Air Combat Maneuvering Thread

[Jeff Head]

stealth aircraft of WWII

I think engineers did not know internal weapons bays require more internal volume increasing the size of the aircraft and affecting the position of the engines plus adding extra air drag
stealth attack aircraft of WWII Grumman avenger with internal weapons bays

Seriously? Come on b787, those engineers and designers knew EXACLTY what they were doing and exactly what it took for internal weapons bays.

They were working to the needs, requirements, and capabilities of their day.

Your pictures DO NOT in the least show the stealth aircraft of World War II.

In those days, night fighters were the stealth caircraft because to them, site was the principle issue for combat in the skies.

Raar was in ts infancy and would help ground controllers and large ships to know when aircraft were approaching, but the fighters had to use their guns to attack.

So, if you could not see it...you ould not kil it wth another aircraft.

Now, radar guided large guns on the ground and on ships came into play...but we are talking about air combat.

Here is probably the premier stealth aircraft of World War II:



Now, the P-61, shown above (the Black Widow), was specifically designed to fight at night when other aircraft could not see it, and it was designed specifically to use radar to help guide it to its prey...in fact I believe it was the first fighter aircraft to do so.

The P-61 used the SCR-720A radar. In air-to-air intercept mode, it had a range of about five miles.

The Black Widows radar operator located targets and steered the radar unit to track them, vectoring and steering the pilot to the target via voice command. Once within range, the pilot used a smaller scope integrated into the main instrument panel to track and close on the target. They would then use the GE2CFR12A3 fire control computer (all analog), and linkages to the gunner and radar operator's turret control columns, forward and aft, to engage the target with the remote operated turrets.

The armament consisted of four .50 cal machine guns in a remote turret on top, and four 20mm cannons underneathh the aircraft.

This was very advanced for World War II.

The P-61 went into service in 1944 and was used on mainland Europe, in the Med, in the Pacific, and in the China/Burma area. It continued to be used until 1954.

 

[Engineer]

Internal weapons bays are not new, you simply do not see the reality, internal weapons bays were used in He-111s, B-29s, B-52s Tu-22Ms and only in few fighter/attack aircraft like A-5, F-111 and F-106.

Now why they applied them on stealth aircraft? probably you will say because they did not know they generate less drag! no they did not, they knew that even torpedo attack aircraft of WWII had internal weapons bays like the Judy.

They know since WWI that internal weapons bay reduce the ordnance and increase the size of the aircraft.

The only benefit they offer is they do not generate a radar signature like external ordnance only that, that increase in size comes with more drag.
however if they need more fuel they use external stations and the same goes for weapons

Eurofighter can fly at Mach 1.4 in super cruise mode, but here is the engine, not the aircraft, a supercruising engine has to be highly economical at such speed

You can red herring and divert attention all you want, but that tactic is not going to work with me. Wing has been invented for over a hundred years, but obviously the wings of today are different to that on Wright's Flyer. So your comparison of F-22's internal weapon bay to that on WWI aircraft is very silly.

External stores produce drag, a lot of it. Eurofighter's need to incoporate recessed hard points proves this. Still, the Eurofighter has lower supercruise speed, even though the former has a higher thrust-to-weight ratio. So, it isn't just about the engines, it is about aerodynamics, and it proves carrying weapons internally is more aerodynamically efficient than externally.

 

[b787]

Seriously? Come on b787, those engineers and designers knew EXACLTY what they were doing and exactly what it took for internal weapons bays.

They were working to the needs, requirements, and capabilities of their day.

Your pictures DO NOT in the least show the stealth aircraft of World War II.

In those days, night fighters were the stealth caircraft because to them, site was the principle issue for combat in the skies.

Raar was in ts infancy and would help ground controllers and large ships to know when aircraft were approaching, but the fighters had to use their guns to attack.

So, if you could not see it...you ould not kil it wth another aircraft.

Now, radar guided large guns on the ground and on ships came into play...but we are talking about air combat.

Here is probably the premier stealth aircraft of World War II:

View attachment 23690

Now, the P-61, shown above (the Black Widow), was specifically designed to fight at night when other aircraft could not see it, and it was designed specifically to use radar to help guide it to its prey...in fact I believe it was the first fighter aircraft to do so.

The P-61 used the SCR-720A radar. In air-to-air intercept mode, it had a range of about five miles.

The Black Widows radar operator located targets and steered the radar unit to track them, vectoring and steering the pilot to the target via voice command. Once within range, the pilot used a smaller scope integrated into the main instrument panel to track and close on the target. They would then use the GE2CFR12A3 fire control computer (all analog), and linkages to the gunner and radar operator's turret control columns, forward and aft, to engage the target with the remote operated turrets.

The armament consisted of four .50 cal machine guns in a remote turret on top, and four 20mm cannons underneathh the aircraft.

