Fighter: Flop or Not

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

For the aero issues, the only thing they could have done -- and they should have, as it was known that the flow in that region of the aircraft was very complex, almost certainly unsteady, and anything ejected from the tunnel would need to go through there, possibly with the engines in afterburner or with one engine inoperative -- was a lot of tunnel testing. The problem with that is that this would require a complex model, accurately replicating the flow around the rear of the aircraft, including the jet flows. This would probably require something like the Variable Density Wind Tunnel to get to the full-scale Reynolds' number.
When the Vige was designed computers were very primitive and computer modeling a futuristic concept. The good old slide rule was the order of the day, and accurate calculation of the details of airflow around the tail end of the fuselage an approximation at best.
Another curiosity was the decision to mount the fuel dump tube under the bomb tube portal between the afterburners rather than at the wingtips, as was the general practice at the time. This led to a number of spectacular demonstrations of aerial fireworks. One night a cocky young instructor pilot "Hurricane" Carson, set out with a student RAN (Radar Attack Navigator) from the training base in Albany GA for a night low-level navigation exercise around the southern states. As they're climbing the ladders to the cockpits, the student's handheld flashlight failed. It was a long walk back to Ops, and launch time loomed, so the IP gave the student his flashlight. Well, the wheels had no sooner hit the wells when both generators and the battery bus ties failed. Instant darkness, and most of the instruments dead. The RAT deployed, but could only power the items on its sub bus, as all the bus ties were down. No lights, no coms, no navs, no engine or calculated value instruments (TAS, ADC, fuel totalizer, etc), and twenty thousand pounds of fuel above safe landing weight. Gotta get rid of fuel - quick! Well, the burners are still lit, so that plus dump should hurry things along. Suddenly a thousand foot comet of flame lit up the city of Albany and threw enough light into the cockpit so Hurricane could see that his airspeed was approaching mach. He didn't want to lose the light, so he pulled up into a loop to check his acceleration. Once inverted, enough light shone through the canopy to show the airspeed increasing rapidly, so he killed the burners, throttled back and completed his loop, meanwhile rapidly guestimating how much fuel he must have burned and how much to go. The answer wasn't reassuring, so power up, burners lit, here we go again. Meanwhile the good citizens of Albany were wondering if this was WWIII, War of the Worlds, or the Second Coming! Hurricane and his hostage spent over half an hour flying flaming arcs over the city until the squadron CO launched in another RA5C to fly formation and bring them down to the runway. The student RAN opted out of the NFO program, and Hurricane was reprimanded for his Delta Sierra stunt, then commended for saving the aircraft and not ejecting over a populated area. A night to remember.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Yeah, I remember doing aero with a slide rule, then a pocket calculator. The base area would have very complex flow, probably separated, and likely unsteady, especially with the engines running. It would be a very difficult problem with CFD today.

Hence, the need for tunnel testing, which was never cheap or easy.
 
I saw one of the first pocket calculators in a store in 1971. It was a Sharp, bulky, about the size of a TI student scientific today, had four functions: add, subtract, multiply, divide, had red LEDs, and cost $400! Oh, and it required you to enter your data in some weird sequence, not the normal way you would write it down.
Cheers,
Wes
 
F3H Demon (got the name and designation wrong :( ). Its big problem seemed to be its engines.
Yeah, the J40 only produced 2/3 the advertised thrust, and had various problems that made the thing into an overpriced pipe-bomb.
One problem was certainly the Navy's insistence on the Westinghouse J40
Why were they so insistent when the J57 was in the pipeline?
the quite good J57 wouldn't fit
I was told by some that the problem was volume and the others said it had to do with the demand for J57's. I'm not sure which is true.

Flops due to engine: F3H Demon
Flops due to configuration: F7U Cutlass
Flops in original role: F-84, A3J Vigilante (impracticality of the "tunnel" bomb bay)
Flops due to bad design: F6U Cutlass
Good summary...
Vought seemed to dislike average-height pilots: some reports said the Corsair's cockpit setup was difficult to use for a pilot under about 6 ft tall, and the seat wasn't vertically adjustable, making the forward visibility problem even worse. Median (and average) height of US white males was about 5 ft 8 in tall
While this might sound silly, but how tall were Voughts test pilots?
 
