# P-61 or Reverse Lend Lease Mosquito



## pinehilljoe (Sep 15, 2016)

Hind sight, but Mosquito's might have been a better choice than developing and producing the P-61. Wings/Airpower did a multi issue article on the P-61. The pilots they interviewed loved it. Any thoughts?


----------



## stona (Sep 15, 2016)

US reports on the Mosquito are less than glowing, though nowhere near as bad as those on some British types. I suspect that the P-61 or something similar was always going to be developed, not least in the US national interest.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Sep 15, 2016)

In the Wings articles, one Pilot interviewed talked about a flight test between the two aircraft. He said the P-61 flew faster than the Mosquito but he was convinced the pilot held back on the plane.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 15, 2016)

pinehilljoe said:


> Hind sight, but Mosquito's might have been a better choice than developing and producing the P-61. Wings/Airpower did a multi issue article on the P-61. The pilots they interviewed loved it. Any thoughts?



Problem is timing By the time the first Mosquitoes were flying in a night fighter squadron about 150 P-61s were on order and the order was increase to 410 the next month. Well before the Mosquito had proved itself. In fact 50 of the 410 P-61s were supposed to be supplied to the British under lend lease. Work on the P-61 had started back in the fall of 1940 and the British sat in or contributed to some of the initial design requirement discussions (perhaps were the turret came from 

By the end of May 1942 the US was ordering another 1200 P-61s to be built in a new factory but this was cut to 207 aircraft to be built in the existing factory by the end of July. 

Night fighters were being designed without really knowing what kind of radar (how big or how heavy) they would be equipped with so the size if the fuselage/cockpits tended to be on the generous side. Turned out the radar was developed as fast or faster than the airframes.

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


----------



## gjs238 (Sep 15, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Problem is timing By the time the first Mosquitoes were flying in a night fighter squadron about 150 P-61s were on order and the order was increase to 410 the next month. Well before the Mosquito had proved itself. In fact 50 of the 410 P-61s were supposed to be supplied to the British under lend lease. Work on the P-61 had started back in the fall of 1940 and the British sat in or contributed to some of the initial design requirement discussions (perhaps were the turret came from
> 
> By the end of May 1942 the US was ordering another 1200 P-61s to be built in a new factory *but this was cut to 207 aircraft to be built in the existing factory by the end of July. *
> 
> Night fighters were being designed without really knowing what kind of radar (how big or how heavy) they would be equipped with so the size if the fuselage/cockpits tended to be on the generous side. Turned out the radar was developed as fast or faster than the airframes.



Do we know the details of the cutback? Why?


----------



## pinehilljoe (Sep 15, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> Do we know the details of the cutback? Why?



was the F-89 on the drawing board when the cuts were made?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 15, 2016)

pinehilljoe said:


> was the F-89 on the drawing board when the cuts were made?


No - the AAF design spec that led to the F-89 was released in Mid 1945.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 16, 2016)

stona said:


> US reports on the Mosquito are less than glowing, though nowhere near as bad as those on some British types. I suspect that the P-61 or something similar was always going to be developed, not least in the US national interest.
> Cheers
> Steve


The USAAF ordered 120 Mosquitos for pru, but only 40 were delivered and given the U.S. designation F-8 (six Canadian-built B Mk VII and 34 B Mk XX). Only 16 reached Europe, where 11 were turned over to the RAF and five were sent to Italy. The RAF also provided (directly) 145 PRMk XVI aircraft to the 8AF between February 1944 and the end of the war. These were used for a variety of photographic and night reconnaissance missions.

In addition to pru missions, the USAAF employed its PR MkXVIs as chaff dispensers; as scouts for the heavy bomber force; on clandestine OSS missions at Watton only, 492nd BG never used the "Redstocking" label; on weather observation flights, and as H2X "Mickey" platforms by the 802d Recon Gp , later renamed the 25th BG (Recon). The 25th BG flew 3,246 sorties (this includes B-17, B-24, B-25, B-26, A-26 and Mosquito flights) and lost 29 PR Mk XVIs on operations (this total includes destruction from ground-loops on landing or takeoffs), the lowest loss rate of all the various types employed by that specialist gp.

The 416th NFS in Italy used Mosquito NF.30s during the latter part of the war, claiming one kill.

more mosquitoes were deployed to the ETO for the USAAF than p-61s.


----------



## Ascent (Sep 16, 2016)

stona said:


> US reports on the Mosquito are less than glowing, though nowhere near as bad as those on some British types. I suspect that the P-61 or something similar was always going to be developed, not least in the US national interest.
> Cheers
> Steve



Is there some kind of link for these reports? It'd be interesting to see what they were less than happy with considering the excellent reputation it has.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Sep 16, 2016)

Ascent said:


> Is there some kind of link for these reports? It'd be interesting to see what they were less than happy with considering the excellent reputation it has.



The critcisms of the Mosquito at Patuxent River were mostly minor. The most serious was its slow rate of climb.and 'sloppy' control on approach combined with a high landing speed. In the context of night fighting it was considered

_'Unsuitable for night operations because of landing and take-off characteristics and bad field and weather encountered in Pacific.'_

Which would have made the hundreds of British and Commonwealth pilots who flew the Mosquito almost exclusively at night chuckle. The weather in NW Europe is always ideal for flying 

Generally ground handling was not considered good. All the Americans found the cockpit cramped, despite its size, and the seating positions uncomfortable ('too upright').
As I said, compared to comments on other British types, this is mild.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 16, 2016)

... and it didn't have ash trays


----------



## Glider (Sep 16, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> the British sat in or contributed to some of the initial design requirement discussions (perhaps were the turret came from
> 
> .


How comes someone nearly always wants to blame the UK for every daft idea the USA came up with!!!


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 16, 2016)

Glider said:


> How comes someone nearly always wants to blame the UK for every daft idea the USA came up with!!!


Hmmmmm, who else was trying to stick turrets on night fighters? 









But, yes the US could certainly come up with some daft ideas of their own without any help.

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 16, 2016)

Glider said:


> How comes someone nearly always wants to blame the UK for every daft idea the USA came up with!!!


I'm trying to recall who it was that had an obsession with putting turrets on fighters...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 16, 2016)

We could probably go on.......especially with drawings of projects.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Sep 16, 2016)

And with all this evidence that it didn't work, the USA still went ahead and followed blindly.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 16, 2016)

Glider said:


> And with all this evidence that it didn't work, the USA still went ahead and followed blindly.


The learning curve for turret fighters was being learned while the P-61 was already in development - the solution for the turret on the P-61 was to be remote and more aerodynamic, still was found to be troublesome when it was put into service, so in some cases it was removed and the well was used for additional fuel storage.

Even though the U.S. didn't make any turret fighters, they still came up with fighter ideas that were not all that great.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 16, 2016)

I believe the theory for night fighters was that if the pilot/crew failed to pick up the target visually in time to use fixed forward firing guns then the turret guns could fire at an angle to the line of flight and still engage. If a night fighter overshot a target and tried to circle around to regain the contact was often lost, at least with many early radars. 
Various radar sets had rather different capabilities as far as working out to the sides of the aircraft, Some would work fairly well at 60 degrees to the line of flight, Still meant a 300 degree turn to get eh target back in the covered area. The P-61 and a few others would work at 90 degrees to the line of flight, Some early radars has a pattern like a ellipse or several ellipses with some overlap.
Radar some planes wound up with was not the radar they were initially supposed to carry. 
While the turrets may have been handy at times, in the overall scheme they simply cost too much. Speed/climb/turn/ due to weight and drag. added maintenance and so on.


----------



## GregP (Sep 16, 2016)

The worst criticism of the Mosquito is also still valid today. It hs the highest Vmc of any twin in WWII. As long as both fans were turning and you accelerated past Vmc, you were OK. If you lost an engine before that, it was going to land straight ahead or crash with finality. Steve Hinton said when he flew the Mosquito that came out of New Zealand that it had a higher Vmc than the crusie speed of many planes he had flown. Once it was comfortably fast, things were dandy.

By way of example, in a Mosquito FB6, safety speed (Vmc) at 17,000 pounds, +9" boost, and flaps up or 15° down was 155 knots. At +18 lbs boost it was 170 knots! The manul sattes these spees vary considerably between aircraft! So, they could be higher!

That ain't good for a plane operating from a short island strip.

By contrast, Vmc for a P38J/L was 120 mph (104 knots). You can see it would be an unusual flight experience for a US pilot. Can't find Vmc for a P-61 right now, but the stall speeds are lower than for a P-38.

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


----------



## pinehilljoe (Sep 16, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The learning curve for turret fighters was being learned while the P-61 was already in development - the solution for the turret on the P-61 was to be remote and more aerodynamic, still was found to be troublesome when it was put into service, so in some cases it was removed and the well was used for additional fuel storage.
> 
> Even though the U.S. didn't make any turret fighters, they still came up with fighter ideas that were not all that great.
> 
> View attachment 352722


.
I have always loved the Airacuda. It looks like a plane straight out of Sky Captain and The World of Tomorrow,

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 16, 2016)

IIRC, the unit the operated the P-61 in the Pacific had a Staff Sargent will one aerial credit. I would guess he was the radio/ radar operator who operated the turret!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 16, 2016)

pinehilljoe said:


> .
> I have always loved the Airacuda. It looks like a plane straight out of Sky Captain and The World of Tomorrow,


Sky Captain's P-40 was pretty cool, too!







Didn't mean to stray off the topic...but it WAS a good movie

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 16, 2016)

Now to be fair or put things in perspective the US had already built the XB-15 








149 ft wingspan and 2780 sq ft of wing area and they were working on the XB-19




212 ft wing span (over twice the Lancaster) and 4392 sq ft of wing area means that they were also working on something to shoot them down. Assuming that if they could a bomber that size a potential enemy could also.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 16, 2016)

GregP said:


> The worst criticism of the Mosquito is also still valid today. It hs the highest Vmc of any twin in WWII. As long as both fans were turning and you accelerated past Vmc, you were OK. If you lost an engine before that, it was going to land straight ahead or crash with finality. Steve Hinton said when he flew the Mosquito that came out of New Zealand that it had a higher Vmc than the crusie speed of many plane he had flown. Once it was comfortably fast, thingfs were dandy.
> 
> By way of example, in a Mosquito FB6, safety speed (Vmc) at 17,000 pounds, +9" boosty, and flaps up or 15° down was 155 knots. At +18 lbs boost it was 170 knots! The manul sattes these spees vary considerably between aircraft! So, they could be higher!
> 
> ...



Is the Vmc related to the stall speed?


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 16, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Now to be fair or put things in perspective the US had already built the XB-15
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They had the manning squared away in the XB-15 squadron...

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Sep 16, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The learning curve for turret fighters was being learned while the P-61 was already in development - the solution for the turret on the P-61 was to be remote and more aerodynamic, still was found to be troublesome when it was put into service, so in some cases it was removed and the well was used for additional fuel storage.
> 
> Even though the U.S. didn't make any turret fighters, they still came up with fighter ideas that were not all that great.
> 
> View attachment 352722



Here's a shot of the cockpit...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 17, 2016)

Flash Gordon could fly anything (even a turret fighter!)


----------



## GregP (Sep 17, 2016)

The closer the engines are together, the closer to Vmc will be to stall and vice versa. Vmc is ALSO related to both the fin and rudder area as well as the rudder angle limit stops.

The P-38 had a rudder directly behind each engine in the propeller airflow. The Mosquito had a single fin not in the propeller airflow, so it had little yaw control by rudder until at least medium airspeed had been attained, probably at least 60 knots to generate some tail torque effect with rudder deflection. I haven't looked up that number ... just a SWAG. My thought is that had de Havilland put a twin fin Mosquito together, the effect on top speed would have been slight, but the effect on Vmc would have been dramatic.

Of course, I have no proof of same since they didn't build one of those puppies, and do not have the time or interest to try the calculations myself. I'd have to drag out an aerodynamics text anyway.

I have heard more than once that this was a primary reason for less than sharp US interest on the Mosquito, but have never seen it listed in any official documents, so it is hearsay at best.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Sep 17, 2016)

For USAAF night fighter crews in Italy the P61 must have been welcome as their old Bristol Beaufighters were having trouble catching modern Luftwaffe bombers unladen in stern chases. They had been asking for RAF Mosquitos to be released to them.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dana Bell (Sep 17, 2016)

I've been working on this story for over 45 years - now it's time I should got to stop everything else and write it all down.

The P-61 was a massive failure as a night fighter. The Mosquito was superior in every way but one - it wasn't available when the AAF most needed it.

The great night fighter fly-off was rigged, but not by the British pilot. Knowing that the P-61 lost any advantage above 20,000 feet, the test was run at 5,000 feet, 10,000 feet, 15,000 feet, and 20,000 feet. The two aircraft flew toward each other in daylight, then tried to get on each other's tail. The P-61, while slow, altitude limited, and restricted in range, was a terrific dog-fighter -- of course, night fighting made nearly no use of dogfighting abilities. The American crews got to keep their aircraft, their esprit d'corps, and their bragging rights, but they lost out on a superior aircraft.

The Mosquito's single-engine capabilities were known, but not fatal -- in the MTO, the single AAF Ju 188 kill involved a chase across most of Italy, over the Apennines, into Austria. The entire chase was flown with the dead right engine windmilling.

Cheers,



Dana

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 18, 2016)

Hi Dana, and welcome to the forum!


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 18, 2016)

Dana Bell said:


> ...The P-61 was a massive failure as a night fighter...


I am curious about this.

In what context can the P-61 be called a "massive failure"?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 18, 2016)

Glider said:


> How comes someone nearly always wants to blame the UK for every daft idea the USA came up with!!!



All the "daftness" in the Black Widow came straight from Northrop, the most unconventional a/c builder in the US. Can't lay that one on the Brits! "Daft" or not, an awesome machine none the less. Apparently there was a west coast P-61 instructor pilot who would repeatedly take on four plane flights of ponies, bolts, cats, or Corsairs in daytime close-in dogfights and score "kills" on all four while remaining untagged. Thanks to that turret and asymmetric thrust.


----------



## GregP (Sep 18, 2016)

The P-61 was not a massive failure. It did well, in all theaters of operation. You could make a case for the Mosquito, perhaps a decent one, but the P-61 was a good night fighter that could turn with most much lighter aircraft. It could EASILY out-turn the Mosquito, and only later models of the Mosquito were faster.

The Mosquito used for the test was an MF Mk XVII and it was about as fast as a P-61A. The Mosquito NF 30 was faster. but didn't fly until March 1944. We didn't need the Mosquito in place of the P-61. We could have used some Mosquitos, true, but would probably have assigned them to duties other than P-61 duties.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dana Bell (Sep 18, 2016)

Hi Folks,

I didn't touch on the turrets, but I'm afraid this one actually did come from the Brits. Before the US entered the war, Ira Eaker visited the UK to report on the RAF's latest technical advances. I interviewed him in 1977, have his pre-war report - the RAF convinced him that the ultimate future night fighter would carry a remote control turret, and that information was passed on to Northrop. The big problem was the radar-guided, automatic gun-laying system being designed for the P-61 - it never worked. In the ultimate irony, the AAF's final report on the P-61s problems noted (on the first page) that the turret helped the aircraft overcome its many disadvantages, but recommended (on page 3) that the turret be removed to add fuel.

Arnold and Spaatz had planned to replace all P-61s in Europe and the MTO with Mosquitos in May/June 1944 - we wanted the Mk.30s, but production problems meant we couldn't have any until November - long after they weren't needed over the invasion beachheads.

The P-61 was, in test pilot Vance Breeze's words, an "old man's airplane" - easy to fly, safe to land in the dark, and very forgiving. It was wonderfully maneuverable, had a great rate of climb, and was heavily armed. But it was too slow, it couldn't fly high enough to reach German and Japanese night bombers, and it's missions were of limited duration - generally around two hours. My opinion doesn't matter on this -- the theater commanders and Arnold himself were desperate for a replacement even before the first combat missions.

Highly motivated, well trained crews made the aircraft do amazing things - but its roles were of limited range, altitude, and speed. When the 422nd went out with the Brits on a target-rich evening, they were generally the only unit to return without a kill. (The Brits had a way of saying, "Not to worry, you'll do better next time" that clearly meant the Yanks weren't up to snuff -- both sides knew it, and the Americans were pretty well torched off about.) In the Pacific, P-61 pilots were met with jeers and cat calls when they left the evening movies to try to intercept high-flying Japanese night raiders. After repeated failures, the Black Widows on Middleburg were replaced by Hellcat night fighters - much to the relief of the folks on the ground, who were being bombed nightly.

The one 416th NFS Mosquito kill was the second interception of that Ju 188 that night - a P-61 nearly made the interception, but had to return to base due to lack of fuel.

I would describe a failure as an aircraft incapable of performing the assigned mission. The mission involved the downing of high-flying, high-speed night raiders, and the P-61 couldn't do it. The crews were told they had the best available aircraft - they weren't told the Mosquito wasn't available. They believed in the Black Widow - but higher command understood the aircraft's limitations and would have happily replaced it - not the definition of a success.

Cheers,



Dana

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


----------



## gjs238 (Sep 18, 2016)

Wonder why the P-61 wasn't designed with 2-stage superchargers or turbochargers.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 18, 2016)

GregP said:


> The Mosquito used for the test was an MF Mk XVII and it was about as fast as a P-61A. The Mosquito MF 30 was faster. but didn't fly until March 1944. We didn't need the Mosquito in palce of the P-61. We could have used some Mosquitos, true, but would probably have assigned them to duties other than P-61 duties.



The Mosquito NF XXX began operations in July 1944, in limited numbers. About the same time that the P-61 began operations for the 8th AF.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 18, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> Wonder why the P-61 wasn't designed with 2-stage superchargers or turbochargers.



They had 2 stage superchargers - the P-61A had same engine as used in the F6F, and the P-61B used a similar model.

The problem may have been that the P-61 was as heavy empty as a Mosquito B.XVI with cookie on board and full of fuel (but not drop tanks).


