Thanks for the detailed analysis of the F-94 series. This video has more meaning to me than to many who will watch it. My father was a back seater in an F-94B during the Korean War. I am named after his best friend who was killed in a landing accident on his last mission before he was due to ship out back to the U.S.
I'm really glad you thought it was interesting. There are so many heart-wrenching stories of people who 'nearly' make it out of these conflicts alive but are got by fate at the last minute :(.
Wow, Lance! What a legacy to live up to! Did your dad ever keep in touch with his friend's widow and her family? That would make you almost a part of their family because of you being the namesake....
My granddad flew all versions of this aircraft. He loved it BECAUSE of the technology. Sure, it had its issues. But as he said, the first 15 years of transition into jet aircraft was problems on ALL aircraft. The industry didn't truly find its feet until the early 60s.
Next, the Sabre Dog? 😎 THANKS for bringing these old aircraft and times to light. People were trying to drive new, unproven concepts and technology to meet pressing needs. I was born in '56, so these planes and times form some of my earliest memories.
I’m getting the sense that I need to speed up on my production of that one!! Thanks so much for the positive comment - I’m glad you’re enjoying these… and it’s great that there are others that share my niche aircraft interests!!
Great video, I've always found this era of fighter aircraft, where they went from guns to unguided missiles before guided missiles existed to be really fascinating.
The analysis of the strategic context, and how it affected the design, is excellent. This is much more than a "it goes x mph" video. I love "improvised" design stories (like the Harrier and the Sten gun), and this a great one told well. Many thanks for sharing this 😊.
By three minutes in I had to stop and subscribe and tell you that I truly appreciate your style and cadence of presenting the information. Also and more important, of the general information about this subject the time period and many detail I already think we share, especially it seems about deeper details and even minutia of military aviation it's obvious your knowledge and research is spot on, I can trust you about the things I don't already know! Thank you and I'm eagerly looking forward to your channel!
Well balanced commentary, in which I, in the main, agree, for the scant weight I may bring to the arguments. I express this view from the perspective of a quite brief role as an RO in the F-94C in 1958, just out of the F-89D training program at James Connelly AFB. Thank you for the memory.
The older I get the more sense these decisions make. Estimating what you'll need 3-5 years down the road based on emerging technologies and emerging threats is rolling the Magic 8-Ball. There will be lots of dead-ends simply because making no decision is the worst decision.
IDK not spending any money on most of this bullshit and instead building massive civilian infrastructure seems like a way better decision that everyone constantly mentioned, even Eisenhower. All this did was force Soviets into trying to match making them go more evil as well. The military industrial complex needs to be questioned at every juncture.
Yup, look at some of the concepts that people had of what the next war would be like in the mid 1930’s. Or the whole middle vs guns argument in the 1950’s
My dad flew back seat on an F-94A in 1950. He had to take a blanket with him to throw over his head to block the sunlight so he could see the radar screen, because it was too dim to be seen during the day. Considering what a flying coffin that plane was, the big mystery to me is how he and the pilot could fit their giant brass balls into the tiny space of that cockpit.
@mrj4990 you should really go back and take a look at the accident rate during that time. The aircraft were a lot less reliable and the training exercises were much more difficult.
You should do an episode on the Avro CF-100 Canuck. It was a contemporary of the F-94, but seems to have had a better reputation and service life. Interesting videos. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the comment and the kind words. It is on my list! I’m somewhat starting from scratch on it because it was an aircraft I’d heard of but essentially knew nothing about. It’ll make the process fun, but takes a while. In doing so I’m also trying to get my head around how Canada and the US worked together on continental defence… lots to do :)
I know a former RCAF CF-100 pilot. He might be able to give some insight and comment at least by email. Also, which Soviet bombers could actually reach the lower 48 US states, and at which time periods? Was the threat actual? Or did we have a scramble to deploy interceptors with nothing to really ever intercept, at least for the US?
@@notapound It's amazing to me, that an aircraft that was the best all weather interceptor in North America, and for a while Europe, is so unknown by people outside of Canada. Everything in this video you keep talking about US aircraft being the best at this, or the best at that, when the CF-100 was doing those aircraft's jobs and more, better. And as a final point of reference, it's pronounced Canuck as in Can-uck (like duck). I keep hearing people pronounce it Cannoook.
