My WHIF Air-Force & Military (Part II)

[Ed S]

Yeah, I did mean "Cerberus." I can't think of any kind of jet that would have a crew of three, though.

Take a look at Swanny's Bv-215 Nightfighter:  http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,28295.msg423402/topicseen.html#msg423402

Ed

[Battlefield]

Okay, so there are jets with three crewmen, and it's a night fighter, no less.

[JJC]

If it's modified, it probably will. As for a compariosn between the F3D and Meteor NF, I think the ebst wya to find that out is to compare thier specs and service records to one another. I know that the Skynight did claim several kills during the Korean War, but I'm not sure about the Meteor NF.

The Meteor NF's only claimed one kill, The Meteor in question was part of the Israeli airforce, and it claimed an Egyptian (?) transport plane (poss. IL-14 or similar)

[KJ_Lesnick]

I've given it some thought.  I think it would be better to go with a modified version of the F-4 Super-Osprey design with a modified nose to accommodate some sort of radar, preferably one as good as the AN/APG-35.  I think for aerodynamic reasons it would probably be better to have the pilot and radar operator sit tandem rather than side-by-side.

Another thing I was thinking about, regarding the Super-Osprey design is whether to use a J34-like engine or a J35-like engine.  The J-35 is far more powerful, but I don't know how it's fuel efficiency specs compare to the J34, I do know that J35 is larger though (however I did remember hearing that there were F2H proposals in which they looked into a J35).

[Battlefield]

A modified Super Osprey sounds good to me. A tandem arrangement worked for the F-94 and F-89.

In regards to the engines and their rate of fuel consumption, the Westinghouse J34 used 1.04 pounds of fuel per hour.  I don't know the fuel consumption of the J35, but it probably consumed more.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Does anybody have SFC figures for the J35?

[Battlefield]

Okay, here are some more specific numbers. The Westinghouse J34 has a specifc fuel consumption rate of 1.080 pound dry, and 2.600 pounds wet. The Allison J35 has a specific fuel consumption rate of 1.120 pounds dry, and 2.600 pounds wet. In my opinion, there isn't really much of difference, unless you take into the different rates when dry.

Hope that helps.

By the way, how about naming some of your fighters after mythological creatures? I left a list of possible names on one of my earlier posts.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Battlefield,

Okay, here are some more specific numbers. The Westinghouse J34 has a specifc fuel consumption rate of 1.080 pound dry, and 2.600 pounds wet.  The Allison J35 has a specific fuel consumption rate of 1.120 pounds dry, and 2.600 pounds wet.

Just to make sure we're on the same page you do realize SFC is the amount of fuel burned, for a given amount of thrust per hour?  With that said the J35 is a much bigger engine so the fuel consumption figures would be that much higher.  For example if I produce 3,000 lbf, and I have a SFC of 1.08, that means in one hour I burn 3,240 lbs of fuel.  If I produce 6,000 lbf, and I have an SFC of 1.12, that means I burn 6,720 lbs of fuel in one hour...

In my opinion, there isn't really much of difference, unless you take into the different rates when dry.

Airplanes fly mostly on dry thrust, so, those figures are very important actually...

By the way, how about naming some of your fighters after mythological creatures? I left a list of possible names on one of my earlier posts.

I think the following names are good
- Chimera
- Hydra
- Centaur
- Phoenix
- Griffon,
- Medusa
- Cyclops
- Dragon
- Serpent
- Goblin
- Gargoyle

[Battlefield]

Whoops, looks like I've gotten rusty with some of the technical details. I'll just have to go read up on some things. With that being said, I would go for the J34. The F-4 will probably be able to carry more fuel than the F-2, so they'll be plenty for the engine to consume. It'll alos need as larger amount of thrust than the F-2, since the F-4 will be a larger, heavier aircraft.

A CAS aircraft should be able to maneuver effectively at low speeds. It should also have long endurance, being able to stay above a target area for as long as needed. The A-1 Skyraider could do this, so that's why it was used extensively in the CAS role in Vietnam.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Battlefield,

Whoops, looks like I've gotten rusty with some of the technical details. I'll just have to go read up on some things.

Instinctively the numbers *do* sound close, but when you actually know what the figures are for then it becomes apparent that they're really not.

With that being said, I would go for the J34.

I'd have to agree.

The F-4 will probably be able to carry more fuel than the F-2, so they'll be plenty for the engine to consume. It'll alos need as larger amount of thrust than the F-2, since the F-4 will be a larger, heavier aircraft.

Yeah, I don't want it to be too heavy though.  I figure having more latitude to deviate from the original design could prevent excessive weight-gains.  However if deviating from the design can be done, it would be nice to look at other possibilities -- For example, I wrote (Reply 7) about the feasibility of refitting the design during it's development to incorporate a swept wing.  Could that work?

A CAS aircraft should be able to maneuver effectively at low speeds. It should also have long endurance, being able to stay above a target area for as long as needed. The A-1 Skyraider could do this, so that's why it was used extensively in the CAS role in Vietnam.

Which design do you think would have been better, a design like the AD/A-1, or a design like the abortive XTB2D Skypirate?  The Skypirate is faster, has more guns, and a heavier bomb-load, but it's bigger and heavier, and I'm not sure how it's low-speed handling compared to the AD/A-1

[Battlefield]

Still, I should read up on a few things.

I think a swept-wing would work. As you probably know, thier were design concepts for a swept-wing version of the Banshee. In fact, I've seen drawings of it. Since the F-4 is based on the Banshee, a version of it with swept-wings could work as well.

I'd go with a desing based on the Skyraider. It maybe slower and carry less than the Skypirate, but it has good low-speed handling. The Skypirate, to me, looks like it could be very sluggish at low speeds due to it's size.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Battlefield,

I think a swept-wing would work. As you probably know, thier were design concepts for a swept-wing version of the Banshee. In fact, I've seen drawings of it.

Yeah, I know, the F2H-5.  What I was wondering though was the whole timing issue.  The F2H first flew January 11, 1947, and the proposals for what ultimately became the F7U Cutlass (which was the first major jet competition after WW2) which included competing designs from McDonnell, which came in the form of swept-wing Banshee like designs, all had to be submitted by April 1946.  I'm just wondering if there was enough time to take the data from the April 1946 competition, apply it to the F2H design, redesigning as necessary, and have it flying as a prototype by January to February 1947?

I'd go with a desing based on the Skyraider. It maybe slower and carry less than the Skypirate, but it has good low-speed handling. The Skypirate, to me, looks like it could be very sluggish at low speeds due to it's size.

I suppose that's a good point, I'd also want to use some surplus WW2 fighter designs like an F4U-6/AU-1 and such as well

[Battlefield]

It sure it would be possible. It would just be a simple manner of working around the clock for several months to perform the necessary modifications in time to have a flying prototype ready.


All you'd have to do is to retrofit them for thier new role, such as adding new hardpoints to carry more ordance.   

[KJ_Lesnick]

Battlefield,

It sure it would be possible. It would just be a simple manner of working around the clock for several months to perform the necessary modifications in time to have a flying prototype ready.

Would it be easier or harder than the modifications the USAF did with the F-86; it also was originally supposed to be a fixed wing design and evolved into a swept-wing design?  I don't know how long NAA had to do this over McDonnell

All you'd have to do is to retrofit them for thier new role, such as adding new hardpoints to carry more ordance.

Sounds do-able...

[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.

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. 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. I don't know how long this took NAA to do.  

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