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 18, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> Wonder why the P-61 wasn't designed with 2-stage superchargers or turbochargers.





wuzak said:


> They had 2 stage superchargers - the P-61A had same engine as used in the F6F, and the P-61B used a similar model.
> ....



Inded, Hellcat, P-61A and P-61B used the came engine, 2-stage supercharged R-2800-10:

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 18, 2016)

In hindsight, if the P-61 was so successful, (or if the brass at the time had so much faith in the aircraft) why this?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 18, 2016)

Lockheed P-38M Lightning


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 18, 2016)

I think the slimmer bubble canopy fuselage used for the F15 Reporter would have been better for the NF role. According to the internet the USAAF thought so too and had requested a P61E.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## varsity07840 (Sep 18, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> Wonder why the P-61 wasn't designed with 2-stage superchargers or turbochargers.


The P-61C had turbochargers and was a much faster airplane, but only thirty or so were built before the war ended and production was canceled.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 18, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> I think the slimmer bubble canopy fuselage used for the F15 Reporter would have been better for the NF role. According to the internet the USAAF thought so too and had requested a P61E.



More than likely yes, but a few considerations:

One piece blown plexiglass canopies were just being introduced. The longer, larger and "curvier" the transparency is, the harder it is to make and the more distortion you're going to have. Although a great improvement over framed canopies, a clear non-distorted canopy is needed, especially if you're flying at night and relying on your eyes to spot targets.

Electronic units work well in dark, cool environments, especially early radar units. Large plexiglass canopies retain heat and could easily become an oven if you're operating even with minimal sunlight. RIOs would have to operate under a hood to better see their screens. This became more apparent in the post war years in early all-weather fighters.


----------



## GregP (Sep 18, 2016)

There never were enough P-61s. The P-61 was given a rather low priority and many types were tried including the P-38M, the night-fighter version of the A-20 called the P-70, and a few others. Most were mildy successful, but a handful for a single pilot. The 2-seaters did better, on the whole. The P-61 was not ready in time for the British and the first unit didn't fly a mission untilk Feb 1944. Operational use began in the summer, but was rather limited throughout the war in the ETO.

The P-61 was generlly adequate and a good night fighter, but did need more speed.

The Mosquito tested against the P-61 did NOT have more speed, and both the US and the UK struggled with night fighters for the rest of the war. Only two squadrons operated the P-61 in the ETO, the 422 NFS and 425 NFS. The 422 scored 43 victories over manned aircraft and 5 over V-1s, with VERY few aircraft. During the Battle of the Bulge, they only had 4 flyable aircraft! The 425 scored 10 victories over manned aircraft and 4 V-1s, also with very few flyable aicraft. There never WAS a spare parts chain for the P-61 in the ETO.

4 squadrons had the P-61 in the Med, but operations were scarce, with about 5 victories, all while flown out of Belgium!

8 squadrons had the P-61 in the Pacific, and it had most of its successes in that theater.

The next US night fighter after the P-61 was the Douglas Skynight, which had radar issues galore, but did manage some victories in Korea.


----------



## gjs238 (Sep 18, 2016)

GregP said:


> The next US night fighter after the P-61 was the Douglas Skynight, which had radar issues galore, but did manage some victories in Korea.



How about the P-82/F-82 derivatives?


----------



## wuzak (Sep 18, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> I think the slimmer bubble canopy fuselage used for the F15 Reporter would have been better for the NF role. According to the internet the USAAF thought so too and had requested a P61E.



The P-61E was a day fighter and replaced the radar with 4 x 0.5" mgs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 18, 2016)

GregP said:


> The next US night fighter after the P-61 was the Douglas Skynight, which had radar issues galore, but did manage some victories in Korea.



I was recently introduced to a good friend of my GF's, her dad was a Marine Skynight radar operator who (along with his pilot) bagged a MiG-15 in January, 1953. Major Elswin P. Dunn and *Master Sergeant Lawrence J. Fortin.* My GF's friend said her dad didn't like to talk about it much,

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## varsity07840 (Sep 18, 2016)

GregP said:


> There never were enough P-61s. The P-61 was given a rather low priority and many types were tried including the P-38M, the night-fighter version of the A-20 called the P-70, and a few others. Most were mildy successful, but a handful for a single pilot. The 2-seaters did better, on the whole. The P-61 was not ready in time for the British and the first unit didn't fly a mission untilk Feb 1944. Operational use began in the summer, but was rather limited throughout the war in the ETO.
> 
> The P-61 was generlly adequate and a good night fighter, but did need more speed.
> 
> ...



The P-38M did not see combat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 18, 2016)

varsity07840 said:


> The P-38M did not see combat.



It didn't - but it's pretty obvious that the AAF was still looking for a night fighter.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 18, 2016)

varsity07840 said:


> The P-38M did not see combat.



The 491st NFS flew them in the final weeks of the war but as you said, no contacts with the enemy were reported

EDIT: 419 NFS ? Stupid book "Crowood P-38"


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 18, 2016)

The US was constantly working on smaller radar equipped types even as the P-61 was going into service.

Besides the P-38, there was also the radar equipped F6F and the F4U corsair.

The P-61 did have a measure of success against enemy targets, but it entered the war late and as such, was not operating in a target-rich environment. Before the P-61, there was the SRC-540 equipped P-70 (Douglas A-20).

Between the two, the P-70 could actually be considered more of a failure than the P-61.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 18, 2016)

Hi gjs,

The P-82 version was an adaption of the basic P-82 fighter airframe, not a designed, dedicated night fighter. It was a decent adaption, though, and performed pretty well, all things considered.

Cool to hear about someone who operated Skynights. It was a little-known, underappreciated warrior, but performed as requested in the specs and was a solid airplane, if a bit unglamorous.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 19, 2016)

stona said:


> The critcisms of the Mosquito at Patuxent River were mostly minor. The most serious was its slow rate of climb.and 'sloppy' control on approach combined with a high landing speed. In the context of night fighting it was considered
> 
> _'Unsuitable for night operations because of landing and take-off characteristics and bad field and weather encountered in Pacific.'_



Well no wonder they found the Mosquito landing and takeoff unsuitable! Pax River was and still is home of the Naval Flight Test Center. Navy and Marine pilots are notoriously fussy about landing, takeoff, and low speed handling in general. Nobody earns those wings without repeatedly terrifying themselves on a carrier deck, and the lessons last a lifetime.


----------



## GregP (Sep 19, 2016)

I think it is the Naval Flying Characteristics of Naval Carrier Aircraft specification that is fussy. I used to have a copy and probably still do, burried in boxes, and it is quite specific about what the Navy wants, including rolling, stalls, low-speed handling around the carrier, etc. .

Coulr be wrong, but I think the pilots will fly what the Navy acquires and assigns them to.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Sep 19, 2016)

Grumman may have gotten it right with the F-7F

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Sep 19, 2016)

Perhaps the priority in the US wasn't that great. We weren't facing streams of hundreds bombers over our cities. By the time the technology matured (small airborne sets, engines that could push a twin engine plane to 400 mph), the night threat was diminished. The planes facing the US were tactical not strategic bombers, which flew missions primarily during the daylight.

I can imagine the Naval Aviators flying F4U-N and F6F-Ns had their hands full flying at night off a carrier, processing the information from a radar screen, flying, intercepting and attacking, without the aid of a Radar Officer.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 19, 2016)

pinehilljoe said:


> I can imagine the Naval Aviators flying F-4UN and F-6FNs had their hands full flying at night off a carrier, processing the information from a radar screen, flying, intercepting and attacking, without the aid of a Radar Officer.


 You're only processing info from the radar screen when you're on station tracking a target. The rest would be no different from other nighttime naval operations. F4U-5Ns were used in Korea, the only Navy ace flew one.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 20, 2016)

GregP said:


> I think it is the Naval Flying Characteristics of Naval Carrier Aircraft specification that is fussy. I used to have a copy and probably still do, burried in boxes, and it is quite specific about what the Navy wants, including rolling, stalls, low-speed handling around the carrier, etc. .
> 
> Coulr be wrong, but I think the pilots will fly what the Navy acquires and assigns them to.



Of course they will, that's their job. Doesn't stop them from looking with a jaundiced eye on an aircraft they're asked to evaluate which violates their hard-earned prejudices. "Squirrely on the approach? Vref 140 knots? Vmc 155? Sounds like a deathtrap to me!" "Besides they designed the cockpit for midgets!"


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 20, 2016)

pinehilljoe said:


> I can imagine the Naval Aviators flying F4U-N and F6F-Ns had their hands full flying at night off a carrier, processing the information from a radar screen, flying, intercepting and attacking, without the aid of a Radar Officer.



I can attest to the fact that flying a high performance fighter on instruments while manipulating a primitive AI radar against a maneuvering target can be a real handful. While on leave from my job helping F-4 RIOs learn radar interception tactics, I had the opportunity to hop in the local Air Guard's F-102 simulator. It had a weird Y-shaped control stick where the left branch flew the jet and the right side "Atari stick" Mm steered the radar dish. The radar was a whole generation older than what I was used to with the F-4, and required a lot of "operator imagination" to interpret the display. Couple that with an overweight, underpowered airframe that bled energy badly in any kind of maneuver, and I quickly went into task saturation, departed controlled flight, and augered in. Much to the amusement of the sim operators

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Sep 20, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Electronic units work well in dark, cool environments, especially early radar units. .



Not too cool! Bomber Command crews were obliged to turn on and warm up H2S sets before climbing to operational altitudes as it was too cold at altitude for the components (I assume this refers to the valves) to reach their operating temperatures.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 20, 2016)

stona said:


> Not too cool! Bomber Command crews were obliged to turn on and warm up H2S sets before climbing to operational altitudes as it was too cold at altitude for the components (I assume this refers to the valves) to reach their operating temperatures.
> Cheers
> Steve



Depends on the internal components - cathode tubes, yes, but once up and running you need stabilized cool temperatures. With almost 20 years working around P-3s on and off, the coolest place on the flightline on a hot day was inside an aircraft that was going though ground avionics checks, but then again, we were dealing with components made up of PCs rather than old cathode tubes.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Sep 20, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Depends on the internal components - cathode tubes, yes, but once up and running you need stabilized cool temperatures. With almost 20 years working around P-3s on and off, the coolest place on the flightline on a hot day was inside an aircraft that was going though ground avionics checks, but then again, we were dealing with components made up of PCs rather than old cathode tubes.



Did the early P-3s have vacuum tubes? It must have been a struggle to keep the first AI sets operating night after night with shocks from landing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 20, 2016)

pinehilljoe said:


> Did the early P-3s have vacuum tubes? It must have been a struggle to keep the first AI sets operating night after night with shocks from landing.


I don't know - most of my time were on P-3Cs Update IIIs, about the last 150 built. By that time most if not all of the electronics had PCs


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 22, 2016)

wuzak said:


> The P-61E was a day fighter and replaced the radar with 4 x 0.5" mgs.



Interesting I wonder what role the USAAF had in mind for it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 22, 2016)

From Wiki...

_"Two P-61B-10s (numbers 42-39549 and 42-39557) converted to daytime long-range escort fighters. Tandem crew sat under a blown canopy which replaced the turret, additional fuel tanks were installed in place of the radar operator's cockpit in the rear of the fuselage pod, and four 0.50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns took place of the radar in the nose (the 20 mm/.79 in ventral cannon were retained as well). First flight 20 November 1944, cancelled after the war ended. The first prototype was converted to an XF-15, the second lost in take-off accident 11 April 1945."_


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 22, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> wuzak said:
> 
> 
> > The P-61E was a day fighter and replaced the radar with 4 x 0.5" mgs.
> ...



There were only two XP-61E types built for evaluation. They were actually P-61Bs that had the turret removed, additional fuel tanks to extend their range and the radar removed and replaced with four .50 MGs while retaining the four 20mm cannon.

The purpose for the XP-61E was to be a long-range escort heavy fighter.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 22, 2016)




----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 22, 2016)

A really good book on the P-61 is "Northrop P-61 Black Widow: The Complete History and Combat Record" by Campbell/Pape (ISBN: 978-0887407383)

It's paperback, but loaded with excellent info


----------



## Timmy P3B FCO (Sep 22, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I don't know - most of my time were on P-3Cs Update IIIs, about the last 150 built. By that time most if not all of the electronics had PCs[/QUOTE
> 
> Hello,
> 
> ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 22, 2016)

Hi Timmy! VP-92? I was in VP-65


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 22, 2016)

pinehilljoe said:


> Did the early P-3s have vacuum tubes? It must have been a struggle to keep the first AI sets operating night after night with shocks from landing.



I lived for a time next door to VX-1, the Navy's airborne ASW equipment test and evaluation squadron, rode in their planes, drank with their troops. For awhile they had P-3As, -Bs, and -Cs on board at the same time, as they had to test backward compatibility of each new system. The "A" model, a child of the late 50s/early 60s, was rife with vacuum tubes in practically all its equipment, and had a VERY primitive inertial navigation platform and computer. Its ASW attack plot was largely manual ( a la P-2 Neptune), without the extensive computerization of later models. The "B" had a lot more solid state circuitry and a (wow!) DIGITAL computer! It still had plenty of tubes, however, especially in the NAV/COM equipment. The "C" was mostly solid state, but still had some older equipment on board. I don't remember hearing a lot of complaints about tubes with respect to reliability, but a lot of grousing about how long it took to erect and stabilize the INS. Up to 24 hours in some cases, out on the compass rose hardstand, with APU running and some poor stiff out there standing watch. The tube circuitry was all ruggedized the way jet fighter radar was with reinforced circuit boards and bracket/heatsinks supporting the tubes. P-3s didn't have AI (Airborne Intercept) Radar, they had Airborne Surface Search. (You can make any acronym out of that you wish!)

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Sep 22, 2016)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 22, 2016)

When I worked on P-3 production flight line in Burbank, I remember a lot of PC boards in drawers by the TACCO and NAV/COM stations. I remember some of the avionics guys working on them and sometimes slamming the drawers to get the PC boards to seat. Fast forward a few years later while i the reserves, all of my time was spent playing with props and engines.


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 28, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> From Wiki...
> 
> _"Two P-61B-10s (numbers 42-39549 and 42-39557) converted to daytime long-range escort fighters. Tandem crew sat under a blown canopy which replaced the turret, additional fuel tanks were installed in place of the radar operator's cockpit in the rear of the fuselage pod, and four 0.50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns took place of the radar in the nose (the 20 mm/.79 in ventral cannon were retained as well). First flight 20 November 1944, cancelled after the war ended. The first prototype was converted to an XF-15, the second lost in take-off accident 11 April 1945."_



XP-61E, 42-39549





From Northrop P-61 Black Widow by Miroslav Balous, Motorbook International

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Sep 29, 2016)




----------



## swampyankee (Jan 7, 2017)

The USAAF did operate Mosquitoes and Spitfires, so reverse-lend lease certainly existed. I think the Mosquito was, overall, a better airplane but the P-61 was probably a more capable 

I think that the turret and 3-man crew on the P-61 were also a design flaw. Getting rid of the turret and the 3rd crew member would have resulted in much higher performance, as was the case with the P-61E and F-15 variants.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 7, 2017)

The P-61E and F-15 variants got a lot of their performance increase from the turbocharged "C" series engines (very similar to the engines used in the P-47M & N) and not by ditching the turret and crewman. 
Some books claim about a 5mph difference in speed between early P-61s built without the turret (around 300) and the ones with turrets. 
Climb could well have been affected.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 8, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> The P-61E and F-15 variants got a lot of their performance increase from the turbocharged "C" series engines (very similar to the engines used in the P-47M & N) and not by ditching the turret and crewman.
> Some books claim about a 5mph difference in speed between early P-61s built without the turret (around 300) and the ones with turrets.
> Climb could well have been affected.



The two XP-61Es were converted from P-61Bs.

Northrop XP-61E Black Widow

The F-15 was based on the P-61C, which had the turbocharged engines.

Northrop F-15 Reporter

The tell-tale is the lack of ducts on the side of the engine cowling

XP-61E












F-15










From Joe Baugher's site, it appears that the XP-61E was around 6-7mph faster than the P-61A/B.

On the other hand, the P-61C was capable of 430mph, and the F-15 similar, or the same.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 8, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> The USAAF did operate Mosquitoes and Spitfires, so reverse-lend lease certainly existed. I think the Mosquito was, overall, a better airplane but the P-61 was probably a more capable
> 
> I think that the turret and 3-man crew on the P-61 were also a design flaw. Getting rid of the turret and the 3rd crew member would have resulted in much higher performance, as was the case with the P-61E and F-15 variants.



If the P-61 was designed without the turret and designated gunner & his cockpit, the resulting aircraft could've been both smaller and lighter. The central pod losses the superimposed gunner's quarters, meaning lowering the drag further. Hopefully the resulting aircraft would've been just a bit bigger than the F7F, with a turn of speed around 400 mph.

Alternatively, accept (X)P-65 proposal from Grumman, but with R-2800 engines and no turbo.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 8, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> If the P-61 was designed without the turret and designated gunner & his cockpit, the resulting aircraft could've been both smaller and lighter. The central pod losses the superimposed gunner's quarters, meaning lowering the drag further. Hopefully the resulting aircraft would've been just a bit bigger than the F7F, with a turn of speed around 400 mph.
> 
> Alternatively, accept (X)P-65 proposal from Grumman, but with R-2800 engines and no turbo.



We are designing with hindsight. 
Army didn't sign contract for the XP-65 (with R-2600s) until June of 1941. R-2600s were supposed to be turboed. Navy signs up for two prototypes 2 weeks later. 
Army signed contract for XP-61s in Jan of 1941, signed contract for 13 YP-61s in March 41 and inspected mock up in April 41. 20mm guns were moved from the wing to the fuselage belly and fuel tanks enlarged from 540 gallons to 646. Radar at the time was evolving, initial radar was the SCR-520 but even that was not available during initial design stages. 
P-61 got the SCR 720 radar for service use. The F7F didn't get SCR 720 radar until the -3N model which didn't fly until May 15 1945. Earlier F7F night fighters used the smaller radar from the wing pods of F4U and F6Fs. 
F7F night fighters had 375 gallons of internal fuel, radar operator cockpit took the place of 80 gallons of fuel. 
The F7F or something like it wouldn't have met the requirement for endurance in the early specifications. 
In 1940-41 nobody actually know what size the future radar units would be. 





