Aircraft that never lived up to their promise

[ArtKramr]

I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?

Regards,

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Keith Willshaw]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?
>
> Regards,
>
>

Boulton Paul Defiant
Supermarine Swift
Avro Manchester (although the Lancaster did in spades)
Fairey Battle

Keith

[user]

F7-U Cutlass,,,over 160 delivered in the 50's,,,,WAY under
powered...weighed over 30,000 lbs and only had 4000 lbs thrust each
outta 2 J46's. and therefore WAY dangerous...Awesome one on display at
the Naval Aviaition Museum in P'cola.

On 30 Nov 2003 20:43:58 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?
>
>Regards,
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
user > wrote:

> F7-U Cutlass,,,over 160 delivered in the 50's,,,,WAY under
> powered...weighed over 30,000 lbs and only had 4000 lbs thrust each
> outta 2 J46's. and therefore WAY dangerous...Awesome one on display at
> the Naval Aviaition Museum in P'cola.
>
> On 30 Nov 2003 20:43:58 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> >I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Arthur Kramer
> >344th BG 494th BS
> > England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> >Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> >http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

The classic turkey: The Fisher XP-75 Eagle -- supposed to become an
escort fighter, built from parts of several production aircraft.

Mc Donnell F3H-1 Demon -- like the "gutless Cutlass," underpowered,
designed to be supersonic.

Martin P5M Seamaster ("Seamonster") jet Medium bomber seaplane.

Convair XFY-1 VTOL fighter, along with the Lockheed XFV-1 -- both
tailsitters. Pilots found the transition from flight to tail-first
vertical landing too hard to do.

[Peter Kemp]

Westland Whirlwind (one of my favourites)
TSR.2

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[machf]

On 30 Nov 2003 20:43:58 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?
>
Would the F-22 fit in this category, or is it too early to tell yet?

--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(

remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

[Tarver Engineering]

"machf" > wrote in message
...
> On 30 Nov 2003 20:43:58 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> >I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?
> >
> Would the F-22 fit in this category, or is it too early to tell yet?

That is pretty much up to the galloping dominoes now.

[Chad Irby]

In article
>

> The classic turkey: The Fisher XP-75 Eagle -- supposed to become an
> escort fighter, built from parts of several production aircraft.

One of the first real proofs that you can make all sorts of things fly
with a big enough engine.

> Mc Donnell F3H-1 Demon -- like the "gutless Cutlass," underpowered,
> designed to be supersonic.

....and the corresponding "with a poor engine, any plane can be a piece
of crap."

> Martin P5M Seamaster ("Seamonster") jet Medium bomber seaplane.

P6M. The P5M was the Marlin. (Although the P6M was based off of the
P5M). And let's not forget the corresponding fighter, the cool-looking
but problematic Sea Dart - I would have loved to see one of these in the
air.

> Convair XFY-1 VTOL fighter, along with the Lockheed XFV-1 -- both
> tailsitters. Pilots found the transition from flight to tail-first
> vertical landing too hard to do.

Oddly enough, the tailsitter designs are coming back... without the
pilots. Some of the more promising UAVs look much like the pogo planes,
since the computers running them have much less trouble dealing with
that transition than people do.

For some reason, many pilots don't like trying to land an aircraft while
lying on their backs.


There are so many wonderful example of planes that sucked...

The XA2D Skyshark, which showed that early turboprops often weren't
ready for prime time, and reminded us that contrarotating props had
their own issues.

Then there's the slow but loud XF-84H, with a turboprop engine and a big
fat prop up front. Which shows that you can screw up anything if you
try hard enough.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Darrell A. Larose]

ArtKramr ) writes:
> I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?
>
A.V. Roe Canada CF-105 Avro Arrow, a long range interceptor that only had
a 700 nm range. The is bearly enough to fly from CFB Cold Lake to
Whitehorse, Yukon. The concept as a interceptor that would meet a wave of
Soviet bombers over the high Arctic, but didn't have the legs to get there!

I was big, white and pretty... but I am one Canadian who the more I read
about it the poorer the a/c ends up being. In design during the same
period was Lockheed's A-11, A-12 and SR-71.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:04:18 -0500, machf >
wrote:

>On 30 Nov 2003 20:43:58 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?
>>
>Would the F-22 fit in this category, or is it too early to tell yet?

Definitely not. It's met or exceeding all of it's requirements.
Unless that's how *you* define a loser.

[JDupre5762]

>I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?
>
>Arthur Kramer

For WW2 era you can't ignore the Brewster F2A Buffalo which was a great
handling machine in its earliest versions but was too heavy and underpowered to
face the Japanese with any significant success. Though like the P-39 in the
USSR the Finnish Air Force did wonders with the Brewster when facing aircraft
that were contemporaries in design era.

also the Heinkel 177 Grief.

John Dupre'

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin"

> Unless that's how *you* define a loser.

Scott Ferrin a loser?

That has been an elephant in the room for some time now.

[Ed Majden]

"Darrell A. Larose"
> A.V. Roe Canada CF-105 Avro Arrow, a long range interceptor that only had
> a 700 nm range. The is bearly enough to fly from CFB Cold Lake to
> Whitehorse, Yukon. The concept as a interceptor that would meet a wave of
> Soviet bombers over the high Arctic, but didn't have the legs to get
there!
>
The replacement was the IM99B Bomarc SAM complete with nuclear warhead.
Range of that was in the 200-400 miles bracket, a great place to have a
nuclear weapon go off and scatter radiation over Canadian cities and towns.
I guess the yanks didn't consider that when they gave them to us! Good
thing they were never used, eh! Only good thing about the Bomarc was to be
assigned to the debriefing, parking and turn around crews. ;-)

[George Z. Bush]

C-82
C-133

George Z.


Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>
> Boulton Paul Defiant
> Supermarine Swift
> Avro Manchester (although the Lancaster did in spades)
> Fairey Battle
>
> Keith

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "machf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > Would the F-22 fit in this category, or is it too early to tell yet?
>
> That is pretty much up to the galloping dominoes now.

Well, Tarver doesn't like the F-22, so it's got a decent chance of being
a contender for "best aircraft ever."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article <qLvyb.536636$9l5.371394@pd7tw2no>,
"Ed Majden" > wrote:

> The replacement was the IM99B Bomarc SAM complete with nuclear warhead.
> Range of that was in the 200-400 miles bracket, a great place to have a
> nuclear weapon go off and scatter radiation over Canadian cities and towns.
> I guess the yanks didn't consider that when they gave them to us! Good
> thing they were never used, eh! Only good thing about the Bomarc was to be
> assigned to the debriefing, parking and turn around crews. ;-)

You should remember that with small fission warheads at high altitudes,
there is very little fallout, and practically zero compared to even a
single megaton-level ground strike.

Not to mention that they planned on using the same size of warhead over
most of the continental US for air defense...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Ed Majden]

"Chad Irby" > You should remember that with small fission warheads at high
altitudes,
> there is very little fallout, and practically zero compared to even a
> single megaton-level ground strike.

What makes you think that these would have been high level blasts???
Tactics with the B52 was a ground hugger to avoid SAMS and radar detection.
Incinerating a Bear full of nuclear warheads would have created a severe
nuclear fall out problem!
>
> Not to mention that they planned on using the same size of warhead over
> most of the continental US for air defense..

U.S. Bomarc sites were near the Canada/U.S. border and most intercepts
would have taken place over Canada.. Bomarc bases were hard sites. Fighter
aircraft like the CF-105 would have been dispersed all over the country to
forward bases in the event of an attack. They could also have been able to
be called back in case of an error. A Bomarc was a one way trip!

[Erik Pfeister]

(ArtKramr) wrote:
> >
> > >I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >Arthur Kramer

Obvious, the Martin Marauder (B-26), no load, no range, no speed, no
altitude.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Aircraft that never lived up to their promise
>From: "Erik Pfeister"
>Date: 11/30/03 6:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>> >
>> > >I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?
>> > >
>> > >Regards,
>> > >
>> > >Arthur Kramer
>
> Obvious, the Martin Marauder (B-26), no load, no range, no speed, no
>altitude.
>
>


No comment. (grin)


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Dav1936531]

>From: (ArtKramr)
>
>
>I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?
>Regards,
>Arthur Kramer

ME-262.......I think no single aircraft had greater promise, but it came too
late (after most of Germany's best pilots were gone and the air war was already
lost) and in too few numbers.
Dave

[BOB URZ]

ArtKramr wrote:

> I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?
>
> Regards,
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Mig 1.44? Has it ever really flown to spec?

Bob



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:54:21 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin"
>
>> Unless that's how *you* define a loser.
>
>Scott Ferrin a loser?
>
>That has been an elephant in the room for some time now.
>


Were's those pictures of the strakes?

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:39:24 GMT, Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:04:18 -0500, machf >
>wrote:
>
>>On 30 Nov 2003 20:43:58 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>
>>>I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?
>>>
>>Would the F-22 fit in this category, or is it too early to tell yet?
>
>Definitely not. It's met or exceeding all of it's requirements.
>Unless that's how *you* define a loser.

It's far too early to tell.

You don't know any more than I do the circumstances under which it
sees action. In 10 or 20 years time, technology will certainly have
advanced: it may be that the F-22 is seen as a wonder weapon, or it
may be seen as technically accomplished but obsolete, like the
Yamato.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Chad Irby]

In article <Rwxyb.533404$pl3.92056@pd7tw3no>,
"Ed Majden" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby"
> > You should remember that with small fission warheads at high
> > altitudes, there is very little fallout, and practically zero
> > compared to even a single megaton-level ground strike.
>
> What makes you think that these would have been high level blasts???

Because the Soviets never had anything that could make it all the way to
the US at low level. And with the size of warhead we're talking about
for most of these, you'd only need to be a couple of thousand feet up to
eliminate fallout from a ground burst.

> Tactics with the B52 was a ground hugger to avoid SAMS and radar detection.

....but stayed at higher altitudes until they got in close. Not to
mention the B-52 had a *lot* more range at low level, and a lot of top
speed over the Bears of the period. Any Russian planes coming in over
Canada could not have been running low and still plan on making it to
the US.

> Incinerating a Bear full of nuclear warheads would have created a severe
> nuclear fall out problem!

