Fighter: Flop or Not

[FLYBOYJ]

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

I don't have time to post but compare the performance of both aircraft. The Tu-4 wasn't that far off the mark.

 

[swampyankee]

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

Even in 1944, there were better air-to-air weapons than the USA's M2, and some of them were Soviet. I remember reading that there were also some changes in the internal structure to better match Soviet practice and available alloys.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Even in 1944, there were better air-to-air weapons than the USA's M2, and some of them were Soviet.

Yes, like turret-mounted NS-23 and (later) NR-23 cannons.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Zipper730]

Is that your own opinion or recorded USAF doctrine at the time?

It's based on practices of the USN, RAF, and presumably the USAAF in WWII, and the practices of the USN/USAF during Korea.

During WWII the RAF used it's night-fighters in the following roles

• Defensively: As interceptors, often doing standing patrols
• Offensively: Perching itself over the fighter-fields and blowing up those unfortunate enough to be taking off with them overhead.
  
• Offensively: Hunting in the dark for enemy fighters
• Offensively: Covering bomber streams

And probably a few other things that I basically forgot. During the Korean war, I have no idea what the RAF were doing.

During WWII the USN (probably the USMC) used it's night-fighters in the following roles

• Offensively: Hunting enemy fighters in the dark
• Offensively: Attacking ships, during the first night-fighter ops, a night-fighter successfully blew out the boiler on a smaller ship mostly with gunfire and at the very least left it dead in the water if not sank it

They probably also used them defensively to protect carriers, though I'm not clear on specifics. During Korea, they were used

• Defensively: Protect the carrier
• Offensively: CAP/BARCAP, possible bomber escort

During WWII the USAAF used it's night fighters at the very least for

• Defense: Protecting air-bases

Probably offensively as well with Beaufighters, Mosquito NF's, and possibly a P-61 here and there. During the Korean War, the night-fighters were employed in an offensive fashion, and probably defensive too.

What model? With out tip pods? Maybe.

F-94C with or without tip-tanks

Why would you want to turn with a MiG when you could sneak up on him and blast away with a salvo of rockets?

When used defensively against bombers, rockets were used; when used offensively against fighters, cannon were generally used. The F-94C actually could be configured to carry 4x20mm or 48 rockets. The odds of a successful rocket-hit on a fighter-sized target are small, but guns are better.

View attachment 382526​

I'm sure you could do a battle of the quotes, but the fact is it's roots were back in 1945 as an all weather aircraft. It carried bombs so it could be used for both air to air and air to ground. It was definitely used as an interceptor, but not as originally designed.

 

[Zipper730]

Graeme & XBe02Drvr

So, the F4U's principal project leader was 6'4", and another WWII era test-pilot was 6'2"? I had a hunch that they probably had somehow hired seemingly every tall pilot that lived. While there's nothing wrong with an airplane that can accommodate tall aircrew, it's important to be able to encompass the largest range as possible. The Federal Aviation Administration generally uses 5'2" to 6'4" as a guideline and while people certainly fall outside that, even I fit within that zone (I'm a little over 5'7").

 

[pbehn]

During WWII the RAF used it's night-fighters in the following roles

• Defensively: As interceptors, often doing standing patrols
• Offensively: Perching itself over the fighter-fields and blowing up the suckers that takeoff
• Offensively: Hunting in the dark for enemy fighters
• Offensively: Covering bomber streams.

The night war lasted from 1940 to 1945, and covered the RAF sending up Hurricanes to look for bombers to being a very formidable force over Germany using highly sophisticated RADAR and navigation systems (for the time). During that time the conflict ebbed and flowed with technical advances. There was no time that the RAF had complete superiority, most of the time its job was to keep losses at a tolerable level. As the nephew of a Bomber Command veteran I would take exception to him being called a "sucker" as I do his old adversaries.

 

[Zipper730]

You're missing the point here.

Actually, I think we are both in a communications gulf of sorts.

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.

As a general rule, that is indeed correct: It does require the mention that the aircraft is should be a stable gun-platform.

Circumstances that would involve equal radar capability and GCI capability, the determining factor would be pilot/radar operator skill, and the A/C performance.

Atypical circumstances also exist, as both sides usually try to pull fast ones on each other to get any form of advantage they can get: January 12, 1953, an F3D flying BARCAP noticed a lone MiG-15 flying around in the dark. This was actually a lure for night-fighters, and interestingly, the F3D-2's pilot (Major Elswin P. Dunn) suspected it, but went for it anyway: Next thing he knew it, search lights popped up everywhere attempting to illuminate him, and he was basically dancing the plane between the search lights while trying to maneuver in for an attack position on the MiG-15. The fact that the F3D-2 could turn inside the MiG-15 was integral in getting into a firing position.