F7F-3N with the same radar as the P-61. of course they had several years to figure out how to fit it to the airframe. 

BTW a 150 gallon belly tank cost about 11mph using normal power, at 300 gallon tank costs 12mph .


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 8, 2017)

Thanks for the timeline.



Shortround6 said:


> We are designing with hindsight.
> Army didn't sign contract for the XP-65 (with R-2600s) until June of 1941. R-2600s were supposed to be turboed. Navy signs up for two prototypes 2 weeks later.



I've already stated that -2600s were to be with turbo on the XP-65, for the AAF version; the USN version was supposed to be with R-2800s? So let's have R-2800 for the both.



> F7F night fighters had 375 gallons of internal fuel, radar operator cockpit took the place of 80 gallons of fuel.
> The F7F or something like it wouldn't have met the requirement for endurance in the early specifications.
> In 1940-41 nobody actually know what size the future radar units would be.
> F7F-3N with the same radar as the P-61. of course they had several years to figure out how to fit it to the airframe.
> BTW a 150 gallon belly tank cost about 11mph using normal power, at 300 gallon tank costs 12mph .



Problem with F7F's fuel situation is that it did not housed a single gallon of fuel in it's wings, all 455 sq ft, or about the same area as in the Mosquito, so Grumman would've need to adress this by adding fuel tankage in the wings.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 8, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> Thanks for the timeline.


You are welcome, just trying to that the P-61 was designed with a few unknowns.



> I've already stated that -2600s were to be with turbo on the XP-65, for the AAF version; the USN version was supposed to be with R-2800s? So let's have R-2800 for the both.


That isn't the problem, it was part of the timeline. 



> Problem with F7F's fuel situation is that it did not housed a single gallon of fuel in it's wings, all 455 sq ft, or about the same area as in the Mosquito, so Grumman would've need to adress this by adding fuel tankage in the wings.



The wing roots have the 20mm guns in them, the ammo boxes are in the wings outboard of the cannon. oil cooler takes up space out board of cannon




Then we start to run into one of the reasons the Army canceled and allowed Grumman to dedicate the airframe to Navy needs.




Navy isn't going to want fuel tanks in the part of the wing that folds. you are starting to run out of wing. 
Mosquito used a large part of the inner wing for fuel tanks.




The radiators and ducts only occupied space in front of the front spar. 
Please also note that the F7F got part of it's performance from it's R-2800-22/W engines which were "C" series engines. Not available for the first few hundred P-61s at the very least. 
Power may have been a bit closer to late B-26 engines than to the two stage engines used in the P-61 but they were about 120lbs lighter, had no inter-coolers and no inter-cooling ducting. They required less cooling air at the same power levels and so had less drag even for the basic engine. 

Maybe Grumman or Northrop could have built a smaller night fighter but it may well have required giving up more than just the turret and four .50cal guns. Radar and tactics were evolving. Early radar had a minimum range and often the radar operator would look up from his screen/hood and try to get a visual once they had closed to minimum range. 2 pairs of eyes being better than one. Radars got shorter minimum ranges and better angle discrimination even as the prototype night fighters were being built. Short of throwing thousands of man hours out and starting over they were stuck with what they had.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jan 8, 2017)

In one of the old Wings/Airpower articles on the Corsair night fighters in Korea a pilot was interviewed and said the F7Fs were not allowed to fly over North Korea, the Avionics were a step above the Corsair's and the Navy did not want to risk one going into enemy hands. I'll try and dig up the article.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jan 8, 2017)

I wouldn't be suprised the same thinking was very common with the RAF

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jan 8, 2017)

Glider said:


> I wouldn't be suprised the same thinking was very common with the RAF



Which RAF or Fleet Air Arm aircraft were not allowed to go over North Korea?


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 8, 2017)

Probably the only RAF aircraft worth sending to Korea was the Canberra. A MIG15 wouldn't get anywhere near a Canberra at altitude.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 8, 2017)

pinehilljoe said:


> Which RAF or Fleet Air Arm aircraft were not allowed to go over North Korea?



I think Glider is thinking about the Meteor over Europe in WW2, tho they were eventually allowed.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 8, 2017)

fastmongrel said:


> Probably the only RAF aircraft worth sending to Korea was the Canberra. A MIG15 wouldn't get anywhere near a Canberra at altitude.



*MiG15*
*Service ceiling:* 15,500 m (50,853 ft)

*B-57B*
*Service ceiling:* 45,100 ft (13,745 m)


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 8, 2017)

US B-57Bs didn't enter service until over a year after the cease fire in Korea. The US planes had more equipment (including guns in the wing) and different engines. 
British Canberra's started with 6500lb thrust Avons in the B2 and used higher powered engines on later versions. Many later versions were rebuilds of early ones. 
While an early Canberra set a world altitude record it was an engine test bed aircraft fitted with Bristol Olympus engines that wee hardly standard.


----------



## GregP (Jan 9, 2017)

The Canberra was WAY more maneuverable than a MiG-15 at most altitudes where they would encounter one another. They usually wouldn't see a MiG in the landing payttern and didn't stay low for long.

The Canberra had a wing loading at normal takeoff of some 42 lbs./ sq. ft., with THICK wings of high lift (relative to the MiG-15 bis anyway) and the MiG-15-bis had a wing loading at normal takeoff of about 50 lbs. sq. ft.

The difference at height would make the Canberra easily out-turn the MiG and, if he dropped his ordnance, it would be a "no contest." Break into the MiG and he overhsoots every time, much like US PR aircraft did for years operating near service ceiling versus Soviet fighters. Then again, MOST PR aircraft are more lightly loaded than fighters are. They don't have to have the offensive armament and attendant ammunition, for one thing.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 9, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> The wing roots have the 20mm guns in them, the ammo boxes are in the wings outboard of the cannon. oil cooler takes up space out board of cannon
> Then we start to run into one of the reasons the Army canceled and allowed Grumman to dedicate the airframe to Navy needs.
> Navy isn't going to want fuel tanks in the part of the wing that folds. you are starting to run out of wing.
> ...



[my edit]

The Army does not need a folding wing. Thus move also the carb air intake to the inboard of nacelles (also to be used on the Navy aircraft), and there is a better part of the outer wing available for fuel tanks. The P-38 acquired 2x55 gals using just a small part of the outer wing, in front of the main spar.
But then, the fuselage on the historical F7F does not look like devoted to maximizing fuel tankage (my red 'oval'):








> Please also note that the F7F got part of it's performance from it's R-2800-22/W engines which were "C" series engines. Not available for the first few hundred P-61s at the very least.
> Power may have been a bit closer to late B-26 engines than to the two stage engines used in the P-61 but they were about 120lbs lighter, had no inter-coolers and no inter-cooling ducting. They required less cooling air at the same power levels and so had less drag even for the basic engine.



If the 2-stage R-2800s can be installed, the performance would've surpased the historical F7F even in B series engines are used. If not - let's recall that early A-20s were clocked at 349 mph on the low powered R-2600 engines, and F7F was with thinner wing. The turn of speed of in-between A-20 and historical F7F - 380-390 mph - would not be so outrageous to expect.



> Maybe Grumman or Northrop could have built a smaller night fighter but it may well have required giving up more than just the turret and four .50cal guns. Radar and tactics were evolving. Early radar had a minimum range and often the radar operator would look up from his screen/hood and try to get a visual once they had closed to minimum range. 2 pairs of eyes being better than one. Radars got shorter minimum ranges and better angle discrimination even as the prototype night fighters were being built. Short of throwing thousands of man hours out and starting over they were stuck with what they had.



Granted, the proposed changes would've needed to be done when the whole project is in early 'paper' stage.
BTW - the radar operator will have his night vision hampered due to glaring in the radar scopes, unlike what was the case with pilot.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 9, 2017)

Milosh said:


> *MiG15*
> *Service ceiling:* 15,500 m (50,853 ft)
> 
> *B-57B*
> *Service ceiling:* 45,100 ft (13,745 m)



Canberra B2 service ceiling with bombload was 45,000 and 48,000 without

Mig15bis at the same height was barely controllable and was at Coffin Corner and any big control movement either put it in a spin which was 99% impossible to get out of or meant it exceeded safe Mach speed pitched up and stalled which put it into a tail spin which was 100% impossible to get out of.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 9, 2017)

wuzak said:


> Is the Vmc related to the stall speed?


Only indirectly. Vmc is determined by engine power and placement, yaw stability, and rudder authority. Obviously, you'll want lower Vmc as stall speed decreases, but they're not directly related.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 9, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> The Army does not need a folding wing. Thus move also the carb air intake to the inboard of nacelles (also to be used on the Navy aircraft), and there is a better part of the outer wing available for fuel tanks. The P-38 acquired 2x55 gals using just a small part of the outer wing, in front of the main spar.
> But then, the fuselage on the historical F7F does not look like devoted to maximizing fuel tankage (my red 'oval'):



actual space on the P-38 was larger than you might think. 








30-40% of the volume of the outer wing (not counting ailerons and flaps? 



> If the 2-stage R-2800s can be installed, the performance would've surpased the historical F7F even in B series engines are used. If not - let's recall that early A-20s were clocked at 349 mph on the low powered R-2600 engines, and F7F was with thinner wing. The turn of speed of in-between A-20 and historical F7F - 380-390 mph - would not be so outrageous to expect.



The _expected _speed depends on altitude and time the estimate is made. The _first production_ contract for the P-61 was placed in Sept of 1941. The P-61s engines were not fitted with water injection (and rated for WER) until the end of 1943 or the beginning of 1944. 

Photo of P-61 air inlets:




out board 3 slots (right of the heavy divider) are for the oil cooler. the rest of the outer slots and all the inner opening are for the carb and intercoolers. There was an intercooler on each side of the engine nacelle or partially in the wing/nacelle junction. 
Two stage engines cannot be swapped in and out of designs as whim may take the design staff or purchasing agent. If you make the design tight like an F7F you may not have room for the intercoolers and ducting. Take them out of an existing design and you have empty wing/nacelle space (larger airframe than needed. Two stage engines can help considerably with performance at around 15-20,000ft and up. they hurt performance at lower altitudes, also note the 12 ft 2 in propeller. Without a doubt heavier than the 3 blade prop on the F7F. 
P & W started work on the "C" series engine in 1940. the first flight of an F7F was in Nov of 1943, 17 months after the first flight of the P-61. At what point was P & W advanced enough in work on the "C" series to offer it as a viable engine to Grumman for the F7F project? 



> Granted, the proposed changes would've needed to be done when the whole project is in early 'paper' stage.
> BTW - the radar operator will have his night vision hampered due to glaring in the radar scopes, unlike what was the case with pilot.



The first gets to the heart of things as to the original question, what was known when design started and what was _desired _(like how many hours of endurance and take-off landing speeds).
As to the second, perhaps night vision was impaired a bit but but then F4U and F6F night fighter pilots would have been in real trouble.


----------



## Glider (Jan 9, 2017)

Milosh said:


> I think Glider is thinking about the Meteor over Europe in WW2, tho they were eventually allowed.


I was also thinking of the use of new AI sets. Mk IV sets were delayed before they could fly over Eurpe and later they were for a period, the only sets allowed over Europe.

There were many examples of the Canberra being used for PR missions over europe during the cold war and attempted intercepts by Mig 15s always failed.

A few years ago there was a fascinating programme on this where a number of RAF pilots were interviewed. The one that stuck in my mind was a pilot who could see the mig 15's close but unable to get up to his altitude. However the Russian pilot was close enough to try a long range shot, He tried but when he fired, his aircraft stalled and he lost height allowing the Canberra to get away. Another mission was to take photos of a Russian site, close to Moscow in daylight. They were sure this would be a step too far but they got away with it.

One pilot posted to a joint USAF/RAF unit and he recalled that although none were shot down there were a couple of examples where the Russians were able to get close. I cannot remember the name of these aircraft but they had four engines and had rear guns. The main problem was the USAF aircraft could only operate from approx 36,000 ft whereas the Canberra used to operate at 54,000 ft

Another RAF pilot because of his experience was assigned to a USAAF unit flying the RB-47 and on at least one occaision the Russians got close enough for the crew to fire back at intercepting Migs. A story which he admitted might have grown with the telling, was a co pilot who fired back was told later that he had disobayed orders. His reply was that he would rather live to face the charge than die obaying them.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 9, 2017)

B45 is the one I think you mean. Long straight wing and 4 engines


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 9, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> The _expected _speed depends on altitude and time the estimate is made. The _first production_ contract for the P-61 was placed in Sept of 1941. The P-61s engines were not fitted with water injection (and rated for WER) until the end of 1943 or the beginning of 1944.



The 349 mph speed figure for the A-20 is for altitude of 12050 ft (with ram), at 1400 HP per engine.
Without ram, the rated altitude was 10800 ft. The R-2800-5 was supposed to do 1500 HP at 14000 ft, no ram; R-2800-27 was with 1600 HP at 13500 ft.



> Photo of P-61 air inlets:
> <snip>
> out board 3 slots (right of the heavy divider) are for the oil cooler. the rest of the outer slots and all the inner opening are for the carb and intercoolers. There was an intercooler on each side of the engine nacelle or partially in the wing/nacelle junction.
> Two stage engines cannot be swapped in and out of designs as whim may take the design staff or purchasing agent. If you make the design tight like an F7F you may not have room for the intercoolers and ducting. Take them out of an existing design and you have empty wing/nacelle space (larger airframe than needed. Two stage engines can help considerably with performance at around 15-20,000ft and up. they hurt performance at lower altitudes, also note the 12 ft 2 in propeller. Without a doubt heavier than the 3 blade prop on the F7F.



Grumman was offering the turbo R-2600 owered XP-65 to the Army, so I'd say that a 2-stage R-2800 would've been an easier fit for it. The ram air inlet can be located above the nacelle.
The 1st two-stage R-2800 with Army dash number was the -3, supposed to make 1700 HP at 10000 ft, 1600 HP at 20000 ft, seems that Army never bough those actually. Props can be 3-bladed 13ft 2 in - 2 in shorter than on the F4U anyway




> P & W started work on the "C" series engine in 1940. the first flight of an F7F was in Nov of 1943, 17 months after the first flight of the P-61. At what point was P & W advanced enough in work on the "C" series to offer it as a viable engine to Grumman for the F7F project?



I'm not championing the C series engine, it is way too late for this. Once available, use them by all means.



> ...
> As to the second, perhaps night vision was impaired a bit but but then F4U and F6F night fighter pilots would have been in real trouble.



Don't know - peraps it was easier for their night vision to take a peek every 5 or 10 seconds, rather than to look at the screeen(s) during the better part of the mission?


----------



## Glider (Jan 9, 2017)

fastmongrel said:


> B45 is the one I think you mean. Long straight wing and 4 engines


Thats it, a slightly odd looking aircraft in my eyes


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jan 9, 2017)

Glider said:


> I was also thinking of the use of new AI sets. Mk IV sets were delayed before they could fly over Eurpe and later they were for a period, the only sets allowed over Europe.
> 
> There were many examples of the Canberra being used for PR missions over europe during the cold war and attempted intercepts by Mig 15s always failed.
> 
> ...



Did the RAF operate the long winged RB-57?


----------



## Glider (Jan 9, 2017)

No, they didn't need to as the developments of the Canberra were more than sufficient. The PR mk 9 had a larger wing, uprated engines and a max ceiling of over 60,000ft broadly similar to the RB-57. I have nover been able to find a definitive official max Operational height, but as the earlier versions reached 54,000ft over 60,000 for the final much modernised version sounds ablut right.

If anyone has better information I wold appreciate it


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 9, 2017)

No but there were 3 different PR versions built new (plus a number of conversions in/for other nations) with different engines and the last not only had engines about 50% more powerful than the first but 4 extra feet of wing span.


----------



## GregP (Jan 9, 2017)

We had maybe 2 - 3 volunteers at the museum who flew or worked on B-45s.

All these guys loved them, but most people recall their service aircraft fondly, I think.

The U.S. B-45 had many firsts, including being the first U.S. jet bomber to drop an operational nuke. Being the first operational jet bomber sort of leads to "firsts," though, whether you intend it that way or not.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jan 10, 2017)

English Electric nailed it with the Canberra. I think its the best example of the early mid 50's technology. Even the USAF couldn't argue it was the best plane in choosing to build it over domestic models.


----------



## Neil Stirling (Jan 10, 2017)

Canberra B.6

Neil.

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


----------



## Old Wizard (Jan 10, 2017)




----------



## parsifal (Jan 10, 2017)

was there a lot of difference between the brit and US models. ive read that local components went into the US version, but really was a carbon copy.

RAAF used Canberras in recon until the 1980s.


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Jan 10, 2017)

There was a joke going around when the Tornado was being developed that MRCA actually stood for "Must Refurbish Canberra Again".

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


----------



## GregP (Jan 10, 2017)

The main difference was the U.S.A. put a tandem-seat canopy on it. I think we also used our own engines. But it was pretty much the same aircraft until they grafted on the really LONG wings of the RF-57F. That one proved to be able to go WAY up there, but the big wings were a bit fragile and more than one broke a wing when landed hard.

Great airplane, in most versions, and I can't pinpoint a version that wasn't.

I have long loved the Hurricane, Spitfire, Typhoon (WWII version), Tempest, Sea Fury, Canberra, and was / AM a real fan of the EE Lightning (I could mention other British types and a few from other countries as well). I always wanted to see a Lightning fly in person, particularly the vertical takeoff after liftoff ... but alas, it never materialized over here. It would have had to have more range for the U.S.A. to acquire them.

