Hush-Kit Aviation World

I love writing for this site and I put a ton of time into it. I keep it free for all as I think that’s a positive thing to put into the world. Last night I accidentally smashed my laptop, an expensive mistake that pauses operations on this site (I can do simple posts like this from my phone but real posts require a laptop). If you enjoy this site and are feeling generous, you will see donation buttons at the bottom and top of this screen. Please do consider helping me get back on the case.

Much appreciated,

Hush-Kit

The debate on single versus twin engines for fighter aircraft continues. Paul Stoddart* follows Gen Chuck Horner and David Baker, PhD into the ring. The choice of engine is a fundamental design driver for any aircraft – both the type and the number. One or two engines and one or two seats are fundamental choices for fighter aircraft. However, while a second seat can be spliced into even smaller designs, the number of engines is fixed (the metamorphosis of the twin F-5 into the cancelled single-engined F-20 is an exception). After decades of study and experience, the debate on one versus two engines continues. General Charles Horner, USAF, offered his views in the October ’98 issue of Air Forces Monthly, with Dr David Baker adding to the debate in the June ’99 issue of Air International. General Horner emphasised the increasing reliability of engines and the lower cost of single-engine designs. Dr Baker balanced that approach by highlighting the unique performance advantages of twin-engine layouts. Two engines have a safety advantage over singles, but they are not major advantages, and the price paid for them is high. Indeed, General Horner argued convincingly that even with its likely higher lifetime losses due to engine failure, the single-engine fighter fleet would still work out cheaper. But will the superior aerodynamic performance of the twin help it gain air supremacy? If so, the extra cost will be money well spent – there is nothing more expensive than a second-rate fighter. Of course, there is more to air supremacy than manoeuvrability. Radar and missile performance are crucial, effective command and control is a force enhancer, and signature control is increasingly important. Over the next few decades in the West, we may well see the service entry of the twin-engined GCAP, FCAS and whatever the US goes for. The current twin-engined designs are the F-15, Super Hornet, Rafale, Typhoon and F-22; the F-35, F-16 and Gripen represent the single-engine design school. When a new aircraft is chosen, the engine number will be one of several fascinating design drivers. While a second seat can be spliced into even the smaller designs (Gripen and F-16) engine number is almost invariably fixed (F-20 weirdness aside). Cost and survivability are leading factors in the engine number debate, but there are two other issues: availability and commonality. Specifically, which engine types are available for use, and which do you already use? These points largely arise from the cost question but should be examined in their own right. It is beyond argument that twin-engined fighters cost more to buy and support than their single-engine equivalents. The twin-engine proponents claim improved survivability in peace and wartime flying, justifying the extra expense. A commonly quoted statistic is that the extra engine buys around 15% lower attrition in combat. General Horner quoted the loss rates for US fighter aircraft from the ’50s to the ’90s (presumably peacetime losses). He correctly emphasised the major improvement for both types but then stated that the difference has narrowed significantly. The difference in raw numbers has fallen from a high of 5 in the ’60s to one in the ’90s. However, the proportional difference, i.e. the relative likelihood of losing an aircraft, should also be considered. In that respect, a twin was little better in the ’50s than a single, suffering 90% of the latter’s loss rate. However, for the following four decades to the late 1990s, the twins had an average loss rate of 64% of the single.

The twin’s advantage may appear valuable, but remember that the raw numbers are very small; this has two effects. The loss of one more aircraft of either type can sway the relative loss rates markedly. Even if singles had ended up in the 90s with twice the loss rate (say 4 to 2 per 100,000 FH), you would not lose markedly more aircraft over the life of the fleet. As the General pointed out, the lower lifetime cost of the single-engine fighter can more than offset its higher lifetime loss rate. There are, however, three counterarguments. Firstly, many nations buy fighters in small numbers and use them for long periods, two decades or more. The lower loss rate of the twin will better sustain fleet size, whereas the single could decline into ineffectiveness. Readers may remember the period in the mid-90s when the USAF lost five F-16s in quick succession owing to engine failure. The failure, resulting from a manufacturing defect, was not in itself catastrophic and a twin could have got home on its remaining engine. Although the USAF could absorb such losses, most nations could not. The twin-engined option, being a larger aircraft, will have more potential for upgrade of new weapons and systems. Thirdly, when second-hand aircraft are procured, the extra purchase cost of the twin-engined fleet versus the single option is unlikely to be a showstopper, and the higher lifetime cost may be acceptable given the preceding two arguments. Incidentally, the General’s second experience of engine loss involved a contained failure of a turbine blade in an F-15. He shut down that engine and recovered on the remaining unit. Had that happened in an F-16 the aircraft would almost certainly have been lost. Coincidentally, at the time of writing, the Taiwan Air Force had just grounded its F-16A/B fleet for the second time within a few months. An F-16 was lost in August with an apparent engine problem; this followed three other engine-related accidents since March 98. Issues with the P&W F100 turbofan previously caused the grounding of the US and Israeli Air Force F-16 fleets. Sometimes, we use two engines because we have no choice. Airframes are designed around engines, but aircraft start as a collection of performance requirements. The speed, range and so forth that the customer wants are distilled into a number of engine parameters with thrust remaining a priority for fighters. If there is an engine that meets those targets in a solo installation then, on cost grounds, it will probably win. If not, then the huge cost of engine development will likely be prohibitive and will rule out the single option. A twin-engine selection could well be the only choice. The F-22 has two 35,000 lb (wet thrust) P&W F119 engines. There is no 70,000 lb class alternative in the military engine class. Both the Lockheed and Boeing JSF contenders use a single engine – a derivative of the F119 is sufficiently powerful and is the obvious choice for these projects where low cost is a crucial design goal. Similarly, the Saab Gripen needs 12,250 lb dry and 18,100 lb wet thrust to achieve its performance requirement; a single RM12 (F404 –GE-400) makes sense. Puzzlingly, the AIDC A-1 Ching-Kuo uses two TFE1042-70 turbofans to provide similar thrust and roughly equal performance to the Gripen. Perhaps the specification emphasises survivability (or there is some export limitation). There is a strong argument that air forces should choose a high-low mix of aircraft. The more capable fighters are costly and can only be procured in small numbers, whereas the cheaper aircraft will lack certain capabilities. Buying some of each should provide sufficient force size and capability to produce a truly effective fleet. If both types use the same engine, then large savings in maintenance, training, facilities and spares will accrue. Generally, the high-end fighter will be larger than its low-end partner. If both use a single engine then, to achieve reasonable performance, those engines must be of different types, and the duplication of support effort will be expensive. The best example of the common engine, high-low mix is the F-15 and F-16, both of which use the P&W F100.  The later F-22 and JSF do not share a common engine, the Pratt & Whitney F135 of the F-35 being a distinct development from the F119 it is based on.  Saab’s Gripen E-series has adopted the F414-GE-39E turbofan, suggesting a good high-low mix, partnering it with the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The Russian MoD would ideally would like a future force of Su-57Ms twins and single-engined Su-75s both powered by the AL-51F-1. Interestingly, the Azerbaijani Air Forces will be operating the twin MiG-29 and the single JF-17 (with similar closely related engines) at least for a while simultaneously. The JF-17C Block 3 will be fitted with more capable equipment, giving the unusual situation of the high-low and low-medium mix.  An extension of this idea of community may be that a next-generation European ‘Loyal Wingman ‘-like the project would benefit from engine commonality with either Typhoon, Rafale or Gripen E, or perhaps more expensively, engine commonality with the next generation. Fitting a larger UCAV with an existing generation engine (such as the EJ200) may be a good move, as well as insurance against a cancelled ‘high’. Paul Stoddart served as an engineer officer in the Royal Air Force for eight years. He now works for the Defence Evaluation & Research Agency (DERA). This article is his personal view on the subject and does not necessarily reflect RAF, Ministry of Defence or DERA policy. NOTE: *The original article has been updated to reflect its date of 1998. I just found it sitting in the WordPress drafts folder many years after Paul sent it to me. 

