Good idea … bad execution – in aviation award

[Geary]

Good idea … bad execution – in aviation.

 

Throughout my time in the US Army I heard the phrase, ‘Good idea … bad execution’ many times.  It usually referred to an idea that sounded good in our heads or on paper but didn’t work as hoped or expected when the idea was implemented.

 

In the past few years as I’ve learned more about one of my favorite airplanes, the F-86 Sabre.  More specifically I’ve learned a bit about the design, ‘idea’ and implementation of the F-86D/L and K models of the F-86 Sabre ‘Dog.’

 

The advantage to MY hindsight and without having unrestricted access to the government procurers and aircraft designers and USAF expectations, requests and problems, is that it’s easy for me to offer my opinion on how ‘stupid’ I think the lack of defensive capabilities were on the D and L models of a good jet.

 

For those of you who don’t know about the F-86 D/L and K models, the US government at the time, mid-1950’s, was terrified of Soviet long rang bombers entering US airspace and dropping nuclear bombs on the continental US.  The F-86D/L was designed as an interceptor almost specifically for shooting down bombers.

 

The F-86D was designed without guns or later the capability to carry missiles.  It was designed with a ventral pack that carried 24 mighty mouse folding fin aerial ‘unguided’ rockets.  The ventral pack would lower from the fuselage beneath the pilot, fire the rockets at the bombers, retract into the fuselage, and the pilot would probably need to leave the area quickly in case he missed or since he had little to do once the rockets were expended. 

 

The USAF never changed the weapons capabilities on the D/L models.  Within a few years it gave most of the D/L models to the Air Reserve and Guard units in the USA, a sign the USAF wasn’t too happy with the plane.  Although, in the USAF’s defense the F-100 Super Sabre was being fielded at the time and was to be a replacement for the older F-86 models.

 

In the meantime … Italy came up with a ‘good idea.’  It licensed the F-86D/L, got rid of the mighty mouse rocket ventral pack, added four 20mm guns in the nose and later the ability to carry AIM-9 Sidewinders.  Most European/NATO countries that acquired this particular plane opted for the Italian built F-86K model.  To me this was a ‘No Brainer.’

 

Again, without knowing all the problems faced in designing and procuring the F-86D/L for the USAF, but understanding the fears of the time, it’s easy for me to disparage a plane I like but think it had a major design flaw.  In other words, ‘Good idea … bad execution’ on the part of the USAF. 

 

Although I do concede that ‘timing’ played a part in this plane’s history, the Italian re-design supports my opinion.

 

So … I’m considering an ‘award’ to give to planes that were possibly ‘good ideas … bad execution.’ 

I considered calling it the Albatross Award, but the Albatross soars like an angel once it’s off the ground.

 

Any ideas on what to call the award? 

And any other aircraft idea that might be deserving of this award?

 

Thanks for your time and support,

 

 

Geary

 

 

[claw]

The Dodo-award?

The dodo (Raphus cucullatus) is an extinct bird that lived in the forests on the island of Mauritius. It stood about a meter tall of the ground. It could not fly because it didn't need to; it hat no natural enemies. Apart from a nasty beak it was quite helpless. Its food consisted of seeds and fruits. It has no enemies, until the arrival of Dutch settlers.  Since it couldn't fly it was easy to catch. Around the end of 17th century it is extinct.

 

Designed for very specific circumstances. When those changed it became extinct.

[ironroad]

Rocket only interceptors were nothing unique for time period, the early models of the F-8 were equipped with "rocket trays" similar to the interceptor variants of the F-86. The F-89, F-94, and F-102 were initially designed as "rocket" only interceptors.

 

The VOODOO was supposed to be a guns only long range escort platform, but when the F-101B came online it was a long range missile/rocket only interceptor.

 

Interceptors was were the US put most of its stock in during those years as the backbone of North America's air defense, while the Warsaw Pac tended to focus on more on integrating large numbers of guns and SAM systems.

 

The key was to knock the bombers out as far away from the continent as they could where as the Russian doctrine was to make NATO aircraft have to fight through rings of guns through "buffer countries" before mother Russia herself was threatened.

 

The game changed with ballistic missiles and the refinement of the SA-1 what later became the SA-2.

 

 

As for screw up aircraft, I say the Vought Cutless, wtf were they thinking!?