I've never particularly been a fan of the looks of the newer canard jets, either the Typhoon or the Rafale, but they DO perform well. Can't debate that, anyway. Most in here know what I think of the F-35, but I seem to be in the minority. We get a new President soon, and I guess we'll see how he likes it when that comes around ... I can't affect it in any way and have no axe to grind.

It would be nice if the new jets looked better, like their ancestors, but stealth doesn't always LOOK good. Funny, the Russian jets LOOK good ... why can't ours? Ha! Maybe we should buy Sukhois ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2017)

Good discussions - the B-57, RB-57 were great birds, I believe they had shot gun starters,

Greg - I'd like to know your source that says a Canberra can out turn a MiG-15. Several Canberras were brought down by MiG-15s while flying ferret missions.

F-35? Performing brilliantly! Accolades from all operators, Italy has their own production line, and VMFA-121 just deployed to Iwakuni. In all the war games this aircraft has participated in, (which gets little press) it kicked ass. A recent article about dogfighting with this aircraft...

_"The whole concept of dogfighting is so misunderstood and taken out of context," Berke said in an interview with Business Insider. "We need to do a better job teaching the public how to assess a jet's capability in warfare."

"There is some idea that when we talk about dogfighting it's one airplane's ability to get another airplane's 6 and shoot it with a gun ... That hasn't happened with American planes in maybe 40 years," Berke said.

"Everybody that's flown a fighter in the last 25 years — we all watched 'Top Gun,'" said Berke, referring to the 1986 film in which US Navy pilots take on Russian-made MiGs.

*But planes don't fight like that anymore, and comparing different planes' statistics on paper and trying to calculate or simulate which plane can get behind the other is "kind of an arcane way of looking at it," Berke said.*
_
And it drops bombs pretty damn good as well!

F-35 Pilot: Here's What People Don't Understand About Dogfighting, and How the F-35 Excels At It | F-35 Lightning II


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 10, 2017)

parsifal said:


> was there a lot of difference between the brit and US models. ive read that local components went into the US version, but really was a carbon copy.
> 
> RAAF used Canberras in recon until the 1980s.



US versions used a licensed Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire because at the _time_ the licenses were taken out (production planned) the Sapphire offered more power than the currant Avon. Wright did a few major revisions to the design which caused production to slip by two years (but produced a better engine) and the Avon stayed pretty much off-shore. Probably to the detriment of US aviation. 
US tended to stick guns in the wing of the Canberra. Other differences ????


----------



## parsifal (Jan 10, 2017)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Good discussions - the B-57, RB-57 were great birds, I believe they had shot gun starters,
> 
> Greg - I'd like to know your source that says a Canberra can out turn a MiG-15. Several Canberras were brought down by MiG-15s while flying ferret missions.
> 
> ...


Way off topic, but I have heard President Trump is critical of the F-35 because of costs. I hope there isn't another round of unjustified criticism....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2017)

parsifal said:


> Way off topic, but I have heard President Trump is critical of the F-35 because of costs. I hope there isn't another round of unjustified criticism....



Yep - once again he's shooting his mouth off before learning all the facts. I hope his defense secretary nominee "Mad dog" Maddix slaps some sense into him.

Ok - back on topic. I don't see a Canberra out-turning a MiG-15


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 11, 2017)

FBJ,
I haven't flown it, but also have heard nothing complimentary either. I also can't help but understand a businessman looking at the military procurement system and going WTFO. And yes, it's had many many cost over runs.
Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2017)

BiffF15 said:


> FBJ,
> I haven't flown it, but also have heard nothing complimentary either. I also can't help but understand a businessman looking at the military procurement system and going WTFO. And yes, it's had many many cost over runs.
> Cheers,
> Biff


Agree Biff - here at the academy I've heard a lot of good things and few negatives, at least with the AF birds Agree on the cost over runs but as I said before, one has to look into where they came from. As you know there's always someone somewhere looking to add on another requirement or to solve a problem that doesn't really exist!  LMCO will never say "I don't think we could do that."


----------



## GregP (Jan 11, 2017)

Hi Joe,

Source for the Canberra stuff was general scuttlebutt from Vietnam. No specific information. I rode motorcycle trials in Arizona for 20 years with a friend who was aircrew in a B-57 and he had some tales and mission talk, but nothing I could confirm personally as I have ridden in a B-57 ... just his word on it. I believed him and still do, because he didn't have any tales of herosim. They were all tales of normal missions and trying to get accurate hits. He was aircrew, but not the pilot, so his concern for the bombing accuracy was his job. They took a flak hit once, according to Frank, and the B-57 handled it well. They didn't catch fire but DID start losing primary hydraulic pressure when they were on final approach. The popular tales he and a couple of buddies he used to bring along on rides told were that most of the B-57s that got lost were due to AAA flak, SAMs, or being surprised from behind while still heavily loaded. Once they were light, most former B-57 people were pretty sure the B-57 would out maneuver almost anything they saw attacking, IF they saw it in time to avoid the initial burst or the initial missile.

But, hey, perhaps loving their combat mount is nothing new . And just because they thought it was that way doesn't make it a fact. It just happens to be the only personal information I have ever heard on the Martin B-57 Canberra. If you get the impresion they liked the B-57, you're right. Some guys didn't because they hated the first 300 feet of climb after takeoff. In fact, the main gripe about it seemed to me to be the ejection seat. More than one former B-57 crew lamented in the bar after riding that you had to get from ground level to 300 feet in hieght AGL on takeoff before you could successfully eject if there was a big problem. So ... if you lost a vacuum cleaner on takeoff, you were going to ride it in if you couldn't stay airborne with one hair dryer running. The real issue was that if you tried to jettison all the load, it would take too long or the ordnance would come down on friendlies (your own base). If the B-57 was light, no problem. But light B-57s weren't very good at bombing anything. Pretty much the same today for bomb trucks. They have GREAT power reserves when light, but arent light very often when departing on a combat mission.

The museum's B-25J literally jumps into the air on takeoff, but we aren't carrying a bombload, either. We have an aluminum step ladder (to get up to the engines) and a wood box with likely engine spares and some tools in the bomb bay, and it doesn't mass much. So ... I'm not surprised it feels spritely on initial acceleration.

I can give some first-hand information on WWII warbirds in modern-day operations and maintenance (admittedly not as much as you can), but have zero first-hand 1970s combat aircraft information except for UH-1 Huey hellicopters. To this day I still don't like riding in a Huey. If it is a twin-engine Bell 212, fine. The original single-engine UH-1? I'll pass unless they can tell me specifically how that airframe was modified to cure mast bumping. Even then, I'd pass unless it was a dire situation. Nothing wrong with the airframe or engine. But the original system for tilting the rotor was flawed if abrupt aft-stick maneuvers were flown. That isn't normal in peacetime, but if you are ingressing way down low over jungle, abrupt pullups are required on a much more frequent basis. I'll pass on it, as I said.

So, wing loading says that a loaded B-57 should slightly turn better than a MiG-15, and a light B-57 really SHOULD. That doesn't translate into WILL turn better in real life, but I have never heard it wouldn't from any of the 5 - 6 former B-57 aircrew I used to hang with. If anyone knows of B-57 combat evaluation reports that are available ... hopefully online, I'd love to read them all.

Personally, I think that if anyone SAW a MiG-15 in Vietnam, they were simply mistaken. I'd surmise it was a MiG-17.

This makes me want to see the maneuvering envelope for a MiG-15 / 17 (which we could probably find somewhere) and the one for the B-57 (good luck finding that one!). I'm thinking that the MiG could turn, at best corner speed, at some 8 g or so and the B-57 was probably limited to maybe 5- 6 g, but the best corner speed of the B-57 probably means that at the best corner speed for the B-57, the MiG can't turn hard enough to follow with stalling. To know that, we'd need the "g-available" graph for both planes.

We MIGHT find it for the MiG-15/17 but I have serious dounts about for the B-57 because it wasn't a fighter ... it was an attack-bomber. We're much more likely to find something like angle of dive and loest altitude for successfull pullout charts than we to find g-available charts.

Any books on it that stand out? I've never run across one but, I have also never really searched for one either.

Hi Joe,

Regarding your quote from Berke, I believe he is missing the entire point, failing to SEE that he is missing it, and failing miserably in even trying to asses whether or not he even MIGHT be wrong.

I have ZERO doubt that the initial firing pass in a fight with the F-35 versus anything else will take place differently from "getting on the 6" and firing either a missile OR a gun. That will most likely never happen, and I don't want to claim it would, ever. I'll concede the F-35 is a great ambush predator ... no problemo.

But the F-35 carries only 2 AAMs. If, say two F-35s meet with, say, 4 less-stealthy but still capable foes, such as maybe Su-37s, they may well remain undetected through the initial firing pass. Once the F-35s fire their FIRST missile or gun, the stealth is out the window and everyone knows where everyone else is, or at LEAST has a good idea of it. Missiles don't come from out of nowhere ... somebody shot it at you.

Every other Russian foe flying a capable aircraft that is still in the air after the first pass has all his weapons, is mad as hell, and is faster and more maneuverable than the F-35 is. He also probably has more fuel to play with. So the F-35 can't run away because the enemy will close from behind rapidly and have a good view of any heat plume the F-35s are producing. No matter how I consider it, I see the F-35 getting in some good first licks and then being in a real problem situation. Once the enemies are in Mark 1 eyeball range, all the stealth in the world won't help a bit. At that point, if you can't dogfight, can't out turn, and can't outrun the opposition ... and also can't outlast them on fuel aboard at the time, you are up the proverbial creek without a paddle. You're gonna' be more unhappy than a vegetarian at a B-B-Q.

Since we arern't producing more F-35s than the enemy has fighters, we cannot afford a more or less 1 : 1 loss rate.

If we aren't in a an all-out war and are engaged in normal "hot zone" action, the ROE sill state we can't use BVR capability. We'll HAVE to close and identify, and get within eyeball range before we shoot. And that's right where the F-35 does NOT want to be.

I could be mistaken here, but we are NOT usually the ones with the superior numbers in most fights. Usually the enemy is more numerous. He has more missiles and more friends about. Once the 2 AMMs are expended, how will the F-35 survive the aftermath of the fight if there are healthy enemies about and in a less than happy state of mind, and if they know where the F-35s are or approximately so?

I have an open mind here and will galdly listen if there is a plan for this situation that will work most of the time. I just haven't been able to come up with one myself, other than to be flying something else other than the F-35, or to have something else escorting the F-35 to cover the withdrawl once empty of AAMs.

Perhaps this isn't a good place to dicsuss it. If not, I can come back in and just erase this. No real issue, just wondering what happens when you get within visual range and are out of missiles and stealth doesn't really help. That's when you need a good airframe to live. Outside of within visual range, I like the F-35 just fine, and am looking for a reason to like it overall, including within visual range.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 11, 2017)

It sounds like the UH-1 was flawed in that its specifications and design did not well reflect how it would be used in service. I didn't work for Bell, but for a somewhat larger helicopter company. 

A tale: my manager when I worked at Lycoming needed to test to see how the T-53 ran with bullet holes. He brought in his trusty M1911 Colt, clamped it in a vise, and had the techs rig it so it could be fired from the test cell's control room. The engine was shot through a couple of places -- the test was done before I started there, but the engine kept running even after some shots through the compressor and combustor housing. Bendix added a "get home" feature to the fuel control, which was not much more than a valve.

The guards were very much unamused when they had him open his briefcase on the way out....he had some 'splaining to do.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 11, 2017)

I'm not too sure the UH-1 was flawed as much as nobody ever expected a helicopter pilot to be cruising along, right above the treetops, and suddenly pull the cyclic stick all the way back. He's a video on mast bumping:


View: https://youtu.be/MNo3VgSe86Y

Would sort of ruin the afternoon if you were at 110 knots and 150 feet, unless you landed in some really soft and overgrown trees and were luckier than a cat with all his nine lives still unspent.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 11, 2017)

GregP said:


> I'm not too sure the UH-1 was flawed as much as nobody ever expected a helicopter pilot to be cruising along, right above the treetops, and suddenly pull the cyclic stick all the way back. He's a video on mast bumping:
> 
> 
> View: https://youtu.be/MNo3VgSe86Y
> ...




I suspect that the UTTAS spec included cruising along just above the treetops and pulling the cyclic hard up. Usually, specs are written based on what people have done before, and got to do all sorts of things nobody had done before. I'm sure that a lot of pilots and aircrew would have been happy to avoid that kind of pioneering.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 11, 2017)

Could be they knew that scenario was probable, and just didn't machine the hole in the main rotor hub big enough to handle the deflections experienced under actual air loads when the helicopter was heavily loaded.

Either way, I knew two guys at Ellsworth AFB in the mid-1970s who had investigated Vietnam crash sites and discovered mast bumping to be the primary cause of the accident. One of them said there were more incidents of it earlier in the conflict, but they didn't know what had happened. He discovered it almost by accident when he revovered the main rotor hub that still had the top of the main shaft attached. The tube was cleanly broken off, and the impact marks on the main shaft tube matched the impact marks on the hub. When you moved them just right, the scratches and dents lined up perfectly.

That led him to investigate whether or not that could happen in-flight while still firmly on the ground. When it snapped, everyone ducked for cover and nobody was hurt. Well, that was the story ... I was't there for it. But the video above seems to indicate it happened, and it's NOT the first time it has come up. After that, knowledge of the possibility became more known and people started being quite careful with Huey cyclics sticks. I believe the DOD and Bell kept it as quiet as they could, but newer chopppers didn't even have that possibility. The problem was what to do with the thousands of Hueys in active service. I was not a chopper pilot, but I believe they left them in service and did immediate remedial training on what NOT to do in-flight. Altogether NOT a great solution, as far as I'm concerned. But it was probably the most expedient one, and these WAS a war on. Sorry, a Police Action was in progress.

I kinda' like fixed-wing aircraft, myself. But, if I had the opportunity to learn to fly a heli, I might. I'd have somewhat of a leg up, because I can fly an RC heli without gyros. Not great, but the knowledge of what happens is there ... at least in the fingers and brain. Ain't gonna' happen most likely.

I miss nickel Heineken beer night at the club. Who knew it was expensive back home? We sure didn't!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 12, 2017)

GregP said:


> Hi Joe,
> 
> Source for the Canberra stuff was general scuttlebutt from Vietnam. No specific information.
> 
> Personally, I think that if anyone SAW a MiG-15 in Vietnam, they were simply mistaken. I'd surmise it was a MiG-17.



Hi Greg;

Cutting to the chase, not to bash your source but I think this was a case of as you put it "general scuttlebutt." There were no single seat MiG-15s used by the VPAF during the Vietnam War. The VPAF did operate the MiG-15UTI as a trainer but I have serious doubts that if these aircraft were being operated during the major parts of the war, and if they were they were kept well out of harms way.



GregP said:


> Hi Joe,
> 
> Regarding your quote from Berke, I believe he is missing the entire point, failing to SEE that he is missing it, and failing miserably in even trying to asses whether or not he even MIGHT be wrong.
> 
> I have ZERO doubt that the initial firing pass in a fight with the F-35 versus anything else will take place differently from "getting on the 6" and firing either a missile OR a gun. That will most likely never happen, and I don't want to claim it would, ever. I'll concede the F-35 is a great ambush predator ... no problemo.



Greg - I think you're missing the point. First the F-35 IS NOT a dedicated air to air fighter, but if used in that role it does not necessarily need to get on an enemy's 6 - it could stand off and fire from miles out and even interface with other aircraft in the vicinity and use their weapons. It could also compute a mission strategy by interfacing with other aircraft and even ground and naval weapons systems (like a mini AWACS) and either jam or standoff in defense.


GregP said:


> But the F-35 carries only 2 AAMs.



Not really true, you have to be specific to the version and load out required for the mission:









GregP said:


> If, say two F-35s meet with, say, 4 less-stealthy but still capable foes, such as maybe Su-37s, they may well remain undetected through the initial firing pass. *Once the F-35s fire their FIRST missile or gun, the stealth is out the window and everyone knows where everyone else is, or at LEAST has a good idea of it.* Missiles don't come from out of nowhere ... somebody shot it at you.



Again not necessarily true especially BVR and as I've said in the past - if you're that close that you're using a gun 100 million worth of technology was pissed away.


GregP said:


> Every other Russian foe flying a capable aircraft that is still in the air after the first pass has all his weapons, is mad as hell, and is faster and more maneuverable than the F-35 is. He also probably has more fuel to play with. So the F-35 can't run away because the enemy will close from behind rapidly and have a good view of any heat plume the F-35s are producing. No matter how I consider it, I see the F-35 getting in some good first licks and then being in a real problem situation. Once the enemies are in Mark 1 eyeball range, all the stealth in the world won't help a bit. At that point, if you can't dogfight, can't out turn, and can't outrun the opposition ... and also can't outlast them on fuel aboard at the time, you are up the proverbial creek without a paddle. You're gonna' be more unhappy than a vegetarian at a B-B-Q.



Missing the point Greg - the point is not to get VR, destroy your enemy BVR and either continue to drop your bombs or get out of Dodge.


GregP said:


> Since we arern't producing more F-35s than the enemy has fighters, we cannot afford a more or less 1 : 1 loss rate.



*"As of April 2010 the United States intends to buy a total of 2,443."* From a congressional report written in 2010.

So how many enemy aircraft are we talking about???



GregP said:


> If we aren't in a an all-out war and are engaged in normal "hot zone" action, the ROE sill state we can't use BVR capability. We'll HAVE to close and identify, and get within eyeball range before we shoot. And that's right where the F-35 does NOT want to be.


Agree to a point and that would be the result of the politicians pissing away this aircraft's capability



GregP said:


> I could be mistaken here, but we are NOT usually the ones with the superior numbers in most fights. Usually the enemy is more numerous. He has more missiles and more friends about. Once the 2 AMMs are expended, how will the F-35 survive the aftermath of the fight if there are healthy enemies about and in a less than happy state of mind, and if they know where the F-35s are or approximately so?



