# Why didn't Canada use F-106 Delta Dart?



## Admiral Beez (Jun 27, 2020)

Instead of buying the F-101 for NORAD, why didn't the RCAF buy the single seat F-106? Canada would have saved on personnel and would have benefited from the internal weapons bay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 27, 2020)

Was it on the table? I’m sure Convair would like the income, but would the USAF permit the sale?


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 27, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Was it on the table? I’m sure Convair would like the income, but would the USAF permit the sale?


The single engine may have been an issue, as the CF-100 Canuck, the current NORAD fighter to be replaced was a twin engine aircraft.

Though I wonder if many F-101 or other late 1950s twins like the F-4 experienced a recoverable/survivable single engine flame out. I expect if something serious has occurred, it’s impacted both engines or otherwise rendered the aircraft inoperable. But perhaps a bias for twin engines was still a factor - the single engine Canadair CF-104 Starfighter served a strike role in Europe.  The F-35A (with today’s much more reliable engine), if we ever get them will be the first single engine RCAF fighter for the North American air defence role since the Canadair Sabre.

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


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 27, 2020)

Some insight on the twin vs single engine jet fighter, with mention of the F-106 low loss rate. 

Single vs twin engined fighters

_And as counter-intuitive as it may sound, single-engined fighters have better combat survivability as well. Most modern Western fighters have engines so close together that any amount of damage taking out one engine is almost certain to take out another as well. Even if a twin-engined aircraft loses a single engine without another one getting taken out, it immediately looses 50% of the thrust and 81% of the performance, making it a sitting duck and easily killed by the opponent. One of reasons for that is large amount of assymetric thrust generated by only one working engine, and designs most likely to suffer loss of only one engine in combat are also ones that have widest engine spacing and thus greatest amount of assymetric thrust and roll inertia. Due to all above factors, twin-engined fighters are more likely to get hit in combat while not being any more likely to survive getting hit._

_Twin engined designs do not necessarily have better peacetime survivability either. F-106, despite being single-engined, had 15 losses in first 90.000 hours, compared to 17 for the F-4. In the first 213.000 hours, it had 26 losses, compared to 44 for the F-4. It can be seen that the more complex F-4 had worse loss rate than the F-106 despite having two engines, and while F-106s loss rate improved, F-4s grew worse. Single-engined F-105 also had low peacetime loss rate._


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 27, 2020)

One can also see this with the F-18, where one aircraft (iirc, on a training flight out of San Diego) lost one engine, and the pilot ejected, followed by the plane crashing. Later reports said the aircraft could not get to a landing field due to poor OEI performance. There was also an F-18 where one engine failed (blades came loose on one of the turbine stages) and took out the other engine. 

One interesting and very counterintuitive helicopter fact: twin-engined turbine helicopters have to auto-rotate at least as often as singles as the twins have transmission failures causing loss of power to the rotor more often than singles have engine or transmission failures. (These data were current when I worked in the industry, quite a few years back)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Instead of buying the F-101 for NORAD, why didn't the RCAF buy the single seat F-106? Canada would have saved on personnel and would have benefited from the internal weapons bay.


I don't think the F-106 was ever considered for foreign sales.


----------



## Thos9 (Jun 28, 2020)

"If you have two and lose one you still have one to get you home" was a slogan used in advertisements for the F4 Phantom II in the sixties and seventies, its perceived competitors being single-engined.

The F-106 Delta Dart could have been powered (and likely much improved) with the Canadian Avro Iroquois turbojet, intended for and cancelled with the two-engined Avro CF-105 Arrow Mk II in 1959. The Iroquois had been flight-tested on a Boeing B-47 lent from the USAF. IIRC the F-105 Thunderchief powered by the Iroquois was offered to the Canadians who bought the F-104 Starfighter instead.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 28, 2020)

Thos9 said:


> F-105 Thunderchief powered by the Iroquois was offered to the Canadians who bought the F-104 Starfighter instead.


Considering that the CF-104 was intended for ground strike, I have to think the F-105 was the better choice. I imagine the Lockheed scammery and corruption played a role. Would we have called it the CF-105.... maybe too soon?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Considering that the CF-104 was intended for ground strike, I have to think the F-105 was the better choice. I imagine the Lockheed scammery and corruption played a role. Would we have called it the CF-105.... maybe too soon?



WRONG! First the F-105 was not a foreign sale option as it had a nuclear capability. Second the only countries involved in Lockheed bribery scandals were West Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Japan and Saudi Arabia. Lastly, Lockheed did nothing different than what their competition was doing at the time - they were just dumb enough to get caught!

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


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 28, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> WRONG! First the F-105 was not a foreign sale option as it had a nuclear capability.


Isn‘t that the role we used the CF-104 for, NATO tactical nuclear capability with the the B28, B43 and B57 nuclear bombs? Did the F-105 have additional nuclear capability over the CF-104?

As for foreign sale, Canada didn’t buy F-104s, we made them. I assume we could build F-105, unless the extra nuclear capability of the F-105 over the nuclear-armed CF-104 blocked the release of building plans and permits.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Isn‘t that the role we used the CF-104 for, NATO tactical nuclear capability with the the B28, B43 and B57 nuclear bombs? *Did the F-105 have additional nuclear capability over the CF-104?*




The F-104 WAS NOT designed to be a nuclear bomber, it was designed to be a high altitude interceptor. The F-105 was "intended primarily for supersonic, low altitude penetration to deliver a single, internally carried nuclear bomb."



Admiral Beez said:


> As for foreign sale, Canada didn’t buy F-104s, we made them.


Yes you did - under license.


Admiral Beez said:


> I assume we could build F-105, unless the extra nuclear capability of the F-105 over the nuclear-armed CF-104 blocked the release of building plans and permits.


I worked in Canada for 5 years and a very capable aviation industry exists there (despite an exodus of engineers after the demise of the Arrow) so the ability to build an aircraft like the F-105 isn't even a question. Like the -106, the US was not letting the F-105 go to foreign soil to include Canada.