To paraphrase Sun Tzu, the go-to quote source for every hack military writer, “Bullshit is cheaper than bullets.”

Deception is the original smart weapon.  The first great deception was at the start of aerial warfare, when the town Ipswich of England, fearing a Zeppelin raid, turned all its lights out. The townspeople lit a bonfire on a large common, put up acetylene torches on bushes to imitate public lighting, and lit many squibs. The Zeppelin bomber ignored the town and dropped its bombs on the illuminated common. It was relatively easy to fool the pilots of aircraft, and the practice of pilot deception developed many tricks. Rivers were covered in coal, cities blacked-out,  factories disguised as great towns (with even drying laundry put out on weekly cycles) and radio navigation signals mimicked. Saving your own air force was vital for survival. Decoy or ‘dummy’ aircraft placed as tempting targets for enemy air attacks have saved many lives and aircraft. Creating decoy aircraft wastes enemy resources and confuses their estimates of your strength. Wasting enemy weapons and time is a good thing, and the decoy aircraft are bloodless heroes. 

With the advent of thermal image sensors, a good decoy might use a heat source (even a hot oil drum) to mimic the heat signature of a recently flown fighter jet. With metal particles in rubber or plastic, or even metal itself, the aircraft can also generate a radar return that mimics that of a real aircraft. 

Hush-Kit has entered over one hundred years’ worth of dummy data into our Cray-III supercomputer (see below) enabling a hand-picked expert virtual panel to present an informative snapshot of their findings in this area.

10. Hawker Sea Hurricane Mk. IIc ‘Sydney Camm-o-flage’

Score: nil

For decades, this image has bounced around the Internet and purports to be a wartime dummy Hurricane, part of the British Air Ministry’s effort to deceive the Luftwaffe early in the Second World War. One panellist insisted it was a prop from a play performed at his school in the Midlands in 1976. Other sources contradict that memory, suggesting it is the wartime output of a woodworking class at an Australian penitentiary. The contention that this is a New York City parade float was dismissed for lack of reasonable evidence. 

8. Bell P-59A-1 Airacomet prototype ‘Guerilla Bell-end’

Score: 5.1/10

 In fairness, this is a disguised aircraft rather than a full dummy, a false moustache rather than a mannequin.  Never built in numbers (though 66 would be a fair number today) or sent into action, the P-59 was a top-secret programme that helped establish so much of what was to come. Tarpaulins and a removable ersatz propeller were utilized to obscure America’s first jet aircraft during testing. With a big four-bladed ”prop” a similar tail and a tricycle undercarriage, unwelcome observers could mistake the rare P-59 for the P-63 Kingcobra.

Test pilot Jack Woolams, a keen practical joker, also adopted a clever psychological trick to discredit any possible witness reported of the aircraft. If another aircraft was sighted near the XP-59 he would put on a gorilla mask, a derby hat and smoke a cigar. Clearly, no one would take reports of a dapper gorilla flying a propellerless aircraft seriously. 

7. Runway Su-30 ‘Bansky Flansky’ 

6. MiG-29 ‘Ful-simila-crum’ 

The Belgrade Aviation Museum in Serbia is full of surprises; where else can you find the remains of a shot-down F-117 stealth fighter? In the two months of bombing of Yugoslavia, NATO discovered that stealth was not invulnerable and re-learned the lesson from Deliberate Force four years earlier, that technology hates wet weather. Yugoslavia’s small force of MiG-29s was vastly outnumbered, and five MiG-29s were destroyed in the air by US F-15s and US (and one Dutch) F-16s. Life was pretty dangerous for the Yugoslav MiG-29 community, so much was done to try and protect them. One was damaged beyond repair in air combat but returned but limped back to friendly ground it had a second life as a decoy. There were also six purpose-built MiG-29 decoys known as L- and M-18s. Only one of these full-scale decoys survives,  it did serve its purpose but was hot by “a dysfunctional NATO rocket” and enough survived for it to be rebuilt as a museum exhibit.

Constructed from metal and wood, the decoys were rather good, the radome and tyres are suspiciously accurate and may have been scrounged from real MiG-29s. 

5. Douglas P-70 Havoc/A-20 Boston ‘The Boston Wangler’

Score: 8.6/10
A solid, mid- to late-war dummy edition of a typical Allied attack aircraft. Precisely the right amount of detail to fool the Luftwaffe’s big Robot, Zeiss and GXN cameras while avoiding overuse of labour and materials. This is a prime example from the brilliant deception of Operation Fortitude, the Allied effort to mislead the Germans as to where the landings would take place.   

Items like this were part of a long-running and detailed scheme that fooled Berlin as to where the Allied landings in France would materialize.

4. Ghost Army North American P-51 Mustang ‘Mustang Folly’

Score: 8.9/10
Regardless of their level of quality or the materials employed, it is singularly vital that a dummy aircraft be installed at a realistic height above the ground. This allows proper shadows to form. Shadows are what photographic interpreters often work their magic with when peering down at prints taken from a reconnaissance platform. Certainly, this nicely decorated ”Mustang” would appear to have that covered. It was one of thousands of items produced by a brainy and creative American unit dedicated to simulacra of basically everything from landing craft to armoured vehicles to entire airfields. Often, they backed up their efforts with recorded sound effects and fictive radio traffic. At one point, an American unit of under two thousand, the innocuously named 23rd Headquarters Special Troops, simulated a combined-arms force of 30,000. 

3. Messerschmitt Bf 109 Straßenbahn Typ ‘Falscher Zwillingskämpfer’

Score: 9.2/10
A perfectly well-executed counterfeit of the Luftwaffe’s day fighter made even better in two ways. First, camouflage via netting amplifies the appearance of authenticity. Such netting remains a basic expectation for almost all military assets within range of enemy action. Second, that uncommon narrow-gauge trolley-and-rail system below the fuselage. Moving this fake would be quick and easy, deepening the level of deception by simulating in hostile aerial reconnaissance photographs not just a fighter but its anticipated ground movements over time. 