This was very advanced for World War II.

The P-61 went into service in 1944 and was used on mainland Europe, in the Med, in the Pacific, and in the China/Burma area. It continued to be used until 1954.

It was a sarcastic joke, internal weapons bays have advantages under some circunstances, they are good for stealth i do not deny they increase LO, but they come with an increase of internal volume and increase size that negates the fact the aircraft has a clean wing in example F-22.

Engineers since 1942 knew external weapons stations reduce the size of the aircraft thus while you have some drag by positioning the weapon stations, the gains will depend on the mission.

In the F-16A of 1974 the aircraft carry few AIM-9s thus it was a good trade off, compare the size of a F-106 and a F-16, Convair, later Lockheed knew F-106 had advantages by carrying its Genie missiles internally but the F-106 is 21 meters long and much more heavier than a Mirage III carrying a few Magics or an F-16

Internal weapons were mostly used on large aircraft since WWII and some aircraft like the Avenger and the Judy, the reason is the B-29 for example was huge so it needed a clean wing for range and the engines were on the wings, so the internal weapons bays were okay, on a fighter like hellcat it was not good, the need was for a big engine inside the fuselage and a smallest internal volume and weight rejected the internal weapon bay.

F-111B again used an internal weapons bay, were they supposed to carry AIM-54s but the aircraft was huge for a carrier, so F-14 needed a smaller size and that was achieved by external pallets in few words external weapons stations and the F-14 was even more agile than F-111B.

So the problem here is for what you want the internal bay, for stealth okay, for drag? well it will depend upon the mission, can you get less drag with semi recessed weapon stations? the answer is yes the F-15 and Eurofighter are examples

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

The P61 was probably the stealthiest mission ready aircraft of WW2. but If you want the Stealth aircraft of WW2 I would wager on the Ho229.

The Choice of Internal Carriage in world war 2 was mostly the result of low drag and insecurity with the concept of external hardpoints and wiring combined with manually arming the weapons.
This was especially useful for specialty weapons like the Atomic and Bouncing bombs of the era.
internally carried ordinance is advantages for a streamlining of airflow and modern Aircraft that use it often have there Internal bays integrated as part of airframe and overall aerodynamics. A F22 unarmed or armed internally has no additional drag other than weight until it opens the weapons bays and releases a weapon,

Semi Recessed only partially alleviate Drag from additional weapons vs Internally carried. A F15 with weapons will have drag from said weapons. A F22 with internal weapons is clean for all intensive purposes. The key disadvantage of Internal carry is it limits your weapons selection to those weapons that fit the bays.

 

[Engineer]

stealth aircraft of WWII

Stealth jet of 1959

I think engineers did not know internal weapons bays require more internal volume increasing the size of the aircraft and affecting the position of the engines plus adding extra air drag
stealth attack aircraft of WWII Grumman avenger with internal weapons bays

Your own pictures don't have anything to do with stealth. However, they proved carrying weapons internally is less draggy than using external stores, because that's exactly what engineers did. In fact, if you know your aircraft history, bomb bay was invented because it reduces drag. Smoothness of the exterior affects aerodynamic efficiency much more than slight increase in volume.

 

[b787]

You can red herring and divert attention all you want, but that tactic is not going to work with me. Wing has been invented for over a hundred years, but obviously the wings of today are different to that on Wright's Flyer. So your comparison of F-22's internal weapon bay to that on WWI aircraft is very silly.

External stores produce drag, a lot of it. Eurofighter's need to incoporate recessed hard points proves this. Still, the Eurofighter has lower supercruise speed, even though the former has a higher thrust-to-weight ratio. So, it isn't just about the engines, it is about aerodynamics, and it proves carrying weapons internally is more aerodynamically efficient than externally.

That is not true, example are a lot

Which aircraft used internal weapons bays in WWII? all large aircraft or attack aircraft, all fighters did not.

In the Korean war was the same.

Example of two similar aircraft F-111B and F-14 and F-106 and Mirage III.

F-111B was larger and heavier thanks to its weapons bays, F-14 was lighter and more agile.

being smaller and lighter means the internal structure is stronger and lighter, why? multiply the force at 9gs a 30 tonnes aircraft sufffers and oe of 15 tonnes.

So the F-14 was a better dogfighter than F-111B and the F-14 had carried semi-recessed weapons stations

Now let us go F-106 and Mirage III, the F-106 was heavier and therefore it was not as agile as the tiny Mirage III whcih was a dogfighter while the F-106 an interceptor.

If i go to F-22 and Eurofighter, the F-22 needs thrust vectoring to achieve the same numbers Eurofighter why? weight and Eurofighter has the shape of a bullet

 

[Engineer]

It was a sarcastic joke, internal weapons bays have advantages under some circunstances, they are good for stealth i do not deny they increase LO, but they come with an increase of internal volume and increase size that negates the fact the aircraft has a clean wing in example F-22.