----------



## Thos9 (Jun 28, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> _WRONG! First the F-105 was not a foreign sale option as it had a nuclear capability_.


An airframe's nuclear capability was no obstacle to foreign sale; the A-4 Skyhawk for example was sold to numerous air arms including 278 to Israel. The Skyhawk was purpose-designed for nuclear delivery among other options. And the F-101B Voodoo was not only designed to carry Genie nuclear missiles but from 1965 actually could carry them in Canadian service.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2020)

Thos9 said:


> An airframe's nuclear capability was no obstacle to foreign sale.



It was for the F-105. I believe this decision came from Robert McNamara. 

The A-4's nuclear capability was all under wing and an operator had to either buy or build the delivery system.

The F-101's nuclear capability was only air-to-air

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thos9 (Jun 29, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It was for the F-105._ I believe this decision came from Robert McNamara._
> Could you corroborate that please?
> _The A-4's nuclear capability was all under wing and an operator had to either buy or build the delivery system_.


So? (Actually IIRC the nuclear capability was limited to the central fuselage station which originally provided for a capsule insertion).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2020)

Thos9 said:


> So? (Actually IIRC the nuclear capability was limited to the central fuselage station which originally provided for a capsule insertion).


Still considered "under-wing," (center pylon) you needed specific "bolt on" components to make that aircraft nuclear capable. Those components are not easily acquired or manufactured. 

As far as corroborating? I don't have time to dig for a 60 year old DoD policy statement. My comments are backed by the fact that the F-105 was not offered for sale to other countries. Same as the F-106, F-117, and F-22.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Jun 29, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Instead of buying the F-101 for NORAD, why didn't the RCAF buy the single seat F-106?


.

I did read on wiki that Convair had a lot of trouble with the 106's ejection seat and according to Wegg (General Dynamics Aircraft), it wasn't really solved until 1960. I'm just wondering if this was around the time that decision making was happening for the Canadians regarding the F-101 choice?


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 29, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It was for the F-105. I believe this decision came from Robert McNamara.


I think I threw up a little bit just reading that name.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Jun 29, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> One can also see this with the F-18, where one aircraft (iirc, on a training flight out of San Diego) lost one engine, and the pilot ejected, followed by the plane crashing. Later reports said the aircraft could not get to a landing field due to poor OEI performance. There was also an F-18 where one engine failed (blades came loose on one of the turbine stages) and took out the other engine.
> 
> One interesting and very counterintuitive helicopter fact: twin-engined turbine helicopters have to auto-rotate at least as often as singles as the twins have transmission failures causing loss of power to the rotor more often than singles have engine or transmission failures. (These data were current when I worked in the industry, quite a few years back)


I think there were a bundle of F-16 losses due to engine failure when they first came out. In fact IRC they didn't install new engines in F-16 but rather used engines pre-run (burned in?) in F-15s. I'm sure they fixed that pretty quickly. For someone really interested, I'm sure that one could compare F-18 loses due to engine failure compared to F-16 loses due to engine failure.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 29, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> WRONG! First the F-105 was not a foreign sale option as it had a nuclear capability. Second the only countries involved in Lockheed bribery scandals were West Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Japan and Saudi Arabia. Lastly, Lockheed did nothing different than what their competition was doing at the time - they were just dumb enough to get caught!


I'm sure you are right. Northrop also got caught on bribery dealing with South Korea.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Jun 29, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Instead of buying the F-101 for NORAD, why didn't the RCAF buy the single seat F-106? Canada would have saved on personnel and would have benefited from the internal weapons bay.
> 
> View attachment 586357


Beautiful aircraft. One of my favorites and one of two I would have loved to fly, the F-8 the other. Unfortunately all were in the Air National Guard. This plane will go supersonic with wing tanks. It could also supercruise.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 29, 2020)

Not entirely relevant to the thread, but back in my RAF days we used to joke that the Jaguar had 2 engines so that if one engine failed the other engine could ensure the aircraft reached the scene of the crash. 

You may now return to your regularly-scheduled programming.

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


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 29, 2020)

davparlr said:


> I'm sure you are right. Northrop also got caught on bribery dealing with South Korea.


I wonder about Canada’s licence to build Northrop F-5. It didn’t offer much capability to an airforce already operating the F-101 and F-104.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 29, 2020)

Offering to build whole or part of an aircraft in a buying country is not considered bribery. It is done all the time and is considered offsetting the cost. Giving money or other benefit to a procuring officer for personal benefit is called bribery. As for the F-5, it is an inexpensive, reliable, low maintenance, low operating cost, fighter, quite capable of holding its own against more expensive contemporary fighters such as the F-4 in typical day VFR, conditions, in combat. In addition, when operating with Sparrow or AMRAAM missiles, it has all-weather capability. It also has a potent air-to-ground capability. A good buy for the money made it a very successful aircraft.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2020)

davparlr said:


> Beautiful aircraft. One of my favorites and one of two I would have loved to fly, the F-8 the other. Unfortunately all were in the Air National Guard. This plane will go supersonic with wing tanks. It could also supercruise.



I've posted on other threads about my father in law's experience flying this aircraft, he loved it. During dis-similar aircraft combat exercises he bagged an F-15!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> I wonder about Canada’s licence to build Northrop F-5. It didn’t offer much capability to an airforce already operating the F-101 and F-104.


I'm not picking on you but NOT TRUE! The F-5 was a wonderful aircraft - easily flown, cost effective to maintain and operate and the CF-5s had an avionics suite similar to the F-18 in their later life. Drop bombs or dogfight, the F-5 could do both well. I worked on CF-5s that were given to the Botswana Defense Force and they were clean, well maintained machines.

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


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 29, 2020)

What options did Canada have over the F-101? 

