I had a book on the Sabre as a kid and it’s been one of my favorites ever since. They showed this in the book but didn’t really cover it, it’s super cool to finally learn about it
Hi Ed, you never fail to surprise and delight me. The F-86 remains in my heart as the most beautiful fighter I have ever seen. I think of it as the prototypic fighter, much as I consider the Centurion tank to be the prototypic tank. I had assumed that I knew about as much about this model as anyone. Apparently not. So thanks very much for getting my head out of my %%%%. Fair shakes to the venerable F-101 Voodoo, an aircraft with a long service life, with the RCAF in particular. Your comment on the NACA inlets makes great sense, inasmuch as high AOA was not the consideration that it should have been. The B-47 and B-52 certainly carried the weight of future conflicts, and as we know, the B-52 is likely to outlive multiple generations of its pilots. Thanks again, mate, for setting me straight. Cheers.
The NACA inlets were SUBsonic only. They just don’t work at sonic velocities. The F-86C taught that. Sonic inlets require a different design to get clean air to the engine.
Interesting. For a brief time in the early 50s it looks like the USAF actually more usable jet designs than they knew what to do with. But what was also happening was engine development and research into supersonic flight meant designs like YF-93 became quickly obsolete.
Hadn't heard of this particular aircraft. Based on what we know now, it probably would've been phased out fairly quickly if it had gone into production so it doesn't hurt as much as some of the other good designs that didn't make it for one reason or another. It's kind of poetically appropriate that the only examples built were actually used to chase after newer designs... Also, I was thinking that photo of the XF-88 looked *really* familiar just as you switched to the F-101, thanks. :-)
Thanks for a truly amazing video, and the research behind it, of an aicraft even a navgeek like me hasn't heard of, but should have done. Now, thanks to you, I do! Brilliant stuff.
The YF-93 is a rare bird in any inventory. The portly fuselage is housing a centrifugal-flow turbojet and, I think, is the only centrifugal-flow jet to receive an afterburner.
Oh, the Lockheed jet. Yes, the XF-90, not this video's subject, the XF-93. Wingtip tanks and mid-level horizontal stabilizer on the XF-90. Although, it looks like they used a "T-tail" for Wonder Woman's jet...at least one version of her jet, anyway. A T-tail jet of the same time period was the Martin XB-51.
That XF-** looks a lot like the VS. Swift !!. Until you look at the back end that is. But then the YF-93A has the back end of the Swift. Just thought I'd point that out.
So, lf the F-86 Sabre is a First Generation Jet Fighter, are the Me-262A Schwalbe, Gloster Meteor, DH Vampire, Dassault Mystere, Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star Zeroth Generation Jet Fighters? Now, I am pretty confused generationally on Jet Fighters ...
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters I'd like to second the Fury nomination, although there might have to be a separate video on the FJ4 (my favourite) because it was so different from the others it could have been designated a totally different aircraft.
You always throw out these odd planes, and commentors always say "wow, I never heard of that". But I always have. From WWI to the 60s, you have never caught me yet; I'm pretty well versed in aviation history and know the off-the-wall planes. Well, you finally did it. Never heard of this one. I owe you your choice of a beer or a cigar, payable upon demand.
Me too. I'd NEVER heard of this bird. Again, the adage of " If it looks like it'll fly well, it will." is true here. You can look at the intakes and feel that they wouldn't work well in landing in a high angle of attack landing. Angle them down at the bottom and increase the size maybe. Seeing the good parts of the 86, the most beautiful fighter ever made (IMOHO) looked good, but the nose is too long (I know, radar and such mad it necessary but the 86-D did it with a bit if style even if it wasn't a clean and beautiful as the initial planes) so it just looked "sloppy" in comparison. The 101 was a sharp and beautiful beast! I guess it was the parent of the F-4 with the twin engines exhausting under the tail. Anyway, FANTASTIC info! I'd have loved to see it doing a low level pass.