Not as much as you'd think. Even at close range, you wouldn't
"incinerate" a plane. You'd need a fairly dead-on hit to vaporize even
one. Small nukes have small fireballs. Any Soviet planes hit by one of
these would prettybe blown out of the sky, but the effects would be no
worse than getting shot down in the first place.

> > Not to mention that they planned on using the same size of warhead over
> > most of the continental US for air defense..
>
> U.S. Bomarc sites were near the Canada/U.S. border and most intercepts
> would have taken place over Canada..

But there were US interceptor planes all over, and the Genie air-to-air
missile was in the inventory (we built over a thousand of them), with a
1.5 kiloton warhead. It was unguided, too, and only had a 6 mile range,
which made for some interesting attack plans.

Then there was the Nike-Hercules SAM, with a "switchable" warhead of
between 2 and 40 kilotons. I know of at least one near Dallas, and
that's nowhere *near* Canada.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Ed Majden]

"Chad Irby" > >
> Not as much as you'd think. Even at close range, you wouldn't
> "incinerate" a plane. You'd need a fairly dead-on hit to vaporize even
> one. Small nukes have small fireballs. Any Soviet planes hit by one of
> these would prettybe blown out of the sky, but the effects would be no
> worse than getting shot down in the first place.

Good thing we didn't have to go through a nuclear war to see who is
right! One of our base hospitals had an appropriate sign at the entrance.

"What to do in case of a nuclear attack: Answer: "Stick your head
between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye!"

[Tarver Engineering]

"Hobo" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> > Scott Ferrin a loser?
> >
> > That has been an elephant in the room for some time now.
>
> This is unprovoked.

Hardly.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:16:03 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Hobo" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Scott Ferrin a loser?
>> >
>> > That has been an elephant in the room for some time now.
>>
>> This is unprovoked.
>
>Hardly.


Yeah it really ****es you off when someone calls you on something
doesn't it?

[Nele_VII]

Sukhoi's SU-2. However, its engine (actuallu, its derivatives) proved itself
when mached to LaGG-3 airframe, resultig in La-5/7/9

--

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
Chad Irby wrote in message ...
>In article
>
>
>> The classic turkey: The Fisher XP-75 Eagle -- supposed to become an
>> escort fighter, built from parts of several production aircraft.
>
>One of the first real proofs that you can make all sorts of things fly
>with a big enough engine.
>
>> Mc Donnell F3H-1 Demon -- like the "gutless Cutlass," underpowered,
>> designed to be supersonic.
>
>...and the corresponding "with a poor engine, any plane can be a piece
>of crap."
>
>> Martin P5M Seamaster ("Seamonster") jet Medium bomber seaplane.
>
>P6M. The P5M was the Marlin. (Although the P6M was based off of the
>P5M). And let's not forget the corresponding fighter, the cool-looking
>but problematic Sea Dart - I would have loved to see one of these in the
>air.
>
>> Convair XFY-1 VTOL fighter, along with the Lockheed XFV-1 -- both
>> tailsitters. Pilots found the transition from flight to tail-first
>> vertical landing too hard to do.
>
>Oddly enough, the tailsitter designs are coming back... without the
>pilots. Some of the more promising UAVs look much like the pogo planes,
>since the computers running them have much less trouble dealing with
>that transition than people do.
>
>For some reason, many pilots don't like trying to land an aircraft while
>lying on their backs.
>
>
>There are so many wonderful example of planes that sucked...
>
>The XA2D Skyshark, which showed that early turboprops often weren't
>ready for prime time, and reminded us that contrarotating props had
>their own issues.
>
>Then there's the slow but loud XF-84H, with a turboprop engine and a big
>fat prop up front. Which shows that you can screw up anything if you
>try hard enough.
>
>--
>cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
>Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
>Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Nele_VII]

Tell that to Mr. Rasimus. He will certainly disagree with You!

--

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
Frank Vaughan wrote in message
>...
<snip>
>
>Didn't one of the early MiG's (17/19/21) have such short legs
>that the running joke was that you needed one to guard each end
>of the airfield?
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Frank Vaughan "Spectre Gunner"
>Vietnam Veteran -- AC-130E Spectre Gunships
>16th Special Operations Squadron (USAF)
>"We were winning when I left."
>Visit my Gunship page at: www.gunships.org

[Darrell A. Larose]

"Ed Majden" ) writes:
> "Chad Irby" > You should remember that with small fission warheads at high
> altitudes,
>> there is very little fallout, and practically zero compared to even a
>> single megaton-level ground strike.
>
> What makes you think that these would have been high level blasts???
> Tactics with the B52 was a ground hugger to avoid SAMS and radar detection.
> Incinerating a Bear full of nuclear warheads would have created a severe
> nuclear fall out problem!
>>
>> Not to mention that they planned on using the same size of warhead over
>> most of the continental US for air defense..
>
> U.S. Bomarc sites were near the Canada/U.S. border and most intercepts
> would have taken place over Canada.. Bomarc bases were hard sites. Fighter
> aircraft like the CF-105 would have been dispersed all over the country to
> forward bases in the event of an attack. They could also have been able to
> be called back in case of an error. A Bomarc was a one way trip!
>
Except there were no forward bases to deploy the Arrow from, nor did it
have air-to-air refueling capacity.

[Darrell A. Larose]

"Ed Majden" ) writes:
> "Darrell A. Larose"
>> A.V. Roe Canada CF-105 Avro Arrow, a long range interceptor that only had
>> a 700 nm range. The is bearly enough to fly from CFB Cold Lake to
>> Whitehorse, Yukon. The concept as a interceptor that would meet a wave of
>> Soviet bombers over the high Arctic, but didn't have the legs to get
> there!
>>
> The replacement was the IM99B Bomarc SAM complete with nuclear warhead.
> Range of that was in the 200-400 miles bracket, a great place to have a
> nuclear weapon go off and scatter radiation over Canadian cities and towns.
> I guess the yanks didn't consider that when they gave them to us! Good
> thing they were never used, eh! Only good thing about the Bomarc was to be
> assigned to the debriefing, parking and turn around crews. ;-)
>
The Arrow's replacement was the CF-101 Voodoo, complete with nuclear
tipped Genie missles.

[George Z. Bush]

"Erik Pfeister" > wrote in message
...
>
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
> > >
> > > >I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?
> > > >
> > > >Regards,
> > > >
> > > >Arthur Kramer
>
> Obvious, the Martin Marauder (B-26), no load, no range, no speed, no
> altitude.


Jeez, now you've done it.....Kramer will have your ass for that one. (^-^)))

George Z.
>
>

[Ed Majden]

"Darrell A. Larose
> Except there were no forward bases to deploy the Arrow from, nor did it
> have air-to-air refueling capacity.
>
Bases no, but runways yes at various locations. The Bomarc hard site
was useless as it would have been taken out by an ICBM or cruise type
missile long before they got one off the ground. The bombers would have
come in as a clean up some time after the first strike. At the first sign
of trouble fighters would be scattered all over the country so survivability
was much better. I seem to have read somewhere that the airforce had
ordered or wanted 700 CF-105s. They were replaced by 66 old Voodoos and two
hard Bomarc sites after cancellation. Some replacement!

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Aircraft that never lived up to their promise
>From: "George Z. Bush"
>Date: 12/1/03 5:15 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Erik Pfeister" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?
>> > > >
>> > > >Regards,
>> > > >
>> > > >Arthur Kramer
>>
>> Obvious, the Martin Marauder (B-26), no load, no range, no speed, no
>> altitude.
>
>
>Jeez, now you've done it.....Kramer will have your ass for that one. (^-^)))
>
>George Z.
>>
>>
>
>

Not worth bothering with.

Regards,




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
news:GUHyb.534554$6C4.421467@pd7tw1no...
>
> The Bomarc hard site was useless as it would have been taken out by an
> ICBM or cruise type missile long before they got one off the ground.
>

Hmmm, isn't the idea to launch the interceptor missile BEFORE the bombers
reach their targets? What Soviet ICBMs and cruise missiles had the accuracy
to destroy hard targets when Bomarc enterd service?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
news:Rwxyb.533404$pl3.92056@pd7tw3no...
>
> What makes you think that these would have been high level blasts???
> Tactics with the B52 was a ground hugger to avoid SAMS and radar
detection.
> Incinerating a Bear full of nuclear warheads would have created a severe
> nuclear fall out problem!
>

The Bomarc entered service in 1959, I believe ground-hugging became the
penetration tactic of choice some years after that.

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

ArtKramr wrote:
>
> I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?

The successful failure: the F-16.

Successful (in filling the unneeded slot of the F-5: small
and nimble, with a good self defense capability and light-
weight severely-limited bombing capability).

Ultimately successful, too, (though still limited) when
weapons came along which didn't depend upon the launching
aurcraft to be accurate: AMRAAM, and the pod-installed
capability for shooting HARMS, and for guiding LGBs.

Failure, though, in filling the shoes of F-4s, too-rapidly
retired to make room for the stripped little sportscar of
the skies.

[Eugene Styer]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in message >...

> The classic turkey: The Fisher XP-75 Eagle -- supposed to become an
> escort fighter, built from parts of several production aircraft.
>

I can't think of the reference right now, but I remember reading that
one of the purposes of the P-75 program was to give GM(?) a reason to
stay out of the B-29 program - so the Eagle was not entirely a
failure!

Eugene Styer

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:05:26 GMT, "Ed Majden" > wrote:

>
>"Darrell A. Larose
>> Except there were no forward bases to deploy the Arrow from, nor did it
>> have air-to-air refueling capacity.
>>
> Bases no, but runways yes at various locations. The Bomarc hard site
>was useless as it would have been taken out by an ICBM or cruise type
>missile long before they got one off the ground. The bombers would have
>come in as a clean up some time after the first strike. At the first sign
>of trouble fighters would be scattered all over the country so survivability
>was much better. I seem to have read somewhere that the airforce had
>ordered or wanted 700 CF-105s. They were replaced by 66 old Voodoos and two
>hard Bomarc sites after cancellation. Some replacement!
>
A few notes:

1. What cruise missiles are you referring to (in the1950's and 60's)??

2. What ICBM had the accuracy to target a missile site?

3. How were the CF-105's going to be fueled at these "runways"?.

4. Given the range of the CF-105 and the size of Canada, you would have huge holes in
your coverage.

Al Minyard

[Ed Majden]

"Steven P. McNicoll"
> Hmmm, isn't the idea to launch the interceptor missile BEFORE the bombers
> reach their targets? What Soviet ICBMs and cruise missiles had the
accuracy
> to destroy hard targets when Bomarc enterd service?
>
Fortunately we didn't find out what their accuracy was! If it was as
bad as you seem to suggest, what the hell were we scared iof them for. Long
before this, V1 buz bombs and V2s hit London. The first strike would have
been ICBMs in any event, not bombers.

