# Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better (Cold-War Edition)



## Zipper730 (Oct 13, 2019)

It's an intellectual exercise, revolving around how aircraft could have been made better with technology available at the time.

The existing specification: Basically, the idea would be working within the existing specification, but you could modify or change anything within the boundary of it.
A different winner: Sometimes the problem wasn't the design so much as the winner to the contender
A more realistic/practical specification: Basically the specifications are made more realistic to allow a practical design to be developed.
I would assume that the changes could include differences in aerodynamics, in installation of existing equipment, in propulsion system where applicable and allowable. I guess conceptual designs that didn't fly could also be included.

I would say that other developments like gun/cannon and missile design would also be discussable to a point.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 13, 2019)

The problem I have with post WW II aircraft is that it rapidly became an electronics game.

On board radar, data links (or even voice command from ground based commanders), navigation equipment, The missles (or early rockets and associated fire control systems).

How well some of the "stuff" worked (or didn't) could overshadow the "mechanical" aspects of the plane. Like engine power, wing loading, speed/climb/turn. 
We can compare the "mechanical" aspects (mostly) but are operating in the dark for the most part on how well the electronics worked (or not) at any given time. 

Some planes went through several different armament schemes, several different radars and several different fire control systems in under 10 years.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 13, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The problem I have with post WW II aircraft is that it rapidly became an electronics game.


The electronics played a major role in the effectiveness in the plane, but performance wasn't something to ignore.


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 14, 2019)

The A-5. Don't do the linear bomb bay; either use a rotary bomb bay or semi-recessed conformal carriage. 

For the F7U, just say no.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 15, 2019)

Look at the 104 Starfighter in US service.
Speed and climb in abundance.
Engine had some problems in the US (and other early ones).

But it's lack of electronics in the 1950s meant the US couldn't figure out what to do with it. It was a _clear day only_ fighter and since it carried only a 20mm gun and two early Sidewinders too much of it's Air to Air capability was tied to how good the Sidewinders were. It got shuffled off to the tactical strike role and even there it needed new electronics to even attempt the job. 

Or look at the F-89. in about 10 years it went through about 4 different armament fits (from 20mm guns to unguided nuclear tipped rockets, the Genie) different radar fits and different fire control systems. Yes it got better engines as time went on but it's main purpose (intercepting Russian bombers) was pretty much dependent on how well (or how poorly) it's electronics (and by extension, armament) worked. 
Since even the early F-86 used a ranging radar in the upper lip of the intake to feed target range to the gunsight electronics played an ever increasing role in the capabilities of of post war and 1950s jet aircraft. Late F-86s got navigation equipment and bombing computers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 15, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> The A-5. Don't do the linear bomb bay


Yeah, that was a pretty stupid design-feature: From what I recall, it was to allow the bomb to come out the back and avoid a post-target turn. That said, it didn't always separate cleanly from the plane, and might have even shot out once on the ground.


> either use a rotary bomb bay or semi-recessed conformal carriage


Since they wanted a sustained speed of Mach 2, and a dash up to Mach 3, I'd probably go with the internal bay unless volume became a limiting factor.


> For the F7U, just say no.


A lot of people would agree with you on that! Ironically, it seems that many of the early design problems were, basically, fixable.



Shortround6 said:


> Look at the 104 Starfighter in US service. Speed and climb in abundance.


It also had a good roll-rate, but turning performance left something to be desired (sustained agility could be quite high once maneuvering flaps were added), as it was largely limited to operations below 20000 feet.


> Engine had some problems in the US (and other early ones).


I'm not sure that would have been as big a deal if it had adequate low-speed handling: It'd be easier to glide.


> But it's lack of electronics in the 1950s meant the US couldn't figure out what to do with it.


It had a radar that had some limited tracking capability, but it was largely a gun-radar with more range. I'd say that it proved to be fairly adaptable to new electronics.


> it carried only a 20mm gun


but _WHAT_ a 20mm gun! The Vulcan-Cannon could spit out 6000-7200 RPM -- a rate that was around 4-6 times faster than the 20mm of the time. The two AIM-9 were kind of a problem, and the F-104C carried four but the configuration was a problem, as it couldn't carry any center-store while carrying missiles on the wing-tips.


> Or look at the F-89. in about 10 years it went through about 4 different armament fits (from 20mm guns to unguided nuclear tipped rockets, the Genie) different radar fits and different fire control systems.


Actually it had plenty of aerodynamic issues too: The exhaust impinged upon tail, the tip-tanks produced serious aeroelastic forces that caused a fatal crash, and I think that, either the elevators or rudder needed changes.


> Yes it got better engines as time went on but it's main purpose (intercepting Russian bombers) was pretty much dependent on how well (or how poorly) it's electronics (and by extension, armament) worked.


It was originally designed as a night-fighter (which is both an offensive & defensive mission).


----------



## rob23 (Oct 16, 2019)

The F-8 Crusader- take out the four Colt cannons and replace them with the Vulcan rotary. Then all the other stuff to make it more forgiving when trapping aboard like BLC, etc.


----------



## rob23 (Oct 16, 2019)

The F7U may have been a good airplane if it had decent engines. I'm in left field here as I'm no expert, but what if the engines had been something like the J85 with afterburner?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 16, 2019)

rob23 said:


> The F-8 Crusader- take out the four Colt cannons and replace them with the Vulcan rotary. Then all the other stuff to make it more forgiving when trapping aboard like BLC, etc.


It worked for the A-7


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 16, 2019)

The F-101 was a design that could have definitely been better


----------



## rob23 (Oct 18, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> The F-101 was a design that could have definitely been better


A better wing maybe? Didn't it turn like a Starfighter?


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 19, 2019)

rob23 said:


> A better wing maybe? Didn't it turn like a Starfighter?


I would figure you'd need a bigger wing, but to retain speed, I figure you'd need thinner and a lower aspect ratio.


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 27, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The problem I have with post WW II aircraft is that it rapidly became an electronics game.


So, should I invite 
T
 Token
then?


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 22, 2020)

I was thinking of adding some stuff in a little while.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 22, 2020)

I guess nobody will reckon MiG-21 was one of my favorites, even if it is for the role it played over here in 1995 
Some of modifications from the Chinese versions could've come in handy for the Fishbed. Like the improved wing of the J7E ( MiG can take a page from Su-15M here), and bifurcated intake (from JL-9/FTZ-2000, that also fetured the improved wing) or the belly intake (as tested on the Ye-8, provided it can work). Improved intakes should not just improve 'breathing' of the engine in high AoA flight regimes, but also leave a lot more space for fuel and/or ellectronics. Add wingtip launchers now that we're odifying the wing.

EE Lighting - try with a full delta wing, like the GD did with F-16XL, so there is more internal space for fuel (hopefully cancelling out the ungainly belly tankin the process).


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 22, 2020)

rob23 said:


> A better wing maybe? Didn't it turn like a Starfighter?




Curing the F-101’s bad pitchup and deep stall issues would have needed some major redesign; it could no more become a turn&burn fighter with just a new wing than could a B-47 (which may have had better high-alpha behavior).


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 22, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Curing the F-101’s bad pitchup and deep stall issues would have needed some major redesign; it could no more become a turn&burn fighter with just a new wing than could a B-47 (which may have had better high-alpha behavior).


Well you'd start with the basic concept

Long Range
Supersonic
High Altitude
Air to Ground Capability

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 30, 2020)

Deleted


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 17, 2020)

R
 rob23
, 

 swampyankee


This is kind of the type of wing that I figure would work well: There'd have to be differences because of the fundamental nature of the F-101 having two-engines instead of one, and stuff of that nature.

That said, the wing would provide a good low-stall speed, which would be desirable for high altitude work.


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 17, 2020)

rob23 said:


> The F-8 Crusader- take out the four Colt cannons and replace them with the Vulcan rotary. Then all the other stuff to make it more forgiving when trapping aboard like BLC, etc.



The Colt's biggest problem was that it was far too prone to jamming. If the M61 can't fit, how about a couple of Adens?


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 17, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> The Colt's biggest problem was that it was far too prone to jamming. If the M61 can't fit, how about a couple of Adens?


The ADEN was a 30mm cannon. Definitely packed a heavier punch.


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 17, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> The ADEN was a 30mm cannon. Definitely packed a heavier punch.



I knew that

I know the Colt can be replaced by a 30 mm cannon; Israel did it with their A-4s. Whether you'd want to replace 4x20 mm with 4x30 mm is a second question.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 17, 2020)

rob23 said:


> The F7U may have been a good airplane if it had decent engines. I'm in left field here as I'm no expert, but what if the engines had been something like the J85 with afterburner?


What sort of time machine are you planning on using? J85 was not available til nearly a decade after the Gutless was designed.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 17, 2020)

rob23 said:


> The F-8 Crusader- take out the four Colt cannons and replace them with the Vulcan rotary.


Where you going to stuff it? The intake duct was already barely adequate for the J57's air hunger, and there wasn't enough space between it and the fuselage skin for the gun, its feed mechanism, and its massive ammo drum. When I was working at GE Armament I saw a drawing of a proposed Vulcanized F8. It had so many bulges and protrusions in its forward fuselage it would have been rendered subsonic. The F8, like the F4 and other fighters of the day didn't go surging through Mach the way today's high thrust hotrods do, they crept up to it and edged on past. They just didn't have today's thrust/drag ratios.
BTW, the A7 gets away with it because it's a subsonic bird and has a more "jowly" forward fuselage contour.
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 17, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> The A-5. Don't do the linear bomb bay; either use a rotary bomb bay or semi-recessed conformal carriage.


You'd have to have a crystal ball to foresee the separation problem that occurred. It looked good on paper, according to the slipstick math that was the technology of the time, and was more or less mandated by the design mission of low level supersonic delivery of a nuclear weapon fused for pre-impact detonation, requiring maximum separation if the bomber is to survive the fireball. The theory was that if supersonic, the bomber would outrun the blast wave if it escaped the fireball.
If you've ever seen an A5 with engines and panels removed so you can see the structure, you'd know why a rotary bomb bay or other downward opening solution was an unfeasible retrofit option.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 17, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You'd have to have a crystal ball to foresee the separation problem that occurred. It looked good on paper, according to the slapstick math that was the technology of the time, and was more or less mandated by the the design mission of low level supersonic delivery of a nuclear weapon fused for pre-impact detonation, requiring maximum separation if the bomber is to survive the fireball.


I might have asked this before, but wasn't the A3J designed predominantly for high-altitude delivery?

As for the idea of delivering nuclear ordinance: Why not just toss-bomb or use a lay-down?


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 17, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You'd have to have a crystal ball to foresee the separation problem that occurred. It looked good on paper, according to the slapstick math that was the technology of the time, and was more or less mandated by the the design mission of low level supersonic delivery of a nuclear weapon fused for pre-impact detonation, requiring maximum separation if the bomber is to survive the fireball. The theory was that if supersonic, the bomber would outrun the blast wave if it escaped the fireball.
> If you've ever seen an A5 with engines and panels removed so you can see the structure, you'd know why a rotary bomb bay or other downward opening solution was an unfeasible retrofit option.
> Cheers,
> Wes




I wouldn't think a normal bomb bay could be a retrofit; it would need to be designed that way to start. Also, while nuclear bombing dominated military thought, the USN had already spent a few years where it found itself doing tactical air support, so designing an aircraft largely incapable of that may not have been wise.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 17, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I might have asked this before, but wasn't the A3J designed predominantly for high-altitude delivery?


HI-LO-HI flight profile, mandated by minimum exposure to AAA & SAMs.




Zipper730 said:


> As for the idea of delivering nuclear ordinance: Why not just toss-bomb or lay-down?


As above, survivability. A jet on a toss bomb pop-up is an easily tracked target with a predictable flight path. A lay down from treetop altitudes puts you in the fireball if you can't use delay fusing (like if your weapon isn't hardened to survive ground impact). SAC got all the latest and greatest, including the lightweight stuff hardened for tactical jet delivery. USN had to settle for the older, heavier, more fragile stuff intended for air burst after a parachute drop from high altitude, but had to use it in the low level environment. That's the price you pay for being johnny-come-lately and the unwelcome ugly stepchild at the nuclear table.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 18, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> HI-LO-HI flight profile, mandated by minimum exposure to AAA & SAMs.


Understood


> SAC got all the latest and greatest, including the lightweight stuff hardened for tactical jet delivery. USN had to settle for the older, heavier, more fragile stuff intended for air burst after a parachute drop from high altitude, but had to use it in the low level environment. That's the price you pay for being johnny-come-lately and the unwelcome ugly stepchild at the nuclear table.


So this was more political than technology alone?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 18, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> So this was more political than technology alone?


In the mid to late 1950s, when the A3J was being developed as the supersonic successor to the A3D, Soviet development of SAMs and radar guided high altitude AAA and interceptors made it clear that altitude would no longer protect bombing aircraft from attack. This was emphasized by the shootdown of Francis Gary Powers' U2 at 70,000 feet over the Soviets' major space center in May, 1960.
The alternative was to penetrate hostile territory at high speed on the deck, an environment USN/USMC had always been more comfortable with than USAF.
Back in the day, everybody practiced loft bombing against the big day in practically any plane that could lug a Shape into the air (A3D, A4D, F4H, F84, F100, F101, F105, B47, B57, etc), but it was generally conceded that in any sort of a high threat environment it was a suicide mission.
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 18, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> In the mid to late 1950s, when the A3J was being developed as the supersonic successor to the A3D, Soviet development of SAMs and radar guided high altitude AAA and interceptors made it clear that altitude would no longer protect bombing aircraft from attack.


Wait, I thought the real concern started after Gary Powers was shot down?

The plane first flew in 1958


> The alternative was to penetrate hostile territory at high speed on the deck, an environment USN/USMC had always been more comfortable with than USAF.


I figured they were equally comfortable with it...


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 18, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> USN had already spent a few years where it found itself doing tactical air support, so designing an aircraft largely incapable of that may not have been wise


The A3J was a single mission bird: long range high speed nuclear delivery, and left the mud pounding to its stablemates, the A1, A4, and F4. The demands of its primary mission rendered it impractical for CAS, as it was heavy, fast, and not terribly agile, with atrocious slow speed handling. It weighed about the same as an A3D, but came aboard 15 knots faster, taxing the arresting gear and catapults to their limits. I've flown the RA5C simulator, and below 250 knots it's a pig! It EARNED its title of "Ensign Eater". But in the air it would go like scat, outrunning its Phantom escort and had the fuel to go deeper into indian country than they could go. Consequently, it would often get escorts for penetration and egress, but be solo over the objective.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 18, 2020)

The A3J was fast -- if I recall it could fly back and forth something like 700-800 nm supersonic the whole way (~M2)


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 18, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> The A3J was fast -- if I recall it could fly back and forth something like 700-800 nm supersonic the whole way (~M2)


Yup, a gofast mutha, and down in the weeds, where it was designed to live, nothing could touch it. (Except MAYBE a Thud in winchester status!) A lot of gofast birds aren't all that gofast in the dense air at sea level. RA5s regularly outran MiG 21s.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 18, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Wait, I thought the real concern started after Gary Powers was shot down?
> The plane first flew in 1958


The U2 incident made Soviet air defenses a public concern, but as US was developing the Nike series of SAMs in the fifties, it was well known in the business that Ivan was doing the same. Can you tell the difference between an SA2 and a Nike Ajax from photos?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 18, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The U2 incident made Soviet air defenses a public concern, but as US was developing the Nike series of SAMs in the fifties, it was well known in the business that Ivan was doing the same. Can you tell the difference between an SA2 and a Nike Ajax from photos?


The MIM-3 & SA-2 do look quite similar actually; that said the MIM-14 and SA-2 were better comparisons. They don't look at all alike except that they're cylindrical and have a nozzle in the back. One's long and skinny, and the other is plumper...


----------



## NVSMITH (Feb 22, 2020)

-Two planes that didn't get a chance: F5D and F11F. Either "coulda been a contendah"
-Two for improvement: 
1) two seat F86K/L w/2x30mm Aden vice unguided rockets; let the GIB do the WSO/RIO stuff; add AIM 7 and AIM 9 missles. Maybe the Avon or Orenda engine? 
2) F3D Skynight. Better engines, of course, narrow the fuselage to tandem seating and swept wings: too bad there weren't and early variable sweep wing available. Carrying AIM 7 and AIM 9 missles it could have been a decent subsonic fleet defense fighter.


