F-89 Scorpion

[elmayerle]

Sounds like the multi-gun turret that was originally considered for the Grumman Panther; it ended up getting cancelled due to complexity and development problems.  A fixed gun installation might have worked better and allowed for a better radar fit onthe gun-amred fighter.

The F-89 design was originally to use a Martin developed rotating nose-turret arrangement.
The project was continually delayed so they went to the fixed armament, although they did test a later Martin rotating nose design
on one aircraft, it was not adopted.

The Panther turret was also a rotating design, by Emerson I believe.

[jcf]

The Panther turret was also a rotating design, by Emerson I believe.

Yep, a goofy concept in both cases. 

Jon

[PR19_Kit]

After re-reading JCF's post about an F-89 with MUCH longer wings  I dragged out a couple of 1/72 F-89 kits I have handy, ie NOT in The Loft as I can't climb the ladder at the moment.

One of them is the Hobbycraft F-89H with the six retractable Falcons carried in the monster wing tip tanks and the other is the Academy F-89J with the Genie nuclear AAM armament. While wondering what sort of whiffing scope was possible using either or both of these two, a Javelin or two and a Meteor NF14 I found to my amazement that the two F-89 kits are the SAME moulding! 

Apart from the wing tip tank sprue the mouldings are identical, so who copied who?

[Captain Canada]

Wasn't HobbyCraft accused of stealing molds back in the day ?

[Alvis 3.14159]

HobbyCraft Canada had their molds produced in South Korea.

HobbyCraft Canada has in the past been known to poach model designs/details off other companies kits, such as the VP Otter (Vacuform) which had an error in a access panel, which was miraculously copied onto the HC Otter. The owner of VP was in no position financially to seek legal redress.

HobbyCraft Canada eventually failed to keep payments up on the molds in South Korea, and said molds were then either leased or purchased outright by Academy. Same kits, same moldings, different boxes and newer decals.

Karma kinda sucks, but is also sometimes deserved.

BTW, the really old and highly inaccurate HC molds wound up last being popped by Kitech. They did Arrows, CF-100s, 1/24 Hughes 500s, all the really old original HC kits. Haven't seen many of the Arrows on EvilBay in a while, they may be OOP.

HTH

Alvis Pi

[PR19_Kit]

Thanks Alvis, that explains things. 

The kits look pretty good, finely moulded and seem to fit well, so they're one of the better HC ones I guess. I'll try and figure what I can do with them...... 

[Alvis 3.14159]

Speaking of Scorpions, have you read aboot the "Battle of Palmdale"?

http://www.thexhunters.com/xpeditions/f6f-5k_accident.html

Great and hilarious reading...


Alvis Pi

[PR19_Kit]

Speaking of Scorpions, have you read aboot the "Battle of Palmdale"?

http://www.thexhunters.com/xpeditions/f6f-5k_accident.html

Great and hilarious reading...

Hehe, love it! 

Makes you wonder how the philosophy of mutiple unguided rockets would have worked against a real enemy bomber. Around that period many air forces, not just the USAF, used that type of armament too.

[rickshaw]

I wonder did the USAF fix the problems or merely use this as another reason to go for guided missiles instead?   It must have been rather embarrassing realising that if they couldn't hit a Hellcat, how good would they be against a Bear?

[jcf]

I wonder did the USAF fix the problems or merely use this as another reason to go for guided missiles instead?   It must have been rather embarrassing realising that if they couldn't hit a Hellcat, how good would they be against a Bear?

A Bear is a hell of a lot bigger than an F6F, and at least a few of the rockets that missed the fighter probably
would have hit a target as large as a Tu-95. What is really surprising is why anybody actually believed they'd be able to hit something as small and slow as the F6F.

[Weaver]

I've read that the rockets had to be launched at very close range to have much chance of hitting, and that brought it's own problems. Apparently, there were some hair-raising near misses when USAF interceptors made realistic rocket passes on USAF bombers during exercises.

[kitnut617]

Makes you wonder how the philosophy of mutiple unguided rockets would have worked against a real enemy bomber. Around that period many air forces, not just the USAF, used that type of armament too.

A book I have called "I Flew for the Fuhrer" by Heinz Knoke describes attacks using multiple unguided rockets on mass bomber formations very well.  By all accounts some of the rockets would hit a target as the bombers bob-&-weaved trying to avoid them.  Another facinating experiment the Germans did was to fly a few thousand feet higher than the attacking bomber formations, then drop 500 kg fused bombs on them, the result if the bomb went off at the right time, was four or five bombers would get taken out.  Not to mention the 'stove-pipe' rocket launchers.

[kitnut617]

Apparently, there were some hair-raising near misses when USAF interceptors made realistic rocket passes on USAF bombers during exercises.

I've read that also in the Air-Britain book 'The Hornet File' about DH Hornets in operational use.  The RAF would take every opportunity to practice attacking bomber formations and the incoming squadrons of USAF B-29's, B-50's and B-36's on their regular squadron rotations would be the target.

[rickshaw]

I wonder did the USAF fix the problems or merely use this as another reason to go for guided missiles instead?   It must have been rather embarrassing realising that if they couldn't hit a Hellcat, how good would they be against a Bear?

A Bear is a hell of a lot bigger than an F6F, and at least a few of the rockets that missed the fighter probably
would have hit a target as large as a Tu-95. What is really surprising is why anybody actually believed they'd be able to hit something as small and slow as the F6F.

A Bear is bigger but it would also be actively manoeuvring and defending itself, so the attacker would need to fire from further back.  That they couldn't hit a slowly turning fighter sized target from much closer, would be a worry.  Its not as if it was either shooting back or doing anything other than a gentle turn.  The lack of a gun sight, to manually aim the rockets was a worry but its obvious that the art of deflection shooting had been abandoned by then in the 1950s.

A mass of rockets seems like a good idea, using a "scatter-gun" effect BUT even shotguns can miss or fail to severely harm their target if fired too far away.  Ever since I first learnt of the F-89 a looong time ago (too long perhaps), I was dubious as to whether or not it would work.    Personally, I'd prefer a sextet of 20mm or a quadral of 30mm cannon.   It seems to me that the USAF had put all its eggs into on basket at that point in time.  Guns were passe, rockets were new, missiles were the future.     I'd have at least kept the gun sights for the times the automatic system goes on the blink.

BTW, does anybody know where I can get a F-89B or C in 1/72?   I've been looking for one, for some time but can't find any.  

Belay that.  I searched yesterday on Evilbay and found none.  I search now and find 4!