USAF Bomber Escorts

[KJ_Lesnick]

From what I remember the USAAF in it's final years had pursued both hybrid and jet powered aircraft.

• XP-81: It was powered by a turboprop up front with a J33 in the tailpipe; it was meant to be able to fly around 2,000 to 3,000 miles while allowing jet-speeds.  Cancelled because of the turboprop and the fact that we took Iwo Jima
  
• XP-83: Pure jet, designed as an interceptor at first; then turned into a long-ranged fighter.  It actually met remarkable range capability, particularly with drop tanks, could meet all g-load requirements.  It appeared to have been cancelled for reasons I'm not entirely sure of, though it looked adequate to escort B-29's and B-50's, though was inadequate for the B-45 and B-47.
  

Later on the USAF developed several designs over various periods of time

• XF-85: Basically, it was designed to escort the B-36 by being carried in the B-36; then dropped off when needed.  It's primary problem was basically that it was too light (tests worked with the XP-89) and needed a longer trapeze to allow successful docking.  Some claim that it lacked sufficient performance, but I'm not sure about that: It appears to have been able to fly as high or higher than the B-36, and had a good T/W ratio
  
• F-86: Sounds absurd, but the F-86 was originally intended to be a bomber-escort and fighter-bomber.  It took much of it's design influence early on from the FJ-1, though German research lead to the decision to modify the design extensively, with the addition of swept-wings.  I was told it's range was pretty good, though it wasn't as good as the F-84.  It's speed and climb-rate made it a natural air-superiority and interceptor aircraft.  Regardless, it could carry a good old can of whoop-donkey.
  
• Penetration fighter: This consisted of three aircraft designs: The XF-88, the XF-90; the F-86C/YF-93, of which the first won the competition.  The design was hindered basically because the design requirements were too ambitious (they wanted too much range, with too little weight, and generally extra power -- to their credit they did use 20mm), and lacked sufficient high altitude capability making it unsuitable to escort the B-47's (that might or might not have been considered a goal at first, but nothing stays invincible forever).
  
• F-101: It could fly quite far, it could climb like a rocket, and I suppose it could fly an inch away from stalling at higher altitudes (that might have been below the B-47 over target), and had dangerous handling characteristics (the F-104 was worse, admittedly) that would have inhibited pilots from pushing it to the edge (which still would have had a disadvantage over the MiG-15 and later MiG-17's).  It actually could manage a decent rate of turn below 20,000 feet, and by 15,000 feet it was either somewhere between F-105 and F-4's in turning rates, or a little below the F-4.  Climb and dive maneuvers would still keep you an inch from stalling unless you were supersonic in the climb, and I'm not sure if that would leave you enough fuel to make it home.
  

I was thinking that the XF-85 could have actually had more potential than most would give it credit for (could be wrong), provided...

• They designed a longer trapeze arm
  
• They factored maneuverability at altitude (The RAF already knew this)
  

... that the Penetration fighter could have had a decent potential had

• They had allowed slightly higher weight requirements
  
• They had factored in high altitude performance and stipulated a B-47 escort capability
  
• Armament called for 4 x 20mm not 6
  

... and that the F-101 would have probably worked had it had a bigger wing (no idea what kind of design that would be, but people here are creative in coming up with interesting designs).

[rickshaw]

Apart from range, the XP-83 was inferior to Lockheed's P-80 Shooting Star,

[Source]

Kendra/Robyn, do you ever research the topics you're asking for input on?   I'd recommend looking at Wikipedia first and reading their entries on aircraft/missiles.   They're generally accurate and to the point.

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw,

Apart from range, the XP-83 was inferior to Lockheed's P-80 Shooting Star,

[Source]

Kendra/Robyn, do you ever research the topics you're asking for input on?

Yes, I actually do: For one, the data written on the plane list the following

P-80C Range

• 1200 nmi
  

I'm not sure if that's internal or with tip-tanks, but...

