Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

best machine the RAF never had

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

best machine the RAF never had

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 18th Mar 2020, 17:01
  #221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,401
Received 361 Likes on 210 Posts
Originally Posted by nipva
Wasn't the almost impossible handling with the loss of an outboard engine, especially in reheat, also a reason for its premature demise? Just looking at it shows a palpable assymmetric handling issue.

I understand they lost at least 2 when that happened - awful snap and disintegration
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2020, 12:48
  #222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Age: 55
Posts: 199
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
B-58 trivia - at the aircraft's top speed, its tail defensive cannon's rounds actually had a 'tailwind'. Edit - nope not correct - aircraft forward speed 590m/s. Rounds travelling at 1030m/s.
Mk 1 is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2020, 06:06
  #223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Great South East, tired and retired
Posts: 4,373
Received 203 Likes on 92 Posts
The B-58 was definitely NOT built to last - my 1959 vintage 18" plastic model, which had a pod which ejected forward, courtesy of a spring, had a habit of ejecting the spring as well, which eventually was unable to be found. And I can vouch for the nosewheel problems too, it fell off after about 6 months.

My model of the Canberra was much better, and carried a barrage of marbles internally, dropped by a little bomb-bay trapdoor.
Ascend Charlie is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2020, 10:10
  #224 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,378
Received 1,579 Likes on 717 Posts
https://b58facts.wordpress.com/2017/...ts-yaw-damper/
ORAC is online now  
Old 20th Mar 2020, 16:15
  #225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,401
Received 361 Likes on 210 Posts
IIRC someone asked the F-111 main test pilot if it could be landed with the wings still at full sweep.

he said - "sure just the same as landing a B-58..."
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2020, 16:26
  #226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,401
Received 361 Likes on 210 Posts
Interesting ORAC - when they say 12 degree yaw is "untenable" it tells us all we need to know. A very hot ship, a very fast ship but not a safe ship..............
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2020, 23:29
  #227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Asturias56
Interesting ORAC - when they say 12 degree yaw is "untenable" it tells us all we need to know. A very hot ship, a very fast ship but not a safe ship..............
Untenable at Mach 2, sounds reasonable to me.
etudiant is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2020, 06:08
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 4,076
Received 53 Likes on 33 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
Hellishly expensive to operate, limited range and very dependent on tanker support

Most importantly, the belief that high altitude/high speed made it invulnerable to Soviet missiles was shattered.
West Coast is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2020, 10:02
  #229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,401
Received 361 Likes on 210 Posts
Back on thread I always thought the Corsair II would have been a decent buy
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2020, 10:29
  #230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: SW England
Age: 69
Posts: 1,496
Received 89 Likes on 35 Posts
Re the Corsair II, ISTR that the SLUF had the same (NAVWAS?) system as our Jag's, but with the originally spec'd gyro platform, rather than the cheap-and-nasty low cost option we were obliged to buy (along with rubbish, but by jingo British rubbish (remember the Alberts?)) PTR170 comms. Whereas our pilots became very well practised at heads-down, low-level reboots of the entire nav-attack system (those that survived the procedure, anyway...) it was a rare-ish event with the A7. Perhaps someone with actual knowledge can put me right - my memory was never the best.
Thud_and_Blunder is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2020, 11:01
  #231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east ESSEX
Posts: 4,660
Received 68 Likes on 43 Posts
T & B, think `Gums` will be along to let you know....
sycamore is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2020, 15:38
  #232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Nevada, USA
Posts: 1,603
Received 40 Likes on 27 Posts
The A-7D would have been more capable than the Jaguar for the Dual Capable strike / attack role in RAFG. Bigger conventional weapon load with more options off-the-shelf (Shrike, Walleye, HARM, Maverick), M61A1 20mm rotary cannon, TFR and could have carried up to 4 x B-61 nuclear weapons under dual key arrangements - continuing the USAF security arrangements that were already in place for the Phantom FGR2 with the B43/B57.

The Jaguar order could have been left at the original number for advanced flying training and then TWU.


From this source: http://www.aircraftinformation.info/art_A7.htm

"As the Air Force began issuing requirements for their version of the Corsair II, it became obvious that a new designation was needed to reflect the 20-plus changes made to the airframe. The designation A-7D was thus assigned. Most significant among the new changes was the fitting of a new, more powerful engine. More thrust was wanted for the A-7D, but the TF-30 couldn't deliver. As an afterburning variant of the TF-30 would take too long to develop, the Air Force selected the British Rolls-Royce RB162-256 Spey turbofan instead. It was licence-built in the US by Allison as the TF41-A-1 and developed 6 460 kg (14 250 lb) of thrust, which was 1 300 kg (2 900 lb) more than the TF30. A-7Ds also had a revised avionics suite and their two Mk 12 cannons deleted. These were replaced by a M61A-1 Vulcan 20 mm six-barrel cannon firing at a selectable rate of 4 000 or 6 000 rounds per minute with a maximum rate of fire of 6 600 rounds per minute. It was mounted in the port side of the fuselage and provided with 1 000 rounds of ammunition. A KB-18A strike camera in the lower forward fuselage engine compartment was used for strike damage assessment.