I imagine had we held out a little longer with the Canuck we’d have F-4 Phantoms, at least for NORAD if not in the CF-104’s nuclear strike role. Meaning we’d likely never get the F-18A in the early 1980s and instead join the British, Germans, Greeks, Japanese, Israelis, etc. operating the Phantom into the 1990s. Maybe we’d replace the F-4 with later F-18 variants.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> What options did Canada have over the F-101?
> 
> *I imagine had we held out a little longer with the Canuck we’d have F-4 Phantoms, at least for NORAD* if not in the CF-104’s nuclear strike role. Meaning we’d likely never get the F-18A in the early 1980s and instead join the British, Germans, Greeks, Japanese, Israelis, etc. operating the Phantom into the 1990s. Maybe we’d replace the F-4 with later F-18 variants.



I think Trudeau (the first one) wanted F-4s which IMO would have been a great choice, but IIRC he pissed off Johnson or Nixon, they told him to pound sand.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2020)

Interesting...

_"Moving into the mid-1960s, the RCAF was under fiscal restraint and was not able to acquire all the Voodoos and Starfighters required to replace the phased-out Canucks and Sabres. In 1965 a competition was announced for a lightweight fighter. The aircraft that the RCAF preferred, the F-4 Phantom, was far from a lightweight and the government chose the Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter, to be designated as the CF-116. Again the government insisted on a license agreement and most of the 115 CF-116s were built by Canadair."_

Now I don't know the validity in this...

_"In 1957, Diefenbaker committed Canada to NORAD without consulting either his cabinet or Parliament – a decision that led directly to the cancellation of the Avro Arrow.

With Canada’s aviation dream shattered, the RCAF was forced to accept the American F-101 Voodoo (an aircraft it had previously turned down in favour of the Arrow) to replace the Canuck with a supersonic interceptor. In Europe, the RCAF’s duties expanded to include delivery of tactical nuclear weapons at the same time consideration was being given to a replacement for the Sabre. *The RCAF preferred the F-105 Thunderchief, but the government chose the F-104 Starfighter based on Lockheed’s proposal to build the aircraft in Canada in collaboration with Canadair.* Canadair built 200 Starfighters for the RCAF as well as sections of 104s destined for the German Luftwaffe_."

A procurement problem - Wings Magazine

Having worked for Lockheed, I can tell you that "production offset" (allowing a foreign customer produce part or all of a procured airframe) has always been a marketing strategy. It was done with great success on the CP-140 program.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 30, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> but back in my RAF days we used to joke that the Jaguar had 2 engines so that if one engine failed the other engine could ensure the aircraft reached the scene of the crash.




A Jaguar pilot once said to me that he thought the Jaguar was the only aircraft that counted its take-off run in its combat radius...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 30, 2020)

The one Canadian jet fighter I would have liked to have seen a replacement for was options for a non-A-4 Skyhawk successor to the McDonnell F2H Banshee. 



Assuming, and that’s a big if, that a fleet defence fighter role was deemed necessary in this ASW era of the RCN, I’d opt for something supersonic yet compact, like the Grumman F-11 Tiger. If Lockheed‘s F-104 can be beat, the later AIM-7 Sparrow capable Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger could have served both the RCAF and RCN. That would have been something exciting to see on Bonnie. But I’m venturing into fantasy now, since everyone seemed to use A-4s (or Hawker Sea Hawks) on their Majestic/Colossus class.

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


----------



## davparlr (Jun 30, 2020)

Maybe the carriers were too short for fighter performance aircraft. The F11F-1F was an impressive aircraft with better performance than the F8U and a bit lighter but the F8U was already available. I suspect the Canadians felt the carriers were too short or did not think they needed that level of performance from their aircraft.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 30, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I've posted on other threads about my father in law's experience flying this aircraft, he loved it. During dis-similar aircraft combat exercises he bagged an F-15!


From what I've read pilots loved the F-106. I'll look for your post.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Crimea_River (Jun 30, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> The one Canadian jet fighter I would have liked to have seen a replacement for was options for a non-A-4 Skyhawk successor to the McDonnell F2H Banshee.
> 
> Assuming, and that’s a big if, that a fleet defence fighter role was deemed necessary in this ASW era of the RCN, I’d opt for something supersonic yet compact......



You need a fleet to need fleet defense. And with no carriers after the 60's a replacement for the Banshee would have been a non-starter.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 30, 2020)

Crimea_River said:


> You need a fleet to need fleet defense. And with no carriers after the 60's a replacement for the Banshee would have been a non-starter.


I know, though to be fair the RCN of the 1960s was much larger than it is today. This site is a great resource on the RCN and all things battleship, etc. Canadian Navy of Yesterday and Today

Still, it makes one wonder why the RCN bothered with the Banshee and its AIM-9 upgrade - what role was it intended for?

It must have been a fun time to be a RCN aviator. But IDK, with a loss rate of over 30%, including drowning one pilot, perhaps not. This jet is obsolete already, but looks sweet here.






Some good info here Harold A. Skaarup Web page

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


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Jul 3, 2020)

davparlr said:


> As for the F-5, it is an inexpensive, reliable, low maintenance, low operating cost, fighter, quite capable of holding its own against more expensive contemporary fighters such as the F-4 in typical day VFR, conditions, in combat. In addition, when operating with Sparrow or AMRAAM missiles, it has all-weather capability. It also has a potent air-to-ground capability. A good buy for the money made it a very successful aircraft.


Sorry, until some of the modernization programs in the 1990s and later, no F-5 could operate either the Sparrow or the AMRAAM - if they even could after the modernizations!

You must also remember that the 1960s F-5s (F-5A, F-5B) WERE ground-attack primarily, with very minimal air-air capability... their simple radar lacked any air-air mode whatsoever. It was not until the F-5E of 1972 that there was an F-5 with a real air-air radar - and that was designed for only guns and WVR (AIM-9 Sidewinder) missiles!