XP-83 Range

• Internal Fuel: 1,500 nmi
  
• Drop-Tanks: 1,780 nmi
  

[sandiego89]

The longer trapeze on the B-36 seemed to be much better than the short version trailed with the B-29/XF-85. 

Agree that any long range penetration fighter of the early jet era is very ambitious and is always going to be a huge set of compromises.  To carry that much fuel requires a large aircraft, and expecting it to hold it's own against point based interceptors is just too much to ask.  Making them even bigger/heavier may have helped with range, but not fighting ability.  I am always surprised to see how small the F-101 wing is.  Perhaps one of the most compromised "fighters" in USAF history.     

Height is not everything- just being able to reach a certain height is not the same as being able to maneuver and fight at that height.  There are several great descriptions of B-36's being able to fly very high and slow and US fighters dropping out of the sky as they tried to maneuver in for the "kill" in mock combat.   

There was also Tom Tom for wing mounted F-84 fighters, and several F-84/RF-84 FICON ideas.   

[KJ_Lesnick]

sandiego89

The longer trapeze on the B-36 seemed to be much better than the short version trailed with the B-29/XF-85.

Yeah, it had more potential than many have thought...

Agree that any long range penetration fighter of the early jet era is very ambitious and is always going to be a huge set of compromises.

That's correct, but it doesn't mean it's not workable.  Designs have to be prioritized around key traits that are specific to their role.

This aircraft was designed technically to escort the B-29 and B-50's, something which required a minimum cruising altitude of around 33,000 to 35,000 feet, and preferably more like 40,000 feet; however the B-47's would eventually need escorts, consider the following

• The DeHavilland Mosquito was capable of outrunning fighters and, at altitude, even outmaneuvering them.
  
• While improvements to engines allowed it to get higher and faster (and fuel loads kept it able to fly further into enemy territory with the same or better load); it operated under escort by the end of the war.
  

The B-47's engines were already able to get the plane up to maximum cruise speed and eventually were able to achieve the full altitude range it seemed the wings could lift up to...

As for prioritization, I would say the variables to prioritize around would be the following

A. High Altitude Flight & Maneuverability

• Though the B-47 wasn't very agile at lower altitudes, at higher altitudes, most everybody was worse: It's turning circle was either equal to or superior to the MiG-15 at high altitudes at certain weights.
  
• The B-47 could use various maneuvers to through off intercepting fighters, and possessed a tail-gun: Their goal was to usually hit a target and avoid tangling with fighters because they'd lose
  
• The MiG-15 had 2 x 23mm cannon, and either 1 x 30mm or 1 x 37mm cannon: Both probably had ranges greater than the tail-gun on the B-47's which ranged from 0.50 calibur to 20mm
  
• A fighter, escort or otherwise has guns in the nose and doesn't need to slink away, but can turn into the attack and give them a great deal of trouble.
  
• Even if the maneuverability of the fighter at 51,000 feet was the same as the B-47, it would be equal to the MiG-15 if not slightly better; if superior it would at least be better up in these altitude ranges and possibly better down-low
  
• While it's not absolute: Higher maximum altitudes can theoretically improve agility at lower altitudes.  The B-47, MiG-15, and MiG-17 are exceptions to this rule: The first, most likely because of g-load and weight changes throughout flight; the MiG-15 turned better at lower/medium altitudes, with the MiG-17 doing better high up.
  

Some good basic shapes to work with as a starting point would be something like the CF-103 and F-89 Super Scorpion (this version came in an all weather variant and a single seat, long-ranged escort fighter with a 1010 mile escort radius)

These designs could be further refined with some form of pseudo-crescent or crescent wing...

