alfakiloActually, it was designed as a long-range escort fighter for SAC*.
Nicely quoted.
Now, even the designers in the 50s knew that the F-101 design wasn’t going to hack it as a “turn and burn” dogfighter…and so it was designed with range and speed as the main parameters…which was the intent of what I was trying to say.
The premier American jet of the day, the F-86 was deemed to have too short of range…By the time it was ready, SAC didn’t need it…
By the time it was ready, the B-52 and its range had far outstripped the notion of an escort fighter. This was an idea left over in the minds of the folks who had fought WW2. What worked for the Mustang wasn’t going to work for the F-101 or anything else at that time.
* The time frame seems to indicate it would protect B-36s against MiG-15s which were a more capable aircraft than the straight-wing F-84s then in service with SAC fighter squadrons.
By the mid-50s time frame, the MiG-15 was reaching obsolescence, the MiG-17 was in front line service, and the MiG-19 was going into production.
In any case, this is a pointless discussion. If SAC had its way, it would attack at night which would make the whole point of an escort fighter essentially moot. Then there is the question of numbers of escort fighters…did planners in those days have the idea that F-101s would fly en masse as P-51s did when escorting B-17 or B-29 formations? SAC didn’t fly B-52s in formation…didn’t need them when dropping nukes. The concept ended when WW2 ended…what followed was just an example of the military-industrial complex in operation.
alfakiloOf course, almost a decade between the service entry of the F-101 and the F-4 (in USAF). What I had in mind was service in the Vietnam war.
It seems that just about any aircraft that could be adapted to carry a ‘special device’ in USAF service in the 1950s did carry such weapons. The aircraft that most intrigues me in this respect would be the F-86H:
I’ve always liked the F-86H too! H models were still being used as trainers when I started out in the USAF, but I never got the chance to fly one. Drat the luck!
Like the F-101, it ended up as being an interim design…better than what was before it, but made obsolete by the designs that were right behind it. Interesting that the F-101 was replaced by another McDonnell design (F-4), while the F-86H was replaced by another North American aircraft (F-100).
alfakiloThe F-101 had pretty well zero agility.
Regards
I think what you meant to say was that the F-101 was not designed as a ‘dogfighter’. It was intended as a long range, high speed “interceptor” more than a “fighter”. As such, it had a relatively successful career in the USAF and RCAF. As a recce aircraft, it also did well.
Its ‘T-tail’ design presented a flight control problem known as ‘pitch up’, a cause of a number of early accidents until a fix was designed.
Pitch up was caused by high angle of attack (AOA)…a situation encountered when turning hard. The F-104 also had a problem with pitch up…and the fix for both aircraft was the same…a device that would push the control stick forward if the pilot approached the max allowed AOA. We called this device the ‘kicker’…it could be manually over-ridden, but only at the risk of entering a pitch up. BTDT.
alfakiloA fighter-bomber version of the F-101 also sounds like a completely superflous, pointless aircraft. What could it do that an F-4 couldn’t do as well if not better?
These two fighters were not contemporaries…the F-101 was ‘one generation’ earlier.
As a nuclear strike fighter-bomber, it served until replaced by the F-4.
alfakiloAlthough originally designed as a follow-on to the F-88 long range escort fighter concept, the F-101 entered service as a fighter-bomber…as a low level nuclear strike aircraft similar to the F-105. Unlike the F-105, the F-101 was not capable of carrying conventional weapons, and, given the development of other fighter aircraft, there was no need to modify the original design.
alfakiloVery interesting discussion!
What is the purpose of this idea…and why is it an improvement over what is currently in operation?
alfakiloYou sure that this is really correct? I think the problem is rather due to insufficient yaw authority. Have to look it up, but the “drag” of the aileron (it is more the entire wing) shouldn’t be the big issue when vertical stabilizer is in the loop.
Yes, I am sure that is correct.
Here is a link to a USN F-4 flight manual (see chapter 4, Flight Characteristics):
On page 4-2, adverse yaw is discussed.
