Anyway, many of the F-15/F-16 kills were of Sukhois, not MiGs.
Some of the previous long-range strike aircraft that have been scrapped would have worked fine for payload and endurance. Modernized F-111’s, A-6E’s, A-7’s, A-3’s, B-66’s, B-47’s… Except for the first two examples the others were simpler designs that used awful turbojets or turbofans by today’s standards.
F-111’s modernized to F-110’s would have greatly improved range.
A-6E’s using non-afterburning F404’s would have had greater range and payload.
A-3’s using TF34’s off S-3’s would have been a big boost to range. B-66’s probably would show same improvement from A10 engines.
B-47’s using a single pair of turbofans would have been a big burst in performance.
F-111’s modernized to F-110’s would have greatly improved range.
No – TF30 SFC .62/2.5-.64/2.45 for F-111s; F110 SFC .735/2.00 F-15/14
A-6E’s using non-afterburning F404’s would have had greater range and payload.
Yes and no – J52-8 as in A-6E 9,300 lbf & J52-408/409 as in EA-6B 11,200/12,000 lbf, SFC .86-.89; F404-100D as in F-117 & A-4SU 11,000 lbf, SFC .80.
What it would have is much greater reliability, faster engine throttle response (vital in missed carrier landings), and greatly reduced logistics/maintenance demands & cost.
The maximum payload would not have increased, but there would have been an extra pair of pylons outboard of the wing-fold to carry self-defense AAMs (AIM-9M/AIM-120A) and a radar capable of making use of them.
A-3’s using TF34’s off S-3’s would have been a big boost to range. B-66’s probably would show same improvement from A10 engines.
Absolutely – although they would have needed to be boosted a bit (which would be easily done), as the J57-10 of the A-3B was 10,500 lbf & SFC .90, the J71-11 of the B-66 was 10,200 lbf & SFC .80, and the TF34-400A of the S-3B was 9,275 lbf & SFC .363.
B-47’s using a single pair of turbofans would have been a big burst in performance.
Big problem here, as the wing engine pylons and the wing structure would not be able to handle the increased “below wing-line” thrust of all the thrust being on two pylons instead of four – and the wing design required the weight of the outer engines to prevent excessive wing-flex.
What would work here is a four-engine re-fit – the never-converted YB-47C, also known as the B-56, was planned to mount 4 x J71 @ 10,000-10,500 lbf each, one on each pylon, instead of the 6 x J47 @ 5,200 – 5,970 lbf each (up to 7,200 lbf take-off with water injection, and SFC above 1.00 for all versions), for a total of 40,000-42,000 lbf vs 35,820 lbf (43,200 LBF with water injection).
Just go ahead and mount that higher-thrust TF34 version as mentioned above for the A-3/B-66 (along with some extra weight in the outer pods to keep the wing-flex in check) and you’d be just fine.
However in actuality this would need to be done in the early 1960s* (due to the scrapping of virtually all the airframes in the 1970/80s) – which means using the same TF30s as the A-7A/B/C – which produced between 11,350 & 13,400 lbf & SFC .62-.64 – which would also work for the A-3/B-66 upgrade in that same time-frame.
* Instead of the 1963-69 final phase-out of the B-47.
A perfect opportunity would be as a follow-on to the 1958+ major refit & wing-mount strengthening program.
Very nice photo.
I love these two I found on-line (not the Bridge, but another sort of bridging of a gap):
[ATTACH=CONFIG]232758[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]232759[/ATTACH]
A mistake corrected finally…
And a recent documentary on Pearl Harbour absolved the 2 radar operators on the headland for failing to alert the base HQ. They did relay the information about multiple ciontacts but it was assumed by an officer on duty to be a flight of B17s. The documentary also proved that even if the warning had been assumed to be an attack there was no way to launch enough fighters in time.
And you can’t even blame that officer – he had been on the island for only a few days, had never attended a course as to just what radar was or how it worked, and was standing his very first watch on the control center – alone save for enlisted personnel.
Yes, a newly-assigned officer, with no specific training for the job, was the only officer assigned to be in the control center that morning – with no one to call for advice.
