F-94 Tribute

RE: F-94 Tribute

Again, I think your focus is on the F-94A/B models, which weren’t as good as the later F-94C. The F-94C was a faster, more responsive aircraft than the F-89, and had a better weapons system and longer range than the F-86. Again, I say it filled the gap between the F-89 and F-86 quite nicely.

RE: F-94 Tribute

The idea was that the F-89 would fly really far out and maintain patrol and if the Russians got past them, they would deal with the
F-94 at medium ranges, and then the F-86D handled all the
things really close in.

It’s a nice scenario, but the bombers the US feared in the 1950s (i have a ‘Soviet Bomber recognition guide’ from the early 1950s, it is absolutely hilarious with the weirdest non-existing aircraft…) were thought to be highly subsonic and flying at high altitudes (it was of course the pre-SAM era). If an intruding aircraft had passed the F-89 screen, it would literally have to fly into the arms of already airborne and on-station Starfires for the latter to be effective. It just didn’t have the speed to position itself for a rocket attack against a bomber unless the unfortunate bomber flew straight at the Starfire.

On the other hand, the F-94’s endurance on-station (which means at the high altitude the bombers were expected to come) was pretty low since a lot of the fuel would have been burned with climbing. The F-86D/K/L suffered even more of this, but they did have the climbing speed to be used as defensive interceptors with a QRA-start: taking off, immediately climbing to the target, shoot, and head back.

It is interesting to know BTW that the operational doctrine of the US’ ADC and NORAD were almost exactly the same as that of the Soviet IA-PVO, including the little input expected from the pilots.

RE: F-94 Tribute

Again, we must have different sources. The info I’ve seen says that the F-94, in particular the C version matured into a fine aircraft that was well-like by flight and ground crews alike.

As far as its niche in ADC, I think it filled the gap in between the short-legged F-86 and the long-range F-89. The range on the F-94C was actually pretty good, and the performance of the aircraft was good as well. The idea was that the F-89 would fly really far out and maintain patrol and if the Russians got past them, they would deal with the F-94 at medium ranges, and then the F-86D handled all the things really close in.

Of course all three of these aircraft were made obsolete when the F-101 and F-102 came online. Nevertheless, they made an effective three-pronged deterrent.

RE: F-94 Tribute

Also, I read that the armament and fire control system of
the Starfire was considered more accurate than that of the
F-86D.

In the early days, none of the systems were really accurate and the Sabre Dog’s radar was no good either. But at least those could be fixed, as the later modified F-86L’s proved.

I also read that once the radar problems were ironed out, it
was a good system.

Indeed, after a while the E-5 readiness passed the 15%. I wouldn’t qualify this as ‘good’. Also, the crew-blinding after the launch of the rockets, and the additional engine flameouts after smoke ingestion, were simply solved by not using the nose rocket tubes. Brilliant solution…

I don’t think the aircraft was all that sluggish compared to
the F-86 except for climb rate maybe.

Now you finally get it! It couldn’t climb as fast as the fighter used for point-defence (the Sabre), it didn’t have the loiter time to fly patrols like the Scorpion. Now with this in mind, do you think there was much operational value of having the F-94???

I guess I’m just a stickler for anything F-80 related.

I know, and that’s fine with me but no matter how much you like this-or-that aircraft, you should be able to face the facts about an aircraft. Even if an aircraft is not all that bad in itself, it’s operational value can still be highly debatable because of competeting aircraft or other reasons. Like in this case.

RE: F-94 Tribute

Sounds like our sources contradict each other. I read that the tanks were used operationally.

Also, I read that the armament and fire control system of the Starfire was considered more accurate than that of the F-86D.

I also read that once the radar problems were ironed out, it was a good system.

I don’t think the aircraft was all that sluggish compared to the F-86 except for climb rate maybe. Everything I’ve seen speaks well of the aircraft and its performance.

I guess I’m just a stickler for anything F-80 related.

RE: F-94 Tribute

Arthur, here are those pictures. The aircraft is F-94C #
51-13560. It is on display at the Minnesota Air National
Guard Museum. Apparently it was refurbished by the ANG at
Duluth before being put on display.

Thanks for putting it up. The fuel tanks seem to be genuine, but i doubt those tanks were used operationally because of drag. The other surviving C´s i´ve seen pics of (there are more: Pima, New England AM, Calspan and a few other places also house C models).

As far as the F-94’s performance is concerned, I think the C model was a fairly impressive aircraft. It had much better
performance than the A or B models.

Sure, but by the time the C model entered service the performance of the A and B models was below standards of the time.