Avionics were radically upgraded, the main changes going into the sophisticated new navigation and weapon delivery system that allowed all-weather operation. The AN/ASN-91 navigation/weapon delivery computer was the primary element of the system and continuously computed weapons delivery and navigation data for greatly increased weapons delivery accuracy. An AN/ASN-90 inertial measurement set provided basic three-axis navigation and an AN/APN-190 Doppler radar measured speed and drift angle. The new AN/APG-126 forward-looking radar provided nine modes of operation for air-to-ground ranging, terrain-following, terrain-avoidance, ground mapping, and other functions. An AN/AVQ-7 head-up display received and displayed computed attack, navigation and landing data from the tactical computer, and a projected map display showed navigation data."


Last edited by RAFEngO74to09; 21st Mar 2020 at 15:55.
RAFEngO74to09 is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2020, 15:54
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,924
Received 139 Likes on 64 Posts
RAFEng074to09,

Are you deliberately trying to historically wreck the British aerospace industry? Your little suggestion re that thing called the Jaguar would have meant no Hawk....

As to the A7 I'm not sure, the Jaguar squadrons in RAFG replaced Phantom FGR2 squadrons, and I'm not at all sure that anybody who suggested replacing a strike attack Phantom FGR2 with an A-7 would have been taken seriously. Seeing as how the Jaguar was rapidly replaced with Tornado, why not just leave the Phantom FGR2 in RAFG strike attack and find something else to do AD?
pr00ne is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2020, 10:53
  #234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 240
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by pr00ne
RAFEng074to09,

why not just leave the Phantom FGR2 in RAFG strike attack and find something else to do AD?
Like I said earlier....

Minnie Burner is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2020, 12:37
  #235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 240
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
ORAC
How often did you see an Eagle refuelling from a Victor?

Last edited by Minnie Burner; 23rd Mar 2020 at 09:09.
Minnie Burner is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2020, 13:32
  #236 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,378
Received 1,579 Likes on 717 Posts
My first tour as an FC was at Neatishead in 1975. One of the sorties I controlled was providing flight safety cover for a pair of F-15As who were intercepting low level targets under the control of an E-3A. All three in the UK on a sales demo for the RAF, and within months of the first USAF Sqn forming.

The period overlapped precisely with the time the FGR-2s were being transferred to 11 Gp in the AD rile (Oct 74 to late 76).

If the Jag hadn’t been converted into a bomber rather than a trainer, or had been just a couple of years later, the RAF might well have replaced the single seat Lightning with the single seat F-15A.

The F-18 first flight wasn’t until 1978, and it didn’t enter operational service till 1983. Way to late for the RAF.
ORAC is online now  
Old 22nd Mar 2020, 19:46
  #237 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: the far south
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes on 13 Posts
By the early 70s the RAF could have been:

F-4 for long range AD
Viggen for short range AD and CAS/BAI replacing Lightnings and ordered instead of Harrier and Jaguar
Buccaneer for strike.

With upgrades these could have been relevant well into the 90s.
Think what the Germans did with the F-4, and a Buccaneer Mk3 with essentially Tornado avionics

If Typhoon had not been too delayed we could have missed out a whole generation of Tornado GR1/4/F3 and Harrier GR5/7/9 etc with no drop in capability?



typerated is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2020, 09:00
  #238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,401
Received 361 Likes on 210 Posts
But what would have happened to the shareholders in BAe????
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2020, 09:08
  #239 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: the far south
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes on 13 Posts
probably not as bad as it sounds.

building Bucc's
Viggens under licence and mid life on F4's.

Maybe might have had more chance of exporting these than say Jag's??
typerated is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2020, 07:04
  #240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 54
Posts: 206
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by typerated
By the early 70s the RAF could have been:


Think what the Germans did with the F-4, and a Buccaneer Mk3 with essentially Tornado avionics
?
I understand that a Buccaneer flew with Tornado Avionics as a test bed. As a weapons platform it was more capable then the Tornado particularly with a full load I believe. As soon as the avionics trial concluded it was destroyed to prevent any more embarrassing evidence being gathered. Apparently.
DCThumb is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.