Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hi Biff,
I'll get back to WWII ... or shortly post-war. I'd still like to see a turboprop Skyraider Attack plane with modern avionics. We have the technology now, and would not use that unreliable, geared transmission that the Skyshark used so ineffectively coupled with the Allison XT-40 engine. That was a dud of an engine-transmission combination, if ever there was one, though it never failed in the Pogo planes.
Turbojet engines are much more reliable than piston engines. Indeed, I think that even a 1970's vintage military turbojet, such as the one in the Crusader, had MTBF at least an order of magnitude better than the commercial piston engines during the last gasp of piston-engined airliners. In other words, a pilot is more likely to get home with a single J-75 than with one or posssibly two R-2800 or R-3350.
Speaking of WWII, I was at an air show not long ago where they were giving B-17 rides. A col. helicopter pilot took the flight and was interviewed following return. He was amazed at the open control cables, the instruments etc stating complication of control. He said " I can fly my helicopter with a cell phone". HA
Hi Biff,
The T-6 and T-45 are trainers. I'm talking fighters. The F-4 was a twin, the F-14 was a twin, the F-18 is a twin. A lot of people got home on the second engine in combat. The a-4 was a long-serving holdover from the 1950's, but the A-6 was a twin, too. Anyone who doesn't think the A-7 was the direct stepchild of the 1950s F-8 hasn't seen them side-by-side. The Navy flies assets when it has them and they are in service, but they acquired twins for the important planes from the F-4 forward. Let's face the facts here. The Navy is acquiring the F-35 because they were directed to, not because the Navy wanted it, though the Marines DID want a replacement for the AV-8Bs they lost. I just haven't spoken with anyone in the Marines who wanted the F-35 specifically. Today, you speak the party line or you get fired, and they're getting in line and talking it up, as expected. There are a lot of active-duty people who think the F-35 is a mistake, in every service that will fly or flies them.
But we are getting them, so the task is to learn to employ them correctly and they are in the process of that now. It seems to be doing well, at least in the press. I'm not anxious for combat just to prove it good or bad, and will gladly wait until it is actually needed to find out. Meanwhile, it seems to be maturing, though that hasn't helped the amount of weapons it can carry and stay stealthy.
I'll get back to WWII ... or shortly post-war. I'd still like to see a turboprop Skyraider Attack plane with modern avionics. We have the technology now, and would not use that unreliable, geared transmission that the Skyshark used so ineffectively coupled with the Allison XT-40 engine. That was a dud of an engine-transmission combination, if ever there was one, though it never failed in the Pogo planes.
There are penalties, in initial and operating costs, and availability for that second engine. I'm also going to hazard a guess that the loss rate for F-18s operating from land based isn't far different from that for the F-16. I know there have been multiple Hornet crashes where either both engines failed due to a common cause or where one engine failed and caused the other to fail.
As for F-18 vs F-35, hunt up USNI Proceedings from the time when the F-18 was close to service entry. Many naval aviators were highly critical of the plane.
Though I really like the F7F, methinks the roll rate was too slow for fighter co,bat. But you do NOT want to intersect the armament stream from an F7F in ANY airplane. Four 50s and four 20s, with no convergence,
Weren't they fitted with a self-destruct like the IFF units?An old issue of Wings/Airpower had a pilot interview where he said the F7F N was not allowed to fly above the 38th in the Korean War, so as not risk a capture of the Radar and Avionics.
I'm coming to this thread late, but did anyone mention the He-219?
Why was the P-38 and the Mosquito so successful when engaging single engine fighters as compared to other 2 engine fighters, such as the Me-110, Do-17, Me-410, Ju-88, Ki-45, J1N1 Gekko, and others.
I'm guessing with the Me-110 and Do-17 it was lack of power and maybe the same reason for the Ju-88.
Were the P-38 and Mosquito just faster so they could get away when needed?
I'm coming to this thread late, but did anyone mention the He-219?
No Ju 88G-7 was ever delivered, the small amount of Jumo 213E becoming available was fitted to G-6 airframes.
5x He 219D with Jumo 213E were built but were not in service due to engine problems.
He 219A-7 with DB603E was in service with 50-80 delivered