Jim Smith had significant technical roles in the development of the UK’s leading military aviation programmes. From ASRAAM and Nimrod, to the JSF and Eurofighter Typhoon. We asked his opinion on what we can learn from the Northrop N-102 Fang design of the 1950s.

“This is a fascinating little design. From the drawings and other information provided, the intent was to develop a Mach 2 capable ‘high-altitude’ day fighter, with armament featuring guns and unguided rockets. A single engine was to be used, and either the J79 or Sapphire is mentioned.

Looking at other designs which might have been contemporaries, the aircraft wing area is in between that of the MiG-21 (which has about 20% less) and the Mirage III (which has about 20% more). The wing area is about 50% more than the Starfighter, and all these aircraft are powered by broadly similar thrust engines in the 10,000 lb class.

The Fang has a very compact fuselage design, and, in most of the illustrations provided, a rather small and close-coupled butterfly tail. The engine is underslung in a pod, and overall the aircraft appears small and relatively simple in design and construction.

So at first glance, what might one expect from this little aircraft ? Well, turning performance should be much better than the Starfighter, and the relatively thin delta wing, coupled with high power to weight ratio and reasonable wing area should provide pretty good acceleration and climb performance.

From a weapons system perspective, the combination of guns and unguided rockets as the armament choice does reflect the description of a ‘day fighter’. Although radar is mentioned, the space available appears quite small, and while this might aid an intercept, the emphasis appears to be strongly on WVR air combat. That might represent a bit of a missed opportunity compared to some of the rival aircraft. As drawn, the packaging of the front of the aircraft does look very tight, probably to minimise weight and frontal area.

From a configuration perspective, the biggest concern is probably the placement of the butterfly tail and its relatively small size. Roll-yaw coupling (sometimes called inertia coupling) can be a problem for aircraft with low roll inertia compared to pitch and yaw inertias. 

The concentration of mass along the fuselage, and the short span can lead to violent departures from controlled flight if, for example, a roll manoeuvre results in an upset in pitch or yaw.  Problems of this sort are exacerbated when low aerodynamic damping exists, due perhaps to high altitude and insufficient stability, particularly in yaw.

Typical solutions to this problem include large fin area, sometimes supplemented by ventral fins – compare late-mark versions of almost any early supersonic fighter aircraft with the initial prototype, and you will see the impact. For the Fang, the problem is likely to be compounded by the probability that the relatively small fins will be less effective at higher incidences due to blanketing by the airflow around the fuselage and wing.

Consequently, I much prefer the tailed-delta version of the aircraft shown in one of the illustrations. The taller tail fin, coupled with the low-set tailplane offer the prospect of a much more controllable aircraft, both in relatively low-speed manoeuvring air combat, and high altitude supersonic flight.

From a propulsion perspective, an aircraft aimed at a Mach 2 requirement should have some form of variable shock intake, and the configuration looks suitable for a Mirage-like shock cone intake. Without such an intake Mach 1.6 to 1.8 is probably the maximum that could be achieved.

With the addition of a bigger radar, a shock-cone intake, and the carriage of the early Sidewinder (or similar) missile, the US could have had a very decent MiG-21! Mind you, I think it wouldn’t be long before more fuel, external tanks, and refuelling probe might have been required.

I do think the Fang was a bit of a lost opportunity. My very first reaction to the design was, rather mischievously, to note that a developed Fang would make a very decent competitor for the Tejas …”

Northrop proposed the Fang for an early 1953 USAF need for a high-altitude day fighter, though this vacancy was eventually won by the F-104 Starfighter, this design is a fascinating insight into the thinking of Northrop. Though the aircraft never flew it is fair to make a few guesses based on the aircraft’s general configuration. With a far lower loading than the F-104 its sharply swept delta and v-tail would have probably imbued the aircraft with a high instantaneous turn rate, and generally greater agility than the F-104. Northrop would return to the v-tail for the unsuccessful rival to the Raptor, the YF-23. If sufficiently powered (the Sapphire and J-79 were both considered) the Fang would have enjoyed swift acceleration. A novel aspect studied was the ability to readily change not just engine unit, but engine type, to allow for mission optimisation.

For armament, twin packs of 20- and 30-mm cannon were considered as were wing-root mounted 2-inch rockets, conventional and nuclear weapons.

The Fang was far smaller than F-104, with a greater emphasis on manoeuvrability, design priorities that would later lead to the superb F-5 family.

You love planes. We love planes. Save the Hush-Kit blog. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. In order to carry on we need donations— even £8 a month could do a lot of good. 

Want to see more stories like this: Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

Have a look at How to kill a Raptor, An Idiot’s Guide to Chinese Flankers, the 10 worst British military aircraft, The 10 worst French aircraft,  Su-35 versus Typhoon, 10 Best fighters of World War II , top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an interview with a Super Hornet pilot and a Pacifist’s Guide to Warplanes. Was the Spitfire overrated? Want something more bizarre? The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read, as is The Strange Story and The Planet Satellite. The Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker. Those interested in the Cold Way should read A pilot’s guide to flying and fighting in the Lightning. Those feeling less belligerent may enjoy A pilot’s farewell to the Airbus A340. Looking for something more humorous? Have a look at this F-35 satire and ‘Werner Herzog’s Guide to pusher bi-planes or the Ten most boring aircraft. In the mood for something more offensive? Try the NSFW 10 best looking American airplanes, or the same but for Canadians.

English Electric Lightning. Three words which sit so beautifully together (ignoring the tautology of ‘electric’ lightning). The charged air of English skies ripped apart by riveted lunacy. The Lightning was quite mad: a greedy machine set on eating fuel and turning it into speed. Unlike anything else its two Avon engines were stacked one on top of the other making it stand monstrously tall on the ground.