----------



## NVSMITH (Feb 22, 2020)

-One other bird comes to mind: could turbine engines have been adapted to the H37?


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 22, 2020)

NVSMITH said:


> -Two planes that didn't get a chance: F5D and F11F. Either "coulda been a contendah"


I think you mean the F11F-1F/F11F-2? I would have liked to have seen that design enter service: It had no real handling quirks, was fundamentally sound; it was just underpowered. The J79 took care of that problem.

The F5D seemed to have some issues with the electronics proceeding to schedule in mass-production, if I recall. The USN might have factored that heavily in rejecting the design, but I would point out that part of it had to do with the fact that, Douglas had 5 fully funded projects, whereas Vought had only one (the F8U). The F11F was already in production, however, and would have been a sound improvement. It had a lower stall speed (and as a result, corner velocity), and with J79's, greater speed (that said, there were proposals of reworking the inlets of the F8U to allow for speeds in excess of Mach 2), and had better handling characteristics.


> 1) two seat F86K/L w/2x30mm Aden vice unguided rockets; let the GIB do the WSO/RIO stuff; add AIM 7 and AIM 9 missles. Maybe the Avon or Orenda engine?


Actually, the RAAF did procure a variant of the Sabre with an Avon in it, as well as a 30mm cannon (it was called the Avon Sabre). The US government did almost license the Avon (a variant), and chose the Sapphire (as the J65) because, at the time, it was doing better in terms of SFC (as time went on, the Avon would do better).


> 2) F3D Skynight. Better engines, of course, narrow the fuselage to tandem seating and swept wings: too bad there weren't and early variable sweep wing available. Carrying AIM 7 and AIM 9 missles it could have been a decent subsonic fleet defense fighter.


There was a swept wing proposal for the F3D, but it had side-by-side seating (and kind of looked like the A-6). It was rejected for, what appears to be money. That said, the F3D's did carry early Sparrows (AAM-N-2/AIM-7A).


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 22, 2020)

NVSMITH said:


> -One other bird comes to mind: could turbine engines have been adapted to the H37?


 The Westland Westminister did that, but just two prototypes were built.


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 5, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> I know the Colt can be replaced by a 30 mm cannon; Israel did it with their A-4s. Whether you'd want to replace 4x20 mm with 4x30 mm is a second question.


'cuz more dakka!



XBe02Drvr said:


> Where you going to stuff it?


I never knew the intake would have precluded the installation, or slowed a supersonic aircraft to subsonic speed.


> You'd have to have a crystal ball to foresee the separation problem that occurred.


You mean the open void in the back where the weapon shot out of? Or something else... I should have asked this earlier.


> If you've ever seen an A5 with engines and panels removed so you can see the structure, you'd know why a rotary bomb bay or other downward opening solution was an unfeasible retrofit option.


Was it possible to design the shape of the plane to allow for a downward bay?


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 5, 2020)

NVSMITH said:


> -One other bird comes to mind: could turbine engines have been adapted to the H37?



Sure. Unofficial motto of engineers everywhere? "Just bring enough money; we can do anything."

I don't know if turbines would fix its other problems, though. Not all of its vibration issues were due to all those pistons whacking back and forth.



Zipper730 said:


> Was it possible to design the shape of the plane to allow for a downward bay?



My first thought would be "almost certainly." The resulting aircraft may not have looked a heck of a lot like the A-5 nee A3J, though. Internal bays were on at least two supersonic aircraft in US service (F-106 and F-105), so the idea wasn't considered impossible. Without seeing North American's internal documents (access to which would require permission from Boeing and possibly the DoD, even if they haven't been shredded, pulped, burned, or eaten by termites), it's impossible to be certain of the reasons that NA's designers had for using this method. I sometimes wonder if somebody had a really bad case of "wouldn't this be really cool?"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 5, 2020)

Message Deleted (multiple open windows leads to forgetfulness and double-posts)


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 5, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Message Deleted (multiple open windows leads to forgetfulness and double-posts)


You have that problem, too?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 5, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> 'cuz more daka!


No, LESS daka. Severely limited RPG. 30MM rounds are BIG!


Zipper730 said:


> I never knew the intake would have precluded the installation


You've never seen a Vulcan in the flesh. The gun, feed mechanism, and drum just weren't going to fit gracefully into the nose of an F8 along with radar, pilot, and already-too-small intake duct.



Zipper730 said:


> You mean the open void in the back where the weapon shot out of?


Yes. That "open void" was actually a nosecone shaped clamshell door that split open to eject the weapon. When open, the door halves created an "air pocket" which *could* capture the weapon and hold it in trail of the aircraft for several seconds after release.




Zipper730 said:


> Was it possible to design the shape of the plane to allow for a downward bay?


As a retrofit, NWIH. If they were willing to discard the existing fleet of planes and design/build new, perhaps. Notice that both of the aforementioned designs (and the B57) with rotary bays had noticeably thicker fuselages and discharged noticeably smaller weapons. I suspect the RA5's slender profile and hence, it's low level speed capability, might have suffered from any sort of a downward discharging weapons bay. It also would have required some sort of pop-up weapons delivery procedure. You don't want your nuke bouncing off the ground and tagging your tail, now, do you?
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 5, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> No, LESS daka. Severely limited RPG. 30MM rounds are BIG!


But way more damage on impact!


> You've never seen a Vulcan in the flesh. The gun, feed mechanism, and drum just weren't going to fit gracefully into the nose of an F8 along with radar, pilot, and already-too-small intake duct.


That's correct, I've never seen it up close and personal. That said, I didn't know the F-8 had an intake that was too small.


> Yes. That "open void" was actually a nosecone shaped clamshell door that split open to eject the weapon.


Wait, I thought the tail-cone was the shape of the after-body of the payload train? So instead clamshell doors open and the payload train was to be shot out? Did the doors simply part ways with the aircraft or close up after?


> When open, the door halves created an "air pocket" which *could* capture the weapon and hold it in trail of the aircraft for several seconds after release.


Which would greatly increase the odds of getting taken out by the nuclear weapon. I also remember reading about a case where a weapon got shot across the flight-deck, or falling out of the plane as well...


> If they were willing to discard the existing fleet of planes and design/build new, perhaps.


We're largely talking about how a design could have been made better with the technology of the time. So if it could be physically built, and operate off a carrier deck is the basic rules to start with.


----------



## davparlr (May 5, 2020)

This is more than airplanes
*Navy*
Build angled flight decks right away. Being able to launch and land aircraft at the same time is a game changer! I suspect it was not a big deal.

Jump on the F-86 program to start working on a carrier qualifiable version (FJ-4). Or, buy F-86s for land operations for the Marines ala F4Us. They needed this to play in the Korean War air-to-air game.

Do not develop the J40 engine

Cancel the F3H. The engines it used did not generate required thrust. Ones that did would not fit. Move on to a two engine version (uh, like an F4H)

Make AIM-9s and AIM-7s more reliable quickly.

I don’t know about changing the F8U. The F8U’s four Mark 12 cannons generated 4,000 rounds/minute, the same as the derated Vulcan on the F-104 (derated to prevent engine stalls). Or, they may could squeeze in four Air Force M-39 cannon and get a full 6,000 r/m.

*Air Force*
Fix F-84 problems quicker and develop the F-84F (swept wing version earlier).

Cancel the F-104 and buy the F11F-1F (non-navalize version). Similar in performance but more agile. Should make a better dogfighter vs. Migs in Vietnam.

Cancel the AIM-4s and use AIM-9s and AIM-7s

The F-107 may have been a better selection over the F-105 due to better wing loading which would help defensive maneuvering (close to F-4).

Personal Bias. Select the F-17 instead of the F-16. The F-17, which was a better performer than the F-18 version, had much better growth potential than the F-16, was all weather capable from the start (the F-16 did not get all weather capability until the AMRAAM came along). The F-17 had two engines, think that there was a bundle of F-16 lost to engine failure.

*Army*
Keep post WW2 Army well trained and well-armed with better weapons like 3.5” Bazooka.

Don’t let McArthur go past the 38th parallel.

Select the great M-16 earlier and institute rigorous testing to detect and fix problems. Provide cleaning kits and instruction.
Don’t buy that M151 Ford Jeep thing.

*General*
Anticipate and develop anti-radar countermeasures and weapons in late 50s, early 60s.

Aggressively develop precision weapons in same period. 

Get rid of Johnson and McNamara

Don’t let Powers fly that last U-2 flight

*Note*
Many of these things didn't occur due to funding.


----------



## Zipper730 (May 5, 2020)

davparlr said:


> This is more than airplanes


Generally, this has to do with aircraft, and systems used on aircraft with the technology of the era. That said the idea of replacing the F8U's Colt Mk.12's with the Pontiac M-39's would have been a nice touch. 

 jetcal1
, would it fit?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 6, 2020)

davparlr said:


> Build angled flight decks right away. Being able to launch and land aircraft at the same time is a game changer! I suspect it was not a big deal.


It was. The Brits had been doing it for awhile before USN adopted it, and initially there was resistance from the flight crew community. The idea of approaching a flight deck that was continually sliding sideways of the approach path, the disturbance of flying through the "burble" (stack gasses) on short final in an early axial flow jet (kind of fussy about smooth intake flow), and only having four wires instead of thirteen didn't give them warm, fuzzy feelings.
Naturally, the possibility of a bolter was a lot more attractive than flying into the barrier, but it required a major change in long established habits. Instead of chopping throttle at the ramp and dropping into the wires, they had to keep the engine spooled up in case of a bolter, which encouraged floating and punished keeping a little extra airspeed margin "for safety". It was counter-intuitive to firewall the throttle crossing the fantail when the intent was to land. It became more critical than ever to cross the fantail on speed, on glide slope, on centerline, and with the proper hook-to-eye value. Only 18-24 inches height difference at the fantail separated a ramp strike/one wire from a four wire/bolter.
Fortunately, the mirror landing system came into existence about the same time (Brits again), making it somewhat easier to achieve the necessary precision.
To those who had to do it, yes, it was a big deal.
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## davparlr (May 6, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> It was. The Brits had been doing it for awhile before USN adopted it, and initially there was resistance from the flight crew community. The idea of approaching a flight deck that was continually sliding sideways of the approach path, the disturbance of flying through the "burble" (stack gasses) on short final in an early axial flow jet (kind of fussy about smooth intake flow), and only having four wires instead of thirteen didn't give them warm, fuzzy feelings.
> Naturally, the possibility of a bolter was a lot more attractive than flying into the barrier, but it required a major change in long established habits. Instead of chopping throttle at the ramp and dropping into the wires, they had to keep the engine spooled up in case of a bolter, which encouraged floating and punished keeping a little extra airspeed margin "for safety". It was counter-intuitive to firewall the throttle crossing the fantail when the intent was to land. It became more critical than ever to cross the fantail on speed, on glide slope, on centerline, and with the proper hook-to-eye value. Only 18-24 inches height difference at the fantail separated a ramp strike/one wire from a four wire/bolter.
> Fortunately, the mirror landing system came into existence about the same time (Brits again), making it somewhat easier to achieve the necessary precision.
> To those who had to do it, yes, it was a big deal.
> ...


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 6, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> That said the idea of replacing the F8U's Colt Mk.12's with the Pontiac M-39's would have been a nice touch.
> X
> XBe02Drvr
> , would it fit?


Good question. I've seen the M39 only in pictures, where its actual physical size wasn't clear. It looked big and bulky, but those who've seen it in the flesh say not so. Ask jetcal1.


----------



## swampyankee (May 6, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Generally, this has to do with aircraft, and systems used on aircraft with the technology of the era. That said the idea of replacing the F8U's Colt Mk.12's with the Pontiac M-39's would have been a nice touch.
> X
> XBe02Drvr
> , would it fit?



How many of the reliability problems with the Mk12 were the gun vs the installation? Of course, only the F8U was likely to have used it in air-air, so its problems may not have shown up elsewhere.


----------



## davparlr (May 6, 2020)

In my mind, the carrier ops benefits significantly outweigh the training issues. Granted that the probability of missing a wire would be less on a straight deck, the bad ramifications of doing so is greatly increased. Outside the obvious safety issues of crashing into aircraft parked forward if the barrier fails, barrier engagement itself, even if successful, is not necessarily damage free.


> Captain Wally Schirra, later a three-flight astronaut, described the situation: “In those days you either had an arrested landing or a major accident.”


 From the same source below. Just the effort to remove the barrier from the aircraft and resetting it has got to impact the follow on landings and therefore impacting ops. The operational aspects of the slanted deck is very important and could improve efficiency 50%, maybe. The capability of launching several more planes at once should certainly improve assembly time, reduce fuel consumption and increasing range or combat time. Being able to launch aircraft and recover aircraft at the same time gives great flexibility. If the Japanese had that capability Midway could easily have been a different story. 
I’m not sure about the difficulty of learning how to land on one. It seems that once they tried it, they liked it. They even tested new students who quickly adapted to it. From “Historyonthenet”,


> _Antietam_ left for Cuban waters in mid-January 1953. There were some in-flight engagements with the hook snagging a wire before the plane’s wheels reached the deck, and one pilot sustained a back injury. But overall the least experienced pilots had little difficulty making repeated landings on the angled deck, and Wood’s confidence grew to the point that several pilots became night qualified with four traps each.


.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (May 6, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> How many of the reliability problems with the Mk12 were the gun vs the installation? Of course, only the F8U was likely to have used it in air-air, so its problems may not have shown up elsewhere.


I think the Mk12 did have some reliability problems but I don't think rate of fire was a big issue. 4000 r/m of 20mm rounds was a lot of fire power.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 6, 2020)

davparlr said:


> In my mind, the carrier ops benefits significantly outweigh the training issues. Granted that the probability of missing a wire would be less on a straight deck, the bad ramifications of doing so is greatly increased.


Nobody's saying that straight decks are better than angled. The advantages are obvious. Just that from the aviator's perspective it represented a major sea change in landing technique and the forced suppression of deeply ingrained old habits.
The Aviation Training Aids Branch film library in my detachment had quite the museum of archaic training films along with the latest and greatest. Sometimes for giggles when we had late duty, we would set up a projector and look at some of the oldies, including a couple gems from the '50s preparing pilots for the transition from straight to angle decks. Guys who had been Ensigns and JGs back then were now squadron skippers, CAGs, and air station/carrier COs/XOs. Once in awhile one would happen by for a chuckle or two.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (May 7, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> It was. The Brits had been doing it for awhile before USN adopted it, and initially there was resistance from the flight crew community. The idea of approaching a flight deck that was continually sliding sideways of the approach path, the disturbance of flying through the "burble" (stack gasses) on short final in an early axial flow jet (kind of fussy about smooth intake flow), and only having four wires instead of thirteen didn't give them warm, fuzzy feelings.


So the problems had to do with jet-aircraft in particular (the inability to take turbulent airflow into the compressor), as well as the fact that they were flying with a slight crosswind?


> Naturally, the possibility of a bolter was a lot more attractive than flying into the barrier, but it required a major change in long established habits. Instead of chopping throttle at the ramp and dropping into the wires, they had to keep the engine spooled up in case of a bolter, which encouraged floating and punished keeping a little extra airspeed margin "for safety". It was counter-intuitive to firewall the throttle crossing the fantail when the intent was to land. It became more critical than ever to cross the fantail on speed, on glide slope, on centerline, and with the proper hook-to-eye value. Only 18-24 inches height difference at the fantail separated a ramp strike/one wire from a four wire/bolter.


To some degree, jet engines rarely were at low power settings on the approach: Spool up times in jet-engines were simply too slow in those days. From what I remember, you'd often see planes operating with speed-brakes out in varying degrees during the approach, so as to keep engine RPM high enough where responsiveness would be adequate enough to allow for a wave off. New engines such as the J57, J52, J79 (particularly the J79) largely took care of the worst of it.

If I recall, the earlier approach was a bit flatter with a large drop after the cut command was given, with the new/current approach involving a somewhat steeper approach all the way down to the deck. 