G'day, OK... Have you ever heard of..., "The 8 Hp, 1975, Red Baron Skycraft Scout ; World's 1st Legal Minimum Aircraft...!" ? That's the title of a ten year-old Slide-Show using old Photo's and magazine articles to nail down the timeline...; and about 4 months ago I made the pilgrimage, afterwards posting, "National Transportation Museum...; Visiting My First Aeroplane !" You fancy yourself an authority on rare and obscure Levitation Technology (?) ; then feast your eyes on what took moi aloft for my First Solo, back in 1978, when it was "freshly obsolete"... Just(ifiably ?) sayin'. Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
It is reminiscent of the Vought Crusader III proposed high speed high altitude interceptor based off of the YF-8 Concept, which obviously came after this YF-93a
Seeing the Voodoo does rankel a bit as a Canadian as that was the poor replacement of the Avro Arrow that was canceled after four where built and then all where scrapped and hushed up as if the plane never existed.
Agreed! The Arrow was a far superior aircraft in it's build. It just had bad timing when we discovered that we didn't need this type of interceptor any longer. Sad. Sometimes you want a bird built just because it is so damned beautiful. Seems every time a great aircraft that's sleek and fast is built, all of a sudden they want to change it to ground attack or low level light bombing. Still loved the Arrow!
@@guaporeturns9472 It never went into service but flight testing did occur and it was a hell of a plane. Politics and U.S. strong-arming killed this incredible machine.
Technology was changing so fast at the time. Plus airframes, especially military ones only have so much development potential before you are better off with a new design.
Every time I hear that _"...was eventually_ (for whatever reason) _scrapped",_ it's like a punch in the guts. So much aviation history gone, all but forgotten (save for such places as here). Imagine how much worse it was for the poor sod with hands actually upon it, trying to preserve that history, back then, and being powerless to do so. That _really_ had to hurt.
2:27: The "aiming stripes" on the wing of the Mustang are interesting, have never seen that. Probably meant for holding position in a formation. Does anyone know what they were meant for?
Yeah, I think we are mostly familiar with the problems around the exercises with the Canberra. ie Simply flew too high and fast for fighters to catch it.
The other problem was the landing gear. The Japanese Defense force built a workshop that repaired damaged F-86's; Japan received 1 of every 2 fighters repaired. It was the beginnings of the Japanese Air Defense Force. Most of the work was at Tachikawa Air base
Such a cool, albeit chunky, fighter. It truly is a shame that so many concepts and prototypes like these end up being scrapped. I hope that whatever designs that either recently have been built, or will be built, will be saved somehow, for posterities' sake.
Another reason for the abandonment for the so-called "penetration fighter" (long range escort fighter) requirement was that all of the resulting aircraft were regarded as being too large and unwieldy to be competitive against enemy interceptor fighters. In addition, air-to-air refueling had been developed to the point where fighters able to carry sufficient fuel to fly long-range escort missions were no longer viewed as being required.
not sure if anyone mentioned this before but another factor that contributed to "killing" the specialized long range penetration fighter concept was the successful development by Boeing of it,s high flight speed and high pumping capacity "Flying Boom" method of inflight refueling for the USAF which showed greater promise. with relays of tanker planes based at strategic spots,the USAF could now do nonstop "fighter drags" from Point A to Point B pretty much anywhere in the world at will as well as strategic bomber support and later with jet heavy transports.
The reason the fuselage was so wide had to do with the "Tay" being a centrifugal type engine much wider than the typical J-47, Orenda, or J-73 that powered the production versions of the Sabre.
Ed, a quick FYI in case no one brought it up before: NACA is pronounced 'Nacka,' much like NASA! (Thanks for making my favorite aviation videos on TH-cam)
The Ryan aircraft was the Fireball of the mid 1940s. It had piston and jet power. The Dark Shark was made by Douglas in the early 1950s and used a counter rotating turboprop power. The video confused these two aircraft.