And people wonder why Lieutenant General Short (USAAF commander in Hawaii) and Rear Admiral Kimmel (USN commander in Hawaii) were hammered for not adequately preparing for a possible air attack.
That’s when they discovered chunks of the fuselage scattered in the shrapnel.
Sigh… the last word, as I am sure it was spoken by the worker, should be “chaparral” – which refers to the thick low brush in the area (as seen in the photos)*.
* Chaparral (pronounced with a “sh” sound) technically refers to only specific vegetation found in southern and central California and northern Baja California, but the term is widely used across the American Southwest for similar vegetation.
The men next to it give it some scale.
Looks larger than I was expecting.How does it compare with the new Japanese jet?
Cargo compartment sizes:
An-70: Length 19 m X width 4.1 m X height 4 m + 3.4 m length on ramp
Payload: 47,000 kg
A400M: Length 17.71 m X width 4 m X height 3.85 m forward of wing, 4m aft + 5.4 m length on ramp
Payload: 37,000 kg
C-2: Length 16 m X width 4 m X height 4 m + 5.5m length on ramp
Payload: 37,600 kg
KC-390: Length 17.75 m X width 3.45 m X height 2.9 m
Payload: 23,650 kg
C-130H-30/J-30: Length 16.9 m X width 3.12 m X height 2.74 m + 3.12 m length on ramp
Payload: 20,000 kg
C-130H/J: Length 12.31 m X width 3.12 m X height 2.74 m + 3.12 m length on ramp
Payload: 20,000 kg
An-12: Length 13.5 m X width 3 m X height 2.5 m
Payload: 20,000 kg
C-160: Length 13.5 m X width 3.15 m X height 2.98 m + 3.71 m length on ramp
Payload: 16,000 kg
I suppose an English Electric Lightning with one lower consumption “cruise” engine might work – replacing one Avon with a Spey would not require as much intake modification as replacing both.
The greater cross section of a Spey would require a major fuselage redesign though. Whilst I admire the theory behind this I suggest you remember that it takes a 100% increase in power to give a 25% or less increase in speed.
Um… wrong. The Spey is smaller in diameter in the main engine body and the same at the reheat module.
Avon 301 of Lightning F.Mk6: length 113.3″ main engine, 138″ with reheat module; diameter of main engine 41.5″; diameter of reheat module 44″; weight 2,890 lb; thrust 12,100 lbf (15,715 lbf reheat); SFC .932 (1.85 reheat); air-mass flow 170 lb/second
Spey 201 of Phantom FG.1: length 115″ main engine, 205″ with reheat module and connecting exhaust pipe; diameter of main engine 37.5″; diameter of reheat module 44″; weight 4,093 lb; thrust 12,250 lbf (20,515 lbf reheat); SFC .63 (1.95 reheat); air-mass flow 210 lb/second
Actually, the second one just looks like a Tornado is between the camera and a Gripen, so you see parts of the Gripen that are not blocked from view by the Tornado.
Thinking about the idea, one starts to wonder; why F-15 or other twin engined aircraft use two identical engines? Perhaps an aircraft designed from scratch could use one engine with extreme efficiency, and other engine(s) can be more performance oriented. Very similar to Russian COGAG cruise/boost engine idea on their ships.
Or the Royal Navy has been doing since the early 1970s (Type 42 destroyers, type 22 frigates, etc); or the JMSDF has been doing since the same time-period with its destroyers & frigates?
For aircraft with side-by-side engines this would be a very bad idea due to assymetric thrust.
Using vertically-stacked boost engines has been part of many fighter designs – see the SARO P.177, FJ-4F, and so on – although most of those were rockets for take-off & climb.
I suppose an English Electric Lightning with one lower consumption “cruise” engine might work – replacing one Avon with a Spey would not require as much intake modification as replacing both.
Yes – here is a photo from the US Army’s 1961 CAS aircraft trials showing an N-156F (Northrop’s prototype for the F-5A) with a twin nose wheel – as well as one with normal nose gear:
The US Army decided in 1961 that it needed to acquire a light jet for the Forward Air Controller/Tactical Reconnaissance role. Artillery fire support is an Army function, so they reasoned the ability to accurately direct those fires must be in their purview as well.
