F-89 Scorpion

[Chris707]

A couple of doodles -

EF-89 ECM aggressor, mid-1970s. This is a semi-viable idea - the similar CF-100 was used in this role well into the 1980s, and the last Scorpions were only retired in 1969.

[size=8][/size]

EF-89/F3T-1Q - say that for whatever reason the USMC bought the Scorpion instead of the Skyknight, and later used them in Vietnam as ECM platforms until the EA-6A became available.



Chris

---------------------------------
www.dataviewbooks.com

[Matt Wiser]

Regading foreign F-89s: a Wings magazine article on the Scorpion back in the early 1980s mentioned that the RAF and the RCAF were approached by Northrop regarding possible F-89 purchases either under FMS or MAP. Neither took up the Scorpion, despite a very lethal weapon system in those 104 FFARs let go like a giant shotgun. Anything caught in that pattern is gone, period. And if the RAF or RCAF Scorpions are upgraded to the H/J versions, this means they get Genies under a dual-key arrangement. Or in the RAF's case, would an indiginous rocket equivalent to the Genie (1.5 Kt, range 6 miles, proximity fused) been developed and deployed?
This one's not a what-if but A/C 51-5853A, an F-89C from the 433rd FIS out of Kinross AFB, MI disappeared on a UFO intercept on 23 Nov 1953. Pilot and RIO, along with any trace of the aircraft, were never found. I know someone who has built an F-89C and did this particular aircraft-he knew a relative who was the crew chief on this bird. Aircraft disappeared 70 NM NW of Kewannauw Point, MI, last seen on radar merging with the unknown blip. No transcript of the radio exchanges between crew and GCI has been released.  

[Radish]

Welcome friend!
The F-89, a glorious piece if '50s technology!!!! :dum:
And so....alternate schemes?

Try:
All-gloss black RAF "Black Mike" 111Sqn scheme.
All-gloss  black USAF as per drawing (very good!)
All-gloss black French?? Israeli, as successors to their (REAL) Moquitos?
Or:
Ground attack with lots of underwing stores on that lovely plank wing, with lots of ground clearance:
RAF well-weathered 112 Sqn in desert colours.
RAF well-weathered in 20Sqn colours over Malaya.
RAF "Blue Diamonds"....all-gloss Royal Blue and 92 Sqn
Belgian....really tatty SE Asia colours
Luftwaffe.....grey/green splinter with silver undersurfaces.
Danish.....well-worn olive green finish with low-viz tiny roundels??
Or naval:
:ar:
Classic Sky/Dark Sea Grey RN
Dark Sea Grey/white RN
As above but Indian Navy?
Or......be ludicrous???
Bolivian natural metal
Columbian in "Snow" camouflage?
Soviet "evaluation" or copy?? The Polikarpov Po-19SMT??
Saudi Arabian in desret colours or gloss black?
Portuguese all-white with gull-grey plan-view uppers??
Irish AC??

Ah......beloved CANADA.

Well:
all-white Lynx Squadron with red maple leaf/silver lynx on nose.
all- black low-viz insignia and lots of bumps for the "electric" version
gloss light grey with the snazzy stripes

or.......ground attack.....
grey/green over medium grey
medium sea grey uppers over gloss black
three-tone grey wraparound
three-tone sand/brown wraparound
three-tone green wraparound
or.......navy.......
dark grey over light grey
all-over dark grey
dark grey over white
gloss sea blue

         
       
Whatever, have fun and ENJOY!!!
         

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Something else on the F-89: the H/J versions mounted Genie and later, Falcons, to augment and later replace the FFARs. Which leads to this: if the Navy or Marines operate Scorpion D, then H/J, they operate the Genie, which was an unguided rocket with a 1.5Kt warhead. Just point it at the target, launch and turn away and go burner FAST. Range 6 miles, triggered by proximity fuse. Intended as an anti-bomber weapon in the days when the fear was Soviet Tu-95s and M-4s on intercontinental strikes. Mounted on F-89, F-101, F-102, and F-106. F-4 and F-15 were wired for it but never used it.

I would never have guessed that the F-15 was wired for the AIR-2 Genie, I figured by the time the F-15 was in service the inpracticality of the Genie would have been realized.  Now the AIM-26 Falcon with the nuclear warhead and the conventional warhead might have been something to see mounted on the F-89 and the F-15.