There was a test done of outfitting the F-94C with the GAR-1, later called the AIM-4 Falcon air-to-air missile. In theory the F-94C models could have received an upgrade for a better radar system, deletion of the rocket battery, and addition of two underwing pylons in place of the wing rocket pods. However, the F-86D was a fair air-to-air interceptor, at least 60 MPH faster, and it largely replaced the F-94 until the advent of the F-102.
I got buzzed by a pair of F-94C when I was fishing in the middle of a lake in the upper Peninsula of Michigan. They almost pancaked on top of me and the lead plane took three feet off the top of a tree trying to pull out. There had been many reports of UFO in that period. Most seem to have been from miscalibrated radar getting echos off the moon.
My grandparents were almost fucking scared to death once by two C-130s who were seemingly on a bet of who could fly the lowest. They flew not 10 meters above them, scattered the horse pulling their wagon, and missed an eucalyptus by less than two meters. Awesome.
I think this nonsense was common behavior. My dad told me about one of his backseaters who desperately wanted to buzz things - to the point of being an ass. He finally went to flight school and tried a low level roll in front of his family's lake house (MN I think). He touched a wing to the water and died in front of his family. What's the saying about there being no "old, bold" pilots? The accident rate back then was already horrific. My father kept track of his flight school class for about a decade and about 10% of the people had a little X with a date next to their photo.
One interesting footnote to all this is that this exercise must have been some kind of coming-out party for the Air Force. It was a brilliant political move because it highlighted a present threat to the nation that was on everyone's minds, simulated it with their own bombers, showing off that capability, and defended with fighters/interceptors, the other major capability of the Air Force and one that presented a solution to everyone's worry.
Great vid. A well balanced and easy to watch appraisal of an overlooked aircraft, and indeed an under documented facet of air warfare history. You've earned a sub based solely on this, cheers ,👍🏻
This is another excellent video. It is well presented with non-generic imagery, which is all-too-common in other videos. Your channel has very quickly become a personal favorite. As an aside, your narration reminds me of the late, great Luke Swann.
Thanks so much for the comment! I’m glad you enjoyed it! I’m trying hard to put in at least some original diagrams and charts into the videos. Definitely pushing my limited Procreate skills… my ambition is to make more ‘combat manoeuvring’ animations in the future, alongside technical diagrams adapted from various contemporary manuals.
I like the "cover artwork", sums up the image of the F-94 in my head as a "Dan Dare" futuristic aircraft. Another type for consideration along with the F-86D mentioned by a number of people, would be the Douglas F3D Skyknight - which had a good record in Korea as a nightfighter.
I enjoy your details on radars and fire control systems used in various aircraft. Excellent technical prowess. You didn't mention it, but, years ago I had been told that use of the nose rockets was eventually discontinued due to their tendency to induce a flameout.
One of the aircraft I've never heard of before. As a military aviation fan when I was a kid, the WWII, Sabre or Shooting Star, 100 series and modern planes were cool, but I never heard of this era's numerous examples. They weren't in the books. I love that you cover these planes and the doctrine they were to have executed.
It might have been a dog, but Revell put out a F94C plastic model in the 1950s, and at 8 or 9 years old, I thought it was the coolest in my collection.
Excellent video, subscribed. My earliest memories of aircraft were Starfires practicing dogfighting over my house in the early 50s. By the time I was old enough to really appreciate them, the model had faded into obscurity.
Your work is brilliant! No one has provided such detail about an aircraft that has been so easily forgotten as the war it fought in. My father flew in the B model during the war with the 68th FIS. Looking forward to watching all of your other videos.
You make a really good point. Many aircraft that people deem to be a "failure" or a "waste of money" serve the valuable purpose of developing technology that makes a future fighter invaluable. Just like people wonder why we have to keep making new aircraft. It is obvious that if we don't, we will forget how. And I always ask these people, would you want to go into combat in a car that is 15-20 years old? Most people that don't face the problems of other people just never think about it. This also shows how many problems the military has with every fighter they ever made. None ever live up to the hype. There are always problems to be solved. And they usually get solved when the manufacturers are allowed to keep working on it. The difference today is that if a system is not perfect from the beginning, the press and public is simply breathless about how catastrophic it is, and are so ready to pull the plug. Thank goodness our military leaders are more practical and adult about it.
There’s a kind of industrial memory about how to design and produce these technologies, and an organisational one to introduce and refine them. Generational capabilities that can’t be fast tracked.
also, the city Spokane in Eastern Washington is (usually) pronounced Spo-can (long O, but a short A). Awesome video. Those are the only nit-picks I can find & neither greatly affects the quality.
