Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It includes a number of things ranging fromOK, what is a Flop?
That's correct, so it'd be preferable to start from September 3, 1945 until 1973.Well, we are in the post war section
I'm not sure how much fear the SA-1 (S-25) provoked in the US/NATO, the SA-2 did however produce such an effect.What turned some bombers into flops in the post war era (including the 1950s) were the US Nike Ajax (introduced 1954) the British Bloodhound (1958) the Russian S-25 (1955) and the SA-2/S-75 (1957) which turned high altitude flyovers into a not very profitable attack profile.
When I say bomber in this case, I'm covering all bombers from attack-aircraft to heavy-bombers.In terms of WW2 almost all strategic bombers were "flops" in terms of the original idea of bombing nations into submission by daylight bombing.
True, oh so true. It had a hard time keeping fuel cells in on take off!The A-5 couldn't perform its design role, due to a design decision by North American.
The aircraft was designed for both the delivery of conventional and nuclear ordinance technically, and even in nuclear missions, the goal is to actually not get killed in the process (believe it or not).How about the AJ1 Savage, Carrier based (Strategic Bomber), While it did perform it's function (flying on and off carriers) I would caution it's capability (save for a one way trip to deliver successfully an atomic weapon. Just my opinion but hey.
And that's on the way *in*. There would be problems on the way out as wellswampyankee said:Quite a few nuclear bombing mission plans seem to have been quite willing to accept very high loss rates
You mean the bomb-train?Flops, though? The A-5 couldn't perform its design role, due to a design decision by North American.
The aircraft was designed for both the delivery of conventional and nuclear ordinance technically, and even in nuclear missions, the goal is to actually not get killed in the process (believe it or not).
The aircraft's control forces were said to be excessively light due to the configuration of the hydraulics system, which made possible over-control. To make it better, when they were off, the control forces became very heavy, and might very well have reduced roll control to a level that would be inadequate for bringing the plane aboard deck. The hydraulic system may have been damage prone.
And that's on the way *in*. There would be problems on the way out as well
You mean the bomb-train?
- Many command and control systems or their relays would be destroyed making it difficult to get messages to the right people, as well as coordinate things, like (as you said) aerial refueling
- Many air-bases would be destroyed making it hard for aircraft to find places to land, also refueling aircraft would not be able to land and refuel themselves
- To avoid counter-attack, there would be the risk of enemy aircraft using IFF spoofing, so our own aircraft would have to be constantly changing IFF's every certain number of seconds or minutes: In the event of damage to the IFF system, or forgetfulness, that plane would probably get shot down by it's own side.
Why did they do that?
I thought you could just punch it out using explosive bolts...From a 60 year old magazine article - so they could drop stores at supersonic speeds...
I remember with the XB-70 they had some means of punching out a store or the plane wouldn't have worked, the YF-12 also used some kind of explosive charge system to blow 'em free.If explosive bolts had been used, they wouldn't have worked. It takes more than gravity to get bombs past the supersonic airflow around the aircraft.
I remember with the XB-70 they had some means of punching out a store or the plane wouldn't have worked, the YF-12 also used some kind of explosive charge system to blow 'em free.
In some cases they may have used hydraulic rams.
I knowIf you "jettison" a 2000lb store with even 10fps downward velocity (regardless of mechanism used) you are going to have a similar force pushing the airplane (or local structure) upward. You have a low velocity but large projectile "cannon" you are dealing with the recoil from.
Oh, missiles don't always separate right either...The YF-12 was a interceptor, it never carried bombs. Missiles have their own method of separation built in.
They would have had to have one though, and they didn't shoot it out the back...The XB-70, all 2 of them, never dropped any bombs that I'm aware of. So whatever system they had was never tested.