[Ed Majden]

"Alan Minyard"
> 4. Given the range of the CF-105 and the size of Canada, you would have
huge holes in
> your coverage.
>
66 Voodoo's sure didn't plug these holes! Nor did the Bomarcs at two
eastern bases. Most airports used for dispersal have supplies of jet fuels.
The U.S. had cruise type missiles and I expect the Russians had their own
versions. Don't forget, the Bomarc was used until the early 1970s where
weapons were much better. By the way an Arrow could be equipped with a Geni
as it had a large weapons bay.

[Ed Majden]

"Steven P. McNicoll"
> The Bomarc entered service in 1959, I believe ground-hugging became the
> penetration tactic of choice some years after that.
>
Ever heard of the strike recon squadrons of CF-104's used at NATO bases
in Europe???? These were ground huggers in the 1960s. Bomarcs were still
in service in the early 1970s.

[Chad Irby]

In article <vKKyb.541308$9l5.70736@pd7tw2no>,
"Ed Majden" > wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > Hmmm, isn't the idea to launch the interceptor missile BEFORE the
> > bombers reach their targets? What Soviet ICBMs and cruise missiles
> > had the accuracy to destroy hard targets when Bomarc enterd
> > service?
>
> Fortunately we didn't find out what their accuracy was! If it was as
> bad as you seem to suggest, what the hell were we scared iof them for.

Because something like 75% of them were targeted at *cities*, not
missile sites. And a two-mile miss with a megaton-class warhead on a
city isn't really a miss.

> Long before this, V1 buz bombs and V2s hit London.

....and if three or four of them were carrying even small nukes, London
would have ceased to exist.

> The first strike would have
> been ICBMs in any event, not bombers.

Not in the late 1950s. The Soviets just didn't have that many missiles,
despite the "missile gap" silliness of the 1950s and 1960s.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article <hZKyb.535342$6C4.165107@pd7tw1no>,
"Ed Majden" > wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > The Bomarc entered service in 1959, I believe ground-hugging became the
> > penetration tactic of choice some years after that.
> >
> Ever heard of the strike recon squadrons of CF-104's used at NATO bases
> in Europe???? These were ground huggers in the 1960s.

....because they only had to go about ten miles. It's a lot different
type of aerial warfare when you fly over your house when you start your
nuclear attack runs.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
news:vKKyb.541308$9l5.70736@pd7tw2no...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > Hmmm, isn't the idea to launch the interceptor missile BEFORE the
bombers
> > reach their targets? What Soviet ICBMs and cruise missiles had the
> accuracy
> > to destroy hard targets when Bomarc enterd service?
> >
> Fortunately we didn't find out what their accuracy was! If it was as
> bad as you seem to suggest, what the hell were we scared iof them for.
Long
> before this, V1 buz bombs and V2s hit London.

Quite a lot missed and they were firing from only 200 miles away


> The first strike would have
> been ICBMs in any event, not bombers.
>

Contrary to their claims at the time the Soviets did not have
the ICBM force they claimed and were believed to have
even as late as the Cuban missile crisis.Although NEI estimates put their
strength at between 200 and 500 missiles in realty they had only
made a few deployments of at most 100 missiles and were not about to
expend them on possible Bomarc sites.

Keith

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
news:hZKyb.535342$6C4.165107@pd7tw1no...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > The Bomarc entered service in 1959, I believe ground-hugging became the
> > penetration tactic of choice some years after that.
> >
>
> Ever heard of the strike recon squadrons of CF-104's used at NATO
bases
> in Europe???? These were ground huggers in the 1960s.
>

Ever heard of arithmetic? The 1960s would be after 1959.

[Ed Majden]

"Steven P. McNicoll" >
> Ever heard of arithmetic? The 1960s would be after 1959.

Yes, and the Bomarc was in service until the early 1970's.

[Ed Majden]

"Keith Willshaw"
> Contrary to their claims at the time the Soviets did not have
> the ICBM force they claimed and were believed to have
> even as late as the Cuban missile crisis.Although NEI estimates put their
> strength at between 200 and 500 missiles in realty they had only
> made a few deployments of at most 100 missiles and were not about to
> expend them on possible Bomarc sites.

If what you say is correct, you can't say much for the American
intelligence community. Either that, or Ike was right! "Beware of the
military industrial complex in America". The military build up was not for
security but to keep industries running.
Glad we didn't have to carry out a test to see which concept was the correct
one!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
news:dJLyb.535476$6C4.410916@pd7tw1no...
>
> Yes, and the Bomarc was in service until the early 1970's.
>

You're not even trying to understand.

[Vicente Vazquez]

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" > escreveu na mensagem
...
> The successful failure: the F-16.

Is it correct to say that the F-16 is also implicated on the failure of the
F-20 Tigershark project ??

In brief :

-> F-20 should be an aircraft cleared for export for non-NATO countries
(F-16 weren't cleared for that)
-> F-16 were cleared for export (Seems like General Dynamics was in deep
financial trouble)
-> F-20 program went down the drain

Does that kind of affirmation have some veridical background or is it just
another BS that can be found in some "not very reliable" books and
magazines?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Vicente Vazquez" > wrote in message
...
> "Dweezil Dwarftosser" > escreveu na mensagem
> ...
> > The successful failure: the F-16.
>
> Is it correct to say that the F-16 is also implicated on the failure of
the
> F-20 Tigershark project ??
>
> In brief :
>
> -> F-20 should be an aircraft cleared for export for non-NATO countries
> (F-16 weren't cleared for that)
> -> F-16 were cleared for export (Seems like General Dynamics was in deep
> financial trouble)
> -> F-20 program went down the drain
>
> Does that kind of affirmation have some veridical background or is it just
> another BS that can be found in some "not very reliable" books and
> magazines?

Northrop developed the F-20 on speculation and all aviation is politics.
Some have lamented the F-16 being made available, as some sort of conspiracy
against Northrop, but export law changes were a part of the times for the
entire arospace industry.

[Matt Wiser]

(ArtKramr) wrote:
>I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra.
>Any more?
>
>Regards,
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
Here's a few:

TBD Devastator
F2A Buffalo
B-32 Dominator
F-111B
F11F Tiger
AM-1 Mauler
F-20 Tigershark
YB-40 and YB-41 gunships of B-17 and B-24
Mitushibshi A7M
Me-163 (killed more of its own pilots than Allied aircrew)
TBY Seawolf
F-90
F-107
F-108

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:16:03 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Hobo" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >,
> >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Scott Ferrin a loser?
> >> >
> >> > That has been an elephant in the room for some time now.
> >>
> >> This is unprovoked.
> >
> >Hardly.
>
>
> Yeah it really ****es you off when someone calls you on something
> doesn't it?

Not if they are a loser.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:12:59 GMT, "Matt Wiser"
> wrote:

>
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra.
>>Any more?
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>>344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
> Here's a few:
>
>TBD Devastator
>F2A Buffalo
>B-32 Dominator
>F-111B
>F11F Tiger
>AM-1 Mauler
>F-20 Tigershark
>YB-40 and YB-41 gunships of B-17 and B-24
>Mitushibshi A7M
>Me-163 (killed more of its own pilots than Allied aircrew)
>TBY Seawolf
>F-90
>F-107
>F-108


The F-108 was cancelled because 1. $$$$ and 2. that's about the time
something better came along - the YF-12A. Which was also never
purchased.

[Chad Irby]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:12:59 GMT, "Matt Wiser"

> wrote:

>F-107

One of my favorite "what if?" planes, just for the intake placement
alone...

<http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/f-107_ultra_sabre.pl>

Pretty little thing, though. Great pic at the bottom of that page.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:48:22 -0200, "Vicente Vazquez"
> wrote:

>"Dweezil Dwarftosser" > escreveu na mensagem
...
>> The successful failure: the F-16.
>
>Is it correct to say that the F-16 is also implicated on the failure of the
>F-20 Tigershark project ??
>
>In brief :
>
>-> F-20 should be an aircraft cleared for export for non-NATO countries
>(F-16 weren't cleared for that)
>-> F-16 were cleared for export (Seems like General Dynamics was in deep
>financial trouble)
>-> F-20 program went down the drain
>
>Does that kind of affirmation have some veridical background or is it just
>another BS that can be found in some "not very reliable" books and
>magazines?

There's a lot of truth in the sequence. The policy, pre-Carter, was to
provide second level (similar to Soviet "export" version) aircraft to
third-world/developing nation AFs. These were the folks that were
principal customers for the NF-156 Freedom Fighter (AKA F-5A program).

Northrop developed a follow-on to the F-5 to sell to existing
customers who were not eligible for US equippage, i.e. F-15/F-16
aircraft. There were other contenders, such as the F-16/79--a Viper
without advanced avionics and pushed by a J-79 engine. It was a viable
market for an arguably competitive airplane.

When Carter breached the dike by contracting for F-16As to Pakistan
and then S. Korea, the list of potential F-20 customers disappeared as
they all demanded first level equipment, i.e. F-16s.

Later Northrop tried to flog the airplane to Air Defense Command and
as a potential diversification airplane for TAC, but it simply
couldn't compete against the already existing Viper base.

Having flown the F-20 cockpit (albeit not with F-20 flight models)
during F-23 Dem/Val, I would say that the F-20 was not ready to
compete with the ergonomics of F-16.

Throw in a couple of demo aircraft prangs and you have all the
ingredients of a failed program.

[Peter Kemp]

On or about Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:37:43 GMT, "Ed Majden"
> allegedly uttered:

>
>"Chad Irby" > >
>> Not as much as you'd think. Even at close range, you wouldn't
>> "incinerate" a plane. You'd need a fairly dead-on hit to vaporize even
>> one. Small nukes have small fireballs. Any Soviet planes hit by one of
>> these would prettybe blown out of the sky, but the effects would be no
>> worse than getting shot down in the first place.
>
> Good thing we didn't have to go through a nuclear war to see who is
>right! One of our base hospitals had an appropriate sign at the entrance.
>
> "What to do in case of a nuclear attack: Answer: "Stick your head
>between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye!"