During the last shooting conflicts we (along with our allies)* had *the superior numbers in most cases. I think during GW1 there was just one fight at VR and that MiG-29 was driven into the ground.



GregP said:


> I have an open mind here and will galdly listen if there is a plan for this situation that will work most of the time. I just haven't been able to come up with one myself, other than to be flying something else other than the F-35, or to have something else escorting the F-35 to cover the withdrawl once empty of AAMs.



Greg, I suggest you do more research into this aircraft, it's systems and capabilities and also look into what all three versions bring to the table.


GregP said:


> Perhaps this isn't a good place to dicsuss it. If not, I can come back in and just erase this. No real issue,


No need for that but we did hijack this tread. We could discuss this more in the F-35 thread



GregP said:


> just wondering what happens when you get within visual range and are out of missiles and stealth doesn't really help. That's when you need a good airframe to live. Outside of within visual range, I like the F-35 just fine, and am looking for a reason to like it overall, including within visual range.



The F-35A (and probably the F-35C) have the maneuverability of an F/A-18C. Despite some maneuvering limitations (which were exaggerated by the press and others) this aircraft is still quite capable, but then again there should be no reason why you allow this aircraft to go into a VR fight with another 4th or 5th generation aircraft - but with that said I know folks are being trained to fight in the worse "what if" scenario.

BTW, the 200th F-35 was delivered recently - it was the second one going to Japan.

Here's a dated article about the F-35 "dogfighting" A-4s -

F-35 pilot explains how he dominated dogfights against multiple A-4 aggressors. Every time.

Oh - and it could carry nukes...

The F-35 may carry one of the US's most polarizing nuclear weapons sooner than expected

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


----------



## GregP (Jan 12, 2017)

Thanks Joe,

I believe all the MiGs in Vietnam that we saw in combat thath looked like the MiG-15 were MiG-17s, as you say.

First, thanks for the links above. I'll read them.

I knew the F-35 could carry more missiles, but it loses a lot of stealth when it does so. I was assuming that if the U.S. side KNOWS about enemy planes coming, they would load up with more. I also figured if they did not know about an incoming bunch of enemy planes, the'd load for stealth. So I was assuming a more or less surprise encounter with a superior number of enemy aircraft. I'd think surprise encounters would be loaded with 2 missiles.

If the F-35 can maneuver with an F-18, that helps a lot. Many reports I reads imply otherwise, but that could just be the way they are written / worded. I doubt seriously that quantitative data on the real performance will be public knowledge for some time, but having a fighter pilot familiar with both say the maneuverability is about the same would definitely help clear up the ambiguous wording of the criticism reports.

When I try to read up on the F-35 I can usually find only two sides: One side says it does the job better than anything else has to date. That side comes from Lockheed-Martin / USAF top brass. The other side says it is abysmal as a fighter. That side is, for want of better words, "the critics." I'm finding it hard to locate any reports that even try to offer an objective viewpoint somehwere between the extremes.

The truth is usually somewhere in the middle of wildly opposing arguments, and I am assuming that in this case. That is, it has good points and bad points. My trouble comes from deciding if "big money" is causing the top brass and the pilot reports to be shaded positive (toe the line or you're fired) or if the nay-sayers really aren't up to speed.

I'm leaning toward a positive view of the F-35 since other countries are joining the fray and buying. When the F-35 gets into service in some numbers, I doubt if even "big money" will be able to stifle the criticism if it doesn't perform. I can't see Australia or Italy praising it if they don't actually feel thath way. So we're at a point where it will have to put up or shut up, and I'm pulling for it to succeed while still wondering if it will do so.

The best outcome is success, by long shot. Since the above has zero to do with the P-61 or Lend-Lease Mosquito, that's all she wrote on that subject from me.

I cannot see how the U.S.A. would have adopted the Mosquito in WWII. The P-61 was in development and on order, ir performed well, had tricycle gear for more friendly ground handling, was WAY safer at slow speeds, especially with an engine out, and it was a metal airplane, not wood. Given the attitudes at the time, I cannot see how we would have abandoned the P-61 for a foregin aircraft made of wood.

Those views are shared by virtually all the WWII veteran pilots I have spoken with about the Mosquito, and that is more than a few. I haven't talked with any of the Pacific pilots about it, but have asked maybe 50% of the former ETO pilots in conversations about Spitfires and Mosquitoes. To a man, they all loved the Spitifire, but most who flew P-51s would not have traded. To date, none wanted Mosquitoes except for the guys who flew the very early P-38F models that still had issues with the Allisons. Once they got to the P-38G and later, the guys would stick with the US planes. Almost all were fond of their British counterparts and have almost nothing negative to say about anythind British ... with the glaring exception of the shortage of COLD beer.

Nobody can argue that the Mosquito wasn't a really good performer. It was, in spades. But it wasn't going to be adopted on a large scale by the USAAF no matter what. Unless I am forgetting something (certainly possible), the first foreign plane we DID adopt in the post-WWI era was the B-57 Canberra and the next one was the Harrier.

Well, technically, I suppose you COULD make a case that the P-51 was a foreign aircraft, but it was also designed and built here, and came into greatness using the Merlin that rather obviously is a big pat on the back for Rolls-Royce.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 12, 2017)

Greg,

I think this report is pretty fair. It's by a Norwegian former F-16 driver who now flies the F-35. It comes across as very balanced, noting the F-35's strong points and some of its less stellar aspects. 

“Here’s what I’ve learned so far dogfighting in the F-35”: a JSF pilot’s first-hand account

From a manoeuvre perspective, the key thing for me is that the F-35 can get into a firing solution faster than the F-16 which means the F-35 can shoot while the F-16 is still bringing the nose around...and this despite the fact that the F-16 has a higher overall g-rating. I think that says something about how different the F-35 is compared to current generation combat aircraft.

Cheers,
Mark

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 12, 2017)

Since it can take well over a year to get a plane into production and 6 months to a year to get production up to high numbers, you cannot cancel program "A" in say, the middle of 1943, and expect to get a usable number ( 1/2 dozen service squadrons or so) of of aircraft "B" out of the same or different factory by the middle of 1944. Date of "fly-off" of date of decision has to be well in advance of service use.
Trying to make "metal" Mosquito would require designing a whole new structure while just copying the shape of the Mosquito. Granted some things like landing gear and control systems and engine installations can be carried over with minimum modification. 
If the US had wanted to use Mosquitos,it would have had to make the decision in late 1942 or _very_ early 1943 in order to get planes into service in 1944. 
According to AHT the Mosquito vs P-61 fly-off was July 5th 1944 and regardless of wither the results were biased or "cooked" or what ever this is way too late to try to change over. Just about 200 P-61s have already been built and detachments (not full squadrons?) are flying in NW Europe, New Guinea, the Solomons and Saipan. Around another 450 P-61s are built between July of 1944 and July of 1945. 
The Mosquito may very well have been better, especially the MK 30, but it was too late.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 12, 2017)

Hi Buffnut,

I can accept that. I have not yet read Joe's links above, but my first thought was , "If our new wonder plane can't beat an old A-4, we should scrap it post haste!" Who are we going against? Singapore? Weren't they the last people flying A-4s? But I am going to read the links and I have decided that if the F-35 performs badly in foreign service, we'll hear about it pretty quickly. I am not "in the know" about it's mission-capable rate at this time, but am relatively sure that if it doesn't come in somewhere close to where it should, foreign countries won't just sit around and not say anything. They'll be complaining and it won't be a secret.

So if we ARE getting a whitewash, we'll know soon enough. If we aren't, then the nay-saying complainers are just talking the loudest. Complainers tends to DO that. I have never been severely anti-F-35. I have always been in the camp where I hear great things and very bad things, and what I WANT to hear is the real story without the hard performance numbers that we all want to know .. but realize nobody will tell us.

To me, the F-35 proponents could EASILY shut the complainers up by addressing each and every point, one-for-one, in the more technical complaints.

I can recall in the case of the F-15, they did many one vs. one dogfights, then many two vs. one dogfights where one F-15 was pitted against two older jets, then some many vs. one dogfights, followed by more aggressors vs. two F-15s and, finally many several aggressors vs several F-15s where the aggressors always outnumbered the F-15s. If that development series is still considered sound, why not repeat the test with the F-35? You could silence the complainers easiy. I'm pretty sure we have more F-35s delivered at this point than F-15s when we ran the F-15 dogfight tests, so we SHOULD be able to support it.

In the end, Donald Trump has said in the past he'll take care of F-35. When he gets into office, if he reads the REAL reports and thinks the F-35 is sound, he'll likely let it stay in production. If he can't find a compelling reason to stay with the F-35, then he'll act on that information. As a businessman, I doubt if he has any better data than we do in here. Once he is in office, he should be able to get straight answers. A lot of doubts will be laid aside when we see what shakes out, especially if he let's the F-35 stay in production. That should be a clear sign as to what the real story is because he is among the doubters, not the complainers. I doubt if we'll hear any real data either way. But staying with the F-35 would almost surely mean it is much better than the press would have us all believe, don't you think?


----------



## GregP (Jan 12, 2017)

If we were to look at the Mosquito and the P-61 today, knowing everything we kown today, and using the attitudes of today, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the Mosquito, and I was never saying otherwise. It's just that I can't see the acceptance of the Mosquito at teh time when the P-61 was being developed. No real other claims of any sort.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 12, 2017)

Even the attitudes of the time were not cast in stone. 
The US did adopt the Hispano cannon, We did adopt the 20mm Oerlikon gun, the 40mm Bofors gun. We licensed the 60mm and 81 mm Bradt mortars. 
We adopted the British 4.5in artillery caliber (this one was a mistake).




4.5 in gun barrel in 155mm howitzer carriage. 
We adopted the 57mm AT Gun. The US keeping about 10,000 of the 15,000 produced in the US. 
US ELCO motor torpedo boats (at least the early ones) were either copies of the Scott-Paine or modified versions. Later ones got further away from their roots. 
The warships known as Destroyer Escorts were built for the British in US yards under lend lease (first order in the summer of 1941) but with the coming of war to the US 44 of the first 50 were taken over by the US and after that the British got one out of every Five built. 

The US would NOT build stuff they couldn't see themselves using, even under lend lease. (No British tanks built in the US) We had gotten burned too badly during WW I to go that route again.
But if a foreign design was judged to work as well or better than a US design it got adopted. Again the US had learned from WW I when the 3inch field gun of 1916 was often referred to as the _crime of 1916. _and US troops had to use French 75s or British 18lbs with barrel liners sized for French 75mm ammunition. 

The Mosquito had not proved itself in combat at the time production decisions had to be made.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 12, 2017)

I was thinking that we'd adopt a foreign design at the time in the case that no suitable U.S. design ws available that would do the job in an acceptable fashion. We used Oerlikons for a LONG time, didn't we?

I shot several some years back when I was living in Arizona. Impressive, but I have no frame of reference from using other makes of 37 mm cannon, so "impressive" doesn't really mean much except it was the biggest gun I had ever shot up to that point. After that, I managed to shoot a 75 mm howitzer, and THAT became "impressive." The muzzle blast was a definite attention-getter. If you think shooting a 50-cal is expensive, don't even THINK about a 75! Wish I could have kept the shell, but it was kept by the owner.

Nothing remotely near that on the horizon now as I am not hanging around with that crowd anymore since I left Arizona. They're still there having fun, I'm sure, and I'm having fun restoring old warbirds that those guys only dream about. The other guy's grass is always greener, isn't it?


----------



## wuzak (Jan 12, 2017)

GregP said:


> I was thinking that we'd adopt a foreign design at the time in the case that no suitable U.S. design was available that would do the job in an acceptable fashion.



The USAAF did buy over 100 Mosquitoes, used as weather reconnaissance aircraft, photo reconnaissance aircraft, pathfinders, target markers, and by the OSS for communicating with agents.

Some USAAF squadrons also PR Spitfires. Some may have given up Lightnings to do so.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 13, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> The Mosquito may very well have been better, especially the MK 30, but it was too late.



Yep, I agree with your post SR, for the USA to order Mossies as combat aircraft required several things to be overcome; the Mossie would have required production elsewhere, perhaps in the USA itself; the Brits didn't have enough capacity to fulfil all the commands and units that wanted it from early on. Initially production in Canada was set up because of this and it was agreed by de Havilland that if the USA wanted Mosquitoes, certainly more than they eventually acquired, particularly if they wanted combat capable armed ones, they'd have to be built in Canada. The time thing kind of stymies the Mossie in USAAF service because of the P-61.

The USA would have to create a niche for it within its arsenal, since it wouldn't be necessary for it as a night fighter because it had the P-61. The USAAF used Beaufighters as night fighters in Italy and these were eventually replaced by P-61s, although there was the thought they might have been replaced by Mosquitoes at the time. Certainly the US Navy saw the Mossie as a very good night fighter and wanted them to defend its shore bases. Hap Arnold saw the value of the Mossie, but for various reasons, notably lack of a suitable role, only recon ones were operated. He did stipulate that he thought the Mossie was a better recon platform than the P-38.


----------



## GregP (Jan 13, 2017)

Wayne, we've been over this before, several times. I am completely aware of USAAF Mosquito use. It's a drop in the bucket comapred with 100,000 fighters of domestic manufacture. Did we use some? Yes.

Let's put some numbers to it.

Aircraft in U.S. service claimed 25,486.5 aerial vicrtories in WWII.

U.S. flown Spitfires claimed 379 of them, or 1.49%. All but 15 of those were in the MTO, where we used a few Spitfires.

U.S. flown Mosquitoes claimed 1 aerial victory of all these, for 0.0039%. Means ZERO to the aerial victory war.

They were so important, both together along with Beaufighters, that I can't even FIND the number of missions they flew.

Nothing says they weren't good ariplanes or that we wouldn't use what was expedient. It merely says they didn't contribute much to the overall outcome of the U.S. wartime effort. The Spitfires did well, I'm sure, and the Mosquito surely few some very useful and good recon missions. But we could have performed ALL those mission without any British aircraft and the outcome would have been the same. It does NOT mean we couldn't have used, say, 10,000 Spitfires at all. It means we DIDN'T use many.

That was no doubt due to the British needing as many of their own Spitfire and Mosquito aircraft as they could get. Had we set up an alternate production line, we could have built our own versions. With attitudes of the day, it was NEVER going happen and it didn't. Let it go; it never happened.

The ONLY reason we set up a production line for Merlins was to provide the British with them. Ford declined. Later, when we elected to use the Mustang, we increased production capacity to meet our own needs while still keeping up with British needs. When the war was over, Merlin production (as well as Allison production, and P&W, Wright, etc.) ramped down almost immediately after existing contracts, in place when the war was won, were completed.

None of this is derrogatory to anything British at all. They did and DO design very good weapons and other things, including British invasion music of the 1960s and some very cool motorcycles and cars.

What it means in reality is that the attitudes in the 1940s U. S. A. meant we would almost certainly rely on domestic designs and production unless there was a driving need to do otherwise. The British did exactly the same. It so happens a war broke out and they needed some foreign equipment to effectively continue or they would never have bought U. S. weapons. After the war, if I am not mistaken, the first U.S. aircraft they bought was the F-4 Phantom, and their version had Rolls-Royce Spey engines, making it the slowest Phantom in the sky since the F-4 airframe was designed around the J-79's profile, and the change to accommodate the Spey altered the aerodynamics of it. It has nothing much to do with whether they or we made better weapons. It just makes good common sense to rely on domestic industry for critical items of armament unless there is a real need to do otherwise.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 13, 2017)

Greg, the initial contract for US built Merlins, agreed between the UK and the US, was that 1/3 of production would go to US airframes.

The initial order was 9,000 - 6,000 for the RAF and 3,000 for the USAAF. They were certainly not relying on domestic designs there - perhaps they recognised that, at that stage at least, the Merlin was superior to the V-1710.

Yes, go ahead and quote kill statistics, since almost all of the Mosquitoes supplied to the US were unarmed reconnaissance types. Specifically the USAAF requested Mosquito PR.XVIs. But the British wanted all that they could build, so they had de Havilland modify B.XXs (Canadian built B.IV) to a PR aircraft, and these were initially supplied to the US as F-8s. The USAAF was not happy, and eventually got their way and received PR.XVIs (in 1944).

Note that this order was made at or after mid 1943, when the PR.XVI went into production. At this stage the Lockheed F-4 and come and gone and the F-5 was in production along side its P-38G/J fighter brother.

USAAF PR Mossies regularly flew ahead of 8th AF bomber formations to determine weather conditions over Europe.

One of the USAAF's reconnaissance squadrons, the 14th, gave up its Lockheed F-5s in favour of Spitfire PR.XIs.



> The 14th flew combat reconnaissance missions in the European Theater of Operations from 12 August 1943 until 25 April 1945. The squadron's Spitfires flew the majority of the target photography missions (including the first Spitfire reconnaissance mission over Berlin in March 1944), while the other squadrons of the 7th, equipped with Lightnings, concentrated on photographic mapping. Squadron deep penetration missions included reconnaissance of oil refineries to determine when repairs had been performed that could justify returning them to Eighth Air Force's target list.



14th Fighter Squadron - Wikipedia

That sounds pretty important to me. It would also suggest a contribution greater than their number.

Again, they had aircraft that could do the missions. They didn't choose them out of necessity. They chose them because they were the best tool for the job.

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


----------



## GregP (Jan 13, 2017)

The missions would have been flown even without the Mosquito pathfinders. They did a good service, to be sure, but there was nothing essential about it. One plane or even a few tens of planes in any mission are not essential, no matter what nation built them, us, the British, the Germans, Russians, or Japanese, French, etc.

In plain old fact, we evaluated the Mosquito and the Spitfire, and we like what we saw. Nothing to dislike there at all. Great machines, both. So was the Beaufighter, for it's intended task. Nothing to dislike.

