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

[pgf_666]

It had a "separation charge" that was supposed to eject the entire "stores package" (weapon and aux fuel tanks) out the aft end of the bomb bay. It didn't have enough oomph to reliably clear the slipstream, which was more powerful than had been calculated. On more than one occasion this charge was triggered by the jolt of a catapult launch, ejecting the "package" onto the flight deck. A more powerful charge was deemed unsafe, and by that time submarine launched ballistic missiles were beginning to take over the Vigilante's mission.

Ah. Actually makes sense--surprising, in a way.

But the other factor was the prevalent idea at the time that, since we had nukes, snd THEY had nukes, they next unpleasantness was going to leave glow-in-the-dark craters where the cities had been, so there was no real need for manned bombers of any kind--hence BUFFs on Social Security.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

BUFFs on Social Security.

Today's BUFFs are "electronic battleships", or 21st century kamikazes, if you will, whose sole purpose, after launching their standoff missiles, will be to provide a few minutes of powerful jamming until the new generation ultra long range smart AAMs take them out. They haven't a snowball's chance in Riyadh of penetrating enemy airspace, nevermind surviving there.

 

[pgf_666]

My thoughts:

Keep the Dems out of the White House--Buy more votes than Daddy Kennedy did--and, especially, Robert Strange McNamara away from ANYTHING of significance.Find and purge the Soviet agents from the government, especially State. DoD, FBI, Central Intelligence.

If you MUST have a TFX, go with Boeing. Put the B-70 into production. Continue production of F-105, F8U (Cancel F4h/F-110.) Start work on next-gen warcraft immediately. Continue seaplane rescue fleet. Perhaps makeF-12 operational?Nil Zeus.Dyna-soar, MOL. Support for Gen-Av, rather than mild suppression. LTA: Blimps, dirigibles.Again, if you MUST get involved in Th Quagmire, go in trying to actually win it. Perhaps bring back the B-36 to do the B-52's job over the South (I'm not quite the fool to think it'd stand a snowball's chance over the North.) Next gen B-49? Lockheed Lancer, F-8U3,4.Active homing Sparrow IV. Keep Air Force Cadet program.Firearms training (safety, mandatory. beyond that, religious exemptions available.) Require all judges & justices to pass test on Constitution. Ditto, legislators & Executives. Publicize CAP Cadet program. Clean up Hollywood Soviet. Improve NORAD, rather than gut it. (Achilles' Law--the enemy will attack at any weak point they can find.)F-103, F-108, , F-109, or something newer? M-16A1 was a decent weapon in short range situations, but could well have cost us most of Europe, Maintain M-14/15 stocks there. Could the MBT-70 have been salvage? If not, license Leopard? Cruisers, Essex+ sized carriers, perhaps submersible. Earlier work on various aspects od stealth.Since most non CAP activities are now on the deck, better camo. Require IQ of over 70 for DoD civilian employees and appointees. Execute traitors, such as Lady Jane Red. Clean up education system, especially 'higher' education, apparently run from Politburo. ditch Intel chips for 6502 series in personal computers, encourage everyone to learn to program for themselves.Hang Gould & Ali (idiot heads of Commodore) and put someone more like am Tramiel in charge.

Enjoin M$ from making operating systems.Skip the tradgically laughable TF-30.Support Douglass, rather than force it into a merger with McD. Hang the traitorous governor of Arkansas, who signed the bill adding the Confederate battle rag to the state flag.Adopt the Piper Enforcer for the US Army--(whi should have all thge ground support aircraft under their direct control) and NATO and MAP allies. Renew Star Trek. Cancel Dallas

 

[pgf_666]

Today's BUFFs are "electronic battleships", or 21st century kamikazes, if you will, whose sole purpose, after launching their standoff missiles, will be to provide a few minutes of powerful jamming until the new generation ultra long range smart AAMs take them out. They haven't a snowball's chance in Riyadh of penetrating enemy airspace, never-mind surviving there.

Which is why we should have built the B-70, a successor, and more B-1s, as well as the F-17 (or F-18L as the proposed denavelized version was designated), Start the F-14 & F-15 programs earlier, so the enter service early enough to be involved in the Unpleasantness. Keep the Rams in L.A. Make a big deal when the grunts return, don't just throw them into a hostile society.

