Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
IIRC the F-89 was supposed to be the "cure all" but it had issues in it's development to include the radar that was to be installed in the aircraft. The F-94C was eventually replaced by the F-89 and F-86D but it stayed in service until 1959.
I wonder if any of these aircraft would have been successful in intercepting an enemy bomber with the performance of the B-47. Ground control would have to perfectly place the interceptor.
And none armed with guns ... just folding fin missiles in swarms IIRC .... the great self-deception had begun
I imagine pilots were more than a little frustrated when they shot off all of their rockets at once and didn't score a single hit. Perhaps statistically they were more likely to score a hit with rockets than guns, but I'm sure it didn't feel that way in the cockpit.
Interestingly, the 30 mm Oerlikon 302RK tested on the F-89 was a very powerful weapon. A revolver cannon, slower firing (1200 RPM) than the ADEN, but with a very high muzzle velocity of 1100 m/s for a 300.5g projectile. It certainly should have fit the USAF standards for short time in flight and good ballistics. (at the expensive of recoil and weight -more than twice the ADEN or M39 at 398 lbs, about the same as the late-WWII era high velocity M9 37 mm cannon used on PT boats and tested in the P-63, though the M9 only fired at 150 rpm)
The 302 RK might have made a good anti-tank weapon ... sort of a precursor to the GAU-8.
Given the weight, 2 of those cannons seems more reasonable on an interceptor rather than 4. (given the power and high RoF, 2 seems reasonable, though four M39s might have been more useful for some interceptions)
As far as I know, the F-89 started out as a night-fighter (P-61 replacement) that ended up being used as an all-weather interceptor.All-weather interceptors were 'evolving' .... one engine or two ...? single-man crew or double ...?
That was something I didn't know, but it's nice to know that the USAF had an all-weather jet flying around (the USN had the F3D by 1952 at least).F-94 Starfires served as night fighters during the Korean War ... with a kill or to IIRC.
I assume you mean we got overconfident in our ability to stop enemy bombers?And none armed with guns ... just folding fin missiles in swarms IIRC .... the great self-deception had begun
I didn't know the radar had problems, though I know they had a variety of issues regarding the wings and fuel tanks.IIRC the F-89 was supposed to be the "cure all" but it had issues in it's development to include the radar that was to be installed in the aircraft.
No, the F-89 flew first; then the F-94 and F-86D.The F-94C was eventually replaced by the F-89 and F-86D but it stayed in service until 1959.
I could believe it!I imagine pilots were more than a little frustrated when they shot off all of their rockets at once and didn't score a single hit.
Well one hit would blow a bomber apart, but the problem is they were kind of scattered out over an area the size of a football field in one blast. A machine gun would fire a stream of projectiles over a much narrower area: Even if the weight of fire didn't blow up the bomber outright, it doesn't matter as it has a substantial refire rate and has enough shells to fire for a certain number of seconds: This would allow you to walk the tracers onto the target and hold it there until the target goes down.Perhaps statistically they were more likely to score a hit with rockets than guns, but I'm sure it didn't feel that way in the cockpit.
I was under the impression that by the time these were used, we'd already be in a nuclear war.The later F-89s were armed with nuclear air-to-air rockets, part of the whole "tactical" nuke strategy that seemed more likely to cause an all-out nuclear war than to avert one.
You kind of hit the nail on the head with the armament.The F-94 did not add anything to the mix. It performed similarly to the F-89 but carried half the weaponry and was probably shorter ranged. The F-86D was a much better performing aircraft in climb and airspeed, however it carried one-fifth the weaponry as the F-89.
That would depend on a number of things, but a B-47 if I recall could fly quite high up (45,000-50,000 feet) and at that altitude still had a a decent amount of lift available for maneuvering (fighters had trouble staying with it).As for catching a B-47,the after-burning F-86D should have little problem being almost a 100 mph faster than the B-47. The other two would struggle. However, both have much higher ceiling and could use that for energy.
What kind of rocket gun was used in the test?
Yeah, becuase each shot did so much damage per hitThe rocket salvo idea made sense
Actually, the R4M might have been better as was better spin-stabilized and had eight fins to hold it steady. The 2.75" FFAR was not properly spin-stabilized early on and used only four-fins to hold it in steady and at least one pilot basically said he was amazed "we hit anything" with them.until you realized the poor accuracy of those FFARs (which really hadn't improved much over the German R4M) and might have made a reasonable complement to gun/cannon armament (again as the R4M did), but the all-rocket armament scheme seems pretty flawed and not just in hindsight.
The rocket-pod seems like a good idea, not sure why they didn't go with it.The F-86D and F-94 might have compromised with just 2 M39s given their smaller size and nose geometry, plus the F-94 could carry rocket pods in addition to a nose armament while the F-86D might need to compromise between cannon and rocket tray in the belly and/or nose.