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.

That's a pretty safe assumption. However, I would still consider it desirable for the ability to turn well at low airspeed even at high subsonic speed for the following reasons...

• Bombers were often designed to fly efficiently at high altitude, allowing great range: Flight at high altitude produces lower indicated air-speed, strongly favoring a wing with high aspect-ratio, which generates more lift at low-AoA.
• Both T/W and structural strength ratios tend to favor the light: Bombers usually have less engine power than fighters, and have lower g-load. Higher L/D ratio is, thus greatly preferred, and high aspect ratios are usually more of a problem on aircraft to pull high g-loads than low.
• Fighter-aircraft are usually designed to pull high g-loads, and are more dependent on being able to accelerate and climb faster: Higher aspect-ratios produce excessive wing-flexing and lower aspect-ratios with lighter wing-loading are favorable, higher T/W ratios partially compensate for a lower L/D ratio.
  
• The F-86 vs B-47 at low altitude would be no comparison: The B-47 was able to pull a maximum load of around 5.25g (3.5x1.5) at combat weight, whereas the F-86 could pull around 9.495-10.995g (6.33-7.33 x 1.5), with a superior T/W-ratio and climb-rate that would leave it in the dust, as well as be able to dive through the mach and live to tell about it. It can out turn it, out accelerate it, out-climb it, and out-roll it.
  
• The F-86 vs B-47 at high altitude are quite different: Both aircraft are above their corner velocities, and high aspect-ratios tend to do better in this configuration. Despite the heavy wing-loading of the B-47 at takeoff, it's higher fuel-fraction results in a larger change in wing-loading (and power-loading too). As funny as this sounds, the B-47 retains enough maneuverability to get inside the F-86, and might have been able to fly higher (not sure about that part).
• While corner velocity is dictated by stall speed multiplied by the square root of the maximum g-load: At high altitude mach-number enters the equation and if the aircraft has severe buffet problems, it will limit the maneuverability. It also produces issues with gun-aiming.

 

[Zipper730]

The night war lasted from 1940 to 1945

I was talking about the practices used throughout the war.

As the nephew of a Bomber Command veteran I would take exception to him being called a "sucker" as I do his old adversaries.

I concede to your point and will rewrite it...

 

[Shortround6]

You are continuing to lump all the different models of one type of aircraft together and make a judgement on the entire series.
The F-89 first went into service in June of 1951, all but a few of the first 212 built carried six fixed 20mm cannon. The ones that didn't were all experimental installations.
The first rocket armed F-89Ds didn't enter service until Jan 1954. 2 1/2 years after the first operational squadron started with F-89s. Over 600 of the rocket armed F-89Ds were built before production was shifted to the F-89H which was armed with SIX Falcon air to air missles and a few rockets. Around 156 of the H model were built, over 500 of the "D"s were modified into the F-89J which were armed with two nuclear warhead Genie rockets and at times, up to four Falcons.

There were multiple changes to the radar and fire-control computer set ups with the different models which also makes evaluating their performance difficult.

While some of your theoretical missions make sense some don't. In a Nuclear war you either stop the enemy bombers or you don't and you loose the war in one day. You don't get to fly night fighters over the Arctic and fly around Russian airbases waiting for the Tu-4s or their replacements to return. EVERY ONE that returns is one or more American cities that got nuked. You also don't have the range or refueling capability to under take such missions and in the sudden start of the war scenarios in fashion in the 50s you sure don't get 3-4 hours (or more) warning to fuel up the planes and fly them to Russian airspace to loiter around.

yes the F-89 took a long time to develop but some of that was because the weapons and electronics took so long. The Falcon missile was started in 1947, it didn't become operational until 1956, what do you do in the mean time? And it might not have been very good even in 1956. It was a pretty miserable excuse for a missile in Veitnam in the 60s.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

That's a pretty safe assumption. However, I would still consider it desirable for the ability to turn well at low airspeed even at high subsonic speed for the following reasons...

I get your point, but understand, a lightweight high L/D long range interceptor wasn't possible with the radar technology of the time. The electronics were too bulky, heavy, and power-hungry, and the fuel requirement made the plane too heavy to fit your lightweight nimble fighter scenario. Your F-86 vs B-47 hypothesis bears no relevance to the real world F-89 vs Tu-4 scenario. "Long range" bears a little elaboration. In a world where interceptors were understood to be point-defense weapons, an interceptor designed to engage incoming bombers out over the DEW Line would be considered long range. But that was nowhere near enough range to penetrate enemy airspace on interdiction missions.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[fubar57]

I'm sure you could do a battle of the quotes, but the fact is it's roots were back in 1945 as an all weather aircraft. It carried bombs so it could be used for both air to air and air to ground. It was definitely used as an interceptor, but not as originally designed.

