What Is Your All Time Favorite Fighter Airplane?

[TAROMAN]

in a lighter vein, let us not forget the CAPRONI-MORONI C2 "SCUD" EXPERIMENTAL FIGHTER

When the tide of war turned against it, Fascist Italy turned with the tide.
The C2, or "SCUD," was one direct result. The engineers of Aeronautico Piccolino Abagano Elari Quattori in Turin were charged with designing an aircraft of modern fighter type that could, should word come in mid-air of another change in Italian allegiance, instantly reverse course and become part of the now friendly force.
Thus the unique two-engine configuration, central cockpit with swivel seat and dual controls facing fore and aft.
Time for the SCUD (mean "Scuderia con curso il travala," or "turncoat") to switch directions and sides was set at less than two minutes from a top speed of 265 mph by air force consultants.
This performance criterion was never tested, much less met, since pilots refused to attempt it, except on the ground with an ambulance close by.
One pilot did take the sole SCUD prototype aloft, but once airborne decided to visit his mother in Salerno and wrecked the craft crash-landing on a nearby beach.
The SCUD was painted gold by artisans formerly employed in upkeep of the Sistine Chapel.

A remarkable feature of the plane, considering its fighter designation, was its total lack of armament.
The designers successfully resisted all attempts to ruin its unbroken lines with ugly gun

 

[comtedeloach]

If you have three quarters (6 bits) and add one quarter (2 bits) that is a 25% increase. Chuck Hawks and I have been through this also.

No, it's not.

You have six guns. That is your 100% of guns you have. You add two. That's 33 1/3 percent of the 100% of guns you had. Hawks is right.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[comtedeloach]

Understood, but did the four-gun F-4's actually see combat? I think that by the time of the Coral Sea battle, all carriers had the six-gun ones. ?? I know that Buffaloes were used at Midway, with disastrous results.

Maybe the Royal Navy's early Wildcats had the four-gun armament. They were at first called Martlets (sp?) , after a kind of weasel. They were known to have taken down at least one FW-190 and FW Kurier four-engine planes. They were more rugged than Sea Hurricanes, and both helped a lot to keep German air power from Allied convoys.

Someone mentioned that the Japanese had trouble with building good liquid cooled engines, limiting production of the K-61 Hien (Tony ). Using a new radial engine on that airframe resulted in the K-100, one of the deadliest Japanese fighters. Only limited production and poor QC kept it from being a major menace to Allied aircraft. Same for the Naval fighters, George 11 and 12. The K-61 and 100 were Army planes. All of these late planes were better armed and had the positive attributes of the Zero, too.

Yes, Edward O'Hare used a F4F-3 to shoot down 5 bombers in one mission. The F4F-3 had four guns.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[BLUEDOT37]

The F-4's were awesome when used by the Thunderbirds. Just their massive size was impressive. Then due to the energy crises in the 1970's went to the much smaller T-38's.

I agree. I got hooked on them the first air show I saw at Keesler AFB in 1971. Back then they REALLY flew those planes. They came off the end of the runway, over the golf course, stood the plane on it's tail & the exhaust rolled off the putting green. They were awesome! And I loved their design.

Too bad I didn't get any pictures back then. Couldn't afford a camera until Nixon gave us a rise.

.

 

[Gamecock]

Gulfecho, you show us a picture of the P-51D. Very sexy. But the air war was over by the time they got to Europe. It was the P-51B/C that did the work.

 

[Cardboard_killer]

Gulfecho, you show us a picture of the P-51D. Very sexy. But the air war was over by the time they got to Europe. It was the P-51B/C that did the work.

And they only had 4 machine guns.

Although, to be fair, by the time the US got to the war, the German airforce was already a shadow of it's 1940/1941 self (thank you Battle of Britain and USSR). The attrition rates of a modern war were way beyond what Germany could keep up with, considering their pilot replacement program and chronic fuel shortages.

 

[Skeptic 9c]

Did Vought make any noteworthy airplanes other than the F4U Corsair?