3. Inflatable F-16 Fighting Falcons ‘Windscreen Viper’
Score: 9.3/10 (provisional)

A massive hit with the assessment panel, particularly among judges with home-swimming pools, are two generations of inflatable F-16s. The first was a USAF project impressive in its accuracy that appears to have been cancelled along with the Cold War. Just look at the clear canopy and realistic weapons load. Exactly the thing to foolishly waste a guided bomb on. The second was an entrepreneurial effort which lost several points for colour scheme goofiness. If Russia is firmly in the inflatables camp, we can reasonably expect the United States to return to this area, as well as China. Usually, that’s how these things work. 

Several images on this page are from this remarkable company. 

2. Inflatable Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-31 ‘Boxhound’

Score: 11/10
High mobility, rapid deployment, lightweight, ease of operation, cost-effectiveness. Name a single post-millennium weapon system achieving all these things. Name one made on a sewing machine in a repurposed hot air balloon plant. Also, name a weapon maker whose product lineup includes bouncy castles for children. All the judges were impressed by the Rusbal MiG-31, awarding numerous points for its undeniable fun factor. Speculation ran wild during online panel discussions about secret devices for inflatables that overcome infrared systems and radar. Expect to see inflatables like this in future conflicts right alongside pricey, complicated high-tech systems.

Beyond number 1

1. Cargo Cult ‘Straw dog’

Score: 3/10 

When World War II ended, the US and Japanese abandoned many military airbases in the Pacific region, and with these, the flow of cargo. This was rather traumatic to many remote Melanesian populations, and cults developed, promising the return of the life-improving cargo. To entice the cargo to fall land in planes, which it was believed would be a gift from their ancestors, islanders imitated the same practices they had seen the airbase personnel use. In an act of sympathetic magic, life-size replicas of aeroplanes were built from straw and wood, and new landing strips cut from the jungle, ‘control towers’ were also built with controllers wearing wooden facsimiles of headphones. Though the story is somewhat sad, the purpose of the dummy aircraft is certainly the most fascinating.

Stephen Caulfield & Joe Coles

Tweets by Hush_Kit

The Fantastic Airwolf

For many children of the 1980s, the Airwolf theme song alone was enough to trigger a massive surge of adrenaline. Knight Rider was just a car, Airwolf was a freaking helicopter. Airwolf had everything a Cold War action show should have: Stolen high-tech weapons, Colonel Gaddaffi, canyons, explosions, sexy pilots, sinister CIA operatives, and a complicated political outlook that swings between big state patriotism and rebellious libertarianism. And that theme song! Here are the credits to put you in the mood:

The helicopter was amazing, and capable of things no other helicopter was. So, with our adult heads on we ask: was it possible? We enlisted the help of Hush-Kit’s tamed rotorcraft expert and former Head of Future Projects at Westland, Ron Smith, ‘Could Airwolf have worked?’. Over to you Ron:

“The Airwolf TV show is a clever, exciting and much-loved creation that combines the traditional threads of the fight between good and evil, with the addition of amazing technology and the sort of action sequences that one might otherwise associate with a James Bond movie. The star addition is Airwolf – a helicopter (supposedly) capable of supersonic flight (with stealth capabilities) and with an armoury that would put an A-10 to shame. The helicopter, in effect combines with the cast and the episode plots in much the same way as the car KITT in the Knight Rider series.

Helicopter Design Process

My background comes from working on helicopter rotor design and then preliminary design of complete helicopter projects during ten years in the role of Head of Future Projects and Chief Design Engineer (Light Attack Helicopter) at Westland Helicopters Ltd in the UK. I was also a member of the Configuration Team of the NH90 helicopter during its Feasibility and Pre-Design Study (FPDS), when the UK was still involved in the NH90. One thing that this experience drove into me was that the primary concerns when designing a new helicopter from scratch are:

Mission capability

Weight

Performance

Packaging

Put another way you have to answer these top-level questions:

• What does it have to do?
• What equipment does that require?
• How many crew are required
• How far and fast does it have to fly, and in what range of conditions?
• What is it likely to weigh?
• How much power does it need?
• What engine, rotor and gearbox technology is available?
• Does it operate in a threat environment?
• What does it need to survive in that environment?
• Can I fit all the necessary kit in?

To answer these questions, you need a thorough understanding of the present state of the art across many areas, backed up by analysis capability including (among other capabilities) experienced designers, weight estimation capability across all the systems required, performance prediction models, survivability modelling, flight and engine control systems, crew ergonomics and anthropometry, etc.

So why is Airwolf a non-starter as a helicopter?

Reading the information available on the net (Wikipedia entry Airwolf – Wikipedia and the Airwolf Flight Manual pages Airwolf: Flight Manual Cover Page (archive.org)  It is immediately apparent that the writers decided to focus on specifying the capability required to suit the TV script, with no consideration of technical constraints, availability of suitable powerplants, feasibility of control, assessment of weight or power requirements, and the packaging of the necessary systems.

In fairness, it could be said that certain Governmental procurement organisations have, from time to time, fallen into some of these same traps for the unwary. (Although Concept or Pre-Feasibility studies should, in principle, weed out the most glaringly impossible requirements and design approaches).

My approach here is to briefly review the starting point for Airwolf and then to discuss the implications of some of the postulated capabilities of the machine starring in the TV series.

The Starting Point

This is a brief summary of the capability and characteristics of the starting point. Airwolf is based on a modified Bell 222B helicopter. This is an executive and utility helicopter with a two-bladed rotor that was first flown in 1976. The data below is extracted mainly from (Janes All the World’s Aircraft 1990 – 91 and the EASA Type Certificate Data Sheet).

Its basic characteristics and Certification limitations are summarised below. Later, the claimed Airwolf capability will be discussed and compared with the actual Bell 222B capability. The plan is to follow this with a ‘what could you do about this?’ discussion, possibly with a ‘why won’t that work?’ follow-up.

The starting point is a Bell 222 helicopter with the features outlined below:

Characteristic	Bell 222B capability
Capacity	2 crew and typically 6 passengers
Max Speed (Vne)	150 kt at 3,000 ft
Cruise speed	140 kt
Main Rotor	2 blade, 42 ft dia, 348 rpm, tip speed 765 ft/sec
Engines	2 LTS 101-750C-1 at 684 shp take-off rating
Transmission limit	875 shp (max)
Usable fuel	156 Imp gallons (710 litres)
Range with 20 min reserve	330 miles at 4,000 ft
Military equipment	nil
Maximum weight	8,250 lb
Empty weight	4,900 lb (nominal) probably 5,000+ lb in practice
Available load	Say 3,250 lb for fuel, oil, crew, role equipment
Service Ceiling	15,800 ft
Certified Max altitude	20,000 ft

Additional assumptions: the maximum cruise speed is achieved at the twin-engine transmission torque limit (875 shp). Crew weight 100 kg (220 lb) per person. Fuel density (Avtur): 8 lb per imperial gallon – Bell 222 max fuel is therefore approx. 1,250 lb.

With two crew, max fuel and no military modifications or equipment, the Bell 222B additional disposable load is therefore 3,250 lb – 440 lb (crew) – 1250 lb (fuel) = 1,810 lb.

Airwolf claimed characteristics

The data below is drawn from the Airwolf (helicopter) page in Wikipedia (Wiki) and from a page claiming to be the Airwolf Flight Manual (FM). There are some differences between these, which will be pointed out where necessary.