Nuke is an acronym.....

Notice Flash
Unzip trousers
Kiss Ass Goodbye
Evaporate.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[Garrison Hilliard]

"Matt Wiser" > wrote:
>
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra.
>>Any more?
>>
>>Regards,
> Here's a few:
>
>TBD Devastator
>F2A Buffalo
>B-32 Dominator
>F-111B
>F11F Tiger
>AM-1 Mauler
>F-20 Tigershark
>YB-40 and YB-41 gunships of B-17 and B-24
>Mitushibshi A7M
>Me-163 (killed more of its own pilots than Allied aircrew)
>TBY Seawolf
>F-90
>F-107
>F-108

The beautiful (but flawed) Chance-Vought Cutlass

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
news:vKKyb.541308$9l5.70736@pd7tw2no...
>
> Fortunately we didn't find out what their accuracy was! If it was as
> bad as you seem to suggest, what the hell were we scared iof them for.
>

Because we didn't live in hardened shelters.


>
> Long
> before this, V1 buz bombs and V2s hit London. The first strike would have
> been ICBMs in any event, not bombers.
>

What Soviet ICBMs had the accuracy to destroy hard targets when Bomarc
entered service?

[Keith Willshaw]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
news:iTLyb.541516$9l5.417832@pd7tw2no...
>
> "Keith Willshaw"
> > Contrary to their claims at the time the Soviets did not have
> > the ICBM force they claimed and were believed to have
> > even as late as the Cuban missile crisis.Although NEI estimates put
their
> > strength at between 200 and 500 missiles in realty they had only
> > made a few deployments of at most 100 missiles and were not about to
> > expend them on possible Bomarc sites.
>
> If what you say is correct, you can't say much for the American
> intelligence community. Either that, or Ike was right! "Beware of the
> military industrial complex in America". The military build up was not
for
> security but to keep industries running.

I think thats overly cynical. The Russians were claiming they had the
weapons , the experts knew they could be developed in the time
frame since the USA had done so. Overestimating your enemies
capabilities and sizing your forces to match is usually less of a
problem than the converse so Intelligence analysts tend to take
the pessimistic view.

> Glad we didn't have to carry out a test to see which concept was the
correct
> one!
>

Indeed.

Keith

[Kevin Brooks]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message news:<Rwxyb.533404$pl3.92056@pd7tw3no>...
> "Chad Irby" > You should remember that with small fission warheads at high
> altitudes,
> > there is very little fallout, and practically zero compared to even a
> > single megaton-level ground strike.
>
> What makes you think that these would have been high level blasts???
> Tactics with the B52 was a ground hugger to avoid SAMS and radar detection.
> Incinerating a Bear full of nuclear warheads would have created a severe
> nuclear fall out problem!
> >
> > Not to mention that they planned on using the same size of warhead over
> > most of the continental US for air defense..
>
> U.S. Bomarc sites were near the Canada/U.S. border

Really? I'd take a gander at a map of US Bomarc sites if I were you,
unless you consider places like Newport News, VA "near the Canadian
border".

Brooks

<snip>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Really? I'd take a gander at a map of US Bomarc sites if I were you,
> unless you consider places like Newport News, VA "near the Canadian
> border".
>

Langley AFB, to be a bit more accurate. Other sites planned "near the
Canadian border" but never completed were Charleston AFB, SC, and Vandenberg
and Travis AFBs in CA.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:19:47 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:16:03 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Hobo" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> In article >,
>> >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Scott Ferrin a loser?
>> >> >
>> >> > That has been an elephant in the room for some time now.
>> >>
>> >> This is unprovoked.
>> >
>> >Hardly.
>>
>>
>> Yeah it really ****es you off when someone calls you on something
>> doesn't it?
>
>Not if they are a loser.

Why don't you prove to us you're not a loser by showing us some
pictures of those strakes? Talk about losers. You paint yourself
into a corner and rather than admit it or at least shut the hell up,
you have to resort to name calling. Sounds like a case of little ****
syndrom to me.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > writes:
>
> "Vicente Vazquez" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Dweezil Dwarftosser" > escreveu na mensagem
>> ...
>> > The successful failure: the F-16.
>>
>> Is it correct to say that the F-16 is also implicated on the failure of
> the
>> F-20 Tigershark project ??
>>
>> In brief :
>>
>> -> F-20 should be an aircraft cleared for export for non-NATO countries
>> (F-16 weren't cleared for that)
>> -> F-16 were cleared for export (Seems like General Dynamics was in deep
>> financial trouble)
>> -> F-20 program went down the drain
>>
>> Does that kind of affirmation have some veridical background or is it just
>> another BS that can be found in some "not very reliable" books and
>> magazines?
>
> Northrop developed the F-20 on speculation and all aviation is politics.
> Some have lamented the F-16 being made available, as some sort of conspiracy
> against Northrop, but export law changes were a part of the times for the
> entire arospace industry.

Dangit, John!
I'll say this for you, when you're wrong, you're wrong, but when
you're right, you're right.
Northrop certainly was gambling on selling the F-5G/F-20 to the same
customers who'd bought the F-5A/E - nations that coulsn't get approval
to purchase the Fighter of Choice (F-104 or F-4, in the F-5's day), or
who couldn't affort to fly/maintain the more sophisticated jets.
Unfortunately for Northrop, the world had changed. The export
restrictions were loosened, and a lot of smaller countries realiezed
that they could keep F-16s running.
Sometimes you guess right, and sometimes you guess wrong.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Steven Wagner]

Douglas B-19 & B-19A

Steve Wagner

In article >,
says...
>
>I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?
>
>Regards,
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[Andrew Chaplin]

Ed Majden wrote:
>
> "Alan Minyard"
> > 4. Given the range of the CF-105 and the size of Canada, you would have
> huge holes in
> > your coverage.
> >
> 66 Voodoo's sure didn't plug these holes! Nor did the Bomarcs at two
> eastern bases. Most airports used for dispersal have supplies of jet fuels.
> The U.S. had cruise type missiles and I expect the Russians had their own
> versions. Don't forget, the Bomarc was used until the early 1970s where
> weapons were much better. By the way an Arrow could be equipped with a Geni
> as it had a large weapons bay.

That last bit, I think, is highly theoretical, Ed, because it would
have meant that Canada would have to design a system to deliver a
nuke. We did do that with the Argus, but it was always kept 'ush-'ush.

Besides, wasn't the missile armament for Arrow to have been Velvet
Glove?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[WaltBJ]

Douglas DC5, Martin 202, Lockheed 880/990, every Curtiss fighter after
the P40, all the flying automobiles, XP77, XP85, Brabazon, Saro
Princess, sheesh - there's a thousand of them! Barling B9, so slow
it's cruise speed was its top speed and both were just above liftoff
speed. Find a copy of 'Back to The Drawing Board' by Bill Gunston. Oh,
yeah, Me210, unstable around all three axes, for starters. That cost
the LW a bundle of aircraft when they needed every one they could get.
Me 163 - VFR only, 60 mile radius, about 8 minutes powered time . . .
hairy but fun to fly, more danger to its crews as a weapon. For darn
sure killed more German pilots than Allied airmen. This could go on
for pages more but you get the point - they're out there, mostly as
scrap thank God. A few left in museums or on sticks.
Walt BJ

[Tarver Engineering]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > writes:
> >
> > "Vicente Vazquez" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Dweezil Dwarftosser" > escreveu na mensagem
> >> ...
> >> > The successful failure: the F-16.
> >>
> >> Is it correct to say that the F-16 is also implicated on the failure of
the
> >> F-20 Tigershark project ??
> >>
> >> In brief :
> >>
> >> -> F-20 should be an aircraft cleared for export for non-NATO countries
> >> (F-16 weren't cleared for that)
> >> -> F-16 were cleared for export (Seems like General Dynamics was in
deep
> >> financial trouble)
> >> -> F-20 program went down the drain
> >>
> >> Does that kind of affirmation have some veridical background or is it
just
> >> another BS that can be found in some "not very reliable" books and
> >> magazines?
> >
> > Northrop developed the F-20 on speculation and all aviation is politics.
> > Some have lamented the F-16 being made available, as some sort of
conspiracy
> > against Northrop, but export law changes were a part of the times for
the
> > entire arospace industry.
>
> Dangit, John!
> I'll say this for you, when you're wrong, you're wrong, but when
> you're right, you're right.

I remember when you were wrong, Peter.

> Northrop certainly was gambling on selling the F-5G/F-20 to the same
> customers who'd bought the F-5A/E - nations that coulsn't get approval
> to purchase the Fighter of Choice (F-104 or F-4, in the F-5's day), or
> who couldn't affort to fly/maintain the more sophisticated jets.

A "closely held" entity like GD can have better personal relationships with
Congress, than a regular corporation can. Perhaps even buy a President a fw
hookers. :)

> Unfortunately for Northrop, the world had changed. The export
> restrictions were loosened, and a lot of smaller countries realiezed
> that they could keep F-16s running.
> Sometimes you guess right, and sometimes you guess wrong.

Northrop bet against Reagan.

[John Keeney]

"Eugene Styer" > wrote in message
om...
> Orval Fairbairn > wrote in message
>...
>
> > The classic turkey: The Fisher XP-75 Eagle -- supposed to become an
> > escort fighter, built from parts of several production aircraft.
> >
>
> I can't think of the reference right now, but I remember reading that
> one of the purposes of the P-75 program was to give GM(?) a reason to
> stay out of the B-29 program - so the Eagle was not entirely a
> failure!

Who ever came up with that line should be collecting royalties.