Really interesting video on a plane I've been interested in but haven't looked into much. I appreciated your conclusion as well. Looking forward to your F-89 vid next!
If the Starfire is successful in strategic viewpoint, then the MIG-21 is arguably the most successful interceptor ever built from tactical standpoint in human history, while the F-5 is one the most successful dedicated fighter ever made from both strategic and tactical standpoint.
Se entiende la ironía...pero voy a citar lo que lei dicho por sus propios pilotos;"podemos agarrar a los Rusos a menos que...este lloviendo o sea de noche"....
@@Frankie5Angels150: The eagle is a great fighter but it has never gone against a pure adversary, not once! Infinite means nothing when you’re adversaries is trash
The scenario you set up at the start is actually frighteningly similar to a real occurance. Of January 23 1961, where a pair of B52s where in the air over Carolina as at the time they were expecting a nuclear exchange at any moment, met in climate weather and were forced to drop their loads to be able to ride out a storm. When the bombs were recovered from a field outside the Goldsboro North Carolina it was found that one of the bombs was actually armed and a single low voltage switched had prevented the hydrogen bomb from detonating.
The “almost detonation” part is not true. For classified reasons I cannot say why here, but a lot is involved in detonating an American nuclear device. Those criteria were not engaged for The Goldsboro Incident.
Some documentation indicates that on the recovery of the bomb it was found that 5 out of 6 steps taken to detonate the bomb were initiated, with the final step, a small low voltage switch(which was never intended to stop the bomb detonating without the other measures in place)being the only thing not engaged on the bomb. So I'd be inclined to say that 'nearly detonated' is a good enough description, as 6/6 safeties should have been engaged when that bomb fell out of the sky over Northern Carolina.
Also, LOL, try not to cut yourself on your own edginess mate. Those bombs have been out of service for like 60 years and have no doubt all been decommissioned by this point, there is nothing really classified about the steps that were required before they could detonate. The incident has been declassified and the documentation about it publicly avaliable.
@@rileyernst9086 Yes, quite a lot of the safety and command and control systems in use at that time are still classified, and will probably remain so forever ... for reasons you probably cannot understand.
@@notapoundo no no, niche is YOUR niche. There's a million Spitfire vs BF109, Spit or Mustang?, how the Me262 could have changed everything videos and so on. You're like the Allied version of channel "Paper Skies". I mean that as high praise because that's my favorite vintage military aviation channel but you're hot on his heels.
@@notapound It's more about creating a catalogue of good listening. I don't think there's such a thing as niche for aviation nuts. Especially when one aircraft contributes to the others like you mention in this video. It's great to learn about how they mostly all benefit from each predecessors successes or failures.
@@bcluett1697I meant to say that youtube is loaded with videos about all the famous planes like Spit or Mustang, The Merlin engine, did Adolf have secret Stealth tech, the secret nazi rocket plane that dissolved it's pilots and so on. They are great to get people in to historical military aviation but covering the period just after WWII on through the cold war is really the golden years of aviation. It's nice having a channel like this which forgoes the famous planes unless it's a little know story. That's all
Good Video. I Know This Is Not Relevant But 55 Years Ago I Remember Walking To Burt's Five & Dime & Buying This Model. Some Memories Never Fade. Thank You.
@@steveturner3999 You Know, I Was Trying To Remember If It Was Aurora Or Not. I Remember When The Law Changed & I Couldn't Buy The Glue Anymore & My Dad Bought A Tube For Me At Pak-A-Sak!
Great video once again. Couple of voice bloopers you could have re-recorded but nothing too serious! You could have maybe also have used some outro music for the final black screen. Otherwise, really great stuff! Your script and narration are excellent, with excellent composition and am avoidance of cliches that are all to common on TH-cam. Keep it up!
Another great video. I have noticed that the audio volume is much higher than your earlier videos. Not exactly sure how that happened but it is much appreciated!
Wow, you can really see the speed reduction induced on the C model after the rockets were fired 16:25 You definitely wouldn't want to do that close to stall speed
@@notapound There was an early Soviet jet (I'm thinking a fighter but surely it must have been anti-tank?) which had a cannon so powerful it damn near stalled when it fired. That said the RAF had a couple of similar problems mounting relatively bloody enormous very slow firing canon for anti-shipping attempts circa 1941 / 42 I've very vague recollection they may have tried resurfacing the idea with some of their 'Tsetse' Mosquitoes after the war too.