They were not an integral part of anything we did, despite any claims to the contrary. They were evaluation machines that did quite well in their evals. Many, if not all the people who flew them liked them, a lot. I never said otherwise and don't mean to even imply it. There was and IS nothing to dislike about the British aircraft of WWII, including the Lancaster, which I consider to be the best bomber of the ETO.

But I seriously doubt if Avro could have built enough for us to use or they would have built more for Britain. Ditto the Mossie and the Spit. They needed them more than we did, but we DID want an eval, and I'm pretty sure it helped us to trim some weight on future projects. I have a feeling the F-86 directly benefitted from the British evals as well as from any swept-wing data we got. Most people tend to forget that we were already experimenting with swept wings on our own, but its a fact.

To reiterate, the British aircraft we used were for evaluation purposes, and they worked quite well, but were never necessary for our war effort. Not having them would have changed nothing at all.

The British, on the other hand, seemed to need some of our planes for war. Their first-line fighters were needed for defending Great Britian. They needed some of ours for other duties like in the Pacific, some Wildcats for the RN, and a few others. They might or might NOT have been essential, but those other duties needed to get done somehow. If they had not had our planes, then the defenders would have been fewer.

I have no idea of whether or not it might have changed anything, and certainly don't claim so. But I believe our planes were more useful to the British than British planes were to us. That is not nationalistic in the least. We weren't getting bombed or attached, except for the U-boat issue. That makes a huge difference right there. Uninterrupted production helps tremendously in wartime. In point of fact, food shipments to the British were probably more important than aircraft shipments were, but I bet they know much better than I do.

To this day, I don't think many Brits like Spam!


----------



## wuzak (Jan 13, 2017)

Greg, I think you are being disingenuous when you say the USAAF _evaluated_ Spitfires and Mosquitoes in the PR role.

OK, it may have only been one squadron of PR Spitfires, but you don't replace an entire squadron of the best PR aircraft your country ever made with one from another country and operate them on some of the most important PR missions for 2 years to evaluate an aircraft.

That there is recognising that the tool you didn't make is a better tool for the job and using it.


And you certainly don't go ordering 100+ of a specific version of an aircraft and then get pissed because you didn't get the one you wanted in order to evaluate the aircraft. You maybe need a couple for that.

The Spitfire and Mosquito were _operational_ in the USAAF and doing some quite important roles. Sure, the US had other aircraft that could have done those jobs, but the USAAF _evaluated_ their options and then they _chose_ the Spitfire and Mosquito.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 13, 2017)

GregP said:


> The British, on the other hand, seemed to need some of our planes for war. Their first-line fighters were needed for defending Great Britian. They needed some of ours for other duties like in the Pacific, some Wildcats for the RN, and a few others. They might or might NOT have been essential, but those other duties needed to get done somehow. If they had not had our planes, then the defenders would have been fewer.



Yes, the British took a lot of aircraft from the US. It was simply a matter of production requirement - the RAF and FAA needed aircraft, and they took just about anything, no matter how crap, because they were desperate.

And these purchase by the British, and the French, were vital to the US aviation industry, to keep production going. Otherwise there may not have been the hundred thousand fighters built.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 13, 2017)

"After the war, if I am not mistaken, the first U.S. aircraft they bought was the F-4 Phantom, and their version had Rolls-Royce Spey engines, making it the slowest Phantom in the sky since the F-4 airframe was designed around the J-79's profile, and the change to accommodate the Spey altered the aerodynamics of it." 

The British did operate over 400 Sabre jets during the 50s for few years. They were Canadian built and paid for with US funds under the MDAP program.
The use of the Spey in the Phantom was a rather reasoned choice. They traded top speed (rarely used) for a number of other attributes.

From Wiki so:
"The British versions of the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II F-4K (designated Phantom FG.Mk.1) replaced the 16,000 lb wet thrust J79 turbojets with a pair of 12,250 lb thrust dry and 20,515 lb thrust with afterburning RB.168-15R Spey 201 turbofans. These provided extra thrust for operation from smaller British aircraft carriers, and provided additional bleed air for the boundary layer control system for slower landing speeds. The air intake area was increased by twenty percent, while the aft fuselage under the engines had to be redesigned. Compared to the original turbojets, the afterburning turbofans produced a ten and fifteen percent improvement in combat radius and ferry range, respectively, and improved take-off, initial climb, and acceleration, but at the cost of a reduction in top speed"

Yes the listed thrust for the J79 is wrong (should be 17,800-17,900lbs). 
A Phantom that does Mach 2.2 isn't much good to the Royal Navy if it won't operate off their carriers. Difference is carriers was such that British Phantoms had longer nose wheel legs for higher angle of attack in catapult launches, larger leading edge flaps were fitted, anhedral of the stabilator was changed. leading edge slats were installed on the stabilator, drooping ailerons were fitted and last, the nose radar cone and dish could be swung 90 degrees to the side to shorten the length to 54 ft to fit the British carrier elevators (lifts).

Economic and political considerations dictated that a bit over 40% of the plane (and equipment) be produced in the United Kingdom. (Using British pounds to provide employment for American workers wasn't very popular). As with many projects time changed initial requirements substantially. The British carrier fleet shrunk much faster than anticipated and the cost of converting carriers to handle even the modified F4s was much higher than anticipated. RAF wound up with the Phantoms and with their longer concrete runways didn't need the the modifications of the FG,MK. 1 and 2. That doesn't mean the mods or the engine switch was wrong _when it was done. _


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 13, 2017)

GregP said:


> Hi Buffnut,
> 
> I can accept that. I have not yet read Joe's links above, but my first thought was , "If our new wonder plane can't beat an old A-4, we should scrap it post haste!" Who are we going against? Singapore? Weren't they the last people flying A-4s?



Greg - the old saying, "never judge a book by it's cover?" Read the article!!!


GregP said:


> But I am going to read the links and I have decided that if the F-35 performs badly in foreign service, we'll hear about it pretty quickly. I am not "in the know" about it's mission-capable rate at this time, but am relatively sure that if it doesn't come in somewhere close to where it should, foreign countries won't just sit around and not say anything. They'll be complaining and it won't be a secret.


The USAF MC/ FMC rates have been published on non-classified sources, the last time I looked they were running below requirement but not by much. Many of the USAF F-35s are being operated by training squadrons so lower MC rates are to be expected. Sometimes I get to see full service MC rates, the next time I see this I'll post.


GregP said:


> So if we ARE getting a whitewash, we'll know soon enough. If we aren't, then the nay-saying complainers are just talking the loudest. Complainers tends to DO that. I have never been severely anti-F-35. I have always been in the camp where I hear great things and very bad things, and what I WANT to hear is the real story without the hard performance numbers that we all want to know .. but realize nobody will tell us.


 Well Greg, you have to analyze where your getting your information from and UNDERSTAND how this aircraft works. Pierre Spey's condemnation of this aircraft was a major driver of the bad press (besides the cost) 


GregP said:


> To me, the F-35 proponents could EASILY shut the complainers up by addressing each and every point, one-for-one, in the more technical complaints.


I believe that's been happening and then some


GregP said:


> I can recall in the case of the F-15, they did many one vs. one dogfights, then many two vs. one dogfights where one F-15 was pitted against two older jets, then some many vs. one dogfights, followed by more aggressors vs. two F-15s and, finally many several aggressors vs several F-15s where the aggressors always outnumbered the F-15s. If that development series is still considered sound, why not repeat the test with the F-35? You could silence the complainers easiy. I'm pretty sure we have more F-35s delivered at this point than F-15s when we ran the F-15 dogfight tests, so we SHOULD be able to support it.


"Dogfight, dogfight, dogfight"! Greg, this aircraft is not, and again I'll repeat "IS NOT" a primary air-to-air fighter (at least in the US mission role) Please understand that!!!!


GregP said:


> In the end, Donald Trump has said in the past he'll take care of F-35. When he gets into office, if he reads the REAL reports and thinks the F-35 is sound, he'll likely let it stay in production. If he can't find a compelling reason to stay with the F-35, then he'll act on that information. As a businessman, I doubt if he has any better data than we do in here. Once he is in office, he should be able to get straight answers. A lot of doubts will be laid aside when we see what shakes out, especially if he let's the F-35 stay in production. That should be a clear sign as to what the real story is because he is among the doubters, not the complainers. I doubt if we'll hear any real data either way. But staying with the F-35 would almost surely mean it is much better than the press would have us all believe, don't you think?



I think Trump will come around when he realizes what this brings to the table. I also think he'll brow beat LMCO in to further cost reductions.

Speaking of Trump...

Breaking Defense

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 13, 2017)

Hi Joe,

I'm hoping you are right and have been all along. It would be VERY nice to have the F-35 come out as a winner, and then go back an analyze why it got so much bad press. The more I read the better I like it. Perhaps Pierre Sprey was out in left field after all. I'm still not very happy about the cost, and I would like very much to have bought more F-22s before eliminating the assembly line. But the cost of something like the Rafale or Typhoon ain't all that much cheaper, is it?

I WILL read your links this coming weekend. I'm in the middle of preparing to teach a Friday-Saturday class and just won't have time until then.

Once thing has me puzzled. I took a quick look at the Norwegian pilot's report and he said something that made me wonder.

He said that while the F-35 has a lower g-rating, he could get the nose around quicker than in the F-16. That makes me wonder because the only way that makes sense is if the F-35 is going slower than the F-16's g-envelope at 7+g. By way of explanation, arbitrarily say the F-16 can take 8 g and the F-35 can take 7 g (I'm not claiming that). Then the only way the F-35 SHOULD be able to turn inside of the F-16 is if it is moving slower than the F-16s required airspeed to sustain more than 7 g's, right?

I was not surprised to hear the F-35 could pedal-turn better since it has two rudders versus the F-16's one rudder. More rudder area should equal better yaw capability, all else being equal.

Thanks for the detailed answers. I'm more in your camp now than in the doubter camp, and hoping to be out of the doubter camp entirely sometime soon. Glad to hear it is approaching good mission-capable rates. Maybe the're getting the software straight. From what I hear the biggest current issue was the maintenance software. The press made these guys sound like Microsoft ... release it and let the customer base debug it! Ha! I have no way to counter-check the article as I have no more "in" to the F-35 after leaving Parker Aerospace.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ChrisMcD (Jan 13, 2017)

> ="GregP, After the war, if I am not mistaken, the first U.S. aircraft they bought was the F-4 Phantom, and their version had Rolls-Royce Spey engines, making it the slowest Phantom in the sky since the F-4 airframe was designed around the J-79's profile, and the change to accommodate the Spey altered the aerodynamics of it.



There is a lovely fighter jocks comment.

"It's the same with every bitch. Once they are Spayed they get fat in the arse and slow down"

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 13, 2017)

Good one, ChrisMcD! I hadn't thought of that.


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 13, 2017)

I hear a lot about current US and NATO doctrine that is heavily dependent on very complex integrated CCC systems. Which to me means these fantastic monsters are highly vulnerable to loss of that data. And as someone that has worked on defense computer systems I can tell you they are not all that robust any system has its vulnerabilities. I don't have an answer per se, but if our sats are disabled as an opening act, very real potential, then we are going to literally be back to Mark 1 eyeball and those fancy integrated systems become so much deadweight to be shoveled around. 

Mark 1 eyeball is a wee exaggeration but you get my point, the Navy's new wonder ships, the littorals, which via automation were supposed to require significant crew reductions proved impractical. For one, Captains said that with as small a crew as called for damage control functions could not be accommodated. 

My concern is that we seem to have become so very dependent on external technology, meaning external to the ship/aircraft/infantry soldier, that I wonder how well these systems will work if that technology is disrupted?


----------



## GregP (Jan 14, 2017)

Look at the F-22, surely a modern fighter.

Each one has a God's eye view of the entire hemishpere it is in, and knows what weapons all other F-22s in the hemishpere has, and waht is on their sensors.

That's WAY cool until it "goes away." When it does, the F-22 drivers are flying a very cool airframe that is almost entirely dependent on the Mark 1 eyeball. I'm thinking nuclear detonation in space taking out a lot of satelites.

Maybe they can't get them all. Maybe they can. Maybe losing half would not cripple anything. Maybe not.

I wonder if anyone has run a simulation of loss of satellite / uplink / downlink data and seen what happens ... but I have no idea whether or not they have.

Damn, I HOPE so. And I hope they have a backup that uses the radars and technology we have left after an EMP. If not, somebody needs to be fired.

But, my bet is there IS a plan for that. It looks like something called AWACS and digital radar at ground level. If they take out satellite AND ground AND AWACS, then we are back to Mark 1 eyeball fighting, just like looking for the WWII fleets with PBYs ... unless the planes are EMP-hardened successfully. Then they would at LEAST have onboard senors.

Thing is, the potential enemies have the exact same problem. If they take out satellites, THEY are back to the same technology. Wonder who plans for that contingeny the best?

No answers, but if makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 14, 2017)

I'm somewhat leery of the incredible dependence on GPS. By its very nature, the ephemerides of GPS satellites have to be known to all users, so they're highly vulnerable to anti-satellite weapons; this would be a very unsafe act, and would only be part of a wider war, but GPS signals can also be spoofed and jammed. This is why the USN is starting to teach celestial navigation again. 

However, the GPS-guided munitions, especially those launched from internal carriage in the F-35 and F-22 are also very small, so they need to strike their target; a disruption that can skew their guidance by a few tens of meters will render them much less effective, possibly massively increasing collateral damage. This, of course, neglects the problem of simply bad targeting data*, such as when the US accidentally bombed an embassy during the air war over the former Yugoslavia


-----------------------------------------

* This is what cyber warriors would probably corrupt most profitably:

General to POTUS: "Sir, we've discovered why we accidentally dropped a 2000 lb bomb on BoA's headquarters."

POTUS (_literally fuming_) "Well?"

General: "Somebody changed the coordinates for the ISIS training camp from southeastern Syria to San Francisco."

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 14, 2017)

Leaving aside politics, one of the very frustrating things about the F-35 program is simply how long it's taken to produce a workable airplane. It was, overall, a fairly well run program (the UTTAS program, that resulted in the H-60, was probably the best-run aircraft procurement program the US has had for a very long time: very tight specs, demanding, but within the known state of the art, and well-though out by the Army. The most serious publicize error seems to have been that the Army's specs for RFI resistance were too low, leading to some crashes when the FCS was confused by high-powered radars). Jointness is not, by itself, a bad thing, and, in this case, the simple fact that the F-35 has essentially the same role for the USN and USAF, unlike the case with the F-111, should not be considered to have been failing. It's possible the VTOL requirement was; this was certainly the most difficult issue not related to the F-35's weapons systems.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 14, 2017)

GregP said:


> Look at the F-22, surely a modern fighter.
> 
> Each one has a God's eye view of the entire hemishpere it is in, and knows what weapons all other F-22s in the hemishpere has, and waht is on their sensors.
> 
> ...



Greg,

F-22s work wonderfully in a "deprived" environment. GPS jamming or deprivation is a known and planned for operation. All of our stuff works, as the Brits say, "Brilliantly"!

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 14, 2017)

Just try goggling 

Inertial navigation systems. 

They have existed since the 1950s and I am sure that modern ones work much better than the 1950 models, which were used to guide intercontinental ballistic missiles. New ones would be much smaller and lighter than the 1950s versions. 

One I found with less than 2 minutes;

VN-200 SMD Specifications - VectorNav Technologies

Weight 45 grams. Granted it 'seems' to update from GPS signals and might very well not be able to guide a plane for 6-10 hours without an update? Or maybe it can? or maybe a unit under 1kg can. In any case building multi-million dollar aircraft and not having some sort of device like this in the navigation system would border on criminal negligence.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 14, 2017)

Why would you spoil a story with facts?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 14, 2017)

I am trying *not *to be a journalist 

edit. The V-1 used a crude inertial navigation system


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 14, 2017)

I wonder just how much operational training the pilots get on loss of systems training. My real worry is that we have grown increasingly dependent on that "Gods eye" view of a theatre both individually and as the main method of managing a battle. Makes one wonder just how well we will perform if all that goodness is rendered useless, on all levels, not just at the cockpit level but whole commands. 

As an aside in the 80's we were issued with new radios that used "channels" not frequencies. When the switching mechanism failed not 1 in 50 could manually tune their radios to the correct frequencies. Eventually re-training occurred and the next gen radios that followed had more clearly marked instrument faces. 

Every time technology "helps" us, we have to remember to plan and train, for when that technology is no longer available.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 20, 2017)

And I thought this thread was about Mosquitoes and P-61s...



> The V-1 used a crude inertial navigation system



Very crude; point and shoot, basically. The fixed launch ramp was aligned in the general direction of the target area and the missile's three internal gyros would orient it up the right way, and a counter, driven by a propeller on the nose counted down, and then the fuel lines to the motor were severed and the wee spoilers under the hori stabs flicked out, pushing the thing into a dive. The counter was set based on the missile's average speed and the time it would take at that speed to reach the target area.

Spinny thing on the nose: warbirds

Spoilers: warbirds


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 20, 2017)

> It would be VERY nice to have the F-35 come out as a winner, and then go back an analyze why it got so much bad press.



You could substitute 'F-35' for, oooo, I dunno, F-111, B-1, Eurofighter, Tornado...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 20, 2017)

nuuumannn said:


> Very crude; point and shoot, basically. The fixed launch ramp was aligned in the general direction of the target area and the missile's three internal gyros would orient it up the right way, and a counter, driven by a propeller on the nose counted down, and then the fuel lines to the motor were severed and the wee spoilers under the hori stabs flicked out, pushing the thing into a dive. The counter was set based on the missile's average speed and the time it would take at that speed to reach the target area.



And in less than 20 years you had 

LN-3 Inertial Navigation System - Wikipedia

Installed in F-104G strike aircraft. 98% C.E.P. of 4 nautical miles after one hour of flight. Over 50 years later one would assume that if the GPS network goes down we would not be reduced to the MK I eyeball for navigation.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 20, 2017)

> Over 50 years later one would assume that if the GPS network goes down we would not be reduced to the MK I eyeball for navigation.



