What aircraft (any side) would you develope further

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Yes.
Criteria should be the considerable wing sweep of second generation jet fighters (Mig-15, F-86, Mig-17), while first generation ones do not have (Meteor, P80, He-162A) or have no considerable wing sweep (Me-262, Me-163).
It was the F-84, which demonstrated this: The first types did not have while the later ones introduced them and really made them a second generation jet.
First true second generation jet: Ju-287 V2
 
My feeling is that first generation jets are

1. Straight wing
2. Operate within the flight envelope of piston fighters
3. basicaly a piston design with mods
4. Not totaly reliable

The best example of a first gen jet is the P-59.

As I think about it Second generation jet fighters should include any aircraft that

1. Exceeds the Piston engined aircraft flight envelope (540mph)
2. Designed as a jet fighter from the start
3. not able to go supersonic

Planes in this grouping include
Me-262
P-80
F-94
F9f Panther
Mig 15

Third Generation can exceed the Speed of sound (if so desired bassed on mission)
F-86 Sabre
Lightning
F-100 - 106
Hawker Hunter
F-4

Fourth Generation
F-15 The F-15 is actualy the last of the conventional control aircraft so could be, on that point considered 3rd gen.
F-16
F-18
Jaguar

Fifth Generation
F-22 Rapter
Rafael
F-35

I have no idea where to place aircraft like the Harrier and the SR-71.

Thats how I think of the divisions. Opinions, what have I left out or placed wrong? This was a quick list, examples only, omissions were not intentional.

wmaxt
 
How about the B-32??? It was built to contend with the B-29 but ran into problems while being developed. Mostly in the gun turrents and the pressurization of the aircraft. I think if this bomber could have been right up there with the B-29's in the Korean War. But like all things it was out of date by the end of the war. Like said above the only thing worth developing farther would have been the jets coming into service at the time.
 

Agree except for the P-80, and Me-262 - neither were initially reliable (I'd take a P-80 over a -262 any day), the -262 got a swept back wing as a result of some very creative engineering foresight, I'd place them as first generation. Don't forget the Vampire, Meteor, FJ-1, FH-1, all first generation jets..

Keep in mind the F-86 was actually first flown on October 1, 1947, the Mig 15s first flight was December 30, 1947. I consider them Second generation.

For the SR and harrier, you need to put them between your 3rd and 4th. Also in there shouod be the Mirage, Drakken, and Mig-25, we need six generations!
 
I cannot agree more with you. The Me-262 was designed in 1938-39 (ariframe and fuselage) and furtherly in 1942 (nose wheel, wing sweep of the mid wing section). The wing sweep happened accidently, not intentionally. This makes it a first gen. jetfighter.
The performance of jet/piston engined planes has little to do with "Generations". More important are the design specifications:
Because of a higher crit Mach figure it simply became necessary to sweep the wings. And this was an important design figure. All jet nations made the same step: sweep the wings.
(For example: Sweden got german documentation of wind tunnel results which led to their Saab - J 9 Tunnan)
The Luftwaffe wanted a successor of the first generation jet Me-262 on the base of a higher wing sweep: Me-262 HG-II/III/ Ta-183/Ju-EF128 because of the higher crit Mach figure)
The soviets did it as well.
And you know about the US designs.
The Vampire / Meteor are strictly 1st gen jets.
3rd gen jets are in my view jets with a more modern aerodynamic layout, which makes them able to easily break the sound barrier (Saab J- Draken/F-100/F-106, MiG-21), for example the deltawing. The F-86, while beeing able to exceed Mach-1 in a dive, is strictly 2nd gen. It´s original design was straight wing but then it was wisely changed into swept back.
The ability to temporarly exceed Mach 1 is neglectable. The La-15 could do so, even the Me-262 seems to be able to accidently exceed Mach-1 in a dive (at least in case of G.Mutke and US pilots who tested in in post war times), so we have to exclude this.
 
Your points are valid, though I still feel the jump in performance due to design as a jet as the defining factor in secong gen jet fighters. The reliability issue is valid but is an expected result of the first aircraft taking things a notch further. Remember to, part of the reason the 262 was unreliable was the limited availability of the proper alloys which would have made a great difference.