I would imagine it would take some getting used to, from going from chopping power when touching down, to actually slamming the power all the way up just before touchdown. The reason for it makes a lot of sense though: The cables can tolerate the abuse, and if you miss, you've got a touch-n-go.



swampyankee said:


> How many of the reliability problems with the Mk12 were the gun vs the installation?


I just don't recall hearing any problems with the gun on any other aircraft, so I figured it was the installation.


----------



## jmcalli2 (May 7, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> It's an intellectual exercise, revolving around how aircraft could have been made better with technology available at the time.
> 
> The existing specification: Basically, the idea would be working within the existing specification, but you could modify or change anything within the boundary of it.
> A different winner: Sometimes the problem wasn't the design so much as the winner to the contender
> ...



Here's my entry; a delta-winged F-104.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (May 7, 2020)

Beautiful.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (May 7, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> It's an intellectual exercise, revolving around how aircraft could have been made better with technology available at the time.
> 
> The existing specification: Basically, the idea would be working within the existing specification, but you could modify or change anything within the boundary of it.
> A different winner: Sometimes the problem wasn't the design so much as the winner to the contender
> ...



Not sure if this is an upgraded F7U or a downgraded F-18...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (May 7, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Nobody's saying that straight decks are better than angled. The advantages are obvious. Just that from the aviator's perspective it represented a major sea change in landing technique and the forced suppression of deeply ingrained old habits.



There are not a lot of references on transitions but I don’t think there was much opposition to the change to the angled deck. Three things indicate to me that this was a needed and welcomed change by the pilots. One was the earlier comment by Schirra on you either make an arrest or you crash, another was a comment in the referenced document by a Lieutenant Commander Buell observed, “To an experienced tailhooker, landing a jet airplane on an angled deck was sheer bliss.” This was made about the first evaluation of a angle deck on the Antietam. This over two month evaluation also included novice naval aviators.

A good Naval War College Review of why the UK came up with the most significant changes before the USN did is here
https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/c...&httpsredir=1&article=1532&context=nwc-review

A quick synopsis, UK studied how to improve WW2 carrier performance and the impacts of jets, USN was intent on figuring out how to carry heaver nuclear bomb laden aircraft on an aircraft carrier. There indeed was a battle going on between the Navy and the Air Force over funding.

I don’t know about this engine stalling due to some turbulence from the island. If there was a particular problem, I think they would have made some aerodynamic changes to the island. I don’t think they did. Never heard of it. Certainly not in aviation aerodynamics taught at pilot training and the AF was still flying the T-33 using the J-33, and the basic training T-37 used an early ‘50s technology engine. There was a lot of turbulent weather found on landing on land including wind gusting to 10 to 25 kts varying +/- 90 degrees from runway heading (been there, done that).

Side note: When I was growing up in Pensacola the Antietam, the first angle deck carrier, was stationed there to support Naval pilot training. It was soon replaced by the Lexington.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (May 7, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> Here's my entry; a delta-winged F-104.



Very nice, even though it looks like a Mirage

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 8, 2020)

davparlr said:


> don’t know about this engine stalling due to some turbulence from the island. If there was a particular problem, I think they would have made some aerodynamic changes to the island. I don’t think they did.


It was a double whammy, the obstruction turbulence of the island and the thermal convection turbulence of the stack gasses, made worse the faster the ship was going. It wasn't so much flameouts, which did occur once in a while, as momentary compressor stalls which would cause a brief reduction in thrust and a settle below glide slope into ramp strike territory. The antidote was a brief burst of power perfectly timed to coincide with the anticipated burble.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (May 8, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> It was a double whammy, the obstruction turbulence of the island and the thermal convection turbulence of the stack gasses, made worse the faster the ship was going. It wasn't so much flameouts, which did occur once in a while, as momentary compressor stalls which would cause a brief reduction in thrust and a settle below glide slope into ramp strike territory. The antidote was a brief burst of power perfectly timed to coincide with the anticipated burble.


You know, I would have thought it was just to set up a potential go-around in the event of a failed approach. I guess you learn something new every day.


----------



## jmcalli2 (May 8, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> It's an intellectual exercise, revolving around how aircraft could have been made better with technology available at the time.
> 
> The existing specification: Basically, the idea would be working within the existing specification, but you could modify or change anything within the boundary of it.
> A different winner: Sometimes the problem wasn't the design so much as the winner to the contender
> ...



F-84 Delta; would it fly?








Zipper730 said:


> It's an intellectual exercise, revolving around how aircraft could have been made better with technology available at the time.
> 
> The existing specification: Basically, the idea would be working within the existing specification, but you could modify or change anything within the boundary of it.
> A different winner: Sometimes the problem wasn't the design so much as the winner to the contender
> ...





Zipper730 said:


> It's an intellectual exercise, revolving around how aircraft could have been made better with technology available at the time.
> 
> The existing specification: Basically, the idea would be working within the existing specification, but you could modify or change anything within the boundary of it.
> A different winner: Sometimes the problem wasn't the design so much as the winner to the contender
> ...





Zipper730 said:


> It's an intellectual exercise, revolving around how aircraft could have been made better with technology available at the time.
> 
> The existing specification: Basically, the idea would be working within the existing specification, but you could modify or change anything within the boundary of it.
> A different winner: Sometimes the problem wasn't the design so much as the winner to the contender
> ...



One more; An improved P6M;


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 8, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> F-84 Delta; would it fly?


Looks like a Republic (in other words, overweight and underpowered) take on the XF92.

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


----------



## Zipper730 (May 8, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Looks like a Republic (in other words, overweight and underpowered) take on the XF92.


That is interesting how Republic had such a tendency to do this...


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 9, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> That is interesting how Republic had such a tendency to do this...


Call it "the Thunderbolt legacy". Almost as if they were trying to rival their next door neighbors, the "Grumman iron works", except they overdid it when they didn't have access to powerplants that could handle the beef. Not 'til the mighty Thud did they get it together.


----------



## The Basket (May 9, 2020)

There are a lot of British post war jets which are worthy of many book on this subject.

All the Supermarines basically!

Always liked the look of the Mirage F.1. it just looks like a jet should. A very basic looking no frills jet.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (May 9, 2020)

The Basket said:


> There are a lot of British post war jets which are worthy of many book on this subject.
> 
> All the Supermarines basically!
> 
> Always liked the look of the Mirage F.1. it just looks like a jet should. A very basic looking no frills jet.


When you compare the delta Mirages to the swept wing Mirage F.1, one wonders why the F.1didn’t do much better in the marketplace.


----------



## jmcalli2 (May 9, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> When you compare the delta Mirages to the swept wing Mirage F.1, one wonders why the F.1didn’t do much better in the marketplace.


My guess is short range.


----------



## jmcalli2 (May 9, 2020)

Improved P6M


----------



## jmcalli2 (May 9, 2020)

Improved F-105

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (May 9, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Very nice, even though it looks like a Mirage



I always wondered if the F-104 would perform better as a delta winged fighter.


----------



## jmcalli2 (May 9, 2020)

J93 powered F-104

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (May 9, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> My guess is short range.



From what I've read, the F.1 had a longer range, better runway requirements, and improved agility. It may have been more expensive, though, or Dassault may have found the delta-winged Mirages much more profitable and pushed sales of the aircraft harder.


----------



## jmcalli2 (May 9, 2020)

F-100 Super Dart


----------



## swampyankee (May 9, 2020)

I think the two improvements that had the best chance of success were the Lockheed Lancer and the Northrop F-5G. 

I find the F-16XL very interesting (this one is being operated by NASA, who have been known to do weird things to their aircraft, but the F-16XL was originally funded by the USAF)



(Picture source: F-16XL Ship #2 Supersonic Laminar Flow Control experiment)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (May 9, 2020)

From what I read the F.1 is better pretty much in all respects to the Mirage III so odd the French moved back to the delta with 2000 and Rafale.

I remember reading the story of the test pilot on the Gloster Javelin. He was basically told to shut up. The Javelin was not a fantastic design but the RAF were buying them so any handling problem was the RAF issue now


----------



## swampyankee (May 9, 2020)

Ejection seats would have been nice in the A3D and F3D, especially since landing and takeoff are the most likely times for accidents. 

The F3H Demon was under-powered; it looks like the J-57 would fit and provide more power.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 9, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> So the problems had to do with jet-aircraft in particular (the inability to take turbulent airflow into the compressor), as well as the fact that they were flying with a slight crosswind.


Actually, they weren't flying into a crosswind. Drill was (is) to steer the ship a few degrees off the wind to put the airflow as close as possible to right down the angle. This eliminates most of the crab angle the aircraft has to hold, but doesn't change the fact the airstrip is constantly sliding to starboard of a lined-up approach, necessitating a slight crab to the right. This is what nugget aviators hitting the boat for the first time after days and days of FCLP (Field Carrier Landing Practice) have the most difficulty adjusting to. Seen from the PLAT screen, the nugget lines up centered in the cross hairs (or not) and drifts inexorably toward the right edge of the screen, ultimately either taking a waveoff or making a last minute correction that has the LSOs diving for the catwalk.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 9, 2020)

"Gentlemen, I believe we have us a callsign! Thy humble servant, heretofore known as jmcalli2, has by exemplary exploits of creative intelligence, earned the worthy and honorable moniker of DeltaDon, and it is hereby proposed that he shall be henceforth thus addressed. What say ye all?"

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


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 9, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Ejection seats would have been nice in the A3D and F3D, especially since landing and takeoff are the most likely times for accidents.


In the world of solid state electronics, the F3D could have had ejection seats, and in the world of lightweight nukes, so could the A3D, so sayeth the retrospectroscope.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (May 10, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Generally, this has to do with aircraft, and systems used on aircraft with the technology of the era. That said the idea of replacing the F8U's Colt Mk.12's with the Pontiac M-39's would have been a nice touch.
> 
> jetcal1
> , would it fit?



Nope. The magazine and belting alone would have displaced a butt-load of fuel. (The M39 had a much different feed system.) 

Please keep in mind I've only seen the F-5 and F-14 installations and the although I was present for the very last RF-8G cat shot (Along with the last F-4 cat shot.) My knowledge on the F-8 is basically limited too...I can spell F-8.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (May 10, 2020)

​


----------



## swampyankee (May 10, 2020)

Back to aircraft improvements......

One improvement I'd consider for the S-2/E-1/C-1 is to re-engine them with turboprops. I believe these were the last piston-engined aircraft routinely operated off USN carriers; the update could have been done in the late 1950s. 

Arguably, the USN should have installed a gun into its Phantoms. The two things that Vietnam should have taught the Navy (and it did teach the Air Force) is that there are going to be times when the missiles don't work effectively and that there are going to be times when rules of engagement are going to have some restrictions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 11, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> One improvement I'd consider for the S-2/E-1/C-1 is to re-engine them with turboprops. I believe these were the last piston-engined aircraft routinely operated off USN carriers; the update could have been done in the late 1950s.


Actually, CalFire is operating a batch of late model S2s as tankers with 1400 HP PT6s (-67s, I think). In late 50s, there wasn't a suitable turboprop available, other than the Allisons, which were overkill for the airframe, too powerful, too thirsty, and being a straight-through design, would have required a complete rebuild of the nacelles and wing center section.
The PWC PT6, being effectively a firewall-forward bolt-on was ideal, but didn't grow into the required HP range until the mid to late 70s, by which time most of the airframes were too far along in their fatigue lives and the next generation were already in production.



swampyankee said:


> Arguably, the USN should have installed a gun into its Phantoms.


They tried. When I was at GE there was much noise about a possible Navy F4E equivalent. Congress wouldn't fund it, was the story I was told. Congress had a tendency to look askance at Naval Aviation in general, as some saw it as unnecessary duplication of the USAF function, and the AF always was able to impress them with "more bang for the buck" by creative accounting showing greater a/c availability per dollar appropriated. They were masters of political propaganda, and could actually deliver on their advertising, as their operating regime was a lot less hard on the hardware.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## ktank (May 15, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> I guess nobody will reckon MiG-21 was one of my favorites, even if it is for the role it played over here in 1995
> Some of modifications from the Chinese versions could've come in handy for the Fishbed. Like the improved wing of the J7E ( MiG can take a page from Su-15M here), and bifurcated intake (from JL-9/FTZ-2000, that also fetured the improved wing) or the belly intake (as tested on the Ye-8, provided it can work). Improved intakes should not just improve 'breathing' of the engine in high AoA flight regimes, but also leave a lot more space for fuel and/or ellectronics. Add wingtip launchers now that we're odifying the wing.
> 
> EE Lighting - try with a full delta wing, like the GD did with F-16XL, so there is more internal space for fuel (hopefully cancelling out the ungainly belly tankin the process).



One major problem with the MiG 21 which I don't think anyone overcame was that on low fuel the cg moved dangerously aft, which meant that considerations of safe handling meant that the usable fuel load was well below what the aircraft actually carried, reducing the range of an already short-range aircraft.

As for the delta Lightning, yes please! With more structural weight and skin area it might lose some performance but performance was the last thing the Frightning had problems with! Getting rid of the belly tank would also allow the aircraft to be safely belly landed and with the wing presumably thicker in the middle they could have used more normal tyres rather than the thin ultra-high pressure ones that meant it couldn't be landed at most airports for fear of damaging the tarmac!

OT- wish I'd gotten to see a Lightning fly. It's not far behind wishing I'd seen a Saturn V launch.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 7, 2020)

I’ve always thought the XF-90 was an exceptionally clean and beautiful aircraft and was surprised to find out that it had lost out to the XF-88 for a long range fighter escort, which was later also cancelled. After all, if it was good enough for the Black Hawks comic book squadron, where I first became aware of it, it should have been good enough for the Air Force. Probably a killer was the gross weight which was 50% greater than the XF-88. Because of uncertainty of supersonic data, it apparently had a particularly strong airframe stressed to 12Gs and, since it used a stronger aluminum alloy than normal, structural stress resistance was four time normal level. In 1951 a new request for proposal was let by the Air Force for a new high speed bomber interceptor. A contract McDonald won with the F-101. Lockheed apparently did not submit a bid.

Lockheed submits an upgraded XF-90, as McDonald did with the XF-88 to make the F-101, making it slightly bigger to accommodate larger engines, reduce stress levels to normal design requirements, ala P-51H, making the empty weight about 25,000 lbs,, applying area rule, and, taking a risk on the J-79 engine, which was being planned for the Lockheed F-104 at the time. If they had done this and won the competition, the Air Force would have in the late 50s a heavy, multi-mission jet interceptor with twin J-79 engines, thrust to weight ratio of near one, very fast and with plenty of lift capability, in other words, their version of a F4H type, only a bit lighter and, with smaller wings, better speed and roll rate, and three years earlier. The Air Force would not need the F-4 for Vietnam. 

The B-47 was a very clean design and reasonably fast by the days standard, about 600 mph but the Air Force never updated its J47 engines. I always wondered just how fast it would go if the Air Force had installed the engines used on the B-52, the J57, providing an extra 9000 lbs of thrust. It probably would not need those JATO bottles. I think that engine change would allow it to go significantly faster. Of course the Strategic Air Command was pouring all of its effort into building the B-52 and had no interest in increasing the capability of the limited range B-47.

Reactions: Like Like:
 1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 8, 2020)

davparlr said:


> The B-47 was a very clean design and reasonably fast by the days standard, about 600 mph but the Air Force never updated its J47 engines. I always wondered just how fast it would go if the Air Force had installed the engines used on the B-52, the J57, providing an extra 9000 lbs of thrust.


Considering when it was designed, there was a very small body of experience with large swept wing jets operating in the sub one Mach transonic range. The B47 was the learning curve, the B52 was the culmination, which has proven to be the durable long term solution.
Fatigue life and limited growth capacity are what made B47 upgrades uneconomical, as well as tricky handling at high subsonic Mach numbers, I'm told. While more thrust would have definitely aided takeoff and climb performance, I suspect top speed was limited by airframe Mach behavior, and the fuel penalty of that extra thrust would further limit range.
I used to fly with a bunch of retired career SAC pilots, several of whom were mustangs who had done time as FEs and/or boomers in KCs and BUFFs. They said tanking a B47 from a KC97 was a tricky operation combining extreme slow flight in the jet with a near-Vne flat-out shallow dive in the recip, neither aircraft in the most user friendly portion of its speed range. BUFFs were apparently much easier.
With the B52 in the pipeline, why waste resources on the B47?
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 8, 2020)

davparlr said:


> I’ve always thought the XF-90 was an exceptionally clean and beautiful aircraft and was surprised to find out that it had lost out to the XF-88 for a long range fighter escort, which was later also cancelled. After all, if it was good enough for the Black Hawks comic book squadron, where I first became aware of it, it should have been good enough for the Air Force.


