Best 50s/60s fighter?

R Pope said:

Flyboyj...Actually read that in a few places over the years, the latest being in Air Space magazine a few months ago. An article about dissimilar aircraft combat training where the A4 is the foreign aggressor. Can't find the mag just now, though. Had a book on Douglas that went into it in some detail, but that book burned up in my brothers house years ago.....

Click to expand...

Well I'd like to kknow those author's sources. There is no mistake the A-4 started off life as a Skyraider replacement, period. Ed Heinemann would roll over in his grave if he heard that!!!!

FLYBOYJ said:

Well I'd like to kknow those author's sources. There is no mistake the A-4 started off life as a Skyraider replacement, period. Ed Heinemann would roll over in his grave if he heard that!!!!

Click to expand...

Maybe getting mixed up with Skyray. But Skyhawk and Skyray do have a family look about em.

Chinese MiG-17 out climbed and higher service ceiling so could choose combat. Taiwan F-86 had early sidewinder to combat MiGs performance advantage.

NVAF and PAF didnt have MiG-19 but the Chinese copy.

The Basket said:

Maybe getting mixed up with Skyray. But Skyhawk and Skyray do have a family look about em.

Click to expand...

Maybe

The Basket said:

Chinese MiG-17 out climbed and higher service ceiling so could choose combat. Taiwan F-86 had early sidewinder to combat MiGs performance advantage.

Click to expand...

The MiG-17 had only a slightly higher service ceiling than the F-86H and they both climbed almost the same. The MiG-17 was faster becuase the F-86H airframe was limited to under mach 1, the F-86H was just as fast at sea level.

The CAC Sabre was 11 mph slower then the MiG-17, climbed slightly slower and had a 2000' lower service ceiling.

In combat I think both all these aircraft would be about equal, also consider the armament

The Basket said:

NVAF and PAF didnt have MiG-19 but the Chinese copy.

Click to expand...

Yep!

FLYBOYJ said:

Maybe
The MiG-17 had only a slightly higher service ceiling than the F-86H and they both climbed almost the same. The MiG-17 was faster becuase the F-86H airframe was limited to under mach 1, the F-86H was just as fast at sea level.

The CAC Sabre was 11 mph slower then the MiG-17, climbed slightly slower and had a 2000' lower service ceiling.

In combat I think both all these aircraft would be about equal, also consider the armament


Yep!

Click to expand...

from what i can find Tiawan had F86F so they didnt have the best Sabres.

The Basket said:

from what i can find Tiawan had F86F so they didnt have the best Sabres.

Click to expand...

I believe they had "F" models and then got F-100s

I dunno, Air Space is published by the Smithsonian, I would think they would get their facts straight on a story. And no, there was no confusion with the Skyray. I'll find my copy and quote the article later.

R Pope said:

I dunno, Air Space is published by the Smithsonian, I would think they would get their facts straight on a story. And no, there was no confusion with the Skyray. I'll find my copy and quote the article later.

Click to expand...

I'd like to see that. The original drwings of the aircraft indicate it was an A4D from the get go and these drawing were made by RG Smith, a very famous Douglas engineer and artist who worked with Douglas Chief Engineer Douglas Heinemann, the guy who designed the A4.

http://a4skyhawk.org/specials/rgblueprint/rg-orig-blueprint.htm

This is from Joe Bauger's site..

"Alarmed at the trend towards ever-increasing weight in contemporary fighters such as the USAF F-86 Sabre and the Navy F9F Panther, Douglas Chief Engineer Douglas Heinemann charted a team of engineers to work on a private venture to see if this trend could be reversed. They came up with a rather daring proposal for a jet fighter weighing only 7000 pounds. The team submitted the results of this preliminary design study to the Bureau of Aeronautics in early January of 1952.

The Navy showed some interest, but since they were already involved in the consideration of several other fighter designs, they suggested that the Douglas team should apply the same sort of philosophy to the design of a carrier-based attack aircraft. This plane would be intended for the nuclear strike role, with a top speed of 500 mph, a combat radius of 345 miles, a 2000-lb weapons load, and a maximum gross weight of less than 30,000 pounds.

Heinemann's team responded a couple of weeks later with a proposal that exceeded these requirements by a substantial margin. The normal loaded weight of the aircraft would be only 12,000 pounds, less than half the limit specified by the Navy, and the top speed was 100 mph greater and the combat radius 115 miles greater. Douglas was authorized to proceed with further design studies. During the evaluation, the range requirements were increased, raising the gross weight to 14,000 pounds

The design team came up with a low-winged jet-powered aircraft with a modified delta planform. The wing had a quarter chord sweep of 33 degrees. The span was only 27 feet 6 inches, which eliminated any need for wing folding and saving a lot of weight and complexity. The wing had three one-piece spars with spanwise stiffened skin. The delta shaped wing formed a single box with integral fuel tankage, and the upper and lower skins were single pieces. The spars and stringers were continuous from tip to tip. The wing leading edge was equipped with automatic leading edge slats and split flaps were provided on the trailing edge. Most of the wing between the spars contained an integral fuel tank with 560 gallon capacity.