The Me-262, P-80 and Mig-15 never exceeded the speed of sound. One of the things discovered in the X-1 flights is that the turbulance at mach.96 and above made the shock wave on the stabilizer render the elevator useless. Without elevator control the aircraft becomes unstable and comes apart. The full flying stablizer/elevator allows control in the transonic regime allowing supersonic flight. This is another step in the design of jet fighters which the F-86 had and why I belive it is third gen.

wmaxt
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Ill agree with FBJ and I would classify the Mig-15 and the Sabre into the 2nd Generation with the WW2 jets all being 1st Generation.
Click to expand...

I respect your thoughts, I just don't think its that simple.

I don't think it would be a fair fight for a Meteor against a Me-262 or a P-80, either aircraft has the advantages outside the flight envelope of the Meteor and could pick a fight or run away from one. The speed difference (60mph+) alone is enough to put them into a different catagory, which didn't change again until supersonic flight came into the picture.

The Mig is second generation but the Sabre had a flying tail and could go supersonic placing it in the third gen.

I chose to move them up because they each showed an inovation or performance envelope signifigantly better that the aircraft that it was a contemporary to.

Why do you dissagree, anything specific?

wmaxt
 
Yes but lets put it this way, Mirage 2000 is no match for the F-16 but they are still the same generation of Jets. You can not place the Meteor as a different generation of Jet because it was not as good as a Me-262 or P-80. They are still first generation jets. It is just like you said the Volks Jaeger was a 1st Generation and the 262 was a 2nd Generation. The 262 was in development and service before the Salamander.

Thats just my opinion on it.
 
While not officially recorded, there are valid informations underlining that Me-262 could and accidently did reach Mach 1.
(Nasa still denies but I can refer on the most recent french, italian and australien lexika)
As you correctly said, the plane will loose (in case of Me-262 A at Mach 0.86 latest) controll but this wouldn´t prevent further acceleration. From this point on, the plane enters a "terminal" dive, which cannot be evaded simply by pulling back the stick but the plane is still going faster and faster.
(ww2 records show a lot of cases like this)
Evident for reaching Mach 1.00 or even a little more is that you will REGAIN controll once you exceed the speed of sound (in case of Me-262A). This is reported by Mutke as well (and this makes me feel he is right and not just a claim) as by US test pilots (it is printed in the pilots notes of the plane[1946]:
"(...), once the speed of sound is exceeded, you regain controll.")
However, this is only temporarly and we have to point out that the Me-262 wasn´t designed to do so (Mutke´s plane was severly damaged) and I can recall that the F-86, while beeing able to do so, wasn´t designed for this as well.It wasn´t good for the ones, who whisched to take the stairs in their carreer to do so"
No. The ability to reach Mach 1 in controlled, level flight is the point, when jet fighters can be classified with 3rd gen planes. This excludes the F-86.
3rd gen fighters often have a lousy low speed handling and a tricky maneuverability (Mirage for example), while 4th gen fighters (F-14,F-15, MiG 29, Su-27) all have a good handling and overall better performance due to introduction of fly by wire and improved computer tech. The recent 5th gen fighters (F-22, Eurofighter, Gripen) introduce some stealthyness and information superiority, while the next 6th generation jets will either see some minaturization due to removal of pilot´s or improved high altitude performance, including the ability to temporarly reach sub orbits (good against sattelites!).
 

Your opinion is fine, we just draw the line diffrently.

Its not uncomon for the first of the next generation of anything to over lap the older gen esp in a field still experiancing the fundamentals.

Del, if you have sources please name them so I can follow up on the research. I'm willing to be reducated but the info I have at this time is as follows. From Adolf Galland who himself stated the Me-262 could not break the sound barrier to as you put it NASA, state the following:
The Me-262 did not have the capability to go faster than sound. The Mig-15 could not go faster than .92/.94 mach and the Mig-15 was faster than the 262 ever was. The Mig pilot warned Yeager and the other test pilot not to try it. Yeager did, once, and barely recovered. The first plane to actually go faster than sound was a F-86, in a dive, a couple of months before the X-1 in level flight. The airspeed instruments used prior to mach meters could indicate 740+mph going as slowly as 600mph depending on conditions often giving pilots the mistaken idea that they had broken the sound barrier. Secondly no aircraft with a two piect horizontal tail made it through the transonic region - not even the X-1 could go faster than .94 mach without a flying stabilizer to maintain pitch control.

As for the F-86, It was the first of the third gen fighters is my opinion, or at least a crossover. A number of jets like the F-104 and F-100 often used a shallow dive or sharp turn to break through mach easier (I watched this hundreds of times at Edwards AFB) it doesn't change their status as Third Gen.

