Ultimate Version Mixer

[Zombolt]

What if you took a plane that had many versions, and used the best part of each version to make the "Ultimate" version of that plane?

[PR19_Kit]

It depends what you define as 'best'........... 

Usually the various versions get better as time goes on and the development team learns more and more about the subject, so the 'Ultimate' version is usually the last one. Having said that, there are examples of types where the best version, as seen by its crews, was an interim type.

Perhaps the classic case of this is the Spitfire, the Mk IX was seen as the sweetest handling version, whereas later ones, even the more powerful Griffon engined marks, were real handfuls. My Dad flew the PRXI and the PRXIX and he much prefered the earlier Merlin engined one as it was less brutal and more co-ordinated.

He couldn't see the reasoning behind the newer, stiffer wing fitted to the F21s onwards, but then he thought the whole idea of flying started to go down the pan when they took the upper wings off! 

[Maverick]

I tend to agree with Kit there.  The last of a line are usually burdened with 'improvements' aplenty and generally pigs compared to earlier marks.  The Bf-109 is a case in point, where the later G and K variants were dogs compared to the lighter, earlier F models.  That's to say nothing of the S-199, a true case of bastardry (and that's not swearing!).

Whilst this is the case with many prop aircraft, it doesn't seem as prevalent with turbine aircraft such as the F-16.

Regards,

Mav

[sandiego89]

Agree with the above for several prop planes.  I think the P-51 is another example with many pilots preferring the D over the light weight H.  There are some good examples of planes that went through some real capability improvement and were quite a bit different from when the first rolled off the assembly line to the final "ultimate" version- most had long lives and many versions: B17, B29/B50, F-16, F86, F4 Phantom, F18A/B/C/D/E/F, Harrier family, 737, 747, Ju87, Lancaster, P39/P63, F104, Mirage III, F-15, Meteor, Hunter, EE Lightning, Mig21... 

[PR19_Kit]

Perhaps the loss of excellence doesn't happen so much with current day aircraft because there's a) more time and b) more money to spend on actually improving ALL aspects as the development process goes on?

Not being in a life and death war probably helps a bit too!

[Old Wombat]

Of course many modifications are role specific.

Sometimes the envisioned role of the aircraft changes & models are brought out specifically for these different jobs; interceptor, PR, fighter-bomber, long-range escort, etc.; and each marque is excellent at its specific role.
Combining the best qualities of each marque into a single aircraft type may result in a dogs-breakfast aircraft that is no damned good at anything.

[Weaver]

I tend to agree with Kit there.  The last of a line are usually burdened with 'improvements' aplenty and generally pigs compared to earlier marks.  The Bf-109 is a case in point, where the later G and K variants were dogs compared to the lighter, earlier F models.  That's to say nothing of the S-199, a true case of bastardry (and that's not swearing!).

Whilst this is the case with many prop aircraft, it doesn't seem as prevalent with turbine aircraft such as the F-16.

Regards,

Mav

The F-16 is an interesting one to bring up, because it demonstrates that "best" is a moveable feast. Modern F-16C block 60s have FAR more all-round military capability than an early F-16A, yet in the process they've gained a huge amount of weight and lost some of the agility that was the original point of the aircraft. For an afternoon's aerobatics, you'd pick an F-16A every time. For bombing a terrorist hideout 500 miles away, next door to a school at 2am in the rain, the F-16C would be your only choice.

[Maverick]

There'd be some here who'd suggest that last scenario would "only" be able to be handled by the F-35 (that is when it finally enters meaningful service & has had the bugs ironed out). 

Regards,

Mav

[ChernayaAkula]

^ What? Bombing a terrorist hideout 500 miles away? Sure, an F-35 could do that..................... given there's enough tanker support, that is!  



I'm just kidding. 

[PR19_Kit]

There'd be some here who'd suggest that last scenario would "only" be able to be handled by the F-35

Or a Canberra of course.......... 

[Rheged]

There'd be some here who'd suggest that last scenario would "only" be able to be handled by the F-35

Or a Canberra of course.......... 

Or a Mosquito.........as they have already had the practice 70 years ago........

But you would need  a long-winged Meteor or similar to do the initial reconnaissance..............

[PR19_Kit]

But you would need  a long-winged Meteor or similar to do the initial reconnaissance..............

Hm, that's a good idea, I might do something about that......... 

[Weaver]

I think "next door to a school at 2am in the rain" might have been the trickier part of the requirement for the Canberra....

[PR19_Kit]

I think "next door to a school at 2am in the rain" might have been the trickier part of the requirement for the Canberra....

Didn't the USAF do that with the B-57Gs in Viet Nam?

[Maverick]

The G model did have LLTV, FLIR etc and was designed with LGBs in mind.  Mind you, only as accurate as the laser being pointed and if you're a single ship maneuvering against SAM or AAA threats, getting that particular aspect of the mission sorted might be a bit trickier.

Regards,

Mav