The first point to note is that there is no weight statement of any kind, neither are the installed power, turbo-thruster capability, or fuel capacity stated. The turbo-thruster capacity is quoted (Wiki) as 45,000 lb-ft, which is a measure of torque (not thrust, or power).

The major claims, some of which I discuss below are as follows:

• Extensive armament and equipment capability – discussed in more detail below
• Capable of 300 kt in helicopter mode (Wiki/FM)
• Range 1,450 miles with two crew (Wiki)
• Capable of Mach 2.0 from sea level to 85,000 ft (FM) – rotor blades disengaged for supersonic flight. Ceiling 89,000 ft (pressurised)
• Lifting body fuselage
• Pressurised, bullet proof armoured fuselage
• Stealth capability, IR suppressors

Weapons & Equipment

The extensive weapon and equipment fit cited represents a significant payload (and potential source of aerodynamic drag) not present on the original Bell 222. In some cases, they will also present some packaging difficulties.

Where there are differences between the Wiki and FM data, I lean toward the less demanding (and therefore marginally more achievable) claims. There are also some differences between the different programme series.

Fixed equipment

The so-called Flight Manual lists a very sensible collection of military equipment supporting both offensive and defensive and/or survivability features.

The table below lists the functionality provided, gives an example of such kit, and a speculative weight penalty for its carriage.

Capability	Example	Weight guestimate
Advanced Self Protection Radar Jammer	ELL-8222WB Self Protection Jamming Pod	110 kg (242 lb)
TADS	AH-64 TADS	550 lb
OBOGS (Oxygen generation)	Internet search	30 lb?
Synthetic Aperture Radar	Internet search fit to light aircraft / UAS	40 lb
Chaff / Flare dispenser	Internet search	45 lb (including load)
IR Jammer	AN/ALQ 144	30 lb approx
Missile Approach Warning	AN/AAR-57 ECU, sensors, wiring	40 lb approx
Pressurisation	Suitable for operation at 85,000+ ft	Not known – will also have considerable implications for cockpit glazing,
Construction	Epoxy composites-reinforced with boron and graphite fibres. Crew compartment is protected with “honeycomb-structured lead panelling. This is all skinned with ultra-thin energy-absorbing (bullet-proof) shielding.	Not known assumed significant (say 250 lb).
Comms fit	Not specified but likely to be double that of the civil aircraft.	Say 150 lb delta
IR Suppression	Likely to have weight, power and drag penalties	Not quantified here

This admittedly speculative assessment indicates a ‘mission equipment’ delta mass of just over 1,200 lb before the addition of any weapons. The pressurisation implications alone, suggest that a complete structural redesign would be required.

Weapon Systems

The documents available indicate a wide range of weapons that were apparently deployed in the various series transmitted.

Guns The documents suggest wing-tip mounted guns and the Wiki information is the more believable. This calls for 4 wing-tip mounted 0.5 inch Browning machine guns – with 1,000 rounds each, an indicative mass is estimated at 736 lb. The wing-tip mounted guns are supplemented by one 30 mm cannon in each wing. An M230 30-mm cannon weighs 130 lb, with each round weighing 1.62 lb. Two M230s, each with 200 rounds would equate to a mass of 584 lb.

With these assumptions, the delta mass solely due to the gun fit is 736 lb plus 584 lb, a total of 1,320 lb.

[The FM called up 4 X 30 mm chain guns at the wing tips and two 40 mm cannon, one in each wing. The 40 mm guns would be assumed to be Bofors L/60, as fitted to the AC-130. This combination is dismissed as impracticable.]

Internal Weapon Carriage Airwolf is provided with some internal weapon stowage, with munitions being auto-loaded onto an external launching platform known as the ADF (All Directions Firing) Pod. As a rough estimate, the ADF Pod is assumed to weigh 125 lb and increase the aircraft drag by 15%. It cannot be used above 300 kt.

An extraordinary range of missiles is suggested, and these are listed below based on the Wiki information for ADF-launched systems.

The following ADF weapon loads (Wiki series 1 data) are assumed to be alternatives:

Six Copperhead rounds (each 137.6 lb)                 825.6 lb

Twelve FIM-43 Redeye  (each 29 lb)                      348 lb

Six AGM-114 Hellfire      (each 104 lb)                    624 lb

Taking this at face value, the ADF load capacity is up to 900 lb.

In addition, four AIM-4 Falcon missiles are supposed to be carried.

Four AIM-4 Falcon missiles (each 818 lb)  total 3,272 lb are supposed to be carried two to a side in internal bays alongside the ADF mount.

It must be questionable whether there is sufficient volume available for the 4 Falcon missiles, which are 12 ft 6.5 in long, alongside the ADF mount – an example of a packaging challenge.

Secret ‘45,000 lb-ft’ turbo-thrusters

No information exists as to the actual characteristics of these novel propulsion devices. The fact that their capability is expressed as a torque, rather than a thrust is unhelpful. To deliver Mach 2 speed capability to a helicopter (which must have at least the drag of an SUV) these devices must deliver the thrust equivalent to two afterburning turbojet or low by-pass turbofan engines, say at least the capability of two EJ200s (roughly 2X 20,000 lb thrust with reheat, weighing roughly 2,200 lb each).

At the same time, the visual space occupied by these devices suggests the same sort of size and volume associated with a very light executive jet. Let us say an Embraer Phenom 100, which is powered by two P&W PW617F1-E turbofans, each offering 1,730 lb thrust and weighing 379 lb.

This demonstrates, based on existing propulsion technology, that one is looking for engines of the same capability as Typhoon (at least) and weighing in at 4,400 lb, in a package comparable to a lightweight executive jet engine and weighing in at around 760 lb for both engines.

My conclusion is that the capability is incredible and that the supersonic performance (which exceeds that of Concorde) is equally incredible. For the purpose of constructing a mass statement for Airwolf, I am generously allocating 760 lb to the turbo-thrusters but not conceding any supersonic capability at sea level, or any other altitude.

Overall Mass Statement

Despite the guesswork involved, we can now produce a mass statement for a basic Bell 222, with its existing rotor, engines, fuel capacity and transmission system fitted with the mission equipment and weapon systems nominated for Air Wolf. Some aspects remain unaccounted for as will be noted in due course.

Item	Weight (lb)	Total
Empty Weight	5,000	5,000
Mission Equipment
Listed above	1,200	1,200
Weapons		5,617
Guns and ammunition	1,320
ADF	125
ADF load	900
Falcon Missiles	3,272
Turbo-thrusters	760	760
Fuel (existing max.)	1,250	1250
All Up Weight		13,827

Note that the mass penalties associated with pressurisation, IR suppression and bullet proof protection are not accounted for. No separate mass allocation is made for the turbo-thruster fuel.

Implications

The certificated all-up mass of the Bell 222 is 8,250 lb so the figure for a notionally equipped Airwolf represents an increase of 67.6%. This will require revalidation of the static and fatigue load certification and, due to its impact on hover power requirements, is likely to lead to the need for new (or significantly uprated) engines and transmission system.