The mustang had not the range but not the 350 mph required to keep up with the super forts cruse speed. That last one was why the twin Mustang was called for. Laminated flow wings and twin powerful new Rolls 3000hp engines was what was asked for, only ten itims were passed on , so no saving on parts, as usual.
I would not call the Sabre or the Mig 15 first generation. First generation were the straight wing jets such as the P-80 or the Vampire, or the Meteor. The ME 262 has a claim for being a second generation with its swept wings.
Average service lifes of 1940’s and 50’s American fighters was short. Normally under a decade or shorter. This didn’t change until the century series jets were adopted.
But they did make a follow up, the Super Saber! It had a unique feature that distinguished it from the regular Saber…. A cape Why do ya think it was called the “Super” saber?
One reason would be (according to one of the 'a Pilot speaks' type videos knocking around on You Tube somewhere - Think its in the series done by that Geordie bloke) ...... If you made the correct but complex series of control movements the thing would do a complete backflip - Which was potentially incredibly a useful last resort move if you had an enemy fairly close behind - Joggle, joggle, pull-push & suddenly you're on *his* tail. However The 'super' name was more a marketing thing. And the same ability to backflip (a serendipitous discovery during a training dogfight) *at height* was realised to be associated with several 'mystery' crashes the type had suffered previously.
The C (YF-93) version puts me in mind of the never to leave the drawing board Messerschmitt Me P.1110. The Sabre already owed it's wing form to Messerschmitt and a lot of German tech made it's way into many post WWII types. The Bell X-5 being an almost rivet for rivet 'upgraded' copy of the Me P.1101, except for it having mechanical in-flight variable geometry wings as opposed to the manually changed wings (on the ground) on the German bird being a classic example of this acquired technology that was years ahead of what the allies had.
2000 miles range ? That's impressive but note it was WITH Tanks which means thats not nearly good enough to escort big bombers on deep penetration missions
Such a shame, and a nice looking plane. With a little more development, this design probably could have gone on and done a better job in Vietnam than the latter F-100 did. As a true fighter and not a ground attack plane, anyway, which is about all the F-100 was really used for. I bet its performance against Migs would have been much better and would have been a more formidable escort fighter than the F-4, which didn't really deliver well on promises of beyond visual range missile engagements or missile engagements in general against Migs either. Unfortunately, the defense complex has developed a lot of superior aircraft designs, that were scrapped for less capable designs.
Something of a question I've had in my head. Is there any use of something like a shotgun on aircraft,and if so how effective were they and how were they used. Was there any purpose built aircraft that had them installed? I figured you be the best place to ask. (sorry if someone has asked before)
I don't know about aircraft. But a few warships had their main guns out fitted for an anti-aircraft roll. Tirpitz and Yamato did have these shells that did act very much like a shotgun. Though I don't think they were very effective. I've seen nothing to show they ever hit anything with these shells.
The 1950s bomber interceptors like the Northrop F-89 were design to fire a salvo of Mighty Mouse folding fin aerial rockets at enemy bombers. The idea was similar to that of a scatter gun: fill the piece of sky containing an enemy bomber with a pattern of small rockets and enough of them should hit.
@Cancer McAids I meant early warplanes to interwar. I know the spread would be bad I imagine you would have to be pretty close to make it even somewhat effective. I just want to know if anyone tried early on in plane development.
I wonder why nobody after the WWII put a 57mm gun on a fighter/bomber type of an airplane. The 37mm was the largest except the 105mm of the C130 Gunship.
@Cancer McAids Thank you. I cannot think of a modern fighter/bomber aircraft even with a 30mm cannon. Except the A10 andAH64.A French arms designer had calculated in the 19th century that 37mm was the largest caliber that is possible to shoot as rapidly as a machinegun.
The Sabre was amongst the first of the SECOND generation of fighters and bombers the first (in the West, atleast !) were ALL either German or British . Not U.S!
