Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better (Cold-War Edition)

[Zipper730]

It's an intellectual exercise, revolving around how aircraft could have been made better with technology available at the time.

1. The existing specification: Basically, the idea would be working within the existing specification, but you could modify or change anything within the boundary of it.
2. A different winner: Sometimes the problem wasn't the design so much as the winner to the contender
3. A more realistic/practical specification: Basically the specifications are made more realistic to allow a practical design to be developed.

I would assume that the changes could include differences in aerodynamics, in installation of existing equipment, in propulsion system where applicable and allowable. I guess conceptual designs that didn't fly could also be included.

I would say that other developments like gun/cannon and missile design would also be discussable to a point.

 

[Shortround6]

The problem I have with post WW II aircraft is that it rapidly became an electronics game.

On board radar, data links (or even voice command from ground based commanders), navigation equipment, The missles (or early rockets and associated fire control systems).

How well some of the "stuff" worked (or didn't) could overshadow the "mechanical" aspects of the plane. Like engine power, wing loading, speed/climb/turn.
We can compare the "mechanical" aspects (mostly) but are operating in the dark for the most part on how well the electronics worked (or not) at any given time.

Some planes went through several different armament schemes, several different radars and several different fire control systems in under 10 years.

 

[Zipper730]

The problem I have with post WW II aircraft is that it rapidly became an electronics game.

The electronics played a major role in the effectiveness in the plane, but performance wasn't something to ignore.

 

[swampyankee]

The A-5. Don't do the linear bomb bay; either use a rotary bomb bay or semi-recessed conformal carriage.

For the F7U, just say no.

 

[Shortround6]

Look at the 104 Starfighter in US service.
Speed and climb in abundance.
Engine had some problems in the US (and other early ones).

But it's lack of electronics in the 1950s meant the US couldn't figure out what to do with it. It was a clear day only fighter and since it carried only a 20mm gun and two early Sidewinders too much of it's Air to Air capability was tied to how good the Sidewinders were. It got shuffled off to the tactical strike role and even there it needed new electronics to even attempt the job.

Or look at the F-89. in about 10 years it went through about 4 different armament fits (from 20mm guns to unguided nuclear tipped rockets, the Genie) different radar fits and different fire control systems. Yes it got better engines as time went on but it's main purpose (intercepting Russian bombers) was pretty much dependent on how well (or how poorly) it's electronics (and by extension, armament) worked.
Since even the early F-86 used a ranging radar in the upper lip of the intake to feed target range to the gunsight electronics played an ever increasing role in the capabilities of of post war and 1950s jet aircraft. Late F-86s got navigation equipment and bombing computers.

 

[Zipper730]

The A-5. Don't do the linear bomb bay

Yeah, that was a pretty stupid design-feature: From what I recall, it was to allow the bomb to come out the back and avoid a post-target turn. That said, it didn't always separate cleanly from the plane, and might have even shot out once on the ground.

either use a rotary bomb bay or semi-recessed conformal carriage

Since they wanted a sustained speed of Mach 2, and a dash up to Mach 3, I'd probably go with the internal bay unless volume became a limiting factor.

For the F7U, just say no.

A lot of people would agree with you on that! Ironically, it seems that many of the early design problems were, basically, fixable.

Look at the 104 Starfighter in US service. Speed and climb in abundance.

It also had a good roll-rate, but turning performance left something to be desired (sustained agility could be quite high once maneuvering flaps were added), as it was largely limited to operations below 20000 feet.

Engine had some problems in the US (and other early ones).

I'm not sure that would have been as big a deal if it had adequate low-speed handling: It'd be easier to glide.

But it's lack of electronics in the 1950s meant the US couldn't figure out what to do with it.

It had a radar that had some limited tracking capability, but it was largely a gun-radar with more range. I'd say that it proved to be fairly adaptable to new electronics.

it carried only a 20mm gun

but WHAT a 20mm gun! The Vulcan-Cannon could spit out 6000-7200 RPM -- a rate that was around 4-6 times faster than the 20mm of the time. The two AIM-9 were kind of a problem, and the F-104C carried four but the configuration was a problem, as it couldn't carry any center-store while carrying missiles on the wing-tips.