Hover power depends on weight to the power 3/2. Increasing the mass by a factor of 1.676, implies a overpower increase by a factor of 2.17. The current hover performance is delivered using a twin engine transmission limit of 875 hp; this would have to increase to 1,900 shp to maintain hover performance. This will definitely imply new engines and transmission system (including tail rotor and associated drive).

Dependent on the initial design philosophy, the rotor blade area will need to be increased to maintain the same flight envelope and retreating blade stall limits. Consequently, there will be additional mass increases to accommodate these design changes.

Knock-on aspects.

So we have a redesigned four-blade machine with double the twin-engine transmission limit. Unfortunately, exploiting this increased power in the cruise will double the fuel consumption, but (roughly speaking) only increase the cruise speed by the cube root of the power increase. This is about 1.3, increasing the cruise speed from 140 kt to 180 kt. Due to already high tip speed, the advancing blade tip speed will be close to sonic, if not supersonic. At the same time, the increased fuel consumption will reduce the unrefuelled range to around 165 nm.

Follow me on Twitter here.

What of the claimed helicopter mode maximum speed of 300 kt and range with two crew of 1,450 miles? First, say goodbye to any notion of achieving this without the magic turbo-thrusters. At 300 kt, the drag (which dominates the cruise power requirements) will be four times greater and the power required will be eight times higher. Consequently, the fuel consumption will also be eight times greater – even without allowing for the drag (and other consequences) associated with the now supersonic advancing blade rotor tip speeds. Good luck with the stealth treatment of that.

Suffice to say, a further complete redesign of rotor and transmission system and re-packaging to store the fuel volume would be required.

In Conclusion

Airwolf is a great idea for a TV and film spectacular, but without consideration of the actual impact of the extensive mission systems and armament, or of their impact on aircraft mass, most of the postulated capability is completely unachievable based on a slightly refreshed base helicopter.

The idea of any supersonic flight capability (pushing the boundaries of Concorde and SR-71) is so risible as not to merit further discussion. Even the proposed 300 kt cruise solely in helicopter mode is a complete non-starter.

The basic credibility of the much-vaunted ‘turbo-thrusters’ is seriously undermined by the absence of any functional description and the quoting of their power in units appropriate to torque, rather than thrust or power.

As a helicopter it is fantastic – in the sense of these Collins English Dictionary definitions: extravagantly fanciful; unrealistic; incredible or preposterous; absurd.”

Dr RV Smith

Order The Hush-Kit Books here

Find out how Ron designed real-life stealth helicopters here.

As is well known, AI is imminently poised to destroy all humans, mostly (it would seem) by producing pictures of people with too many fingers. Hush-Kit has already applied its own Turing Test by demanding AI produce pictures of some British aircraft and the results were undeniably spectacular. Will the electronic Leonardo da Vinci do better with mighty moments from US aviation history? Or will it be some geometry-defying insanity yet again? Obviously the latter, so let’s plunge in and have a merry time feeling superior to our soon-to-be robot overlords as they whip out the virtual Crayolas and do some colouring.

(Brief note on method: the aircraft name and/or the event in question was typed into two freely available image generation websites, Gencraft and Canva. I previously also used Da Vinci but those killjoys have imposed a paywall and I’m not going to shell out actual cash for this nonsense. I suggested a basic style (ie ‘oil painting’) on a few of them to vary things a bit. These are the genuine results).

1903: The Shite Brothers

Who’d have thought that the first flight of a powered, heavier-than-air flying machine would have been such a bleak experience? And who knew that the Wright Brothers had built a machine as large as a big house? Not me. To be fair to our arty AI pal, there’s a general air of Wright Flyer in there, but the vast size, scribbly bracing wires, mirage-like extra wing on the far side and overall vagueness detract somewhat. Also: where is the pilot? Is that him on the ground pointing at it? Nice touch to include a windsock too, although fixating on the windsock when the first ever aeroplane is taking off seems a bit perverse. Anyway, let’s see what it can come up with for the roaring twenties:

1927: Spirit of St Pooey

Charles Lindbergh triumphantly lands in Paris after the first solo crossing of the Atlantic! I always thought that Lindbergh landed at the airport rather than an avenue in the actual centre of Paris but hey, I wasn’t there. I am also quite surprised by the solemn lack of enthusiasm displayed by the crowd, but Electro-Monet has accurately grasped that France famously contains absolutely no women. The Ryan NYP that has conveyed Lucky Lindy to Gay Paree is both yellower and more asymmetrical than I remember, but it seems to be hovering there nicely, so that’s good. Are there two people in the cockpit? God knows: it’s all a bit vague in that area. Personally, though, I like the Tintin-esque vibe, and it looks a bit like a broadly viable aircraft (despite someone having stolen the propeller), which suggests perhaps that our artificial artiste is getting the hang of things. But then again…

1935: Crying Fortress

I mean, it made a pretty good stab at the markings. The really odd thing here, though, is that although this mess is just totally, hilariously wrong, it is, somehow, recognisable as a B-17 (or some of two B-17s). Imagine how much more entertaining both the 1990 feature film ‘Memphis Belle’ or the recent HBO series ‘Masters of the Air’ would have been had all the Eighth Air Force bombers looked like this. Alternatively, it is possible that Robot-Picasso has stumbled upon digital Cubism and is attempting to depict the Flying Fortress from all sides simultaneously (and doing a pretty good job).

1944: P-51D Mush-tang

How can something so dreadfully realised be simultaneously so instantly recognisable? It is June 1944 and this unusually tall and gappy P-51D Mustang has been painted with the black and white D-Day, um, ‘shapes’ under one of the wings. Mustang tailwheels were famous for not being able to keep up with the rest of the aircraft and pilots personalised their fighters by painting writing-like symbols on their noses. I assume that’s a drop tank under the fuselage, to allow this aircraft to fly to Berlin and back, but it might just as easily be a bin full of the crushed hopes and dreams of human artists.

1947: Lockweed Constipation

The war is over and non-stop scheduled transatlantic commercial airline services are flown by landplane for the first time. This natty watercolour depicts the Lockheed Constellation of Pan American Airways as it inaugurates this historic service. Why it is impaled on a DC-4 is not recorded but this five-engined behemoth, with its unusual inline undercarriage and extra half tailplane, will go down in history as one of the most aesthetically pleasing airliners ever produced.

1947: Hughes Spruce Excuse

Howard Hughes’ ‘Spruce Goose’ flew just once and was for many years the world’s largest aeroplane. So vast was it that Digital David Hockney has seen fit to go for a bigger splash and depict it as two completely separate aircraft (or maybe three), one of which may be a houseboat, though the eight engines of the original have been sensibly pared down to just the two. The non-attached tail unit is a dynamic touch, but the accuracy of the reflections in the water add a compelling air of realism to this dramatic vehicle(s). Had Howard Hughes built this instead of the actual Spruce Goose maybe he wouldn’t have ended up a codeine-addicted recluse living in seclusion at the Desert Inn hotel, Las Vegas, surrounded by jars of his own urine? More likely it would just have happened earlier.

