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

[Zipper730]

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.

'cuz more dakka!

Where you going to stuff it?

I never knew the intake would have precluded the installation, or slowed a supersonic aircraft to subsonic speed.

You'd have to have a crystal ball to foresee the separation problem that occurred.

You mean the open void in the back where the weapon shot out of? Or something else... I should have asked this earlier.

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.

Was it possible to design the shape of the plane to allow for a downward bay?

 

[swampyankee]

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

Sure. Unofficial motto of engineers everywhere? "Just bring enough money; we can do anything."

I don't know if turbines would fix its other problems, though. Not all of its vibration issues were due to all those pistons whacking back and forth.

Was it possible to design the shape of the plane to allow for a downward bay?

My first thought would be "almost certainly." The resulting aircraft may not have looked a heck of a lot like the A-5 nee A3J, though. Internal bays were on at least two supersonic aircraft in US service (F-106 and F-105), so the idea wasn't considered impossible. Without seeing North American's internal documents (access to which would require permission from Boeing and possibly the DoD, even if they haven't been shredded, pulped, burned, or eaten by termites), it's impossible to be certain of the reasons that NA's designers had for using this method. I sometimes wonder if somebody had a really bad case of "wouldn't this be really cool?"

 

[Zipper730]

Message Deleted (multiple open windows leads to forgetfulness and double-posts)

 

[swampyankee]

Message Deleted (multiple open windows leads to forgetfulness and double-posts)

You have that problem, too?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

'cuz more daka!

No, LESS daka. Severely limited RPG. 30MM rounds are BIG!

I never knew the intake would have precluded the installation

You've never seen a Vulcan in the flesh. The gun, feed mechanism, and drum just weren't going to fit gracefully into the nose of an F8 along with radar, pilot, and already-too-small intake duct.

You mean the open void in the back where the weapon shot out of?

Yes. That "open void" was actually a nosecone shaped clamshell door that split open to eject the weapon. When open, the door halves created an "air pocket" which could capture the weapon and hold it in trail of the aircraft for several seconds after release.

Was it possible to design the shape of the plane to allow for a downward bay?

As a retrofit, NWIH. If they were willing to discard the existing fleet of planes and design/build new, perhaps. Notice that both of the aforementioned designs (and the B57) with rotary bays had noticeably thicker fuselages and discharged noticeably smaller weapons. I suspect the RA5's slender profile and hence, it's low level speed capability, might have suffered from any sort of a downward discharging weapons bay. It also would have required some sort of pop-up weapons delivery procedure. You don't want your nuke bouncing off the ground and tagging your tail, now, do you?
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Zipper730]

No, LESS daka. Severely limited RPG. 30MM rounds are BIG!

But way more damage on impact!

You've never seen a Vulcan in the flesh. The gun, feed mechanism, and drum just weren't going to fit gracefully into the nose of an F8 along with radar, pilot, and already-too-small intake duct.

That's correct, I've never seen it up close and personal. That said, I didn't know the F-8 had an intake that was too small.

Yes. That "open void" was actually a nosecone shaped clamshell door that split open to eject the weapon.

Wait, I thought the tail-cone was the shape of the after-body of the payload train? So instead clamshell doors open and the payload train was to be shot out? Did the doors simply part ways with the aircraft or close up after?

When open, the door halves created an "air pocket" which could capture the weapon and hold it in trail of the aircraft for several seconds after release.

Which would greatly increase the odds of getting taken out by the nuclear weapon. I also remember reading about a case where a weapon got shot across the flight-deck, or falling out of the plane as well...

If they were willing to discard the existing fleet of planes and design/build new, perhaps.

We're largely talking about how a design could have been made better with the technology of the time. So if it could be physically built, and operate off a carrier deck is the basic rules to start with.

 

[davparlr]

This is more than airplanes
Navy
Build angled flight decks right away. Being able to launch and land aircraft at the same time is a game changer! I suspect it was not a big deal.