 

[pbehn]

I was talking about the practices used throughout the war.

You cannot describe the RAF night time defensive activities in one sentence. In 1940 they lost more aircraft in night time training and operations than they shot down. Despite all the massed raids on UK cities the RAF only shot down more than one aircraft on one night. Total claims of aircraft destroyed by fighters was about 12.

By contrast in 1944 (Jan to Jun) the "Baby Blitz" by Germany used 524 bombers and lost 324. RAF losses were 1 in combat plus 5 damaged. 1 lost to friendly fire. 7 were lost to unknown causes and 14 to intruder operations against enemy territory in the same period.
UK civilian casualties were 1556 killed and 2916 injured.

Between 1940 and 1944 the RAF went from being completely ineffective to routing the LW over the UK.

 

[swampyankee]

I think the F-101's design ancestry was as a long-range escort fighter. Considering that it had serious problems with pitch-up and almost certainly had problems with deep stalls, it's unlikely to have been terribly successful mixing it up with fighters except maybe Tu-28P's.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It's based on practices of the USN, RAF, and presumably the USAAF in WWII, and the practices of the USN/USAF during Korea.

During WWII the RAF used it's night-fighters in the following roles

• Defensively: As interceptors, often doing standing patrols
• Offensively: Perching itself over the fighter-fields and blowing up those unfortunate enough to be taking off with them overhead.
  
• Offensively: Hunting in the dark for enemy fighters
• Offensively: Covering bomber streams

And probably a few other things that I basically forgot. During the Korean war, I have no idea what the RAF were doing.

During WWII the USN (probably the USMC) used it's night-fighters in the following roles

• Offensively: Hunting enemy fighters in the dark
• Offensively: Attacking ships, during the first night-fighter ops, a night-fighter successfully blew out the boiler on a smaller ship mostly with gunfire and at the very least left it dead in the water if not sank it

They probably also used them defensively to protect carriers, though I'm not clear on specifics. During Korea, they were used

• Defensively: Protect the carrier
• Offensively: CAP/BARCAP, possible bomber escort

During WWII the USAAF used it's night fighters at the very least for

• Defense: Protecting air-bases

Probably offensively as well with Beaufighters, Mosquito NF's, and possibly a P-61 here and there. During the Korean War, the night-fighters were employed in an offensive fashion, and probably defensive too.

All this is based on YOUR opinions - show some military document or publication to back it up. Do you also realize that operational doctrine might vary from unit to unit?

Instead of trying to BS us with your personal take based on publications written by armchairs who never served in the military, why don't you do some research and quote documents like this...

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a515089.pdf

F-94C with or without tip-tanks
When used defensively against bombers, rockets were used; when used offensively against fighters, cannon were generally used. The F-94C actually could be configured to carry 4x20mm or 48 rockets. The odds of a successful rocket-hit on a fighter-sized target are small, but guns are better.

I'm sure you could do a battle of the quotes, but the fact is it's roots were back in 1945 as an all weather aircraft. It carried bombs so it could be used for both air to air and air to ground. It was definitely used as an interceptor, but not as originally designed.

Again, with or without tip tanks? You're rattling off stuff that has nothing to do with your original question!!!!

 

[Shortround6]

I would note that without tip tanks the fuel capacity is limited.

Fuel capacity without tip tanks is 366 gallons but that has to be balanced against the fuel consumption of 56 gallons a minute in afterburner.
At military power without afterburner the engine used about 16.3 gallons a minute.

If you are trying to dogfight without tip tanks you better be doing it over your own airfield.

 

[Shortround6]

F-94C with or without tip-tanks
When used defensively against bombers, rockets were used; when used offensively against fighters, cannon were generally used. The F-94C actually could be configured to carry 4x20mm or 48 rockets. The odds of a successful rocket-hit on a fighter-sized target are small, but guns are better.

Could you give a source for the F-94C being configured to carry four 20mm guns ever???

If you are thinking the F-94C is just a slightly modified F-94B think again (and the F-94B didn't carry 20mm cannon.)

 

[Zipper730]

Shortround6

You are continuing to lump all the different models of one type of aircraft together and make a judgement on the entire series.

I was unaware that the F-89D entered service in 1954. I was under the impression that, since the F-89D was the first mass-production model, it had entered service shortly after the others.

