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

[Zipper730]

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?

The ADEN was a 30mm cannon. Definitely packed a heavier punch.

 

[swampyankee]

The ADEN was a 30mm cannon. Definitely packed a heavier punch.

I knew that

I know the Colt can be replaced by a 30 mm cannon; Israel did it with their A-4s. Whether you'd want to replace 4x20 mm with 4x30 mm is a second question.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

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?

What sort of time machine are you planning on using? J85 was not available til nearly a decade after the Gutless was designed.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

The F-8 Crusader- take out the four Colt cannons and replace them with the Vulcan rotary.

Where you going to stuff it? The intake duct was already barely adequate for the J57's air hunger, and there wasn't enough space between it and the fuselage skin for the gun, its feed mechanism, and its massive ammo drum. When I was working at GE Armament I saw a drawing of a proposed Vulcanized F8. It had so many bulges and protrusions in its forward fuselage it would have been rendered subsonic. The F8, like the F4 and other fighters of the day didn't go surging through Mach the way today's high thrust hotrods do, they crept up to it and edged on past. They just didn't have today's thrust/drag ratios.
BTW, the A7 gets away with it because it's a subsonic bird and has a more "jowly" forward fuselage contour.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[XBe02Drvr]

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

You'd have to have a crystal ball to foresee the separation problem that occurred. It looked good on paper, according to the slipstick math that was the technology of the time, and was more or less mandated by the design mission of low level supersonic delivery of a nuclear weapon fused for pre-impact detonation, requiring maximum separation if the bomber is to survive the fireball. The theory was that if supersonic, the bomber would outrun the blast wave if it escaped the fireball.
If you've ever seen an A5 with engines and panels removed so you can see the structure, you'd know why a rotary bomb bay or other downward opening solution was an unfeasible retrofit option.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Zipper730]

You'd have to have a crystal ball to foresee the separation problem that occurred. It looked good on paper, according to the slapstick math that was the technology of the time, and was more or less mandated by the the design mission of low level supersonic delivery of a nuclear weapon fused for pre-impact detonation, requiring maximum separation if the bomber is to survive the fireball.

I might have asked this before, but wasn't the A3J designed predominantly for high-altitude delivery?

As for the idea of delivering nuclear ordinance: Why not just toss-bomb or use a lay-down?

 

[swampyankee]

You'd have to have a crystal ball to foresee the separation problem that occurred. It looked good on paper, according to the slapstick math that was the technology of the time, and was more or less mandated by the the design mission of low level supersonic delivery of a nuclear weapon fused for pre-impact detonation, requiring maximum separation if the bomber is to survive the fireball. The theory was that if supersonic, the bomber would outrun the blast wave if it escaped the fireball.
If you've ever seen an A5 with engines and panels removed so you can see the structure, you'd know why a rotary bomb bay or other downward opening solution was an unfeasible retrofit option.
Cheers,
Wes

I wouldn't think a normal bomb bay could be a retrofit; it would need to be designed that way to start. Also, while nuclear bombing dominated military thought, the USN had already spent a few years where it found itself doing tactical air support, so designing an aircraft largely incapable of that may not have been wise.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I might have asked this before, but wasn't the A3J designed predominantly for high-altitude delivery?

HI-LO-HI flight profile, mandated by minimum exposure to AAA & SAMs.

As for the idea of delivering nuclear ordinance: Why not just toss-bomb or lay-down?

As above, survivability. A jet on a toss bomb pop-up is an easily tracked target with a predictable flight path. A lay down from treetop altitudes puts you in the fireball if you can't use delay fusing (like if your weapon isn't hardened to survive ground impact). SAC got all the latest and greatest, including the lightweight stuff hardened for tactical jet delivery. USN had to settle for the older, heavier, more fragile stuff intended for air burst after a parachute drop from high altitude, but had to use it in the low level environment. That's the price you pay for being johnny-come-lately and the unwelcome ugly stepchild at the nuclear table.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Zipper730]

HI-LO-HI flight profile, mandated by minimum exposure to AAA & SAMs.

Understood

SAC got all the latest and greatest, including the lightweight stuff hardened for tactical jet delivery. USN had to settle for the older, heavier, more fragile stuff intended for air burst after a parachute drop from high altitude, but had to use it in the low level environment. That's the price you pay for being johnny-come-lately and the unwelcome ugly stepchild at the nuclear table.

So this was more political than technology alone?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

So this was more political than technology alone?

In the mid to late 1950s, when the A3J was being developed as the supersonic successor to the A3D, Soviet development of SAMs and radar guided high altitude AAA and interceptors made it clear that altitude would no longer protect bombing aircraft from attack. This was emphasized by the shootdown of Francis Gary Powers' U2 at 70,000 feet over the Soviets' major space center in May, 1960.
The alternative was to penetrate hostile territory at high speed on the deck, an environment USN/USMC had always been more comfortable with than USAF.
Back in the day, everybody practiced loft bombing against the big day in practically any plane that could lug a Shape into the air (A3D, A4D, F4H, F84, F100, F101, F105, B47, B57, etc), but it was generally conceded that in any sort of a high threat environment it was a suicide mission.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Zipper730]

In the mid to late 1950s, when the A3J was being developed as the supersonic successor to the A3D, Soviet development of SAMs and radar guided high altitude AAA and interceptors made it clear that altitude would no longer protect bombing aircraft from attack.