Engineers since 1942 knew external weapons stations reduce the size of the aircraft thus while you have some drag by positioning the weapon stations, the gains will depend on the mission.

In the F-16A of 1974 the aircraft carry few AIM-9s thus it was a good trade off, compare the size of a F-106 and a F-16, Convair, later Lockheed knew F-106 had advantages by carrying its Genie missiles internally but the F-106 is 21 meters long and much more heavier than a Mirage III carrying a few Magics or an F-16

Internal weapons were mostly used on large aircraft since WWII and some aircraft like the Avenger and the Judy, the reason is the B-29 for example was huge so it needed a clean wing for range and the engines were on the wings, so the internal weapons bays were okay, on a fighter like hellcat it was not good, the need was for a big engine inside the fuselage and a smallest internal volume and weight rejected the internal weapon bay.

F-111B again used an internal weapons bay, were they supposed to carry AIM-54s but the aircraft was huge for a carrier, so F-14 needed a smaller size and that was achieved by external pallets in few words external weapons stations and the F-14 was even more agile than F-111B.

So the problem here is for what you want the internal bay, for stealth okay, for drag? well it will depend upon the mission, can you get less drag with semi recessed weapon stations? the answer is yes the F-15 and Eurofighter are examples

Flawed argument, because you reversed the cause and effect. What you said above is like saying "rich people are forced to buy fancy cars, so being poor is better." No, that isn't how it works.

Internal weapon bays don't make aircraft large. Rather, it is large aircraft can afford internal weapon bays. The multiple examples you have provided prove this, because as soon as an aircraft gets big enough, engineers opt for internal weapon bay to reduce drag.

Small aircraft have no choice but to settle for more draggy external stores. In the case like Eurofighter, semi-recessed hard points were developed to imitate internal weapon bays. Why imitate internal weapon bay if carrying them externally is so good? So that alone is enough to debunk your theory.

 

[Engineer]

That is not true, example are a lot

Which aircraft used internal weapons bays in WWII? all large aircraft or attack aircraft, all fighters did not.

In the Korean war was the same.

Example of two similar aircraft F-111B and F-14 and F-106 and Mirage III.

F-111B was larger and heavier thanks to its weapons bays, F-14 was lighter and more agile.

being smaller and lighter means the internal structure is stronger and lighter, why? multiply the force at 9gs a 30 tonnes aircraft sufffers and oe of 15 tonnes.

So the F-14 was a better dogfighter than F-111B and the F-14 had carried semi-recessed weapons stations

Now let us go F-106 and Mirage III, the F-106 was heavier and therefore it was not as agile as the tiny Mirage III whcih was a dogfighter while the F-106 an interceptor.

You are wrong. Why? Because internal weapon bay exists. If internal weapon bay only provides benefit of stealth, there would be absolutely no reason for non-stealthy platform to use one. So, the existence of non-stealth aircraft with internal bay proves that internal bay has aerodynamic benefits. It is simple logic.

If i go to F-22 and Eurofighter, the F-22 needs thrust vectoring to achieve the same numbers Eurofighter why? weight and Eurofighter has the shape of a bullet

The F-22 has higher supercruise speed than Eurofighter, not the same speed. Nice try with the lies though. F-22 has internal bay, Eurofighter doesn't. F-22 doesn't loose aerodynamic performance by carrying weapons, but Eurofighter does because external stores creates drag.

And no, Eurofighter certainly does not have a shape of a bullet, since Eurofighter is not axis-symmetrical.

 

[Air Force Brat]

You can red herring and divert attention all you want, but that tactic is not going to work with me. Wing has been invented for over a hundred years, but obviously the wings of today are different to that on Wright's Flyer. So your comparison of F-22's internal weapon bay to that on WWI aircraft is very silly.

External stores produce drag, a lot of it. Eurofighter's need to incoporate recessed hard points proves this. Still, the Eurofighter has lower supercruise speed, even though the former has a higher thrust-to-weight ratio. So, it isn't just about the engines, it is about aerodynamics, and it proves carrying weapons internally is more aerodynamically efficient than externally.

Exactly, in fact while the F-15 has a higher thrust to weight ratio than the F-22, the F-22 has a substantially higher climb rate, proving a much more efficient lift to drag ratio for the F-22.

 

[b787]

Exactly, in fact while the F-15 has a higher thrust to weight ratio than the F-22, the F-22 has a substantially higher climb rate, proving a much more efficient lift to drag ratio for the F-22.

yes i am sure that the MiG-31 that reaches 2.8 Mach but accelerates very slow has no relation to the engine, same the Me-262, that could be hunted at take offs and landings but was almost 200km faster than piston engine p-51s was not related to the engine.

Yes of course the F-119 is not a newer engine than F-100