B. Fuel Fraction

• Fuel Fraction is more important in many cases than carrying a massive quantity of fuel: Look at the YF-16 with 6500 pounds of gas
  
• With the poor fuel consumption, and lower power to weight ratios: One probably would need a decent load admittedly
  
• The loads carried on the XF-83 could be an upper limit: Fuel slosh did occur at average weights, but was caused by not having enough baffling in the fuel-tanks
  
• Drop tanks can add additional fuel that the internal load cannot take care of, as was done on the P-38, P-47, P-51, XP-80, and XP-83
  
• The XP-83 was able to meet the g-load tolerances needed for a fighter, and control loads were in tolerance too
  

To allow improved performance for non escort missions, one could in addition to removing the drop-tanks, could operate on a lower fuel load.

Armament

• The design really only needs 4 x 20mm
  
• The F-88 and F-90 both had 6 x 20mm cannons; the YF-93 was to carry them
  

It doesn't have to carry a shitload of armament -- it just needs to have what any other fighter had!

As for engines I'm thinking J47's would be a good choice -- they have a lower SFC than the J35, were about the same size and more power.

I am always surprised to see how small the F-101 wing is.  Perhaps one of the most compromised "fighters" in USAF history.

It's wing worked better than you'd expect, but yeah

Height is not everything- just being able to reach a certain height is not the same as being able to maneuver and fight at that height.

I'm aware of that...

[jcf]

The entire concept was flawed and a classic example of 'fighting the last war'.
It was the USAAF daylight campaign against Nazi Germany redux, 'New and Improved'
with jet propelled aircraft. In short, idiotic.

[KJ_Lesnick]

joncarrfarrelly

The entire concept was flawed and a classic example of 'fighting the last war'.

Actually the first ideas for jet-powered escorts (XP-81, XP-83, and XF-85) were conceived during WWII, the penetration fighters came post-war: They learned the hard way that operating without escort was often hazardous to one's health in heavily-defended airspace.

It was the USAAF daylight campaign against Nazi Germany redux, 'New and Improved' with jet propelled aircraft.

The idea of massed-raids was flawed, but I'm not really sure what our early nuclear-war plans called for, though I assume they would be more effective if they had fighters covering them, regardless of whether they were B-29/B-50's, B-45's or B-47's provided they performed well enough.

Regardless, I should point out that we did use escorts under the following conditions in the Korean War

Day-time operation for the USAF...

• F-84: Had long-range, wasn't all that agile though
  
• F-86: Had speed and some range, but could have used more
  

... and for the USN & USMC

• F2H: Could fly high and had decent range
  

Nighttime operation for the USAF...

• F-82: It was long-legged, though fairly slow
  
• F-94: It was used as an all-weather interceptor, though it scored a kill or two over Korea
  

... and for the USN & USMC...

• F3D: Could fly far, and could turn inside a MiG-15, though it lacked speed/climb
  

While I do know there was the F7F, I don't know if it was used as an escort

In Vietnam, the USAF used the following for escort...

• F-102: It was nimble, but lacked a gun, and adequate missiles
  
• F-104: It protected the EB-66's, which technically were electronic warfare aircraft based on a bomber's frame; turning performance (with maneuvering flaps) were similar to the F-4, roll-rate was superior, climb and acceleration was around the same, and top-speed favored the F-104.  The F-104 was more difficult to fly, and had virtually no all-weather capability to speak of, but had a gun
  
• F-4: Could accelerate and climb well, could sustain high g-loads below 20,000 feet, possessed decent missiles, but lacked a gun
  

[James W.]

A mention of the F-82 Twin Mustang at last, albeit damned by faint praise ( just as it was - by the jet-bent USAAF, too.).

Notwithstanding the political machinations which 1stly delayed the F-82, & then saddled it with under-developed Allison engines,
the few operational F-82s represented ( until reliable in-flight refuelling was available) the only very-long-range escort & interceptor on hand..

Check the amazing P-82 'Betty Joe' speed-distance record ( Merlin-powered) non-stop from Hawaii to New York.. no jet could do it  - then..