Does anyone know if any other countries had actually considered the F-89 for use as an interceptor in real life?  It might have been ideal for the NATO SAGE Air Defence System and if that were the case, I could see the RNorAF, RDAF and BAF using the F-89 for interception duties.

[Archibald]

Always thought that the F-89 could have made an excellent ground pounder for south America - just get ride of the all weather radar, and add more rockets on the nose a la F-94, for HUGE firepower!!!

[GTX]

Always thought that the F-89 could have made an excellent ground pounder for south America - just get ride of the all weather radar, and add more rockets on the nose a la F-94, for HUGE firepower!!!

Funny you should say that - remember this:



Source

And why use rockets in the nose when this was tested for real:



Regards,

Greg

[Jeffry Fontaine]

The early versions of the F-89 did have four 20mm cannon as the main battery mounted in the nose of the aircraft.  I often wondered if the F-89 and other aircraft with similar nose mounted armament suffered from the ingestion of gun gas into the engines when the cannons were fired?  The 30mm cannon battery arrangement on the nose of the F-89 in the image certainly looks impressive. 

[Weaver]

Not so sure that the FFAR battery was that impressive in practice: there was a famous case of a rogue prop-job drone (Bearcat?) that was intercepted by two ANG Starfires who fired over 100 FFARs at it without hitting it once....

Wasn't there a scheme on one of these 50's interceptors for closed-breech, magazine-fed rocket guns?

[jcf]

Why would the Canadians have bothered? The CF-100 was a far superior night/all-weather interceptor, or rather it actually was a night/all-weather interceptor. 

The F-89 was something of a problem child and is more an example of late-40s airframe tech than it is 1950s.

As to USMC use, umm carrier qualification would be a hard row to hoe for the base F-89 design.

The Mighty Mouse FFARs are a joke unless the target is a massed group of bombers in WWII US box formation... kinda doubt the Sovs would have been so accommodating. 

Jon

[jcf]

The early versions of the F-89 did have four 20mm cannon as the main battery mounted in the nose of the aircraft.  I often wondered if the F-89 and other aircraft with similar nose mounted armament suffered from the ingestion of gun gas into the engines when the cannons were fired?  The 30mm cannon battery arrangement on the nose of the F-89 in the image certainly looks impressive. 

Hi Jeff, the armament was six 20mm cannon.

The Scorpion had a chronic FOD ingestion problem because of intake location, so I suppose its possible.

Years ago (mid 80s) I had a neighbour who had been a USAF pilot, he started on the P-51H and retired on the F-4, in-between he flew both the F-94C and the F-89C, D, and J. I built him models in 1/48th of the F-89J(vacuform kit) and F-4(Hasegawa).
We spoke extensively about his experiences and he did talk about experiencing a flameout in the F-94C  after firing the nose-mounted rockets but never mentioned any similar problem during his brief time with the C model Scorpion. That said, most of our F-89 discussions revolved around the surrealistic nature of flying Genie armed patrols in the J model. 

Jon

[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.

[jcf]

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.

Jon

[dy031101]

Why would the Canadians have bothered? The CF-100 was a far superior night/all-weather interceptor, or rather it actually was a night/all-weather interceptor. 

Actually, how would adopting the wingtip fuel/missile tanks onto CF-100 sound?

[jcf]

Not so sure that the FFAR battery was that impressive in practice: there was a famous case of a rogue prop-job drone (Bearcat?) that was intercepted by two ANG Starfires who fired over 100 FFARs at it without hitting it once....

Wasn't there a scheme on one of these 50's interceptors for closed-breech, magazine-fed rocket guns?

From Joe Baugher's site:
"F-89C 51-5795 was modified to test a nose installation with two T110E3 rocket launchers in the nose, one on each side. Each of these rifled barrels was fed by a magazine loaded with a clip of 2.75-inch FFARs."

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p89.html

Jon

[jcf]

Why would the Canadians have bothered? The CF-100 was a far superior night/all-weather interceptor, or rather it actually was a night/all-weather interceptor. 

Actually, how would adopting the wingtip fuel/missile tanks onto CF-100 sound?

You'd have to redesign/re-stress the wing.

Wing strength was the main reason the Clunk was not developed into a ground attack aircraft.

Jon