FA+
Shop
741
Views
Views
23
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 663 x 889
File Size 67.7 kB
Report this content
More from baroncoon
Toward the end of the Second World War the US Navy mindful of the continuing development of jet engine technology in both United States, Great Britain, and Germany approached three US manufacturers Vought, McDonnell and North American to submit ideas for a carrier-based jet fighter. At the time only Vought had any kind of tradition of designing fighters for the US Navy. According to some sources the Navy specifically did not ask either Grumman or Douglas for designs so that their production lines could stay focused on existing lines, and the US Navy wanted to see what kind of designs a couple of non-traditional suppliers might come up with.
Now the US Navy had apparently taken a look at the Bell P-59 Airacomet and had not been impressed, but then again the USAAF was not thrilled about it either. The Navy's situation was further complicated by the fact that not only did they need to have an aircraft that could perform all the tasks of a ground based fighter, but it then had to survive the rigors of carrier landing while still being able to stored on in tight spaces of existing carriers and dealing with the hardships of being around a saltwater environment.
On top of these design concerns was that early jet engines designs did not have huge amounts of thrust or quick throttle response. This made wave-offs and go-arounds "exciting" at times, This was also in the days before angled flight decks so a botched landing meant you either hopefully ended up in the crash barrier. Which sometimes worked. Or you ended up slamming into whatever activities were happening at the front of the flight deck. Not Fun. A final issue was that early jet engines were not the most reliable things in the world; this is not good for any aircraft or crew but when the only landing space is that little bit flight deck at sea it could be positively deadly!
Vought's design was the F6U Pirate, and while it did use one of first afterburners ever in fighter jet and employed a new type of material called Metallite which sandwiched balsa wood between aluminum it was nothing to write home about. With insufficient power and so-so airframe design it looked more like an airborne version Oscar Meyer Weinermobile!
McDonnell's FH-1 Phantom, no not the F4 Phantom II, was also a straight wing design that had two engines, which in theory increased pilot survivability, and would go to serve in limited squadron service right after the war. It would later evolve into the much more effective FH-2/3 Banshee which would see service during the Korean War.
North American design was the FJ-1 Fury. If it looks somewhat familiar it's because with later modification and access to German war research would be developed into the swept-wing F-86 Sabre of USAF fame. It's US Naval designation would be the FJ-4 and would also carry the Fury name. From most accounts the FJ-1 was solid, if not inspiring, aircraft that was reliable and forgiving. That was probably much appreciated by early jet pilots and flight crews who were trying to come to grips with this new-fangled jet technology. Unfortunately it was quickly outpaced by jet designs in the postwar years and with the exception of deployment with one squadron, VF-51, it would not see large production.
Now the US Navy had apparently taken a look at the Bell P-59 Airacomet and had not been impressed, but then again the USAAF was not thrilled about it either. The Navy's situation was further complicated by the fact that not only did they need to have an aircraft that could perform all the tasks of a ground based fighter, but it then had to survive the rigors of carrier landing while still being able to stored on in tight spaces of existing carriers and dealing with the hardships of being around a saltwater environment.
On top of these design concerns was that early jet engines designs did not have huge amounts of thrust or quick throttle response. This made wave-offs and go-arounds "exciting" at times, This was also in the days before angled flight decks so a botched landing meant you either hopefully ended up in the crash barrier. Which sometimes worked. Or you ended up slamming into whatever activities were happening at the front of the flight deck. Not Fun. A final issue was that early jet engines were not the most reliable things in the world; this is not good for any aircraft or crew but when the only landing space is that little bit flight deck at sea it could be positively deadly!
Vought's design was the F6U Pirate, and while it did use one of first afterburners ever in fighter jet and employed a new type of material called Metallite which sandwiched balsa wood between aluminum it was nothing to write home about. With insufficient power and so-so airframe design it looked more like an airborne version Oscar Meyer Weinermobile!
McDonnell's FH-1 Phantom, no not the F4 Phantom II, was also a straight wing design that had two engines, which in theory increased pilot survivability, and would go to serve in limited squadron service right after the war. It would later evolve into the much more effective FH-2/3 Banshee which would see service during the Korean War.
North American design was the FJ-1 Fury. If it looks somewhat familiar it's because with later modification and access to German war research would be developed into the swept-wing F-86 Sabre of USAF fame. It's US Naval designation would be the FJ-4 and would also carry the Fury name. From most accounts the FJ-1 was solid, if not inspiring, aircraft that was reliable and forgiving. That was probably much appreciated by early jet pilots and flight crews who were trying to come to grips with this new-fangled jet technology. Unfortunately it was quickly outpaced by jet designs in the postwar years and with the exception of deployment with one squadron, VF-51, it would not see large production.