Is this a recoil/aerodynamic effect or is it due to the engines ingesting rocket exhaust? 16:20 shoes the aircraft dropping the nose after firing the nose rockets, but 16:23 and 16:30 both firing the wing pods without a noticeable dip of the aircraft.
A time of rapid technical advancement and fundamental changes in strategy when the possibility of nuclear war with the Soviet Union was very much on everyone's mind. When it wasn't clear which way the technology would go or what would be needed, the only safe thing to do was to try everything. The fifties must have been a great time to be an engineer.
@danpatterson8009...Yes, and I imagine that there was never dull moment with everything advancing and changing so quickly, not only for engineers but the maintenance crews and of course the pilots. It took all of these incremental steps and gap filling planes to acquire the technology and know-how to develop the modern fighters & bombers. The other part of the 50's military development was the R & D of rockets. That was another field that was constantly changing & improving, and led to NASA and to the Moon.
An early cold war scenerio you may be interested in is the Cathay Pacific VR-HEU incident, or more specifically the aftermath where two A-1 skyraiders shot down a pair of PLAAF LA-7s.
That Sounds like a cool story! I never knew that! That easily could have gone the other way too since the La-7 was like the pinnacle (well maybe La-9 was the top of the series) of the La-5/7 series. But still very cool! 👍
My father flew F-94Cs for a few years in the late 50s. I remember him saying that they were happy to get the F-89s. I think it might have been the model that he used to take my grandfather for a ride - a memorable day for a South Dakota farmer. Yes, the rules were a bit more lax back in the day.
My mother's first husband flew the trainer variant in the early fifties at Webb AFB, TX. Later in the fifties he lost his life in a night training mission in Africa while flying the F86 Saber.
Good information on these early jets.The P 40 early versions were designated Tomahawks.These were easily identified by the 2 50 cals firing thru the propeller.2 30 cal on each wing.This was the model flying Dec. 7th.Next version known as the Kitty hawk had 6 50s,3 per wing.Warhawk was applied to later versions.Info from the book The Flying Tigers.
Judging from many of your thumbnails such as here borrowed from the box art of the original issue of the Lindberg, Lockheed F-94C "Starfire," plastic kit, do you collect these vintage models? Anyway, outstanding story on this lesser known, cold war, USAF fighter. Thanks for sharing!
Good video, learned a few things. One thing is being harsh on the ejection seat isn't that fair considering it is one of the first operational seats and wasn't very mature so for its time it was ok. The problems you mentioned may have to do with pilots ignoring the warnings about seated knee length which required either not flying or using a narrow packed parachute that should be checked before flight. The F-94C had a unique seat design that was developed for exactly that reason, with a modification to move the catapult to the side of the seat back. That allowed the seat back to be a few inches thinner and thus the crew had more reasonable knee length restrictions. The other thing about the large scope in the back seat of the C model was it folded up out of the way when not in use and for entry/exit. As part of the pre-ejection system it would be retracted by a thruster to allow the seat to clear. The offset catapult was only used in two other aircraft and was coupled with an interesting telescoping rail system.
I dedicated myself to collecting all the "Great Planes" series about a decade ago when I found them by chance and realised the series was already 30yrs old. Your narration style is awfully close to that of the Great Planes series narrator (in only a handfull of the titles) who sounded more Australian. Your research and editing is by far better than any aircraft covered by that series especially as you cover spin offs of the main aircraft types aswell.
The nose gun arrangement on the Lockheed P-80 (later, F-80) was quite similar to the nose gun arrangement on the Lockheed P-38 (no surprise, given the rapid development of the P-80, that existing designs would be employed in the aircraft to save time, cost & effort).
at 2:56 - are those 3 radars in New Mexico the same ones that came online shortly before the Roswell incident in 1947? The first of a new generation of high powered radars that allegedly downed a UFO, with the object crashing right in the middle of the three installations?
On my list as it’s essential to understand North American air defence in the period. I’m struggling to resist my urge to make a dozen interceptor deep dives… Canuck, Sabre Dog, Javelin, Twin Mustang, Fishpot, Flagon… Good for the soul, but probably not for the health of the channel! Thanks for the comment!
