Air Superiority Fighter of 60th-70th

[J.A.W.]

It was subsonic.

Hang on, but didn't Wheaties Welch beat Chuck to the Boom?

In the prototype  XP-86?

Bubble canopy drag was not a significant factor, it was a Mach-heat limitation..
.. (& maybe an 'area rule' over-reaction)..

By the time A2A combat was a happening thing, real B-Cs were def' on the list for new gen fighters.

[GScholz]

Nonsense.

[J.A.W.]

Nonsense.

What is? ...the Wheaties thing.. ..could be true.. .. the F-86 can boom.. in a dive..

& both powerful twin-engine Phantom & Lightning Mach 2+  jets were air-heat limited speed-wise..
They even had windscreen overheat warning devices that went off to prevent the glass going bang..

Check it if you doubt it..

& you do know about the 'area rule' (supersonic airframe-wise) don't you?

[SirNuke]

JAW even I know you are wrong. stop trolling please.

[J.A.W.]

What do you really know S-N?

From 'Phantom Over Vietnam' by John Trotti, pilot USMC.. P.189..

On a Phantom flight test at high Mach..

"Though its activation was silent, the illumination of the master caution light acted like a
flash of lightning, spiking my adrenaline & sending my hand to the throttles.

The windshield hi-temp telelight had come on, mandating that I abort the run...
...the high temperature could have weakened the bulletproof section of the glass in the
forward windscreen, causing it to lose temper.
 
Thereafter, any sharp blow from some object (such as a bird) might shatter it
 which at high speed could have the same effect as a buckshot blast in the face ..."

Trolling, huh?

[artik]

Also I think the drift from fully bubble cockpit to the cockpit with reduced rear visibility was mostly due to believe that the "next generation of fighters would not dogfight" - most of these fighters were designed as interceptors rather than "pure fighters"

See as example, Mirage III had no guns in initial designs and was designed as in interceptor, MiG-21 had even more limited rear visibility in comparison to MiG-17 and MiG-19 and was designed as clear interceptor with amazing climb rate for its period.

I think this drift in cockpit design wasn't purely aerodynamics related (also are ruling was clearly affecting the cockpit design) but also the vision of fighter aircraft than. It changed back in later designs that come with "fighter mafia concepts" like F-16, F-16 and Eastern MiG-29, Su-27.

Even today the only "pure interceptors" flying today MiG-31 have much poor rear visibility as it by no means can dogfight anything.


Curious note about MiG-21... [1]

It is know that it have very good low speed handling as was very maneuverable, although it wasn't designed to fly at low speeds at all. During late 60ths (IIRC) the  were complains by the MiG-21 middle east customers. MiG-21 there had significant number of failures of a first and second compressor stages. While the MiG-21s in Soviet service hadn't experienced such problems.  A MiG Design Bureau's test pilot Boris Orlov with a crew of engine engineers were sent to the middle east to check the problem.

When he returned to Russia he told that Arabs were flying the MiGs like nobody else. The "normal" minimal speed of MiG-21 was around 450-500km/h (280-310mph) while Arab pilots were flying them "down to" 250 km/h (150mph) with full afterburner during hard maneuvers. This caused unplanned engine regime that caused high vibrations that resulted in high ratio of engine failures. Initially the MiG designers thought to add a manual limitations to prevent such an engine regimes but it was decided to improve the Engines and made such a regimes "fully combat"

So you can clearly see that nobody at that period though of highly maneuverable fights, nether western designers (F-104, F-4) nor eastern one (MiG-21)

[1] The source of this story is an autobiography book by Valery Menitsky - the MiG Design Bureau test pilot that was one of the main test pilots of MiG-29 and MiG-31 designs.

[GScholz]

J.A.W. you're talking about the windshield, which takes the brunt of the friction heating. That has nothing to do with if the canopy is bubble shaped or not. The canopies of the century fighters, the Mirage III, the F-4 and other '60s fighters are made of the same materials as the Mach 2.5+ F-15: stretched acrylic with fiberglass edge attachments. In the earlier jets the windshield (hardened glass) shielded the canopy. In later jets they partially work their way around the heat problem aerodynamically. If you don't have the spare power to counter the drag... no bubbles if you want to go to Mach 2 as was the case with the century fighters.

[bozon]

Interesting info Artik. Thanks.

IAF pilots considered the mig-21 as a much better turner than the Mirage III. Some described its break turn as "looks like they pulled the stick right into their bellies".

[GScholz]

That wasn't Shilomo Aloni's conclusion in Mirage III vs MiG-21: Six Day War 1967. His conclusion is that the Mirage was better in the horizontal whilst the MiG was better in the vertical (better thrust to weight ratio).

[GScholz]

To say that these two aircraft were closely matched is almost an understatement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AlsW_Xx3dg

[bozon]

That wasn't Shilomo Aloni's conclusion in Mirage III vs MiG-21: Six Day War 1967. His conclusion is that the Mirage was better in the horizontal whilst the MiG was better in the vertical (better thrust to weight ratio).

To say that these two aircraft were closely matched is almost an understatement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AlsW_Xx3dg

Mirage pilots were impressed by the mig's break turns. That is not the same as sustained turning, though I was under the impression that the Mig21 generally turned better. I need to read again some of the old books and magazines I read over 20 years ago...

That specific story about the crazy mig21  - he was fighting the jet-age ace of aces in the Mirage. The outcome was inevitable - I am sure you watched the rest of the episode that describes what followed up in that sortie.

[J.A.W.]

J.A.W. you're talking about the windshield, which takes the brunt of the friction heating. That has nothing to do with if the canopy is bubble shaped or not. The canopies of the century fighters, the Mirage III, the F-4 and other '60s fighters are made of the same materials as the Mach 2.5+ F-15: stretched acrylic with fiberglass edge attachments. In the earlier jets the windshield (hardened glass) shielded the canopy. In later jets they partially work their way around the heat problem aerodynamically. If you don't have the spare power to counter the drag... no bubbles if you want to go to Mach 2 as was the case with the century fighters.

Nonsense, except in the case of area ruling, see the F-102 to F-106 development saga..

& in the case of the F-100 & F-104, they feature a flattened-type bubble behind steeply raked
windscreens..

The Lightning was developed as an interceptor rather than as an A2A fighter, as was the
Phantom, but both had thrust to burn & could use it effectively in A2A..

The Mirage  was a delta, but had no tail, whereas the MiG 21 was a tailed delta
( as was the A4 Skyhawk) - an advantage for combat manoeuvre - the Mirage delta
 always needed a canard  - just like the Nord featured - from the start..

[MiloMorai]

Is that a bar I see like the Westland Whirlwind had?

[J.A.W.]

'Is that a bar I see like the W.W. had?'

Or is it also - a canopy in 2 sections?
(i.e. - not a true clear-view bubble - blown from a single Perspex sheet..)

Wanna expound on the stupidity of the downward firing ejection seat in the 'widow-maker' too, m.m.?

[MiloMorai]

'Is that a bar I see like the W.W. had?'

Or is it also - a canopy in 2 sections?
(i.e. - not a true clear-view bubble - blown from a single Perspex sheet..)

Wanna expound on the stupidity of the downward firing ejection seat in the 'widow-maker' too, m.m.?

So I am not on the ignore list.