Three aircraft were chosen for evaluation. Among them was the foreign-made Fiat G-91R light tactical fighter/reconnaissance aircraft. Another competitor was the Douglas A4D-2N Skyhawk light attack jet (re-designated as A-4C in 1962). The N-156F Freedom Fighter was also selected and became the only twin-engine competitor in the trials.
Both N-156s participated in the tests, with the number two aircraft (59-4988) outfitted for unimproved field operations. This eventually consisted of larger tires for the main gear and a twin-tire arrangement for the nose gear.
Two G.91R-1’s were placed at the disposal of technicians of the U.S. Army at Fort Rucker (Alabama). The aircraft made the transfer flight to the U.S.A. in C-124 Globemasters – though this was not the first air transfer of the G.91, since previous cargoes were tested in Germany with the twin-engined Noratlas.
In the United States these aircraft were submitted to severe evaluation tests with a view to studying a special tactical support unit for the U.S. Army. During one of these tests a G.91R-1 crashed at Fort Rucker killing the test pilot, Commander R. Bignamini.
Two A4D-2 Skyhawks (BuNos 148490 and 148483) were borrowed by the U.S. Army and modified by Douglas for evaluation in competition with the Northrop N-156 (predecessor of the F-5) and the Italian Fiat G-91, for operations from unimproved airfields near front lines. Modifications included the drag chute canister underneath the rear fuselage, the twin-wheel, low pressure, main gear and the enlarged main gear fairings underneath the wings, as well as a wider nose wheel.
Flown by Douglas test pilot Dru Wood, the modified “Army” Skyhawk won the competition.
Sod field operations were conducted at NAS Jacksonville and NAS Pensacola, Florida in June and July of 1961 with the other two modified competitors. Initial results were very favorable for all aircraft, with the N-156F receiving high marks for its easy field maintenance and load-carrying capabilities.
The number one N-156F (59-4987) later acquired U.S. Army markings for some additional tests and publicity functions. These were carried out in September of 1961 and provided a unique appearance for the Freedom Fighter.
Despite the promising results, the Air Force made its objections known and the Army backed down. The competition was cancelled. The remaining G-91R returned to Europe, the other one having crashed during the evaluation, killing its Italian Air Force test pilot Riccardo Bignamini. The two A4Ds were brought back to standard configuration and returned to the U.S. Navy.
Its hopes dashed, Northrop renewed the hunt for customers. Its faith in the N-156F was borne out in 1962 when the aircraft was chosen to be the U.S. export fighter of choice under the new Military Assistance Program. The newly designated F-5A would be the progenitor of a line of successful fighters.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]232538[/ATTACH]
No, there was not (at least not officially).
There was some talk throughout the war about fitting the P-38 airframe with a pair of Rolls Royce Merlin XX engines. However the War Production Board was unwilling to shut down the Lightning production for the several months it would have taken to retool for the engine swap. As a result, the Merlin project was shelved and no P-38 was ever flown fitted with Rolls Royce Merlin or Packard Merlin engines.
Studies showed that the 2-stage/2-speed supercharger on the Merlin would not provide any overall performance increase over the turbo-supercharged Allisons*.
In addition, the two-stage supercharger bolted to the rear of the Merlin would’ve caused major problems installing it on the P-38; the turbo-supercharger for the Allisons was behind the main landing gear on the P-38, in the boom. The supercharger on the Merlin would’ve intruded into the main wheel wells on the P-38, necessitating a complete redesign of the nacelles.
* Remember, the P-51 saw improvement because the Mustang’s Allisons did NOT have the turbosupercharger.
Here is the real “What could have been”:
The Story Of The Best Performing Variant Of The P-38 Lightning – P-38K
The Lockheed P-38K-1-LO is now nearly forgotten. No photographs of the aircraft are known to exist today. Only the original test mule was photographed. It has been relegated to that part of history where one off prototypes and special test aircraft usually go. This is rather unfortunate for this aircraft as it was the benchmark against which all other variants of the P-38 Lightning must be compared. Simply said, it was the best performing Lightning ever to take to the sky.