 

[Zipper730]

It had a "separation charge" that was supposed to eject the entire "stores package" (weapon and aux fuel tanks) out the aft end of the bomb bay. It didn't have enough oomph to reliably clear the slipstream, which was more powerful than had been calculated. On more than one occasion this charge was triggered by the jolt of a catapult launch, ejecting the "package" onto the flight deck. A more powerful charge was deemed unsafe, and by that time submarine launched ballistic missiles were beginning to take over the Vigilante's mission.

The idea strikes me as fundamentally flawed -- after all, even if it cleared the back, you'd have this huge void in the back, and that would be like flying with a suction cup behind you -- it'd be nothing but a constant source of base-drag.

Even if the afteburner plume was made to expand a bit more as a result, I'm not sure if it'd cover the base-drag.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

The idea strikes me as fundamentally flawed -- after all, even if it cleared the back, you'd have this huge void in the back, and that would be like flying with a suction cup behind you -- it'd be nothing but a constant source of base-drag.
Even if the afteburner plume was made to expand a bit more as a result, I'm not sure if it'd cover the base-drag.

I don't know. I never saw an A5A. They were all RA5Cs in my time. The ones I saw had a seam right down the middle of the tail cone as if they could split and open up like a clamshell door. Presumably they could then close back up. The RA5C had no need to eject anything in flight, so opening the tailcone would be strictly a maintenance procedure.

 

[Zipper730]

I don't know. I never saw an A5A. They were all RA5Cs in my time. The ones I saw had a seam right down the middle of the tail cone as if they could split and open up like a clamshell door. Presumably they could then close back up. The RA5C had no need to eject anything in flight, so opening the tailcone would be strictly a maintenance procedure.

The clamshell idea made the most sense, but that doesn't appear to be the design concept: These diagrams at least seem to indicate what I initially assumed.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

The clamshell idea made the most sense, but that doesn't appear to be the design concept: These diagrams at least seem to indicate what I initially assumed.

View attachment 595676
View attachment 595677

Looking carefully at the photo (Intrepid museum in NYC) you can see a vertical seam right down the middle of the tailcone, which looks taped over on this static display. On an average workaday active aircraft, it's much more visible, with grime streaks and wear marks that make it look like it has been opened. I confess I never saw one actually open. The plane had single point pressure fueling with the aux tanks plumbed in, so no need to access the bay for anything but maintenance. My tractor trailer fueling rig could only do two Vigilantes, then back to the tankfarm for a refill.

 

[Zipper730]

I remember seeing some models that depicted the aircraft with two fins, why didn't they keep that? It seems like it would have resulted in a lower clearance.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I remember seeing some models that depicted the aircraft with two fins, why didn't they keep that? It seems like it would have resulted in a lower clearance.

I don't know, but I've heard that USAF and USN resisted the idea of twin tails as long as they could until the aerodynamic and stability penalties of single tails became overwhelming.

 

[jmcalli2]

I don't know, but I've heard that USAF and USN resisted the idea of twin tails as long as they could until the aerodynamic and stability penalties of single tails became overwhelming.

In general, the faster you go, the more vertical surface you need for stability. This is (partially) why the XB-70 had wingtips the folded down at high speed and featured small vertical stabilizers. On naval aircraft the tall tail, as on the Vigilante, became a storage issue on aircraft carriers. The F7U Cutlass had twin tails.
The disadvantages to twin tails are added structure weight and more complex aerodynamics.
The SR-71, XB-70, F-14, F-15, F-117, F-18, A-10, F-22 and F-35 have twin tails.
The B-58, A-5, A-6, A-7, B-1, and F-16 have single tails.
The B-2 has no tail.
The 1930s design theory held you had better stability with the vertical stabilizers directly in line with and behind the props, thus the B-24 and B-25 twin tails.
The last version of the B-24 used a single tail and had better handling because of it.
The B-25 follow-on, the XB-28, had a single tail.
The XB-32 had twin tails, as did the early B-36 designs, but the production aircraft used single tails.
The P-38 and P-61 were the only US production fighters to have twin tails until the F-15, roughly a 30 year span.
The Me-110 had twin tails, but the Me-210 & Me-410 had single tails.
Designers pick the layout for specific reasons.
Everything is a tradeoff.