[redc1c4]

Scott Ferrin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:19:47 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:16:03 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Hobo" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> In article >,
> >> >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Scott Ferrin a loser?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That has been an elephant in the room for some time now.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is unprovoked.
> >> >
> >> >Hardly.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yeah it really ****es you off when someone calls you on something
> >> doesn't it?
> >
> >Not if they are a loser.
>
> Why don't you prove to us you're not a loser by showing us some
> pictures of those strakes? Talk about losers. You paint yourself
> into a corner and rather than admit it or at least shut the hell up,
> you have to resort to name calling. Sounds like a case of little ****
> syndrom to me.

it twisted his panties beyond spec that the "lurking ground pounder"
proved him wrong. %-)

redc1c4,
i wonder if he's related to Daryl Hunt?
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

[John Keeney]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Ed Majden" > wrote in message
> news:dJLyb.535476$6C4.410916@pd7tw1no...
> >
> > Yes, and the Bomarc was in service until the early 1970's.
> >
>
> You're not even trying to understand.

I keep wondering why you, and everyone else, keep trying?

[Ed Majden]

"Andrew Chaplin"
> Besides, wasn't the missile armament for Arrow to have been Velvet
> Glove?

The Velvet Glove was actually a CF-100 experimental missile. The CF-105 was
going to use the Sparrow II missile. It would have been no big deal to
adapt the Genie to the Arrow if they had wanted to. Canada was reluctant to
adopt nukes but eventually did with the Bomarc, CF-101, and the CF-104 in
Europe. We were asked to leave France when we took on the nuclear role.
The U.S. always had control of the nukes. The U.S. would not hand over this
control to France so we were asked to leave. The French then developed
their own nuke program. 2(F)Wing in France closed with 1(F)Wing remaning
open as a transport base. 3(F)Wing and 4(F)Wing in Germany took on the nuke
strike recon role after converting from Sabres and CF-100s. This roll again
changed down the road but I'm not sure when as I was back in Canada by then.
Today Canada is non nuclear again after the Bomarc and CF-101s were phased
out of service.

[Kevin Brooks]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:48:22 -0200, "Vicente Vazquez"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Dweezil Dwarftosser" > escreveu na mensagem
> ...
> >> The successful failure: the F-16.
> >
> >Is it correct to say that the F-16 is also implicated on the failure of the
> >F-20 Tigershark project ??
> >
> >In brief :
> >
> >-> F-20 should be an aircraft cleared for export for non-NATO countries
> >(F-16 weren't cleared for that)
> >-> F-16 were cleared for export (Seems like General Dynamics was in deep
> >financial trouble)
> >-> F-20 program went down the drain
> >
> >Does that kind of affirmation have some veridical background or is it just
> >another BS that can be found in some "not very reliable" books and
> >magazines?
>
> There's a lot of truth in the sequence. The policy, pre-Carter, was to
> provide second level (similar to Soviet "export" version) aircraft to
> third-world/developing nation AFs. These were the folks that were
> principal customers for the NF-156 Freedom Fighter (AKA F-5A program).
>
> Northrop developed a follow-on to the F-5 to sell to existing
> customers who were not eligible for US equippage, i.e. F-15/F-16
> aircraft. There were other contenders, such as the F-16/79--a Viper
> without advanced avionics and pushed by a J-79 engine. It was a viable
> market for an arguably competitive airplane.
>
> When Carter breached the dike by contracting for F-16As to Pakistan
> and then S. Korea, the list of potential F-20 customers disappeared as
> they all demanded first level equipment, i.e. F-16s.

Carter did not just breach the dyke, he *created* it in the first
place. It was * his * "no first tier exports" policy that was
announced in 1977. Prior to that we had sold quite a few "first tier"
aircraft to "developing nations", as long as they had the cash to buy
them, or if they were considered critical allies (nations like Israel,
Pakistan, Iran, the ROC, Australia, etc.), so I don't think your
characterization of this policy as existing "pre-Carter" is entirely
accurate.

"In February of 1977, in a well-meaning but ultimately futile gesture,
President Jimmy Carter announced a new arms transfer policy in an
attempt to reduce arms proliferation throughout the world. Under this
policy, American manufacturers could no longer sell to foreign air
forces any combat aircraft that were the equal of those in the US
inventory...To cater for the 'embargoed' air forces, the FX Export
Fighter Program was proposed...In 1980, President Carter relaxed his
policy and allowed the delivery of some export F-16A/Bs to proceed..."
(www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_79.html )


I believe the F-20 program originated pre-Carter, and was oriented
more towards what Northrop perceived to be a lucrative market, namely
those nations which did *not* have either the cash required or the
clout needed to swing aircraft like the F-15/16 in their direction,
and especially those many nations that had already bought into the F-5
program years before. Carter's policy did provide the impetus for the
ill-begotten F-16/79 program, and his subsequent policy backpeddle in
1980 sounded the death knell for that program. All in all, the most
that can be said for Carter's short journey into idealistic export
policy is that the French may owe him a medal for taking the US out of
play for some fighter procurement deals.

>
> Later Northrop tried to flog the airplane to Air Defense Command and
> as a potential diversification airplane for TAC, but it simply
> couldn't compete against the already existing Viper base.

ISTR the ANG threw some support behind the idea of purchasing the F-20
to replace the A-7, etc., as well as the F-106's they owned at the
time.

Brooks

>
> Having flown the F-20 cockpit (albeit not with F-20 flight models)
> during F-23 Dem/Val, I would say that the F-20 was not ready to
> compete with the ergonomics of F-16.
>
> Throw in a couple of demo aircraft prangs and you have all the
> ingredients of a failed program.

[Gregg Germain]

ArtKramr > wrote:
: I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?

I've often wondered about the Aircobra:

What if it had a supercharger like the ones fitted to the P-38? What
would it's hi alt performance have been then?

Same for the P-40, I suppose.



--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:37:02 GMT, "Ed Majden" > wrote:

>
>"Keith Willshaw"
>> Contrary to their claims at the time the Soviets did not have
>> the ICBM force they claimed and were believed to have
>> even as late as the Cuban missile crisis.Although NEI estimates put their
>> strength at between 200 and 500 missiles in realty they had only
>> made a few deployments of at most 100 missiles and were not about to
>> expend them on possible Bomarc sites.
>
> If what you say is correct, you can't say much for the American
>intelligence community. Either that, or Ike was right! "Beware of the
>military industrial complex in America". The military build up was not for
>security but to keep industries running.
>Glad we didn't have to carry out a test to see which concept was the correct
>one!
>
Oh, now I see, the demise of the CF-105 was an evil plot by the nasty 'Mercans
to keep the industrial might of Canada from taking over the defense industries.
What a loon.

Al Minyard

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Gregg Germain > wrote:

> ArtKramr > wrote:
> : I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?
>
> I've often wondered about the Aircobra:
>
> What if it had a supercharger like the ones fitted to the P-38? What
> would it's hi alt performance have been then?

The P-63 Kingcobra was pretty decent a high altitude, but other than its
general shape, shared almost nothing with the Airacobra. It was pretty
much the "bugfix" version of the P-39.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Ed Majden]

"Alan Minyard"
> Oh, now I see, the demise of the CF-105 was an evil plot by the nasty
'Mercans
> to keep the industrial might of Canada from taking over the defense
industries.
> What a loon.
>
Perhaps you should take a course in English comprehension. The CF-105
was cancelled because Canada was in the middle of a recession, there was a
government change, and Sputnik was launched making some to think that the
manned bomber threat was no longer an issue. The Arrow was a Liberal
project and the new Consevative government hated anything Liberal so they
stupidly cancelled the program. The U.S. apparently offered to fund some
CF-105's for the R.C.A.F. but it was too late. Even though the U.S. would
not buy the Arrow for the USAF it was an Canadian decision! Do some
research!

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Gregg Germain > wrote:
>ArtKramr > wrote:
>: I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?
>
>I've often wondered about the Aircobra:

Westland Whirlwind, maybe - went nowhere much (apart from
France, repeatedly, at low level until they ran out of
examples) because the Peregrine engine was an early
orphan.
Fairey Barracuda was a "nearly" - if only it had the
Fairey P.24 Prince double-engine (same could be said for
many mid-war designs - it might have been a better developmental
bet than the awful Vulture, and possibly better than the Sabre)
- for naval a/c, particularly, the option of shutting half the engine
down for cruise was appealing.
Any of the late WW1 designs left orphaned by the ABC Dragonfly
debacle.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[Kevin Brooks]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message >...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > Really? I'd take a gander at a map of US Bomarc sites if I were you,
> > unless you consider places like Newport News, VA "near the Canadian
> > border".
> >
>
> Langley AFB, to be a bit more accurate. Other sites planned "near the
> Canadian border" but never completed were Charleston AFB, SC, and Vandenberg
> and Travis AFBs in CA.


No, that would actually be more *inaccurate* in terms of location. The
Bomarc unit in question was technically assigned to Langley, IIRC, but
it most definitely was not located at that location (my Dad spent
about thirty years working at Langley on the NASA side of the house).
It was located between Jefferson Avenue (Rt 143) and I-64, just north
of Rt 17-- part of it was later taken over by the city as the home for
its school bus maintenance and operations (ISTR seeing the old alert
status board still standing by the entrance when the busses moved in).
I spent many an hour tromping through the woods behind the bunkers
hunting squirrels and sitting on a deer stand, and it was one of the
few places where us suburbanites could go and do some target shooting
(interesting exchange with the local Politzei occured once during that
activity). Those bunkers are now part of the Oyster Point business
park, IIRC; before the park developers decided that they could be an
amenity (made nice storage buildings), my old employer and I did a
survey of them to determine the feasibility of performing demolition
with explosives to remove them. FYI, just up the road another mile or
two was another Cold War relic--the Nike Hercules complex which was
located at (what was then) Patrick Henry Airport (it later picked up
an "I" in the designation after a couple of charter flights to Mexico
flew out of it--sort of a joke at the time), now known as Newport
News-Williamsburg Regional Airport IIRC. Pat Henry had another
interesting historical sidenote affiliated with it--I can recall
walking through old barracks buildings which were still standing in
the early seventies that had housed German POW's during WWII.