P80 Shooting Star a usa first generation jet. Suppose it could be argued either way if the F86 was a first generation or second, but performance wise probably should be counted as 2nd gen as you say.
With the orders and requirements changing every 5 minutes, it must have been a soul-destroying experience for all the technical design and manufacturing experts. A hugely inefficient and demotivating use of America’s talent.
You have refined the forgotten aircraft space into a formidable niche for which you excel. Well done as always.
Every video he makes is dynamite! He really does knock the ball out of the park everytime!
A truly remarkable aircraft space for its time!
I had a book on the Sabre as a kid and it’s been one of my favorites ever since. They showed this in the book but didn’t really cover it, it’s super cool to finally learn about it
Was the book, Ray Wagner’s book on the F-86 Sabre?
3:03 Eddie Rickenbacker's old squadron, the 94th Aero Squadron "Hat In The Ring"!
I would say the F86 , and MiG 15, were second generation of jet aircraft, while the F80, Meter, and ME262 were the first jet generation.
Gloster Meteor?
Don't forget the Yak-15 and Mig-9.
And Vought Pirate, North American Fury, McDonnell Phantom and Banshee.
One of the defining characteristics of 2nd Gen jet fighters is afterburners and supersonic performance, which the Mig 15 and Sabre lacked.
@@benwilson6145No, the NCP Meter. M
Ed Nash is a legend.
Hi Ed, you never fail to surprise and delight me. The F-86 remains in my heart as the most beautiful fighter I have ever seen. I think of it as the prototypic fighter, much as I consider the Centurion tank to be the prototypic tank. I had assumed that I knew about as much about this model as anyone. Apparently not. So thanks very much for getting my head out of my %%%%. Fair shakes to the venerable F-101 Voodoo, an aircraft with a long service life, with the RCAF in particular.
Your comment on the NACA inlets makes great sense, inasmuch as high AOA was not the consideration that it should have been.
The B-47 and B-52 certainly carried the weight of future conflicts, and as we know, the B-52 is likely to outlive multiple generations of its pilots.
Thanks again, mate, for setting me straight. Cheers.
The NACA inlets were SUBsonic only. They just don’t work at sonic velocities. The F-86C taught that.
Sonic inlets require a different design to get clean air to the engine.
My favourite fighter ever, a perfect looking aircraft for its time.
Yup! Gals with lines FTW!
@2:06 that concept drawing is really just damn nice looking. Even in its final form. Not one I knew off either.
Interesting. For a brief time in the early 50s it looks like the USAF actually more usable jet designs than they knew what to do with. But what was also happening was engine development and research into supersonic flight meant designs like YF-93 became quickly obsolete.
I'm so glad to see a video on this plane, finally!
I'm hoping a vid on the XF-90 is next
Always interesting content
The one photo showing the speed brake(s) extended from the belly is interestingly very similar in location and shape to that used on the F-100.
It always blows my mind how people have no concept of keeping items like these for people to see in museums. Especially one of a kind airplanes!
At the end of most of these stories, my heart sinks when I hear "and they were finally, scrapped" :(
Same here...
Another very nice documentary. Thank you!
Hadn't heard of this particular aircraft. Based on what we know now, it probably would've been phased out fairly quickly if it had gone into production so it doesn't hurt as much as some of the other good designs that didn't make it for one reason or another. It's kind of poetically appropriate that the only examples built were actually used to chase after newer designs... Also, I was thinking that photo of the XF-88 looked *really* familiar just as you switched to the F-101, thanks. :-)
Thanks for a truly amazing video, and the research behind it, of an aicraft even a navgeek like me hasn't heard of, but should have done. Now, thanks to you, I do! Brilliant stuff.
The YF-93 is a rare bird in any inventory. The portly fuselage is housing a centrifugal-flow turbojet and, I think, is the only centrifugal-flow jet to receive an afterburner.
My word, the F-93 looks so good. Like the beefy landing gear. Nice.