I'm not sure if that's a good argument. After all there are LOADS of interesting aircraft designs that would be cool for comic strips but bad for real life...


> Probably a killer was the gross weight which was 50% greater than the XF-88. Because of uncertainty of supersonic data, it apparently had a particularly strong airframe stressed to 12Gs and, since it used a stronger aluminum alloy than normal, structural stress resistance was four time normal level.


I was under the impression that the USAAF wanted for the penetration fighter normal/ultimate loads seen on aircraft in WWII. As for uncertainty in terms of transonic and supersonic, do you mean difficulty in regards to calculate dynamic loads on the plane?


> In 1951 a new request for proposal was let by the Air Force for a new high speed bomber interceptor. A contract McDonald won with the F-101. Lockheed apparently did not submit a bid.


From what I recall the F-101 started out as a requirement for continuation of the penetration fighter (as before) but with supersonic performance, greater range, and IFR capability. There was the F-101B, which seemed to be built around the idea of an all-weather interceptor as a supersonic replacement for the F-89 and a gap-filler for the F-102 (and eventually the F-106).


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 8, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> A lay down from treetop altitudes puts you in the fireball if you can't use delay fusing (like if your weapon isn't hardened to survive ground impact). SAC got all the latest and greatest, including the lightweight stuff hardened for tactical jet delivery. USN had to settle for the older, heavier, more fragile stuff intended for air burst after a parachute drop from high altitude, but had to use it in the low level environment. That's the price you pay for being johnny-come-lately and the unwelcome ugly stepchild at the nuclear table.


I'm not exactly sure when the USN acquired it's first lay-down weapon, but I'd almost swear that the A-4 that fell off the deck-elevator in Japanese waters that would later cause a scandal was a 1 MT warhead with lay-down.


> "Gentlemen, I believe we have us a callsign! Thy humble servant, heretofore known as jmcalli2, has by exemplary exploits of creative intelligence, earned the worthy and honorable moniker of DeltaDon, and it is hereby proposed that he shall be henceforth thus addressed. What say ye all?"


I like that one...


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 8, 2020)

davparlr said:


> The B-47 was a very clean design and reasonably fast by the days standard, about 600 mph but the Air Force never updated its J47 engines. I always wondered just how fast it would go if the Air Force had installed the engines used on the B-52, the J57, providing an extra 9000 lbs of thrust. It probably would not need those JATO bottles. I think that engine change would allow it to go significantly faster. Of course the Strategic Air Command was pouring all of its effort into building the B-52 and had no interest in increasing the capability of the limited range B-47.




The B-47 was operating very close to its never-exceed speed, which was set by aileron reversal. Going faster wasn't in the cards. Without a new wing, it wasn't going to go faster, fly higher, or operate at a greater gross weight.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 8, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm not exactly sure when the USN acquired it's first lay-down weapon, but I'd almost swear that the A-4 that fell off the deck-elevator in Japanese waters that would later cause a scandal was a 1 MT warhead with lay-down.


AFAIK A4s were never equipped, trained, or tasked for low level direct nuclear delivery. Their thing was loft delivery, toss bombing, and they practiced that pretty diligently in pre-Vietnam days.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 9, 2020)

Swept Wing F-89: The F-89 originally was to have a swept wing: There were problems with the design

*Adverse Effects on Low Speed Handling*​The swept wing was felt to be less efficient in terms of lifting-capability and stall-characteristics: While stall-characteristics could have been fixed by slats (it worked on the F-86, anyway), and while slats lower stall-speeds -- the requirements called for the maximum degree of controllability and maneuverability possible. That said, I'm not sure if these same requirements applied to day-fighters, such as the F-80 & F-86.​*Inability to Carry Wingtip Loads*​From a balancing point, it was said to make the carriage of ordinance or fuel-tanks at/near the wingtip. I wouldn't be surprised if aeroelasticity was applicable as well, as swept-wings do tend to have (all other things being equal) more flexing than straight wings. Moving the fuel/ordinance inward affected the arrangement of the landing-gear configuration and, depending on the exact arrangement, interference effects with the fuselage.​*Carry-Through Structure*​A swept wing was said to be less-efficient in terms of the design of the carry-through structure.​
Later designs were conceived that did revolve around a swept wing, had differences in aspect ratio, probably wing-area as well.

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 9, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> AFAIK A4s were never equipped, trained, or tasked for low level direct nuclear delivery. Their thing was loft delivery, toss bombing, and they practiced that pretty diligently in pre-Vietnam days.


If I recall the bomb that was used was good for it. That said, I could be wrong.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 9, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> The B-47 was operating very close to its never-exceed speed, which was set by aileron reversal. Going faster wasn't in the cards. Without a new wing, it wasn't going to go faster, fly higher, or operate at a greater gross weight.


Yes, I agree with you. It was pretty well maxed out with that wing design. I would guess that the B-47 was a milestone aircraft in that Boeing learned a lot about big swept back aircraft that fed directly into its more famous offsprings, the B-52 and the 707, especially when you compare it to its competitors at the time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 9, 2020)

davparlr said:


> Yes, I agree with you. It was pretty well maxed out with that wing design. I would guess that the B-47 was a milestone aircraft in that Boeing learned a lot about big swept back aircraft that fed directly into its more famous offsprings, the B-52 and the 707, especially when you compare it to its competitors at the time.



Arguably, all the V-bombers were better aircraft than the B-47, but they were also several years later in a period when engine and aerodynamics technology were advancing quickly. The B-47 was really the first pure-jet bomber which could realistically be called "strategic."

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


----------



## davparlr (Jun 10, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm not sure if that's a good argument. After all there are LOADS of interesting aircraft designs that would be cool for comic strips but bad for real life...



I was being facetious. Also, I think they previously used the Grumman XF5F. The XF-90 was a serious design capable of and performing supersonic flight, albeit in a descent due to lack of thrust.



> I was under the impression that the USAAF wanted for the penetration fighter normal/ultimate loads seen on aircraft in WWII. As for uncertainty in terms of transonic and supersonic, do you mean difficulty in regards to calculate dynamic loads on the plane?



It must be remembered that penetration fighter requirements started around 1945, and the design work started in 1946, before any aircraft had undeniably gone supersonic. Also, in 1946, Geoffrey de Havilland, jr. died when his DH 108 disintegrated at high Mach. So, I don't think the designers in this era had a solid concept of stresses that occurred in trans and supersonic flight. I don't know of any other reason the XF-90 was built to such high strength and weight, 50% more than the winning XF-88. A fatal mistake. It is interesting to note that the follow-on F-101 was more than twice the empty weight of the XF-88.



> From what I recall the F-101 started out as a requirement for continuation of the penetration fighter (as before) but with supersonic performance, greater range, and IFR capability.



The AF cancelled the original program for a long range penetration fighter (P-51 type) that included the winning XF-88 and the XF-90. Due to Russian threats there was a recognition of a need for an interceptor, (Spitfire type) , (other interceptor projects were running into problems). A new request for proposal went out for basically a multi-purpose aircraft. I think the modification of the XF-88 was preferred, they were already familiar with it, even though it had to be practically redesigned.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 10, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm not sure if that's a good argument. After all there are LOADS of interesting aircraft designs that would be cool for comic strips but bad for real life...



In good for the comics, the XF-91 (see Republic XF-91 Thunderceptor > National Museum of the United States Air Force™ > Display), Convair XFY "Pogo" (Convair XFY-1 Pogo), the SNCASO SO.9000 Trident (SNCASO (Sud-Ouest) SO.9000 « Trident »), the SNECMA Coléoptère (Cancelled: Vertical Flyer | History | Air & Space Magazine), the Vickers Type 559 (Vickers Type 559 (F155T) fighter), the Chyeranovskii BiCh-26 (Cheranovskii Bich-26), and, most likely to turn into a successful aircraft, the AVRO CF-105, would all deserve a place.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 10, 2020)

Back to improvements...

There were a number of USN aircraft of the 1950s that failed due to crappy engines (although there were also aerodynamic problems with the F7U that more power could not fix). A better engine would have helped the F3H. Apparently, the J-57 wouldn't fit (why, I'm not sure; it's about the same size as the J-40 first installed), but there were other engines out there, such as the J-79 or the J-65 (or the Avon. Tell CW not to mung it up too badly).


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 6, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Actually, they weren't flying into a crosswind. Drill was (is) to steer the ship a few degrees off the wind to put the airflow as close as possible to right down the angle. . . . This is what nugget aviators hitting the boat for the first time after days and days of FCLP (Field Carrier Landing Practice) have the most difficulty adjusting to.


Since the runway he was landing on didn't appear to be sliding off to the right? To correct, they'd have to crab slightly to the right to stay with the ship. I assume you'd treat this just like a crosswind?

While this is a rather silly question: When it comes to the deck pitching and stuff, are aviators supposed to simply act as if the deck will line itself back up and resist any efforts to "chase the deck"?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 6, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Since the runway he was landing on didn't appear to be sliding off to the right? To correct, they'd have to crab slightly to stay with the ship?


There's a sweet spot between straight down the deck and straight down the angle (closer to the angle) where the crab is so minimal as to become a very minor concern compared to glide slope, AOA, alignment, and airspeed control.




Zipper730 said:


> When it comes to the deck pitching and stuff, are aviators supposed to simply act as if the deck will line itself back up and resist any efforts to "chase the deck"?


In the old days, and especially with recips, it was all on the LSO, who had to counter deck movement by his own judgement, and waveoff the aircraft if it arrived at the "in close" point out of position to make a safe landing.
Today's carriers have gyro stabilized glide slopes that average out the ship's motion and guide the plane to that "average" point. It's still up to the LSO to judge whether a safe landing can be made from that point. A rising deck and a "dive for the deck" move by the pilot can collapse the landing gear on even the most robust plane. A plane trying to come down on a plunging deck can float past the four wire and touch down so far down the angle that it runs off the end before it's ready to lift back off. Neither option is any fun at all.


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 7, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> There's a sweet spot between straight down the deck and straight down the angle (closer to the angle) where the crab is so minimal as to become a very minor concern compared to glide slope, AOA, alignment, and airspeed control.


Meaning a barely perceptible crab with the name of the game being to keep the deck in the middle of your field of view?


> In the old days, and especially with recips, it was all on the LSO, who had to counter deck movement by his own judgement, and waveoff the aircraft if it arrived at the "in close" point out of position to make a safe landing.


When did they switch from gyro-stabilized glide-slopes? Was this present in Vietnam when you served in the Navy?

As for the plunging deck, I assume the pilot would be waved off, or the pilot would just abort and power away right?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 7, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> When did they switch from gyro-stabilized glide-slopes? Was this present in Vietnam when you served in the Navy?


It was there, in theory, in the newer Forrestal class ships, but according to flight crews it, and the Approach Power Compensator, were "not quite ready for prime time". Most carrier landing aids had a tendency to be introduced a little before all the bugs were worked out, leading aviators to look at them with a jaundiced eye.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 7, 2020)

So it was there, but not terribly reliable? As a result, the LSO was the person telling the pilot what to do. My guess is you had to have faith in the LSO as if he were some kind of deity (or at least some kind of supernatural entity)?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 7, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> So it was there, but not terribly reliable? As a result, the LSO was the person telling the pilot what to do. My guess is you had to have faith in the LSO as if he were some kind of deity (or at least some kind of supernatural entity)?


The LSO is ALWAYS the person telling the pilot what do, except in the case of a carrier controlled instrument approach. Out there in the heaving windy darkness, Mother Nature is capable of gyrations the engineers never imagined. She delights in stepping outside the boundaries of what these systems can handle.
LSOs strive to justify the faith in them that keeps pilots alive by being as error proof as humanly possible. To an inhuman degree. A good LSO can wave approaches more accurately than he can fly them himself. Standing out there on his platform, the LSO has a unique perspective on the approach, as he is closer to ground zero than anyone else on the ship, except the center deck PLAT camera, which is unmanned.
I was lucky enough in my flight student days to have a couple instructors who could teach someone to fly better than they could fly themselves. I was later occasionally accused of that sort of instructing myself. The best LSOs are like that, and they all strive to be, or they don't stay LSO for long.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 8, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The LSO is ALWAYS the person telling the pilot what do, except in the case of a carrier controlled instrument approach. Out there in the heaving windy darkness, Mother Nature is capable of gyrations the engineers never imagined. She delights in stepping outside the boundaries of what these systems can handle.
> LSOs strive to justify the faith in them that keeps pilots alive by being as error proof as humanly possible. To an inhuman degree. A good LSO can wave approaches more accurately than he can fly them himself.


And he could fly them pretty awesome himself. That's why he's the LSO.


> I was lucky enough in my flight student days to have a couple instructors who could teach someone to fly better than they could fly themselves. I was later occasionally accused of that sort of instructing myself.


I know what you mean.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 8, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> And he could fly them pretty awesome himself. That's why he's the LSO.


Not every "hot stick" aviator has the makings of an LSO, just as not every "good stick" pilot has the makings of a good instructor. An intuitive understanding of the physics of flight, an ability to calmly and quickly impart crucial information, a low adrenaline level, an immunity to arrogance, a resilient ego, and supreme self confidence are the necessary ingredients. Ice would, with a little seasoning, make a great LSO. Maverick, NWIH!
Potential LSOs are spotted early in their careers and subjected to a lengthy apprenticeship out there on the platform supporting the active LSOs. They have to hard wire the flight characteristics of every aircraft type the carrier supports into their nervous systems. For this they are absolved of some of the collateral duties every officer has to assume in addition to their regular job. An embarked squadron doesn't have enough officers to have a full time non aviator for each of the ancillary duties, such as Mess Officer, Recreation Officer, Maintenance and Maintenance Supply, as well as the "core" staff functions such as Admin, Intelligence, Operations, and Logistics/Supply. In fact there are very few non-flying officers at all. It's all about berthing space and resource consumption while deployed. Non-flying officers are mostly part of ship's company and serve the ship, not the Air Wing. Like the catapult and arresting gear officers, Air Boss and Deck Handler, Intermediate Maintenance, Ship's Supply, Damage Control, Communications, Intelligence, Engineering, and Reactor officers, to name a few.
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## jmcalli2 (Aug 8, 2020)

A little rework of the XB-60:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 8, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> A little rework of the XB-60:



That looks remarkably similar to the Myasishchev M-4. 

Just as an aside, I know _why_ they used bicycle landing gear, but I've never been a particular fan of the system.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 8, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> A little rework of the XB-60:


OMG! A Bison! Red alert! Red alert! Set DefCon one! Scramble ADC weapons free! Duck and cover!

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


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 26, 2020)

X
 XBe02Drvr


I did some looking on the A3J/A-5 Vigilante and, while there's a possibility I might be wrong: It would appear that the design started out as a replacement for the AJ and A3D, with the ability to fly low at high-subsonic speeds while carrying a bomb that it could pop out the back doing a LABS maneuver.

The top speed was later increased to Mach 2 (some sources seem to have implied the ability to achieve 2.5 for a short period followed by a short burst up to Mach 3.0), with apparently a high and low-altitude delivery capability.

As time went on, the concern about being able to deliver up high, and the strategic bombing capability to be handled by SLBM and ICBM's, lead to it either being slated to deliver down-low (as originally intended), or flying reconnaissance (which it did).


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 26, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> It would appear that the design started out as a replacement for the AJ and A3D, with the ability to fly low at high-subsonic speeds while carrying a bomb that it could pop out the back doing a LABS maneuver.


During A3J's lengthy gestation from concept to deployed weapon system a lot of things changed. For example, the effectiveness of SAMs and radar guided AAA grew dramatically, making the loft bombing option problematical.