Or look at the F-89. in about 10 years it went through about 4 different armament fits (from 20mm guns to unguided nuclear tipped rockets, the Genie) different radar fits and different fire control systems.

Actually it had plenty of aerodynamic issues too: The exhaust impinged upon tail, the tip-tanks produced serious aeroelastic forces that caused a fatal crash, and I think that, either the elevators or rudder needed changes.

Yes it got better engines as time went on but it's main purpose (intercepting Russian bombers) was pretty much dependent on how well (or how poorly) it's electronics (and by extension, armament) worked.

It was originally designed as a night-fighter (which is both an offensive & defensive mission).

 

[rob23]

The F-8 Crusader- take out the four Colt cannons and replace them with the Vulcan rotary. Then all the other stuff to make it more forgiving when trapping aboard like BLC, etc.

 

[rob23]

The F7U may have been a good airplane if it had decent engines. I'm in left field here as I'm no expert, but what if the engines had been something like the J85 with afterburner?

 

[Zipper730]

The F-8 Crusader- take out the four Colt cannons and replace them with the Vulcan rotary. Then all the other stuff to make it more forgiving when trapping aboard like BLC, etc.

It worked for the A-7

 

[Zipper730]

The F-101 was a design that could have definitely been better

 

[rob23]

The F-101 was a design that could have definitely been better

A better wing maybe? Didn't it turn like a Starfighter?

 

[Zipper730]

A better wing maybe? Didn't it turn like a Starfighter?

I would figure you'd need a bigger wing, but to retain speed, I figure you'd need thinner and a lower aspect ratio.

 

[Zipper730]

The problem I have with post WW II aircraft is that it rapidly became an electronics game.

So, should I invite T Token then?

 

[Zipper730]

I was thinking of adding some stuff in a little while.

 

[tomo pauk]

I guess nobody will reckon MiG-21 was one of my favorites, even if it is for the role it played over here in 1995
Some of modifications from the Chinese versions could've come in handy for the Fishbed. Like the improved wing of the J7E ( MiG can take a page from Su-15M here), and bifurcated intake (from JL-9/FTZ-2000, that also fetured the improved wing) or the belly intake (as tested on the Ye-8, provided it can work). Improved intakes should not just improve 'breathing' of the engine in high AoA flight regimes, but also leave a lot more space for fuel and/or ellectronics. Add wingtip launchers now that we're odifying the wing.

EE Lighting - try with a full delta wing, like the GD did with F-16XL, so there is more internal space for fuel (hopefully cancelling out the ungainly belly tankin the process).

 

[swampyankee]

A better wing maybe? Didn't it turn like a Starfighter?

Curing the F-101's bad pitchup and deep stall issues would have needed some major redesign; it could no more become a turn&burn fighter with just a new wing than could a B-47 (which may have had better high-alpha behavior).

 

[Zipper730]

Curing the F-101's bad pitchup and deep stall issues would have needed some major redesign; it could no more become a turn&burn fighter with just a new wing than could a B-47 (which may have had better high-alpha behavior).

Well you'd start with the basic concept

• Long Range
• Supersonic
• High Altitude
• Air to Ground Capability

 

[Zipper730]

Deleted

 

[Zipper730]

rob23 , swampyankee

This is kind of the type of wing that I figure would work well: There'd have to be differences because of the fundamental nature of the F-101 having two-engines instead of one, and stuff of that nature.

That said, the wing would provide a good low-stall speed, which would be desirable for high altitude work.

 

[swampyankee]

The F-8 Crusader- take out the four Colt cannons and replace them with the Vulcan rotary. Then all the other stuff to make it more forgiving when trapping aboard like BLC, etc.

The Colt's biggest problem was that it was far too prone to jamming. If the M61 can't fit, how about a couple of Adens?