Fun fact, the Lockheed jet was used as the basis for wonder woman's "inviso jet".
That's really cook to know. I can see it.
Talk about a deep penetration fighter
interesting but i just dont see it
Oh, the Lockheed jet. Yes, the XF-90, not this video's subject, the XF-93. Wingtip tanks and mid-level horizontal stabilizer on the XF-90. Although, it looks like they used a "T-tail" for Wonder Woman's jet...at least one version of her jet, anyway. A T-tail jet of the same time period was the Martin XB-51.
@@Andrew-13579 no the invio jet
Great vid, as usual.
That XF-** looks a lot like the VS. Swift !!. Until you look at the back end that is. But then the YF-93A has the back end of the Swift. Just thought I'd point that out.
So, lf the F-86 Sabre is a First Generation Jet Fighter, are the Me-262A Schwalbe, Gloster Meteor, DH Vampire, Dassault Mystere, Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star Zeroth Generation Jet Fighters?
Now, I am pretty confused generationally on Jet Fighters ...
Looks remarkably like the British P.1081 that was offerred to the Australian Air Force ( we went with our own variant of the Sabre, the CAC CA-27 ).
or a Supermarine Swift ??
More the ancestor to the Hawker Hunter…
Amazing video has always. Ed could you talk about the navalized sabre.You can barely find videos on them
Funnily enough was thinking about the Fury today!
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters I'd like to second the Fury nomination, although there might have to be a separate video on the FJ4 (my favourite) because it was so different from the others it could have been designated a totally different aircraft.
You always throw out these odd planes, and commentors always say "wow, I never heard of that".
But I always have. From WWI to the 60s, you have never caught me yet; I'm pretty well versed in aviation history and know the off-the-wall planes.
Well, you finally did it. Never heard of this one. I owe you your choice of a beer or a cigar, payable upon demand.
*greatsuccess.gif*
Me too. I'd NEVER heard of this bird. Again, the adage of " If it looks like it'll fly well, it will." is true here. You can look at the intakes and feel that they wouldn't work well in landing in a high angle of attack landing. Angle them down at the bottom and increase the size maybe. Seeing the good parts of the 86, the most beautiful fighter ever made (IMOHO) looked good, but the nose is too long (I know, radar and such mad it necessary but the 86-D did it with a bit if style even if it wasn't a clean and beautiful as the initial planes) so it just looked "sloppy" in comparison. The 101 was a sharp and beautiful beast! I guess it was the parent of the F-4 with the twin engines exhausting under the tail. Anyway, FANTASTIC info! I'd have loved to see it doing a low level pass.
G'day,
OK...
Have you ever heard of...,
"The 8 Hp, 1975, Red Baron Skycraft Scout ; World's 1st Legal Minimum Aircraft...!"
?
That's the title of a ten year-old Slide-Show using old Photo's and magazine articles to nail down the timeline...; and about 4 months ago I made the pilgrimage, afterwards posting,
"National Transportation Museum...; Visiting My First Aeroplane !"
You fancy yourself an authority on rare and obscure Levitation Technology (?) ; then feast your eyes on what took moi aloft for my First Solo, back in 1978, when it was "freshly obsolete"...
Just(ifiably ?) sayin'.
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
The original Sabre is SO cool.
Same designer as the F16 I believe. Another masterpiece.
Another obscure aircraft.....but you can see a little of the future F-100 in the YF-93A. Thanks for the post. May I suggest the Northrup C-125 Raider?
Oooohhh...nice! I've been meaning to do a few transports.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters As Mr Burns would say....EXXXXXCELLENT !
"The bombers will fly too high and too fast for interception". Where have we heard that before....1930s Europe perhaps?
XF90 Most gorgeous fighter/hood ornament ever. Really I had an auntie who had a '66 Bonneville and that was her hood ornament.
It's a pity they didn't keep one for the USAF Museum in Dayton.