The F8U Crusader, it killed more of our pilots than it ever did enemy airplanes.
Geoff
Who notes some folks with experience still hate LTV.

 

[Gulfecho]

Gulfecho, you show us a picture of the P-51D. Very sexy. But the air war was over by the time they got to Europe. It was the P-51B/C that did the work.

Gamecock, no harm intended. I honestly didn't know responders would pay such attention. I just happen to pull a "D" model out of the archives, as you pointed out the B&C models did the majority of the heavy lifting, (pardon the pun) early in the Mustang's conception. The picture more accurately should have been from an earlier series. Good catch!

The shortcomings of the B/C models were well-known and evolved into the new model, the P-51D. The B and C models suffered poor rearward visibility and gun jamming during high-G maneuvers. The B/C models only had four .50 caliber Browning's (2 in each wing) as you pointed out. Pilots wanted more fire power. North American also took the opportunity to make other improvements to the new line.

The new line, designated NA-109, P-51D, was started after the USAAF ordered 2,500 in July 1943. Interesting is that the XP-51D did not have a test flight until November 17, 1943, well after the first order was placed. Deliveries to fighter units began March of 1944 and a good supply was on hand for the Normandy Invasion.

Considered by many, the D is the definitive P-51, the P-51D was the most produced Mustang with over 8,000 planes built. It is also the most survived of the models with many still flying today.

 

[Skeptic 9c]

Back to pure aviation beauty.

The early marks of the Supermarine Spitfire.
The P-51D North American Mustang
The Grumman F-9 Cougar
The Lockheed F-104
The McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle
The McDonnell Douglas Boeing Northrop F/A-18E Super Hornet

Pure looks not performance.
Geoff
Who notes aircraft, like people, get heavier and lumpier with age.

 

[Gulfecho]

Back to pure aviation beauty.

The early marks of the Supermarine Spitfire.
The P-51D North American Mustang
The Grumman F-9 Cougar
The Lockheed F-104
The McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle
The McDonnell Douglas Boeing Northrop F/A-18E Super Hornet

Pure looks not performance.
Geoff
Who notes aircraft, like people, get heavier and lumpier with age.

I am in total agreement with you regarding your ratings on planes. Seriously, how do you distinguish the graceful lines of the Spitfire with the war machine appearance of the Mustang...tough call.

 

[colkid]

Navy F9F Korean war-Just a kids memory.

 

[comtedeloach]

The F8U Crusader, it killed more of our pilots than it ever did enemy airplanes.

Geoff

Who notes some folks with experience still hate LTV.

All it needed was better engines and it would have been a very good fighter. It was at least 10 years before its time.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[cmort666]

I know the FM-2 was an improved F-4, with a taller rudder.

Didn't know their gas was that bad. Did know that some could reach or exceed 400MPH. Frank, Ki-100, George 12.

With their gas, 400mph was a struggle.

With 100(?) octane, it was easy.

We were lucky that they and the Germans operated under so many logistical handicaps, self-imposed and otherwise.

 

[muddocktor]

The F8U Crusader, it killed more of our pilots than it ever did enemy airplanes.
Geoff
Who notes some folks with experience still hate LTV.

You can apply that axiom to all the 2nd generation jets (first generation supersonic jets). The early engines weren't the most reliable and they spooled up slowly and many of the first supersonic jets had instability problems too. Look on YouTube and search "Sabre Dance F-100" to see the results of having slow spoolup of the engine and pitch up problems of the F-100 and J-57 engine. The F-100 for example also had to be modified with a larger tail fin because of extremely marginal stability in certain flight regimes during the production cycle at a pretty big expense. The Crusader was known as the "Ensign Killer" since it required a pretty experienced pilot to be able to land the beast. Ironically, if they would have had the computing power that the 4th and 5th gen jets have along with fly by wire controls, those early jets would probably have been extremely maneuverable and no harder to fly than a present F-16 or F-18.