On page 4-5, loss of control.
On page 4-8, a discussion of “Asymmeteric Load Effects” ( basically describes the perils of rolling pulling g at the same time).
alfakiloMaybe, roll rate is more important in turn (for turn reversals) where roll at lift counts??
Whether fighter, under these conditions can roll at 50 deg per sec (dps) or 5 dps or roll command will produce roll in opposite direction or it will even cause spin entry ???
There are all these Aileron Alone Departure and other parameters and derivatives …
In general, rolling and turning are two different things. A pilot uses his roll control to establish a desired bank angle…and then he uses back pressure (elevator) to produce the lift that actually turns the airplane.
There are exceptions when the pilot wants both a roll and a pitching force at the same time. The intent is to have the lift vector changing its direction while the nose is pitching up. For example, the High G Roll. But for most applications, the pilot will roll first, then pull.
As for departures and spins, some fighters (the F-4, for example) had a problem with adverse yaw when making aileron inputs at high angle of attack (AOA). In this situation, the aileron on the wing going up produced enough drag to pull that wing “back” as the jet rolled…the result was a tendency to roll in one direction while yawing in the opposite direction. If this condition was aggrevated enough, the outcome was a ‘departure’ (uncontrolled pitching, yawing, and rolling) that could end up in a spin if not corrected.
The answer to this was to relax back pressure since the thing causing the problem is the AOA…without the high AOA the aileron input wouldn’t create a problem. Back in those days, the saying was “Unload For Control”…meaning, when encountering an incipient departure, ‘unload’ (move the stick forward) to reduce the AOA and thereby reduce the tendency to create adverse yaw.
Regarding reversals, how they are flown depends on the situation. Reversals can be characterized as ‘slow’ or ‘fast’. In a slow reversal, the pilot uses rudder and elevator to generate an angle of attack and pitching moment that produces the intended flight path. A fast reversal is a ‘roll and pull’ maneuver where the pilots rolls to the desired attitude and then applies back pressure to rotate the nose. Reversals are common defensive responses when an attacker overshoots…slow overshoot, slow reversal…fast overshoot, fast reversal.
Instantaneous and sustained turn rates and G are more important in close combat than roll rates.
We have to be careful when we make generalizations about air combat maneuvering. This subject is extremely conditional on a number of parameters…speed, altitude, weight, configuration, and desired outcome.
Depending on the desired outcome, it may be that roll rate may be more important that turn rate or radius…for example, in WW2, poorer turning but better rolling US fighters such as the Wildcat could use their rolling capability to break away from a pursuing Zero. In a slow scissors. lift vector orientation is all important…the ability to generate a higher roll rate than your opponent means that you get to point behind him quicker than he can point behind you. The outcome is that he is pushed out in front and you get to gun his brains out.
alfakiloPerhaps instantaneous roll rates are more appropriate as a measure for aircraft performance in combat scenarios?
I doubt it. Given the amount of time that an aircraft spends in a max effort roll, the distinction, if any, between sustained and instantaneous is irrelevant.
alfakiloWell….If you want a source about this then the best I can do in this particular situation is head you in the right direction, purchase the book, its not like I can get him to come on here & explain to you & its not like I know him personally, like I said before its as a good a source as any, weither you believe in it, its up to you. Doesn’t really change anything.
You said this:
And if I recall correctly, when the Harrier was serving in Afghanistan, it was the only aircraft in theatre capable of flying in very bad weather conditions at night, according to Royal Navy pilot, Commander Ade Orchard.
You are being asked to clarify your “recollection”. You can do that by providing the relevant quote from Orchard’s book so that we all can see what was actually said and in what context it was said in. As that old saying goes…the devil’s in the details. Inasmuch as this is a Harrier discussion, those details would be interesting to know. For example, what particular capability does the Harrier have that would make it capable of flying at night or in bad weather that other aircraft don’t have?
To take this “recollection” at face value, one would have to think that Orchard deemed the Harrier more capable than other all weather attack aircraft…such as the F-15E, for example. Are you willing to believe that?