Jump on the F-86 program to start working on a carrier qualifiable version (FJ-4). Or, buy F-86s for land operations for the Marines ala F4Us. They needed this to play in the Korean War air-to-air game.

Do not develop the J40 engine

Cancel the F3H. The engines it used did not generate required thrust. Ones that did would not fit. Move on to a two engine version (uh, like an F4H)

Make AIM-9s and AIM-7s more reliable quickly.

I don't know about changing the F8U. The F8U's four Mark 12 cannons generated 4,000 rounds/minute, the same as the derated Vulcan on the F-104 (derated to prevent engine stalls). Or, they may could squeeze in four Air Force M-39 cannon and get a full 6,000 r/m.

Air Force
Fix F-84 problems quicker and develop the F-84F (swept wing version earlier).

Cancel the F-104 and buy the F11F-1F (non-navalize version). Similar in performance but more agile. Should make a better dogfighter vs. Migs in Vietnam.

Cancel the AIM-4s and use AIM-9s and AIM-7s

The F-107 may have been a better selection over the F-105 due to better wing loading which would help defensive maneuvering (close to F-4).

Personal Bias. Select the F-17 instead of the F-16. The F-17, which was a better performer than the F-18 version, had much better growth potential than the F-16, was all weather capable from the start (the F-16 did not get all weather capability until the AMRAAM came along). The F-17 had two engines, think that there was a bundle of F-16 lost to engine failure.

Army
Keep post WW2 Army well trained and well-armed with better weapons like 3.5" Bazooka.

Don't let McArthur go past the 38th parallel.

Select the great M-16 earlier and institute rigorous testing to detect and fix problems. Provide cleaning kits and instruction.
Don't buy that M151 Ford Jeep thing.

General
Anticipate and develop anti-radar countermeasures and weapons in late 50s, early 60s.

Aggressively develop precision weapons in same period.

Get rid of Johnson and McNamara

Don't let Powers fly that last U-2 flight

Note
Many of these things didn't occur due to funding.

 

[Zipper730]

This is more than airplanes

Generally, this has to do with aircraft, and systems used on aircraft with the technology of the era. That said the idea of replacing the F8U's Colt Mk.12's with the Pontiac M-39's would have been a nice touch. jetcal1 , would it fit?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Build angled flight decks right away. Being able to launch and land aircraft at the same time is a game changer! I suspect it was not a big deal.

It was. The Brits had been doing it for awhile before USN adopted it, and initially there was resistance from the flight crew community. The idea of approaching a flight deck that was continually sliding sideways of the approach path, the disturbance of flying through the "burble" (stack gasses) on short final in an early axial flow jet (kind of fussy about smooth intake flow), and only having four wires instead of thirteen didn't give them warm, fuzzy feelings.
Naturally, the possibility of a bolter was a lot more attractive than flying into the barrier, but it required a major change in long established habits. Instead of chopping throttle at the ramp and dropping into the wires, they had to keep the engine spooled up in case of a bolter, which encouraged floating and punished keeping a little extra airspeed margin "for safety". It was counter-intuitive to firewall the throttle crossing the fantail when the intent was to land. It became more critical than ever to cross the fantail on speed, on glide slope, on centerline, and with the proper hook-to-eye value. Only 18-24 inches height difference at the fantail separated a ramp strike/one wire from a four wire/bolter.
Fortunately, the mirror landing system came into existence about the same time (Brits again), making it somewhat easier to achieve the necessary precision.
To those who had to do it, yes, it was a big deal.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[davparlr]