It is reminiscent of the Vought Crusader III proposed high speed high altitude interceptor based off of the YF-8 Concept, which obviously came after this YF-93a
Seeing the Voodoo does rankel a bit as a Canadian as that was the poor replacement of the Avro Arrow that was canceled after four where built and then all where scrapped and hushed up as if the plane never existed.
Agreed! The Arrow was a far superior aircraft in it's build. It just had bad timing when we discovered that we didn't need this type of interceptor any longer. Sad. Sometimes you want a bird built just because it is so damned beautiful. Seems every time a great aircraft that's sleek and fast is built, all of a sudden they want to change it to ground attack or low level light bombing. Still loved the Arrow!
Replacement? Can’t replace something that wasn’t there to begin with. Arrow was never operational was it?
@@guaporeturns9472 It never went into service but flight testing did occur and it was a hell of a plane. Politics and U.S. strong-arming killed this incredible machine.
@@OldGeezer55 Yeah I know.. it was awesome. Money conquers all.. even dirty money.
Beautiful, clean lines!
Technology was changing so fast at the time. Plus airframes, especially military ones only have so much development potential before you are better off with a new design.
Great video!
Mr. Ed Nash,
can you also do a video on the Lockheed F-90 ?
Thank you.
Every time I hear that _"...was eventually_ (for whatever reason) _scrapped",_ it's like a punch in the guts. So much aviation history gone, all but forgotten (save for such places as here). Imagine how much worse it was for the poor sod with hands actually upon it, trying to preserve that history, back then, and being powerless to do so. That _really_ had to hurt.
Thanks Awesome Ed Nash...
Shoe🇺🇸
An interesting video. North America went on to produce the F-100 Super Sabre. And we cannot complain about the wonderful F-101 Voodoo.
2:27: The "aiming stripes" on the wing of the Mustang are interesting, have never seen that. Probably meant for holding position in a formation.
Does anyone know what they were meant for?
Yeah, I think we are mostly familiar with the problems around the exercises with the Canberra. ie Simply flew too high and fast for fighters to catch it.
That xp81 is a pretty plane!
The other problem was the landing gear. The Japanese Defense force built a workshop that repaired damaged F-86's; Japan received 1 of every 2 fighters repaired. It was the beginnings of the Japanese Air Defense Force. Most of the work was at Tachikawa Air base
Another fantastic "What If?"
This is so fascinating that it tickles me.
Such a cool, albeit chunky, fighter. It truly is a shame that so many concepts and prototypes like these end up being scrapped. I hope that whatever designs that either recently have been built, or will be built, will be saved somehow, for posterities' sake.
Did they empty and then drop the wingtip tanks first while on the way in?
How about a video about the 75mm cannon armed B25?
Another reason for the abandonment for the so-called "penetration fighter" (long range escort fighter) requirement was that all of the resulting aircraft were regarded as being too large and unwieldy to be competitive against enemy interceptor fighters. In addition, air-to-air refueling had been developed to the point where fighters able to carry sufficient fuel to fly long-range escort missions were no longer viewed as being required.
Reminds me of the Supermarine Swift.
I hope you do the XF-84H Thunderscreech.
Though, maybe it is too well-known.
Cheers.
☮
Happy to say I know about this one
not sure if anyone mentioned this before but another factor that contributed to "killing" the specialized long range penetration fighter concept was the successful development by Boeing of it,s high flight speed and high pumping capacity "Flying Boom" method of inflight refueling for the USAF which showed greater promise. with relays of tanker planes based at strategic spots,the USAF could now do nonstop "fighter drags" from Point A to Point B pretty much anywhere in the world at will as well as strategic bomber support and later with jet heavy transports.
How have I never heard of the B-45? literally looks like the F-86 to the MiG-15 but with the IL-28 being its counterpart.
"...and subsequently be scrapped."
Always sad to hear when every aircraft of its type is destroyed.