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 3, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> F-106, despite being single-engined, had 15 losses in first 90.000 hours, compared to 17 for the F-4. In the first 213.000 hours, it had 26 losses, compared to 44 for the F-4. It can be seen that the more complex F-4 had worse loss rate than the F-106 despite having two engines, and while F-106s loss rate improved, F-4s grew worse.


There's a curveball here. In its early years, the F4 was a carrier based Navy aircraft, USAF came later. The F4 was the heaviest, fastest fighter the Navy's flight decks had seen to date, with the attendant loss rate. It didn't have the luxury of operating from two-miles-long runways. Apples to oranges comparison. So, many of those losses could be attributed to other causes than the reliability of the twin engine configuration. For a nugget fighter pilot, it was a really big step from the TF9J in advanced training to the F4B in the RAG squadron. In the early days, only experienced pilots were transitioned into the F4, as existing squadrons changed over their aircraft types, and the loss rate wasn't too, too bad. Then they started getting nuggets straight out of flight school, and the accident rate went up dramatically. In the end, they wound up modifying a few planes to give the aft cockpit a set of flight controls for initial transition training. At least that's the way it was told to me by the career Phantom jocks in the RAG, which confirmed what I'd read in _Aviation Week_ back in the day.

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


----------



## davparlr (Jul 5, 2020)

GreenKnight121 said:


> Sorry, until some of the modernization programs in the 1990s and later, no F-5 could operate either the Sparrow or the AMRAAM - if they even could after the modernizations!
> 
> You must also remember that the 1960s F-5s (F-5A, F-5B) WERE ground-attack primarily, with very minimal air-air capability... their simple radar lacked any air-air mode whatsoever. It was not until the F-5E of 1972 that there was an F-5 with a real air-air radar - and that was designed for only guns and WVR (AIM-9 Sidewinder) missiles!



You are right, I worked on the F-5E Saudi and it had everything put on it including the kitchen sink and it did not provide capability for the AiM-7 and, of course, the AMRAAM didn't exist. Nor, as for as I know as I had moved on to the Tacit Blue and B-2 programs, did Northrop offer any program to include these. It must be noted that the F-16 also was a day VFR fighter unable to carry the AIM 7 until a F-16C block change and advent of the AMRAAM, in 1998, 17 years after the introduction of the F-16. Also, it must be noted that T-38s, F-5As, and F-5Es were used as aggressor aircraft for the Navy's Top Gun and Air Force's Weapons School and acquitted themselves quite well.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2020)

When I was in Botswana, the folks I dealt with were desperate to get Sidewinders for their CF-5s. At the time they were having border issues with Zimbabwe, they were operating MiG-21s (Chinese built).


----------



## davparlr (Jul 5, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> There's a curveball here. In its early years, the F4 was a carrier based Navy aircraft, USAF came later. The F4 was the heaviest, fastest fighter the Navy's flight decks had seen to date, with the attendant loss rate. It didn't have the luxury of operating from two-miles-long runways. Apples to oranges comparison. So, many of those losses could be attributed to other causes than the reliability of the twin engine configuration. For a nugget fighter pilot, it was a really big step from the TF9J in advanced training to the F4B in the RAG squadron. In the early days, only experienced pilots were transitioned into the F4, as existing squadrons changed over their aircraft types, and the loss rate wasn't too, too bad. Then they started getting nuggets straight out of flight school, and the accident rate went up dramatically. In the end, they wound up modifying a few planes to give the aft cockpit flight controls for initial transition training. At least that's the way it was told to me by the career Phantom jocks in the RAG, which confirmed what I'd read in _Aviation Week_ back in the day.


Yeah, this would take more analysis, primarily looking at loses due to single engine failures alone. Having grown up about 2 miles from the approach end of RW 7 Sherman field, Pensacola NAS, I had been immersed in Naval aviation (SNJs used to scare me when they flew over the house, which was all the time). After the war and into the '50s, Naval aviation had a horrendous reputation for aircraft safety, it seemed that every time the Antietam or the Lexington went out for carrier quals a plane and pilot would be lost. As you said, up until about 1970, the Navys advanced trainer was the TF9F of Korean war vintage. Quite a jump to an F-4. In the 1950s, when the AF advanced trainer was the WW2 era T-33, the AF recognized this problem and developed the T-38 specifically for the century series fighter. The T-38 flew final between 155 and 170 kts, depending on configuration and weight, the F-106 flew final at 178 kts, a few knots faster than the F-104. The Navy has sensed cleaned up its safety performance.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 6, 2020)

davparlr said:


> The Navy has since cleaned up its safety performance.


Large angled decks, mirror landing systems, steam catapults, zero/zero seats, (all British innovations), enhanced flight sims, NATOPS standardized procedures, tech school rather than OJT for support personnel, standardized maintenance control, all have contributed to the safety improvements over the years.



davparlr said:


> up until about 1970, the Navys advanced trainer was the TF9F of Korean war vintage.


When I got out in 1974, nuggets in the attack pipeline were finishing up Advanced in TA4Fs and J's, but fighter types were still reporting to the F4 RAG out of TF9s.
We briefly hosted a TF9 Advanced squadron for their ordnance delivery phase, because their regular range was tied up by USAF for (we learned later) rehearsals for the Son Tay raid. One of the jets had a flameout right after liftoff, dropped back on the runway, missed the overrun cable, and the crew ejected. The instructor was fine, but the student's parachute lanyard parted during seat separation, and he fell into a mangrove thicket. His body was recovered without a bruise or broken bone; he had died of cardiac arrest when his chute failed to open. The thimble on the parachute lanyard was improperly crimped.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jul 6, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> When I got out in 1974, nuggets in the attack pipeline were finishing up Advanced in TA4Fs and J's, but fighter types were still reporting to the F4 RAG out of TF9s.