1947: Bell-end X-1

Swooping low over the snow covered mountains, Chuck Yeager accelerates his open cockpit, radial and inline engined powder-blue X-1 to beyond the speed of sound. Breaking the sound barrier has caused the very sky to rupture into a crazy yellow flare effect and Yeager, his rifle pointing directly upwards, has opened the bomb bay out of sheer delight. Soon, he will be forced to land wherein the absence of any kind of undercarriage except the tailwheel may become problematic.

1950: F-86 Say-bore

AI generously came up with two possibilities for the F-86 Sabre and they are both so good that I could not reasonably judge between them. On the left, the twin seat and famously complicated Sabre and to the right, the famously rotund and also complicated Sabre. Who would wish to be a MiG-15 pilot when faced with these beauties? Robot-Rembrandt has successfully rendered the F-86(s) as nice and shiny but seems confused as to all other specifics of the well-known aircraft. In the case of the chunky one, he seems to be keen on giving this famous (ahem) jet a huge orange propeller (and two blurred black propeller blades too). Aspects of these two are pretty sleek and space-age in a whizz 1950s style, but does this make up for an otherwise crazed visual jet salad? Maybe.

1957: Boeing 7-ohhhhhhh-7

In 1957, Boeing flew the prototype of the 707 for the first time, arguably the most influential jet airliner ever built. As you can see, the triple zigzag fuselage would set the standard for all subsequent commercial aircraft and the total absence of wings, whilst at the time radical, is now more or less a given for all conventional jetliners. Remarkably, despite the basic design being nearly 70 years old, it is still unclear what many of the protuberances around the nominal middle of the aircraft are actually for, but Boeing just keeps building them and bolting them on regardless. The wide separation of the two cockpits prevents any disagreements between the flight crews from descending into violence.

1967 F-Flawed Phantom

Wooooahhhh!! It’s the midst of Operation Rolling Thunder and the USAF is spending millions of tax dollars bombing trees. Mechanical Michaelangelo has managed to make this F-4 Phantom into some sort of crazed and magnificent turbo-bastard and it is undeniably very exciting. Drilling into the specifics a bit, once again there is a distinct flavour of Phantom, this melange is kind of recognisable, and for an aircraft once nicknamed ‘Double Ugly’, the sheer amount of vertical tails suggests that ‘Triple Ugly’ would now be a more accurate moniker. Not sure what it’s carrying underwing but some of whatever it might be is firing or exploding or whatever so that’s cool. The rear fuselage feels very much like an exercise in how many bulges can be aded to a bulgy thing before it becomes too bulgy but I think they’ve managed to keep it to peak bulge without going too far bulgewise (of course you may disagree: that is the very cornerstone of art appreciation). Curiously, our AI chum is so proud of this one that he/she/it has signed it in the bottom right corner revealing their name to be “L. Goviamuccio” apparently, which I for one was not expecting. Is AI Italian?

1989: North-flop B-2

Ending on a high: this is the B-2 ‘Spirit’ taking its first publicly acknowledged flight and AI has contrived to make it look, if anything, better than the real deal. Not sure how stealthy this design would be, those lumpy bits halfway along look suspiciously reflect-y and the fins may be a bit problematic but it’s been painted matt black and that’s good enough for me. No need to worry about compressor faces in the intakes compromising the radar signature because it hasn’t got any. Is it a glider? Whatever. I’m not entirely sure if it’s coming towards us or hurrying away, but I suppose that’s an advantage for a stealthy aircraft.

Well, that was all the American aviation history worth ruining that our AI friend could be bothered with today. Who knows, maybe some more will be forthcoming before the apocalypse? One can but dream (of Electric Sheep).

Hush-Kit does a lot for your entertainment, like a lot. If you agree and want to say thanks then hit the donation buttons on this page or support us on Patreon. This site is constantly in aq state of precarious survival, so consider supporting us. I don’t want to add a paywall as I’d like to keep the 1000+ articles free for everyone.

We’re also on Twitter X and Instagram and Facebook, and Substack.

Love & aeroplanes, Hush-Kit

HOLY KEDLOCK by Bill Sweetman

If speed and range are your goals for an interceptor, you can’t beat the Lockheed YF-12. It’s hard to beat as a confusing story either. Technology demonstrator? Stalking horse for something quite different? Opportunistic effort to save a program in trouble? Possibly, all of the above.

North American’s F-108 Rapier Mach 3 interceptor was cancelled in September 1959. The F-108 was only eight months past mock-up review, following an on-again, off-again initial development. But the Rapier’s ASG-18 radar and GAR-9 missile combo, developed by Hughes, had started earlier than the F-108 itself and enjoyed more consistent support, and was not canceled along with the aircraft.

A few months later, in January 1960, the CIA awarded Lockheed a contract to build 12 A-12s. They would be purely photo birds, with a single pilot and one camera bay, and the goal was to operate them out of Area 51, thereby evading the British and German anoraks who had rumbled the U-2.

On May 1, 1960, Frank Powers’ U-2 was shot down near Sverdlovsk. No parades or hot hors d’oeuvres for him. Eisenhower approved a cover story that Khrushchev shot to smaller pieces than the airplane. The furious President banned any further overflights.

This left OXCART without a mission, barely six months into an expensive program, without a mission, and competing for money with the politically favored CORONA. Skunk Works boss Kelly Johnson proposed armed versions of the OXCART to the Air Force. It was risky because Air Force Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay was mounting a stalwart defense the XB-70 Valkyrie, but the interceptor version did not threaten the bomber. A contract was issued in October 1960 under which three A-12s would be completed as AF-12 interceptors with the F-108’s Hughes radar and missile system.

The AF-12, codenamed KEDLOCK, would feature some important differences from the CIA jets. Heavier and carrying more fuel, it would have a second cockpit replacing the camera bay, the massive ASG-18 radar in the nose, and four large weapon bays built into all-metal chines. (On the A-12, the chines were purely there to reduce the radar cross-section and were partly made of plastic material.) The GAR-9 was a 900-pound chonky boi and could carry either a high-explosive or blast-fragmentation warhead, with a range at launch up to 100 nm.

KEDLOCK benefited from the A-12 OXCART, which ran a year earlier and wrestled with the many basic problems of titanium use and propulsion development, and from the early start on ASG-18 and GAR-9. Wind tunnel tests showed that the huge ogival radome loused up the directional stability, so KEDLOCK acquired strakes under each engine nacelle and a large folding ventral fin.

Launching a weapon from a bay at Mach 3.2 was a challenge. Johnson’s deputy, Ben Rich, later said that the initial GAR-9 ejection system resulted in the missile passing between the front and rear cockpits, which would have been bad.

Flown in August 1963, the interceptor required little further work. Six out of seven missile shots were successful, the final shot from Mach 3.2 and 74,000 feet hitting a low-flying QB-47 drone—the first look-down, shoot-down interception and a trailblazer for the Navy’s AWG-9 and AIM-54 Phoenix programs.

KEDLOCK did a lot of the heavy lifting for the next version of the Blackbird, a reconnaissance-strike aircraft. First called RS-12, the project ran about a year behind KEDLOCK and emerged as the SR-71, with weapon bays converted to accommodate cameras and SIGINT gear.

