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

XBe02Drvr said:

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

Click to expand...

In his memoir, Captain (later Rear Admiral) Cambell notes that he mentioned the angled-deck concept to a delegation of U.S. Navy officers in September 1951. As he recalls, "they said very little, but . . . they exchanged significant looks. A few weeks later we heard . . . that the USN were already planning to angle the flight deck of the carrier Midway, for a preliminary trial."

In his Wings on My Sleeve, test pilot Eric Brown noted that he had been directed by his superiors to take "with me details of a new idea to revolutionize carrier-deck landing" when he joined the U.S. Navy's test pilots at the NATC in late summer 1951. Harold Buell, who commanded Fighter Squadron 84 on Antietam (CV 36) in early 1953, later remembered that Brown's espousal of the angled deck did not immediately gain support at the NATC, because Brown "was talking of only a four-degree deck angle, which would drastically limit the number of aircraft on a carrier deck during flight operations. . . . However, the idea sparked further thinking, and when the angle was increased to eight degrees . . . , it was decided to test the concept further."

Preliminary tests in the spring of 1952 with an angled deck painted on Midway's axial flight deck were so promising that the U.S. Navy began converting Antietam to an angled-deck configuration in late summer that same year. In January 1953, tests at sea on Antietam were successful, and Carrier Air Group 8 spent just over two months learning how to use the new deck configuration during exercises off Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Click to expand...

However, neither the news about the USN's intention to modify the Midway nor the results of the satisfactory trials in the Triumph persuaded the Admiralty to take any action other than to agree that the new scheme would be considered for fitting into the design of a new generation of Fleet Carriers (which, in fact, were never built).

Then in May 1953 the USS Antietam came upon the scene. The USN, whose Midway trials had been similar to ours in the Triumph, had done a quick-fix modification to this carrier, one of the Essex class. Limited structural alterations had been prefabricated ashore and were installed in record time.

As a quid pro quo for the fact that the idea was of British origin, and apparently because they knew the Admiralty were dragging their feet, the USN offered to send over the Antietam to give a demonstration of the new technique. Which offer was gratefully accepted, and the ship spent a week operating in the Channel, with the RN pilots participating. Lewis and I were specially invited on board, and were presented to all concerned as the two inventors. The success of this visit persuaded the Admiralty that retrofit action should be started forthwith.

Click to expand...

swampyankee said:

swampyankee said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

davparlr said:

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

Click to expand...

The XF9F-2/XF9F-3 Panther contract awarded in October of 1946 had included a clause calling for design data on a swept-wing version. However, Grumman was worried about the poor low-speed characteristics of swept-wing aircraft, and prevailed upon the Navy to postpone work on a swept-winged version of the Panther.

However, the development of a swept-wing Panther was made more urgent by the appearance of the MiG-15 in Korea in November of 1950. The MiG-15 was powered by derivatives of the same Rolls-Royce Nene as was the Panther, but was nearly 100 mph faster. The very next month, the Navy and Grumman both agreed that it was urgent to press forward with the development of a swept-wing version of the Panther. A contract for the modification of three F9F-5 airframes was signed on March 2, 1951. The project was assigned the company designation Design 93.

Two flying prototypes (126670 and 126672) and a static test airframe (126671) were obtained by converting three uncompleted F9F-5 airframes to F9F-6 configuration. Work on the swept-wing Cougar proceeded quite rapidly and the first F9F-6 (BuNo 126670) was ready for its first flight only six months after the signing of the contract. It took to the air for the first time on September 20, 1951.
.....
To everyone's surprise and amazement, the prototype F9F-6 actually had better carrier handling characteristics than the straight-winged F9F-5. The critical Mach number was increased from 0.79 to 0.86 at sea level and to 0.895 at 35,000 feet.
.....
The first unit to receive the F9F-6 was VF-32, which converted to the Cougar in November of 1952, however the Cougar was too late to fly combat sorties in Korea. The last of 646 F9F-6 Cougars was delivered on July 2, 1954.

Click to expand...

The Basket said:

Always liked the look of the Mirage F.1. it just looks like a jet should. A very basic looking no frills jet.

Click to expand...

XBe02Drvr said:

swampyankee said:

Back to aircraft improvements......

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.

Arguably, the USN should have installed a gun into its Phantoms. The two things that Vietnam should have taught the Navy (and it did teach the Air Force) is that there are going to be times when the missiles don't work effectively and that there are going to be times when rules of engagement are going to have some restrictions.

Click to expand...

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.
The PWC PT6, being effectively a firewall-forward bolt-on was ideal, but didn't grow into the required HP range until the mid to late 70s, by which time most of the airframes were too far along in their fatigue lives and the next generation were already in production.


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.
Cheers,
Wes

Click to expand...

davparlr said:

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.

Click to expand...

NVSMITH said:

-The model I saw at HQ USSOCOM was the C-130 with a seaplane hull. I can't imagine a Hercules on floats.
-What next, folding wings and catapult it off a supertanker?

Click to expand...

Zipper730 said:

From what I found off an online site, 85.5 knots would be the approximate IAS/CAS for 95000 feet at Mach 1

Click to expand...

Zipper730 said:

so Mach 4 would be 342 kts, which does seem a touch slow. That said, even if your stall speed was 185 to 200 knots that would yield 261.6 to 346.4 knots as a stall speed in theory.

Click to expand...

Zipper730 said:

That said, stall speeds vary with mach number, so...

Click to expand...

XBe02Drvr said:

Oops, goof! (Deleted)

Click to expand...

GreenKnight121 said:

Gotta watch those engine model numbers... T58, not T56.

Click to expand...

XBe02Drvr said:

Gotcha, tired brain in the mid shift. Think I'll go see if I can rustle up some midrats, then rack out. BZ.

Click to expand...

GreenKnight121 said:

Yes, the USN could have had swept-wing Cougars, with their higher top speed and better maneuverability & improved carrier handling qualities, at the same time it got its first straight-wing Panthers... the first production F9F-2 flew in August 1949, so that's 3 years that could have been saved!

Click to expand...

XBe02Drvr said:

You do realize, don't you, that you're actually travelling a lot faster in actual velocity than 85.5 knots, right? The air density correction between IAS/TAS is HUGE at those altitudes.

You might want to dig a little deeper on speed relationships in excess of mach 1 at higher altitudes. I believe you'll find there are some non-linearities there.

Click to expand...

XBe02Drvr said:

Actually, CalFire is operating a batch of late model S2s as tankers with 1400 HP PT6s (-67s, I think).

Click to expand...

XBe02Drvr said:

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

Click to expand...

XBe02Drvr said:

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

Click to expand...

davparlr said:

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. 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", .

Click to expand...

davparlr said:

....
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.

Click to expand...

NVSMITH said:

Two items:
1) I know this was done at least once: convert the C-123 to turboprop.
2) When I was at HQ USSOCOM there was a wood model, about 1:48 I guess, of a C-130 seaplane. I couldn't tell if it was amphibious; couldn't tell if it was someone's idea of a joke.

Click to expand...

pgf_666 said:

How about a pneumatic or even explosive 9(or even a coil spring!) active seperator A3J going M.3 forward, payload going M.3 (relative) backwards, net 0 a/s--sounds fairly ideal to me....

Click to expand...