"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?"
Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better (Cold-War Edition)
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
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.
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?
Nope. The magazine and belting alone would have displaced a butt-load of fuel. (The M39 had a much different feed system.)
Please keep in mind I've only seen the F-5 and F-14 installations and the although I was present for the very last RF-8G cat shot (Along with the last F-4 cat shot.) My knowledge on the F-8 is basically limited too...I can spell F-8.
fubar57
General
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
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.
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.
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
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).
One major problem with the MiG 21 which I don't think anyone overcame was that on low fuel the cg moved dangerously aft, which meant that considerations of safe handling meant that the usable fuel load was well below what the aircraft actually carried, reducing the range of an already short-range aircraft.
As for the delta Lightning, yes please! With more structural weight and skin area it might lose some performance but performance was the last thing the Frightning had problems with! Getting rid of the belly tank would also allow the aircraft to be safely belly landed and with the wing presumably thicker in the middle they could have used more normal tyres rather than the thin ultra-high pressure ones that meant it couldn't be landed at most airports for fear of damaging the tarmac!
OT- wish I'd gotten to see a Lightning fly. It's not far behind wishing I'd seen a Saturn V launch.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
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. 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. 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.
Lockheed submits an upgraded XF-90, as McDonald did with the XF-88 to make the F-101, making it slightly bigger to accommodate larger engines, reduce stress levels to normal design requirements, ala P-51H, making the empty weight about 25,000 lbs,, applying area rule, and, taking a risk on the J-79 engine, which was being planned for the Lockheed F-104 at the time. If they had done this and won the competition, the Air Force would have in the late 50s a heavy, multi-mission jet interceptor with twin J-79 engines, thrust to weight ratio of near one, very fast and with plenty of lift capability, in other words, their version of a F4H type, only a bit lighter and, with smaller wings, better speed and roll rate, and three years earlier. The Air Force would not need the F-4 for Vietnam.
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.
Lockheed submits an upgraded XF-90, as McDonald did with the XF-88 to make the F-101, making it slightly bigger to accommodate larger engines, reduce stress levels to normal design requirements, ala P-51H, making the empty weight about 25,000 lbs,, applying area rule, and, taking a risk on the J-79 engine, which was being planned for the Lockheed F-104 at the time. If they had done this and won the competition, the Air Force would have in the late 50s a heavy, multi-mission jet interceptor with twin J-79 engines, thrust to weight ratio of near one, very fast and with plenty of lift capability, in other words, their version of a F4H type, only a bit lighter and, with smaller wings, better speed and roll rate, and three years earlier. The Air Force would not need the F-4 for Vietnam.
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.
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.
Fatigue life and limited growth capacity are what made B47 upgrades uneconomical, as well as tricky handling at high subsonic Mach numbers, I'm told. While more thrust would have definitely aided takeoff and climb performance, I suspect top speed was limited by airframe Mach behavior, and the fuel penalty of that extra thrust would further limit range.
I used to fly with a bunch of retired career SAC pilots, several of whom were mustangs who had done time as FEs and/or boomers in KCs and BUFFs. They said tanking a B47 from a KC97 was a tricky operation combining extreme slow flight in the jet with a near-Vne flat-out shallow dive in the recip, neither aircraft in the most user friendly portion of its speed range. BUFFs were apparently much easier.
With the B52 in the pipeline, why waste resources on the B47?
Cheers,
Wes
- Thread starter
- #90
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. 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).
- Thread starter
- #91
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.
I like that one...
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #94
Swept Wing F-89: The F-89 originally was to have a swept wing: There were problems with the design
Later designs were conceived that did revolve around a swept wing, had differences in aspect ratio, probably wing-area as well.
Adverse Effects on Low Speed Handling
The swept wing was felt to be less efficient in terms of lifting-capability and stall-characteristics: While stall-characteristics could have been fixed by slats (it worked on the F-86, anyway), and while slats lower stall-speeds -- the requirements called for the maximum degree of controllability and maneuverability possible. That said, I'm not sure if these same requirements applied to day-fighters, such as the F-80 & F-86.
Inability to Carry Wingtip Loads
From a balancing point, it was said to make the carriage of ordinance or fuel-tanks at/near the wingtip. I wouldn't be surprised if aeroelasticity was applicable as well, as swept-wings do tend to have (all other things being equal) more flexing than straight wings. Moving the fuel/ordinance inward affected the arrangement of the landing-gear configuration and, depending on the exact arrangement, interference effects with the fuselage.
Carry-Through Structure
A swept wing was said to be less-efficient in terms of the design of the carry-through structure.
Later designs were conceived that did revolve around a swept wing, had differences in aspect ratio, probably wing-area as well.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #95
If I recall the bomb that was used was good for it. That said, I could be wrong.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
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.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
Arguably, all the V-bombers were better aircraft than the B-47, but they were also several years later in a period when engine and aerodynamics technology were advancing quickly. The B-47 was really the first pure-jet bomber which could realistically be called "strategic."
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I was being facetious. Also, I think they previously used the Grumman XF5F. The XF-90 was a serious design capable of and performing supersonic flight, albeit in a descent due to lack of thrust.
It must be remembered that penetration fighter requirements started around 1945, and the design work started in 1946, before any aircraft had undeniably gone supersonic. Also, in 1946, Geoffrey de Havilland, jr. died when his DH 108 disintegrated at high Mach. So, I don't think the designers in this era had a solid concept of stresses that occurred in trans and supersonic flight. I don't know of any other reason the XF-90 was built to such high strength and weight, 50% more than the winning XF-88. A fatal mistake. It is interesting to note that the follow-on F-101 was more than twice the empty weight of the XF-88.
The AF cancelled the original program for a long range penetration fighter (P-51 type) that included the winning XF-88 and the XF-90. Due to Russian threats there was a recognition of a need for an interceptor, (Spitfire type) , (other interceptor projects were running into problems). A new request for proposal went out for basically a multi-purpose aircraft. I think the modification of the XF-88 was preferred, they were already familiar with it, even though it had to be practically redesigned.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
In good for the comics, the XF-91 (see Republic XF-91 Thunderceptor > National Museum of the United States Air Force™ > Display), Convair XFY "Pogo" (Convair XFY-1 Pogo), the SNCASO SO.9000 Trident (SNCASO (Sud-Ouest) SO.9000 « Trident »), the SNECMA Coléoptère (Cancelled: Vertical Flyer | History | Air & Space Magazine), the Vickers Type 559 (Vickers Type 559 (F155T) fighter), the Chyeranovskii BiCh-26 (Cheranovskii Bich-26), and, most likely to turn into a successful aircraft, the AVRO CF-105, would all deserve a place.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
Back to improvements...
There were a number of USN aircraft of the 1950s that failed due to crappy engines (although there were also aerodynamic problems with the F7U that more power could not fix). A better engine would have helped the F3H. Apparently, the J-57 wouldn't fit (why, I'm not sure; it's about the same size as the J-40 first installed), but there were other engines out there, such as the J-79 or the J-65 (or the Avon. Tell CW not to mung it up too badly).
There were a number of USN aircraft of the 1950s that failed due to crappy engines (although there were also aerodynamic problems with the F7U that more power could not fix). A better engine would have helped the F3H. Apparently, the J-57 wouldn't fit (why, I'm not sure; it's about the same size as the J-40 first installed), but there were other engines out there, such as the J-79 or the J-65 (or the Avon. Tell CW not to mung it up too badly).
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
