideas, you will stagnate and NEVER progress. When you DO pursue these dreams and ideas, some will work out and some won't. Unfortunately, we don't have a crystal ball to tell us ahead of time which programs fall into which category.


While you have a point you also have to have some accountability especially in this day and age.




yardbird78 said:


> Actually the B-36 was never involved in the program. There were no B-36 airframes available for test, so ONE B-29 was modified and used as the mother ship. As far as the F-85 being a "suicide" mission, that may very well be true. If they could hold off the Soviet interceptors for a short while and allow the bomber to reach it's target, then their mission was a success. Just about ALL of the manned bomber missions to the heart of the USSR would be suicide missions. That is part of the price of waging all out nuclear war.


It was also a 1950s mentality that turned out to be unreasonable and expensive.


Go ahead Matt, chime in....


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 30, 2008)

With what, you stole my thunder.

I too am heavily involved in RE&D. And any proposal MUST include a cost benefit analysis that does not allow you to soothsay NPV for future (and unknown) technology spin-offs.

The test profile included the B-36 in the feasibility study. The flight test did not. Because the flight test (based upon ingoing test objectives)... wait for it... WAS A FAILURE, the RE&D effort did not progress to testing with the surrogate airframe (B-36).

Yes you are right that losing lives is carte blanche in nuclear war. But the XF-85 was "never going to postpone the inevitable" (i.e., the interception of the B-36 prior to reaching its target).

And we absolutely learn from our failures. However, sometimes it takes leadership to recognize that you can learn without having to fail at the expense of $36,000,000 (accounting for inflation).


----------