Zipper730 said:


> The top speed was later increased to Mach 2 (some sources seem to have implied the ability to achieve 2.5 for a short period followed by a short burst up to Mach 3.0)


One of the things that changed along the way was the significant gain in afterburning thrust of the J79 engine, such that a little aerodynamic tweaking could make supersonic in the weeds a reality. Lots of "high and fast" jets can't handle the dense air at sea level and actually bust mach. The Vige and the Thud could. What do these two birds have in common? Massive air intakes with variable geometry inlet ducting, large volume but highly streamlined area rule fuselage, and very thin wings.
The Vige, like all of its contemporaries, was limited to approximately Mach 2.5 brief dashes by the buildup of heat compromising the integrity of the canopy and windshield. No pilot wants a lapfull of molten plexiglass on the other side of Mach. And most jets other than the V&T pair couldn't haul enough gas to go that fast for very long, anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Aug 29, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> X
> XBe02Drvr
> 
> 
> ...



My understanding of the A-5 was that the design was adapted from the Mach 3 F-108 Rapier, with J-79 engines in place of the Rapier's YJ-93. Later, the Russians used the A-5 as a template for the MIG-25 Foxbat.


----------



## jmcalli2 (Aug 29, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> That looks remarkably similar to the Myasishchev M-4.
> 
> Just as an aside, I know _why_ they used bicycle landing gear, but I've never been a particular fan of the system.



This has a slightly different landing gear than the B-52 or XB-51 bicycle system. This takes the B-36 wing mounted landing gear and puts them side by side in the fuselage; a narrow track rather than a bicycle.


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 31, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> During A3J's lengthy gestation from concept to deployed weapon system a lot of things changed. For example, the effectiveness of SAMs and radar guided AAA grew dramatically, making the loft bombing option problematical.


While I have no idea what kind of ECM (or even just RHAW/RWR) the A3J was to be equipped with, but it seemed that the SA-2's threat might have been a bit overblown for a number of supersonic airplanes.

The A3J was able to pull g-loads of 4.65 normal / 6.98 ultimate when subsonic; maximum g-load would be less, but it seems plausible it could routinely execute 2g maneuvers without too much trouble. That would make it difficult for the SA-2's radars to get a lock as the earlier radars (even as of 1965) took around 70-75 seconds to go from lock-on to firing.

The B-58 was another comparison, though it had much better range. It seemed to have a decent jammer, and could comfortably pull 2g's in turns at altitude and speed. Whether it could do more, I'm not sure, but there were some claims that it could maneuver with fighters at light-weights (Phil Rowe, a B-58 DSO wrote about how his pilot, after having F-4 pilots mock their ungainly aircraft following an IRAN did a steep climb and a series of aileron roles at their reduced weight -- around 100,000 lb.), but there would have been some effective limits to the aircraft's maneuverability outside the structural limits, such as the fact that the gyros used in the bomb/nav system either tumbled or suffered gimbal lock following a steep climb and abrupt aileron rolls (ironically, the same scenario I described earlier), and the systems didn't seem to have a "push to cage" feature. There did appear to be switches to isolate various parts of the aircraft's navigation components, but nothing regarding push-to-cage, that I'm aware of.



jmcalli2 said:


> My understanding of the A-5 was that the design was adapted from the Mach 3 F-108 Rapier, with J-79 engines in place of the Rapier's YJ-93. Later, the Russians used the A-5 as a template for the MIG-25 Foxbat.


Not exactly. North American seemed to use a lot of cross-pollination in their designs, however. The A3J, XB-70, and F-108 all used an all-moving tail, the XB-70 and F-108 both used ejection capsules and J-93's.

There was a high-performance design that was either an offshoot or a parallel development of a reconnaissance plane with a top speed in excess of Mach 3 using a J58 engine. The design was rejected and, while they wanted to incorporate it into the A3J, NAA was against it, as it would require a redesign.

The MiG-25 was said to take it's design cues from the A3J, though I'm not totally sure if that's true or not -- there's lots of aviation myths that have been busted over the years.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 31, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> it seemed that the SA-2's threat might have been a bit overblown for a number of supersonic airplanes.


In a loft bomb maneuver an SA2/Ajax class missile isn't your primary threat. Unless it's acquired you before you've commenced your pullup, it probably can't get to "Fire!" in time. Radar directed AAA, OTOH, can, and did account for many of the Vigilante losses in Vietnam.


Zipper730 said:


> it seems plausible it could routinely execute 2g maneuvers without too much trouble. That would make it difficult for the SA-2's radars to get a lock


Surviving SAMs in Vietnam was not so much about avoiding lock as it was about evading the missile in flight. The beam the missile rode was quite maneuverable in "free" lock mode, but once the missile was in flight, was constrained to the missile's maneuver limits. Early SA2s had no inherent homing capability. They were BUFF busters. An appropriately timed high G turn into the missile would place you inside the missile's minimum turn radius, and once your doppler rate in the missile's sensor started to drop, it would detonate, somewhere out behind you. This was not the Vigilante's strong suit (despite the verbiage in Wikipedia), as it's high speed and weight, smallish wing, and high wing loading made for an evasive turning radius best described as "majestic". Defensive ECM, or "deck 'em" was the bacon-saver of choice.

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


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 1, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> In a loft bomb maneuver an SA2/Ajax class missile isn't your primary threat.


Yes, but it is why you're flying low in the first-place. That said: I wasn't talking about the threat of the SA-2 at low altitude, but high altitude.


> Surviving SAMs in Vietnam was not so much about avoiding lock as it was about evading the missile in flight.


Well, obviously -- but if you can inhibit a lock effectively, you might not have to deal with the missile (that was my point).


> The beam the missile rode was quite maneuverable in "free" lock mode, but once the missile was in flight, was constrained to the missile's maneuver limits.


As far as I understand, the missile was command guided. It used a beam to aim at the target, but the missile didn't maneuver itself to keep itself within the beam by onboard sensors: The command-guidance system told the missile where to go to keep it with the beam (I'm not sure if the USAF realized the missile was command-guided or beam-riding). Regardless, if they thought the missile was as agile as the beam: It might explain why they thought the missile would be so difficult to defeat.


> Early SA2s had no inherent homing capability.


I guess at a later period of time, they gave the missile some onboard capability (I do remember reading about Linebacker II, where they were using EB-66's to use it's own jamming to cover the B-52's jamming strobes, so the SA-2's couldn't be lined up on the strobe). I also remember that they used a transponder at some point (the downlink), which they didn't have earlier.


> Defensive ECM, or "deck 'em" was the bacon-saver of choice.


The DECM would be able to inhibit a lock or interfere with the missiles guidance: I'm not sure how effective it was, but that should have given planes like the B-58 and A3J/A-5 a good shot at coming in high and fast past 1962. I wouldn't be surprised if the SA-2's used in the USSR might have had some features the NVN's didn't have, but one serious concern I could see would be the SA-2E which had a nuclear-warhead provision.

I'm not sure if we knew that they had it, but we had already developed SAM's with (MIM-14) with nuclear-tipped warheads, and might very well have suspected they'd develop them. That said, I'm not sure how many they had fielded.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 3, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Well, obviously -- but if you can inhibit a lock effectively, you might not have to deal with the missile itself.


For an RA5C straight and level on a photo run at medium altitude (Death Alley) inhibiting lock with multiple sites acquiring you at once, wasn't in the cards with pilot devoted to maintaining track and RAN occupied with his sensors, as that required spending a lot of attention on the DECM equipment. I'm told that the procedure of choice was to switch on the guidance signals "jammer" at first indications of a launch, which could automatically scan the various guidance signal frequencies and then send out supposedly legitimate, but confusing guidance signals to the missile. It also supposedly sent out every self-destruct signal that SIGINT had ever recorded from east bloc equipment, just in case, as well as attempting to disrupt the beam.


Zipper730 said:


> The DECM would be able to inhibit a lock or interfere with the missiles guidance: I'm not sure how effective it was, but that should have given planes like the B-58 and A3J/A-5 a good shot at coming in high and fast past 1962. I


The Vietnam era PECM and DECM we've been discussing didn't exist in their later developed form back in 1962 when the B58 and A5 were removed from the high altitude arena. SAMs were a prohibitive threat.

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


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 4, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> For an RA5C straight and level on a photo run at medium altitude (Death Alley) inhibiting lock with multiple sites acquiring you at once, wasn't in the cards with pilot devoted to maintaining track and RAN occupied with his sensors, as that required spending a lot of attention on the DECM equipment. I'm told that the procedure of choice was to switch on the guidance signals "jammer" at first indications of a launch, which could automatically scan the various guidance signal frequencies and then send out supposedly legitimate, but confusing guidance signals to the missile.


If you couldn't inhibit a lock, then preventing the missile from blowing you up seems to make sense.


> It also supposedly sent out every self-destruct signal that SIGINT had ever recorded from east bloc equipment, just in case, as well as attempting to disrupt the beam.


That's a pretty smart move, actually!


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 4, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> If you couldn't inhibit a lock, then preventing the missile from blowing you up seems to make sense.
> That's a pretty smart move, actually!


It would take BIG BRASS ONES to motor along fat, dumb, and happy, snapping pics and depending on the electronics to preserve your bacon, but that was the mission. Besides, dodging SAMs required an agile aircraft and good enough cockpit all-around visibility to visually track the missile, neither of which applied to the Vigilante.
The RA5's speed meant that most missile launches would end up as tail chases, and visibility aft was nil. Successfully dodging a SAM required waiting until the missile was close enough so it couldn't track a turning target with a small course correction, then pulling hard into its direction of approach, thereby exceeding it's high speed turn capability. Remember, it was designed as a BUFF killer.
The warhead's firing circuits were designed to recognize a sharp doppler shift as the closest point of approach and trigger detonation. When the SA2 was designed the Soviets still didn't have a proximity fuse that was up to the task, or so the story goes.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 6, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The RA5's speed meant that most missile launches would end up as tail chases, and visibility aft was nil. Successfully dodging a SAM required waiting until the missile was close enough so it couldn't track a turning target with a small course correction, then pulling hard into its direction of approach, thereby exceeding it's high speed turn capability. Remember, it was designed as a BUFF killer.


I'd almost swear the missile was designed to take out high altitude threats (which included the B-52, but also the U-2, B-57, and B-58). While I figured that the RA-5's high speed would produce tail-chases for most launches, I didn't consider rear visibility was poor for the plane.

As for ECM, I'm not sure what changes were made post 1962.


> The warhead's firing circuits were designed to recognize a sharp doppler shift as the closest point of approach and trigger detonation.


That, I didn't know. I was under the impression that it simply used a command detonation signal.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 6, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I'd almost swear the missile was designed to take out high altitude threats (which included the B-52, but also the U-2, B-57, and B-58).


That's true, it was. Also the B70. It was out of its comfort zone in Vietnam, but still performed quite effectively, and evolved to expand its effective envelope.



Zipper730 said:


> I was under the impression that it simply used a command detonation signal.


I believe it had that too, but the distance between launch point and intercept point can make timing of that signal for optimum destructive effect problematical.


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 6, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> That's true, it was. Also the B70. It was out of its comfort zone in Vietnam, but still performed quite effectively, and evolved to expand its effective envelope.


I didn't know the B-70 was included in the list. I thought the SA-5 was built to handle that one.


> I believe it had that too, but the distance between launch point and intercept point can make timing of that signal for optimum destructive effect problematical.


So in the event the command-detonation signal couldn't work, the onboard detonation system would do the job?

BTW: Would an aircraft capable of Mach 4 @ 95000' with the ability to withstand routine maneuvers of 2-3g have been able to shake the SA-2 loose with jammers equal to the B-52D's either pre/post Vietnam?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 6, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I didn't know the B-70 was included in the list. I thought the SA-5 was built to handle that one.


If the B70 had been deployed on it's original projected schedule, it would have been there before the SA5 was operational.


Zipper730 said:


> So in the event the command-detonation signal couldn't work, the onboard detonation system would do the job?


By the time the launch site could determine the doppler detonator had "failed" it would be too late to achieve any destructive effect. At that point it would be just a deliberate destruct to protect friendlies below.
You gotta realize the intercept geometry of a SAM against an agile hard turning target is not what the designers of the SA2 envisioned. The rods of the warhead expand outward from the detonation point in a conical pattern, and if any of them from a distant "near miss" are to reach the target the detonation must occur somewhat before the point of closest approach. This is something that would be difficult to determine from a launch site miles away and thousands of feet below electronically, and impossible manually. This was most reliably the point where the rate of decrease of the doppler value reached a certain threshold, detonating the warhead, something that's not difficult electronically.


Zipper730 said:


> BTW: Would an aircraft capable of Mach 4 @ 95000' with the ability to withstand routine maneuvers of 2-3g have been able to shake the SA-2 loose with jammers equal to the B-52D's either pre/post Vietnam?


Who cares? This kind of blue sky "what if" is too esoteric for the likes of me. My apologies, but I see no point in it.


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 7, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> If the B70 had been deployed on it's original projected schedule, it would have been there before the SA5 was operational.


I thought there were concerns about its development before the B-70 first flew, though it wasn't operational until 1966-67.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 7, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I thought there were concerns about its development before the B-70 first flew, though it wasn't operational until 1966-67.


The B70 was never operational.


----------



## NVSMITH (Sep 7, 2020)

Two items:
1) I know this was done at least once: convert the C-123 to turboprop.
2) When I was at HQ USSOCOM there was a wood model, about 1:48 I guess, of a C-130 seaplane. I couldn't tell if it was amphibious; couldn't tell if it was someone's idea of a joke.


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 7, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The B70 was never operational.


I know that, I was talking about the SA-5


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 7, 2020)

NVSMITH said:


> Two items:
> 1) I know this was done at least once: convert the C-123 to turboprop.
> 2) When I was at HQ USSOCOM there was a wood model, about 1:48 I guess, of a C-130 seaplane. I couldn't tell if it was amphibious; couldn't tell if it was someone's idea of a joke.



IIRC, there was a Lockheed proposal for an amphibious variant of the C-130. The DoD didn’t bite.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 8, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> BTW: Would an aircraft capable of Mach 4 @ 95000' with the ability to withstand routine maneuvers of 2-3g have been able to shake the SA-2 loose with jammers equal to the B-52D's either pre/post Vietnam?


I don't know but I would suspect that pulling 2 to 3 gs at 95k ft would be problematical for any aircraft. Maybe someone who is knowledgeable of the SR-71 or aerodynamics could say?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 9, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> IIRC, there was a Lockheed proposal for an amphibious variant of the C-130. The DoD didn’t bite.



Pictures and information in this heavily ad laden article:

A C-130 Hercules Amphibian Makes Too Much Sense To Be True

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 9, 2020)

davparlr said:


> I don't know but I would suspect that pulling 2 to 3 gs at 95k ft would be problematical for any aircraft. Maybe someone who is knowledgeable of the SR-71 or aerodynamics could say?


The air's pretty thin up there and the coffin corner pretty narrow. It would depend on the aerodynamic details, but for any plane that would also be competitive at lower altitudes, the margin between stall and mach limit (the "coffin corner") would likely be so narrow at straight and level flight that any kind of attempt at aggressive maneuvering would lead to disaster.
Aircraft that have reached those altitudes have done it as a zoom climb/ballistic trajectory, not sustained level flight.

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


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 9, 2020)

Have someone in British aeronautical design understand the area rule (from the 1940s for god's sake) so that the Scimitar is supersonic. 

To fly your latest naval fighter in 1956 with a top speed of 740 mph and a rate of climb 6,751 ft/min is abysmal. By then the supersonic MiG-19 (902 mph, 35,000 ft/min) was well in service, and the MiG-21 (already flying in test form. The Scimitar was introduced in 1957, the same year as the USN's F-8 Crusader (1,227 mph, 19,000 ft/min). What the hell was Vickers-Supermarine smoking to think their Scimitar was competitive with what was coming out of the USSR and USA? Hell, even France was flying the superlative Mirage I in test form by then.

Two carrier aircraft, both launched 1957, one served into the 1990s, the other quickly tossed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 9, 2020)

From my perspective? 
The Navy should have made all the C-9 squadrons fly this puppy:




(Boeing Image)

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


----------



## Graeme (Sep 10, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Have someone in British aeronautical design understand the area rule (from the 1940s for god's sake) so that the Scimitar is supersonic.



In a short article by Bill Gunston he assures the reader that the Scimitar's fuselage *was* area-ruled and gives reasons why the development was so slow. In photos the fuselage certainly looks obese but I had a look at a silhouette from 1961 and certainly not a "coke bottle" waist, but I think I can discern a pinched in area.
But then my eyes are crap. See what you think...

