Aircraft that never lived up to their promise

"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.

"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

"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.

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'

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

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! =-----

ArtKramr wrote:

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

The successful failu 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.

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" escreveu na mensagem
...
The successful failu 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?

"Vicente Vazquez" wrote in message
...
"Dweezil Dwarftosser" escreveu na mensagem
...
The successful failu 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.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" writes:

"Vicente Vazquez" wrote in message
...
"Dweezil Dwarftosser" escreveu na mensagem
...
The successful failu 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