This got me wondering, did the USN, RN or IJN have dual control trainers for their naval fighter pilots in WW2? Surely you weren't just given a Seafire, Wildcat or Zero and told to give it your best. For the British, the folding wing, dual control Percival Proctor seems ideal.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 6, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> _And as counter-intuitive as it may sound, single-engined fighters have better combat survivability as well. Most modern Western fighters have engines so close together that any amount of damage taking out one engine is almost certain to take out another as well. Even if a twin-engined aircraft loses a single engine without another one getting taken out, it immediately looses 50% of the thrust and 81% of the performance, making it a sitting duck and easily killed by the opponent._


The 81% performance loss was a surprise. That said, I figured that the plane would lose a lot of climb/acceleration and sustained-g performance that it would basically be doomed unless it was far enough away to make a getaway from the combat-zone.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 7, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> This got me wondering, did the USN, RN or IJN have dual control trainers for their naval fighter pilots in WW2? Surely you weren't just given a Seafire, Wildcat or Zero, and told to give it your best.


I can't speak for the Zero, but the US, Canadians, and Brits were blessed(?) with the AT6/SNJ/Harvard, a tricky, demanding, advanced trainer that was excellent preparation for the vicissitudes of a heavy, high powered fighter. Even today these planes are considered good prep for a modern nose dragger pilot wanting to step into a WWII warbird. If you could handle an SNJ competently, you were deemed safe to fly an F4F, F6F, TBF, SBD, etc, after a ground school course and a cockpit checkout.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 7, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> The 81% performance loss was a surprise. That said, I figured that the plane would lose a lot of climb/acceleration and sustained-g performance.


That 81% is not a "cut-and-dried" figure. It varies with a lot of aircraft characteristics, most notably the offset distance of the engines from aircraft centerline.
Example: the F4 and RA5C both used the same engines, but the F4 had them tucked right in close, while the Vigilante had them spread apart, separated by the tubular bomb bay. The RA5's more pronounced asymmetric thrust made single engine handling trickier and took a much greater toll on performance. Then there was the A3 Skywarrior, with its engines out on the wings, which was a crash looking for a deck to happen on, if an engine quit.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Jul 7, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Then there was the A3 Skywarrior, with its engines out on the wings, which was a crash looking for a deck to happen on, if an engine quit.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Still I would guess any pilot out over the sea would rather be in an A3 with an engine out rather than an A4 with an engine out.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 8, 2020)

davparlr said:


> Still I would guess any pilot out over the sea would rather be in an A3 with an engine out rather than an A4 with an engine out.


The A4 had a pretty reliable ejection seat and a seat pan with raft and survival gear. Egress from the A3 was through a downward escape chute about six feet aft of the pilot and barely wide enough for one human and one parachute. An A3 on one engine couldn't be trimmed to fly "hands off", so the moment the pilot left his seat, it would turn turtle. There was also a narrow hatch in the aft portion of the canopy where a crewman could sit and give taxi directions, as cockpit visibility wasn't stellar. There was a reason why A3D was said to mean "All Three Dead".
The near-identical Air Force B66 had a copilot and ejection seats for all hands, but it was considerably heavier and landed 20 knots faster.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Jul 8, 2020)

Yes, a horrible design for a war plane like the downward ejection seat of the early F-104s and the two downward ejection seats on the B-52. Still better than the none on the A3D. The only time we had parachutes in the C-141, and the only time we flew formation, was for combat air missions (CAM), parachute drops. However, the parachutes were on racks in the cargo compartment. So I thought, let me see, we're at 1500 ft AGL, we have a problem, I'll have to unbuckle, get out of my seat, go to the back of the the crew station, down a ladder to the cargo compartment, don the parachute, go to the back of the aircraft to the rear exit doors, the front doors are right in front of the landing gear pods, and jump out. Like that's gonna happen.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 8, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Egress from the A3 was through a downward escape chute about six feet aft of the pilot and barely wide enough for one human and one parachute. An A3 on one engine couldn't be trimmed to fly "hands off", so the moment the pilot left his seat, it would turn turtle. There was also a narrow hatch in the aft portion of the canopy where a crewman could sit and give taxi directions, as cockpit visibility wasn't stellar. There was a reason why A3D was said to mean "All Three Dead".



Hmmm.....wonder if it was a Douglas "design feature"? The (slightly) earlier F3D also had a downward escape chute. Sounds like a very similar system...and probably just as useless. The F3D escape chute was located between the seats, exiting under the aircraft between the engine nacelles. Somehow, the F3D pilot and radar operator were supposed to turn around in the cockpit, grab onto a bar above the chute and swing themselves down and out of the aircraft. 

The lower exit door had to be opened first...but that could only be opened in flight if the upper cockpit escape exit (in the canopy) was closed. If the upper exit was open, air pressure would prevent the lower exit door from opening. Hmmm...wonder what would happen if the canopy was damaged by, say, flak and had a hole in it.

I don't know how many crews successfully baled out using this ridiculous system. Really, REALLY glad Douglas bought into ejector seats...eventually!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 8, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Really, REALLY glad Douglas bought into ejector seats...eventually!


Douglas originally offered those planes with ejection seats, but the Navy said "Save weight without reducing performance or mission capability." Everything Douglas offered to eliminate was rejected by Navaer except ejection seats. The A3D's design mission was deep penetration nuclear delivery without enough fuel for a two-way trip. IOW: "Expendible".


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 8, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> It's design mission was deep penetration nuclear delivery without enough fuel for a two-way trip. IOW: "Expendible".



True enough for the A3D but not the F3D. The latter was supposed to be a fighter so hardly in the "expendable" category...so long as you actually want to retain a fighting force.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 8, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> The (slightly) earlier F3D also had a downward escape chute. Sounds like a very similar system...and probably just as useless.


Ejection seats of the day had a very narrow envelope. Successful ejections required certain minimums of speed and altitude, as well as a very limited sink rate. If you were low, slow and dirty and falling out of the sky, or if you weren't rightside up, you were toast. Why tote all that weight and dangerous pyrotechnics around if you're probably toast anyway?


