Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The electronics played a major role in the effectiveness in the plane, but performance wasn't something to ignore.The problem I have with post WW II aircraft is that it rapidly became an electronics game.
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.The A-5. Don't do the linear bomb bay
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.either use a rotary bomb bay or semi-recessed conformal carriage
A lot of people would agree with you on that! Ironically, it seems that many of the early design problems were, basically, fixable.For the F7U, just say no.
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.Look at the 104 Starfighter in US service. Speed and climb in abundance.
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.Engine had some problems in the US (and other early ones).
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.But it's lack of electronics in the 1950s meant the US couldn't figure out what to do with it.
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.it carried only a 20mm gun
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.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.
It was originally designed as a night-fighter (which is both an offensive & defensive mission).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 worked for the A-7The 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.
A better wing maybe? Didn't it turn like a Starfighter?The F-101 was a design that could have definitely been better
I would figure you'd need a bigger wing, but to retain speed, I figure you'd need thinner and a lower aspect ratio.A better wing maybe? Didn't it turn like a Starfighter?
A better wing maybe? Didn't it turn like a Starfighter?
Well you'd start with the basic conceptCuring 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).
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.