cammerjeff
Staff Sergeant
I always understood we were always happy to sell F-5's to countries we didn't totally trust as they could either carry weapons or the fuel to deliver them, but not both?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yugoslavs were always using short ranged fighters (and fighter bombers), so F-5 is just fine.I always understood we were always happy to sell F-5's to countries we didn't totally trust as they could either carry weapons or the fuel to deliver them, but not both?
A lot depends on when (and/or which versions of which engine)A more neutral Yugoslavia - make the sibling of the F-5 by making a deal with Northrop, instead of making a bad copy of the Jaguar with Romanians. Viper jet engines should've been a good fit, it even uses a bit less fuel than the J-85.
One of major reasons why I've suggested thisYugoslavia had been making Vipers since around the very early 60s for the Soko G-2 Galeb
By the early 60s the Viper had been improved from a 1640lb thrust engine to an easy 3,000lb thrust engine and the P.209 series engines pushing towards 4,000lbs without afterburner.
The J-85 was rated at about 2,500lbs thrust without afterburner at that time (3,850lbs with), J-85 was lighter and gave, by a few percent, better fuel economy.
Next series engines promised ?????
The J-85 may have turned out better, it just took so long to go from prototype to production that you could have flipped-flopped several times during the development stages.One of major reasons why I've suggested this
Orao 1 was with the 4000 lb Vipers, 1st flight in late 1974. We'd be getting 5500+ with AB for 1980s?
They may been hoping for the Adour engine? a much closer to fit in size and weight to the Viper than the J-85. Once you design to the smaller/lighter J-85 it is harder to squeeze in
Adour (or other small two spool turbo fan) ?
Option for the Germans was perhaps the Ha 137 - a trim looking dive bomber. Much smaller than the Ju 87, and much more modern than the Hs 123.
Problem with that in a dive bomber is that liquid cooled engines are rather more vulnerable than air-cooled engines. Where they shine is the high-altitude performance, where there is not much air to cool the engine down.I prefer the V12 powered version.
Liquid cooled engine is a 1st step towards a fast bomber, at least for the Germans in late 1930s.Problem with that in a dive bomber is that liquid cooled engines are rather more vulnerable than air-cooled engines.
Where they shine is the high-altitude performance, where there is not much air to cool the engine down.
So good for interceptors, so-so for low-altitude fighters, and not a very good choice for dive bombers.
Hummm. Interesting way to cripple the Luftwaffe, send them down the garden path of the single engine fast bomberLiquid cooled engine is a 1st step towards a fast bomber, at least for the Germans in late 1930s.
A-36, Fw 190 bomber versions? In scenarios with feeble or no fighter escort, seems like these fared better than the 'normal' bombers.Hummm. Interesting way to cripple the Luftwaffe, send them down the garden path of the single engine fast bomber
Did that actually work for anybody against anyone that had a moderately good air defense?
Twin engine fast bomber has possibilities.
They did but the role of the light (single engine) bomber changed.A-36, Fw 190 bomber versions? In scenarios with feeble or no fighter escort, seems like these fared better than the 'normal' bombers.
Any idea why? US dive bombers and other ground attack aircraft (including P-47, which was turned into ground attack aircraft, as well as SBD Dauntless) predominantly had air-cooled engines. And it is not like e.g. Stuka was fast enough to survive if jumped by fighters. (EDIT: Fixed a bain fart)Liquid cooled engine is a 1st step towards a fast bomber, at least for the Germans in late 1930s.
IIRC, single-engined bombers were far more survivable than heavy bombers. But no, neither really worked against moderately good air defense unless escorted by fighters.Hummm. Interesting way to cripple the Luftwaffe, send them down the garden path of the single engine fast bomber
Did that actually work for anybody against anyone that had a moderately good air defense?
Twin engine fast bomber has possibilities.
Liquid cooled engine is a 1st step towards a fast bomber, at least for the Germans in late 1930s.
Any idea why?
US dive bombers and other ground attack aircraft (including P-47, which was turned into ground attack aircraft, as well as SBD Douglass) predominantly had air-cooled engines. And it is not like e.g. Stuka was fast enough to survive if jumped by fighters.
hit reply by accident.Problem with that in a dive bomber is that liquid cooled engines are rather more vulnerable than air-cooled engines. Where they shine is the high-altitude performance, where there is not much air to cool the engine down.
So good for interceptors, so-so for low-altitude fighters, and not a very good choice for dive bombers.
Problem with that in a dive bomber is that liquid cooled engines are rather more vulnerable than air-cooled engines.
Re-engine the Stuka with any engine and it will still be killed off easily, since the drag was too big (mostly due to the Stuka's size, and fixed U/C).