Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
This got me wondering, did the USN, RN or IJN have dual control trainers for their naval fighter pilots in WW2? Surely you weren't just given a Seafire, Wildcat or Zero and told to give it your best. For the British, the folding wing, dual control Percival Proctor seems ideal.When I got out in 1974, nuggets in the attack pipeline were finishing up Advanced in TA4Fs and J's, but fighter types were still reporting to the F4 RAG out of TF9s.
The 81% performance loss was a surprise. That said, I figured that the plane would lose a lot of climb/acceleration and sustained-g performance that it would basically be doomed unless it was far enough away to make a getaway from the combat-zone.And as counter-intuitive as it may sound, single-engined fighters have better combat survivability as well. Most modern Western fighters have engines so close together that any amount of damage taking out one engine is almost certain to take out another as well. Even if a twin-engined aircraft loses a single engine without another one getting taken out, it immediately looses 50% of the thrust and 81% of the performance, making it a sitting duck and easily killed by the opponent.
I can't speak for the Zero, but the US, Canadians, and Brits were blessed(?) with the AT6/SNJ/Harvard, a tricky, demanding, advanced trainer that was excellent preparation for the vicissitudes of a heavy, high powered fighter. Even today these planes are considered good prep for a modern nose dragger pilot wanting to step into a WWII warbird. If you could handle an SNJ competently, you were deemed safe to fly an F4F, F6F, TBF, SBD, etc, after a ground school course and a cockpit checkout.This got me wondering, did the USN, RN or IJN have dual control trainers for their naval fighter pilots in WW2? Surely you weren't just given a Seafire, Wildcat or Zero, and told to give it your best.
That 81% is not a "cut-and-dried" figure. It varies with a lot of aircraft characteristics, most notably the offset distance of the engines from aircraft centerline.The 81% performance loss was a surprise. That said, I figured that the plane would lose a lot of climb/acceleration and sustained-g performance.
Still I would guess any pilot out over the sea would rather be in an A3 with an engine out rather than an A4 with an engine out.Then there was the A3 Skywarrior, with its engines out on the wings, which was a crash looking for a deck to happen on, if an engine quit.
Cheers,
Wes
The A4 had a pretty reliable ejection seat and a seat pan with raft and survival gear. Egress from the A3 was through a downward escape chute about six feet aft of the pilot and barely wide enough for one human and one parachute. An A3 on one engine couldn't be trimmed to fly "hands off", so the moment the pilot left his seat, it would turn turtle. There was also a narrow hatch in the aft portion of the canopy where a crewman could sit and give taxi directions, as cockpit visibility wasn't stellar. There was a reason why A3D was said to mean "All Three Dead".Still I would guess any pilot out over the sea would rather be in an A3 with an engine out rather than an A4 with an engine out.
Egress from the A3 was through a downward escape chute about six feet aft of the pilot and barely wide enough for one human and one parachute. An A3 on one engine couldn't be trimmed to fly "hands off", so the moment the pilot left his seat, it would turn turtle. There was also a narrow hatch in the aft portion of the canopy where a crewman could sit and give taxi directions, as cockpit visibility wasn't stellar. There was a reason why A3D was said to mean "All Three Dead".
Douglas originally offered those planes with ejection seats, but the Navy said "Save weight without reducing performance or mission capability." Everything Douglas offered to eliminate was rejected by Navaer except ejection seats. The A3D's design mission was deep penetration nuclear delivery without enough fuel for a two-way trip. IOW: "Expendible".Really, REALLY glad Douglas bought into ejector seats...eventually!
It's design mission was deep penetration nuclear delivery without enough fuel for a two-way trip. IOW: "Expendible".
Ejection seats of the day had a very narrow envelope. Successful ejections required certain minimums of speed and altitude, as well as a very limited sink rate. If you were low, slow and dirty and falling out of the sky, or if you weren't rightside up, you were toast. Why tote all that weight and dangerous pyrotechnics around if you're probably toast anyway?The (slightly) earlier F3D also had a downward escape chute. Sounds like a very similar system...and probably just as useless.
Ejection seats of the day had a very narrow envelope. Successful ejections required certain minimums of speed and altitude, as well as a very limited sink rate. If you were low, slow and dirty and falling out of the sky, or if you weren't rightside up, you were toast. Why tote all that weight and dangerous pyrotechnics around if you're probably toast anyway?
The A3D's design was heavily based on meeting the 68,750 lb. weight requirement needed to operate off the Midway Class.Douglas originally offered those planes with ejection seats, but the Navy said "Save weight without reducing performance or mission capability." Everything Douglas offered to eliminate was rejected by Navaer except ejection seats. It's design mission was deep penetration nuclear delivery without enough fuel for a two-way trip. IOW: "Expendible".
Interestingly, the USN was, in general, more concerned with "low and slow" survivability than USAF in the early days.Contemporary fighters had ejection seats, including the F-86, Panther and Banshee. I know which types I'd rather fly, even given the accepted limitations of the first generation bang seats.
And they did. It was called the AJ1 Savage, two recips on the wings and a jet in the tail, a disaster with wings on it. Zero survivability in MiG country.The USN tried to basically develop a nuclear-bomber that could operate off a carrier deck earlier
It's nice that it changed in later on. When we bought the CF-18 in the early 1980s it was a leading edge design. If we ever get the F-35 it will again give us top grade kit. Of course the ever shrinking quantity of the aircraft is an issue, I expect we'll have only two squadrons of F-35 active (Alberta and Quebec) with another for training (Alberta). That won't give us much capability if the Russians ever get their house in order and push for Arctic territory. Sort of reminds me of Malaya and its tiny force of Buffaloes, and even they got five active squadrons.The answer to the original question is simple. The Americans were merely following the British tradition of foisting equipment they didn't want upon the Canadians.
....., I expect we'll have only two squadrons of F-35 active (Alberta and Quebec) with another for training (Alberta).....
That's never going to be paid off, ever. Most of it is owed to ourselves, issued by the Bank of Canada. But still, to make a dent in that debt we need a climate tariff on everything from China - I don't care about the climate (in this instance), but let's get some money out of them. We also need to cut government spending on many things. Maybe we can sell Newfoundland, lol or let Quebec separate.Is that before or after we pay off the $1.2 Trillion debt?