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 10, 2020)

Graeme said:


> In a short article by Bill Gunston he assures the reader that the Scimitar's fuselage *was* area-ruled and gives reasons why the development was so slow. In photos the fuselage certainly looks obese but I had a look at a silhouette from 1961 and certainly not a "coke bottle" waist, but I think I can discern a pinched in area.
> But then my eyes are crap. See what you think...
> 
> View attachment 594485


I see what you’re at, but Vickers had a true area ruled version proposed, which suggests they knew they’d screwed up, akin to the Convair F-102 and F-106.


----------



## NVSMITH (Sep 10, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Pictures and information in this heavily ad laden article:
> 
> A C-130 Hercules Amphibian Makes Too Much Sense To Be True


-The model I saw at HQ USSOCOM was the C-130 with a seaplane hull. I can't imagine a Hercules on floats.
-What next, folding wings and catapult it off a supertanker?


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Sep 11, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> But way more damage on impact!
> That's correct, I've never seen it up close and personal. That said, I didn't know the F-8 had an intake that was too small.


Not too "small", but designed to be just large enough to provide the required air-mass flow (181 lb/sec) required by the J57. In the later F-8 models (-E and the refurbished earlier models) the higher-powered J57s required 200 lb/sec - the intake was no longer quite adequate, and actually limited the max power output of the engine.

Increasing the cross-sectional area would require redesigning the whole front fuselage, see the redesign of the Phantom's intakes when the Brits fitted it with 210 ft/sec Speys instead of the original 170 lb/sec J79s (which changed the aerodynamics and *lowered* the top speed despite the more-powerful engines).


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 11, 2020)

davparlr said:


> I don't know but I would suspect that pulling 2 to 3 gs at 95k ft would be problematical for any aircraft.


From what I found off an online site, 85.5 knots would be the approximate IAS/CAS for 95000 feet at Mach 1, so Mach 4 would be 342 kts, which does seem a touch slow. That said, even if your stall speed was 185 to 200 knots that would yield 261.6 to 346.4 knots as a stall speed in theory. That said, stall speeds vary with mach number, so...


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Sep 11, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> It was. The Brits had been doing it for awhile before USN adopted it, and initially there was resistance from the flight crew community. The idea of approaching a flight deck that was continually sliding sideways of the approach path, the disturbance of flying through the "burble" (stack gasses) on short final in an early axial flow jet (kind of fussy about smooth intake flow), and only having four wires instead of thirteen didn't give them warm, fuzzy feelings.
> Naturally, the possibility of a bolter was a lot more attractive than flying into the barrier, but it required a major change in long established habits. Instead of chopping throttle at the ramp and dropping into the wires, they had to keep the engine spooled up in case of a bolter, which encouraged floating and punished keeping a little extra airspeed margin "for safety". It was counter-intuitive to firewall the throttle crossing the fantail when the intent was to land. It became more critical than ever to cross the fantail on speed, on glide slope, on centerline, and with the proper hook-to-eye value. Only 18-24 inches height difference at the fantail separated a ramp strike/one wire from a four wire/bolter.
> Fortunately, the mirror landing system came into existence about the same time (Brits again), making it somewhat easier to achieve the necessary precision.
> To those who had to do it, yes, it was a big deal.
> ...



Well, the RN first began to consider angled landing paths in June 1945, but only formally decided to investigate them in August 1951.

It is hard to determine when the USN first began to consider the idea, but the design of the USS United States in 1946-47 moved the aircraft elevators & catapults to the deck-edges (placing the cats on sponsons) to clear the landing path, and looking at that design it would be easy to ask "what if we removed one of the side catapults and used that for an angled landing path?".

The following is from: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ANGLED-DECK AIRCRAFT CARRIER Innovation and Adaptation
Thomas C. Hone, Norman Friedman, and Mark D.Mandeles


> In his memoir, Captain (later Rear Admiral) Cambell notes that he mentioned the angled-deck concept to a delegation of U.S. Navy officers in September 1951. As he recalls, “they said very little, but . . . they exchanged significant looks. A few weeks later we heard . . . that the USN were already planning to angle the flight deck of the carrier Midway, for a preliminary trial.”
> 
> In his Wings on My Sleeve, test pilot Eric Brown noted that he had been directed by his superiors to take “with me details of a new idea to revolutionize carrier-deck landing” when he joined the U.S. Navy’s test pilots at the NATC in late summer 1951. Harold Buell, who commanded Fighter Squadron 84 on Antietam (CV 36) in early 1953, later remembered that Brown’s espousal of the angled deck did not immediately gain support at the NATC, because Brown “was talking of only a four-degree deck angle, which would drastically limit the number of aircraft on a carrier deck during flight operations. . . . However, the idea sparked further thinking, and when the angle was increased to eight degrees . . . , it was decided to test the concept further.”
> 
> Preliminary tests in the spring of 1952 with an angled deck painted on Midway’s axial flight deck were so promising that the U.S. Navy began converting Antietam to an angled-deck configuration in late summer that same year. In January 1953, tests at sea on Antietam were successful, and Carrier Air Group 8 spent just over two months learning how to use the new deck configuration during exercises off Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.



The RN began their first tests with a 5.5 degree angle landing path painted on HMS Triumph (a light fleet carrier of 18,000 tons full load displacement, flight deck length 690', flight deck width 80'). *These tests were performed 11-15 February 1952.*

USS Midway's painted-angle tests were in May 1952, Anteitam's angle deck was fabricated and installed from September 1952 to December 1952.

The Angled Deck contains the following statement from Dennis Campbell, one of the two RN officers credited with originating and developing the angled deck concept:


> However, neither the news about the USN's intention to modify the Midway nor the results of the satisfactory trials in the Triumph persuaded the Admiralty to take any action other than to agree that the new scheme would be considered for fitting into the design of a new generation of Fleet Carriers (which, in fact, were never built).
> 
> Then in May 1953 the USS Antietam came upon the scene. The USN, whose Midway trials had been similar to ours in the Triumph, had done a quick-fix modification to this carrier, one of the Essex class. Limited structural alterations had been prefabricated ashore and were installed in record time.
> 
> As a quid pro quo for the fact that the idea was of British origin, and apparently because they knew the Admiralty were dragging their feet, the USN offered to send over the Antietam to give a demonstration of the new technique. Which offer was gratefully accepted, and the ship spent a week operating in the Channel, with the RN pilots participating. Lewis and I were specially invited on board, and were presented to all concerned as the two inventors. The success of this visit persuaded the Admiralty that retrofit action should be started forthwith.

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


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Sep 11, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> swampyankee said:
> 
> 
> > How many of the reliability problems with the Mk12 were the gun vs the installation? Of course, only the F8U was likely to have used it in air-air, so its problems may not have shown up elsewhere.
> ...



The primary reliability issue was that, with the long feed path from the magazines to the gun breeches in the Crusader, the feed mechanism would freeze if the gun was fired during a high-G turn.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Sep 11, 2020)

davparlr said:


> This is more than airplanes
> *Navy*
> Build angled flight decks right away. Being able to launch and land aircraft at the same time is a game changer! I suspect it was not a big deal.
> 
> ...


1. It was not that big of a deal with prop planes and the first/first-and-a-half generation carrier jet fighters (Banshee & Panther/Cougar).

2. Actually, the USN *almost *had just what they needed for Korea... if not for Leroy Grumman's stubbornness.


> The XF9F-2/XF9F-3 Panther contract awarded in October of 1946 had included a clause calling for design data on a swept-wing version. However, Grumman was worried about the poor low-speed characteristics of swept-wing aircraft, and prevailed upon the Navy to postpone work on a swept-winged version of the Panther.
> 
> However, the development of a swept-wing Panther was made more urgent by the appearance of the MiG-15 in Korea in November of 1950. The MiG-15 was powered by derivatives of the same Rolls-Royce Nene as was the Panther, but was nearly 100 mph faster. The very next month, the Navy and Grumman both agreed that it was urgent to press forward with the development of a swept-wing version of the Panther. A contract for the modification of three F9F-5 airframes was signed on March 2, 1951. The project was assigned the company designation Design 93.
> 
> ...



Yes, the USN could have had swept-wing Cougars, with their higher top speed and better maneuverability & improved carrier handling qualities, at the same time it got its first straight-wing Panthers... the first production F9F-2 flew in August 1949, so that's 3 years that could have been saved!

Absolutely agree... long before the USN gave up on that fiasco, engines that actually delivered *better* performance (J57 etc) were operating... it should have been dropped years earlier, and the newer engines incorporated into the designs.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Sep 11, 2020)

The Basket said:


> Always liked the look of the Mirage F.1. it just looks like a jet should. A very basic looking no frills jet.



Yes - it looks very much like an improved F11F-1 Tiger!


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Sep 11, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> swampyankee said:
> 
> 
> > Back to aircraft improvements......
> ...



1. The General Electric T58 turboshaft (license-built by Rolls-Royce as the Gnome) powered lots of helos in the 1960s-80s (Hueys, CH-46s, Wessexes, SH-3s/Sea Kings, SH-2 Seasprites, etc). It was first run in 1959, and initially produced 1,050 shaft horsepower (H.1000 model), and 1,250 shp by 1962 (H.1200). The R1820 engines of the Tracker/Tracer/Trader family produced 1,525 horsepower each - *which was matched in 1966 by the H.1400 series of T58/Gnome*. Concurrently, the P series of T58/Gnome for turboprop engines was also available, in otherwise identical models at the same times.

So by ~1966 the S-2/E-1/C-1 family could have been re-engined with turboprops... and it a 4-blade prop was installed instead of the 3-bladed ones of the piston engines, the same engine power could have produced more performance!


2. The problem was that the Vulcan installation reduced available volume in the nose, which forced the USAF to install a radar which, in the words of a former USN F-4/F-14 pilot I have conversed with, had the performance of a nearsighted man without his glasses. He had done an exchange tour on USAF F-4Es, and said that the AN/APQ-120 radar "could barely detect bombers at the same range that the radar in the F-4B or F-4J could detect single-engine fighters".

The USAF gave up considerable radar performance to get that gun.

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


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Sep 11, 2020)

davparlr said:


> The B-47 was a very clean design and reasonably fast by the days standard, about 600 mph but the Air Force never updated its J47 engines. I always wondered just how fast it would go if the Air Force had installed the engines used on the B-52, the J57, providing an extra 9000 lbs of thrust. It probably would not need those JATO bottles. I think that engine change would allow it to go significantly faster. Of course the Strategic Air Command was pouring all of its effort into building the B-52 and had no interest in increasing the capability of the limited range B-47.


The B-47 did get upgraded engines... the early J47-11s in the B-47A/B produced 5,200 lb thrust - by the B-47E they had J47-25A(W)s, which produced 5,970 lb [7,200 lb with water injection for take-off].

The problem with increasing the engine power too much is the same as part of why the B-52 never got the 4 large-diameter tubofans as replacements for its 8 smaller-diameter turbofans in the 1980s... the wings of both aircraft are actually pretty flexible, and the increased thrust on the end off the lever-arms that we call pylons would produce a leading-edge-up twist during take-off, which would not only really screw up take-off handling (and possibly induce a wingtip stall condition before ever leaving the ground), but also severely stress the wing structure with every take-off.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 11, 2020)

Oops, goof! (Deleted)


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Sep 11, 2020)

NVSMITH said:


> -The model I saw at HQ USSOCOM was the C-130 with a seaplane hull. I can't imagine a Hercules on floats.
> -What next, folding wings and catapult it off a supertanker?

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


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 11, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> From what I found off an online site, 85.5 knots would be the approximate IAS/CAS for 95000 feet at Mach 1


You do realize, don't you, that you're actually travelling *a lot* faster in actual velocity than 85.5 knots, right? The air density correction between IAS/TAS is HUGE at those altitudes.


Zipper730 said:


> so Mach 4 would be 342 kts, which does seem a touch slow. That said, even if your stall speed was 185 to 200 knots that would yield 261.6 to 346.4 knots as a stall speed in theory.


You might want to dig a little deeper on speed relationships in excess of mach 1 at higher altitudes. I believe you'll find there are some non-linearities there.



Zipper730 said:


> That said, stall speeds vary with mach number, so...


Yeah, like that...


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Sep 11, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Oops, goof! (Deleted)


Gotta watch those engine model numbers... T58, not T56. 

The reason is simple... they *are* for the USN - to operate from the _Essex_ class CVA/Ss - in 1969-70 6 SCB-27A/125 _Essex_ class CVSs decommissioned, and from 1971-76 1 CVS and 6 CVAs decommissioned - turbopropped ASW/AEW/COD aircraft could have been useful for those, since the E-2/C-2 and S-3 could not operate from them. Note especially that the S-3 Viking did not enter service until 1974, and it was not until ~1978 that the last S-2s retired from operational squadrons aboard USN CV/CVNs!

Then there are (were) the allied navies operating S-2s from much smaller carriers... Canada operated them from HMCS _Bonaventure_ from 1957-70 (to 1990 from land); Australia operated them from 1967-82 from HMAS _Melbourne_ (to 1984 from land); The Netherlands operated them from HNLMS _Karel Doorman_ from 1960-68 (to 1976 from land); Argentina operated them from 1960 (first aboard ARA _Independencia_, then from _25 de Mayo_ (ex-_Karel Doorman_, purchased in 1968) until 1986 (until 2017 on exercises with Brazil from _Minas Gerais_ and from land to current); and Brazil operated them from _Minas Gerais _from ~1961-2001 (then from land to current).

Several other nations operated S-2s from land, some have turbopropped theirs (Taiwan, as one example, from 1967-2017) and so on.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 11, 2020)

GreenKnight121 said:


> Gotta watch those engine model numbers... T58, not T56.


Gotcha, tired brain in the mid shift. Think I'll go see if I can rustle up some midrats, then rack out. BZ.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Sep 11, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Gotcha, tired brain in the mid shift. Think I'll go see if I can rustle up some midrats, then rack out. BZ.


Me too... need to be up for work in 5 hours!

A note to my above post - only 2 USN supercarriers operated S-2s... CV-62 Independence on her June 1973-Jan 1974 (S-2Es) and July 1974-Jan 1975 (S-2Gs) cruises - and CV-63 Kitty Hawk on her Nov 1973-July 1974 and May-Dec 1975 cruises (S-2Gs all).

Deployments of USS INDEPENDENCE (CV 62)
Deployments of USS KITTY HAWK (CV 63)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 11, 2020)

GreenKnight121 said:


> Yes, the USN could have had swept-wing Cougars, with their higher top speed and better maneuverability & improved carrier handling qualities, at the same time it got its first straight-wing Panthers... the first production F9F-2 flew in August 1949, so that's 3 years that could have been saved!


Well if I recall the contract for the swept wing derivatives weren't F9F's with swept wings like the Cougar, they were different aircraft. The design had went through changes and quickly was called the XF10F, and from there went from a longer slicker F9F aircraft shape (but larger) to a deep-bellied aircraft with variable incidence wings, and eventually variable-sweep wings (which was the XF10F Jaguar).



XBe02Drvr said:


> You do realize, don't you, that you're actually travelling *a lot* faster in actual velocity than 85.5 knots, right? The air density correction between IAS/TAS is HUGE at those altitudes.
> 
> You might want to dig a little deeper on speed relationships in excess of mach 1 at higher altitudes. I believe you'll find there are some non-linearities there.


Yeah, the speed of sound is around 660.1 at around 30000' - 35000' then stays there for awhile, while I know there are areas in the atmosphere where it goes up and down, you're still moving very quickly -- it just gives an idea of how much airflow is going over the plane.

I'm not sure by how much the stall speed varies, but I do know, to some extent, the concept of buffet boundary. From what I remember reading, the F-104 has a stall speed around 170 knots at sea-level and around 200 knots at 50000'. I don't know what effect going from high subsonic to supersonic have on the matters (instinctively, I would assume it would get worse, but supersonic compressors work better, go figure).


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 11, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Actually, CalFire is operating a batch of late model S2s as tankers with 1400 HP PT6s (-67s, I think).