I love the F86 but this my first time seeing this version
The reason the fuselage was so wide had to do with the "Tay" being a centrifugal type engine much wider than the typical J-47, Orenda, or J-73 that powered the production versions of the Sabre.
Ed, a quick FYI in case no one brought it up before: NACA is pronounced 'Nacka,' much like NASA! (Thanks for making my favorite aviation videos on TH-cam)
The Ryan aircraft was the Fireball of the mid 1940s. It had piston and jet power. The Dark Shark was made by Douglas in the early 1950s and used a counter rotating turboprop power. The video confused these two aircraft.
Dark Shark was Ryan's successor to the Fireball.
NO. You're thinking of the A2D Skyshark.
@@米空軍パイロット Look up Ryan XF2R Dark Shark, he's right
@@SPak-rt2gb You're either not tracking who said what in this conversation or you're replying to the wrong comment.
@@米空軍パイロット Lol... Your Right, My Apologies
Wonder if any of the research into YF-93A went into the Fiat G.91 design ?
only heard of this playin IL-2 1946
Do we know what pilots thought about the YF93A?
The mustang had not the range but not the 350 mph required to keep up with the super forts cruse speed. That last one was why the twin Mustang was called for. Laminated flow wings and twin powerful new Rolls 3000hp engines was what was asked for, only ten itims were passed on , so no saving on parts, as usual.
Looking at the XF-90 "Penetration Fighter" gives me a 'special feeling'... Is that normal? (Asking for a friend.)
The true forgotten Sabre is the CAC CA-27 Sabre also the best Sabre
Imagine towing a Bowser glider on the way in. Probably wouldn't work but just imagine it.
I would not call the Sabre or the Mig 15 first generation. First generation were the straight wing jets such as the P-80 or the Vampire, or the Meteor. The ME 262 has a claim for being a second generation with its swept wings.
Seconded!
Wow, just look at all the jet fighters clones of the 262, oh, my, there’s not any. Too much credit is given to the Germans,
Wëhräböös must consider the DC 3 as a wünder plane, it had the same wing sweep as the sacred 262, have they forgotten the de Havilland Tiger Moth?
Scrapped! How sad they were not given to museums!
The AJ-1 Savage also had jets and piston engines, but wasn't a fighter I don't think
I will say one thing back when they were trying different designs, they tried every thing.
More aviation excellence, channels like this is why tv just isnt interesting anymore.
looks like the swift and its prototype 698.
Average service lifes of 1940’s and 50’s American fighters was short. Normally under a decade or shorter. This didn’t change until the century series jets were adopted.
But they did make a follow up, the Super Saber!
It had a unique feature that distinguished it from the regular Saber….
A cape
Why do ya think it was called the “Super” saber?
*superman.gif*
One reason would be (according to one of the 'a Pilot speaks' type videos knocking around on You Tube somewhere - Think its in the series done by that Geordie bloke) ......
If you made the correct but complex series of control movements the thing would do a complete backflip -
Which was potentially incredibly a useful last resort move if you had an enemy fairly close behind - Joggle, joggle, pull-push & suddenly you're on *his* tail.
However
The 'super' name was more a marketing thing.
And the same ability to backflip (a serendipitous discovery during a training dogfight) *at height* was realised to be associated with several 'mystery' crashes the type had suffered previously.
At a superficial glance it could be mistaken for a Swift!
The C (YF-93) version puts me in mind of the never to leave the drawing board Messerschmitt Me P.1110. The Sabre already owed it's wing form to Messerschmitt and a lot of German tech made it's way into many post WWII types. The Bell X-5 being an almost rivet for rivet 'upgraded' copy of the Me P.1101, except for it having mechanical in-flight variable geometry wings as opposed to the manually changed wings (on the ground) on the German bird being a classic example of this acquired technology that was years ahead of what the allies had.
2000 miles range ? That's impressive but note it was WITH Tanks which means thats not nearly good enough to escort big bombers on deep penetration missions
Looks like the forerunner to the F-4.