From the very beginning of America’s involvement in World War Two, Lockheed was looking for ways to improve the performance of the P-38. The installation of Rolls Royce XX Merlins was seriously considered. Lockheed went as far as designing the installation package. The advantages of the Merlin engine were numerous. First and foremost was the elimination of the complex turbocharger system. This would also result in a much cleaner engine nacelle. The turbo intercoolers could be removed. That would have allowed for a for more aerodynamic package, closer in shape to that of the original XP-38. Another option was to remove the Prestone radiators and place them under the engine as in the P-40. This location had the additional advantage of reducing the length of the cooling system plumbing. This, in turn, reduced the risk of battle damage to the system. Either option would result in a significant reduction in drag and weight. A further benefit would be gained by the removal of intercooler ducting in the front portion of the outer wings. This volume could be utilized for increased fuel capacity. In fact, that is what was done when the P-38J was designed with revised intercooler cores that eliminated the ducting. This increased internal fuel capacity by 110 gallons.
There were some performance areas that would suffer. While a gain in speed at medium altitudes was expected, the rate of climb would be reduced by as much as 400 feet per minute. Service ceiling would also be reduced as the Packard Merlin XX made considerably less power above 30,000 feet than did the Allison V1710. At the time, no one anticipated the engine and turbocharger problems that developed at high altitude over Europe. Unfortunately, the War Production Board was unwilling to shut down the production line for several months to retool for major design changes required for the engine swap. As a result, the Merlin project was shelved. No P-38 ever flew fitted with Rolls Royce Merlin or Packard engines. The idea of retro-fitting Merlin 61 engines was bantered about 8th Air Force Fighter Command, however there is no evidence that any such conversion ever took place. The prospect of such a modification would have been daunting. This was no simple engine swap, it required large portions of the airframe to be completely redesigned. Stories of Merlin powered Lightnings are, without much doubt, myth.
This, however, did not put an end to seeking greater performance. Lockheed paid close attention to the performance gains achieved with the P-47 when the new “high activity” Hamilton Standard propellers where first fitted on a Republic P-47C in mid 1942 (later, in mid 1943, these propellers were retro-fitted in Britain). The new “paddle” blade prop had significantly increased the rate of climb and acceleration of the “Jug”. Lockheed decided that they would install the Hamilton Standard hydraulic propellers on one of the factory test “mules”. Thus, was the XP-38K born. The “mule” was an extensively modified P-38E. The original intercoolers were replaced with the newer type introduced on the J model. The initial test results were very encouraging and a P-38G service test airframe (422-81, AFF serial number 42-13558 ) was selected to be modified.
The new propellers were not the only design changes made in the search for greater performance. This airframe was configured for the Allison V1710F-15 powerplants which were rated at over 1,875 bhp in War Emergency Power (as compared to 1,725 bhp for the V1710F-17 in the P-38L). This was the only P-38 so configured. The potent combination of the engine/propeller promised excellent performance.
There were still other modifications that were necessary. The Hamilton Standard props required a spinner of greater diameter, and the thrust line was slightly higher as well. This in turn, required that new cowlings be manufactured to properly blend the spinners into the engine nacelles. These were hand made and the fit was less than perfect. The new propellers necessitated a change to the reduction gear ratio. The Curtiss Electric props had a normal ratio of 2.00 to 1. The ratio was changed to 2.36 to 1.
Flight tests were conducted from late February through the end of April 1943. Performance was better than hoped for. Maximum speed at critical altitude (29,600 ft) was 432 mph (Military Power). At 40,000 feet, the “K” zipped along at a speed that was 40 mph faster than the current production P-38J could attain at this same height. Maximum speed in War Emergency Power, at critical altitude, was expected to exceed 450 mph. The increase in ceiling was just as remarkable. Flown to 45,000 ft on an extremely hot and humid day, Lockheed engineers predicted a “standard day” service ceiling in excess of 48,000 ft! Improvement of the cowling fit and the elimination of the heavy coat of paint would have gained even more performance. Due to the added efficiency of the new propellers, range was expected to increase by 10 to 15 %. Lockheed appeared to have a world-beater on their hands.
The plane, now designated the P-38K-1-LO was flown to Elgin Field for evaluation by the USAAF. Flown against the P-51B and the P-47D, this Lightning proved to be vastly superior to both in every category of measured performance. What astounded the evaluation team was the incredible rate of climb demonstrated by the P-38K. From a standing start on the runway, the aircraft could take off and climb to 20,000 feet in 5 minutes flat! The “K”, fully loaded, had an initial rate of climb of 4,800 fpm in Military Power. In War Emergency Power, over 5,000 fpm was predicted.