My thoughts are basically this…

F7U-Cutlass
An example of being hoist by their own petards: The USN actually chose the design because it was tailless (there was a school of thought that it would be better for transonic flight): Tailless aircraft need bigger wings and higher angle-of-attack compared to tailed aircraft, which was compounded by the slat-configuration

It was an aircraft of gadgets and interesting features, some appeared from the start, others added as the design proceeded, including the following (far as I know)

  • Tail-hook: Designed from the outset to be mounted over the top, with a hook that could be jettisoned for ease. It was ultimately repositioned down below. The ability to jettison the hook was arguably useful, it was also unnecessary and removed.
  • Landing-Gear: Designed with a device to spin the nose-gear prior to touchdown to reduce landing-loads, means to jack the nose-gear up for catapult-shots, and the ability to pivot the main-gears forward to increase elevator authority for takeoff. Item one appeared in development when weight increased, the last item appeared in flight-test. The last seems more like it would be satisfied by a total redesign (Which was done on the F7U-3), the middle-item seems unnecessary (carrier aircraft were able to do deck-runs at the time, and it was able to do so without jacking the gear).
It also had a variety of problems as well
  • Control Power: It didn't have enough to make the plane stall.
  • Hydraulic Systems: Early on the null points were too large, so it made it possible to over-control the aircraft; later on it was noted that it took about 10-15 seconds to transition from hydraulic power to manual reversion which remained with the aircraft throughout its life.
  • Inadequate Forward-Visibility: The shape of the nose and position of the pilot essentially were inadequate. How it passed is unclear but it appeared to be based on the requirements for aircraft with conventional-gears -- I'm not sure if the higher AoA was factored in.
  • Weight: It creeped up, at first due to overly optimistic (if not deceptive) weight estimates, then modifications during flight-test. Weight would go up from around 16,000-18,000 pounds by the start of the flight-test period, and eventually to 22,000-24,000. This would make the aircraft go from having a pretty respectable power/weight ratio to one that was low.
  • Dutch-Roll: Ironically, it seemed okay at first, with modifications later causing it to suffer from rapid onset effects that required yaw-damping. Not sure why they did this.
While the F7U-2 was cancelled, and the F7U-3's nose was reshaped, landing-gear redesigned, wings-reshaped, and was carrier-suitable, it wasn't until 1956 that it was ready for service, and was now flying among planes like the F4D, F3H, and F11F, of which all were supersonic. The more powerful engines didn't help because the aircraft continued to gain weight and the engines didn't live up to specification, so the T/W ratio didn't really seem to change much.

Verdict: It was pushing the aerodynamic limits for the time, which lead to all sorts of problems from weight and controlability. The design featured some excessively complicated features. It was difficult to fly despite having an excellent rate of roll and tight turn-rate at altitude, and came too late to really shine. Ironically, the F4D was probably more dangerous in a number of ways, except that it had plenty of power.


F-89 Scorpion
My impression was that the F-89's could best be compared to the US Navy's F3D Skyknight based on the initial role as a night-fighter.

The F-89 was larger and heavier, probably more underpowered at first, though the upgraded J35s provided a similar T/W ratio on dry-power, superior on AB, and a superior climb rate; the F3D might have had a superior rate of turn, as it could get inside a MiG-15. The F-89 seemed faster, and I'm unsure who had better range.

Both aircraft had problems early on: The F3D had roll-control problems, which were fixed with spoilers; the F-89 initially had an overly complicated nose-turret system that was deleted, its tail was prone to flutter due to exhaust gas striking them, and was fixed with mass-balances. The wings had elasticity issues while carrying drop-tanks, that were ultimately fixed as well.

I'm not sure how the radar of the F-89C compared to the F3D-1/2, but both seemed impressive. The F-89D had better features, but flew later and had no guns, which made it all but useless against fighter-planes, and not terribly good against bombers.

The rockets were also lousy owing to the fact that they were designed to fly larger ranges than the German R4M that inspired it, they miscalculated the spin-rate and fin-size, and ripple firing forces the rockets to fly through the turbulent airflow from earlier fired rocket: Even the ability to spit out 104 didn't produce much of a chance of a hit: An F6F-5K wandered off course, and they were tasked with shooting it down -- they made pass after pass and failed to hit a plane going in a perfectly straight line. It reminds me of a Ron White bit about the California Highway police getting into a massive shoot-out at nearly point-blank range and missed: Great shooting Elmer Fudd!

Verdict: The F-89 took a long period of time to work out it's quirks, though would have been okay as a night fighter (I'd have preferred having the F3D) until the F-89D (guns were removed). As an interceptor, the F-89D's lack of guns were problematic due to their accuracy until missiles came along.
 
Last edited:
Judging how effective the F-89 would be against bombers by a incident it had with a fighter drone about 1/4 the size of the targets it would be going against isn't too well thought out isn't it ?
Matter of fact some of those rockets did hit the drone, but they didn't detonate.

The F-89 was designed as a bomber interceptor. Designed to shoot down bombers coming to the USA via the polar route.

Did any nation have fighters ( of that era ) capable of escorting bombers for the distance required for a polar route mission from Russia to the US ?
 