Probably not. How do I know? Aaaah, call it a hunch.


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 20, 2017)

nuuumannn said:


> Probably not. How do I know? Aaaah, call it a hunch.


Ah but we would, at least in the short haul. While other technologies or even just different technologies exist, very few aircraft are currently equipped with such. Yes aircraft have redundant systems and I am sure for simple navigation tasks they would certainly be up to the task with or without GPS. But as I pointed out, if all the current systems that depend on data rich communications, and GPS were taken out which is actually not unlikely then even things as simple as IFF become troublesome. Modern IFF in combat aircraft utilize GPS tags for example. Backups and redundancies for all of it either exist, or could be quickly sourced. But in the context of modern warfare where the entire shooting match would be over in hours to as long as possibly several days. I just wonder if we have not created our own achilles heel.


----------



## BLine22 (Jan 21, 2017)

GregP said:


> I can give some first-hand information on WWII warbirds in modern-day operations and maintenance (admittedly not as much as you can), but have zero first-hand 1970s combat aircraft information except for UH-1 Huey hellicopters. To this day I still don't like riding in a Huey. If it is a twin-engine Bell 212, fine. The original single-engine UH-1? I'll pass unless they can tell me specifically how that airframe was modified to cure mast bumping. Even then, I'd pass unless it was a dire situation. Nothing wrong with the airframe or engine. But the original system for tilting the rotor was flawed if abrupt aft-stick maneuvers were flown. That isn't normal in peacetime, but if you are ingressing way down low over jungle, abrupt pullups are required on a much more frequent basis. I'll pass on it, as I said.



There is no such thing as mast bumping, only mast bump, it only takes one time to do the job. The 212 has the same basic rotor design as the UH-1D/H(slightly wider blades) so it is susceptible mast hub contact as well. Mast bumping occurs in the low-g environment, by pushing on the stick, not pulling. As long as the head is loaded you are fine. The most likely cause is rotor rpm decay caused by engine failure or worse, a main driveshaft failure. The Huey is perfectly safe, its the finest helicopter ever made, its the DC-3 of the helicopter world.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## EKB (Jan 21, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> "After the war, if I am not mistaken, the first U.S. aircraft they bought was the F-4 Phantom, and their version had Rolls-Royce Spey engines, making it the slowest Phantom in the sky since the F-4 airframe was designed around the J-79's profile, and the change to accommodate the Spey altered the aerodynamics of it."
> 
> The use of the Spey in the Phantom was a rather reasoned choice. They traded top speed (rarely used) for a number of other attributes.
> 
> ...



The extra thrust was not necessary. Buccaneer attack jets had the same Spey engines but no afterburners. With a normal service load the Buccaneer weighed over 60,000 lbs. on take-off. The real reason for Spey-engine Phantoms was political.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 21, 2017)

EKB said:


> The real reason for Spey-engine Phantoms was political



In part, but there was more to it than that. Certainly the RN's rejection of the P.1154 decided the purchase of the F-4 and the navy favoured the Spey because of commonality with the Buccaneer S.2, but McDD was considering developing a Spey engine Phantom based on the F-4B back in 1960 specifically to court an order from the RN.



> After the war, if I am not mistaken, the first U.S. aircraft they bought was the F-4 Phantom



Actually, it was the Sikorsky Hoverfly II helo, delivered in 1946. The RN received Skyraiders in 1951 in the carrier based airborne early warning role, then the RAF received Neptunes in 1952, the RN got Avengers a year later. The Phantom, F-111 and C-130 were ordered round about the same time as replacements for the cancelled P.1154 supersonic Harrier, TSR.2 and AW.681 jet powered heavy lifter respectively.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 21, 2017)

EKB said:


> The extra thrust was not necessary. Buccaneer attack jets had the same Spey engines but no afterburners. With a normal service load the Buccaneer weighed over 60,000 lbs. on take-off. The real reason for Spey-engine Phantoms was political.



Hmmm. RN Buccaneers went about 45,000lbs. RAF Buccaneer 2Bs went 62,000lbs. Bulged bomb bay door and beefed up landing gear. There were some ex RN machines that were brought up to 2B standards. I don't think anybody tried operating the RAF version off carriers.


----------



## EKB (Jan 21, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Hmmm. RN Buccaneers went about 45,000lbs. RAF Buccaneer 2Bs went 62,000lbs. Bulged bomb bay door and beefed up landing gear. There were some ex RN machines that were brought up to 2B standards. I don't think anybody tried operating the RAF version off carriers.



In 1978, Buccaneer XV863 of No 809 Sqn made the last catapult launch of that type from HMS Ark Royal. That airplane was converted to S2D standards in 1973.


----------



## EKB (Jan 21, 2017)

nuuumannn said:


> In part, but there was more to it than that. Certainly the RN's rejection of the P.1154 decided the purchase of the F-4 and the navy favoured the Spey because of commonality with the Buccaneer S.2, but McDD was considering developing a Spey engine Phantom based on the F-4B back in 1960 specifically to court an order from the RN.



A standard F-4J generally outperformed the Rolls Royce version and would have cost y'all half as much. The RAF in fact later purchased a batch of second-hand F-4Js to cover attrition of the original Spey-engined Phantoms. 

But there ain't no free lunch when your local civil servant is looking to buy voter confidence. Furnishing a few defense contracts and jobs always makes headlines, with well-placed photo ops and handshakes. Pork and Politics are inseparable.


----------



## BLine22 (Jan 21, 2017)

The USN chose not to operate F-4s from their smaller Essex class carriers in favor of smaller F-8s even though they operated the larger A-3 Skywarriors from those same ships. The French Aeronavale selected the F-8 over the F-4 for their smaller carriers as well.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 21, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> Ah but we would, at least in the short haul. While other technologies or even just different technologies exist, very few aircraft are currently equipped with such. Yes aircraft have redundant systems and I am sure for simple navigation tasks they would certainly be up to the task with or without GPS. But as I pointed out, if all the current systems that depend on data rich communications, and GPS were taken out which is actually not unlikely then even things as simple as IFF become troublesome. Modern IFF in combat aircraft utilize GPS tags for example. Backups and redundancies for all of it either exist, or could be quickly sourced. But in the context of modern warfare where the entire shooting match would be over in hours to as long as possibly several days. I just wonder if we have not created our own achilles heel.



Data link is fairly new in it's current widespread use. We don't need it, or GPS to ID aircraft, drop bombs, or navigate. Does it help those things yes, but are we incapable of doing our job without it, no. It would be totally irresponsible to develop, build, buy and use something that would be easily hamstrung or negated by simple loss of GPS signal or Link 16.

Cheers,
Biff

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


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 21, 2017)

BiffF15 said:


> Data link is fairly new in it's current widespread use. We don't need it, or GPS to ID aircraft, drop bombs, or navigate. Does it help those things yes, but are we incapable of doing our job without it, no. It would be totally irresponsible to develop, build, buy and use something that would be easily hamstrung or negated by simple loss of GPS signal or Link 16.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff


I certainly hope so, I agree it would be irresponsible but that has not stopped us before.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 21, 2017)

What would have been cheaper in the long run would have been if the Royal Navy was able to tender to develop its own carrier based strike fighter right from the start, rather than as a multi role, joint RN/RAF platform - and the government being a bit stiffer in its resolve regarding supporting a fluctuating aviation industry, of course. The Americans learned that the hard way too, with the F-111B being not what the navy wanted. The P.1154 was a far more complex aircraft in concept than the basic F-4J, being capable of supersonic speeds, but also STOVL (rather than V/STOL - Harriers almost never took off from a hover; limits their useable fuel and warload, hence the ski jump on Harrier carriers)



EKB said:


> A standard F-4J generally outperformed the Rolls Royce version and would have cost y'all half as much.



Yep, certainly did, but it was argued that its acceleration at low speed after take-off was greater and it had a greater range, but suffered at altitude and in all out speed, there were also issues with the afterburners. The RAF actually bought F-4Js to prop up the supply of FGR.2s that it operated; they were bog standard, powered by J-79s and operated by only the one squadron.



EKB said:


> Pork and Politics are inseparable.



Pretty much, but isn't all defence procurement? After all, even when the RN was working on the P.1154, McAir was proposing a Spey engine Phantom to meet its needs and pushing it, even though the navy wanted the P.1154 at that stage - there's the agenda right there. The reason the USA won defence contracts in Europe in the 60s was because of two things, mutual defence aid after the poverty of war and The Hard Sell.


----------



## BLine22 (Jan 21, 2017)

Nice footage of F111B and RN Phantoms


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxDV9y5Is64_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv8prm4mGEQ_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 21, 2017)

I would note that the British didn't get the F4-J until Aug of 1984 and the Ark Royal, the last British carrier with catapults and arresting gear, was decommissioned in 1979. Ability of the F4-J to operate from the three British carriers the F4-K was intended for is still suspect.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 21, 2017)

The V-1 didn't have an intertial system.It had a crude directional autopilot to turn it onto course after launch and a wing-leveling servo that used the smallish rudder to keep the V-1 laterally level and a small propeller on the nose that was, in fact, a vane anemometer. They knew the cruising speed, and they knew how many turns the small prop would turn to get a known distance. When the vane anemometer reached the pre-set number of turns, a trigger fired and snapped the elevator to full down. It was launched in more or less the correct direction to start with, made a single turn onto course, and that is why it was so inaccurate ... winds aloft make a simple course follower not quite accurate enough.

Early V-1s didn't have quite enough compressed air pressure, and the engine would cut out duing the pushover. Compressed air was used as the fuel pump AND as the power for the servos. Later, they added more pressure and the engines would run all the way down. We restored an engine and wanted to do the airframe, too, but we rather obviously weren't ever going to fly it, so we didn't restore the airframe. Ours LOOKS like a V-1 but is, in fact, a JB-2 "Loon" from the US build.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 22, 2017)

Message Deleted: Too Long Winded

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 22, 2017)

Think your post is LONG enough? Stop that.

Yes, as high a Vmc as a B-26 Marauder. But, I was talking about fighters since that is what we primarily fly. B-26 Vmc is about 145 kts. when light and 165 kts when heavy.

The Mosquito manual SAYS 135 - 140 knots, but Steve Hinton said 160 - 165 knots when he flew it and checked personally. So that matches the B-26 at 32k lbs. per POH. 

It would be tough to confuse a B-26 with a Mosquito, but they both need speed to live when one fan goes away.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 22, 2017)

> They actually used a shot-gun to start an engine?




_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65qrzgbTTcQ_



_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9fkmqPHTDE_



_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGDG3iTYMPY_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 22, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> It was: I'm not sure how insistent they were about it, and how it would have affected cooperation between the UK & US if we refused to fit it, but they would remove the requirement from the Mosquito F Mk.II (which became the basis for the NF series).



The Mosquito F.II never had a turret, nor was it intended to.




Zipper730 said:


> The USAAF flew the Beaufighter



Yes




Zipper730 said:


> A better supercharger or a turbocharger (which they purposefully left out ironically for some reason) would have bumped up top-speed by something like 50 mph and increased service ceiling by 10,000 feet. Low altitude performance might have been affected, but I'm not sure by how much.




The P-61 had a 2 stage supercharger - same as on the F6F and F4U-1 actually.

PS: You really should only reply to one or two posts at a time. That really is a mess.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 22, 2017)

HeyZipper,

You need to start listening to people about shorter posts. 3 - 4 paragraphs about the same subject are considered long.

When you change topics, wait until you aren't making consecutive posts, ecxcept maybe on rare occasions.

Etiquette counts in here, even among friendly antagoninsts. If it gets unfriendly, the moderators will step in and stiop it dead in its tracks.

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2017)

BLine22 said:


> There is no such thing as mast bumping, only mast bump, it only takes one time to do the job. The 212 has the same basic rotor design as the UH-1D/H(slightly wider blades) so it is susceptible mast hub contact as well. Mast bumping occurs in the low-g environment, by pushing on the stick, not pulling. As long as the head is loaded you are fine. The most likely cause is rotor rpm decay caused by engine failure or worse, a main driveshaft failure. The Huey is perfectly safe, its the finest helicopter ever made, its the DC-3 of the helicopter world.



Thank you for squashing that. As a rotorhead here, I would have had to respond to that as well. Even as an H-60 guy, I have a deep love for tge greatest Helicopter ever built (UH-1).

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


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 22, 2017)

The US Army in 1980 made a film about Mast Bumping.


----------



## Glider (Jan 22, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> I would note that the British didn't get the F4-J until Aug of 1984 and the Ark Royal, the last British carrier with catapults and arresting gear, was decommissioned in 1979. Ability of the F4-J to operate from the three British carriers the F4-K was intended for is still suspect.


The British F4-J were purchased as the new demands to defend the Falklands required extra resources quickly and the F4-J was the obvious choice.
One advantage of the British F4's and the Spey jets which is small but sometimes important was they didn't smoke. Any other F4 you could almost see them coming the moment they were in the line of sight, the Speys didn't. I think they also were better in the climb as power to weight becomes more important and the extra power of the Spey came into force.
USN F4's did operate from the Ark Royal at times on exercise and the main problem (apart from some pilots finding the much smaller Ark Royal a little tight for comfort) was a much reduced max take off weight. RN F4's had a higher angle of attack due to an extended nose wheel arrangement. It extended for launch the USN F4's obviously didn't have this mod..

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 22, 2017)

A lot of planes flew off of carriers they weren't normally operated from. In WW II quite a few Army fighters were flown ashore from carriers in various operations. However this was often done at much reduced weights. Achieved by such expedients as little or no ammo, few, if any guns, and restricted the amount of fuel. The planes were to be re-armed and then fueled and loaded with ammo at the shore base they were flown to. There are a number of American carrier planes that were allowed higher take-off weights from land runways than from carrier decks. And as been noted by a previous poster, not all US carrier decks were teh same, different weight restrictions depending on which carrier (or class of carrier) 
A lot of arms deals in the 60s, 70s and 80s involved trade-offs. Yes it is politics in part but expecting your allies to buy your "defense products" and keep your workers employed with their tax dollars is rather unrealistic. Larger production runs also reduce costs for everyone. And sometimes the offsets are obscure. The US Army adopted the M240 machine gun as part of an offset deal for Belgium "buying" F-16s. Even though the F-16s were actually built in Belgium. 
While NATO was glad enough to get US handouts in the 1950s they were beginning to realize that accepting such hand outs, or buying American aircraft/weapons already in production was stifling any growth their own industries might of had.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 22, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> FLYBOYJ
> 
> If I recall that had to do with the plane being faster than the P-61.



Faster - easier produced with a smaller radar unit.


----------



## Old Wizard (Jan 22, 2017)




----------



## Airframes (Jan 22, 2017)

Note that the Mosquito NF.II _wasn't_ the basis for all following Mosquito night fighters - it was the FB.VI, utilisng the 'Standard wing', strengthened with spar caps, and hard points 'plumbed' for ordnance or fuel tanks. 
The NF.II was a logical development of the F.II, and was eventually replaced by the NF.XII (basically the same aircraft but with centimetric radar), which in turn was supplemented then replaced by the NF.XIII, utilising the FB.VI wing, and then the two-stage Merlin versions followed.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 22, 2017)

GregP



> Think your post is LONG enough?


I think it might have gone a bit too far...


> Yes, as high a Vmc as a B-26 Marauder.


And the Marauder was known for a high landing-speed to begin with, and with an engine dead it only went significantly higher.


> But, I was talking about fighters since that is what we primarily fly.


You fly old vintage WWII aircraft? That's pretty cool, but remember the Mosquito did start out as a bomber by intent, a reconnaissance plane first because the UK wasn't confident in a bomber without defensive armament.


> The Mosquito manual SAYS 135 - 140 knots, but Steve Hinton said 160 - 165 knots when he flew it and checked personally. So that matches the B-26 at 32k lbs. per POH.


What does POH mean?


> It would be tough to confuse a B-26 with a Mosquito, but they both need speed to live when one fan goes away.


Wait, that also means you'd get a substantial roll-rate if you pulled one engine back a bit and pushed the other up quickly when maneuvering at altitude right?


wuzak



> The Mosquito F.II never had a turret, nor was it intended to.


I'd almost swear they had thought of making a turret fighter to counter the Fw.200 Condor.


> Yes


That's pretty interesting: How come it never got a formal designation?


> The P-61 had a 2 stage supercharger - same as on the F6F and F4U-1 actually.


Okay


> You really should only reply to one or two posts at a time. That really is a mess.


Yeah, I'm sorry about that


----------



## wuzak (Jan 22, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> I'd almost swear they had thought of making a turret fighter to counter the Fw.200 Condor.



There was a turret fighter prototype, W4053. The fighter prototype W4052 had flown earlier.

The turret fighter had nothing to do with the Fw 200.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> What does POH mean?



POH = Pilot's Operating Handbook

Has to be onboard to fly.


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 22, 2017)

I got a little dizzy trying to read that, too many voices in my head!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 22, 2017)

Granted it is sort of a mock-up but it went with the Beaufighter abomination. 





At what point sanity prevailed I don't know.


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 22, 2017)

Hmmmm, turret, on an F-35? Yeah lets do it!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 22, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Granted it is sort of a mock-up but it went with the Beaufighter abomination.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is W4053, the turret fighter prototype.



nuuumannn said:


>



It was found that the drive motor wasn't powerful enough to overcome air resistance, and that the performance loss was quite substantial.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 23, 2017)

The Mosquito with the turret and the Beaufighter with the turret were conceived for a night fighter specification to replace the Defiant. The Beaufighter was actually used in combat with 406 Sqn; the photo is of Beaufighter V R2274, but it was very slow, slower than the Defiant it was supposed to be replacing. It's interesting to note that before the Mosquito prototype flew, Sholto Douglas expected de Havilland to put a tail turret on the Mosquito before it was going to go into production and the prototype was to be built as a concept demonstrator, but thankfully, like SR stated, sanity prevailed and the tail turret Mossie was not proceeded with.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 23, 2017)

So to be clear, the radar system for the P-61 was supposed to be a blind-shooting radar-directed gun-laying system like the Skyknight had? This could be lined up with the guns or the turret?