Thanks for this very interesting video on,the F-94, probably the best i saw on this airplane as i know next to nothing. It did had it's ugly share of serious problems but slowly but surely it became a reliable aircraft. Good job 👏 👍 8
18.24 graph is bizarre, P61 service ceiling is way more than 11000 feet, and F82 service ceiling is at least, the same as a regular Mustant, so 35000 feet minimum
Always have had kind of a soft spot for the F-94. My favorite version is the B version. Have to get around to building my Heller 1/72 scale kit one of these days! But anyway excellent job on this one, going to watch the F-89 Scorpion one next! 👏
When I ws a child, annual birthday parties for a great grandfather were held at a recreation center that had what looked like one of these on display. I could squeeze into its vacant engine compartment through one of the air intakes, or more easily through its exhaust opening.
@@raymondclark1785 the story is….the UFO was tracked on radar and was deemed an unknown, so Kinross AFB launched the F-89 to investigate….the UFO was likely defending itself.
Remember fighters are used for defense or gaining air superiority so the attack aircraft can go their thing. I love all aircraft so it’s not a big deal that you only like fighters but remember their job is for clearing the skies to let the real work begin pounding the enemy into submission.
The F94 was out of service by the time i became an Intercept Control Tech in 1962 But there were still F-89's in ANG units and using them to defend the US against TU-95's would be a nightmare
Thanks for the comment. I also wondered about this. The possibility isn’t mentioned anywhere. My conclusion is that speed of development meant that the ‘A’ just continued with the Shooting Star armament. There was general disappointment that the rockets weren’t available for the ‘B’, so I imagine they were expected and therefore an alternative wasn’t developed. In the F-89 video I did a size comparison between the Scorpion and the P-80. The former is much bigger, which gives the additional space one needs for the cannons, ammunition and the case collection system. Perhaps it just wasn’t possible to package cannons in the F-94?airframe alongside radar etc?
@@notapound the expectation of the rockets was probably why the development wasn't put into making 20mm work But then again if you are rushing an interim system don't change something that doesn't need to be
The big problem with autocannon available at the time was that they were lacking in rate of fire and muzzle velocity, while being a lot heavier than the 50 cal. That extra weight meant that you weren't really looking at a 1-to-1 replacement. It might be closer to replacing 2 50 cal with 1 autocannon. So overall, they might be a little more effective against bombers in a high speed pass, but even that wasn't so clear. Rockets seemed to be the most promising alternative, combining heavy firepower with light weight.
BTW: The Tu4 (Bull) was a rivet for rivet copy of the B-29 since 3 damaged B-29s had landed in the USSR during the last few months of WW2 in the Pacific. The only big differences was the use of Soviet engines and the use of 23mm machine cannons in larger turrets .vs. the B-29's .50 machineguns.... The use of 23mm machine cannons was one of the reasons that the use of rockets to shoot down the Tu-4. Plus the fact that the Tu-4 would be carrying nukes meant that they wanted to shoot down the "Bull" on the first pass! Hence a rocket that would hit like a 75mm HE shell. Finally the Tu-4 had 5 turrets, including the Tail Turret!!
In today's USAF there is a professional corps of Enlisted GCI controllers. the AFSC 1C5 - formerly Aerospace Control & Warning Systems, now Command & Control Battle Management Operations - specially selects Airmen in the rank of Senior Airman or above to become Weapons Directors, the official duty title of Enlisted Controllers. WDs are the primary controllers in the Air Force's ground based field deployable CRC Air Control Squadrons. WDs are have done the brunt of the tactical control over Iraq & Afghanistan since the earliest days of Operations Northern & Southern Watch. WDs were the first Enlisted career field with an advanced course at US Air Force Weapons School (receiving a different graduate patch prior to 2016), and in the 337th Air Control Squadron at Tyndall AFB, Enlisted controllers train the Officer controller students that will end up as crews that man E-3 AWACS, as well as limited positions in the CRCs as well. USAF Enlisted Controllers are considered as qualified, if not more so than Officer equivalents in other forcers.
True. My understanding was that it wasn’t used for Continental air defence though? It was for theatre use… I’ve been thinking about a video on it and the ‘K’ as they’re pretty interesting aircraft. Thanks for the comment!
That P 61 black widow might have looked sleek and like it could’ve taken care of business if called on to do so but once you stripped back the veneer it was a piece of Northrop junk! It flew so-so but it was a pain in the neck to maintain and the radar on it constantly broke down, giving maintenance crews one hell of a headache.
You need to look at it in the time that it it first became operational. Its first flight was in 1942 and it became operational in 1944. It was obsolete in the late 40's because technical matters had moved way beyond what it was capable of so rapidly.