Edited March 5, 2016 by ironroad

[Geary]

claw,

 

  The DoDo Award is definitely a front runner for the award name.  The F-86D/L were also 'Designed for very specific circumstances.'   Thanks for the suggestion.

 

 

ironroad,

 

   Rocket only interceptors seemed to be the thinking of the day by the 'future' planners of their time.  Unfortunately, their thinking carried over to the next decade where they may have managed to get pilots killed, captured and maimed in the Vietnam War in the gun less F-4 Phantom IIs.  Luckily, the plane was improved during that war to become the premier fighter of the day.  It may still receive the award for the specific f*&% up of not initially installing a gun and sending pilots into close-in dogfights in a plane designed to shoot down the enemy from distances well beyond gun range.  

 

   Luckily, the F-8 got guns and eventually AAMs. The F-89 and F-94 were overtaken by technological advances, but the F-102, although being a super cool jet, is a candidate for the award for the very specific design flaw of NO GUNS.  But, it's still super cool.

 

   The F7U Cutlass is definitely going to receive this award.  It's attempt at winning over Buck Rogers fans with its futuristic design may have been successful but it did almost as much harm to pilots as the Top Gun movie.  It's only possible redeeming quality is that it seems to have a roomy cockpit with a great view of the stars at night, much like the back seat of an AMC Pacer of the 1970s.

 

   Thanks for your input.

[+Wrench]

we weren't the only ones with anti-aircraft rockets, several MiG-17 versions did that too (iirc, they kept at least 2 cannon) -17*somehthing* (SP16) with AA rockets. I remember there used to be 2 versions of it in the d/l section

 

Also, didn't the Mystre have a rocket tray in the nose. which, fortunately, somebody got smart and got rid of it!

 

indeed "stauration" rocket barrage -- I can't really see it working in the Real World, when millions of lives hang in the balance!

[Do335]

also the Me262 had the r4m rockets for "rocket barrage" against B17s.

 

Dunno how effective it was in RL but in IL2 i had semi-success with them:p

 

Although.... rockets only sure is weird, like many jets at those times!

Edited March 5, 2016 by Do335

[Geary]

I don't think unguided rockets are a terrible idea.  I think they are a terrible idea as the only A2A weapon.

 

I created a 'what-if' plane by combining the F-86D/L and K models weapons.

 

The guns and sidewinders of the K are for A2A and the rockets of the D/L are for ground attack.  I know this may not have been feasible in reality with space and weight being premium in all fighters, but it seemed like a good idea at the time.

[KJakker]

It was not just the Me262, almost all of the German twin engine heavy fighters carried air to air rockets that they fired into the bomber formations. These rockets were considered serious threat to the bombers. That threat only abated when the P-51's were unleashed from the bomber formations and allowed to hunt the interceptors as they were forming up to attack.

 

Given the fact that the USAAF bomber force had been on the receiving end of these rocket attacks it is only natural that the USAF would take those lessons into account making its own plans to intercept heavy bombers.

 

 

I don't think unguided rockets are a terrible idea.  I think they are a terrible idea as the only A2A weapon.

 

I created a 'what-it' plane by combing the F-86D/L and K models weapons.

 

The guns and sidewinders of the K are for A2A and the rockets of the D/L are for ground attack.  I know this may not have been feasible in reality with space and weight being premium in all fighters, but it seemed like a good idea at the time.

 

 

Geary, I did the same thing with the F-86D and K weapons fit.

Edited March 5, 2016 by KJakker

[+whiteknight06604]

Don't forget the AA rockets in American use were on dedicated bomber interceptors equipped with radar. They were never meant to be used against other fighters. I think that would have been pretty effective had they been used as intended  advancements in guided missiles just past the use of rockets by.

[Do335]

It was not just the Me262, almost all of the German twin engine heavy fighters carried air to air rockets that they fired into the bomber formations. These rockets were considered serious threat to the bombers. That threat only abated when the P-51's were unleashed from the bomber formations and allowed to hunt the interceptors as they were forming up to attack.

r4m is more effective as there're 24 of them in one shot so enough to form a barrage. Earlier ones like the Wgr.121 is only 2 or 4 shot and slow... very inaccurate. r4m is fast enough to be aimed using revi and ez42 gunsight. Plus you got 4 30mm nuclear cannons on the nose. ...I really like the 262 as an interceptor.