Brooks

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
>
> No, that would actually be more *inaccurate* in terms of location. The
> Bomarc unit in question was technically assigned to Langley, IIRC, but
> it most definitely was not located at that location (my Dad spent
> about thirty years working at Langley on the NASA side of the house).
> It was located between Jefferson Avenue (Rt 143) and I-64, just north
> of Rt 17-- part of it was later taken over by the city as the home for
> its school bus maintenance and operations (ISTR seeing the old alert
> status board still standing by the entrance when the busses moved in).
> I spent many an hour tromping through the woods behind the bunkers
> hunting squirrels and sitting on a deer stand, and it was one of the
> few places where us suburbanites could go and do some target shooting
> (interesting exchange with the local Politzei occured once during that
> activity). Those bunkers are now part of the Oyster Point business
> park, IIRC; before the park developers decided that they could be an
> amenity (made nice storage buildings), my old employer and I did a
> survey of them to determine the feasibility of performing demolition
> with explosives to remove them.
>

You were there and I was not so I'll take your word for it. Robert
Mueller's "Air Force Bases" shows the 22nd Air Defense Missile Squadron as a
unit assigned to Langley but no mention of any Missile Site as a detached
installation, as one would expect if the launch facility was not on base.
The entry for McGuire AFB, as an example, shows the 46th Air Defense Missile
Squadron as a unit assigned to McGuire, but the McGuire AF Missile Site
(later Air Defense Missile Site) is listed under Major Off-Base and Detached
Installations along with it's location, 5 miles southeast of New Egypt, NJ.

[Vicente Vazquez]

"Kevin Brooks" > escreveu na mensagem
om...
> All in all, the most
> that can be said for Carter's short journey into idealistic export
> policy is that the French may owe him a medal for taking the US out of
> play for some fighter procurement deals.
>

Example: Our Air Force, back in the beginning of the '70s, bought Mirage
IIEBR's as the US wouldn't sell us the F-4's our AF had pointed out as the
aircraft of choice. The American offer at the time was the F-5A, which was
far below what was needed. OTOH, Brazil bought F-5E's later on ... Same for
many other Latin American countries.

Now our aging Mirage III's will be replaced (should have been a long time
ago, BTW) and by Feb 10th 2004 our government will probably announce that
its replacement will be the Mirage 2000BR (-5), mostly due to political
reasons and to the strong relationship of our national aircraft industry and
the French, which own 20% of EMBRAER. Unless something really unexpected
happens, our AF's dreams come true and they get the Su-35's they are eager
for. The US offered the F-18 and the F-16. The F-18 was discarded in the
very beginning of the process due to its price. The F-16, though regarded by
all as an excellent aircraft, is considered too short-legged. Also, there
are restrictions to the sale of BVR missiles and AFAIK the missiles would be
kept in storage in the US and sent to Brazil only in case of need.
(!!!??!!!). We would receive only the "training missiles". The Russians have
no kind of restriction in terms of weapons sales and technology transfer.
Same for the French.

[Earl Watkins]

Many aircraft did poorly in ther intended roll only to become stars in
the roll they wound up in. An example is the F-111, it was to be the
air superority ground attack fighter for the Navy and the Air Force,
It wound up being one of the best ground attack aircraft in the USAF,
and never even made Navy service.

The F-105 was supposed to be the fast nuke bomber of the 60's but
became the workhorse of Viet Nam.

I am not at all sure the F-104 was a success, the USAF sure didn't
like it. NATO bought a bunch, but it's not clear that it would have
done well in Europe had it been necessary.

I guess its all in how you look at it.

[Scott Ferrin]

>No, that would actually be more *inaccurate* in terms of location. The
>Bomarc unit in question was technically assigned to Langley, IIRC, but
>it most definitely was not located at that location (my Dad spent
>about thirty years working at Langley on the NASA side of the house).
>It was located between Jefferson Avenue (Rt 143) and I-64, just north
>of Rt 17-- part of it was later taken over by the city as the home for
>its school bus maintenance and operations (ISTR seeing the old alert
>status board still standing by the entrance when the busses moved in).
>I spent many an hour tromping through the woods behind the bunkers
>hunting squirrels and sitting on a deer stand, and it was one of the
>few places where us suburbanites could go and do some target shooting
>(interesting exchange with the local Politzei occured once during that
>activity). Those bunkers are now part of the Oyster Point business
>park, IIRC; before the park developers decided that they could be an
>amenity (made nice storage buildings), my old employer and I did a
>survey of them to determine the feasibility of performing demolition
>with explosives to remove them. FYI, just up the road another mile or
>two was another Cold War relic--the Nike Hercules complex which was
>located at (what was then) Patrick Henry Airport (it later picked up
>an "I" in the designation after a couple of charter flights to Mexico
>flew out of it--sort of a joke at the time), now known as Newport
>News-Williamsburg Regional Airport IIRC. Pat Henry had another
>interesting historical sidenote affiliated with it--I can recall
>walking through old barracks buildings which were still standing in
>the early seventies that had housed German POW's during WWII.
>
>Brooks


It's interesting how times have changed. Unless you happen to live by
a base you wouldn't even know the US *has* a military. Most of their
exercises and training seems to be in the middle of BFE. I think I've
seen tanks on trains twice in my life and military vehicles driving on
the freeway maybe three or four times. I live in northern Utah and
the place has it's share of bases but even still I moved fifteen miles
from the airbase here and nadda. As far as old buildings go there's a
failry large business park in what use to be a NAVAL base in WWII.
All the buildings are made of wood because of the need for steel for
the war effort.

[Pete]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote

> Those bunkers are now part of the Oyster Point business
> park, IIRC; before the park developers decided that they could be an
> amenity (made nice storage buildings), my old employer and I did a
> survey of them to determine the feasibility of performing demolition
> with explosives to remove them.

A few of those now house small businesses. One is a lawyers office, and
another I believe is a software consulting firm.

3 or 4 have been flattened in the last couple of years to accomodate new
business construction.

Pete

[John Keeney]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's interesting how times have changed. Unless you happen to live by
> a base you wouldn't even know the US *has* a military. Most of their
> exercises and training seems to be in the middle of BFE. I think I've
> seen tanks on trains twice in my life and military vehicles driving on
> the freeway maybe three or four times. I live in northern Utah and
> the place has it's share of bases but even still I moved fifteen miles
> from the airbase here and nadda.

As you say, a function of where you live.
I live 30 some miles from Fort Knox and will occasionally see the
odd tank (as in "what is under that tarp") on a flat-bed on the interstate.
It's not very unusual to see one to a half dozen military vehicles on
the interstate on a weekend drive out of town: I assume Guard &
Reserves for the most part. Though I know when the Strikers were
working up at Knox they went on at least one road march making a
big loop on some of the major highways in Kentucky.
Back around Desert Shield I saw train loads of armor on the sidings
but other than that, just the rare ones & twos on trains.

If you fish the forest lakes on weekends, you'll see a low level fighter
one a month or so. Helicopters about the same frequency following
the Ohio River.

[Scott Ferrin]

>If you fish the forest lakes on weekends, you'll see a low level fighter
>one a month or so. Helicopters about the same frequency following
>the Ohio River.
>


I just remember during the first Desert Storm thinking "where the hell
do they keep it all" ? Like I said, if you live within four or five
miles of Hill AFB you see planes all the time, but move six or seven
more and nothin'. I saw a few Apaches fly by down here several years
ago and then there was the incident where a B-1 boomed the hell out of
the Wastach Front.

[Cub Driver]

If you fly much in New Hampshire, especially at 2900 feet, you will
meet ONE A-10 Warthog sooner or later.

And you will remember the meeting, because Hogs always travel in
pairs, and you really gave your neck a workout, looking for the other
one.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:46:53 GMT, "Ed Majden" > wrote:

>
>"Alan Minyard"
>> Oh, now I see, the demise of the CF-105 was an evil plot by the nasty
>'Mercans
>> to keep the industrial might of Canada from taking over the defense
>industries.
>> What a loon.
>>
> Perhaps you should take a course in English comprehension. The CF-105
>was cancelled because Canada was in the middle of a recession, there was a
>government change, and Sputnik was launched making some to think that the
>manned bomber threat was no longer an issue. The Arrow was a Liberal
>project and the new Consevative government hated anything Liberal so they
>stupidly cancelled the program. The U.S. apparently offered to fund some
>CF-105's for the R.C.A.F. but it was too late. Even though the U.S. would
>not buy the Arrow for the USAF it was an Canadian decision! Do some
>research!
>
>
You will note that my post contained something called "sarcasm". Sorry
that you are unable to comprehend this routine literary tool.

Al Minyard

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gregg Germain" > wrote in message
...
>
> I've often wondered about the Aircobra:
>
> What if it had a supercharger like the ones fitted to the P-38? What
> would it's hi alt performance have been then?
>
> Same for the P-40, I suppose.
>

The XP-39 did have a type B-5 turbocharger, but there just wasn't room in
the P-39 or P-40 for a supercharger installation like the P-38's. One of
the reasons the P-47 was as big as it was was to accommodate the
turbocharger and intercooler and all the ductwork they required, and that
was an aircraft that didn't also require a coolant radiator. The
turbocharger was deleted from the P-39 primarily because the Army didn't
think it needed a point-defense interceptor, so the plane was adapted for
low-medium altitude work. That decision has been criticized since the war,
but had they chosen to develop the installation the same way they did the
P-38 they'd have had to get by with fewer and even lower performing
airplanes in the early war years and have had a short-legged airplane that
hauled little armament. The airframe was just too small.

[Peter Stickney]

In article <%TKyb.541322$9l5.366272@pd7tw2no>,
"Ed Majden" > writes:
>
> "Alan Minyard"
>> 4. Given the range of the CF-105 and the size of Canada, you would have
> huge holes in
>> your coverage.
>>
> 66 Voodoo's sure didn't plug these holes! Nor did the Bomarcs at two
> eastern bases. Most airports used for dispersal have supplies of jet fuels.
> The U.S. had cruise type missiles and I expect the Russians had their own
> versions. Don't forget, the Bomarc was used until the early 1970s where
> weapons were much better. By the way an Arrow could be equipped with a Geni
> as it had a large weapons bay.

