Not Just a "Strange town on the Utah Nevada Boarder

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

Riggerrob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
2,152
Location
Canada
Im not sure if you are trying to reinforce my point or argue against it somehow?

no I’m not exactly up to the minute on the latest weapons and tactics but it does seem like a lot of modern jet weapon platforms use a GIB.
Skua and Roc routinely flew with a second crew member because the Royal Navy believed that single-pilot airplanes were too difficult to navigate back to the carrier. The RN clung to two-seat fighters longer than most navies: Fulmar, Firefly, etc.
Modern fighters depend upon electronics to navigate them back to the ship.

Many third generation jets: F-101 Voodoo, F-105, F-4 Phantom, F-14 Tomcat, Tornado, etc. needed a guy in the back to handle all the navigation, radios, electronic counter-measures, etc. The EF-18 Growler is a two-seater because of its complex electronic counter-measures. Those electronics are now mostly self-managing and only feeding must-know info to the single pilot.

Fifth generation fighters (e.g. F-35) tend to be single-pilot because ground-bound simulators are realistic enough to do most training, obviating the need for two-seater trainer versions.
 

Riggerrob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
2,152
Location
Canada
Wasn’t the mosquito the fastest thing in the sky ?
Yes, Mosquito was the fastest prop-job fielded in significant numbers during WW2. Mosquitos reacted to most adversaries by applying full power and out-running them.

Rumour has it that Kurt Tank's TA=152 was faster, but only handful saw combat.
The other contender: Dornier push-me-pull-you was only built in small numbers , late in the war.

Yes, jets (Meteor and Me-262) were faster, but only small numbers were deployed very late in the war.
 

Aesquire

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
2,979
Location
Rochester, NY, USA
One group of unsung heroes was the Mosquito crews that flew special high altitude planes ( sequential supercharged Merlins ) back and forth between Sweden & the UK with passengers ( on oxygen, laying in the bomb bay ) and the exotic metals needed for... Stuff. Lost several, but escape by running away faster & higher worked until the Cold War and guided missiles.

Re: Lysanders.

Another group that needs a movie. Flying Resistance drops, weapons and agents, into Occupied France. One fighter pilot, after the Battle of Britain, volunteered to fly Lysanders, instead of a desk job at HQ, and has...stories. On one mission he'd picked up a beautiful French Resistance Fighter to take her to England, and ran into a Flak trap, lots of explosions and hard maneuvers, rattling his passenger around in her windowless cargo hold, who erupts from the plane when he lands and opens the hatch, cursing and ready to kill. Until he speaks English to her, & gets a big hug. She thought they'd been shot down and captured.

A lot of medals given out that couldn't be revealed until after the war there.

See also the USS Guadalcanal, that couldn't display the award until after the war... There's a movie that really needs to be made.
 
Last edited:

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
6,834
Location
US
Fifth generation fighters (e.g. F-35) tend to be single-pilot because ground-bound simulators are realistic enough to do most training, obviating the need for two-seater trainer versions.
Also, for the strike role, GPS has made a big difference and enabled single place acft ops. We'll see just how smart that is when the GPS constellation isn't available (INS only gets you just so close). For laser guided munitions or some other precision weapons as well as radar deliveries, a GIB gives a lot of capability and flexibility.
 

Aesquire

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
2,979
Location
Rochester, NY, USA
There are fads in many things.

In military aviation, back in the '50s if was "missiles make guns obsolete". There's a reason for that, the Fritz X and other aircraft launched "precision" weapons were a game changer. ( " paradigm shift" is overused by scam artists and Wall Street fools ) ( as in "the old cycle of boom & just is over, it's a paradigm shift, buy what I'm selling!" [ before the bust ] )

Turns out missiles aren't perfect, ( actually they miss, a Lot ) they're expensive, ( this 20mm ammo costs a lot, but an AMMRAM costs orders of magnitude, more, and planes & pilots are Expensive! ) and you don't carry enough. ( hmm 4 sidewinders, 6 enemy planes, what would Sergeant Schlock do? )

The 1930's British Naval fighters accepted the compromises of a less nimble plane with extra weight, so they could get more back after a mission. Over water with no map references & in the dark.

Today's "a single seat fighter is more nimble & cheaper, and we use advanced technology to compensate for human weakness" fad isn't new. It even sometimes works for a while. ( until the Enemy figures out how to compensate, like GPS jamming, and multiple radar antennae )

"Someday the Air Force will get a plane that does everything they want. They'll only be able to afford one. They'll keep it in a vault so it doesn't get damaged"

Points for identification of the quoted. ;)
 

Rhino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
1,546
Location
KTHA
..."Someday the Air Force will get a plane that does everything they want. They'll only be able to afford one...
Obviously the author never heard of the US Congress.
 

Bill-Higdon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
1,520
Location
Salem, Oregon, USA
Also, for the strike role, GPS has made a big difference and enabled single place acft ops. We'll see just how smart that is when the GPS constellation isn't available (INS only gets you just so close). For laser guided munitions or some other precision weapons as well as radar deliveries, a GIB gives a lot of capability and flexibility.
INS+ terrain comparison gets you a lot closer
 

Kiwi303

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2015
Messages
418
Location
En Zed. Aka The Shire.
The 1930's British Naval fighters accepted the compromises of a less nimble plane with extra weight, so they could get more back after a mission. Over water with no map references & in the dark.

I believe a standard british navigation system pre-war was to have the escorting destroyer fire flare shells as vertically as their AA high angle gun could manage. Any aircraft that could make it to the rough vicinity of the carrier would be able to see the flare, locate the fleet and find the carrier.

Not especially viable in a shooting war as subs could also see the flares as well and vector in. But as far as night nav training goes over water, if the pilot flew towards the flares, they'd then be able to see the masthead lights in the days before blackout sailings.
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
6,834
Location
US
"Someday the Air Force will get a plane that does everything they want. They'll only be able to afford one. They'll keep it in a vault so it doesn't get damaged"

Points for identification of the quoted. ;)
It comes close to the famous quote attributed to President Calvin Coolidge in 1928, when he was wrestling with funding requests for squadrons of aircraft. "Why can't we just buy one aeroplane and let the pilots take turns flying it?"
 
Top