The AF-12 had one more mission: deception. During 1963, as the pace of testing increased, observers started to notice the fast-moving A-12s and AF-12s, and the usual CIA/USAF tactic of confusing their reports with UFO sightings wore thin. Also, the project was far larger than the U-2 and involved more people and subcontractors, and many people in industry began to connect the dots. Bob Hotz’s staff at Aviation Week went to the Air Force with the news. Hotz would hold the story but not if anyone else got near it.

McNamara decided that the interceptor could be unveiled without compromising the A-12, and his view prevailed over the CIA’s caution. On February 24, 1964, two side-view photos were released of what was falsely described as the Lockheed A-11, and Johnson announced that a number of A-11s were being tested at Edwards Air Force Base. To keep the facts consistent with the President’s statement, two AF-12s were rushed from Area 51 to Edwards and quickly rolled into a hangar, where the heat from their airframes set the sprinklers off.

Had there been anything for it to shoot down, the YF-12 (as it was retrospectively designated, sometime before August 1964) might have been the ultimate interceptor. But the Soviet intercontinental strike force, even into the 1980s, amounted to a small and dwindling number of early Tu-95s, which Air Defense Command’s F-106s could cope with, and the YF-12s lived out their days as NASA test assets.

35% funding reached! The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 3 here:

Let’s forget bullshit reasons like historical significance or being in the right place at the right time, and instead, look at what you would be best taking into combat at the end of the war if you wished to win. The answer is, of course, the absolute bastard that was the Ta 152H. Boasting superior sustained turn rates to the later Sea Fury or Bearcat, a lower wing loading than the P-47, Spitfire and Bearcat, and even a better climb rate than the Do 335 or MB5, the Ta 152H was clearly a fire-breathing monster of immense performance.

Top speed at high altitude is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the thin air provides for low parasitic drag. On the other hand, this thin air also makes it harder to produce lift, so induced drag is higher. Finally, engine performance, and thus thrust, tends to decrease with altitude. So, the balance between these three speed-related aspects is not necessarily any better than at lower altitudes. However, with the right aircraft design, very high speeds can be achieved at high altitudes. The Focke-Wulf Ta 152H was just such an aircraft. This design, a derivative of the infamous Fw 190 fighter, was developed as an advanced bomber interceptor. It had upgrades specifically targeted at improving the high-altitude performance to counter a looming threat of Allied B-29s over Germany.

The first upgrade was a high aspect ratio wing to reduce the induced drag. It had almost 40 per cent more wingspan than an Fw 190. This decreased roll performance is not a critical factor when attacking lumbering bombers. Secondly, the aircraft had an upgraded Junkers Jumo 213E with both MW-50 water/methanol injection at low altitudes and GM-1 nitrous oxide injection at high altitudes. This allowed higher boost pressures and allowed the aircraft to accelerate to a maximum of 472 mph (760 km/h) at higher altitudes, over 30 mph (48 km/h) faster than the fastest Fw 190D. On nitro, it got higher than a teenager hoofing a party balloon, climbing above 49,000 feet! This was around 8,000 feet for most high-performance fighters. The Ta 152H had a pressurised cockpit, further adding to its high-altitude fighting capabilities. Its primary adversary, the B-29, never showed up in Europe during the war. The lower operational altitudes of the previous bombers could be countered with the existing fighters, and the Ta 152H became something of a weapon without a mission.

Because of this, and the declining production during the later stages of the war, only sixty-nine were built. The utterly distinctive Ta 152H performed phenomenally, but its dependence on performance-enhancing laughing gas to enter the club loses it the respect of its peers in the 450mph+ Club. The Ta 154C was a 450-club member too, capable of 460 mph (740 km/h) at 32,810 feet (10,000 m) with MW 50 boost (not GM-1).

If you value flying high, flying fast, and turning like the devil, as you should, then the Ta 152H was the greatest fighter of World War II.

Fast and agile, with a decent range, the Crusader carrier fighter enjoys a positive reputation as ‘The Last Gunfighter’. It has been described as.“..by far one of the greatest fighters of its era”; we even rated it the second-best fighter of 1969. This sleek Cold War aircraft even boasts the best kill-to-loss ratio of any US fighter aircraft in Vietnam. But, as we shall see, a great deal was wrong with the F-8. And there wasn’t a long wait to find this out, the first production F8U-1 was also the first to be lost, killing pilot Harry Brackett; a truly shocking number of incidents, many fatal, would follow. By the time the Crusader retired, there had been call to use the ejection seat over 500 times, the first in 1956 (a year before the type entered service) and the last in 1997 (in French service). Here are 10 things that sucked about the F-8 Crusader.

10. Missiles

The F-8 could carry a maximum of four air-to-air missiles, half that of the F-4 Phantom II. Even carrying four AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, proved draggy and made it harder for the Crusader to reach minimum landing weight if the weapons were not expended. Because of this, the F-8 most often went to war with only two missiles. This lack of missile persistence was a big deal, as the gun installation was terrible and the probability of kill of 1960s missiles was terrible.

Another reason for an often smaller weapon load was a shortage of AIM-9s, particularly in 1966 (and of AIM-9Ds in 1968). Each variant of the Sidewinder employed by the Crusader in Vietnam had its own limitations: the B was relatively slow, bad at turning with a small warhead; the radar-guided C was withdrawn before being used in combat due to maintenance problems; and the generally superior D had less reliable fuzing than the B.

9. Bang bang bad

Though famed as the ‘Last Gunfighter’, all but one of the F-8’s kills were with missiles. This was because of the many problems with the F-8’s gun installation. A major issue was the Colt Mk 12 cannon hated being fired above a rather conservative 3.5G (the M61 Vulcan used by other US fighters was rated up to 7.33G).

The guns’ rate of fire was unpredictable, sometimes even zero, and they suffered from pneumatic charging issues and ‘barrel whip’, which caused inaccurate fire. Up to 1966, the guns jammed in three out of eight engagements.

8. Engine

There are plenty of reasons you want a quick-responding engine in a carrier aircraft, as a delay can cost you your life. The two-second afterburner delay in early versions caused a lot of heartbreak; when pilot Tom Irwin tried to land his F-8C in 1965, it caught the fourth wire, but his arrestor hook point sheared from the shank, causing his aircraft to keep rolling rather than stopping on the deck. His only chance was to take off again, but his burner was too slow in response to get him to a safe minimum speed of 80 knots. Too slow to even eject, he flew into the sea, whereupon his afterburner ignited, causing the engine to explode. Miraculously he escaped his aircraft, manually, in record time and survived. In similar circumstances, four out of five pilots were killed.

7. Rockets

Early Crusaders carried internal rocket packs, that were opened before firing. To minimise frontal cross-section the magazines of sixteen rockets were mounted one behind the other. If one rocket failed to leave the launcher, it could be hit by a round from behind with potentially catastrophic consequences. If a round failed to clear the launcher it could mean the launcher could not retract, the extended launcher blocked the nose gear door making it impossible to extend the nose gear. If when the rockets did fire, they were comically inaccurate, “One study indicated that 128 rockets, four Crusaders’ worth, would have to be expended on one bomber for a 97% probability that it would be hit at least once.1”.