It was. The Brits had been doing it for awhile before USN adopted it, and initially there was resistance from the flight crew community. The idea of approaching a flight deck that was continually sliding sideways of the approach path, the disturbance of flying through the "burble" (stack gasses) on short final in an early axial flow jet (kind of fussy about smooth intake flow), and only having four wires instead of thirteen didn't give them warm, fuzzy feelings.
Naturally, the possibility of a bolter was a lot more attractive than flying into the barrier, but it required a major change in long established habits. Instead of chopping throttle at the ramp and dropping into the wires, they had to keep the engine spooled up in case of a bolter, which encouraged floating and punished keeping a little extra airspeed margin "for safety". It was counter-intuitive to firewall the throttle crossing the fantail when the intent was to land. It became more critical than ever to cross the fantail on speed, on glide slope, on centerline, and with the proper hook-to-eye value. Only 18-24 inches height difference at the fantail separated a ramp strike/one wire from a four wire/bolter.
Fortunately, the mirror landing system came into existence about the same time (Brits again), making it somewhat easier to achieve the necessary precision.
To those who had to do it, yes, it was a big deal.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[XBe02Drvr]

That said the idea of replacing the F8U's Colt Mk.12's with the Pontiac M-39's would have been a nice touch. X XBe02Drvr , would it fit?

Good question. I've seen the M39 only in pictures, where its actual physical size wasn't clear. It looked big and bulky, but those who've seen it in the flesh say not so. Ask jetcal1.

 

[swampyankee]

Generally, this has to do with aircraft, and systems used on aircraft with the technology of the era. That said the idea of replacing the F8U's Colt Mk.12's with the Pontiac M-39's would have been a nice touch. X XBe02Drvr , would it fit?

How many of the reliability problems with the Mk12 were the gun vs the installation? Of course, only the F8U was likely to have used it in air-air, so its problems may not have shown up elsewhere.

 

[davparlr]

In my mind, the carrier ops benefits significantly outweigh the training issues. Granted that the probability of missing a wire would be less on a straight deck, the bad ramifications of doing so is greatly increased. Outside the obvious safety issues of crashing into aircraft parked forward if the barrier fails, barrier engagement itself, even if successful, is not necessarily damage free.

Captain Wally Schirra, later a three-flight astronaut, described the situation: "In those days you either had an arrested landing or a major accident."

From the same source below. Just the effort to remove the barrier from the aircraft and resetting it has got to impact the follow on landings and therefore impacting ops. The operational aspects of the slanted deck is very important and could improve efficiency 50%, maybe. The capability of launching several more planes at once should certainly improve assembly time, reduce fuel consumption and increasing range or combat time. Being able to launch aircraft and recover aircraft at the same time gives great flexibility. If the Japanese had that capability Midway could easily have been a different story.
I'm not sure about the difficulty of learning how to land on one. It seems that once they tried it, they liked it. They even tested new students who quickly adapted to it. From "Historyonthenet",

Antietam left for Cuban waters in mid-January 1953. There were some in-flight engagements with the hook snagging a wire before the plane's wheels reached the deck, and one pilot sustained a back injury. But overall the least experienced pilots had little difficulty making repeated landings on the angled deck, and Wood's confidence grew to the point that several pilots became night qualified with four traps each.

.

 

[davparlr]

How many of the reliability problems with the Mk12 were the gun vs the installation? Of course, only the F8U was likely to have used it in air-air, so its problems may not have shown up elsewhere.

I think the Mk12 did have some reliability problems but I don't think rate of fire was a big issue. 4000 r/m of 20mm rounds was a lot of fire power.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

In my mind, the carrier ops benefits significantly outweigh the training issues. Granted that the probability of missing a wire would be less on a straight deck, the bad ramifications of doing so is greatly increased.

Nobody's saying that straight decks are better than angled. The advantages are obvious. Just that from the aviator's perspective it represented a major sea change in landing technique and the forced suppression of deeply ingrained old habits.
The Aviation Training Aids Branch film library in my detachment had quite the museum of archaic training films along with the latest and greatest. Sometimes for giggles when we had late duty, we would set up a projector and look at some of the oldies, including a couple gems from the '50s preparing pilots for the transition from straight to angle decks. Guys who had been Ensigns and JGs back then were now squadron skippers, CAGs, and air station/carrier COs/XOs. Once in awhile one would happen by for a chuckle or two.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Zipper730]

It was. The Brits had been doing it for awhile before USN adopted it, and initially there was resistance from the flight crew community. The idea of approaching a flight deck that was continually sliding sideways of the approach path, the disturbance of flying through the "burble" (stack gasses) on short final in an early axial flow jet (kind of fussy about smooth intake flow), and only having four wires instead of thirteen didn't give them warm, fuzzy feelings.