The aircraft had a normal tail, with a rudder and a set of elevators. The dorsal fin had a delta shape, and had a rudder set at its rear. The horizontal tailplane was set at at the lower part of the vertical tail, just above the tailpipe. The horizontal stabilizer was electrically adjustable in incidence, and could be adjusted for trim throughout the entire flight range. A large speed brake was provided on each side of the rear fuselage.

The engine was to be a licence-built version of the British Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet, rated at 8000 lb.s.t. It would be built by Wright under the designation J65. The engine was mounted in the fuselage center with air intakes mounted high on both sides of the fuselage aft of the cockpit. The engine had a single exhaust in the tail.

The internal fuel capacity was 770 US gallons, carried in integral wing tanks and in a self-sealing cell aft of the cockpit and between the engine air ducts. All of the offensive weapons were to be carried externally on three stations--one underneath the fuselage centerline and one underneath each wing. The internal armament was to be a pair of 20-mm cannon, one in each wing root. Design gross weight with a single Mk 12 nuclear weapon was 14,250 pounds, and the combat radius with this weapon with internal fuel only was 400 miles.

The tall main undercarriage members were attached to the inner wing trailing edge, and retracted forward and rotated through 90 degrees to fit into wells in the leading edge of the wing. The wing was sufficiently thin so that long fairings had to be fitted underneath the wing to cover the landing gear legs when retracted. The nose landing gear retracted forward into a well in the nose. The forward-retracting landing gear had the avantage in that emergency extension systems were not required, since the airstream flow will lock the gear down after free fall. The landing gear appears at first sight to be rather long and stalky, but it facilitiates adequate ground clearance during rotation on takeoff

The cockpit canopy was of the "clamshell" variety, opening via a hinge located immediately to the rear. An upward- firing ejector seat was to be provided for the pilot.

A preliminary mockup inspection took place in February of 1952 Douglas was given a contract for one aircraft On June 12, 1952. The designation was XA4D-1, and the BuNo was 137812. The project was financed by diverting funds from the cancelled A2D Skyshark program. Final mockup inspection took place in October of 1952. By this time, the Navy had ordered 9 production aircraft, which was soon increased to 19.

The XA4D-1 was assembled at the Douglas El Segundo plant and was rolled out of the factory in February of 1954, the aircraft being given the popular name Skyhawk. In press releases, the plane was often referred to as "Heinmann's Hot Rod". The windscreen of the cockpit was frameless, and the nose was provided with a long instrumentation probe. The pilot was provided with a NAMC Type II ejection seat. Only the centerline weapons pylon was fitted, and there was no carrier arrester hook. No armament was fitted.

The XA4D-1 was trucked out to Edwards AFB, 100 miles away. The first flight was delayed by the late delivery of its 7200 lb.s.t Wright J65-W-2 turbojet. First flight took place at Edwards AFB on June 22, 1954, test pilot Robert Rahn being at the controls.

Late in the career of the XA4D-1, it was fitted with most of the features of the production A4D-1, including a tailhook, a jetpipe fairing, vortex generators, and all three weapons pylons."

Again, nothing from an "unbuilt fighter design."

Air Space June/July 2004...
Designed by the brilliant Douglas Aircraft engineer Ed Heinemann, the aircraft was originally conceived to respond to the Navy's request for a super-cheap, super-lightweight jet interceptor that could be fielded against the Soviet's Mig-15s. In January 1952 Heinemann arrived in Washington to sell his design to Navy brass, only to be told that the service had dropped its interceptor requirements. But in the audience for Heinemann's presentation was legendary naval aviator Admiral Apollo Soucek, and he loved the design's light weight and great maneuverability.
Since the Navy needed a more efficient jet replacement for its piston-engine Douglas a-1 Skyraiders, Soucek asked Heinemann if he could transform his design into an attack airplane..." and the rest is history.

R Pope said:

Air Space June/July 2004...
Designed by the brilliant Douglas AircrSkyhawk ineer Ed Heinemann, the aircraft was originally conceived to respond to the Navy's request for a super-cheap, super-lightweight jet interceptor that could be fielded against the Soviet's Mig-15s. In January 1952 Heinemann arrived in Washington to sell his design to Navy brass, only to be told that the service had dropped its interceptor requirements. But in the audience for Heinemann's presentation was legendary naval aviator Admiral Apollo Soucek, and he loved the design's light weight and great maneuverability.
Since the Navy needed a more efficient jet replacement for its piston-engine Douglas a-1 Skyraiders, Soucek asked Heinemann if he could transform his design into an attack airplane..." and the rest is history.