6. Inferiority to the F-4

In the first training dogfight sortie, an F-8 pilot would employ the type’s superior instantaneous turning performance to better the F-4, but a mere five engagements later, the F-4 pilots would learn how to use their superior power to better the F-8; a well-trained F-4 pilot could best the F-8. This is extremely significant as one of the few trump cards the F-8 has against the F-4 is its superior agility. The F-4 enjoys two to four times the missile load, over twice the bombload, superior situational awareness, superior radar, climb rate and critically, was far safer to operate from a carrier.

(Those accusing this of being an apples-to-oranges comparison should look at the role and real-world taskings, not the weight class. Likewise, though often described as different generations, both the first flight and service entry of the two types were only separated by around 1000 days.)

5. Bad situational awareness

Pilot George Wright noted in his description of a one-way mission in the Crusader, “The F-8’s cockpit visibility wasn’t the greatest, so you always raised your seat as much as you could. But you didn’t want it so high that you would have trouble grabbing the two yellow-and-black-striped handles above your helmet, the handles that fired your ejection seat.” He also singled out the absence of a HUD in the F-8H as a dangerous omission that contributed to his failure to pull out soon enough from a strafing run. So the view out was poor, there was no HUD, and as the type had been created as a day-only fighter, its radar was barely useful. The first radar was little more than a gun ranger, but even improved later radars were poor, the AN/APQ-83 was better but one of the first cadre of Top Gun Instructors Jim Alderink considered this ‘a piece of garbage’. The F-8 relied on guidance from an air and ground controller; the radar’s detection range for the MiG-17 was dangerously small. Conceived as a day-only fighter…

4. Juliet blues, the F-8J

The initial J variant attempted to solve many of the Crusader’s shortcomings but, in doing so, added 2,000 lbs of weight and 1,000 lb of power lost to boundary layer control. There were also wing cracks and a lack of spares. The result was a dangerously underpowered machine with inferior manoeuvrability and greater maintenance requirements, requiring expensive remedies—and happening in a major war just when fighters were most needed.

3. Out-turned by the MiG-17

As it could with every other US fighter, the veteran MiG-17 could outturn the Crusader at 300-350 Knots Indicated Airspeed (KIAS). It was superior training and missiles that enabled the Crusader to better the MiG-17. In fighting the MiG-21 in Vietnam, the Crusader did not have a distinct performance advantage. The MiG-21 had superior acceleration above Mach 1.1, and superior instantaneous G below 400 KIAS

2. Vietnam

That it took part in the horror of the Vietnam War itself sucks. But we shall not dwell on the many horrors inflicted by air power in the war, but instead, look at the Crusader’s survivability. A total of 118 total were lost, 57 in combat.

(*some sources put this as 170 in total)

1. Dangerous as hell!

The primary requirement of an aircraft is to keep the crew safe, and on this most important quality, the Crusader cannot be judged in a rosy light. This was perhaps not surprising as it was just one in a line of ‘hot’ aircraft created by Vought. Their best, the famous Corsair of World War II, had nastier handling than the Hellcat, and the jet-powered Cutlass was a disaster. The Crusader’s safety record, even for the notoriously dangerous class of late 1950s carrier aircraft was abysmal. Professor Michael Weaver notes, “In 1966… F-8s suffered an accident rate of 3.26 per 10,000 flying hours. Only the A-4E Skyhawk approached that rate, and the rate for the F-4 was only 2.72.”

The Crusader was a handful, which was painfully apparent when it came to landing, a terrible quality in a carrier aircraft. There is an entire page devoted to Crusader crashes here.

“By the time the Crusader retired, pilots had made 493 ejections from all models of the F-8. Overall, 517 of the 1261 Crusaders had been built had been lost, a loss rate of 41 per cent”, Peter Mersky notes. Considering the number of aircraft built, 737 entries in the Aviation Safety Network database is clearly atrocious.

According to Peter E. Davies, “Four carrier-bourne evaluation cruises showed that Crusader was hard to keep on “speed’ for carrier landings. Without the angled deck and mirror landing and mirrored landing system added to World War II-vintage SCB-27C Essex- and Midway-class carriers, the aircraft might never have reached the required safety standards.”

The high approach speed of 147 knots was a big issue on smaller carriers such as the Essex-class. Consistent speed was also important. To help, an autothrottle (Approach Power Compensator) was added in 1964, but even this caused problems as over-reliance on the APC was equally dangerous. Another peculiarity of the F-8 was its odd relationship between nose attitude and sink rate caused by its oddest design feature, on landing the wing stayed at the same angle of attack as the fuselage tilted (the wing was mounted on mechanism). Things were particularly counter-intuitive for the pilot in the final approach stages, which again required attention.

The Crusader, fine in many ways, sucked unforgivably badly in some of the most significant categories.

Postscript

“I flew the Crusader for 7 years from ’67-’73, and the Phantom for one year. Like every ‘Sader driver, I loved that bird. It was the sports car of the fleet. So smooth and responsive, and a damn good fighter. But you’re right about its practical weak spots. It was certainly one of the Navy’s most dangerous aircraft. I can add a couple more gripes: 1. Inflight refueling could be a nightmare. With the probe next to the pilot’s head off the port side of the cockpit, you couldn’t see the basket while you were plugging. If the basket was dancing, which it did in that placement, it could impact the cockpit, and it has happened that it broke the plexiglass. 2. The relatively low max legal G load of 6.4 should have been higher. Of course, when it’s for real you take what the bird will give you, but the wings were constantly getting overstressed, even in practice hops. 3. At high G load and slow speed, the ‘Sader had a very short temper. That is, you had to be nibbling at the edge of moderate buffet to get max turn rate, but if you pull an extra tenth of a G or sneak in some rudder to help the turn, the a/c would suddenly depart, not into a predictable spin but an irregular violent “falling leaf” maneuver with the nose oscillating from 70 deg up to 70 deg down, hard to get out of. This made my transition to the Phantom in my last year hard to get used to. In the F-4, when you’re pulling G’s in a hassle, you’re in heavy buffet all the time. The Phantom’s violent shaking of the a/c under a heavy G load is just normal. The ‘Sader would be spread in pieces all over the ground if you subjected it to that, but the F-4’s powerful J-79’s kept it plowing right through the heavy buffet. But the Phantom’s not an a/c I fell in love with. That’s reserved for the ‘Sader – or the Gator, as we also called it. A great bird with a some warts.”

The ‘Last Gunfighter’: F-8 Crusader over North Vietnam

Sources

This site takes a lot of time and effort, if you think I deserve something back for this work then please hit the buttons on this page. Every donation is gratefully received.

F-8 Crusader, Vietnam 1963-1973, Peter E Davies

An Examination of the F-8 Crusader through Archival Sources – Professor Michael Weaver

USN F-8 training manual

https://thanlont.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-brief-history-of-f8u-crusader-armament.html

https://thanlont.blogspot.com/2008/12/missed-it-by-that-much-ii.html

Vought F-8 Crusader Peter Mersky

Support The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 3 here.