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 663 x 889px
File Size 67.7 kB
one thing about the f-86. there was a plan to have the carrier version hidden in semi rigs, these would be equipped with a hydraulic lifter, and it would be raised to a 45 degree angle, and had a jato system to launch the fighter.
I think we should have these in place today. it's better than having all your fighters in bases that can be hit....
I think we should have these in place today. it's better than having all your fighters in bases that can be hit....
Wow, it always cool to see the effort you put into your aircraft illustration and information as well...
Forgive me for asking after the effort you put into this I can't help it I'm greedy), but are you going to be doing the Grumman F9F Panther as well, and maybe some of them cute mice flying a scale model of one...
Forgive me for asking after the effort you put into this I can't help it I'm greedy), but are you going to be doing the Grumman F9F Panther as well, and maybe some of them cute mice flying a scale model of one...
Well part of it is that in the early days of jet design there was so much room for improvement in the designs and new knowledge of aerodynamics and engine were being discovered at very fast pace. This resulted in new models being rendered obsolete in very short order.
At the time there was also a perceived need to "Keep up with the Jones". Other countries were making new breakthroughs so should we. The 1950's and 60's was one of the last hurrahs of built it in your country fighter aircraft manufacturing. By the 70's the cost of developing and building a modern jet fighter had become so prohibitively expensive that most countries either just bought them from another country that was still in the design game, US, USSR, France, Great Britain, or obtained the license to manufacture another countries design in your own. Even for larger countries it became costly and you saw the rise of multi-national consortiums design aircraft and help spread the cost amongst several countries tax bases. This unfortunately meant that politics would often resulted in increased delays in deliveries, but it was considered a necessary evil. Only Sweden decided to stay the course and even they are starting to feel the pinch.
Also testing all the necessary electronics, software and flight systems has become a long process. and most newer designs are built with the idea of continued performance growth from the beginning. This means that designs can stay in service even longer until being retired.
Finally advances in onboard electronics and miniturization of electronic systems has resulted in new life being breathed into older airframes. With the increased cost of not just for new aircraft but all the necessary support equipment that come with them; just buying new radar, avionics, and weapons upgrades can give you greatly increased performance for a fraction of the cost of a new plane.
At the time there was also a perceived need to "Keep up with the Jones". Other countries were making new breakthroughs so should we. The 1950's and 60's was one of the last hurrahs of built it in your country fighter aircraft manufacturing. By the 70's the cost of developing and building a modern jet fighter had become so prohibitively expensive that most countries either just bought them from another country that was still in the design game, US, USSR, France, Great Britain, or obtained the license to manufacture another countries design in your own. Even for larger countries it became costly and you saw the rise of multi-national consortiums design aircraft and help spread the cost amongst several countries tax bases. This unfortunately meant that politics would often resulted in increased delays in deliveries, but it was considered a necessary evil. Only Sweden decided to stay the course and even they are starting to feel the pinch.
Also testing all the necessary electronics, software and flight systems has become a long process. and most newer designs are built with the idea of continued performance growth from the beginning. This means that designs can stay in service even longer until being retired.
Finally advances in onboard electronics and miniturization of electronic systems has resulted in new life being breathed into older airframes. With the increased cost of not just for new aircraft but all the necessary support equipment that come with them; just buying new radar, avionics, and weapons upgrades can give you greatly increased performance for a fraction of the cost of a new plane.
With all these art studies i cant help but wonder what your take is on the increase in size of U.S. (or other foreign) fighter aircraft. If you look at a old Sopwith, all the way up to the current F-22 Raptor the size of fighter aircraft has increased so much.
Course, that is always the thing about hardware, we always find something new that we need. Not just some iron-rings in our aircraft sights, oh no, we need the HMDS. ;)
Course, that is always the thing about hardware, we always find something new that we need. Not just some iron-rings in our aircraft sights, oh no, we need the HMDS. ;)
It is true that fighter aircraft WWI and modern fighter today still perform the similar role. control of airspace over a chosen area. Support of ground operations and escorting of bombers, tactical reconnaissance, and the direct elimination of enemy fighter assets, but the requirements and demands put upon modern combat aircraft are two different worlds and this has resulted in an increase of size.
A Sopwith Camel of 1917, or other fighter aircraft of that day, was primarily a daytime, fair weather aircraft with a range of operation of about 200 miles and an operating altitude of not much more than 18,000ft. In good conditions it could make about 115mph and carry two rifle caliber machine guns with about 500rds of ammo between them. No radio, no radar, no real navigation aids besides a basic compass and a suspect map. No onboard fire extinguisher, self sealing fuel tanks or cockpit armor. Parachute maybe. pilot life expectancy... maybe a few days in combat. Pilots received a briefings before a mission but once in the air communication was limited to hands signals from senior squadron members that had to be interpreted, with varying degrees of success, by other squadron and wing members. Being a fighter pilot was very much on-the-job training with a steep learning curve.