In light of this incredible level of performance, you would certainly expect that the Government would be falling all over themselves to quickly get the P-38K into production. Yet, this was not the case. The War Production Board was unwilling to allow a short production suspension in order to get new tooling on line for the required change to the engine cowling. Even when Lockheed promised that the stoppage would only be for 2 or 3 weeks, their request was turned down.
The true consequences of this pig-headed thinking will never be known. What would have been the impact of such a high performance fighter arriving in force to the forward combat areas in mid 1943? How many lost fighter pilots would have survived thanks to the awe inspiring performance of the P-38K? Again, we can never know these things. What we do know, is that due to bureaucratic myopia, neither the P-38K nor a Merlin powered Lightning ever really had a chance to make an impact upon the air war. For all those pilots who died at the controls of lesser aircraft, the War Production Board bears a measure of responsibility for their fate.
That is Major Mariam al-Mansouri, who has conducted air-ground bombing missions against ISIL forces.
Neat photo. The Museum ships battleship Aurora and the icebreaker Krasin are in the same dry dock for repairs and upkeep. The drydock was once the longest in all of Imperial Russia.
CRUISER Aurora!
true. the US is really the only nation that has bothered to spend the money to preserve a decent amount of its 20th century capital ships as museums:
USS Hornet – Essex class Aircraft carrier
USS Intrepid – Essex class Aircraft carrier
USS Lexington – Essex class Aircraft carrier
USS Midway – Midway class Aircraft carrier
USS Yorktown – Essex class Aircraft carrierUSS Alabama – South Dakota class Battleship
USS Iowa – Iowa class Battleship
USS Massachusetts – South Dakota Class Battleship
USS Missouri – Iowa class Battleship
USS New Jersey – Iowa class Battleship
USS North Carolina – North Carolina class Battleship
USS Texas – New York class Battleship
USS Wisconsin – Iowa class Battleship
mmm, government waste.
All largely maintained by private foundations, not Gov’t tax money.
US law forbids US government money from being spent on these ships. Any Federal money whatsoever.
The only tax money that is spent is that voted for in state and local governments – and NONE of that is obligated to be spent until the particular government votes for it (such as the money voted by the Iowa State legislature to pay for the towing of USS Iowa from San Francisco Bay to Long Beach Harbor and for preservation work on her – a one-time expense). So if the people don’t want their tax money spent on one of these ships it won’t be.
All but one of those are run by private organizations – which are responsible for the care & upkeep of their ship. If they fail to maintain the vessel to the US Navy’s satisfaction, the USN will repossess it, where if no other organization can develop a viable preservation plan it will be scrapped.
The only one of those ships not run by a private entity is Battleship Texas – which was given outright to the State of Texas on 21 April 1948. She is currently operated and maintained by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department – and it is the people of Texas who have approved this government spending.
What would you want done, Rii – forbid the state & local governments to spend tax money on these ships even when the people vote for it to be spent?
Yes – 2.
There were only 10 built – here are their names and fates:
Samson – RAF Serial XR362 (used registration G-ASKE for overseas test flight), sold as G-BEPE then scrapped
Goliath – RAF Serial XR363, sold as G-OHCA then scrapped
Pallas – RAF Serial XR364, sold as scrap to Rolls-Royce who recovered the Tyne engines
Hector – RAF Serial XR365, sold as G-HLFT then as 9L-LDQ operating with HeavyLift Cargo Airlines, now RP-C8020 (see images above)
Atlas – RAF Serial XR366, sold to RR for engines
Heracles – RAF Serial XR367 – sold as G-BFYU then scrapped
Theseus – RAF Serial XR368, sold as G-BEPS then in storage at Southend Airport – Began being broken up 22/Oct/2008
Spartacus – RAF Serial XR369, sold as G-BEPL then scrapped
Ajax – RAF Serial XR370, sold to RR for engines
Enceladus – RAF Serial XR371, preserved as an exhibit at RAF Museum Cosford