& well into the early 1950s, the SAC based F-82s in Alaska - & were tasked with preventing ingress by Soviet TU-4s ( B-29 analog)..
.. & were available in such modest numbers - that they could not afford to be 'wasted' flying missions in Korea, (after the initial emergency, that is).

Note too: the F7F Tigercat was the USN/USMC equivalent to the Twin Mustang, but its thirsty P & W R-2800 radials meant it couldn't match the F-82..

Edit: fixed typo.

[jcf]

Everybody

What did the USAF know about crescent wings? 


joncarrfarrelly

The entire concept was flawed and a classic example of 'fighting the last war'.  It was the USAAF daylight campaign against Nazi Germany redux, 'New and Improved' with jet propelled aircraft.

That's not entirely true as we used escorts during Korea and Vietnam.

In Korea, the USAF used the following as escorts under daytime conditions...

• F-84: Had long-range, wasn't all that agile though
  
• F-86: Had speed and some range, but could have used more
  

... and the following at night...

• F-82: It was long-legged, though fairly slow
  
• F-94: It was used as an all-weather interceptor, though it scored a kill or two over Korea
  

The USN & USMC used the following for day-escort...

• F2H: Could fly high and had decent range
  

...and the following at night

• F3D: Could fly far, and could turn inside a MiG-15, though it lacked speed/climb
  

While I do know there was the F7F, I don't know if it was used as an escort

In Vietnam, the USAF used the following for escort...

• F-102: It was nimble, but lacked a gun, and adequate missiles
  
• F-4: Could accelerate and climb well, could sustain high g-loads below 20,000 feet, possessed decent missiles, but lacked a gun
  

All meaningless in context of the original question and intent of the late '40s-early '50s conception
which was "WWII type long-range escort of massed flights of heavy bombers into an enemy air
space heavily defended by air-to-air and anti-aircraft forces aka the USSR", which was not true
of either the Korean War or Vietnam War.

Furthermore this is clearly just another of your threads where you've already decided what you think
and your 'questions' are in reality you seeking outside confirmation of your opinion.

[The Wooksta!]

Jon, just put the tiresome harpy on "ignore"  and I'd advise everyone else to do the same.  Short of her being banned, there's sod all else we can do.

[KJ_Lesnick]

James W.

A mention of the F-82 Twin Mustang at last, albeit damned by faint praise ( just as it was - by the jet-bent USAAF, too.)

Well, it's praise was faint because of the era it entered service.  Had it entered service before we captured Iwo Jima, it would have been a real hit.  Once we captured Iwo Jima, the regular P-51D's were just fine of course.

Notwithstanding the political machinations which 1stly delayed the F-82

Now, that's new to me.  I never knew there were any problems with the aircraft, though it's maneuverability could probably have been better.

Check the amazing P-82 'Betty Joe' speed-distance record ( Merlin-powered) non-stop from Hawaii to New York..

That I actually know of, and am quite impressed with it

well into the early 1950s, the SAC based F-82s in Alaska - & were tasked with preventing ingress by Soviet TU-4s ( B-29 analog)..

I think you're talking about ADC, they were tasked with defending US Air Space.  SAC operated bombers and fighter-escorts.  Regardless, I guess they would be able to perform air-defense missions if needed.

the F7F Tigercat was the USN/USMC equivalent to the Twin Mustang, but its thirsty P & W R-2800 radials meant it couldn't match the F-82..

In terms of speed, the radial wasn't what "broke" the F7F, I should point out that the Hawker Sea Fury could hold similar speed to the F-82 with it's Bristol Centaurus.  In terms of range, radials were often at a disadvantage, but the P-47N had a remarkable range (1310 NM) owing to a high fuel-fraction, and high critical altitude (owing to the turbocharger); the F7F did not have a high fuel-fraction, nor did it have a twin-stage supercharger, or turbocharger.


