Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
In the world of solid state electronics, the F3D could have had ejection seats, and in the world of lightweight nukes, so could the A3D, so sayeth the retrospectroscope.Ejection seats would have been nice in the A3D and F3D, especially since landing and takeoff are the most likely times for accidents.
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?
Actually, CalFire is operating a batch of late model S2s as tankers with 1400 HP PT6s (-67s, I think). In late 50s, there wasn't a suitable turboprop available, other than the Allisons, which were overkill for the airframe, too powerful, too thirsty, and being a straight-through design, would have required a complete rebuild of the nacelles and wing center section.One improvement I'd consider for the S-2/E-1/C-1 is to re-engine them with turboprops. I believe these were the last piston-engined aircraft routinely operated off USN carriers; the update could have been done in the late 1950s.
They tried. When I was at GE there was much noise about a possible Navy F4E equivalent. Congress wouldn't fund it, was the story I was told. Congress had a tendency to look askance at Naval Aviation in general, as some saw it as unnecessary duplication of the USAF function, and the AF always was able to impress them with "more bang for the buck" by creative accounting showing greater a/c availability per dollar appropriated. They were masters of political propaganda, and could actually deliver on their advertising, as their operating regime was a lot less hard on the hardware.Arguably, the USN should have installed a gun into its Phantoms.
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).
Considering when it was designed, there was a very small body of experience with large swept wing jets operating in the sub one Mach transonic range. The B47 was the learning curve, the B52 was the culmination, which has proven to be the durable long term solution.The B-47 was a very clean design and reasonably fast by the days standard, about 600 mph but the Air Force never updated its J47 engines. I always wondered just how fast it would go if the Air Force had installed the engines used on the B-52, the J57, providing an extra 9000 lbs of thrust.
I'm not sure if that's a good argument. After all there are LOADS of interesting aircraft designs that would be cool for comic strips but bad for real life...I've always thought the XF-90 was an exceptionally clean and beautiful aircraft and was surprised to find out that it had lost out to the XF-88 for a long range fighter escort, which was later also cancelled. After all, if it was good enough for the Black Hawks comic book squadron, where I first became aware of it, it should have been good enough for the Air Force.
I was under the impression that the USAAF wanted for the penetration fighter normal/ultimate loads seen on aircraft in WWII. As for uncertainty in terms of transonic and supersonic, do you mean difficulty in regards to calculate dynamic loads on the plane?Probably a killer was the gross weight which was 50% greater than the XF-88. Because of uncertainty of supersonic data, it apparently had a particularly strong airframe stressed to 12Gs and, since it used a stronger aluminum alloy than normal, structural stress resistance was four time normal level.
From what I recall the F-101 started out as a requirement for continuation of the penetration fighter (as before) but with supersonic performance, greater range, and IFR capability. There was the F-101B, which seemed to be built around the idea of an all-weather interceptor as a supersonic replacement for the F-89 and a gap-filler for the F-102 (and eventually the F-106).In 1951 a new request for proposal was let by the Air Force for a new high speed bomber interceptor. A contract McDonald won with the F-101. Lockheed apparently did not submit a bid.
I'm not exactly sure when the USN acquired it's first lay-down weapon, but I'd almost swear that the A-4 that fell off the deck-elevator in Japanese waters that would later cause a scandal was a 1 MT warhead with lay-down.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.
I like that one..."Gentlemen, I believe we have us a callsign! Thy humble servant, heretofore known as jmcalli2, has by exemplary exploits of creative intelligence, earned the worthy and honorable moniker of DeltaDon, and it is hereby proposed that he shall be henceforth thus addressed. What say ye all?"
The B-47 was a very clean design and reasonably fast by the days standard, about 600 mph but the Air Force never updated its J47 engines. I always wondered just how fast it would go if the Air Force had installed the engines used on the B-52, the J57, providing an extra 9000 lbs of thrust. It probably would not need those JATO bottles. I think that engine change would allow it to go significantly faster. Of course the Strategic Air Command was pouring all of its effort into building the B-52 and had no interest in increasing the capability of the limited range B-47.
AFAIK A4s were never equipped, trained, or tasked for low level direct nuclear delivery. Their thing was loft delivery, toss bombing, and they practiced that pretty diligently in pre-Vietnam days.I'm not exactly sure when the USN acquired it's first lay-down weapon, but I'd almost swear that the A-4 that fell off the deck-elevator in Japanese waters that would later cause a scandal was a 1 MT warhead with lay-down.
If I recall the bomb that was used was good for it. That said, I could be wrong.AFAIK A4s were never equipped, trained, or tasked for low level direct nuclear delivery. Their thing was loft delivery, toss bombing, and they practiced that pretty diligently in pre-Vietnam days.
Yes, I agree with you. It was pretty well maxed out with that wing design. I would guess that the B-47 was a milestone aircraft in that Boeing learned a lot about big swept back aircraft that fed directly into its more famous offsprings, the B-52 and the 707, especially when you compare it to its competitors at the time.The B-47 was operating very close to its never-exceed speed, which was set by aileron reversal. Going faster wasn't in the cards. Without a new wing, it wasn't going to go faster, fly higher, or operate at a greater gross weight.
Yes, I agree with you. It was pretty well maxed out with that wing design. I would guess that the B-47 was a milestone aircraft in that Boeing learned a lot about big swept back aircraft that fed directly into its more famous offsprings, the B-52 and the 707, especially when you compare it to its competitors at the time.
I'm not sure if that's a good argument. After all there are LOADS of interesting aircraft designs that would be cool for comic strips but bad for real life...
I was under the impression that the USAAF wanted for the penetration fighter normal/ultimate loads seen on aircraft in WWII. As for uncertainty in terms of transonic and supersonic, do you mean difficulty in regards to calculate dynamic loads on the plane?
From what I recall the F-101 started out as a requirement for continuation of the penetration fighter (as before) but with supersonic performance, greater range, and IFR capability.
I'm not sure if that's a good argument. After all there are LOADS of interesting aircraft designs that would be cool for comic strips but bad for real life...