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 8, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Ejection seats of the day had a very narrow envelope. Successful ejections required certain minimums of speed and altitude, as well as a very limited sink rate. If you were low, slow and dirty and falling out of the sky, or if you weren't rightside up, you were toast. Why tote all that weight and dangerous pyrotechnics around if you're probably toast anyway?



Contemporary fighters had ejection seats, including the F-86, Panther and Banshee. I know which types I'd rather fly, even given the accepted limitations of the first generation bang seats.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 8, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Douglas originally offered those planes with ejection seats, but the Navy said "Save weight without reducing performance or mission capability." Everything Douglas offered to eliminate was rejected by Navaer except ejection seats. It's design mission was deep penetration nuclear delivery without enough fuel for a two-way trip. IOW: "Expendible".


The A3D's design was heavily based on meeting the 68,750 lb. weight requirement needed to operate off the Midway Class.

The USN tried to basically develop a nuclear-bomber that could operate off a carrier deck earlier, but they were expected to weigh 100,000 lb., and have a wingspan as large as the P2V Neptune. Since Douglas assumed the super-carrier that would have to be built around this airplane wouldn't materialize, they got to work on something smaller.

From what I was told, the ejection seats were removed to keep the CG with in limits, but it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong on something.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 8, 2020)

Interesting history of development of the ejection seat highlighting the different philosophies of the USN and the USAF. The USAF didn’t think successful ejections were possible below 500 feet so firing the pilot into the ground wasn’t a problem.
The History Of Ejection Seats

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 9, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Contemporary fighters had ejection seats, including the F-86, Panther and Banshee. I know which types I'd rather fly, even given the accepted limitations of the first generation bang seats.


Interestingly, the USN was, in general, more concerned with "low and slow" survivability than USAF in the early days.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 9, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> The USN tried to basically develop a nuclear-bomber that could operate off a carrier deck earlier


And they did. It was called the AJ1 Savage, two recips on the wings and a jet in the tail, a disaster with wings on it. Zero survivability in MiG country.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 9, 2020)

The answer to the original question is simple. The Americans were merely following the British tradition of foisting equipment they didn’t want upon the Canadians.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jul 9, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The answer to the original question is simple. The Americans were merely following the British tradition of foisting equipment they didn’t want upon the Canadians.


It's nice that it changed in later on. When we bought the CF-18 in the early 1980s it was a leading edge design. If we ever get the F-35 it will again give us top grade kit. Of course the ever shrinking quantity of the aircraft is an issue, I expect we'll have only two squadrons of F-35 active (Alberta and Quebec) with another for training (Alberta). That won't give us much capability if the Russians ever get their house in order and push for Arctic territory. Sort of reminds me of Malaya and its tiny force of Buffaloes, and even they got five active squadrons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Crimea_River (Jul 9, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> ....., I expect we'll have only two squadrons of F-35 active (Alberta and Quebec) with another for training (Alberta).....



Is that before or after we pay off the $1.2 Trillion debt?


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jul 9, 2020)

Crimea_River said:


> Is that before or after we pay off the $1.2 Trillion debt?


That's never going to be paid off, ever. Most of it is owed to ourselves, issued by the Bank of Canada. But still, to make a dent in that debt we need a climate tariff on everything from China - I don't care about the climate (in this instance), but let's get some money out of them. We also need to cut government spending on many things. Maybe we can sell Newfoundland, lol or let Quebec separate.

Posthaste: How to pay for the ballooning federal debt? Lower income taxes — but raise others


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 9, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> That's never going to be paid off, ever. Most of it is owned to ourselves, issued by the Bank of Canada. But still, to make a dent in that debt we need a climate tariff on everything from China - I don't care about the climate (in this instance), but let's get some money out of them. We also need to cut government spending on many things. Maybe we can sell Newfounland, lol or let Quebec separate.
> 
> Posthaste: How to pay for the ballooning federal debt? Lower income taxes — but raise others


Hey! I think there’s a guy in Washington who wanted to buy Greenland. Make him an offer.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 9, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Interestingly, the USN was, in general, more concerned with "low and slow" survivability than USAF in the early days.



Which makes absolute sense. I've even read articles stating that the USAF pilots were much more concerned about high-speed, high-altitude ejections than low-speed, low-altitude ejections, even though operational statistics showed that there were far more ejections at low altitude. I suspect this was because of their expectations for combat operations.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 9, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Which makes absolute sense. I've even read articles stating that the USAF pilots were much more concerned about high-speed, high-altitude ejections than low-speed, low-altitude ejections, even though operational statistics showed that there were far more ejections at low altitude. I suspect this was because of their expectations for combat operations.


This was in part due to a USAF gospel of the time that successful egress below 500 feet AGL was a physical impossibility, no matter how fancy the technology, so Martin-Baker and USN pursuing zero-zero capability was a waste of resources chasing a pipe dream.
I suspect that the thinking at the time was that any war would be nuclear, over quickly, and losses would be deliberate expenditures and unrecoverable. How else do you explain sending B47s, B57s, and B45s on deep penetrations of USSR without the fuel to get back out again? One way ticket.
My chief pilot at the commuter airline enlisted in USAF as an Airman Recruit, retired as a bird Colonel, and commanded or crewed on every big bomber or tanker SAC had during his 28 years. I got the above info straight from the horse's mouth.
He was flying as a TSgt boomer on KC97s when he got his appointment to Air Cadet flight school and came back less than two years later to his old squadron as a 1stLt pilot. After that, it was B47, KC135, B52, and finally FB111, retiring as Stan/Eval Officer for the last remaining wing of FB111s. He said his CO tried to get him a BG promotion, but was denied as he was a mustang and not an Academy grad.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 9, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> And they did. It was called the AJ1 Savage, two recips on the wings and a jet in the tail, a disaster with wings on it. Zero survivability in MiG country.


