Turns out that in a thread, there was confusion over my responses to a multitude of members at the same time, as a result I'm going to better identify my responses
michaelmaltby
Post #2: 2/16/15
All-weather interceptors were 'evolving' .... one engine or two ...? single-man crew or double ...?
As far as I know, the F-89 started out as a night-fighter (P-61 replacement) that ended up being used as an all-weather interceptor.
As for night-fighters, most night-fighters were usually twin-seaters: The F4U, F6F, F7F-1N were exceptions to this and possibly the Defiant. Most night-fighters during WWII were essentially modified aircraft designed for other purposes: The only dedicated night-fighters I can readily think of are the P-61, the He-219, and Ta-154.
As for twin-engines, it usually had to do with the ability to carry the radar and twin or multi-man crew. They were also usually designed for standing patrols, which required endurance and that shaped the size. The P-61 was also required to carry turrets for some reason, and actually the F-89 was also supposed to have a nose-turret that was removed for one reason or another.
F-94 Starfires served as night fighters during the Korean War ... with a kill or to IIRC.
That was something I didn't know, but it's nice to know that the USAF had an all-weather jet flying around (the USN had the F3D by 1952 at least).
Post #5: 2/16/15
And none armed with guns ... just folding fin missiles in swarms IIRC .... the great self-deception had begun
I assume you mean we got overconfident in our ability to stop enemy bombers?
FLYBOYJPost #3: 2/16/15
IIRC the F-89 was supposed to be the "cure all" but it had issues in it's development to include the radar that was to be installed in the aircraft.
I didn't know the radar had problems, though I know they had a variety of issues regarding the wings and fuel tanks.
The F-94C was eventually replaced by the F-89 and F-86D but it stayed in service until 1959.
No, the F-89 flew first; then the F-94 and F-86D.
ConslawPost #6: 2/16/15
I imagine pilots were more than a little frustrated when they shot off all of their rockets at once and didn't score a single hit.
I could believe it!
Perhaps statistically they were more likely to score a hit with rockets than guns, but I'm sure it didn't feel that way in the co*ckpit.
Well one hit would blow a bomber apart, but the problem is they were kind of scattered out over an area the size of a football field in one blast. A machine gun would fire a stream of projectiles over a much narrower area: Even if the weight of fire didn't blow up the bomber outright, it doesn't matter as it has a substantial refire rate and has enough shells to fire for a certain number of seconds: This would allow you to walk the tracers onto the target and hold it there until the target goes down.
The later F-89s were armed with nuclear air-to-air rockets, part of the whole "tactical" nuke strategy that seemed more likely to cause an all-out nuclear war than to avert one.
I was under the impression that by the time these were used, we'd already be in a nuclear war.
davparlrPost #9: 7/17/15
The F-94 did not add anything to the mix. It performed similarly to the F-89 but carried half the weaponry and was probably shorter ranged. The F-86D was a much better performing aircraft in climb and airspeed, however it carried one-fifth the weaponry as the F-89.
You kind of hit the nail on the head with the armament.
As for catching a B-47,the after-burning F-86D should have little problem being almost a 100 mph faster than the B-47. The other two would struggle. However, both have much higher ceiling and could use that for energy.
That would depend on a number of things, but a B-47 if I recall could fly quite high up (45,000-50,000 feet) and at that altitude still had a a decent amount of lift available for maneuvering (fighters had trouble staying with it).
GraemePost #16: 4/18/16
View attachment 341497
What kind of rocket gun was used in the test?
kool kitty 89Post #17: 5/5/16
The rocket salvo idea made sense
Yeah, becuase each shot did so much damage per hit
until you realized the poor accuracy of those FFARs (which really hadn't improved much over the German R4M) and might have made a reasonable complement to gun/cannon armament (again as the R4M did), but the all-rocket armament scheme seems pretty flawed and not just in hindsight.
Actually, the R4M might have been better as was better spin-stabilized and had eight fins to hold it steady. The 2.75" FFAR was not properly spin-stabilized early on and used only four-fins to hold it in steady and at least one pilot basically said he was amazed "we hit anything" with them.
The F-86D and F-94 might have compromised with just 2 M39s given their smaller size and nose geometry, plus the F-94 could carry rocket pods in addition to a nose armament while the F-86D might need to compromise between cannon and rocket tray in the belly and/or nose.
The rocket-pod seems like a good idea, not sure why they didn't go with it.