It was immensely powerful, more powerful than the F-86D/L in fact.

But also draggier, slower, less responsive, and with an even less reliable radar.

climbed much faster than the A/B models, could climb to much higher altitudes, had much longer range, was much faster,

Again: compared to the by-then outdated F-94A and B models. Even the indeed vastly improved C could not offer the patrol endurance of the F-89, nor the responsiveness of the F-86. And while the other two interceptors still had quite a few options to be improved, the F-94C was already stretching the P-80 design far further than it was ever intended to be.

…and was very popular with both flight and ground crews alike once all the initial problems were ironed out.

Some problems never were ironed out: the radar never got to function reliably, and the ´shotgun´ firing of Mighty Mouse rockets from the nose launch-pack was so much of an area weapon that it could be said that a conventional cannon would be more accurate. Even worse, the nose-mounted rockets left a dense smokescreen around the cockpit blinding the crew for seconds after launch. I have little doubt it was a nice aircraft to fly and maintain airframe-wise (it sure wasn´t as much of an ergonomic nightmare as the F-89).

The A/B models were fairly popular as well from what I’ve read and heard. I don’t know that the F-94 was as bad as you’re making it out
to be. I’m just going from what I’ve heard though.

I don´t think it was a bad aircraft when seen from an airframe-and-equipment view for that time, but i can´t see it as more than an interim-AW-interceptor until the true useful types came around: the F-86D/K/L point-defence fighters, and the F-89 long-range patrol bird. It´s use in Korea was because it was the only operational aircraft in the neighbourhood at the time, and not because it was that good of a nocturnal escort fighter for B-29s as for which it was used. Only when the B-29s were started to get their escorts from F3D Skyknights the losses dropped dramatically, even though the F-94s of course did score a handful of kills. By then the F-94s were given nocturnal defensive sweep missions to counter Bedcheck Charlies in which it had a few successes too, but less than the F-82s which had a better speed for such missions.

Perhaps that is the problem of the F-94: it was simply less useful than the other US night-fighters of the pre-supersonic era. It was a fine aircraft, but it´s jack-of-all trades mission made it the master of none. It is no wonder that the F-94 left service almost ten years before the AW Sabres, Scorpions or even Skynights (although the latter flew it´s final decade as an ECM bird).

RE: F-94 Tribute

Arthur, did you see the picture and info?

RE: F-94 Tribute

Well, Ant, that’s a good thought, but I think that’s not the case. First of all, the aircraft in that picture is supposedly the last F-94C in existence and odds are it is just that, an F-94C.

Secondly, regarding the F-94D program, of the two aircraft pulled aside for testing (they are actually F-94B’s), only one was worked on to bring it to YF-94D standards, but the program and order of 112 was cancelled before it could be finished.

Also, in a very comprehensive article I found on the F-94C, it is stated that the aircraft had the option of carrying a pair of 230-gallon underwing fuel tanks so I’m guessing that’s why they are mounted on this aircraft.

Perhaps it was just an option for ferry flights?

Also, regarding the gun pods for the F-94B, I read they were also employed on the A model. Apparently, they added very little extra weight and drag and so were fairly effective a good idea.

RE: F-94 Tribute

Hi Phantom,
I’ve read that an experimental model of the Starfire was built as a ground attack aircraft and long range fighter.This was designated F94D,and one prototype flew in 1951.Over 100 were ordered,but this was cancelled before production began.I’m thinking that it’s perhaps this aircraft sitting on the pole in the photograph,or perhaps it’s wings with the extra hardpoints have been used to build a static display example.
It’s just a thought.

RE: F-94 Tribute

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 02-10-02 AT 05:22 PM (GMT)]Arthur, here are those pictures. The aircraft is F-94C # 51-13560. It is on display at the Minnesota Air National Guard Museum. Apparently it was refurbished by the ANG at Duluth before being put on display.

As far as the F-94’s performance is concerned, I think the C model was a fairly impressive aircraft. It had much better performance than the A or B models. It was immensely powerful, more powerful than the F-86D/L in fact. It climbed much faster than the A/B models, could climb to much higher altitudes, had much longer range, was much faster, and was very popular with both flight and ground crews alike once all the initial problems were ironed out. The A/B models were fairly popular as well from what I’ve read and heard. I don’t know that the F-94 was as bad as you’re making it out to be. I’m just going from what I’ve heard though.

http://www.chisholmmnchamber.com/jet3.jpg

RE: F-94 Tribute

>Actually, I’ve found that when looking at the three
>pre-Century series USAF interceptors (F-86, F-89, & F-94)
>that the Starfire had better outright flight performance
>than the F-89, but not quite as good as the F-86, and its
>range wasn’t as far as the F-89, but wa much farther than
>the short-legged F-86.