Matter of fact some of those rockets did hit the drone, but they didn't detonate.
Now I didn't know that
The F-89 was designed as a bomber interceptor.
Night fighter at first actually: This would include defensive operations against bombers, and offensive against fighters.
Did any nation have fighters ( of that era ) capable of escorting bombers for the distance required for a polar route mission from Russia to the US ?
Not that I know of
 
The F-89D had better features, but no guns, which made it all but useless against fighter-planes, and not terribly good against bombers.
In those days fighter vs fighter wasn't in the picture for an interceptor. It was all about fleets of TU-4s (glorified B-29 clones) coming over the North Pole. None of the "radar truck" interceptors of the time would have stood a chance against a MiG in visual combat. Yes, a couple of them (F3D and F-94) could theoretically turn with a MiG, but that's not a free ticket home; none of them would escape once the MiG decided to go vertical. There just wouldn't be any MiGs over northern Canada when they came to the merge. Their legs were too short.
Cheers,
Wes
 
In those days fighter vs fighter wasn't in the picture for an interceptor.
Yes, but the plane was designed originally as a night fighter that included both offensive and defensive operations.

Offensive operations would include intruding into enemy airspace to take-out fighters in the dark.

Yes, a couple of them (F3D and F-94) could theoretically turn with a MiG, but that's not a free ticket home; none of them would escape once the MiG decided to go vertical.
The F-94 could turn with a MiG?
 
Yes, but the plane was designed originally as a night fighter that included both offensive and defensive operations.

Offensive operations would include intruding into enemy airspace to take-out fighters in the dark.
Is that your own opinion or recorded USAF doctrine at the time?
The F-94 could turn with a MiG?

What model? With out tip pods? Maybe.

Why would you want to turn with a MiG when you could sneak up on him and blast away with a salvo of rockets? (providing they all worked)
 
Yes, but the plane was designed originally as a night fighter that included both offensive and defensive operations.


89.JPG
 
Did any nation have fighters ( of that era ) capable of escorting bombers for the distance required for a polar route mission from Russia to the US ?
Considering that the TU-4 was a degraded performance B-29 clone (The Soviets didn't have the technology to copy all of B-29's features) and nuclear strikes against US were planned max range one-way missions, fighter escort was just not an option. Remember, the Badger, the Bear, and the Bison were still in the future, as was Cuba for a recovery base. The only option might have been to drag "long range" fighters such as Yak-25s with a fleet of tankers three quarters of the way to the targets. Being as the Soviets didn't have dedicated long range tankers a la KC-97, they would have had to use converted bombers like our KB-50, and they had barely enough TU-4s to make a credible nuclear strike force. (If we had only known that at the time!)
Cheers,
Wes
 
Considering that the TU-4 was a degraded performance B-29 clone (The Soviets didn't have the technology to copy all of B-29's features)

Not really Wes - the B-29 performed marginally better, the Tu-4 was definitely heavier, a bit slower but it had a higher service ceiling but its engines weren't as problematic as the 3350. The Soviets did well in their thievery.
 
While this might sound silly, but how tall were Voughts test pilots?
The manager of one of our state airports back in the seventies had been a Vought test pilot during the war. He was six foot two or three and built like a tank. He told me he had been a contract instructor in the USAAF initial flight training program and was fired when the program was cut back. Said he got his draft notice two days before he got his pink slip and termination of deferment notice. A former instructor buddy of his got him the job at Vought, which re-instated his deferment. Started out in production test, then went to engineering. Said over half his former instructor buddies wound up as infantry KIA in Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and Belgium. (Shook his head; "What a waste of talent.")
Cheers,
Wes
 
Last edited:
the Tu-4 was definitely heavier, a bit slower but it had a higher service ceiling but its engines weren't as problematic as the 3350. The Soviets did well in their thievery.
Not so well as all that. The Sovs couldn't duplicate the power to weight ratio of the magnesium 3350, nor could they match its specific fuel consumption. They made a heavy, thirsty engine that put out more power but needed a LOT more fuel to match the B-29's range.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Yes, but the plane was designed originally as a night fighter that included both offensive and defensive operations.

Offensive operations would include intruding into enemy airspace to take-out fighters in the dark.
You're missing the point here. Fighter vs fighter (in the visual ACM sense) wouldn't have been a design consideration here, as night fighting is a radar game, not an ACM one. So if the embryonic F-89 was in fact used to interdict enemy night fighters, it would still be a contest of radar sets, operators, and GCI controllers, not aircraft maneuverability and crew dogfighting skill. In its role as a long range interceptor defending North America from intercontinental bombers, it doesn't matter whether the merge occurs night, day, or IMC, there won't be any opposing fighters, so ACM performance is not a consideration.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Not really Wes - the B-29 performed marginally better, the Tu-4 was definitely heavier, a bit slower but it had a higher service ceiling but its engines weren't as problematic as the 3350. The Soviets did well in their thievery.

Reverse engineering it (well, stealing and copying it) was very challenging, and some of the Soviet engineers thought that some of the aircraft's structural design was sub-optimal, but Stalin insisted on an exact copy, not an improved copy ;)
 
Stalin insisted on an exact copy, not an improved copy ;)
But ol' Tupolev was enough of a sly fox to make a few hidden changes where he couldn't match the B-29's technology, while duplicating the appearance exactly. Even improved a thing or two, like upgrading the defensive armament.
Cheers,
Wes
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back