Well, I’d rather take their word for it rather than some peoples on forums. Would you?
Precisely…and that’s what’s being asked for. Orchard’s actual words…not opinion or “recollections”.
It may well be that this kerfuffle is moot in the sense that perhaps during Orchard’s time in Afghanistan, there simply were not any other allied aircraft with an all weather/night capability in that region…the Harrier was the only act in town. If so, that lends an entirely different sense to his words…he’s not referring to capabilities so much as he’s commenting on a limited inventory of available strike aircraft.
alfakiloHow serious can we take that poster? Is he a pilot has he flown said aircraft or does he have any other references? Doesn’t look like that.
Good question.
High roll rates are very disorienting. Depending on aircraft type, there is the danger of loss of control due to inertia coupling (airplane goes sideways) or exceeding the aircraft structural limits (tail comes off). For the F-104, for example, the max rate of roll as stated in the flight manual is 360 degrees per second. Similarly, I remember the T-38 as having a similar restriction.
From an operational perspective, I can’t think of a reason or maneuver that would require roll rates of 700 dps or more…for one thing, I doubt that the typical pilot would be able to effectively control such a roll rate (meaning the ability to use that roll rate to attain a desired bank angle)…and I suspect the angular momentum that such a rate would result in would make such precise control highly unlikely.
But most of all, I’m concerned about the type of helmet the pilot would be wearing…add that weight to the typical weight of a human head and what we end up with is a lot of pulled neck muscles and concussions resulting from smacking the canopy.
alfakiloWell, its as a good a source as any, its up to you to look into it…
Usually on forums such as this, those making claims are required to provide some sort of back up…telling people to go read a book doesn’t hack it.
and I quite clearly said those words were not mine, I clearly stated they were his.
Were we able to see what he was saying, we could judge for ourselves his point.
…anyone saying “it isn’t a fine aircraft” is either being ignorant of what its capable of or they just don’t have much of a clue about it.
Problem is, sport…I didn’t say that. Before you call someone names, read their words a little closer.
I’ve seen RAF Harriers taking off in incredibly thick fog just before dusk on various TV documentaries (easy to find) and in person. Now, either the pilots are incredibly stupid or they’re flying something thats capable of doing so. What would you say?
What I have to say is that your statement alleged that Orchard deemed the Harrier to be “…the only aircraft in theatre capable of flying in very bad weather conditions at night.”
There are other attack aircraft with night or all weather capability. Ranking the Harrier first among those is a bit of a stretch.
…And may I might add, (again, not my words) this is the same pilot that easily compares the Harrier with the A-10 for when it comes to CAP. Now laugh, taunt or whatever at that…
CAP? Did you really mean to say that? I doubt Cmdr Orchard used that term.
alfakiloBuy the book, thats what I did after I first heard about it. I was going to buy it anyway, but you know. And, its not my opinion, his words, along the lines of his words, anyway.
‘Explaining’. ex·plain·ing. Yanks still having trouble with the English language after all these years I see. JOKE! 😉
Unfortunately, that’s not much of an explanation.
If those are your words and not his, then please provide his words. The Harrier is not exactly advertised as the world’s premier all weather/night ground attack machine…not that in the hands of a well trained pilot, it isn’t a fine aircraft…but better than anything else in a night, and low ceiling situation…?
Really?
Now…if his comments were only meant for the Falklands situation…well, OK.
But then again…what other aircraft were there? If he is comparing the Harrier against the Argy A-4s in this environment…again, OK. But that’s not exactly a claim that takes one’s breath away, is it?
alfakiloAnd if I recall correctly, when the Harrier was serving in Afghanistan, it was the only aircraft in theatre capable of flying in very bad weather conditions at night, according to Royal Navy pilot, Commander Ade Orchard.
Such an opinion begs a little ‘splainin’.
alfakiloThe bucc only had a ferry range of a little over 2000nm, so I really rather doubt it.
I agree…someone’s confused over ferry range vs combat radius.
Sign In