Which is one of the main reasons the F-94 was essentially ineffective. The F-86 had the performance to be a point-defence interceptor, while the F-89 had the range to fly patrols. The F-94 lacked the performance for the point-defense role, while it was far too short-legged for the patrol work the F-89 could do. Not that it mattered of course as the Soviet bombers they were ment to shoot down didn’t exist }>

A pic of the wing pylons would be nice. But would it be possible that the aircraft was given the wing of an F-80 or T-33 for restoration purposes (it can’t be a Starfire in this case though)? There are quite a few museums around which don’t mind historical inaccuracies of this kind, notwithstanding the confusion it could cause… A check on the serial number might help in this case, probably even a simple google search will do.

RE: F-94 Tribute

Actually, I’ve found that when looking at the three pre-Century series USAF interceptors (F-86, F-89, & F-94) that the Starfire had better outright flight performance than the F-89, but not quite as good as the F-86, and its range wasn’t as far as the F-89, but wa much farther than the short-legged F-86.

As far as the hardpoints go, the only reason I ask that is because I’ve seen pictures of an F-94 at a museum with a pair of underwing hardpoints each carrying what appears to be another external fuel tank. If I can find the pictures I’ll post them.

RE: F-94 Tribute

Underwing hardpoints? I only know it had attachment points for slipper-weapons: the MG pod mentioned above for the F-94B, and the additional rockets for the F-94C. Although i’m not an expert on those aircraft, i don’t think the 94 had real underwing pylons on which you could put bombs and stuff like that. It wouldn’t be too smart either, because such loads are quite draggy (much more than the slipper-type loads which were used) and the F-94 wasn’t too much of an accelerator or long-distance flyer anyway.

RE: F-94 Tribute

Arthur, by the way do you know anything about the two underwing hardpoints on the F-94?

RE: F-94 Tribute

Arthur, I’ll have to look into the gun pod thing on the F-94B, but I thought I remembered reading it was used. Who knows?

RE: F-94 Tribute

Shouldn’t that have read “.. first operational supersonic
fighter” ?

Of course it should have. Apologies, and i stand corrected thinking ‘dumb, dumb me’. Thanks Moggy.

RE: F-94 Tribute

I’d agree with you on that one Moggy.

About the F-94, from what I hear the C model was a great improvement over the A/B models. I wonder what she flew like. She sure did have a lot of power with that J-48 engine. I think the F-94 (and the F-80 series in general) is a very nice looking airplane. Too bad none are flying anymore. Well, at least we still get T-33’s.

RE: F-94 Tribute

>In the nineties-series of USAF fighter designations, there
>was a lot of messing around in order to get the F-100 to be
>the first operational fighter

Shouldn’t that have read “.. first operational supersonic fighter” ?

Moggy

RE: F-94 Tribute

Wombat,
The XF-90 has me intrigued. From the numbering sequence, I
assume that it came before the F-94 and the family
resemblance to the F-80/94 is obvious, so what happened to
it?

In the nineties-series of USAF fighter designations, there was a lot of messing around in order to get the F-100 to be the first operational fighter (don’t forget that the F-94C Starfire was originally developed as the F-97). The XF-90 was basically just a test variant of the F-80 with swept surfaces and IIRC another engine, while the F-94 was ordered just a bit later as a quickly-available night fighter since the F-86D and F-89 series had quite a bit of teething problems. As a stopgap the F-94 served it’s purpose well and entered service before the Sabre Dog and the Scorpion, but reliability and servicability of the radar were even lower than with the later two pre-century-series night fighters. Also, the F-94 was very limited in further development as the airframe was just too cramped – the heritage of the much smaller P-80/T-33 from which it was developed. Radar reliability, range, acceleration were the main reason the F-94 series had left ADC service by 1959, while both the F-86D/K and F-89 soldiered on for some 10 years.

PII:
Are you sure the midwing .50-pods for the -B were used operationally, and if so do you have a picture somewhere? I know it was developed and tested, but i don’t know anything about it’s operational use.

And why not mention the F-94D? That was a nice aircraft, and it did see operational service as a hack with an ANG squadron.

RE: F-94 Tribute

P II

The XF-90 has me intrigued. From the numbering sequence, I assume that it came before the F-94 and the family resemblance to the F-80/94 is obvious, so what happened to it? Why did it remain an “X” and never get to production? It looks a much more modern and effective aircraft than the F-94.

Wombat