 

[cmort666]

You can apply that axiom to all the 2nd generation jets (first generation supersonic jets). The early engines weren't the most reliable and they spooled up slowly and many of the first supersonic jets had instability problems too. Look on YouTube and search "Sabre Dance F-100" to see the results of having slow spoolup of the engine and pitch up problems of the F-100 and J-57 engine. The F-100 for example also had to be modified with a larger tail fin because of extremely marginal stability in certain flight regimes during the production cycle at a pretty big expense. The Crusader was known as the "Ensign Killer" since it required a pretty experienced pilot to be able to land the beast. Ironically, if they would have had the computing power that the 4th and 5th gen jets have along with fly by wire controls, those early jets would probably have been extremely maneuverable and no harder to fly than a present F-16 or F-18.

If you look at some of the very advanced German tailless designs that were never actually built, it's pretty obvious that they would have been literally IMPOSSIBLE to fly without a computerized control system, a la the F-117. They would have been so naturally unstable that a human pilot simply couldn't have controlled them unaided. WITH computerized fly by wire systems, who knows...

 

[Gamecock]

If you look at some of the very advanced German tailless designs that were never actually built, it's pretty obvious that they would have been literally IMPOSSIBLE to fly without a computerized control system, a la the F-117. They would have been so naturally unstable that a human pilot simply couldn't have controlled them unaided. WITH computerized fly by wire systems, who knows...

If you are saying what I think you are saying, you are quite wrong. The U.S. had worked on a tailless plane from 1941 on. It flew in 1946. The Northrop XB-35. It flew well enough that they proceeded with a jet-engined model, the XB-49. No computer control available in the 1940s.

 

[Gulfecho]

If you are saying what I think you are saying, you are quite wrong. The U.S. had worked on a tailless plane from 1941 on. It flew in 1946. The Northrop XB-35. It flew well enough that they proceeded with a jet-engined model, the XB-49. No computer control available in the 1940s.

But the XB-49 was scrapped and never entered production being passed over in favor of the more conventional Convair B-36 piston-driven design. You could, however, claim that the XB-49 was a distant prototype to the B2 Spirit.

 

[muddocktor]

Gulfecho, from what I've read, the XB-35 and YB-49 both had some problems with yaw, which was handled with a form of mechanical computer stabilization system that pretty much solved the yaw problem. There were a few reasons why it was dropped though, both physically and especially, politically. On the political side, Stuart Symington tried to force Northrup to merge with Convair and when John Northrup turned down doing that the plane orders were canceled and the planes themselves chopped up. BTW, Stuart Symington became president of Convair not too long after that happened too. What an amazing coincidence, huh?

On the physical side, one big detriment to building a bunch of Flying Wings was the fact that the bomb bays were too small to carry the day's fusion weapons, which were some huge bombs physically. Another reason was the fact that the YB-49 was based off the old XB-35 which was designed in the mid 40's, and was at least 100 MPH slower than the XB-47 which was being developed around the same time too. And the jet engines of that era were both low powered and very inefficient and range wasn't as great as what the B-36 or even the B-47 could fly. It was definitely a plane designed before it's time was ripe though and a portent of things to come.

It's too bad that they didn't even save one plane for the Wright Patterson museum though. That Symington was a vindictive son of a gun.

 

[Gamecock]

No, guys. The problem with the Northrop flying wings was not the planes. The problem was with the munitions. Mid-century bombs were aimed by the plane. The flying wings were not stable bombing platforms, hence were scrapped. The difference with the B-2 is indeed computers - computers in the BOMBS!

 

[cmort666]

If you are saying what I think you are saying, you are quite wrong. The U.S. had worked on a tailless plane from 1941 on. It flew in 1946. The Northrop XB-35. It flew well enough that they proceeded with a jet-engined model, the XB-49. No computer control available in the 1940s.

Compared to some of the German designs the XB-35 and XB-49 were downright CONVENTIONAL, boring even.

What was the reason for ditching the flying wings? They were an unstable platform for delivering dumb bombs.

And note that vertical stabilizers were eventually added to the Northrop design, greatly increasing its radar signature.

A couple of Blohm und Voss designs: