Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
'cuz more dakka!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.
I never knew the intake would have precluded the installation, or slowed a supersonic aircraft to subsonic speed.Where you going to stuff it?
You mean the open void in the back where the weapon shot out of? Or something else... I should have asked this earlier.You'd have to have a crystal ball to foresee the separation problem that occurred.
Was it possible to design the shape of the plane to allow for a downward bay?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.
-One other bird comes to mind: could turbine engines have been adapted to the H37?
Was it possible to design the shape of the plane to allow for a downward bay?
You have that problem, too?Message Deleted (multiple open windows leads to forgetfulness and double-posts)
No, LESS daka. Severely limited RPG. 30MM rounds are BIG!'cuz more daka!
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.I never knew the intake would have precluded the installation
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.You mean the open void in the back where the weapon shot out of?
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?Was it possible to design the shape of the plane to allow for a downward bay?
But way more damage on impact!No, LESS daka. Severely limited RPG. 30MM rounds are BIG!
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.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.
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?Yes. That "open void" was actually a nosecone shaped clamshell door that split open to eject the weapon.
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...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.
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.If they were willing to discard the existing fleet of planes and design/build new, perhaps.
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.This is more than airplanes
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.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
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.
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.Captain Wally Schirra, later a three-flight astronaut, described the situation: "In those days you either had an arrested landing or a major accident."
.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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?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.
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.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.
I just don't recall hearing any problems with the gun on any other aircraft, so I figured it was the installation.How many of the reliability problems with the Mk12 were the gun vs the installation?
It's an intellectual exercise, revolving around how aircraft could have been made better with technology available at the time.
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.
- 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.
- A different winner: Sometimes the problem wasn't the design so much as the winner to the contender
- A more realistic/practical specification: Basically the specifications are made more realistic to allow a practical design to be developed.
I would say that other developments like gun/cannon and missile design would also be discussable to a point.
It's an intellectual exercise, revolving around how aircraft could have been made better with technology available at the time.
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.
- 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.
- A different winner: Sometimes the problem wasn't the design so much as the winner to the contender
- A more realistic/practical specification: Basically the specifications are made more realistic to allow a practical design to be developed.
I would say that other developments like gun/cannon and missile design would also be discussable to a point.
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.