My bad! I made that comment based on info from a relative who's a firefighter in CA and *thinks* he knows a lot about airplanes. Turns out those planes actually have Garrett TPE331s of 1600+ HP.
I've seen a couple videos of CalFire's stoofs in action, but none showing enough engine nacelle detail to disprove my "information". To tell the truth I didn't know the TPEs had gotten that far up the horsepower scale. They used to be such cute little 700 HP screamers.


----------



## pgf_666 (Sep 17, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> What sort of time machine are you planning on using? J85 was not available til nearly a decade after the Gutless was designed.


Well--I knew a guy with a deLorean....


----------



## pgf_666 (Sep 17, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You'd have to have a crystal ball to foresee the separation problem that occurred. It looked good on paper, according to the slipstick math that was the technology of the time, and was more or less mandated by the design mission of low level supersonic delivery of a nuclear weapon fused for pre-impact detonation, requiring maximum separation if the bomber is to survive the fireball. The theory was that if supersonic, the bomber would outrun the blast wave if it escaped the fireball.
> If you've ever seen an A5 with engines and panels removed so you can see the structure, you'd know why a rotary bomb bay or other downward opening solution was an unfeasible retrofit option.
> Cheers,
> Wes



How about a pneumatic or even explosive 9(or even a coil spring!) active seperator A3J going M.3 forward, payload going M.3 (relative) backwards, net 0 a/s--sounds fairly ideal to me....


----------



## pgf_666 (Sep 17, 2020)

davparlr said:


> In my mind, the carrier ops benefits significantly outweigh the training issues. Granted that the probability of missing a wire would be less on a straight deck, the bad ramifications of doing so is greatly increased. Outside the obvious safety issues of crashing into aircraft parked forward if the barrier fails, barrier engagement itself, even if successful, is not necessarily damage free. From the same source below. Just the effort to remove the barrier from the aircraft and resetting it has got to impact the follow on landings and therefore impacting ops. The operational aspects of the slanted deck is very important and could improve efficiency 50%, maybe. The capability of launching several more planes at once should certainly improve assembly time, reduce fuel consumption and increasing range or combat time. Being able to launch aircraft and recover aircraft at the same time gives great flexibility. If the Japanese had that capability Midway could easily have been a different story.
> I’m not sure about the difficulty of learning how to land on one. It seems that once they tried it, they liked it. They even tested new students who quickly adapted to it. From “Historyonthenet”, .



Maybe a case of not having to unlearn what were NOW 'bad habits'?


----------



## pgf_666 (Sep 17, 2020)

davparlr said:


> ....
> The B-47 was a very clean design and reasonably fast by the days standard, about 600 mph but the Air Force never updated its J47 engines. I always wondered just how fast it would go if the Air Force had installed the engines used on the B-52, the J57, providing an extra 9000 lbs of thrust. It probably would not need those JATO bottles. I think that engine change would allow it to go significantly faster. Of course the Strategic Air Command was pouring all of its effort into building the B-52 and had no interest in increasing the capability of the limited range B-47.



But...it had this minor problem with the wings occasionally falling ogg

Embarrassing....


----------



## pgf_666 (Sep 17, 2020)

NVSMITH said:


> Two items:
> 1) I know this was done at least once: convert the C-123 to turboprop.
> 2) When I was at HQ USSOCOM there was a wood model, about 1:48 I guess, of a C-130 seaplane. I couldn't tell if it was amphibious; couldn't tell if it was someone's idea of a joke.




Np Joke. They built one. Bit the DoD didn't seem to like planes that could take off again after ditching....


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 18, 2020)

pgf_666 said:


> How about a pneumatic or even explosive 9(or even a coil spring!) active seperator A3J going M.3 forward, payload going M.3 (relative) backwards, net 0 a/s--sounds fairly ideal to me....


It had a "separation charge" that was supposed to eject the entire "stores package" (weapon and aux fuel tanks) out the aft end of the bomb bay. It didn't have enough oomph to reliably clear the slipstream, which was more powerful than had been calculated. On more than one occasion this charge was triggered by the jolt of a catapult launch, ejecting the "package" onto the flight deck. A more powerful charge was deemed unsafe, and by that time submarine launched ballistic missiles were beginning to take over the Vigilante's mission.


----------



## pgf_666 (Sep 18, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> It had a "separation charge" that was supposed to eject the entire "stores package" (weapon and aux fuel tanks) out the aft end of the bomb bay. It didn't have enough oomph to reliably clear the slipstream, which was more powerful than had been calculated. On more than one occasion this charge was triggered by the jolt of a catapult launch, ejecting the "package" onto the flight deck. A more powerful charge was deemed unsafe, and by that time submarine launched ballistic missiles were beginning to take over the Vigilante's mission.



Ah. Actually makes sense--surprising, in a way.

But the other factor was the prevalent idea at the time that, since we had nukes, snd THEY had nukes, they next unpleasantness was going to leave glow-in-the-dark craters where the cities had been, so there was no real need for manned bombers of any kind--hence BUFFs on Social Security.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 18, 2020)

pgf_666 said:


> BUFFs on Social Security.


Today's BUFFs are "electronic battleships", or 21st century kamikazes, if you will, whose sole purpose, after launching their standoff missiles, will be to provide a few minutes of powerful jamming until the new generation ultra long range smart AAMs take them out. They haven't a snowball's chance in Riyadh of penetrating enemy airspace, nevermind surviving there.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pgf_666 (Sep 18, 2020)

My thoughts:

Keep the Dems out of the White House--Buy more votes than Daddy Kennedy did--and, especially, Robert Strange McNamara away from ANYTHING of significance.Find and purge the Soviet agents from the government, especially State. DoD, FBI, Central Intelligence.

If you MUST have a TFX, go with Boeing. Put the B-70 into production. Continue production of F-105, F8U (Cancel F4h/F-110.) Start work on next-gen warcraft immediately. Continue seaplane rescue fleet. Perhaps makeF-12 operational?Nil Zeus.Dyna-soar, MOL. Support for Gen-Av, rather than mild suppression. LTA: Blimps, dirigibles.Again, if you MUST get involved in Th Quagmire, go in trying to actually win it. Perhaps bring back the B-36 to do the B-52's job over the South (I'm not quite the fool to think it'd stand a snowball's chance over the North.) Next gen B-49? Lockheed Lancer, F-8U3,4.Active homing Sparrow IV. Keep Air Force Cadet program.Firearms training (safety, mandatory. beyond that, religious exemptions available.) Require all judges & justices to pass test on Constitution. Ditto, legislators & Executives. Publicize CAP Cadet program. Clean up Hollywood Soviet. Improve NORAD, rather than gut it. (Achilles' Law--the enemy will attack at any weak point they can find.)F-103, F-108, , F-109, or something newer? M-16A1 was a decent weapon in short range situations, but could well have cost us most of Europe, Maintain M-14/15 stocks there. Could the MBT-70 have been salvage? If not, license Leopard? Cruisers, Essex+ sized carriers, perhaps submersible. Earlier work on various aspects od stealth.Since most non CAP activities are now on the deck, better camo. Require IQ of over 70 for DoD civilian employees and appointees. Execute traitors, such as Lady Jane Red. Clean up education system, especially 'higher' education, apparently run from Politburo. ditch Intel chips for 6502 series in personal computers, encourage everyone to learn to program for themselves.Hang Gould & Ali (idiot heads of Commodore) and put someone more like am Tramiel in charge.

Enjoin M$ from making operating systems.Skip the tradgically laughable TF-30.Support Douglass, rather than force it into a merger with McD. Hang the traitorous governor of Arkansas, who signed the bill adding the Confederate battle rag to the state flag.Adopt the Piper Enforcer for the US Army--(whi should have all thge ground support aircraft under their direct control) and NATO and MAP allies. Renew Star Trek. Cancel Dallas

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pgf_666 (Sep 18, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Today's BUFFs are "electronic battleships", or 21st century kamikazes, if you will, whose sole purpose, after launching their standoff missiles, will be to provide a few minutes of powerful jamming until the new generation ultra long range smart AAMs take them out. They haven't a snowball's chance in Riyadh of penetrating enemy airspace, never-mind surviving there.



Which is why we should have built the B-70, a successor, and more B-1s, as well as the F-17 (or F-18L as the proposed denavelized version was designated), Start the F-14 & F-15 programs earlier, so the enter service early enough to be involved in the Unpleasantness. Keep the Rams in L.A. Make a big deal when the grunts return, don't just throw them into a hostile society.


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 19, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> It had a "separation charge" that was supposed to eject the entire "stores package" (weapon and aux fuel tanks) out the aft end of the bomb bay. It didn't have enough oomph to reliably clear the slipstream, which was more powerful than had been calculated. On more than one occasion this charge was triggered by the jolt of a catapult launch, ejecting the "package" onto the flight deck. A more powerful charge was deemed unsafe, and by that time submarine launched ballistic missiles were beginning to take over the Vigilante's mission.


The idea strikes me as fundamentally flawed -- after all, even if it cleared the back, you'd have this huge void in the back, and that would be like flying with a suction cup behind you -- it'd be nothing but a constant source of base-drag.

Even if the afteburner plume was made to expand a bit more as a result, I'm not sure if it'd cover the base-drag.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 19, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> The idea strikes me as fundamentally flawed -- after all, even if it cleared the back, you'd have this huge void in the back, and that would be like flying with a suction cup behind you -- it'd be nothing but a constant source of base-drag.
> Even if the afteburner plume was made to expand a bit more as a result, I'm not sure if it'd cover the base-drag.


I don't know. I never saw an A5A. They were all RA5Cs in my time. The ones I saw had a seam right down the middle of the tail cone as if they could split and open up like a clamshell door. Presumably they could then close back up. The RA5C had no need to eject anything in flight, so opening the tailcone would be strictly a maintenance procedure.

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


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 22, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I don't know. I never saw an A5A. They were all RA5Cs in my time. The ones I saw had a seam right down the middle of the tail cone as if they could split and open up like a clamshell door. Presumably they could then close back up. The RA5C had no need to eject anything in flight, so opening the tailcone would be strictly a maintenance procedure.


The clamshell idea made the most sense, but that doesn't appear to be the design concept: These diagrams at least seem to indicate what I initially assumed.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 22, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> The clamshell idea made the most sense, but that doesn't appear to be the design concept: These diagrams at least seem to indicate what I initially assumed.
> 
> View attachment 595676
> 
> View attachment 595677


Looking carefully at the photo (Intrepid museum in NYC) you can see a vertical seam right down the middle of the tailcone, which looks taped over on this static display. On an average workaday active aircraft, it's much more visible, with grime streaks and wear marks that make it look like it has been opened. I confess I never saw one actually open. The plane had single point pressure fueling with the aux tanks plumbed in, so no need to access the bay for anything but maintenance. My tractor trailer fueling rig could only do two Vigilantes, then back to the tankfarm for a refill.


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 26, 2020)

I remember seeing some models that depicted the aircraft with two fins, why didn't they keep that? It seems like it would have resulted in a lower clearance.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 26, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I remember seeing some models that depicted the aircraft with two fins, why didn't they keep that? It seems like it would have resulted in a lower clearance.


I don't know, but I've heard that USAF and USN resisted the idea of twin tails as long as they could until the aerodynamic and stability penalties of single tails became overwhelming.


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 27, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I don't know, but I've heard that USAF and USN resisted the idea of twin tails as long as they could until the aerodynamic and stability penalties of single tails became overwhelming.



In general, the faster you go, the more vertical surface you need for stability. This is (partially) why the XB-70 had wingtips the folded down at high speed and featured small vertical stabilizers. On naval aircraft the tall tail, as on the Vigilante, became a storage issue on aircraft carriers. The F7U Cutlass had twin tails.
The disadvantages to twin tails are added structure weight and more complex aerodynamics. 
The SR-71, XB-70, F-14, F-15, F-117, F-18, A-10, F-22 and F-35 have twin tails. 
The B-58, A-5, A-6, A-7, B-1, and F-16 have single tails.
The B-2 has no tail.
The 1930s design theory held you had better stability with the vertical stabilizers directly in line with and behind the props, thus the B-24 and B-25 twin tails.
The last version of the B-24 used a single tail and had better handling because of it.
The B-25 follow-on, the XB-28, had a single tail.
The XB-32 had twin tails, as did the early B-36 designs, but the production aircraft used single tails.
The P-38 and P-61 were the only US production fighters to have twin tails until the F-15, roughly a 30 year span.
The Me-110 had twin tails, but the Me-210 & Me-410 had single tails.
Designers pick the layout for specific reasons.
Everything is a tradeoff.


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 27, 2020)

jmcalli2 said:


> In general, the faster you go, the more vertical surface you need for stability. . . On naval aircraft the tall tail, as on the Vigilante, became a storage issue on aircraft carriers. The F7U Cutlass had twin tails.


The F7U had twin tails probably for a couple of reasons (and not necessarily in order): They acted like airflow dividers (like a stall-fence); the underside also made room for the landing gears without encroaching on fuel volume too much; they shortened the height of the airplane to some extent, and; (possibly) the airflow over the tail wouldn't run the risk of being blanked by the fuselage.


> The disadvantages to twin tails are added structure weight and more complex aerodynamics.


I was told with twin-tails it actually helped reduced the drag (some kind of pumping effect).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jmcalli2 (Dec 27, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> The F7U had twin tails probably for a couple of reasons (and not necessarily in order): They acted like airflow dividers (like a stall-fence); the underside also made room for the landing gears without encroaching on fuel volume too much; they shortened the height of the airplane to some extent, and; (possibly) the airflow over the tail wouldn't run the risk of being blanked by the fuselage.
> I was told with twin-tails it actually helped reduced the drag (some kind of pumping effect).



One thing I have noticed, and I could be wrong, is that aircraft designed for high speed and operations at high angles of attack over the past 40 years tend to have twin tails. I would guess the F7U, being a tails design projected for very high subsonic speeds and designed for carrier operations, was fitted with twin tails due to the high angles of attack involved. Just a guess.

As for reducing drag, I would look at the interference drag from the fin/fuselage junction; a twin tail may have twice that drag as opposed to a single tall fin.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 16, 2021)

This is kind of said in jest, but a lot of the problems with the F7U-1 would have been rectified if it was simply built as a tail-dragger: The British did it with the Attacker


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 17, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> This is kind of said in jest, but a lot of the problems with the F7U-1 would have been rectified if it was simply built as a tail-dragger: The British did it with the Attacker


Surely in jest, as it would have required massive main mounts to get the necessary AoA that wing platform needed for launch. Where you gonna stow those "shotputter's legs" when you're airborne?


----------



## special ed (Jan 17, 2021)

The F7U was seriously underpowered. Given the engine(s) of a decade later it may have been viable.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 17, 2021)

special ed said:


> The F7U was seriously underpowered. Given the engine(s) of a decade later it may have been viable.


How about a pair of afterburning J57s? I don't think J79s would have worked with those intakes and ducting. But a decade later, if you weren't supersonic, you weren't relevant.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 17, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Surely in jest, as it would have required massive main mounts to get the necessary AoA that wing platform needed for launch.


Well, it's obviously in jest, but the main landing-gear legs wouldn't have to be made all that much longer. The primary variable that would change the MLG length would be the fact that the removal of the nose-gear would the CG further aft, and would require the wings to move forward to keep the CG & CL relationship within tolerances.

The F7U-1 had a strange landing-gear configuration whereby the landing-gear legs were perpendicular to the wings for takeoff and aimed straight down for landing. Given that tail-dragger aircraft before generally had the gear perpendicular with the wings, and the F7U-3 built later had landing-gears of this configuration, I'd say it'd probably be do-able.

I would also suspect that the nose-gear added a bit of weight that would now be gone: If the gears somehow get excessively long, you could do what Republic did and put a shrink-strut in. The RN:FAA didn't have too much of an objection with the Sea Fury which used that (it was a double-telescoping strut too).


----------



## jmcalli2 (Jan 17, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> This is kind of said in jest, but a lot of the problems with the F7U-1 would have been rectified if it was simply built as a tail-dragger: The British did it with the Attacker



The engines weren't powerful enough for the design.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 17, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> Well, it's obviously in jest, but the main landing-gear legs wouldn't have to be made all that much longer. The primary variable that would change the MLG length would be the fact that the removal of the nose-gear would the CG further aft, and would require the wings to move forward to keep the CG & CL relationship within tolerances.