Guys there has to be a first, and that first plane of the new gen is not always a clear jump, just a new capability the others don't have. The Me-262 and P-80 are fully configured as jets with a significant jump in performance. The F-86 the first plane with the ability to cross the barrier in controled flight. To me, those distinguising features signify a new generation.

wmaxt
 
I can understand your argument very well, wmaxt. If you draw the line at controlled flight, wether it is level or dive, than it may seem convincing. I just don´t agree with this border.
The La-15 had no free flying stabilizors and reached Mach-1. I have an article (Jet&Prop, will check out the details soon) covering the ability wether or not the Me-262 reached accidently Mach 1. Galland as well as all Luftwaffe pilots were ordered strictly to stay in subsonic because of structural concernings. Indeed Messerschmidt tried to close slowly to the speed of sound, this makes structural concerns severe. However, accidently a full speed dive (controlls lost) may enshorten the difficult speed zone and therefor the plane could reach Mach 1. The Mig-15 had problems with comparably thick wings (unlike the La-15 and Me-262), because the wheels were retracted into them as well as fuel tanks. The La-15 hadn´t. The F-86 already had the same thickness of the wing alike the 262, just the wingsweep was higher. However, a higher wingsweep doesn´t offset the drag problem, it only shift´s it to higher speeds (around Mach 1.3 at 40 degrees), so if you have enough power, you could do so.
My ideas would include the following:
1. gen jet fighters:

He-178
Gloster E28/39
He-280
Bell P 59
Gloster Meteor
Me-262
Lockheed P-80
He-162
Vampire
Republic P-84 (straight wings)
MiG-9
La-150
Yak-13

2. gen fighters:
(Me-262 HG II) -[completed, damaged by taxiing late in march 45]
La-15
F-86
Republic F-84 (swept back wings)
Saab-J-9 Tunnan
Pulqui-II
Mig-15
Mig-17
Mig-19 (questioonable)

3. gen fighters:
F-100
F-104
F-105
F-106
Mirage
Hawker Hunter
Saab-J 31 DrakenMig-21
Mig-23
Mig-25
Behind each gen. stands a new aerodynamical concept. this puts La-15, Mig-15 and F-86 into the same gen(second), as well as Me-262 and P-80 (first).
 
I would find it hard to disagree with this list. In a debate such as this asn with technology improving at an ever increasing rate grey areas will always exist.
The only change that I would make is to make the Mig 19 a Third Generation jet. Its timing, performance and combat ability would make it more similar to a Hunter and F100 than the purely subsonic Second Generation machines.
Harrier I would make third Generation and the SR71 I would leave out all together. it exotic, special and has nothing even remotely close to it exists anywhere else on the planet.
 
But, where does the Lightning go, del? Since it had several points that were considered revolutionary (Super-cruise, shockcone, ABS [albeit mechanical], all-flying tailplane) Man, it's just every generation rolled into one.

No, I'd say there was just a Lightning generation that just has the Lightning in it.
 
I would put the Lighting into 3rd gen jets. It could easily reach multiple Mach and therefor is qualified. Unlike 4th gen jets it has shortcomings in low speed handling. The MiG-19, indeed, is questionable. If you put it into 3rd generation as well, I could understand. It has performances to do and it also reached Mach 1+. However, my point was that the design in general is heavily based on the earlier MiG-17. It just has a stretched airframe, even more wingsweep (which furtherly increases the crit drag zone to about Mach 1.48 at 60 degrees) and more power. The true solution of supersonic flight wasn´t reached with this plane, it was just the extreme version of second gen (delaying drag by sweeping the wings) jets (just my mind). The next step was introduction of new aerodynamic supersonic concepts, like deltawing(F-106), very high wingload by F-104 like "wingys" or variable wing geometry (Mig-23). However, Mig-19 remains in the grey zone, no doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
How Would You Like To Ride Here?
Replies
8
Views
410
Snautzer01
What (or what would) make a good tactical recon aircraft in World War II
Replies
10
Views
1K
ColFord
N
Can you ID this wrecked aircraft?
Replies
7
Views
1K
fire-fox
F
Any Japanese claims on 10 July 1945?
Replies
0
Views
627
CHen10
G
What are reliable YouTube sources?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
5K
ian_
I
Menu
Log in
Register