That was an interim: The idea ultimately was a jet-powered design.


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Jul 10, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> That was an interim: The idea ultimately was a jet-powered design.


The AJ Savage was the second "interim" design... it could (and did) land back on the carrier.

The first "interim carrier-based nuclear bomber" of the USN was the P2V-3C Neptune (12 converted). It had no folding wings, and no arresting gear. When it took off from the flight deck (with JATO assist) it was to fly its attack mission, and, IF fuel and enemy air defenses allowed, land on a friendly land airfield! Or to just bail out over relatively intact territory (hopefully friendly). The USN had 25 "Little Boy" type atomic bombs made just for this mission... it was the only atomic weapon in the US arsenal small enough to fit in the P2V!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 10, 2020)

GreenKnight121 said:


> The first "interim carrier-based nuclear bomber" of the USN was the P2V-3C Neptune (12 converted). It had no folding wings, and no arresting gear. When it took off from the flight deck (with JATO assist) it was to fly its attack mission, and, IF fuel and enemy air defenses allowed, land on a friendly land airfield!


Curtis LeMay & Co must have been laughing their asses off!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 11, 2020)

GreenKnight121 said:


> The first "interim carrier-based nuclear bomber" of the USN was the P2V-3C Neptune (12 converted). It had no folding wings, and no arresting gear. When it took off from the flight deck (with JATO assist) it was to fly its attack mission


I bet carrier skippers just loved the prospect of having that white elephant monopolizing their flight deck, rendering all other flight ops impossible and their ship a sitting duck. It's a long voyage to any possible launch points.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 11, 2020)

When I was growing up in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, Naval Air Station New York was in operation. They operated Neptunes. I would watch them fly out to sea from the shore. I watched them fly low overhead. I loved the sound they made. I could tell the Neptune from the KC-97 by sound alone (The A-4 wasn’t even close.) The planes flying from “Floyd Bennett Field” got me interested in plane spotting. I loved watching them at night. Spotting them among the stars, I could see the blue exhaust flames. Just like Martin Caidin described in his books. 
Thanks for bringing up the Neptune.


----------



## mikemike (Jul 13, 2020)

During Operation "Highjump" in 1947, USS Philippine Sea launched several P2V to be used for Antarctic surveying from the base "Little America IV". If I remember correctly, as the planes were equipped wth ski undercarriages, the flight deck of the carrier had to be covered in ice for them to be able to take off. I also think they used JATOs.

Correction - I misremembered. The planes launched from the carrier were R4Ds (C-47s for non-Navy). The P2Vs flew directly from Argentina during a later expedition.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 13, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Hey! I think there’s a guy in Washington who wanted to buy Greenland. Make him an offer.



Denmark may take offense.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 14, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Denmark may take offense.


"So what? We're bigger than they are! Besides, they're socialists, so who cares what they think?"

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 14, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Curtis LeMay & Co must have been laughing their asses off!



They were probably enraged at the idea of somebody else having aircraft. Or, for that matter, a budget.

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


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 28, 2020)

GreenKnight121 said:


> The AJ Savage was the second "interim" design... it could (and did) land back on the carrier.


Correct, the P2V was the first, but it couldn't land after it took off. The AJ could do that.

The USN actually wanted a new jet-bomber that was expected to weigh 100,000 pounds while able to carry up to 12000 pounds of ordinance, including a nuclear warhead. The weight figures were based around the range requirements and structural requirements (there might have been an interest in having a normal rated g-load ranging from 4-5g), and the presumption that the aircraft's wingspan would be the same as the P2V.

The wingspan issue might have been the straw that broke the camel's back. It resulted in the decision for a flush-decked carrier, which made it difficult to mount radar effectively. As a result, the decision was made to produce a command ship that would relay data to the carrier instead of having radar systems of its own.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 28, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> The USN actually wanted a new jet-bomber that was expected to weigh 100,000 pounds


Glad that didn't happen! Can you imagine cycling that monster on and off the boat? As it was, the A3D and A3J at roughly 3/4 of that launch-land energy taxed the catapults and arresting gear right to their limits.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 28, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Glad that didn't happen! Can you imagine cycling that monster on and off the boat? As it was, the A3D and A3J at roughly 3/4 of that taxed the catapults and arresting gear right to their limits.


Yeah, but the USS United States (CVA-58) would have been designed to handle that.

That said, the carrier was idiotic in design.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 28, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> That said, the carrier was idiotic in design.



So now we get to ask questions - WHY?

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


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 28, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> So now we get to ask questions - WHY?


To the best of my knowledge, the design didn't have radar onboard, and depended on data fed to it by a command ship or other vessels. Since other carriers had their own radar onboard, that is kind of a major problem and, if the command ship gets damaged or sunk, the carrier is blind.

This had to do with the fact that the carrier was designed with a flush-deck, and that had to do with the presumption that the aircraft would have a wingspan the same as the P2V Neptune. This is something that didn't appear to have been necessary.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 29, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> This had to do with the fact that the carrier was designed with a flush-deck, and that had to do with the presumption that the aircraft would have a wingspan the same as the P2V Neptune.


This "elephant boat" would almost certainly turn out to be a single mission one trick pony. Unless it had gargantuan elevators and hangar decks, its massive nuke bombers would have to live topside full time, making it logistically impractical to host any additional aircraft types. Thus it would depend on other carriers to provide interception, CAP, AEW, conventional strike, and ASW functions, as well as defensive AAA and SAM direction. Can you spell B_O_O_N_D_O_G_G_L_E?
Money better spent on B52s and KC135s, much as an old squid like me hates to admit it.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 29, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> the carrier was designed with a flush-deck, and that had to do with the presumption that the aircraft would have a wingspan the same as the P2V Neptune. This is something that didn't appear to have been necessary.


