How many Widow Makers are there?

[drgondog]

Semantics! In 1947 when the Air Defense Command was established and later the Continental Air Command, the name/ mission of a "night fighter" was rolled into "all weather interceptor." I think the 318th Fighter-All Weather Squadron (which operated P/F-61s) were one of the first units that underwent this name change.

My father was CO of 318th in 1947 when he 'returned to the fold' and rejoined the AF. It was "all weather interceptor" and was scheduled to upgrade to P-61C but it was cancelled. The P/F -82 replaced the P-61s. I was two years old at Hamilton AFB

 

[drgondog]

There was a long pre history to that F-86 crash. The owner pilot tried to buy the aircraft from Fighter Imports at Chino but Leroy had a policy that you had to do x hours in one of his T-33s and reach a certain level of proficiency before he would sell you a Sabre. This guy flunked badly so he paid someone else to do Leroys program and buy the aircraft. The aircraft was then almost immediately taken over by the clown who flew it on its last flight.

This is a photo I took at Reno 72 of Leroy and one of his Canadair Sabres. His hand was injured minutes before he was to take off and demo the aircraft so he asked Bob Hoover to fly it instead. Bob demured at first but Leroy eventually convinced him. The resulting display was breathtaking as Bob used a hollow on the far side of the runway to do a low level pass with only the fin visible. I will try and find the photo.
View attachment 662736

Al, Redick Jim Noble, ??? and Leroy Penhall (with bandaged hand)

Think the Mk 6 was best of all Sabres. Wishful thinking to see what it would do in Korea. I was at a demonstration at Eglin when Hoover came to dispel concerns about max gross weight takoffs, He showed everything you could do wrong including rotating too early and finished with a perfect on the deck 8 point roll with full external combat tanks.

 

[SaparotRob]

I love that kind of talk.

 

[nuuumannn]

According to PLAAF pilots I had spoken to. But the situation seemed to have dramatically improved from the early 70's onward.

I've heard the same about the MiG-19, apparently it was a bit of a handful for VVS pilots, but there are a couple of external factors at play adding to its handling with the remarkably long-legged Chinese fighter, a bit of a favourite of mine.

One issue was quality of training and experience, the MiG-19 was quite a difference to the MiG-15 and -17 derivatives operated by the PLAAF and a purpose built two-seat MiG-17 was available, the JJ-5, which was unique to China and a purpose built two-seat MiG-19, the JJ-6 was developed for transition to the J-6.

The two-seat JJ-5 was half MiG-17 and half MiG-15UTI

JJ-5 1

"Carrier" based Shenyang JJ-6s.

JJ-6s 9922 and 9324

The next issue was the poor quality of build of the first batches of J-6s. They were rushed and incompetently manufactured to the extent that the PLAAF refused to accept them and the first batches were scrapped. This was the time of the Great Leap Forward which crippled the country and set it back several years. Quality control became quite an issue throughout the earliest production batches that were received by the PLAAF. This example surviving in Shanghai is a rare early production batch example named Dong Feng 102 of which only 33 were built. This is pointed out on the display board, although it doesn't say why it is rare, in that the PLAAF had them disposed of prematurely because of poor manufacture. Heck no, the Chinese wouldn't admit that to the public.

Dong Feng 102

 

[Jagdflieger]

Hi nuuumann,

What you wrote is absolutely correct, however the real bugging trouble was rather fitting it with the indigenous developed WP-6A engine, basically a license version of the Soviet Tumansky RD-9B engine starting the own production and further development in 1964/5 and it took them around 5-6 years to work it out and then even managed to improve the
original engine design.
From the 70's onward actually having a good and suitable aircraft for the PLAAF and PLANAF.

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[nuuumannn]

however the real bugging trouble was rather fitting it with the indigenous developed WP-6A engine, basically a license version of the Soviet Tumansky RD-9B engine starting the own production and further development in 1964/5 and it took them around 5-6 years to work it out and then even managed to improve the
original engine design.
From the 70's onward actually having a good and suitable aircraft for the PLAAF and PLANAF.

Very much so, the engine development certainly was problematic, but the issues with quality control basically rendered the type useless to the PLAAF. As stated, the first production batches were scrapped before even entering service, the Dong Feng 102 in Shanghai is a survivor from that first production batch. The Dong Feng 103 production batch that was begun after the DF 102, actually rolled off the production line before the DF 102s did. This was problematic, obviously as it meant that introduction of the type was delayed simply because the airframes were bad quality.