Over 600 of the rocket armed F-89Ds were built before production was shifted to the F-89H which was armed with SIX Falcon air to air missles and a few rockets. Around 156 of the H model were built, over 500 of the "D"s were modified into the F-89J which were armed with two nuclear warhead Genie rockets and at times, up to four Falcons.

I was always under the impression that the gap between the F-89D, F-89J and F-89H were greater.

While some of your theoretical missions make sense some don't. In a Nuclear war you either stop the enemy bombers or you don't and you loose the war in one day. You don't get to fly night fighters over the Arctic and fly around Russian airbases waiting for the Tu-4s or their replacements to return. EVERY ONE that returns is one or more American cities that got nuked. You also don't have the range or refueling capability to under take such missions and in the sudden start of the war scenarios in fashion in the 50s

Wars can start abruptly, and for defensive purposes, a quick response is needed.

As a general rule, with things not occurring by themselves, and based on other events, tensions begin to build which leads to defensive/offensive posture being ratcheted up: This would involve the possibility for the defensive role of both standing patrols, and rapid-response. A combination of both is probably best in truth aircraft, crew, and fuel permitting.

The use of fighter planes in the offensive role (day/night/all-weather fighter), revolves around the doctrine of the US Air Force, and US Navy: Both were able and willing to fight a total-war, but the US Navy was more versatile and able/willing to fight wars of varying size from small regional conflicts to World War III.

During the Korean War: Nuclear bombs were huge so only a few aircraft could carry them (not even all bombers); enemy SAM's were non-existent, so the overarching threat to bombers were fighters first, then AAA second; with the possible concern of Korea expanding into a nuclear-war: The USAF held-back a lot of it's capability for fear the USSR would get some skill in countering our abilities (jamming techniques were limited or restricted, even when other variables weren't causing trouble; the B-36's, B-47's and B-50's weren't used for conventional bombing, though they could all be configured if need be for this purpose).

After the Korean War: Nuclear bombs became small enough that fighter-bombers and attack-aircraft could carry them, and the overarching aim became nuclear-strike, with a rather disturbing attitude that nuclear war was the wave of the future (a wave that would have extinguished much of mankind), conventional war was largely unnecessary; SAM's came online and soon proved more dangerous to the bombers than the fighters (particularly when one considers the USSR's fighters performed well, but had primitive radar and missiles), combined with our proposed escorts leaving a lot to be desired, it was decided that air-superiority wouldn't be important.

The US Navy developed a nuclear-strike and strategic deterrent capability, but still retained a respectable conventional bombing ability and proved itself able to do both quite well.

yes the F-89 took a long time to develop

My critique was mostly that they removed the guns...

The Falcon missile was started in 1947, it didn't become operational until 1956, what do you do in the mean time? And it might not have been very good even in 1956. It was a pretty miserable excuse for a missile in Veitnam in the 60s.

The problems with the AIM-4 (and others) were due to the following facts (as I understand them).

• Reliability issues due to hot & humid air, maintenance facilities off base (long drives were needed to and from the test facilities in vehicles that often lacked shock-absorbers), and the missiles were often not maintained as well as desired (not out of malevolence, but because they were just seen as another round of ammo, not a sensitive piece of electronics), though it should be noted that missiles sometimes did pass inspection (contraction as the missile went up to altitude often was to blame)
• The AIM-4 as used on the F-4's did not have the degree of coolant as on the F-102's and F-106's: I'm not sure if the cooling system was as good on the F-4 either. This meant the seeker head didn't cool down quickly enough to be useful, and if they didn't have enough coolant, they couldn't hold the lock
• The AIM-4 lacked a proximity fuse: So they either hit or missed with no in between. They also had a fairly small-warhead which does raise questions as to what it'd do to a bomber-sized target.

Missiles in the US would presumably be better maintained with aircraft designed to use them.

Could you give a source for the F-94C being configured to carry four 20mm guns ever???

The earlier F-94's could carry 4 x 0.50. I was under the impression the F-94C could carry either one or the other; the F-86D was originally conceived around this but converted operationally to rockets only (personally, I think it was stupid to do so, but...)

 

[Zipper730]

All this is based on YOUR opinions

The use of night-fighters in WWII is well documented...

Do you also realize that operational doctrine might vary from unit to unit?

Now that I figured was determined much higher up...

why don't you do some research and quote documents like this...

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a515089.pdf

I did a brief read-over, so my responses might not be as ideal as desired. This is an interesting document, especially the fact that the USAF was so paranoid about maintaining its independence, and that they understood the technology more than its use.

Again, with or without tip tanks? You're rattling off stuff that has nothing to do with your original question!!!!

