Aircraft that should never have seen service

[CalBear]

The thing's track was still to narrow to be really safe for carrier ops.

So was the A7's (which is more or less a retuned Crusader).

That didn't stopthem from being two of the most successful aircraft the U.S. produced post WW II.

The F8 was the ONLY fighter the U.S. designed and put into service after the F-86 until the advent of the F-15. Everything else was an interceptor or a fighter-bomber. That isn't a bad thing, fighter bombers are damned handy, and the U.S. needed interceptors to kill the Bears, but when you list the actual fighters the U.S. built in the Jet era its a damned short list.

F-86
F8
F-15A/C
F-22

Everything else was meant to do something besides kill enemy fighters.

 

[NothingNow]

So was the A7's (which is more or less a retuned Crusader).

That didn't stopthem from being two of the most successful aircraft the U.S. produced post WW II.

The F8 was the ONLY fighter the U.S. designed and put into service after the F-86 until the advent of the F-15. Everything else was an interceptor or a fighter-bomber. That isn't a bad thing, fighter bombers are damned handy, and the U.S. needed interceptors to kill the Bears, but when you list the actual fighters the U.S. built in the Jet era its a damned short list.

F-86
F8
F-15A/C
F-22

Everything else was meant to do something besides kill enemy fighters.

True. Although the F-100, F-101 and F-106 probably could've gone either way if not for the initial RFP.
Still, had it been primarily land based, I wouldn't have complained about it.

 

[galveston bay]

I don't believe the P39 and P63 have been criticized nearly enough yet

both were second rate aircraft as produced, and clearly unneeded as better aircraft were available, yet the US still produced them anyway (for what appears to be for political reasons... Douglas had some clout). The Army would have been better served if those Allison engines had gone to more P40s... in any of the various variants of it, and Douglas told to build more of practically anything else.

 

[NothingNow]

I don't believe the P39 and P63 have been criticized nearly enough yet

both were second rate aircraft as produced, and clearly unneeded as better aircraft were available, yet the US still produced them anyway (for what appears to be for political reasons... Douglas had some clout). The Army would have been better served if those Allison engines had gone to more P40s... in any of the various variants of it, and Douglas told to build more of practically anything else.

Actually, the P-39 and P-63 were excellent Aircraft when properly utilized, and were some of the best CAS aircraft of the war. With the Turbosupercharger they were supposed to have they were also pretty good at altitude.

 

[fastmongrel]

Bell not Douglas

 

[Bearcat]

The Soviets loved both Bell fighters at medium altitude. In conditions typical over the eastern front, a lot of the action took place at that level.

 

[galveston bay]

Bell not Douglas

of course your right... Bell did not do very well during the war in terms of aircraft

the P59 Airacomet was not great prize either, although in that case is was more of a fault of engine power than specific flaw in the aircraft design

although the 2 Bell fighters did well in the Eastern Front, I am sure the Soviets would have been just as happy with more A20 Havocs (which they also liked), or P47s or just about anything else. The 37mm gun was ok for tank busting but not much else.

 

[PhilKearny]

The Bell P-39 and P-63 were used as air superiority fighters by the Soviets. At mid to low altitudes, below the critical altitude, the Bell fighters were more than a match for the Bf-109. The cannon was not used for tank busting.

of course your right... Bell did not do very well during the war in terms of aircraft

the P59 Airacomet was not great prize either, although in that case is was more of a fault of engine power than specific flaw in the aircraft design

although the 2 Bell fighters did well in the Eastern Front, I am sure the Soviets would have been just as happy with more A20 Havocs (which they also liked), or P47s or just about anything else. The 37mm gun was ok for tank busting but not much else.

 

[Workable Goblin]

F-86
F8
F-15A/C
F-22

Everything else was meant to do something besides kill enemy fighters.

I was under the impression that the F-16, at least, was very much designed as a pure fighter. Excessively so, even.

EDIT: Or rather, originated as a pure fighter idea. Low-cost, all that stuff.

 

[CalBear]

I was under the impression that the F-16, at least, was very much designed as a pure fighter. Excessively so, even.

EDIT: Or rather, originated as a pure fighter idea. Low-cost, all that stuff.

Originated yes, end result, not so much. If it had been meant to be a straight up air superiority fighter it would have been capable of operating BVR missiles. It wasn't, many of the Falcons flying today still can't handle BVR.


It is an excellent fighter bomber and a nice complement to the Eagle, but it isn't a true fighter.

 

[CalBear]

I don't believe the P39 and P63 have been criticized nearly enough yet

both were second rate aircraft as produced, and clearly unneeded as better aircraft were available, yet the US still produced them anyway (for what appears to be for political reasons... Douglas had some clout). The Army would have been better served if those Allison engines had gone to more P40s... in any of the various variants of it, and Douglas told to build more of practically anything else.

At medium altitude, especially in European conditions, the P-39 was, according to RAF test pilots, the most maneuverable aircraft they had ever flown.

Unfortunately for the RAF and USAAF, the flying in the ETO was at 20K+ and the P-39 was a pig above 20K. In the East, however, the war was fought at 10-15K.