These issues, combined with the engine problems put production and service backward for the type. Following these issues though, the type saw widespread service and export and spawned the Nanchang Q.5, which is another fave that saw extensive use.

DSC_6223

 

[davparlr]

WHaaaat? How dare you
the A-4 Skyhawk is on my favorite US jet-list the number 3. and BTW where are the other 2-3 dead supposed to come from

Regards
Jagdflieger

That was my fault, I really meant the A3D. Although I have heard that ejection form the A4D could be a bit hazardous due to camped cockpit.

 

[MiTasol]

Ejection from the MiG-15 was hazardous as you had to pull the left handle with your right hand and vice versa. If you did not you would leave your arms inside the aircraft.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

When you fly a MiG-15 on final, you eventually lose aileron effectiveness and by the time you're over the numbers you basically have no ailerons.

 

[MiTasol]

And on the F-86 if you lose hydraulics the flight control surfaces all lock in the last selected position. There is a standby electric hydraulic pump but that only works if your battery has the capacity - meaning has a full or almost full charge.

 

[davparlr]

One of the problems of the early supersonic jets was the same problem the short wing B-26 had, improper training for higher performance, higher wing loading, faster landing aircraft. In the early supersonic jets, it was the wing design for supersonic flight, the earlier the planes the more problems. The supersonic wing has more in common with double edge sword than with sub supersonic classic airfoil design.

I'm going into a bit of advanced aerodynamics here but not much, since I'll bog myself down, its been a long time. Supersonic airflow does not behave like subsonic airflow. Bernoulli's principle does not apply. Venturi effect, pushing air through a venturi, a convergent aperture, accelerates velocity and reduces static pressure, does not apply, in fact it is reversed. This is apparent in the design of a modern rocket engine, at the combustion point, pressure is high, velocity is low. The gasses (subsonic) is pushed into a convergent nozzle, and, using the venturi effect, this will cause the velocity to increase and the pressure to decrease, until local Mach 1 is obtained. Then the process is reversed and as the now mach plus flow continues down the divergent nozzle velocity continues to increase and pressure decreases. See picture from http://sahil34935.blogspot.com/2013/03/nozzles.html. Note here, Mach is a function of temperature, and since at the Mach 1 point of the rocket engine the temperature is still very high, so is the velocity of Mach 1.

Now, let's get back to the supersonic wing design. The standard airfoil does not work for supersonic flight since the air going over the top of the wing accelerates more than the air under the wing and is more likely to get to Mach 1, and this causes all kinds of trouble. At zero angle of attack, the typical subsonic airfoil will usually still generate lift, sometimes even at a negative angle of attack it will, like a B-52 landing (see pix from wikipedia). The supersonic wing will typically generate no or minor lift at zero angle of attack. Because it is inefficient at low speed, Drag is high. This causes a danger when you are low and slow. A pilot can get to a point, usually during landing, of getting "behind the power curve". This is a point where your power available does not overcome the increased drag being experienced. This is more critical in the poor slow speed performance of the supersonic wing.
Now, back to the early supersonic jets. New pilots coming out of pilot training going into the F-100, learned to fly on a T-33 with its subsonic wing which probably flew final at about 140 mph, and stepped into the F-100 which flew final at about 173 mph. The old head stick, coming from the subsonic F-86F, which flew final at about 135 mph. Can you imagine Foreign pilots coming out of the F-84Fs, flying approach at 165 mph, stepping into the F-104 cockpit and flying final at 234 mph! Much faster speeds, more trickier wing, a good recipe of some problems.

I kinda guesstimated all the airspeed numbers, but I think you get the point.

 

[SaparotRob]

One of the problems of the early supersonic jets was the same problem the short wing B-26 had, improper training for higher performance, higher wing loading, faster landing aircraft. In the early supersonic jets, it was the wing design for supersonic flight, the earlier the planes the more problems. The supersonic wing has more in common with double edge sword than with sub supersonic classic airfoil design.

I'm going into a bit of advanced aerodynamics here but not much, since I'll bog myself down, its been a long time. Supersonic airflow does not behave like subsonic airflow. Bernoulli's principle does not apply. Venturi effect, pushing air through a venturi, a convergent aperture, accelerates velocity and reduces static pressure, does not apply, in fact it is reversed. This is apparent in the design of a modern rocket engine, at the combustion point, pressure is high, velocity is low. The gasses (subsonic) is pushed into a convergent nozzle, and, using the venturi effect, this will cause the velocity to increase and the pressure to decrease, until local Mach 1 is obtained. Then the process is reversed and as the now mach plus flow continues down the divergent nozzle velocity continues to increase and pressure decreases. See picture from http://sahil34935.blogspot.com/2013/03/nozzles.html. Note here, Mach is a function of temperature, and since at the Mach 1 point of the rocket engine the temperature is still very high, so is the velocity of Mach 1.

