Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Usurping designs that serve us well may increase costs, weaken our defences &c. And even if the superseding craft turns out to be disappointing, countless moneys etc that would be invested in it make it hard for the establishment to do much less than acclaim it. Mention of the Northrop T─38 in a recent topic gets me thinking of what an affordable elegant plane that is. Though I don't know much about the line, wasn't curtailing it and its potent derivatives a foolish decision? And I wonder at which other great planes were abandoned before their time
Usurping designs that serve us well may increase costs, weaken our defences &c. And even if the superseding craft turns out to be disappointing, countless moneys etc that would be invested in it make it hard for the establishment to do much less than acclaim it. Mention of the Northrop T─38 in a recent topic gets me thinking of what an affordable elegant plane that is. Though I don't know much about the line, wasn't curtailing it and its potent derivatives a foolish decision? And I wonder at which other great planes were abandoned before their time
A variant of the T-38 was the F-5 Freedom Fighter and subsequently upgraded to the F-5E/F Tiger II.
It was the starting point of the YF-17 Cobra a competitor in the LFP of the 70's but lost out to the F-16. Then with some changes in partnership with McDonnell Douglas it morphed into the F/A-18.
The F-5 went into the F-X project resulting in F-20 Tigershark which was a bit of a dud with some political problems hanging off of it since it was a direct export competitor of the F-16 (which had been approved for export to allies and was a current USAF aircraft), only 3 were built.
So how was it's development curtailed. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a direct evolution of the T-38.
With the 'authority' of one, by no-means a 'mod'(erator) in this part of the forum,
I fancy that you dismiss an inspired design too glibly
And who needs wings?
With the 'authority' of one, by no-means a 'mod'(erator) in this part of the forum,
I fancy that you dismiss an inspired design too glibly
And who needs wings?
I don't think you understand precisely what I said.
The T-38 was developed into the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet through multiple different adaptations of the original 1950's design.
How is that glibly dismissing the design?
Your thread is about developing an airframe, that airframe was developed. I ask again, how was the design curtailed?
As stated, I don't know much more about this than that the T─38 appears to be an affordable and functional plane, the elegance or simplicity of which may lend itself to more development than was accorded it. Even the F─20, had it been put into full production, could have been developed, in my view, into something superior to even, say, the F─16. And let us bear in-mind that the air would 'see' it too. But the line was curtailed when the US armed services chose not to order it. And when the manufacturer returned with an unbelievably affordable price for a good-size batch of them, the authorities refused to take the plane again. And Goodness knows what inducements may have been made in the process
And when I attempt to begin a subject for discussion, it's in a topic, not a 'thread'. The next might be on that our opponents are unlikely to be frightened or deterred by the few and costly ObamaPlanes &c that, when not being 'maintained', are 'ready to defend us'
I too don't understand the use of the term "curtailed". A boatload of T-38s were built, using existing 1960s technology, and the aircraft owned several time-to-climb records for a while. However, the T-38 was a trainer, with the F-5 as a derivative fighter, and the latter wasn't very successful. When I was an FTU instructor I had a number of foreign students (Singapore, Turkey) who flew the F-5 and also flew with some pilots who'd done an aggressor assignment or the training program years earlier at Williams AFB; they called it the Toy Fighter because it had limited range and payload, which is what you'd expect out of an airframe optimized for local training. The program wasn't curtailed, it just plain hit the engineering wall. When I was an OV-10 driver my squadron commander was one of a handful of active duty pilots who'd flown the F-20, it was his great claim to fame. He talked positively of the jet, but he had flown the F-16 as well, and in the end he stated it couldn't compete with the Viper, as it was engineered to the end of its capabilities (airframe size, wing design, fuel capacity). While it compared favorably with the F-16 in some maneuvering parameters, including the ability to fire the AIM-7 Sparrow, which the F-16 could not do until 1989 with the F-16A ADF, it was really designed, as was the F-5, as an export fighter. Why, as a military, would anyone want to buy an export-only aircraft when one could buy the top-of-the-line F-16 or F-18 or MiG-29? They might be export variants without all the capabilities of the non-export version, but they would still be front-line aircraft.
When I flew the T-38 it was a great aircraft but it had many limitations, one of which was discussed by a T-38 IP at Laughlin, namely that wing (or lack thereof) which produces very fast final approach speeds. The F-5 had slats and flaps that helped it somewhat, but not much; I was once in a rolling scissors against an F-5 in my A-10, and it was really fun to be in an aircraft that wasn't supposed to be an air-to-air fighter literally owning a jet that was. The F-20 improved that airframe significantly, but not enough to justify the expense of producing a second-tier fighter when other nations could, for a few escudos or lira or baht or shekels, get a front-line fighter flown by the US and its allies. (Or the Soviets, if the political direction leaned that way.)
I'm all for small wings, as you know. But if they render it necessary for a plane to land at high speed, couldn't the armed services, in particular, deck-out small strips with the cables, hooks and nets of an aircraft-carrier? It would save on airbase costs too
Wait, what? How would putting arrestor gear on runways save on airbase costs?
High approach speeds are undesirable in general; they drive landing gear, brake and tire requirements, etc., and also reduce margins and overall safety. Also, fast approaches are not the only problem caused by high wing loading; maneuverability also suffers.
I do agree with you on one point though: The F-5 was one of the prettiest aircraft ever built
But it isn't a matter of being pretty. You see, though a glider may be particularly so, it would have little currency as a warplane. The latter ought to be capable of cutting through even extreme weather conditions without demur. for example, the pilot should be able safely to stick his fingers up contemptuously at the tornado or whatever else he may be flying through
Wait, what? How would putting arrestor gear on runways save on airbase costs?
High approach speeds are undesirable in general; they drive landing gear, brake and tire requirements, etc., and also reduce margins and overall safety. Also, fast approaches are not the only problem caused by high wing loading; maneuverability also suffers.
I do agree with you on one point though: The F-5 was one of the prettiest aircraft ever built
Small wings also decrease maneuverability, especially at low speeds, which is critical in modern fighters (think F-104 in general, and the F-105 and F-4 air-to-air combat in Vietnam).
Most airfields do have arresting gear, but that means the aircraft must have a tailhook and the associated weight and complexity. They are used for emergencies only. I have taken cables a number of times, mostly during FCF/cable tests, but also for brake failures - 3 times in a week in the same F-16 in Kuwait - and that action totally shuts down the runway. It's nonsense to believe that the tempo of a carrier can be transferred to land ops, without an attendant increase in cost, complexity, and weight, not to mention personnel and equipment. 5000 feet of pavement will do for all current fighters and trainers (exception: legacy aircraft for countries still flying F-4s and F-5s, as well as T-38s).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