The Wooksta

Jon, just put the tiresome harpy on "ignore"

What the hell is your problem?  I asked a question for an idea that I'd like to flesh out (the idea is a graphic arts project, that I'd like to have some basis in realistic design).


joncarrfarrelly

All meaningless in context of the original question

I don't think there was a single question in the first post...

and intent of the late '40s-early '50s conception which was "WWII type long-range escort of massed flights of heavy bombers into an enemy air space heavily defended by air-to-air and anti-aircraft forces aka the USSR"

Considering we had nuclear-bombs, massed formations would only be important in certain cases

• Lack of sufficient nuclear bombs: To flatten cities, one would use massed-raids using high explosives and incendiaries to turn the place into a torch
  
• To knife through heavily-defended air-defense zones: The massed raid would provide significant interlocking firepower to protect the formation; formations would probably break up into smaller formations, eventually into single, double, or triple ship formations on the final run to target
  

[James W.]

1, The F-82's problem was it came too late.  If it first entered service in 1945, it'd been highly valued.
2, I never knew there were any, do you have any more information?
3, I think you're talking about ADC, they were tasked with defending US Air Space.  SAC operated bombers and fighter-escorts.
4, It didn't have anywhere near the range, there were numerous reasons it couldn't fly as far.

KJL, here in reply:

1, Too late for what?  Regular P-51's could fly from Iwo Jima on B-29 escort in 1945, but the P-80 could not..

2, The USAAF fighter guys didn't want any more props, they wanted jets.. so the F-82 'withered on the vine'..
   further, the best engine for the P-82 was the Packard (R-R) Merlin, but Packard Merlin production ceased,
   & the USAAF wasn't going to pay retail to R-R for new ones..( General Motors owned Allison, so it was 'America 1st')

   But Allison wasn't really interested in doing the work necessary to properly replace the Merlin in the P-82,
   & NAA wasn't happy with their mucking about for so long, & the proper performance was never forthcoming..
   ..so the program was put on hold, then cancelled.. with not many F-82s built/available for service, altogether..

3, KJL, you present as very pedantic*, I was summarising.. sure the SAC gave their F-82s to the ADC, but still expected them to
    provide escort - if & when called upon to do so..

4, Self evidently.. a much thirstier set of engines - in a similar sized airframe - is going to offer less speed/range, one follows the other - like clockwork..

* https://psychology-tools.com/autism-spectrum-quotient/  Do try this KJL, & post your score..

[KJ_Lesnick]

James W.

1, Too late for what?  Regular P-51's could fly from Iwo Jima on B-29 escort in 1945

Yes, but prior to the capture of Iwo Jima, we did not have basing with sufficient range to operate fighter-escort.  A plane like an P-82/F-82 would have allowed escort coverage right out of Tinian.  Of course, after Iwo Jima was captured, there would be no real need for such extreme range, as the P-51's did just fine.

3, KJL, you present as very pedantic*

Yes, I do

4, Self evidently.. a much thirstier set of engines - in a similar sized airframe - is going to offer less speed/range, one follows the other - like clockwork..

I'm also not sure what the fuel capacity and fuel fraction were, the supercharger was different too

Do try this KJL, & post your score..

Depending on how I take the test, and what answers I put in: 28-33.

[James W.]

James W.

Do try this KJL, & post your score..

Score is 30 depending on how I answer

M'kay.. are you perchance - female, KJL?

If so, I am extrapolating - you are tacitly admitting that  your score of "30" is the highest you are 'comfortable' to admit to, in quote, & 'on the record'..
.. so any resemblance to an actually straightforwardly answered score is likely tenuous - that is, "30" - is 'scaled down' - to appear less overt..

& topic-wise, the notorious thirst of the P & W R-2800 when run hard, is why the final version of the Thunderbolt, the P-47 N - was a 'flying gas tank',
'wet wing' & all, which when fully-loaded, required a take-off run of nearly a mile, & was prone to morph into a rolling crematorium - if it failed to get up..

[kitnut617]

Yup! she's hooked another  --- hook line and sinker !