Actually, the CF-105 was intended to intercept bombers penetrating
Canadian Airspace at Mach 2/50,000'+. The RCAF's and DND's own
studies showed that conventional launch/control of teh CF-105s from
their proposed bases resulted in intercepts occuring over Boston,
Massachusetts, Albany New York, and Gary, Indiana. Not much good for
protecting Canada. (ANd that was launching after they'd penetrated
teh Contiguous Radar COverage of teh Mid-Canada Line.
The Arrow did have decent supersonic endurace, for its day, and a good
climb rate. That's only a factor though, if the bomber is coming in
at more than Mach 1.5. For the Mach 0.85/40,000' targets that did
turn out to be the threat, the Arrow had no advantages over the F-101
or F-106. The Arrow's weapon system (MX-1179 Radar/FCS, and Falcon
Missiles) was exactly the same as the F-101's. ASTRA was an adject
failure, and Sparrow II just wasn't going to work with 1950s
technology. There's no point in developing a completely new and
expensive platform to carry the same weapons with the same
effectiveness. All that would have accomplished is the total
bankrupcy of Canada. The Arrow's weapons bay wasn't particularly
large, either. It was about as long as that of an F-106, a bit wider,
and much shallower. IIRC, the maximum depth was about 20". There
wouldn't have been enough space for internal carriage of a whopping
big rocket like the Genie.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article <z_Wyb.544890$9l5.43876@pd7tw2no>,
"Ed Majden" > writes:
>
> "Andrew Chaplin"
>> Besides, wasn't the missile armament for Arrow to have been Velvet
>> Glove?
>
> The Velvet Glove was actually a CF-100 experimental missile. The CF-105 was
> going to use the Sparrow II missile. It would have been no big deal to
> adapt the Genie to the Arrow if they had wanted to. Canada was reluctant to
> adopt nukes but eventually did with the Bomarc, CF-101, and the CF-104 in
> Europe. We were asked to leave France when we took on the nuclear role.

Now, that's most patently untrue. The fact is, in the late 1950s,
early 1960s, Canada had jumped onto the Nuke Bandwagon more deeply
than any other NATO country, including the U.S.. The CF-104s were
built solely as Nuke Bombers. They didn't have guns, AAMs, Bomb
pylons, or even gunsights. The only thing they could do was haul a
single bomb very fast at low altitude in almost any weather.
Conventional capability was added in the late '60s/early '70s
(Trudeau era) at a cost almost as great as the initial cost of the
airplanes.
Canadian Air Defence was provided by the CF-101s and teh Bomarcs, both
of whgich were only effective when carrying Nukes. (2 IR falcons doesn
not a Studly Bomber Killer make).
The Army's main punch in Europe were a couple of Honest John rocket
Regiments, again, only effective when carrying Nukes.

The bombs may have been "Dual Key" U.S. built weapons, but Canada had
been pretty much completely set up as a Nuke-Only shop for 5 years
before the French threw their tantrum. (The proximate casue of which
was a U.S. RF-101 overflight of their Nuke Weapons Lab. It seems that
DeGaulle didn't want the rest of NATO to know what he was up to.)

> The U.S. always had control of the nukes. The U.S. would not hand over this
> control to France so we were asked to leave. The French then developed
> their own nuke program. 2(F)Wing in France closed with 1(F)Wing remaning
> open as a transport base. 3(F)Wing and 4(F)Wing in Germany took on the nuke
> strike recon role after converting from Sabres and CF-100s. This roll again
> changed down the road but I'm not sure when as I was back in Canada by then.
> Today Canada is non nuclear again after the Bomarc and CF-101s were phased
> out of service.

Uhm, the French Nuke Program had been happily rolling along since the
1950s. The Force de Frappe was formed in the early '60s, and they got
their Mirage IVs in 1961.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Ed Majden]

"Peter Stickney" >
> Now, that's most patently untrue. The fact is, in the late 1950s,
> early 1960s, Canada had jumped onto the Nuke Bandwagon more deeply
> than any other NATO country, including the U.S.. The CF-104s were
> built solely as Nuke Bombers.

I have never read so much B.S. about Canada's nuclear roll. The
Diefenbaker government had to be dragged into the accepting nuclear weapons!
The F-104 was designed as a fast high altitude interceptor for the USAF.
They sold it as an inexpensive, so to speak, aircraft to several Allied
countries. The West Germans used them in a fighter roll where they became
known as the "Widow Maker" because of several accidents. The RCAF used it as
a strike-recon low level nuclear tactical bomber. I did the acceptance
checks on these aircraft when they were delivered to 3(F)Wing in Zweibruken,
Germany. They were brought over in C130 Hercs where they were reassembled
on arrival. I guess they didn't want to risk flying them over as they did
earlier with the Sabres and CF-100's. Do some web searching and get your
facts straight! The French and the British did develop independent nuclear
programs but the French wanted control of any nuclear weapons on French soil
and the U.S.A. would not do this.

[hlg]

"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message
...
>
> Westland Whirlwind (one of my favourites)

I assume here that you refer to the WW2 fighter-bomber. Let down by
unreliable engines.


> TSR.2

Technically, this met or exceeded all its performance requirements, and
promised even more. However, costs were going through the roof, and the
project was not merely cancelled; it was destroyed stone by stone, and salt
ploughed into the ruins.



My suggestions:

Saunders-Roe (SaRo) Lerwick. WW2 twin-engined flying boat; some problem with
the hydrodynamics of the planing portion of the fuselage meant that it
rarely managed even to get out of the water and into the air.

[Ed Majden]

"Ed Majden"
> I have never read so much B.S. about Canada's nuclear roll. The
> Diefenbaker government had to be dragged into the accepting nuclear
weapons!
> The F-104 was designed as a fast high altitude interceptor for the USAF.
> They sold it as an inexpensive, so to speak, aircraft to several Allied
> countries. The West Germans used them in a fighter roll where they became
> known as the "Widow Maker" because of several accidents. The RCAF used it
as
> a strike-recon low level nuclear tactical bomber. I did the acceptance
> checks on these aircraft when they were delivered to 3(F)Wing in
Zweibruken,
> Germany. They were brought over in C130 Hercs where they were reassembled
> on arrival. I guess they didn't want to risk flying them over as they did
> earlier with the Sabres and CF-100's. Do some web searching and get your
> facts straight! The French and the British did develop independent
nuclear
> programs but the French wanted control of any nuclear weapons on French
soil
> and the U.S.A. would not do this.
>
Should have added, the Canadian version of the F-104 was built under
licence at Canadaire Ltd in Montreal and was designated as the CF-104.
Early versions of the F-104 had a downward ejection seat as they were
concerned about clearing the high tail. Not a good idea for the role Canada
used the CF-104 for so an upward ejection seat was used. Accidents also
often happen during take-off. Not a good idea for downward ejection at this
time. Hard on the old butt! ;-)

[Brett]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
news:xyAzb.558017$9l5.502070@pd7tw2no...
|
| "Peter Stickney" >
| > Now, that's most patently untrue. The fact is, in the late 1950s,
| > early 1960s, Canada had jumped onto the Nuke Bandwagon more deeply
| > than any other NATO country, including the U.S.. The CF-104s were
| > built solely as Nuke Bombers.
|
| I have never read so much B.S. about Canada's nuclear roll. The
| Diefenbaker government had to be dragged into the accepting nuclear
weapons!

Ever read a book by John Clearwater titled "Canadian Nuclear Weapons:
The Untold Story"? It includes some information about the efforts the
Pearson government to sign up for the use of US nuclear weapons.

[Ed Majden]

"Brett" > | >
> Ever read a book by John Clearwater titled "Canadian Nuclear Weapons:
> The Untold Story"? It includes some information about the efforts the
> Pearson government to sign up for the use of US nuclear weapons.
>
Never read this book. Deif lost an election over his fence sitting and
reluctance to accept nuclear weapons. I lived through this era having
enlisted in the RCAF in 1958. Started out on the Cf-100, went to Europe on
the CF-104's, spent two tours on Bomarcs and finished off on CF101's as a
ground crew tech. We were anxiously waiting for the Arrow, but alas and
sadly, the program was cancelled. This was known as "Black Friday". Saw
the Arrow do a couple of over flights over the base I was on along with the
B47 test bed with the Iroquois engine strapped on the rear.

[John S. Shinal]

"Matt Wiser" wrote:

> Here's a few:
>TBD Devastator

Respectfully disagree. While slow, obsolete and vulnerable,
the 15 TBDs of VT-8 played a crucial role in a crucial battle of the
WW2 Pacific campaign. They have to be given at least an "assist" for
their decoy role, thus allowing the sinking of IJN carriers at Midway.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Brett]

"Ed Majden" > wrote:
| "Brett" > | >
| > Ever read a book by John Clearwater titled "Canadian Nuclear
Weapons:
| > The Untold Story"? It includes some information about the efforts
the
| > Pearson government to sign up for the use of US nuclear weapons.
| >
| Never read this book. Deif lost an election over his fence
sitting and
| reluctance to accept nuclear weapons.

And Pearson's Liberals won by "embracing" the idea - nice switch by
them, they were "anti" when Diefenbaker first started down the path and
it was Pearson's government that signed the agreements.

| I lived through this era having
| enlisted in the RCAF in 1958.

Try reading the book it basically agrees with Peter Stickney's comment
about Canada and the "Nuke Bandwagon".

| Started out on the Cf-100, went to Europe on
| the CF-104's, spent two tours on Bomarcs and finished off on CF101's
as a
| ground crew tech. We were anxiously waiting for the Arrow, but alas
and
| sadly, the program was cancelled. This was known as "Black Friday".

You were "anxiously waiting for the Arrow", you probably didn't have a
year of service in when it was cancelled in Feburary 1959.

| Saw
| the Arrow do a couple of over flights over the base I was on along
with the
| B47 test bed with the Iroquois engine strapped on the rear.

[Ed Majden]

"Brett" >
> You were "anxiously waiting for the Arrow", you probably didn't have a
> year of service in when it was cancelled in Feburary 1959.
>
Had just completed my various trades courses and arrived at my first ops
station on CF-100's. We were waiting for the CF-105 courses to start when
the whole thing went down the drain!

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
>
> And Pearson's Liberals won by "embracing" the idea - nice switch by
> them, they were "anti" when Diefenbaker first started down the path and
> it was Pearson's government that signed the agreements.

This was the classic Canadian political wedge issue, and Pearson was able
to cleave the Conservative constituency with it and set a course that
would allow the Liberals to form four governments in succession (albeit
with two minorities).

My father got in severe ca-ca over this. Douglas Harkness, then MND, went
to a mess dinner at H.M.C.S. Carelton, where my dad was the naval
reserve's Int and PR officer. During dinner Harkness spoke against Dief's
(irrational) policy, revealing the break in cabinet solidarity. My father
promptly wrote a press release about MND's remarks and it landed him in
hot water; he was asked not to parade. Dief lost the election that
resulted from the loss of confidence in the Conservative government, and
my father was asked back. (I am sure my father voted neither Conservative
nor Liberal in that election.)