The Brits looked very close to this one for the Swift.
-"Joseph, where did you put the drawings for the Swift?"
-"Blast, I can't find them anywhere!"
Meanwhile at North American Aviation:
2nd gen... btw B36 was in service before the B50
Such a shame, and a nice looking plane. With a little more development, this design probably could have gone on and done a better job in Vietnam than the latter F-100 did. As a true fighter and not a ground attack plane, anyway, which is about all the F-100 was really used for. I bet its performance against Migs would have been much better and would have been a more formidable escort fighter than the F-4, which didn't really deliver well on promises of beyond visual range missile engagements or missile engagements in general against Migs either. Unfortunately, the defense complex has developed a lot of superior aircraft designs, that were scrapped for less capable designs.
Something of a question I've had in my head. Is there any use of something like a shotgun on aircraft,and if so how effective were they and how were they used. Was there any purpose built aircraft that had them installed? I figured you be the best place to ask. (sorry if someone has asked before)
I don't know about aircraft. But a few warships had their main guns out fitted for an anti-aircraft roll. Tirpitz and Yamato did have these shells that did act very much like a shotgun. Though I don't think they were very effective. I've seen nothing to show they ever hit anything with these shells.
@@jonmcgee6987 I think I know the shells your talking about. The Yamato's were called the beehives if I remember correctly.
The 1950s bomber interceptors like the Northrop F-89 were design to fire a salvo of Mighty Mouse folding fin aerial rockets at enemy bombers. The idea was similar to that of a scatter gun: fill the piece of sky containing an enemy bomber with a pattern of small rockets and enough of them should hit.
@@jonmcgee6987 I guess once you have the concept of *grapeshot* being used in field artillery its a logical extension.
@Cancer McAids I meant early warplanes to interwar. I know the spread would be bad I imagine you would have to be pretty close to make it even somewhat effective. I just want to know if anyone tried early on in plane development.
Biggest NACA ducts ever
A lot of people don't realize that Oprah's first giveaway was actually NACA ducts.
Is it just me, or does YF-317 look an awful lot like an F4 Phantom II??
Seems like it would have been better than the f-89, etc. that were slow radar patrol planes.
"We dont need escort fighters" proved a bit problematic in WWII
It kinda looks like the Supermarine Scimitar
Limited range was only ONE flaw.
Limited/poor turning-radius was a Fatal Flaw of the F86 !!
But it was more sexy looking than MIGs. 😂
I wonder why nobody after the WWII put a 57mm gun on a fighter/bomber type of an airplane. The 37mm was the largest except the 105mm of the C130 Gunship.
Too heavy
@@stewpacalypse7104 Thank you.
And holy crap the plane just stopped levels of recoil.
@@sugarnads Thank you.
@Cancer McAids Thank you. I cannot think of a modern fighter/bomber aircraft even with a 30mm cannon. Except the A10 andAH64.A French arms designer had calculated in the 19th century that 37mm was the largest caliber that is possible to shoot as rapidly as a machinegun.
Budget issues have killed more aircraft than enemy fire...
😛
Then there was the Sabre that went to sea.
Shoulda built a squadron with 10 backup craft
The Sabre was amongst the first of the SECOND generation of fighters and bombers the first (in the West, atleast !) were ALL either German or British . Not U.S!
P80 Shooting Star a usa first generation jet. Suppose it could be argued either way if the F86 was a first generation or second, but performance wise probably should be counted as 2nd gen as you say.
@@katywalker8322 We should also include the Douglas USN FH Phantom as a first generation. As well as the North American USN FJ Fury.
It is NOT pounds of force...it is pounds of thrust!
👍👍
With the orders and requirements changing every 5 minutes, it must have been a soul-destroying experience for all the technical design and manufacturing experts. A hugely inefficient and demotivating use of America’s talent.
A PO-2 once shot down a F-94 in korea
biggest naca ducts i've ever seen!
F-86 was a mid second generation fighter.