Now, let's get back to the supersonic wing design. The standard airfoil does not work for supersonic flight since the air going over the top of the wing accelerates more than the air under the wing and is more likely to get to Mach 1, and this causes all kinds of trouble. At zero angle of attack, the typical subsonic airfoil will usually still generate lift, sometimes even at a negative angle of attack it will, like a B-52 landing (see pix from wikipedia). The supersonic wing will typically generate no or minor lift at zero angle of attack. Because it is inefficient at low speed, Drag is high. This causes a danger when you are low and slow. A pilot can get to a point, usually during landing, of getting "behind the power curve". This is a point where your power available does not overcome the increased drag being experienced. This is more critical in the poor slow speed performance of the supersonic wing.
Now, back to the early supersonic jets. New pilots coming out of pilot training going into the F-100, learned to fly on a T-33 with its subsonic wing which probably flew final at about 140 mph, and stepped into the F-100 which flew final at about 173 mph. The old head stick, coming from the subsonic F-86F, which flew final at about 135 mph. Can you imagine Foreign pilots coming out of the F-84Fs, flying approach at 165 mph, stepping into the F-104 cockpit and flying final at 234 mph! Much faster speeds, more trickier wing, a good recipe of some problems.

I kinda guesstimated all the airspeed numbers, but I think you get the point.

Thanks! Great post. I think I even understood it.

 

[davparlr]

continence of above post.
The AF recognized this problem and started to address this with two seat modifications to start with. But I think the final solution was the recognition that a better training plane was needed, and this resulted in the supersonic T-38, probably the greatest training aircraft ever made (its been in active service for over sixty years!). A high performance aircraft with little wings, (wing area is 170 sqft compared to the 196 sqft of the F-104, but much lighter), capable of Mach 1.2, roll rates of 560 degrees/sec, time to climb to 40k, 90 sec. (world record at the time). A predictable jet with no bad traits when flown by the numbers, successful pilot trainees learned quickly to fly the airspeed and glideslope to percision and the landing would be straight forward, and never, ever, get low and slow, you'll be out of the program real fast before you get killed, supersonic jets do not like that.

 

[GreenKnight121]

Yep, when I hear that term, snags, snowkill and such in the woods are the first thing to come to mind.
Even when not working in the woods, it pays to look up and keep an eye out, especially when a wind comes up and starts knocking that stuff loose.

As far as aircraft goes,
.....
even the USMC's AV-8B.

In regards to the USMC AV-8B, in what conjunction was this aircraft, termed widow-maker?
Regards
Jagdflieger

The AV-8B, while still very dangerous, was far safer than the AV-8A.

Far From Battlefield, Marines Lose One-Third of Harrier Fleet

The corps, persuing its long-held dream of a unique flying force, pays a heavy price: 45 of its elite officers killed

www.latimes.com

The Class A mishap rate for the first model of the Harrier, the AV-8A, was astronomical -- 31.77 accidents per 100,000 hours. Notoriously unstable, it had a propensity for rolling over and slamming into the ground. Well over half were lost to accidents. One tragedy-scarred squadron dubbed the plane "the Widow-Maker."
.....
Promising dramatic improvement, the Marines replaced it with the more stable and capable AV-8B model in the mid-1980s.
.....
The lifetime accident rate for the Marines' AV-8B is 11.44 per 100,000 hours of flight, well over the combined rates for other attack and fighter planes flown during those years by the Marines, the Navy and the Air Force.

It is more than twice the lifetime accident rate of the Air Force's F-16 Fighting Falcon, a single-engine tactical aircraft like the Harrier that has been in service since 1979. It is nearly five times higher than the A-10 Warthog, an Air Force attack plane that has been flying since 1976. And it is more than 3 1/2 times the rate of the F/A-18 Hornet, a twin-engine combat plane flown since 1980 by the Navy and Marines that, like the Harrier, operates largely off ships.

Note that that 11,44/100,000 hours accident rate is still the case: The Marine Corps' love-hate relationship with the AV-8 Harrier