FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I don't have time to post but compare the performance of both aircraft. The Tu-4 wasn't that far off the mark.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I don't have time to post but compare the performance of both aircraft. The Tu-4 wasn't that far off the mark.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
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
Yes, like turret-mounted NS-23 and (later) NR-23 cannons.Even in 1944, there were better air-to-air weapons than the USA's M2, and some of them were Soviet.
It's based on practices of the USN, RAF, and presumably the USAAF in WWII, and the practices of the USN/USAF during Korea.Is that your own opinion or recorded USAF doctrine at the time?
F-94C with or without tip-tanksWhat model? With out tip pods? Maybe.
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.Why would you want to turn with a MiG when you could sneak up on him and blast away with a salvo of rockets?
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.
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.
Actually, I think we are both in a communications gulf of sorts.You're missing the point here.
As a general rule, that is indeed correct: It does require the mention that the aircraft is should be a stable gun-platform.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.
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...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.
I was talking about the practices used throughout the war.The night war lasted from 1940 to 1945
I concede to your point and will rewrite it...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 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.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'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.
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.I was talking about the practices used throughout the war.
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
And probably a few other things that I basically forgot. During the Korean war, I have no idea what the RAF were doing.
- 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
During WWII the USN (probably the USMC) used it's night-fighters in the following roles
They probably also used them defensively to protect carriers, though I'm not clear on specifics. During Korea, they were used
- 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
During WWII the USAAF used it's night fighters at the very least for
- Defensively: Protect the carrier
- Offensively: CAP/BARCAP, possible bomber escort
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.
- Defense: Protecting air-bases
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.
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 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.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 always under the impression that the gap between the F-89D, F-89J and F-89H were greater.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.
Wars can start abruptly, and for defensive purposes, a quick response is needed.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
My critique was mostly that they removed the guns...yes the F-89 took a long time to develop
The problems with the AIM-4 (and others) were due to the following facts (as I understand them).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 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...)Could you give a source for the F-94C being configured to carry four 20mm guns ever???
The use of night-fighters in WWII is well documented...FLYBOYJ said:All this is based on YOUR opinions
Now that I figured was determined much higher up...Do you also realize that operational doctrine might vary from unit to unit?
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.why don't you do some research and quote documents like this...
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a515089.pdf
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...Again, with or without tip tanks? You're rattling off stuff that has nothing to do with your original question!!!!
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.
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.My critique was mostly that they removed the guns...
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.
That's goodI get your point
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.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.
Fortunately, the Tu-4 wasn't all that agile, but what about the Tu-16 and Mya-4?Your F-86 vs B-47 hypothesis bears no relevance to the real world F-89 vs Tu-4 scenario.
That's correct.I think the F-101's design ancestry was as a long-range escort fighter.
Not sure about the deep-stall, but it did have bad-pitch up and post-stall gyration.Considering that it had serious problems with pitch-up and almost certainly had problems with deep stalls
Yeah, it wasn't very maneuverable except at altitudes below 20,000 feet (corner velocity was around 420 kts).it's unlikely to have been terribly successful mixing it up with fighters except maybe Tu-28P's.