My WHIF Air-Force & Military (Part II)

[Cliffy B]

The three other naval versions that followed, the FJ-2 to FJ-4, all had swept-wings. I don't know how long this took NAA to do.

The dash 2s and 3s were simply navalised F-86s with beefier landing gear and 4 MK-12 20mms in place of the 6 .50cals.  The dash 4 was the first Navy specific modified version with the enlarged fuselage and altered cannon placement.

[Battlefield]

Oh, I see it now. I was tlaking as if they were all versions of the same aircraft, when in fact the FJ-4 was vastly difference in many regards. Thanks for the correciton, Cliffy B.

Still, the point I was trying to make was that the FJ-1 had straight wings, while the FJ-2, FJ-3, and FJ-4 all had swept wings.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Battlefield,

I would think the conversion for the F2H would be harder, because they would have deal with the placement of the engines because they're located in the wing roots. The F-86's engine was located in the rear of the fueselage, away from the wings, so it was easier to convert.

I thought the F-86's engine was in the middle of the fuselage?

The F-86 did start out with straight wings, but it was then decided that a version with swept wings would be built for the air force instead.

As far as I know, the FJ-1 was a different aircraft.  NAA submitted two or three designs to the USAF, of which one was basically an FJ-1, the other was a more streamlined straight-wing plane (which became the F-86), while the F-86 was under development they then decided to fit swept-wings to the aircraft.  I don't know if it was under construction, or was still in the drawing stage though.

The straight wing version became the first naval version, the FJ-1 Fury. The three other naval versions that followed, the FJ-2 to FJ-4, all had swept-wings.

The FJ-1 and FJ-2 were truthfully different aircraft.  

The FJ-2 was basically a navalized Sabre, which as I mentioned earlier was not the same as the FJ-1 to begin with, which was further altered by adding swept-wings.  Technically the FJ-2 should have been called the F2J-1, but it required additional approval from Congress to develop a new airplane compared to developing a modified version of an existing airplane, so they called it the FJ-2.  There were still initially plans to call it the Sea-Sabre as a homage to the British adding the word "sea" to modified RAF planes that operated off carriers (such as the Seafire which was a navalized Spitfire), but they decided to call it the Fury as well perhaps because it would arouse less attention.

(NOTE:  When I was typing this out, a message by Cliffy B was posted which basically explained what I did, except he also mentioned that the FJ-2/FJ-3 and FJ-4 featured 4 x 20mm cannon in lieu of 6 x 12.7mm machine-guns -- I did not actually know this)

Using surplus WW2 aircraft would be a good stop gap measure before an entriely new design could enter service.

Yeah, it would only work about 5 or 10 years, then you'd need to develop some kind of jet-powered CAS plane.  Do you have any ideas how to go about that?

I was thinking to speed jet-engine development along it would be wise to develop some kind WHIF-Air-Force Gas-Turbine Lab which would basically...
1.) Float all sorts of proposals for jet-engines which engine manufacturers would work on,
2.) Carry out small-scale development with demonstrator-engines to test various turbo-machinery concepts, various blade designs, turbine designs (Think NASA for jet-engines)
...I'm not sure if this is actually necessary, but I wonder if the idea is basically sound (Would it work?  Would it waste excessive money?  Would it have any other downsides?)


KJL

[Battlefield]

My mistake. The engine is in the middle of the fusealge. I was unfamialr with the interior layout of the Sabre, so I assumed that the engine was in the rear.

Well, I think the best way to go about it is to design a purpose-built jet-powered CAS aircraft from the ground up, using the best design elements of succesful pistol-driven CAS aircraft.   

I think the Gas Turbine Lab is a good idea. It would allow all research and development work to be done in one spot without having to rely on outside contractors, until manufacturing work needs to be done. Also, like you said, you could try out any ideas you want there.

I assume there would be labs for work in other areas, such as armaments and electronics?   

[KJ_Lesnick]

Battlefield,

Well, I think the best way to go about it is to design a purpose-built jet-powered CAS aircraft from the ground up, using the best design elements of succesful pistol-driven CAS aircraft.

Makes sense enough.  I think for a first CAS plane, a design-shape similar to that of the Northrop YA-9 or F6D Missileer would be good.  Would high-bypass (in excess of 4:1) be necessary for the loitering requirements?  Or would a bypass ratio of 2:1 to 4:1 be suitable?

I think the Gas Turbine Lab is a good idea. It would allow all research and development work to be done in one spot without having to rely on outside contractors, until manufacturing work needs to be done. Also, like you said, you could try out any ideas you want there.

Yeah, I think it's a good idea.  Personally I don't know if it's necessary as a permanent lab, just to help get jet-engine technology on it's toes, and develop a good technological base.  On the bright side some of this technology could be used for commercial applications (which can have military ones too -- like jet transports).

It could be incorporated into a NACA/NASA like organization or be a stand-alone organization.  Incorporating it into a NACA/NASA type organization would probably be fairly easy to accomplish as NACA/NASA, in addition to doing a lot of work on aerodynamics and aircraft-design, does a lot of work on propulsion anyway, usually in the form of rockets and ramjets.  Adding turbojets into the mix isn't all that bizarre.

I assume there would be labs for work in other areas, such as armaments and electronics?

