What impressed me about the mock-up full size Arrow at the Toronto Aerospace Museum was the integral weapons bay, much like the F-22 today.
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Admiral Beez |
|||
|
Posts: 4514 ( 1-May-2008 15:42:34) |
|
||
|
briandpayne |
|||
|
Posts: 118 ( 1-May-2008 18:12:02) |
My hydraulics instructor in college worked on the Hydraulics aspect for opening the weapons bay. The arrow used a 4000 psi Hydraulic system and the First
time they fully opened the weapons bay using the hydraulics it opened it so fast that it pulled the end caps off the cylinders. LOL he told that story numerous
times in class...
Take Care, Brian Payne Edited out wrong number in the Hydraulic pressure.
Last Edited By: briandpayne
2-May-2008 09:50:03.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
bager1968 |
|||
|
Posts: 2916 ( 2-May-2008 19:13:11) |
Admiral Beez wrote: And the F-102, F-105, F-106, F-111, and Buccaneer. OK, I'll stop.
|
||
|
Admiral Beez |
|||
|
Posts: 4517 ( 3-May-2008 04:04:56) |
Well, I'll give you the F-102 and F-106, as it's certainly impressive to envision AAMs dropping from the hull and rocketing off. However, IIRC the
integral weapon's bay on the F-105, F-111 and Buc was for bombs or ASuW guided weapons, not AAMs. Having bomb bays on fighter-bombers was innovative for
the de Haviland Mosquito et al, but less impressive on a F-105 Thunderchief 30 years later.
|
||
|
jlyons97 |
"innovative for the de Haviland Mosquito..." | ||
|
Posts: 1474 ( 8-May-2008 22:01:17) |
I thought the concept of an internal bomb bay on a twin engine bomber was not new ground plowed by the Mosquito. Which was to start, a bomber. That the fighter
Mossie had a bomb bay was incidental. The F-105 was (1) a fighter from the start and (2) a single engine fighter at that. There may well have been operational
internal bomb bay fighters before the Thud with these characteristics, but others will have to tell me what they were.
|
||
|
Getz |
|||
|
Posts: 389 ( 9-May-2008 02:19:18) |
The F-105 was never really a fighter though, was it...
|
||
|
jlyons97 |
f-105 as a fighter..... | ||
|
Posts: 1478 ( 9-May-2008 23:54:16) |
Getz wrote: Hmmm. Those F-105 air-to-air kills were done by merely frightened the NVA to death?
|
||
|
Getz |
|||
|
Posts: 390 (10-May-2008 01:11:24) |
B17's managed to shoot down German fighters... Didn't stop them being bombers...
|
||
|
taschoene |
|||
|
Posts: 4221 (10-May-2008 01:11:30) |
jlyons97 wrote: Be fair here. The F-105 was designed from the outset as a tactical nuclear bomber; it certainly was never meant to seek out combat with other aircraft.
Yes, it had some air-to-air kills (27 by Air Force counts) but the exchange rate was not good -- no better than 2:1 and possibly as bad as 1:1 depending on the
causes of some unknown F-105 losses.
Heck, there are A-1Ds and A-4s with MiG kills; does this make them fighters too?
|
||
|
taschoene |
|||
|
Posts: 4222 (10-May-2008 01:36:03) |
jlyons97 wrote: The F-102, which beat the F-105 into service by a couple of years. And was a real fighter, designed from the outset to attack other aircraft. That the
F-105 carried the F-for-fighter designation was a quirk of the USAF's designation system of the day that made any tactical combat aircraft with even a
secondary air-to-air role into a "fighter."
|
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
