History, Politics And Current Affairs

Some random thoughts from looking at the formulas in the other thread...don't take anything too serious just yet; this is to throw out for discussion:

------------

Speed is a composite of two things:

Cruising Speed and Combat Speed

In both categories, it's rated as one point for every 10 MPH.

The two categories are then multiplied by a percentage and then added togther to generate the composite speed rating.

For example, Baugher gives the P-47D-25-RE:

429 MPH top speed (42.9 points)
195 MPH cruise speed (19.5 points)

A fighter composite weighted score would likely be something about:

50% Cruise
50% Top Speed

Representing the fact that fighters generally do fighter things.

So our P-47D-25-RE would be:

(42.9 * 0.5) + (19.5 * 0.5) = 31.2 total speed rating

By contrast, a P-51C-10-NT would be:

435 MPH top speed (43.5 points)
249 MPH cruise speed (24.9 points)

(43.5 * 0.5) + (24.9 * 0.5) = 34.2 total speed rating

That's one of the little things that's missed about the P-51 -- it had a rather high cruise speed thanks to it's "laminar flow" wing; and exceptionally low drag, which in turn gave it tremendous range, even without drop tanks.

-----------------------------------------

Range score is the result of adding two separate point values (if known):

Internal Fuel - One point for every 50 miles range on internal fuel.

Drop Tanks - One point for every 100 miles range on drop tanks.

This "pricing disparity" represents the fact that if you want to engage in combat with drop tanks; you have to jettison them. Plus drop tanks are a consumable expendable that must be managed.

So, for the P-51A:

750 miles on internal fuel = 15 points
1,250 extra miles with 2 x 125 gal drop tanks = 12.5 points

Air-to-Air Refueling - If the aircraft is equipped for it, multiply the final range score by 1.3x to represent potential mid-air refuelling extending aircraft range.

Air to Air Refueling capability was a major point of contention between Big USAF and Air Defense Command on the LRI-X (F-108) -- Big USAF was unwavering on that capability, while ADC saw no need for it in an interceptor.

Air to Air Refueling capability was a major point of contention between Big USAF and Air Defense Command on the LRI-X (F-108) -- Big USAF was unwavering on that capability, while ADC saw no need for it in an interceptor.

MKS,

Clarification, please - the previous two 'pure' interceptors, the -102 and -106, were both air-to-air refueling capable. Did ADC completely and eternally renounce Air Refueling and all its works at some point, or did they decide they didn't want it on just the -108? It makes a certain amount of sense that they would; that beast had a lot of B-70 in it and would have had phenomenal range - they might have just decided to say the Hell with it and delete the requirement so as to save weight and complexity, therefore extending the range even further.

And if you think about it, Big USAF at that time considered anything with wings deployable if the need was there (see also F-102). If they had decided they wanted that capability in, say, Iceland or Northern Europe, then they had by God better be able to do it in trail to a couple of tankers.

(Watching that beast refuel from a -97 would have been a hoot.)

Mike

MikeKozlowski wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 2:17 pm

Air to Air Refueling capability was a major point of contention between Big USAF and Air Defense Command on the LRI-X (F-108) -- Big USAF was unwavering on that capability, while ADC saw no need for it in an interceptor.

MKS,

Clarification, please - the previous two 'pure' interceptors, the -102 and -106, were both air-to-air refueling capable. Did ADC completely and eternally renounce Air Refueling and all its works at some point, or did they decide they didn't want it on just the -108? It makes a certain amount of sense that they would; that beast had a lot of B-70 in it and would have had phenomenal range - they might have just decided to say the Hell with it and delete the requirement so as to save weight and complexity, therefore extending the range even further.

And if you think about it, Big USAF at that time considered anything with wings deployable if the need was there (see also F-102). If they had decided they wanted that capability in, say, Iceland or Northern Europe, then they had by God better be able to do it in trail to a couple of tankers.

(Watching that beast refuel from a -97 would have been a hoot.)

Mike

All four radials on the -97 would need rebuilds halfway through the refueling...

Poohbah wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 5:34 pm

MikeKozlowski wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 2:17 pm

Air to Air Refueling capability was a major point of contention between Big USAF and Air Defense Command on the LRI-X (F-108) -- Big USAF was unwavering on that capability, while ADC saw no need for it in an interceptor.

MKS,

Clarification, please - the previous two 'pure' interceptors, the -102 and -106, were both air-to-air refueling capable. Did ADC completely and eternally renounce Air Refueling and all its works at some point, or did they decide they didn't want it on just the -108? It makes a certain amount of sense that they would; that beast had a lot of B-70 in it and would have had phenomenal range - they might have just decided to say the Hell with it and delete the requirement so as to save weight and complexity, therefore extending the range even further.

And if you think about it, Big USAF at that time considered anything with wings deployable if the need was there (see also F-102). If they had decided they wanted that capability in, say, Iceland or Northern Europe, then they had by God better be able to do it in trail to a couple of tankers.

(Watching that beast refuel from a -97 would have been a hoot.)

Mike

All four radials on the -97 would need rebuilds halfway through the refueling...

Poohbah,

There's a pic out there of an early -10A refueling from a -97. The -97 is actually in a slight dive, while the Hog has flaps out.

Mike

MikeKozlowski wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 2:17 pmClarification, please - the previous two 'pure' interceptors, the -102 and -106, were both air-to-air refueling capable.

The 102 and 106 did not come from the factory with Air to Air Refueling.

102 had a very draggy external system installed for Vietnam deployments.

106 had to have it retrofitted LINK

The aerial refueling modification began in Aug 1967 to add inflight refueling capability to the F-106 with an IFR (In-flight Fuel Receptacle) on top of the fuselage just aft of the cockpit. The mod took about year to complete across the entire fleet of aircraft. The first two units to receive the IFR mod were the 318th and 71st. Partly because of this, the 318th was selected to fly to Korea during the Pueblo incident in Jan 1968, which required used of in-flight refueling.