Thanks to Ed (Simplicate & Add Lightness) Heinneman, who came up with a less ponderous solution in the A3D.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 29, 2020)

Did Ed Heinneman have a hand in the TBF? My “what if” is, a stripped down torpedo plane like the AD1 instead of the TBF. Maybe that’s for a different thread.


----------



## Graeme (Jul 29, 2020)

*Thread Drift*

Spotted on the net. 
Looks like an F-102.
Is the airframe genuine? Or a mock up?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 29, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Did Ed Heinneman have a hand in the TBF? My “what if” is, a stripped down torpedo plane like the AD1 instead of the TBF. Maybe that’s for a different thread.


Ed was a designer for Douglas Aircraft; TBF was a Grumman design that preceded AD1 by five years and a whole generation of aeronautical technology. AD1's designers had far more horsepower available to play with than TBF's. AD1 could survive in combat due to speed, maneuverability, and ruggedness rather than defensive firepower, largely because of its greater power available and its role as a general purpose attack aircraft. TBF's design role as a torpedo bomber dictated its low and slow flight profile, the aerodynamic characteristics of which impeded its high speed performance. Different aircraft designed to different requirements.
An AD1 philosophy TBF with an R2600 instead of an R3350 would have been Zero fodder as well as an inferior torpedo bomber.
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 29, 2020)

..and now I know!


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 30, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> ..and now I know!


You never really know 'til you stand next to a TBF or an A1 and look up at that cockpit towering above you like Mt Everest. Even more impressive if it's in a low roofed hangar and the upper prop blade is barely clearing the rafters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 30, 2020)

Wes[/QUOTE]


XBe02Drvr said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> Money better spent on B52s and KC135s, much as an old squid like me hates to admit it.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Glad to see you're finally coming away from the dark side...


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 30, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> Wes



Glad to see you're finally coming away from the dark side...[/QUOTE]
Don't get your hopes up, Luke! Despite occasional glimpses of the light, I'm a confirmed darkie. Dark Lives Matter, eh Cap'n Darth?

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


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 31, 2020)

Graeme said:


> *Thread Drift*
> 
> Spotted on the net.
> Looks like an F-102.
> ...


It's highly likely to be a mock-up: If this happened in flight, it's likely the speed would not only have put a hole in the building -- momentum would have carried it through into the ground.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 31, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> It's highly likely to be a mock-up: If this happened in flight, it's likely the speed would not only have put a hole in the building -- momentum would have carried it through into the ground.


And the airframe totally trashed, not sitting there intact.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jul 31, 2020)

I think the poster means if it was a real one before they made it in to an attraction.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 31, 2020)

At several Hard Rock Cafes in Thailand they have “crashed” a DC-3 into the side of the building. It seems a rather undignified end for these wonderful machines. I hope that “F-102” is just a mock up.


----------



## Dimlee (Aug 3, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You never really know 'til you stand next to a TBF or an A1 and look up at that cockpit towering above you like Mt Everest. Even more impressive if it's in a low roofed hangar and the upper prop blade is barely clearing the rafters.



Not in a hangar, but impressive anyway. 
(War Remnants Museum in Saigon-Ho Chi Minh).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 7, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> This "elephant boat" would almost certainly turn out to be a single mission one trick pony. Unless it had gargantuan elevators and hangar decks, its massive nuke bombers would have to live topside full time


Far as I know, it had elevators that could hoist the aircraft up and down.


> Thus it would depend on other carriers to provide interception, CAP, AEW, conventional strike, and ASW functions, as well as defensive AAA and SAM direction.


It had the ability to operate fighters and bombers off its deck. Many models had F7U's depicted.

While the F7U had a bit to be desired, it was the best performer next to the F-86 and, with only a few modifications, it could have been made to have work by the early 1950's, ironically. The thing is, you'd have to have a well maintained crystal ball to have avoided running into the land-mines that crippled it. These land-mines were run into by other aircraft designers, such as Douglas, with the F4D, though the F7U ran into it worse.

As for the lack of radar, in addition for the possibility of a command ship that would provide it with data, it was intended to operate in a task force that had a Midway Class, two Essex Classes, with the United States at the heart of it. The plans called for four fleets of this nature.

Here's some images I've found

Looking at these overhead shots, and the listed width: They were inches away from an angled-deck as it was. All they needed was to add an island on the right side, shave off anything that didn't need to be there; then lengthen and skew the deck on the port-side.











I'm not sure if the rear elevator was the only one suitable to operate bombers off of, but it was definitely the biggest elevator. That said, the aircraft depicted seems to be nondescript.







As for the retractible island, it's interesting, but not very practical. It looks like it'd jam very easy in a wet environment.






This thing really was intended to have all the trimmings: The thing is, it turns out exterior escalators have issues with moisture and debris.







> Money better spent on B52s and KC135s


Actually, it would have been B-36's at the time. That said, by the time it would have seen operational service, the B-52 and KC-135 would have been flying. The idea of a carrier that could have operated a 100,000 pound plane would have been pretty cool.

I'm not totally sure what the exact design proposals were for the bomber design, but they seemed to be running overweight. It appears if you want a 100,000 pound design, you ask for an 85,000 pound plane with the assumption that it'll balloon up to 100,000. The problem is, if you make the requirements too low, all the contractors will say "there is no fucking way in hell we can produce this -- buh-bye".

From what it appeared, the requirements for the aircraft was for an aircraft that would have a crew of three, a defensive gun (possibly with a automatic gun-laying radar), a radius of action of 1700 nm while carrying a 12,000 pound nuclear-bomb of Fat Man style rotundness. Obviously, it would have to land on a carrier-deck, possess folding-wings, and for early nuclear weapons, it was often important for the bombardier to crawl into the bomb-bay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 9, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> And the airframe totally trashed, not sitting there intact.


Oh, yeah! Airplane crashes are shockingly violent you'd get metal and concrete smashed everywhere, assuming you didn't get a crater...


----------