So the problems had to do with jet-aircraft in particular (the inability to take turbulent airflow into the compressor), as well as the fact that they were flying with a slight crosswind?

Naturally, the possibility of a bolter was a lot more attractive than flying into the barrier, but it required a major change in long established habits. Instead of chopping throttle at the ramp and dropping into the wires, they had to keep the engine spooled up in case of a bolter, which encouraged floating and punished keeping a little extra airspeed margin "for safety". It was counter-intuitive to firewall the throttle crossing the fantail when the intent was to land. It became more critical than ever to cross the fantail on speed, on glide slope, on centerline, and with the proper hook-to-eye value. Only 18-24 inches height difference at the fantail separated a ramp strike/one wire from a four wire/bolter.

To some degree, jet engines rarely were at low power settings on the approach: Spool up times in jet-engines were simply too slow in those days. From what I remember, you'd often see planes operating with speed-brakes out in varying degrees during the approach, so as to keep engine RPM high enough where responsiveness would be adequate enough to allow for a wave off. New engines such as the J57, J52, J79 (particularly the J79) largely took care of the worst of it.

If I recall, the earlier approach was a bit flatter with a large drop after the cut command was given, with the new/current approach involving a somewhat steeper approach all the way down to the deck.

I would imagine it would take some getting used to, from going from chopping power when touching down, to actually slamming the power all the way up just before touchdown. The reason for it makes a lot of sense though: The cables can tolerate the abuse, and if you miss, you've got a touch-n-go.

How many of the reliability problems with the Mk12 were the gun vs the installation?

I just don't recall hearing any problems with the gun on any other aircraft, so I figured it was the installation.

 

[jmcalli2]

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.

Here's my entry; a delta-winged F-104.

 

[tomo pauk]

Beautiful.

 

[jmcalli2]

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.

Not sure if this is an upgraded F7U or a downgraded F-18...

 

[davparlr]

Nobody's saying that straight decks are better than angled. The advantages are obvious. Just that from the aviator's perspective it represented a major sea change in landing technique and the forced suppression of deeply ingrained old habits.

There are not a lot of references on transitions but I don't think there was much opposition to the change to the angled deck. Three things indicate to me that this was a needed and welcomed change by the pilots. One was the earlier comment by Schirra on you either make an arrest or you crash, another was a comment in the referenced document by a Lieutenant Commander Buell observed, "To an experienced tailhooker, landing a jet airplane on an angled deck was sheer bliss." This was made about the first evaluation of a angle deck on the Antietam. This over two month evaluation also included novice naval aviators.

A good Naval War College Review of why the UK came up with the most significant changes before the USN did is here
https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/c...&httpsredir=1&article=1532&context=nwc-review

A quick synopsis, UK studied how to improve WW2 carrier performance and the impacts of jets, USN was intent on figuring out how to carry heaver nuclear bomb laden aircraft on an aircraft carrier. There indeed was a battle going on between the Navy and the Air Force over funding.

I don't know about this engine stalling due to some turbulence from the island. If there was a particular problem, I think they would have made some aerodynamic changes to the island. I don't think they did. Never heard of it. Certainly not in aviation aerodynamics taught at pilot training and the AF was still flying the T-33 using the J-33, and the basic training T-37 used an early '50s technology engine. There was a lot of turbulent weather found on landing on land including wind gusting to 10 to 25 kts varying +/- 90 degrees from runway heading (been there, done that).

Side note: When I was growing up in Pensacola the Antietam, the first angle deck carrier, was stationed there to support Naval pilot training. It was soon replaced by the Lexington.