Wait, I thought the real concern started after Gary Powers was shot down?

The plane first flew in 1958

The alternative was to penetrate hostile territory at high speed on the deck, an environment USN/USMC had always been more comfortable with than USAF.

I figured they were equally comfortable with it...

 

[XBe02Drvr]

USN had already spent a few years where it found itself doing tactical air support, so designing an aircraft largely incapable of that may not have been wise

The A3J was a single mission bird: long range high speed nuclear delivery, and left the mud pounding to its stablemates, the A1, A4, and F4. The demands of its primary mission rendered it impractical for CAS, as it was heavy, fast, and not terribly agile, with atrocious slow speed handling. It weighed about the same as an A3D, but came aboard 15 knots faster, taxing the arresting gear and catapults to their limits. I've flown the RA5C simulator, and below 250 knots it's a pig! It EARNED its title of "Ensign Eater". But in the air it would go like scat, outrunning its Phantom escort and had the fuel to go deeper into indian country than they could go. Consequently, it would often get escorts for penetration and egress, but be solo over the objective.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Zipper730]

The A3J was fast -- if I recall it could fly back and forth something like 700-800 nm supersonic the whole way (~M2)

 

[XBe02Drvr]

The A3J was fast -- if I recall it could fly back and forth something like 700-800 nm supersonic the whole way (~M2)

Yup, a gofast mutha, and down in the weeds, where it was designed to live, nothing could touch it. (Except MAYBE a Thud in winchester status!) A lot of gofast birds aren't all that gofast in the dense air at sea level. RA5s regularly outran MiG 21s.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Wait, I thought the real concern started after Gary Powers was shot down?
The plane first flew in 1958

The U2 incident made Soviet air defenses a public concern, but as US was developing the Nike series of SAMs in the fifties, it was well known in the business that Ivan was doing the same. Can you tell the difference between an SA2 and a Nike Ajax from photos?

 

[Zipper730]

The U2 incident made Soviet air defenses a public concern, but as US was developing the Nike series of SAMs in the fifties, it was well known in the business that Ivan was doing the same. Can you tell the difference between an SA2 and a Nike Ajax from photos?

The MIM-3 & SA-2 do look quite similar actually; that said the MIM-14 and SA-2 were better comparisons. They don't look at all alike except that they're cylindrical and have a nozzle in the back. One's long and skinny, and the other is plumper...

 

[NVSMITH]

-Two planes that didn't get a chance: F5D and F11F. Either "coulda been a contendah"
-Two for improvement:
1) two seat F86K/L w/2x30mm Aden vice unguided rockets; let the GIB do the WSO/RIO stuff; add AIM 7 and AIM 9 missles. Maybe the Avon or Orenda engine?
2) F3D Skynight. Better engines, of course, narrow the fuselage to tandem seating and swept wings: too bad there weren't and early variable sweep wing available. Carrying AIM 7 and AIM 9 missles it could have been a decent subsonic fleet defense fighter.

 

[NVSMITH]

-One other bird comes to mind: could turbine engines have been adapted to the H37?

 

[Zipper730]

-Two planes that didn't get a chance: F5D and F11F. Either "coulda been a contendah"

I think you mean the F11F-1F/F11F-2? I would have liked to have seen that design enter service: It had no real handling quirks, was fundamentally sound; it was just underpowered. The J79 took care of that problem.

The F5D seemed to have some issues with the electronics proceeding to schedule in mass-production, if I recall. The USN might have factored that heavily in rejecting the design, but I would point out that part of it had to do with the fact that, Douglas had 5 fully funded projects, whereas Vought had only one (the F8U). The F11F was already in production, however, and would have been a sound improvement. It had a lower stall speed (and as a result, corner velocity), and with J79's, greater speed (that said, there were proposals of reworking the inlets of the F8U to allow for speeds in excess of Mach 2), and had better handling characteristics.

1) two seat F86K/L w/2x30mm Aden vice unguided rockets; let the GIB do the WSO/RIO stuff; add AIM 7 and AIM 9 missles. Maybe the Avon or Orenda engine?

Actually, the RAAF did procure a variant of the Sabre with an Avon in it, as well as a 30mm cannon (it was called the Avon Sabre). The US government did almost license the Avon (a variant), and chose the Sapphire (as the J65) because, at the time, it was doing better in terms of SFC (as time went on, the Avon would do better).

2) F3D Skynight. Better engines, of course, narrow the fuselage to tandem seating and swept wings: too bad there weren't and early variable sweep wing available. Carrying AIM 7 and AIM 9 missles it could have been a decent subsonic fleet defense fighter.

There was a swept wing proposal for the F3D, but it had side-by-side seating (and kind of looked like the A-6). It was rejected for, what appears to be money. That said, the F3D's did carry early Sparrows (AAM-N-2/AIM-7A).

 

[tyrodtom]

-One other bird comes to mind: could turbine engines have been adapted to the H37?

The Westland Westminister did that, but just two prototypes were built.