@@donadams8345 You’re 100% correct. However, even in World War II when it did work it was a plagued with mechanical and avionics related problems. Aside from what all I have read about that airplane I met a man who was in the US Army Air Corps back then and actually worked on P-61s. As he put it “of all aircraft I worked on the one that was the biggest maintenance pig was the black widow.“ He added “every time we saw one of those airplanes being towed our way we all thought to ourselves oh great…what broke this time!?“
@@notapound I like your channel. Something to watch while I wait for Ed Nash's Military Matters to upload a new video. I also find it funny that you leave in long pauses to read what you are going to say next.
Having the only confirmed kill with an E series weapons controls system is wild, it shows how unreliable all the rocket guidance systems were, and how great of an all weather aircraft the F-94 is. Maybe in the numbers the F-94 is bad, but it was probably more effective than any of the pre-century series interceptors considering the F86D and F89 rocket targeting systems never worked, and arguably more effective than the F-102 considering that the AIM-4 sucked and the F-102 couldn't maneuver (it wasn't designed to maneuver but the F-102 ended up in dogfighting situations in Vietnam anyway).
As Soviet B-29s could only reach parts of the US on one-way missions the tests were more about possible future bomber threats. It was more a contest of perceptions - the Soviets would claim to have an effective Strategic bomber force (they didn’t) and the US would make a show of having an interceptor force.
I read Field Marshall Alanbrooke's war diaries a few years ago. The Soviets certainly didn't have much trust about the western allies. Allanbrooke mentioned numerous times how Churchill made it clear he felt the same towards them. After Hiroshima, Allanbrooke was a bit shocked with how Churchill behaved. According to him, Churchill was going on and on about how the Soviets will learn to behave themselves or their cities will be nuked until they did. Starting with Moscow! Of course this would have required cooperation from the Americans. I don't know if Churchill actually said anything like this to Truman?
The Russians were always hostile to the west, had Germany not attacked russia Stalin would have waited for WWII to wind down before attacking the victor. But Germany attacked and destroyed Russia's ability to produce weaponry. So the soviets had to play nice with the U.S. and great Briton.
Thanks for the detailed analysis of the F-94 series. This video has more meaning to me than to many who will watch it. My father was a back seater in an F-94B during the Korean War. I am named after his best friend who was killed in a landing accident on his last mission before he was due to ship out back to the U.S.
I'm really glad you thought it was interesting. There are so many heart-wrenching stories of people who 'nearly' make it out of these conflicts alive but are got by fate at the last minute :(.
yes Sir, never new anything more advacnced than F-86 flew.
Wow, Lance! What a legacy to live up to! Did your dad ever keep in touch with his friend's widow and her family? That would make you almost a part of their family because of you being the namesake....
...and your last name hints at the material their testicles were made of?
My granddad flew all versions of this aircraft. He loved it BECAUSE of the technology. Sure, it had its issues. But as he said, the first 15 years of transition into jet aircraft was problems on ALL aircraft.
The industry didn't truly find its feet until the early 60s.
Next, the Sabre Dog? 😎
THANKS for bringing these old aircraft and times to light. People were trying to drive new, unproven concepts and technology to meet pressing needs. I was born in '56, so these planes and times form some of my earliest memories.
I’m getting the sense that I need to speed up on my production of that one!! Thanks so much for the positive comment - I’m glad you’re enjoying these… and it’s great that there are others that share my niche aircraft interests!!
@@notapound Take your time and do it right! 😎
Great video, I've always found this era of fighter aircraft, where they went from guns to unguided missiles before guided missiles existed to be really fascinating.
The analysis of the strategic context, and how it affected the design, is excellent. This is much more than a "it goes x mph" video. I love "improvised" design stories (like the Harrier and the Sten gun), and this a great one told well. Many thanks for sharing this 😊.
Saved me a job saying pretty much that too ! *Good, mature analytic video* .
I concur, Excellent video!
By three minutes in I had to stop and subscribe and tell you that I truly appreciate your style and cadence of presenting the information. Also and more important, of the general information about this subject the time period and many detail I already think we share, especially it seems about deeper details and even minutia of military aviation it's obvious your knowledge and research is spot on, I can trust you about the things I don't already know! Thank you and I'm eagerly looking forward to your channel!