 

[Zipper730]

In general, the faster you go, the more vertical surface you need for stability. . . On naval aircraft the tall tail, as on the Vigilante, became a storage issue on aircraft carriers. The F7U Cutlass had twin tails.

The F7U had twin tails probably for a couple of reasons (and not necessarily in order): They acted like airflow dividers (like a stall-fence); the underside also made room for the landing gears without encroaching on fuel volume too much; they shortened the height of the airplane to some extent, and; (possibly) the airflow over the tail wouldn't run the risk of being blanked by the fuselage.

The disadvantages to twin tails are added structure weight and more complex aerodynamics.

I was told with twin-tails it actually helped reduced the drag (some kind of pumping effect).

 

[jmcalli2]

The F7U had twin tails probably for a couple of reasons (and not necessarily in order): They acted like airflow dividers (like a stall-fence); the underside also made room for the landing gears without encroaching on fuel volume too much; they shortened the height of the airplane to some extent, and; (possibly) the airflow over the tail wouldn't run the risk of being blanked by the fuselage.
I was told with twin-tails it actually helped reduced the drag (some kind of pumping effect).

One thing I have noticed, and I could be wrong, is that aircraft designed for high speed and operations at high angles of attack over the past 40 years tend to have twin tails. I would guess the F7U, being a tails design projected for very high subsonic speeds and designed for carrier operations, was fitted with twin tails due to the high angles of attack involved. Just a guess.

As for reducing drag, I would look at the interference drag from the fin/fuselage junction; a twin tail may have twice that drag as opposed to a single tall fin.

 

[Zipper730]

This is kind of said in jest, but a lot of the problems with the F7U-1 would have been rectified if it was simply built as a tail-dragger: The British did it with the Attacker

 

[XBe02Drvr]

This is kind of said in jest, but a lot of the problems with the F7U-1 would have been rectified if it was simply built as a tail-dragger: The British did it with the Attacker

Surely in jest, as it would have required massive main mounts to get the necessary AoA that wing platform needed for launch. Where you gonna stow those "shotputter's legs" when you're airborne?

 

[special ed]

The F7U was seriously underpowered. Given the engine(s) of a decade later it may have been viable.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

The F7U was seriously underpowered. Given the engine(s) of a decade later it may have been viable.

How about a pair of afterburning J57s? I don't think J79s would have worked with those intakes and ducting. But a decade later, if you weren't supersonic, you weren't relevant.

 

[Zipper730]

Surely in jest, as it would have required massive main mounts to get the necessary AoA that wing platform needed for launch.

Well, it's obviously in jest, but the main landing-gear legs wouldn't have to be made all that much longer. The primary variable that would change the MLG length would be the fact that the removal of the nose-gear would the CG further aft, and would require the wings to move forward to keep the CG & CL relationship within tolerances.

The F7U-1 had a strange landing-gear configuration whereby the landing-gear legs were perpendicular to the wings for takeoff and aimed straight down for landing. Given that tail-dragger aircraft before generally had the gear perpendicular with the wings, and the F7U-3 built later had landing-gears of this configuration, I'd say it'd probably be do-able.

I would also suspect that the nose-gear added a bit of weight that would now be gone: If the gears somehow get excessively long, you could do what Republic did and put a shrink-strut in. The RN:FAA didn't have too much of an objection with the Sea Fury which used that (it was a double-telescoping strut too).

 

[jmcalli2]

This is kind of said in jest, but a lot of the problems with the F7U-1 would have been rectified if it was simply built as a tail-dragger: The British did it with the Attacker

The engines weren't powerful enough for the design.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Well, it's obviously in jest, but the main landing-gear legs wouldn't have to be made all that much longer. The primary variable that would change the MLG length would be the fact that the removal of the nose-gear would the CG further aft, and would require the wings to move forward to keep the CG & CL relationship within tolerances.

Better give that another think, Zipper. Removing the nose gear to convert to a tail dagger would require the mains to move forward of the CG, else it would want to sit on it's nose like a VariEze. This would likely more than compensate for loss of the nose gear CG wise, and the further forward the mains go, the taller and heavier they'd have to be to get launch AoA. You could install "squatting" gear that extend for launch, but now you're talking even more weight and complexity. Another can of worms gets pried open.