The Lightning would scorn today’s tedious drones controlled by gamers in porta-cabins. The Lightning was the anti-thesis of the UAV- it was essentially a manned missile, tricksy and twitchy – and it killed more of its own pilots than it did enemies (it actually did not see combat). When it entered service in 1959 it could outfly and outfight any of its peers, but failure to adequately upgrade the Lightning made it obsolete, while its performance was still unbeaten. Its astonishing maximum climb rate of 50,000 feet a minute was not equaled by a Western fighter until the F-15 entered service in 1976. While other fighters were getting Pulse Dopplers and radar-guided missiles, the Lightning was stuck with an antiquated radar and a missile armament of only two equally old-fashioned missiles (the contemporary F-4 Phantom II could carry eight). When it was retired it 1988, the Lightning still did not have the ability to carry chaff or flares (essential for survival) or a radar warning receiver (which alert the pilot to the presence of hostile radars).

Lightning at a glance

Nicknames: The Frightening

Who used it? The air forces of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Great Britain. Today the private

company Thunder City provides civilians the chance to fly in a Lightning.

First flight? 1957

How many were built: 337

Any good? Its phenomenal performance was marred by its poor endurance and weapons systems. As a point defence intercepter it was excellent. An early assessment against the US F-106 left the Lightning pilot with the impression that he had the best fighter in the world. By the late 1960s, it was behind the technology curve.

Rivals? There was no direct equivalent to the Lightning.

For almost sixty years U-2s have penetrated the inhospitable darkness of the stratosphere to snoop on America’s least favourite nations. From their first mission over the USSR in 1956, the soviets were aware of the presence of these CIA-operated intruders, but were powerless to destroy them; fighters of the 1950s simply could not catch an enemy flying at 70,000 ft.

Things changed on May Day 1960 when a U-2 was shot down by a soviet surface-to-air missile. The CIA pilot Gary Powers was captured and sentenced to three years in prison followed by seven years of hard labour (of which he served only two). The US cover story that it was a weather plane that had flown off course was never believed by the soviets- the U-2 had fallen to the ground almost intact, allowing its secret equipment to be studied at leisure. The shoot-down was a diplomatic disaster for the Americans (spying overflights were technically an act of war), one that Premier Khrushchev exploited for maximum effect when he stormed out of a planned summit meeting in protest. This was also the first time that the general public had heard of this highly classified project. The U-2 was not safe over the USSR, but was still a useful reconnaissance tool. It would not be long till the U-2 would spark another Cold War imbroglio, this time one that brought the world calamitously close to a nuclear war; in 1962 U-2s photographed preparation for the installation of a soviet missile base in Cuba, triggering the Cuban missile crisis.Since then the U-2 has spied in almost every continent, identified war graves and carried out research for NASA.

This ghostly aircraft may end its life rather lonely, as in 2015 work began on developing an unmanned version.

U-2 at a glance

Nicknames: Gray Ghost, Shady Lady, Angel, and Dragon Lady

What so special about it? It can fly very high and has special cameras and

sensors for spying. Later versions have a data-link for transmitting this

intelligence back to base.

Who used it? The CIA, USAF. RAF, RoCAF, NASA

First flight? 1955

How many were built: 86

Any good? In high threat places it had a nasty habit of getting shot down, but

must be pretty good as it has had a very long service life.

Rivals? The English Electric Canberra PR.9 could fly pretty high too (a licence-

built Canberra was also used by USAF for reconnaissance). The Myasishchev M-

17 Stratosphera (NATO codename ‘Mystic’) was the closest thing to a soviet

equivalent (that we know of), one of the M-17’s missions was to shoot down US

reconnaissance balloons.

In popular culture: the Irish rock band U2’s name may have been influenced by

the U-2.

Have a peek at other material: There’s  a whole feast of fantastic British, French, Swedish, Australian,  Japanese , Belgian,  German and Latin American aeroplanes. Want something more bizarre? The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read as is the Top Ten cancelled fighters.

Read an interview with a Super Hornet pilot here.

Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

Military aircraft take too long to develop, cost too much to manufacture and are consequently available to air arms in insufficiently small numbers. Here’s how to avoid the current mess.

1. Prioritise development

For a frontline aircraft, here is the order of priority:

Sensors/software: average development time 18 years to maturity

New guided munitions/development/integration: average development time 17 years to maturity

Engines: average development time 15 years to maturity

Airframe: average development time 10 years to maturity

Strangely, the reality is almost the opposite with an aircraft starting life in the wind tunnel, despite aerodynamics being the most predictable facet of modern aircraft development.

2. At least two of the following components must be already available off-the-shelf:  sensors/engines/airframe (note that former two can be replaced in upgrades). 

3. Invest a large amount in a short development time. However terrifying this figure may be, it is guaranteed to be less than the 25 years it currently takes a frontline aircraft to go from concept to operational service. 10 years is not unreasonable. Do not let the requirement be altered during development. 

4. Three simple metrics should dominate the design process: power-to-weight/reliability/range, however wonderful the weapons systems promise to be they will benefit from these inherent advantages.

5. Plan who will pay for upgrades in the future. 

6. Small factories (of the lowest possible tech) close to all component assemblies (to make this work it must be made clear that the cost savings outweigh the political advantages of multi-state collaboration).

7. The A variant will have insufficient fuel, electrical and processing power for upgrade, this is normal, but plan how it will be rectified in the B or C model.

SAVE HUSH-KIT. Hush-Kit needs donations to continue, sadly we’re well behind our targets, please donate using the buttons above or below. Many thanks. I really hope Hush-Kit can continue as it’s been a fascinating experience to research and write this ridiculously labour-intensive blog.

Can you identify this? No cheating please.