Aircraft that never lived up to their promise

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.

"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.

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?

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).

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.

"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. ;-)

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.

"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!

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" ) 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.