----------



## wuzak (Jan 23, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> So to be clear, the radar system for the P-61 was supposed to be a blind-shooting radar-directed gun-laying system like the Skyknight had? This could be lined up with the guns or the turret?



No.

Radar was for searching and tracking target.

Pilot or gunner still had to aim the guns.

btw, the radar used in the P-61 (the SCR 720) was also used in Mosquitoes (as AI Mk X)- some NF.XIXs, most NF.30s, Maybe some NF.XVII.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 23, 2017)

FLYBOYJ



> First the F-35 IS NOT a dedicated air to air fighter, but if used in that role it does not necessarily need to get on an enemy's 6 - it could stand off and fire from miles out and even interface with other aircraft in the vicinity and use their weapons.


When you say "use their weapons" do you mean take control of their A/C and fire-control system automatically, or simply assign them a target?


> It could also compute a mission strategy by interfacing with other aircraft and even ground and naval weapons systems (like a mini AWACS)


So it would use all the networked data (AWACS, Satellites, Ships, and it's own data), and use that to propose and recommend attack plans for the F-35 pilot? Does this take control of the plane to execute the attack or simply advise the pilot?


> The F-35A (and probably the F-35C) have the maneuverability of an F/A-18C. Despite some maneuvering limitations (which were exaggerated by the press and others)


I'm not sure what the limits are, and I'm not sure which press has attacked this: I know the neocons wanted the F-22 over the F-35; there are guys like Pierre Sprey, who are remarkable at being able to mix the truth with half-truths and whole lies.


GregP



> I believe all the MiGs in Vietnam that we saw in combat that looked like the MiG-15 were MiG-17s, as you say.


Yeah, but it's a long enduring statement: Even in the book "Linebacker" (1989) by Karl J. Eschmann mentioned MiG-15/17's


> I knew the F-35 could carry more missiles, but it loses a lot of stealth when it does so.


That was my impression as well, so as a general rule you would want to carry them internally in high threat areas.


> When I try to read up on the F-35 I can usually find only two sides: One side says it does the job better than anything else has to date. That side comes from Lockheed-Martin / USAF top brass. The other side says it is abysmal as a fighter. That side is, for want of better words, "the critics."


The critics often are people like Pierre Sprey who are proponents of somewhat simpler, low-cost fighters that can be produced in large numbers.

I'm guessing they appeal to the public and the politicians instead of the experts is because they will lose against experts: The question is why would they push these positions in spite of this?

They believe they're right and the experts are too stubborn to embrace new ideas that are sufficiently outside the box

They are partially or fully aware their ideas are wrong, but continue to push them anyway for one reason or another
The latter would include the following

They are concerned about the ever increasing cost of military programs and would prefer something cheaper even if it didn't work quite as good...
They are concerned about cyber-warfare and effects on our weapons systems: Low tech isn't as easily stopped from cyber-warfare attacks, high tech often is...
They are afraid of the high tech systems that we are developing for some reason: Admittedly, they haven't really come out much against drones which have caused more trouble to us lately than manned aircraft, and automated war-planning and logistics system such as (JADE-2), which revolve around mapping the human-terrain and amount to a non-nuclear Skynet (this system is creepy)...

They wish to reduce our spending on weaponry dedicated for high tech adversaries and large scale wars. This would include either the ability to focus on small low intensity conflicts against small nations that can't do much more than hurl rocks at us...
They have some desire to dismantle our country from within, or force increasingly massive defense expenditures on equipment that will not provide the decisive victory we had in the past...
The last one is the most concerning and would amount to subversion of our country, though I cannot conclude if this is true or not.


Robert Porter



> I hear a lot about current US and NATO doctrine that is heavily dependent on very complex integrated CCC systems. Which to me means these fantastic monsters are highly vulnerable to loss of that data. And as someone that has worked on defense computer systems I can tell you they are not all that robust any system has its vulnerabilities. I don't have an answer per se, but if our sats are disabled as an opening act, very real potential, then we are going to literally be back to Mark 1 eyeball and those fancy integrated systems become so much deadweight to be shoveled around.


I'm not sure how much of our net-centric capability works through direct line of sight telecommunications systems (i.e. aircraft-to-aircraft, aircraft to ship, aircraft-to-ship-to-aircraft without satellites; communications through satellites), and over the horizon communications (radio waves transmitted up into the ionosphere and bounced back down).


> Mark 1 eyeball is a wee exaggeration but you get my point, the Navy's new wonder ships, the littorals, which via automation were supposed to require significant crew reductions proved impractical. For one, Captains said that with as small a crew as called for damage control functions could not be accommodated.


So if they were attacked, they couldn't repair themselves quickly enough and might sink.


> My concern is that we seem to have become so very dependent on external technology, meaning external to the ship/aircraft/infantry soldier, that I wonder how well these systems will work if that technology is disrupted?


A very disturbing question


GregP



> Look at the F-22, surely a modern fighter.
> 
> Each one has a God's eye view of the entire hemishpere it is in, and knows what weapons all other F-22s in the hemishpere has, and waht is on their sensors.


Because of all the interlinking between all the A/C...


> That's WAY cool until it "goes away." When it does, the F-22 drivers are flying a very cool airframe that is almost entirely dependent on the Mark 1 eyeball.


It would be bad, but the fact is that the radar systems/sensor-fusion would still work pretty well and provide a 360-degree view. You would only be limited to your own sensors however, and your own weapons (fortunately these are excellent). The aircraft's GPS might go out, but we probably have a back-up INS and almost certainly a compass (the HUD shows one it seems).


> I'm thinking nuclear detonation in space taking out a lot of satelites.


Military satellites are EMP hardened, though a nuclear explosion in space produces an artificial Van Allen Belt, the electronics should hold-up far as I know.


> Maybe they can't get them all. Maybe they can. Maybe losing half would not cripple anything. Maybe not.


If they did do this, they could take their own out too... we'd be evenly fucked up.


> I wonder if anyone has run a simulation of loss of satellite / uplink / downlink data and seen what happens ... but I have no idea whether or not they have.


They almost certainly have.


> But, my bet is there IS a plan for that. It looks like something called AWACS and digital radar at ground level.


Aircraft involved would have to be EMP hardened (all seem to be), and the datalink would have to be data obtained by line of site from one source to another, or over-the-horizon from one source to another (or over the horizon to a site that would transmit line of site to another).


> Thing is, the potential enemies have the exact same problem. If they take out satellites, THEY are back to the same technology.


The question is who gets screwed more, and can we win even if we get screwed more?


swampyankee



> I'm somewhat leery of the incredible dependence on GPS. By its very nature, the ephemerides of GPS satellites have to be known to all users, so they're highly vulnerable to anti-satellite weapons


Good point


> this would be a very unsafe act, and would only be part of a wider war, but GPS signals can also be spoofed and jammed.


One reason driverless cars scare the crap out of me!


> This is why the USN is starting to teach celestial navigation again.


Oh, that's great! I'm really happy to hear that...


> However, the GPS-guided munitions, especially those launched from internal carriage in the F-35 and F-22


JDAM's


> This is what cyber warriors would probably corrupt most profitably


Depending on degree of spoofing.


Shortround6



> Just try goggling
> 
> Inertial navigation systems.
> 
> ...


Yeah, 2.2 pounds isn't that big a deal to fit a back-up INS system


tomo pauk



> Why would you spoil a story with facts?


*busts out laughing*


> As an aside in the 80's we were issued with new radios that used "channels" not frequencies. When the switching mechanism failed not 1 in 50 could manually tune their radios to the correct frequencies.


That's not good...


> Eventually re-training occurred and the next gen radios that followed had more clearly marked instrument faces.


Making it easier to manually switch as a back-up?


> Every time technology "helps" us, we have to remember to plan and train, for when that technology is no longer available.


That's right...


BTW: I hope this isn't as big a mess as before, it doesn't appear to be as marathon-ish a post and I've tried to keep things on topic


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 23, 2017)

_*WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*_

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


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 23, 2017)

wuzak



> Radar was for searching and tracking target.
> 
> Pilot or gunner still had to aim the guns.


Okay, I was just curious as to this statement from Dana Bell which I'm going to quote below



Dana Bell said:


> The big problem was the radar-guided, automatic gun-laying system being designed for the P-61 - it never worked.


This seems to suggest at least the intention for a blind-shooting system. I'm not sure exactly how it was supposed to work (it was stated that it never worked), but it kind of reminds me of what I read about the F3D...



> the radar used in the P-61 (the SCR 720) was also used in Mosquitoes (as AI Mk X)- some NF.XIXs, most NF.30s, Maybe some NF.XVII.


That late?


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 23, 2017)

fubar57 said:


> _*WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*_


Still too long? I tried to keep it on one topic rather than drift, I did group some replies together as long as they stayed with the topic; when they didn't I quoted the replies separately...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 23, 2017)

Seriously, 2 o 3 quotes per post.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 23, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Still too long? I tried to keep it on one topic rather than drift, I did group some replies together as long as they stayed with the topic; when they didn't I quoted the replies separately...



Except that you were quoting posts that were already waaaay off topic.


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 23, 2017)

I think I contributed some to the off topic nature of some of the posts. To be honest I lost track of the topic somewhere in there. My bad.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 23, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> This seems to suggest at least the intention for a blind-shooting system. I'm not sure exactly how it was supposed to work (it was stated that it never worked), but it kind of reminds me of what I read about the F3D...



I don't think that the P-61 gun turret was ever connected to gun laying radar, rather that the turret used a remote sighting system, possibly with a computing gun sight.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 23, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> That late?



Late?

Around 1943/44, about the time the P-61 was being introduced to service.

Mosquitoes started using the universal nose in one of the single stage NF models, not sure if it was the NF.XVII or NF.XIX, which could accommodate the AI.Mk IX and AI.Mk X. Possibly even the AI.MK VIII.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 23, 2017)

wuzak



> I don't think that the P-61 gun turret was ever connected to gun laying radar, rather that the turret used a remote sighting system, possibly with a computing gun sight.


That was my assumption always as well until the quote I sent you.


> Late?
> 
> Around 1943/44, about the time the P-61 was being introduced to service.


For some reason I figured the plane flew in 1942 and somehow mixed up some numbers and thought the NFXII would have probably a similar system.


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 23, 2017)

Found this SCR 720 night fighting radar display at the National Electronics Museum the radar used in the Mosquito and the P-61 was AI, Airborne Intercept. Directions were passed verbally from radar operator until the aircraft was vectored closely then a smaller screen in the pilots view was used to resolve final intercept. But I did not read anywhere that the SCR-720 set used was actually connected directly to the guns. Post war this was done. And I believe the British had a war time radar controlled rear turret in some of their bombers.


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 23, 2017)

I further found this re the British radar controlled turret. Automatic Gun-Laying Turret

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 24, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> I further found this re the British radar controlled turret. Automatic Gun-Laying Turret


I just thought of this...


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 24, 2017)

Yes it entered service in late 1944 and was used throughout the remained of the war.


----------



## GregP (Jan 24, 2017)

Hey Robert Porter, I've never lost track of a thread topic yet! Except for those last 175 times I did .... well, maybe I left out a few ....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Jan 24, 2017)

The SCR720 (A.I. Mk.IX - RADAR being an American term, adopted post war) in the Mosquito, as with later centimetric radar 'sets', did not employ a secondary indicator unit (screen) for the pilot. The Navigator used the radar to track and close on the target, directing the pilot to a visual contact.
Once visually located, the target had to be positively identified before being engaged.
This method was still in operation up until at least the 1970s.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 24, 2017)

Airframes said:


> The SCR720 (A.I. Mk.IX - RADAR being an American term, adopted post war) in the Mosquito, as with later centimetric radar 'sets', did not employ a secondary indicator unit (screen) for the pilot. The Navigator used the radar to track and close on the target, directing the pilot to a visual contact.
> Once visually located, the target had to be positively identified before being engaged.
> This method was still in operation up until at least the 1970s.



I believe that the SCR-720 was the AI Mk X, the Ai Mk IX being the wholly British developed system.


----------



## Airframes (Jan 24, 2017)

Yep - my mistake, bl**dy stiff fingers on the keyboard.


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 24, 2017)

Airframes said:


> The SCR720 (A.I. Mk.IX - RADAR being an American term, adopted post war) in the Mosquito, as with later centimetric radar 'sets', did not employ a secondary indicator unit (screen) for the pilot. The Navigator used the radar to track and close on the target, directing the pilot to a visual contact.
> Once visually located, the target had to be positively identified before being engaged.
> This method was still in operation up until at least the 1970s.



According to what I read some aircraft including the P-61 and Mosquito had a small screen for the pilot.





SCR-720 installed in Mosquito. Photo on display at the National Electronics Museum. However you are correct that in all cases visual identification was required.


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 24, 2017)

This link shows the installation of both display units one for the pilot. http://www.mossie.org/donated_files/Peter_Verney/Mosquito_NF-30_AI_Mk_X_radar.pdf


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 24, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> Yes it entered service in late 1944 and was used throughout the remained of the war.


The AGLT's development started in 1943 if I recall...


----------



## wuzak (Jan 24, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> The AGLT's development started in 1943 if I recall...




You recall, or you just read it in the link Robert posted?


----------



## Airframes (Jan 24, 2017)

Robert, that's the unit for the Navigator, on the starboard side. There was absolutely NO room in a Mosquito cockpit to fit another 'screen' - with all the equipment, there was only just enough room for the crew, with the Navigator's seat set back slightly.
See my Mosquito NF.XII build in the GBs, which gives an idea of how cramped a Mossie, especially a NF, really was.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 24, 2017)

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/f6/0c/b1/f60cb12fbeb64c4b323ea11ac3b55b2c.jpg


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 24, 2017)

Airframes said:


> Robert, that's the unit for the Navigator, on the starboard side. There was absolutely NO room in a Mosquito cockpit to fit another 'screen' - with all the equipment, there was only just enough room for the crew, with the Navigator's seat set back slightly.
> See my Mosquito NF.XII build in the GBs, which gives an idea of how cramped a Mossie, especially a NF, really was.



The link Robert provided at Post #209 does show a "Pilot's Indicator" in the pic showing all the components on p.2. The "Pilot's Indicator" is identified as "BC-1152-A" and is a lot smaller than the "Navigator's Indicator" which was BC-1151-A on the same diagram.


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 24, 2017)

buffnut453 said:


> The link Robert provided at Post #209 does show a "Pilot's Indicator" in the pic showing all the components on p.2. The "Pilot's Indicator" is identified as "BC-1152-A" and is a lot smaller than the "Navigator's Indicator" which was BC-1151-A on the same diagram.


The first little picture I posted was indeed the operators set not the pilots set, as you mentioned the pilots screen was considerably smaller and was indeed installed in the cockpit for the pilots use.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 24, 2017)

From that link


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 24, 2017)

This image shows the AI radar screen installed in the cockpit. Yes it was very cramped. This image is from this link April | 2014 | Broody's war | Page 2 the text that accompanied the picture is:

To illustrate the lack of space in the cockpit, the next photo shows a cockpit of a Mosquito (possibly a NF MK XII) -You can see the main control yoke that would have been between the pilot’s legs to on the port side – in very close proximity to the A/I system on the starboard side.

The A/I radar was, of course, Broody’s main tool in the hunt for enemy aircraft. The following is a description of the system in his own words:

_“The aircraft carried A .I. (Air Interception) Mark VIII radar, of the centimetric variety. The radar beam, narrow in itself, scanned a cone ahead of the aircraft 45 degrees from centre line in all directions. This was achieved by a rotating reflector in the nose, which not only rotated about its axis at high speed, but also constantly swung out to 45 degrees and back again. The significant effect of this was that, at the lowest point of scan, the radar beam picked up “ground returns” – reflections from the ground, or, weaker but still prominent, the sea. Consequently, as the beam scanned out and back again, a green “wash” of light moved up and down at the base of the display unit, which was essentially a basic cathode ray tube. As my function on a defensive patrol was to watch the radar display, the soporific effect was considerable.”_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 24, 2017)

One thing of interest, there are very few pictures of radar systems installed or otherwise as due to the secrecy laws it was a capital offense to take such pictures in most cases. At least during the war. I think that is why we see so very few of them.


----------



## Airframes (Jan 24, 2017)

Hm. can't say I've ever noticed a Pilot's Indicator actually installed in a Mossie, unless, perhaps it was done post war.
BTW, the pic in Post # 217 shows A.I. Mk.IV, so it's more likely that the aircraft is a Mosquito NF.II. The NFXII, as with the 'stop gap' NF.XII, used centimetric A.I. Mk.VIII.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 24, 2017)

I would definitely defer to your judgement on aircraft types. I have been awed watching some of the threads here where you helped define the exact make of an aircraft in a fuzzy pic! Your eye for detail and memory for same are extensive and very much valued here!


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 24, 2017)

Airframes said:


> Hm. can't say I've ever noticed a Pilot's Indicator actually installed in a Mossie, unless, perhaps it was done post war.
> BTW, the pic in Post # 217 shows A.I. Mk.IV, so it's more likely that the aircraft is a Mosquito NF.II. The NFXII, as with the 'stop gap' NF.XII, used centimetric A.I. Mk.VIII.


I did read in two different places that such pics were extremely rare since it was a serious crime to take pictures of installed radar components during the war. Mostly because radar was such a closely guarded secret in those years even though both sides had it.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 24, 2017)

wuzak said:


> You recall, or you just read it in the link Robert posted?


I guess I forgot where I got the information from


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 24, 2017)

> I think that is why we see so very few of them.



Also, in Britain at least, the same AI.X was fitted to Meteor NF.11s that replaced Mossie night fighters, as seen in the link posted above. The later Meat Box night fighters also had a US radar fitted, AN/APS-21.

(I knew this already; from my website: warbirds)


----------