I mentioned somewhere that the F3D could turn inside a MiG-15, and you commented the F-89 or F-94 might have been able to, so I asked a question to verify this, and you said it might have, and it depended on circumstances. So...

 

[Shortround6]

American Military Aircraft[/URL]

As a general rule, with things not occurring by themselves, and based on other events, tensions begin to build which leads to defensive/offensive posture being ratcheted up: This would involve the possibility for the defensive role of both standing patrols, and rapid-response. A combination of both is probably best in truth aircraft, crew, and fuel permitting.

The use of fighter planes in the offensive role (day/night/all-weather fighter), revolves around the doctrine of the US Air Force, and US Navy: Both were able and willing to fight a total-war, but the US Navy was more versatile and able/willing to fight wars of varying size from small regional conflicts to World War III.

This rather ignores geography. The US Navy had floating air bases (called carriers) that could bring it's aircraft reasonably close to targets anywhere in the world. The USAAF had to base it's aircraft either in the US, it's territories, or in countries of varying "friendliness". Some might permit nuclear weapons, some might not. As far as the "offensive" use of fighters goes, the fighters, in general, were still much shorter ranged than big bombers and in flight refueling was still in it's infancy. In fact the method used to refuel the Lucky Lady II (A B-50) in it's round the world non-stop flight in 1949 that resulted in the USAAF being selected over the US Navy as the Nuclear deterrent force was unusable by fighter aircraft. See grappled-line looped-hose. So flying all-weather/night fighters hundreds if not thousands of miles from US Bases to Russian airspace was pretty much a non-starter. Flying night fighters might work from Europe or Turkey but it wasn't going to work flying over the Arctic and Alaskan airbases at the time were only going to cover so much area.

My critique was mostly that they removed the guns...

against big bombers like the Tu-4 and from 1954 on the TU-16 the guns were increasingly problematic. They could NOT ensure a kill on single firing pass and the Russian aircraft carried 23mm cannon in their turrets which left the US looking for weapons with more stand off distance. The early radars and fire control computers only worked on a "curved line of pursuit" for which substitute "tail chase." Once the Russians moved beyond the Tu-4 bomber trying to do a tail chase meant the bombers had an awful long tome to shoot at the interceptors. The rockets "offered" the prospect of beam attacks even if not quite all aspect attacks with a short exposure time.

The earlier F-94's could carry 4 x 0.50. I was under the impression the F-94C could carry either one or the other; the F-86D was originally conceived around this but converted operationally to rockets only (personally, I think it was stupid to do so, but...)

I have never seen anything that suggests the F-94C could be equipped with guns.

I would also note that the F-94C was so different from the F-94B that it was originally called the F-97 and was only changed to the F-94C in an attempt to secure funding from Congress (successfully) by making them think it was a continuation of the F-94 program. the F-94C used a different wing, a different fuselage, a different engine, different horizontal stabilizer/elevator system and the different armament and fire control system and probably a few other differences.

with so little in common with the F-94B what the F-94B could or could not carry for armament has no bearing on what the F-94C could carry.

 

[Zipper730]

I get your point

That's good

a lightweight high L/D long range interceptor wasn't possible with the radar technology of the time. The electronics were too bulky, heavy, and power-hungry, and the fuel requirement made the plane too heavy to fit your lightweight nimble fighter scenario.

I wasn't necessarily talking about a light-weight design: What I was talking about was a night-fighter that had maneuverability, and it's inherent advantages.

While agility tends to favor the small, there have been big aircraft with substantial agility: The P-61 was huge for it's time, but it was still capable of pulling an ultimate load of 10.95g at combat weight, had good low-speed handling characteristics, and could turn inside a P-38 and (possibly) the De Havilland Mosquito (from what I've heard, the P-61 could turn inside the Mosquito, and the Mosquito could out-roll the P-61), which despite being a big aircraft in and of it's own right, could turn inside the Fw-190 at 21,000 to 28,000 feet.

Your F-86 vs B-47 hypothesis bears no relevance to the real world F-89 vs Tu-4 scenario.

Fortunately, the Tu-4 wasn't all that agile, but what about the Tu-16 and Mya-4?

I think the F-101's design ancestry was as a long-range escort fighter.

That's correct.

Considering that it had serious problems with pitch-up and almost certainly had problems with deep stalls

Not sure about the deep-stall, but it did have bad-pitch up and post-stall gyration.

it's unlikely to have been terribly successful mixing it up with fighters except maybe Tu-28P's.

Yeah, it wasn't very maneuverable except at altitudes below 20,000 feet (corner velocity was around 420 kts).