> Try reading the book it basically agrees with Peter Stickney's comment
> about Canada and the "Nuke Bandwagon".

We did not fully dismount from the "Nuke Bandwagon" until about 1993 when
we ceased teaching nuclear fire planning on the Artillery Staff Duties
Course and at the Canadian Land Force Command and Staff College.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Earl Watkins" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Many aircraft did poorly in ther intended roll only to become stars in
> the roll they wound up in. An example is the F-111, it was to be the
> air superority ground attack fighter for the Navy and the Air Force,
> It wound up being one of the best ground attack aircraft in the USAF,
> and never even made Navy service.
>

The USAF and Navy versions of the F-111 shared an airframe and powerplants
but not missions. The USAF version was to be a long-range, low-level
supersonic, all-weather strike aircraft while the Navy version was to be an
all-weather, carrier-based fleet defense fighter.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Earl Watkins" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > Many aircraft did poorly in ther intended roll only to become stars in
> > the roll they wound up in. An example is the F-111, it was to be the
> > air superority ground attack fighter for the Navy and the Air Force,
> > It wound up being one of the best ground attack aircraft in the USAF,
> > and never even made Navy service.
> >
>
> The USAF and Navy versions of the F-111 shared an airframe and powerplants
> but not missions. The USAF version was to be a long-range, low-level
> supersonic, all-weather strike aircraft while the Navy version was to be
an
> all-weather, carrier-based fleet defense fighter.
>

There were airframe differences, the nose on the navy version was
8ft 6" shorter and it had 3 feet 6 inch extended wingtips. The F-111B
was grossly overweight (78,000 lbs when the navy had specified an
upper weight limit of 55,000 lbs) and was seriously underpowered.

Keith

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> There were airframe differences, the nose on the navy version was
> 8ft 6" shorter and it had 3 feet 6 inch extended wingtips. The F-111B
> was grossly overweight (78,000 lbs when the navy had specified an
> upper weight limit of 55,000 lbs) and was seriously underpowered.
>

Yes, they weren't exactly alike. The USAF versions had differences among
them as well, the FB-111A/F-111G had a longer wing as did the Australian
F-111C. The point was the USAF and Navy versions were never intended to
perform the same mission in their respective services. The F-111B nose
could be shorter because the AN/AWG-9 radar and associated equipment used in
the Phoenix missile system required less space than AN/APQ-113 attack radar
and AN/APQ-110 terrain-following radar used to deliver air-to-ground stores.

[Brett]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
| "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
| nk.net...
| >
| > "Earl Watkins" > wrote in message
| > om...
| > >
| > > Many aircraft did poorly in ther intended roll only to become
stars in
| > > the roll they wound up in. An example is the F-111, it was to be
the
| > > air superority ground attack fighter for the Navy and the Air
Force,
| > > It wound up being one of the best ground attack aircraft in the
USAF,
| > > and never even made Navy service.
| > >
| >
| > The USAF and Navy versions of the F-111 shared an airframe and
powerplants
| > but not missions. The USAF version was to be a long-range,
low-level
| > supersonic, all-weather strike aircraft while the Navy version was
to be
| an
| > all-weather, carrier-based fleet defense fighter.
| >
|
| There were airframe differences, the nose on the navy version was
| 8ft 6" shorter and it had 3 feet 6 inch extended wingtips. The F-111B
| was grossly overweight (78,000 lbs when the navy had specified an
| upper weight limit of 55,000 lbs) and was seriously underpowered.

You really should define "grossly overweight" since "the replacement",
the F-14 ended up with a similar maximum weight and similar engines. The
Navy's primary concern with weight in the 1960's would have been
elevator loading, arrested landing and catapult launch. Yet the F-111B
replacement aircraft based on weight and engines had similar issues and
it was accepted.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
>
> You really should define "grossly overweight" since "the replacement",
> the F-14 ended up with a similar maximum weight and similar engines. The
> Navy's primary concern with weight in the 1960's would have been
> elevator loading, arrested landing and catapult launch. Yet the F-111B
> replacement aircraft based on weight and engines had similar issues and
> it was accepted.
>

Every source I've seen shows significantly higher weight and less power for
the F-111B compared to the F-14A. From "The American Fighter" by Enzo
Angelucci with Peter Bowers:

F-111B empty weight of 46,000 lbs and a gross weight of 72, 421 lbs, and
TF30-P-1 engines rated at 11,500 lbs s.t. and 18,500 lbs AB.

F-14A empty weight of 40,070 lbs and a gross weight of 66,200 lbs, and
TF30-P-412A engines rated at 12,500 lbs s.t. and 20,900 lbs AB.

What source shows similar figures for these aircraft?

[Brett]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
| "Brett" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > You really should define "grossly overweight" since "the
replacement",
| > the F-14 ended up with a similar maximum weight and similar engines.
The
| > Navy's primary concern with weight in the 1960's would have been
| > elevator loading, arrested landing and catapult launch. Yet the
F-111B
| > replacement aircraft based on weight and engines had similar issues
and
| > it was accepted.
| >
|
| Every source I've seen shows significantly higher weight and less
power for
| the F-111B compared to the F-14A. From "The American Fighter" by Enzo
| Angelucci with Peter Bowers:
|
| F-111B empty weight of 46,000 lbs and a gross weight of 72, 421 lbs,
and
| TF30-P-1 engines rated at 11,500 lbs s.t. and 18,500 lbs AB.
|
| F-14A empty weight of 40,070 lbs and a gross weight of 66,200 lbs, and
| TF30-P-412A engines rated at 12,500 lbs s.t. and 20,900 lbs AB.
|
| What source shows similar figures for these aircraft?

Putnam's Grumman Aircraft since 1929 gives the F-14A max weight at
74,300 and several sources quote the F-14A Standard Aircraft
Characteristics dated April 1977 that the F-14A in Fleet Air Defense
configuration has an empty weight of 44,700 lbs.
As for the engines, the TF30-P-412A is similar to the TF30-P-1, as for
the thrust of the P-412A I would imagine the F-111B developments would
have ended up with an engine similar to that put into the F-111D (the
TF30-P-9) or even F-111F (the TF30-P-100).
Weight is important but the characteristic that is probably most
important when the aircraft carries very expensive air to air missiles
is the required wind over deck in landing configuration for the aircraft
and the specific carrier it is landing on, at a landing weight that
includes those weapons still being there. How does the F-14A compare
with the F-111B under those conditions, I've seen several quotes that
the F-14A doesn't always come out as that "great" under those
circumstances and the F-14A isn't hauling around a "large" escape
capsule, an internal weapons bay and the capability of M1.2 on the deck.

[Merlin Dorfman]

ArtKramr ) wrote:
: I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?

Don't tell that to the Russians, who got many via lend-lease and
made a great tank-buster of it with its 37 mm. cannon.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Merlin Dorfman
> writes
>ArtKramr ) wrote:
>: I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?
>
> Don't tell that to the Russians, who got many via lend-lease and
>made a great tank-buster of it with its 37 mm. cannon.

They used it as a fighter, not a tankbuster (though it did well in the
role: the Eastern Front was a low-level arena and the P-39 was in its
element).

The 37mm was actually fairly low velocity compared to a proper antitank
weapon (~600m/s muzzle velocity, compared to ~900 for antitank guns and
airborne 37s designed for tank killing)
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
>
> Putnam's Grumman Aircraft since 1929 gives the F-14A max weight at
> 74,300 and several sources quote the F-14A Standard Aircraft
> Characteristics dated April 1977 that the F-14A in Fleet Air Defense
> configuration has an empty weight of 44,700 lbs.
>

What figures does it give for the F-111B?

[Brett]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
| "Brett" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > Putnam's Grumman Aircraft since 1929 gives the F-14A max weight at
| > 74,300 and several sources quote the F-14A Standard Aircraft
| > Characteristics dated April 1977 that the F-14A in Fleet Air Defense
| > configuration has an empty weight of 44,700 lbs.
| >
|
| What figures does it give for the F-111B?

Putnam's Grumman Aircraft since 1929 doesn't quote a max carrier takeoff
weight for the F-111B (the F-111B was supposed to be fully operational
on a CVA-41 Midway class carrier, so any carrier max takeoff or landing
capability would depend on the limits imposed by the minimum required
lauch and recovery platform). Putnam's quoted empty weight for the
F-111B of 46,500 lbs would be close to the empty weight in Fleet Air
Defense configuration (which with wing pylons for Phoenix missiles would
be close to 47,400). Putnam's quoted loaded weight of 72,421 lbs would
be for an aircraft max fuel and a couple of Phoenix missiles. The
unquoted maximum carrier takeoff weight in Fleet Air Defense
configuration with full Phoenix load (the configuration quoted for the
F-14A) would be about 77,500 lbs (about 4% higher than the F-14A).
Putnam's quoted max weight of 86,563 lbs is the design gross weight and
isn't a figure that the aircraft would have ever operated from a carrier
at.

[firstfleet]

C-82
C-133


As one who has spent the last five years researching the Douglas C-133 Cargomaster, and who flew 1,875 hours as a C-133 navigator, I'll state definitely that the C-133 more than lived up to its potential. Despite serious design issues due to a P&W T34 engine that never met specifications, the crewmembers of three squadrons flew the airplane all over the world, moving every conceivable type of very heavy or outsized cargo. The C-133 was the only airplane that could move such cargo until the C-5 came on line. NASA termed the C-133 "the first stage to space." The ICBM force would not have been emplaced as rapidly, economically or safely without the C-133, which transported several thousand Atlas, Titan and Minuteman missiles. It was the need for such a capability that led the AF to ask Douglas to remodel the aft cargo doors to make a bigger hole, resulting in the C-133B.

My book about the C-133 will be out in April 2006. It is entitled Remembering an Unsung Giant: The Douglas C-133 Cargomaster and Its People. For more info, check out my website, http://www.angelfire.com/wa2/c133bcargomaster/home.html.

[Canberra Man]

Westland Whirlwind (one of my favourites)
TSR.2

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

The TSR2 was not a failure, it was destined to be an excellent aircraft but was cancelled by that half wit Wilson who is only equalled by Cameron.