The 37mm cannon on the P-39 was a low velocity design. Great for killing bombers, not so much for plinking tanks.

 

[Misanthrope00]

how about the mediocre english electic 'lighting' fighter from the cold war era and the no less shitty shakleton heavy bomber (ww2), also by the british

 

[fastmongrel]

how about the mediocre english electic 'lighting' fighter from the cold war era and the no less shitty shakleton heavy bomber (ww2), also by the british

The Lightning was the fastest climbing bomber killer of its era and was pretty manouverable. Even towards the end of its 30 year service life it could still run rings round a lot of more modern fighters. Its missile armament was fairly mediocre at the end and its radar was also mediocre but that was because it wasnt developed because it was nearing the end of its service. Why pour millions into a plane thats going out of service in a matter of years.

The Shackleton was not a WW2 heavy bomber it was a 1940s designed maritime patrol aircraft intended to replace the Liberator then in use in the Battle of the Atlantic. Its job was to carry 10 crew, 10,000 pounds of anti sub torpedos, Radar and sonobouys fly to the middle of the Atlantic patrol for 6 hours and fly back in a typically 12 to 14 hour mission. With an overload fuel tank in the bomb bay it was possible to fly an electronic surveillance mission to the Barents Sea and back a flight time of 18 hours. For all its faults which were many it flew in service for 40 years not bad for a shitty aircraft.

 

[The Oncoming Storm]

The Lightning had exceptional performance but did have average missiles and woefully short range. That was a result of the fact that it supposed to have been an interim aircraft before the super duper new generation of SAM's foreseen by Duncan Sandys came around. English Electric had enhanced versions on the drawing board including a multi-role swing wing aircraft but because of Sandys' "No more manned fighters" lunacy it was cancelled. By the time the RAF wised up there was no more money to develop it.

The Shackleton was a very capable maritime patroller, where it could be classed as a joke was for the AEW version that was hopelessly obsolete by the 1980's. But again, that was the result of a political cock up, Britain spurned the chance to buy E-3's in the 1970's because the Wilson Government wanted to win votes in marginal seats and went for the total clusterfuck that was the AEW Nimrod.

 

[CalBear]

how about the mediocre english electic 'lighting' fighter from the cold war era and the no less shitty shakleton heavy bomber (ww2), also by the british

The EE Lightning was one of the GREAT aircraft of its era. To this day it remains the only aircraft to manage a "snap" intercept of a U-2. It was the RAF's F-106, except it was a better aircraft than the also excellent F-106.

It was never designed to be a "fighter". It was a point interceptor designed to kill Bears and Blinders.

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

Actually, the P-39 and P-63 were excellent Aircraft when properly utilized, and were some of the best CAS aircraft of the war. With the Turbosupercharger they were supposed to have they were also pretty good at altitude.

The Armenian Genocide says that the P-39 had the most kills of any US fighter type, when including their service in the USSR.

 

[wietze]

Originated yes, end result, not so much. If it had been meant to be a straight up air superiority fighter it would have been capable of operating BVR missiles. It wasn't, many of the Falcons flying today still can't handle BVR.

Strange, thought that every model apart from the initial one was capable of carrying at least AIM-7 Sparrows, which definitely is a BVR missile. And that most of the initial batch had already undergone an OCU

 

[Barry Bull]

The EE Lightning was one of the GREAT aircraft of its era. To this day it remains the only aircraft to manage a "snap" intercept of a U-2. It was the RAF's F-106, except it was a better aircraft than the also excellent F-106.

It was never designed to be a "fighter". It was a point interceptor designed to kill Bears and Blinders.

The emphasis is on "point". Now, its successor, Tornado, is one truly underestimated interceptor...

 

[galveston bay]

The Armenian Genocide says that the P-39 had the most kills of any US fighter type, when including their service in the USSR.

that seems unlikely, especially when compared to the Lightning (1,800 in the Pacific alone), Hellcat (5,721 kills), Corsair (2,140 kills vs only 189 air combat losses) and Mustang (4,190 in Europe alone, not counting Far East where they operated over Japan, China and Formosa).

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p39_airacobra.html

here is a thread that talks about air combat losses in World War II that might be of interest

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/luftwaffe-loses-4089-3.html

 

[FlyingDutchman]

..If it had been meant to be a straight up air superiority fighter it would have been capable of operating BVR missiles. It wasn't, many of the Falcons flying today still can't handle BVR.

AFAIK that's not correct.

The F-16 as designed was a lightweight day fighter.
Due to Sprey's and Boyd's influence the long-range missiles/extensive electronics were traded off for a better wingloading and T/W in the design of the F-XX design.
See www.f-16.net for more on that.

So it not having WVR capability doesn't mean it wasn't meant as a pure fighter initially.

As another poster mentioned, AFAIK most F-16's are BVR capable nowadays, even the F-16I strikers.
Even the Block 1/5/10/15/15OCU/20 which were sold to Europe have long since had their MLU to be capable of BVR.