Click to expand...

Eh? Douglas had the Skyray flying. And you dont design a fighter to match the MiG-15 in 1952 coz the 15 was ancient by then.

The Skyhawk was no MiG-15 chaser.Douglas would have to go backwards from the Skyray to the Skyhawk and fighter design dont go backwards.

Flyboyj...The first paragraph of your Bauger quote mentions the fighter project that preceded the A4, doesn't it? And "using the same design philosophy" isn't all that far away from "being developed from.." Just a matter of semantics. A slightly diverging interpretation of the same circumstances..?

R Pope said:

Flyboyj...The first paragraph of your Bauger quote mentions the fighter project that preceded the A4, doesn't it? And "using the same design philosophy" isn't all that far away from "being developed from.." Just a matter of semantics. A slightly diverging interpretation of the same circumstances..?

Click to expand...

I think Basket nailed it (although a Skyhawk did shoot down a MiG-17 during Vietnam) and could have dealt with the MiG well if given the opportunity) - there was no "unbuilt fighter design" as you first mentioned. I think that statement could apply to other companies throwing proposals out during the same period. Ed Heinemann was concerned about aircraft weight and regardless if he was meeting with pentagon folks to solicit a contract for an air to air fighter or attack aircraft to replace the Skyraider, fact remains there was no "unbuilt fighter design" anywhere at Douglas during that period. When Heinemann returned from DC the A-4 was born.

FLYBOYJ,
Do you know if the Sabre D/K/L was comparable in dogfighting with the other Sabres. I realize it was designed as a bomber interceptor, but I've not come across anything about it's handling or maneuverability.

steve51 said:

FLYBOYJ,
Do you know if the Sabre D/K/L was comparable in dogfighting with the other Sabres. I realize it was designed as a bomber interceptor, but I've not come across anything about it's handling or maneuverability.

Click to expand...

AFAIK the later Sabres were heavier and less maneuverable but because of of their engines had better thrust to weight ratios especially when they were clean. As stated the H model was mach limited.

Oh, and they were armed with cannons, something that should have been done from the get-go

FLYBOYJ,
Thanks for the reply. I agree that the cannon were definitely an improvement as I assume the afterburner was as well.

Going to go off the board here and pimp for one that wasn't offered up as a choice, but should have been included. My pick is the McDonnell Douglas F-101. Why?

Let's look at the situation with the "prime contenders" for the ADC and TAC during the period.

ADC's "cross to bear" was the F-106 project ("WS-201"); TAC's was the F-105.
Look at the developmental histories of these two aircraft. The 106 has a "special place" but Republic's machine was also a "Billion Dollar Baby", in it's own right. What happened?
Randall Whitcomb (and his/NACA's interpretation of Busseman's) "area rule", governing high Mach aerodynamics.

<Rant on>More "Nazi Science", but the truth is that there was ONLY ONE true transonic wind tunnel in operation before the end of the war; this was at Gottingen. Busemann's work is not given due credit in popular accounts; this is just not right.<Rant Off>

All that said? McDonnell got lucky with the "Voodoo". As designed, it was conformal to area rule...with minor airframe modifications.

And the F-101B "became" the "Ultimate Interceptor" until the "Six" started gaining IOC in 1963... the F-101A/C "stood in" for the F-105 (as a low level tactical bomber) on the front line in FRG until the mid 60's as well...

All hail the Voodoo.

Balls out, light, and going for straight "time to climb"...the F-101 killed the "six". Killed most anything for that matter once you lit those two J57's and sat it on it's ass. The Orenda engined CF-104 (hottest of the bunch, until the Eyeties did the F-104S mods) could not even hope to keep up with a CF-101 in time to altitude from a standing start. In a "Zoom climb" situation the numbers were closer but the 101 kept on pushing when the "going got tough" (i.e.+FL400) while the Starfighter would have to reduce AOA to hit it's best climbing solution.

The F-12/SR-71 is another matter entirely but that is TOTALLY out of the realm of this discussion.

Hence my choice. It was in the right place (developmentally) at the right time. Production numbers verify this. As many F-101's were built, as were the two aircraft (105 106) that they were built to provide the CYA factor for... and this says a bunch.

The EE Lightning had a similar philosophy but it lacked the "lifting body" properties of the 101's design; it also lacked the attendant internal space for tankage and this makes it inferior as a candidate...at least when viewed from a "NORAD" perspective.

I get so choked when people ("Arrowheads") decry the F-101 as a "poor man's" solution. Not the case. Not at all.
This was a premium solution for the RCAF's NORAD commitment; if you actually look at the lease terms? We made out like bandits in the deal...

Our CF-101 guys killed on all of the "William Tell" exercises they attended; this has to say something as well. A mean, mean, fighting machine.

Balls out and no regards for tomorrow...

All for this one, Ron