Todays modern military jet aircraft and pilots operate as part of integrated combat force that can combine both ground, naval, air and even space assets on a tactical or strategic level. Pilots are routinely asked to operate in nighttime and bad weather conditions in an environment that can be saturated with ground-based radar, anti-aircraft artillery, surface to air missiles, and enemy aircraft. They may operate hundreds if not thousands of miles from their base and often operate as part of tightly composed operation involving recon aircraft, Airborne Early Warning aircraft, aerial tankers SEAD, Wild Weasel, ops, search and rescue teams, friendly ground forces in very close proximity and even worse civilians and the media. Under these requirements the pilot and plane are expected to perform their missions at near or above supersonic speeds while often flying just a couple hundred feet off the ground.
I think the thing I find most interesting about modern combat aircraft is not that they've gotten so big but that they can weigh so much! Even a small military jet like an A4 Skyhawk can end up weighing tens of thousands of pounds when you load it with fuel, pilot. avionics, and weapons payload on to it. And yet it still capable of flying at hundreds of miles an hour for great distances and find their target.
A Sopwith Camel of 1917, or other fighter aircraft of that day, was primarily a daytime, fair weather aircraft with a range of operation of about 200 miles and an operating altitude of not much more than 18,000ft. In good conditions it could make about 115mph and carry two rifle caliber machine guns with about 500rds of ammo between them. No radio, no radar, no real navigation aids besides a basic compass and a suspect map. No onboard fire extinguisher, self sealing fuel tanks or cockpit armor. Parachute maybe. pilot life expectancy... maybe a few days in combat. Pilots received a briefings before a mission but once in the air communication was limited to hands signals from senior squadron members that had to be interpreted, with varying degrees of success, by other squadron and wing members. Being a fighter pilot was very much on-the-job training with a steep learning curve.
Todays modern military jet aircraft and pilots operate as part of integrated combat force that can combine both ground, naval, air and even space assets on a tactical or strategic level. Pilots are routinely asked to operate in nighttime and bad weather conditions in an environment that can be saturated with ground-based radar, anti-aircraft artillery, surface to air missiles, and enemy aircraft. They may operate hundreds if not thousands of miles from their base and often operate as part of tightly composed operation involving recon aircraft, Airborne Early Warning aircraft, aerial tankers SEAD, Wild Weasel, ops, search and rescue teams, friendly ground forces in very close proximity and even worse civilians and the media. Under these requirements the pilot and plane are expected to perform their missions at near or above supersonic speeds while often flying just a couple hundred feet off the ground.
I think the thing I find most interesting about modern combat aircraft is not that they've gotten so big but that they can weigh so much! Even a small military jet like an A4 Skyhawk can end up weighing tens of thousands of pounds when you load it with fuel, pilot. avionics, and weapons payload on to it. And yet it still capable of flying at hundreds of miles an hour for great distances and find their target.
The miracles of modern tech...but now throw in a helicopter into the mix.
My father's cousin was in Vietnam for 3 tours of duty as a Green Beret. Two of those tours spent as a Huey (UH-1) pilot. He dosent talk about what happened much.
If i had to say anything impresses me, it's the fact that people had the balls to fly back in WW1 in those aircraft, and do it more than once! Then go into WW2, and you're talking sheer numbers of aircraft flying about. Then we enter the era of which is the subject of this piece here. Where the old guns n' dogfighting met the new form of flying, by jet. Not saying that using guns is outdated, no, not by a long shot. We found out the hard way later we still needed guns in Vietnam, when nobody bothered to tell Phantom pilots (until later) about how a dogfight without a gun-pod was the difference between the Hanoi Hilton and going home at the end of your tour.
It's been an interesting history in the air. From hand-signals to HUD's. What will the future bring?
My father's cousin was in Vietnam for 3 tours of duty as a Green Beret. Two of those tours spent as a Huey (UH-1) pilot. He dosent talk about what happened much.
If i had to say anything impresses me, it's the fact that people had the balls to fly back in WW1 in those aircraft, and do it more than once! Then go into WW2, and you're talking sheer numbers of aircraft flying about. Then we enter the era of which is the subject of this piece here. Where the old guns n' dogfighting met the new form of flying, by jet. Not saying that using guns is outdated, no, not by a long shot. We found out the hard way later we still needed guns in Vietnam, when nobody bothered to tell Phantom pilots (until later) about how a dogfight without a gun-pod was the difference between the Hanoi Hilton and going home at the end of your tour.
It's been an interesting history in the air. From hand-signals to HUD's. What will the future bring?
Comments