I assume most militaries would already have weapons and electronics labs

[Battlefield]

I think a ratio of 2:1 to 4:1 would be more suitable, because the aircraft would be able to change it's speed and go from loitering to fast moving as needed. For example, if it needed to leave an area in a hurry if enemy fighters show up.

How about it becomes semi-permanent, with the option of incoporating it into another orginization at a later date.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Battlefield,

I think a ratio of 2:1 to 4:1 would be more suitable

That seems to be a reasonable range of bypass-ratios.

How about it becomes semi-permanent, with the option of incoporating it into another orginization at a later date.

I think just integrating it into a NACA/NASA type organization from the get-go would be most logical approach

[Battlefield]

In that case, I'd like to suggest "Centaur" as the name for your first CAS jet. Unless you'd prefer something else.

Yeah, thar's a good idea. That way you'd have all the eggs in one basket, so to speak. I assume this NACA/NASA will be experimenting with rockets and missiles, right?


A couple of other things:

Have you decided on whether "Vulture" will be the name for the F-3 yet?

Any thoughts on bomber development for your air force?

Will your air force continue to use flying boats and seaplanes for roles, such as air & sea rescue and maritime patrol?

[KJ_Lesnick]

Battlefield,

In that case, I'd like to suggest "Centaur" as the name for your first CAS jet. Unless you'd prefer something else.

I do like the name "Centaur" could be a good choice, though I am not committed to it...

Yeah, thar's a good idea. That way you'd have all the eggs in one basket, so to speak. I assume this NACA/NASA will be experimenting with rockets and missiles, right?

They'd be doing work with the propulsion and aerodynamics side of things, I assume the electronics and guidance systems side of the equation would be handled by the military and defense contractors predominantly.

A couple of other things:

Have you decided on whether "Vulture" will be the name for the F-3 yet?

Yes, I have pretty much committed to the "Vulture" name.

Any thoughts on bomber development for your air force?

Yes, I have.  I'm not as obsessed with bombers as the United States was, but I think a good bomber-force is important.  With that said, I think the needs would be best met by the following:  
- A heavy-attack/Light-Bomber with specifications and performance figures similar to the B-57 Canberra
- A medium-bomber like the B-45 and B-47 (Ideally since the two requirements are similar, it would be best to just merge the development of the designs into each other as they both had their roots in WW2.  The B-45 was for a jet-design between 80,000 and 200,000 pounds to rival the Arado Ar-234, and the B-47 was a high speed bomber with recon capability with the range to reach Germany)
- A heavy-bomber initially like the B-36, and then from there to proceed to a design not unlike the B-49 with a fuselage formed from the tail to the cockpit raised above and below the wing (and blended in with the fuselage) to produce an area that could carry a large nuclear bomb if necessary.

At least, that's how I see it anyway, I am willing to listen to other ideas though if you have them (reasonably speaking of course)

Will your air force continue to use flying boats and seaplanes for roles, such as air & sea rescue and maritime patrol?

Yes, of course


KJL
BTW:  I don't know if anybody has any information here, but (assuming it's not classified or secret) does anybody know if
- The AN/APQ-35 was superior or inferior to the AN/APS-19?  
- If the AN/APQ-35 was superior or inferior to the AN/APG-37?  
- If the AN/APQ-36 was superior or inferior to either the AN/APS-19 or AN/APG-37?.  
These questions pertain to a WHIF Night-Fighter variant

[Battlefield]

Well, "Centaur" was just a suggestion. The final choice is yours.

Those seem to be the three logical types of bombers needed. I can't think of anything else right now.

Going by your system, "N/F" would be the designation for any night fighters, or night fighting variants, right?

[KJ_Lesnick]

Battlefield,

Those seem to be the three logical types of bombers needed. I can't think of anything else right now.

Yeah, I can't think of anything else either.

Going by your system, "N/F" would be the designation for any night fighters, or night fighting variants, right?

Most likely, if I was going to use an "N"-designation for Night-Fighter, I would probably designate such an aircraft F/N, then the number, as it would be a fighter with night-capability not a night-plane with fighter-capability.


KJL

[KJ_Lesnick]

One thing I'm thinking would be a great idea would be to have applied german aerospace engineering data to carrier-based aircraft right away.  That was really strange that they didn't do that.  Imagine skipping the straight-winged F9F Panther altogether and go right to the swept-wing F9F Cougar?  

[Battlefield]

That's a great idea. You wouldn't have to bother with building straight-wing aircraft, and could just go right on to high-performace swept-wing aircraft. I'd go for it.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Battlefield,

That's a great idea. You wouldn't have to bother with building straight-wing aircraft, and could just go right on to high-performace swept-wing aircraft.

Well the F-1 Eagle and F-2 Osprey designs would have had straight wings, as they would have flown from 1942 to 1945.  I have a feeling the F/A-3 Vulture and F-4 Super Osprey would probably have to have made do with straight-wings as well due to the time of development considering the time it took for the aerospace knowledge to be actually applied to even USAF designs (which utilized German research much quicker than the USN) -- though I could be wrong here, but even the F-86, which was the first jet-fighter to incorporate swept-wings first flew in 1947. 

An F-86 type aircraft, and/or an F9F-Cougar type jet could incorporate a swept-wing in theory as they both flew in the same timeframe (F-86 = October 1, 1947; F9F = November 24, 1947) however...

[KJ_Lesnick]

Which do you think would be better off...

- An F9F Cougar type design?
- An F-86 Sabre type design?
- Some other kind of design?