Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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.
Yeah, the J40 only produced 2/3 the advertised thrust, and had various problems that made the thing into an overpriced pipe-bomb.F3H Demon (got the name and designation wrong). Its big problem seemed to be its engines.
Why were they so insistent when the J57 was in the pipeline?One problem was certainly the Navy's insistence on the Westinghouse J40
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.the quite good J57 wouldn't fit
Good summary...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
While this might sound silly, but how tall were Voughts test pilots?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
Now I didn't know thatMatter of fact some of those rockets did hit the drone, but they didn't detonate.
Night fighter at first actually: This would include defensive operations against bombers, and offensive against fighters.The F-89 was designed as a bomber interceptor.
Not that I know ofDid 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 ?
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.The F-89D had better features, but no guns, which made it all but useless against fighter-planes, and not terribly good against bombers.
Yes, but the plane was designed originally as a night fighter that included both offensive and defensive operations.In those days fighter vs fighter wasn't in the picture for an interceptor.
The F-94 could turn with a MiG?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.
Is that your own opinion or recorded USAF doctrine at the time?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.
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.
While this might sound silly, but how tall were Voughts test pilots?
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!)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)
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.")While this might sound silly, but how tall were Voughts test pilots?
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.Stalin insisted on an exact copy, not an improved copy