Better give that another think, Zipper. Removing the nose gear to convert to a tail dagger would require the mains to move *forward *of the CG, else it would want to sit on it's nose like a VariEze. This would likely more than compensate for loss of the nose gear CG wise, and the further forward the mains go, the taller and heavier they'd have to be to get launch AoA. You could install "squatting" gear that extend for launch, but now you're talking even more weight and complexity. Another can of worms gets pried open.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 18, 2021)

*Regarding the F7U Cutlass Taildragger Concept*


XBe02Drvr said:


> Removing the nose gear to convert to a tail dagger would require the mains to move *forward *of the CG


Well, this was kind of a joke more than anything else, since I doubt the USN would have wanted to go in that direction. The head of the BuAer's fighter desk wanted to make huge leaps forward, and I figure a tail-dragger would have been seen as a step backward with planes like the F7F, FD/FH, FJ, and F2H all coming online with nose-gears.

Regardless: Do you have any estimate of where the CG was on the F7U-1 and how much further forward it'd have to be to avoid getting a brutal face-plant on landing?

*Regarding the A3J/A-5 Vigilante*


X
 XBe02Drvr
, I did some looking into the design of the payload train, and found the following images, which are from _North American A-5A - RA-5C Vigilante (Naval Fighters Number Sixty-Four)_ by Steve Ginter

This image depicts the loading of the payload train






This image depicts the deployment of the payload train during a LABS maneuver: You can see the tail-cone in the second image (left to right) come off before the train comes out.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 18, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> Regardless: Do you have any estimate of where the CG was on the F7U-1 and how much further forward it'd have to be to avoid getting a brutal face-plant on landing?


No I don't, but it's not hard to come up with a rough estimate. Take a side view of the plane and locate the Mean Aerodynamic Chord. That will be a straight line from the forwardmost point of the wing leading edge to the aftmost point of the trailing edge. Center of Lift will be somewhere between 25-40% of MAC and CG will be 5-10% forward of that. MLG will be another 5-10% forward of CG. Works (roughly) for any tail dragger.

RE: the Vigilante. "Holy shit, Batman! That plane just crapped all over us! Goggles up, Batman, it's gonna blow!"


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 18, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> No I don't, but it's not hard to come up with a rough estimate. Take a side view of the plane and locate the Mean Aerodynamic Chord. That will be a straight line from the forwardmost point of the wing leading edge to the aftmost point of the trailing edge. Center of Lift will be somewhere between 25-40% of MAC and CG will be 5-10% forward of that. MLG will be another 5-10% forward of CG. Works (roughly) for any tail dragger.


That would still be reliable on a swept wing?

Regardless, I remember an image of the F7U-1 with a white line in the mid-section of the fuselage: Was that line the CG? Could you tell if I found the image?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 18, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> That would still be reliable on a swept wing?
> 
> Regardless, I remember an image of the F7U-1 with a white line in the mid-section of the fuselage: Was that line the CG? Could you tell if I found the image?


Swept wings have a much wider MAC, but the percentages generally still hold, except in unconventional cases such as canards and double deltas, like Viggen and Draken.
You didn't mention if the F7U-1 image was a drawing or a photo. In drawings the center of the CG range is usually depicted as a small circle divided into quadrants, two black and two white. In an aircraft photo, that line may have been a visual target for flight test photography, or possibly a marker for the location of the turbine wheels in the engine. Those early jets had a nasty habit of spraying turbine blades in a radial pattern if they sucked up some FOD while turning up on the cat. Guaranteed containment engine bays were a design goal not always achieved.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 18, 2021)

This is the image I found...


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 19, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> This is the image I found...
> 
> View attachment 609458


Your guess is as good as mine. Looks too far forward for either CG or turbine wheels. I suppose it could be midpoint of overall length as a reference for flight test photography. Speed tests?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 21, 2021)

*Regarding the F7U-1*

There were numerous problems with the F7U-1 that kept it from entering service, but one of the biggest issues was the visibility over the nose: From what I remember, they estimated the design flying at the AoA used for the F4U-1. That was obviously a mistake.

I'm curious if the higher AoA was factored in, and the nose was shaped more like the F7U-2 (which never flew, but was similar to the F7U-3), if that would have helped out a bit?


*Regarding the F-104*

The F-104 was designed originally around being able to out-accelerate, out-climb, get-higher and faster than anything the enemy had. There was also a desire for simplicity (hell some pilots didn't even want a radar-directed gunsight, hydraulic flight-controls, and a gyro-sight) and lightweight design as well. I assume low-maintenance was almost certainly a requirement.

While the intent was for the plane to be an uncompromising day-fighter, the USAF did eventually dictate the aircraft be usable as an interceptor, and protracted mach 2 performance became a design feature. Though most interceptors by that time were to be all-weather, it seems that Lockheed was able to persuade the USAF to allow them to drop some unnecessary equipment in the interest of weight-reduction (and that might have been where it was dumped).

While the aircraft definitely met the goal of being able to accelerate and climb rapidly to high altitude, and sustain speeds in excess of Mach 2: It came up short in a number of areas

Handling characteristics were treacherous
It had a tendency to violently pitch-up, and lock into a deep-stall: While it was possible to power-out of it, you'd lose considerable altitude.
Spins were often unrecoverable, and even if you somehow managed to get out of it, it was not uncommon to lose 15000' which would often put you in the ground as the aircraft's corner velocity happened to be around 15000'-20000'.

The aircraft's design resulted in a downward-firing ejection-seat: I'm not sure what the minimum safe altitude to eject was, but I remember hearing the number of 20000', which might very well have been a faulty memory (and if not, presumably reduced by the time the plane entered operational, as this figure came from the YF-104 during gun-firing tests).
The maneuvering characteristics of the plane were kind of limited in the following ways
Stall speed was very high: Around 170 knots at takeoff weight (I'll have to check Avialogs and see if they got an F-104A/C manual), which made for a wide turning-circle.
The aircraft did not appear to have practical maneuvering flaps until the F-104G: I'm not sure what issues were present such as the speed they could be safely extended at, the g-loads they could be extended at, and how rapidly they could actuate, but these could all pose a serious problem, as the flaps can lower the stall-speed.
While it could actually fly surprisingly high, even when subsonic (around 50000'), owing mostly to having a lot of engine power, and a high buffet-boundary: It was teetering on the stall, and it stalled badly. Given that the most aggressive maneuvering occurs subsonic, and the greater the range of altitudes it could maneuver well across is quite important.

Armament: Ironically, armament seemed to not be a major concern early on, and the 2000 lb. payload wasn't unusual for the Korean War (where the design originated), as the F-80C could carry 2 x 1000 lb.; the F-84D had the capacity for 2500 lb. (the F-86 could technically carry up to 4000 lb. normal, 5300 lb. overload, but 2000 lb. was more normal because combat radius would take a hit). As time went on, they wanted more ordinance carrying capacity, more versatile types of ordinance including the provision for a nuclear bomb, as well as the desire for an extra pair of sidewinders (Interestingly up until 1956 they didn't seem to complain about these things, then they were about ready to cancel the plane when they couldn't carry any of the things they didn't stipulate).
In flight-refueling: They didn't seem all that concerned about it, despite the fact that the F-84's were fitted with this capability back in 1950 or 1951. As before, they seemed unconcerned, then were ready to cancel the plane. The F-104C could be fitted with a fixed-probe (not sure what effect it had on performance).
On the bright side, it had a very good rate of roll, an excellent cannon (though it had teething issues), and in a time where rear visibility was becoming increasingly rare, it's overall visibility seemed quite good. The electronics could also be serviced and swapped-out surprisingly quickly, and were modular in design.

While some could argue the weight of the plane was substantial compared to the MiG-15 or F-86, compared to the F-100 it was pretty light, and it was lighter than the USN's F8U-1 (which was lighter than the F-100).

I'm curious what could have been done to have retained the good characteristics (or at least the bulk of them) while minimizing the bad ones?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 21, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm curious what could have been done to have retained the good characteristics (or at least the bulk of them) while minimizing the bad ones?


1. Upward firing ejection seat.
2. 15-20% more wing area. This would take a slight hit in top speed, but the additional thrust of later -# J79s should minimize that.
3. Fast acting combat flap.
4. Air to Air refueling capability.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 21, 2021)

Only the early models had the downward firing ejection seat.

They developed a inflight refueling system , kind of crude appearing for a supersonic aircraft.
If you'll look for pictures of the F-104 deployed to Vietnam, you'll see it.

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


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 21, 2021)

tyrodtom said:


> Only the early models had the downward firing ejection seat.
> 
> They developed a inflight refueling system , kind of crude appearing for a supersonic aircraft.
> If you'll look for pictures of the F-104 deployed to Vietnam, you'll see it.


What it should have had is a retractable probe from the get-go. Given its thirsty engine and its limited interior volume, its range and endurance limitations should have been compensated for that way.
I suspect it may not have been a comfortable machine to fly close enough to a tanker (KC97 at the time) to use the boom system. Remember the XB70 formation fiasco?


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 22, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> 1. Upward firing ejection seat.
> 2. 15-20% more wing area. This would take a slight hit in top speed, but the additional thrust of later -# J79s should minimize that.
> 3. Fast acting combat flap.
> 4. Air to Air refueling capability.


The easiest of the following would be the fast-acting combat-flap, then the in-flight refueling capability. Had the US Air Force actually asked for these things, it seems that they probably could have been incorporated prior to the F-104A's entry to operational service (if not the YF-104A's first flight).

I'm curious if there was any aerodynamics knowledge at the time that would have allowed them to allow more wing-area without any significant drag-reduction?



tyrodtom said:


> Only the early models had the downward firing ejection seat.


If I recall, by the early 1960's, that was done away with (and good thing).


> They developed a inflight refueling system, kind of crude appearing for a supersonic aircraft. If you'll look for pictures of the F-104 deployed to Vietnam, you'll see it.


Yeah, the F-104C had such provisions. I'm not sure what performance penalty it exacted, but I have a feeling it would be more a mach issue than an airspeed one, but who knows, the Germans wanted the F-104G with a retractible probe, and they were mostly going to fly low to the ground at 750 knots.


----------



## msxyz (Jul 12, 2021)

F3H Demon. After the disastrous debut with the troublesome Westinghouse J40 engine, the F3H was given a second chance with the Allison J71. The engine was a bit more powerful, but it was complex to maintain and unreliable. The F3H was really a good design but the engines of the day where not powerful enough for such a large plane. That's why McDonnell started to work on a two engines version of the F3H (initially using the afterburning version of the Wright J65, then the J79) that became the F-4 Phantom.

But maybe the F3H could have had a better and longer career if McDonnell opted for a J57 or, even better, a J75


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 12, 2021)

msxyz said:


> F3H Demon. After the disastrous debut with the troublesome Westinghouse J40 engine, the F3H was given a second chance with the Allison J71. The engine was a bit more powerful, but it was complex to maintain and unreliable. The F3H was really a good design but the engines of the day where not powerful enough for such a large plane. That's why McDonnell started to work on a two engines version of the F3H (initially using the afterburning version of the Wright J65, then the J79) that became the F-4 Phantom.
> 
> But maybe the F3H could have had a better and longer career if McDonnell opted for a J57 or, even better, a J75


Actually, they had looked into the F3H being fitted with a J57. The problem was that, while it could be fitted, it would be harder to mate to the airframe than the J71. The inlet was a particular problem in that you'd lose some thrust unless it was re-shaped. This problem had occurred on the F4D (I think they lost 400 lbf.)


----------



## msxyz (Jul 13, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> Actually, they had looked into the F3H being fitted with a J57. The problem was that, while it could be fitted, it would be harder to mate to the airframe than the J71. The inlet was a particular problem in that you'd lose some thrust unless it was re-shaped. This problem had occurred on the F4D (I think they lost 400 lbf.)


I seem to remember that this problem was also encountered with the J71: the side inlets were not large enough to allow an easy passage of air into the engine causing some loss of trust or premature compressor stalls. I can imagine the problem only became worse and worse with bigger and more powerful engines that needed more air to be ingested. The J71 was also longer and heavier than the J40 it replaced. Alas the J40 put out 33/45 KN on a good day (when it wasn't bursting on fire or shutting down itself at the most inconvenient time). That's the same as the afterburning J-65 that propelled the F-11 tiger, but it was clearly not anywhere enough for an airplane that weighted over 12 tons at take off. Apparently McDonnell (and the Navy) bought the hype that was coming from Westinghouse...

I always liked the side profile of the F3H and I always wonder how it would have fared if McDonnell tried to market in with another engine (the also J79 being a good candidate for a second chance).


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 13, 2021)

msxyz said:


> I seem to remember that this problem was also encountered with the J71: the side inlets were not large enough to allow an easy passage of air into the engine causing some loss of trust or premature compressor stalls.


I never heard of that problem. I also didn't know it was longer and heavier.


> the J40 put out 33/45 KN on a good day (when it wasn't bursting on fire or shutting down itself at the most inconvenient time). That's the same as the afterburning J-65 that propelled the F-11 tiger, but it was clearly not anywhere enough for an airplane that weighted over 12 tons at take off.


From what I remember, it produced around 2/3 the amount of thrust it was supposed to.

Frankly, the F3H would probably have faired well with a J79 but it wouldn't have had anything on the F-4, but at least it had 4 x 20mm cannon lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## msxyz (Jul 13, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> I never heard of that problem. I also didn't know it was longer and heavier.
> From what I remember, it produced around 2/3 the amount of thrust it was supposed to.
> 
> Frankly, the F3H would probably have faired well with a J79 but it wouldn't have had anything on the F-4, but at least it had 4 x 20mm cannon lol


You remember right. It was supposed to be a 10000lbf engine (45KN) but only the late variants reached that figure with reheat turned on. Maximum dry thrust was between 6500 to 7500 lbf. Westinghouse also couldn't figure how to design a good axial compressor (a common problem in many first generation jet engines once engineers tried to raise the overall pressure ratio; even Rolls Royce licensed the Sapphire compressor design when their new Avon engine turned out to perform below expectations )

Most of these info come from 'F3H in detail and scale' (Bert Kinzey). The J40 should be around 1600Kg, the J71 around 2300Kg. The F3H version powered by the J40 had thinner arrow shaped wings; the subsequent F3H-2 increased the wing area, to compensate some of the weight taken, by reducing the sweep angle of the trailing edge thus approaching a trapezoidal shape. I don't have the book at hand to write down the exact figures, but the F3H-2 was more than one ton heavier than the F3H-1 (some weight also came from a more powerful radar suite used in some variants with the early Sparrow missile).

On the subject of guns, even though the F3H was supposed to carry four of them, usually only two were mounted to save some weight! The last batch of aircrafts produced came out of the factory with only two of them.


----------



## Glider (Jul 13, 2021)

I am keeping it simple
1) equip the Hunter with Sidewinders
2) ditto Buccaneer
3) Support the development of the Lightning (Get the F6 so much earlier)
4) Develop a land version of the Crusader (think of the performance gain with the lost weight)
5) Give the Mig 21 more fuel from the start
6) Change the Atlas in the Mirage for an Avon (this was done but the French succeeded in stopping the program)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 13, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> Actually, they had looked into the F3H being fitted with a J57. The problem was that, while it could be fitted, it would be harder to mate to the airframe than the J71. The inlet was a particular problem in that you'd lose some thrust unless it was re-shaped. This problem had occurred on the F4D (I think they lost 400 lbf.)





msxyz said:


> I always liked the side profile of the F3H and I always wonder how it would have fared if McDonnell tried to market in with another engine (the also J79 being a good candidate for a second chance).





Zipper730 said:


> Frankly, the F3H would probably have faired well with a J79 but it wouldn't have had anything on the F-4, but at least it had 4 x 20mm cannon lol


It just took too damn long to sort out the intricacies of axial compressor design and supersonic intake duct geometry, and airframe designers were too impatient to wait, so got ahead of themselves. Compare intakes on the F104 with early mark J79 with F4 and RA5C with the later 17-18,000 lb (afterburning) versions.
F3 (which was borderline supersonic) would have required Harrier sized intakes to feed a J79, and with a 24,000 lb. airframe and inadequate area rule compensation, what do you think that would have done to its mach capabilities?
Until the electronics got transistorized and intake/compressor design sorted out, single engine interceptors with adequate range just weren't within the bounds of the technology.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