Well balanced commentary, in which I, in the main, agree, for the scant weight I may bring to the arguments. I express this view from the perspective of a quite brief role as an RO in the F-94C in 1958, just out of the F-89D training program at James Connelly AFB. Thank you for the memory.
The older I get the more sense these decisions make. Estimating what you'll need 3-5 years down the road based on emerging technologies and emerging threats is rolling the Magic 8-Ball. There will be lots of dead-ends simply because making no decision is the worst decision.
IDK not spending any money on most of this bullshit and instead building massive civilian infrastructure seems like a way better decision that everyone constantly mentioned, even Eisenhower. All this did was force Soviets into trying to match making them go more evil as well. The military industrial complex needs to be questioned at every juncture.
Yup, look at some of the concepts that people had of what the next war would be like in the mid 1930’s.
Or the whole middle vs guns argument in the 1950’s
My dad flew back seat on an F-94A in 1950. He had to take a blanket with him to throw over his head to block the sunlight so he could see the radar screen, because it was too dim to be seen during the day. Considering what a flying coffin that plane was, the big mystery to me is how he and the pilot could fit their giant brass balls into the tiny space of that cockpit.
such an overused cliche saying by people with no imagination, glad your dad survived his service in the military.
@mrj4990 you should really go back and take a look at the accident rate during that time. The aircraft were a lot less reliable and the training exercises were much more difficult.
Saw 2 F-94Cs using Afterburners to take off in 1956; My Dad was a USAF Line Chief....always loved the appearance of the f-94; it was a winner...
One of the most informative video I have seen. Never heard of the operation. I appreciated the acknowledgement of how good the P40 was
You should do an episode on the Avro CF-100 Canuck. It was a contemporary of the F-94, but seems to have had a better reputation and service life.
Interesting videos. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the comment and the kind words. It is on my list! I’m somewhat starting from scratch on it because it was an aircraft I’d heard of but essentially knew nothing about. It’ll make the process fun, but takes a while.
In doing so I’m also trying to get my head around how Canada and the US worked together on continental defence… lots to do :)
I know a former RCAF CF-100 pilot. He might be able to give some insight and comment at least by email.
Also, which Soviet bombers could actually reach the lower 48 US states, and at which time periods? Was the threat actual? Or did we have a scramble to deploy interceptors with nothing to really ever intercept, at least for the US?
Oh, your “Aerial Attack Study: F-100 Super Sabre” video answers my bomber threat question, pretty much.
@@notapound It's amazing to me, that an aircraft that was the best all weather interceptor in North America, and for a while Europe, is so unknown by people outside of Canada. Everything in this video you keep talking about US aircraft being the best at this, or the best at that, when the CF-100 was doing those aircraft's jobs and more, better.
And as a final point of reference, it's pronounced Canuck as in Can-uck (like duck). I keep hearing people pronounce it Cannoook.
There was a test done of outfitting the F-94C with the GAR-1, later called the AIM-4 Falcon air-to-air missile. In theory the F-94C models could have received an upgrade for a better radar system, deletion of the rocket battery, and addition of two underwing pylons in place of the wing rocket pods. However, the F-86D was a fair air-to-air interceptor, at least 60 MPH faster, and it largely replaced the F-94 until the advent of the F-102.
I got buzzed by a pair of F-94C when I was fishing in the middle of a lake in the upper Peninsula of Michigan. They almost pancaked on top of me and the lead plane took three feet off the top of a tree trying to pull out. There had been many reports of UFO in that period. Most seem to have been from miscalibrated radar getting echos off the moon.
My grandparents were almost fucking scared to death once by two C-130s who were seemingly on a bet of who could fly the lowest. They flew not 10 meters above them, scattered the horse pulling their wagon, and missed an eucalyptus by less than two meters. Awesome.
I think this nonsense was common behavior. My dad told me about one of his backseaters who desperately wanted to buzz things - to the point of being an ass. He finally went to flight school and tried a low level roll in front of his family's lake house (MN I think). He touched a wing to the water and died in front of his family. What's the saying about there being no "old, bold" pilots?
The accident rate back then was already horrific. My father kept track of his flight school class for about a decade and about 10% of the people had a little X with a date next to their photo.
A very insightful and informative video. This is rapidly becoming one of my favorite youtube channels for military aviation history.
Dark Footage is a good one too
@@Triggatra4258this channel blows all of dark footage out the water.
The narration, script and research quality here is outstanding.
One interesting footnote to all this is that this exercise must have been some kind of coming-out party for the Air Force. It was a brilliant political move because it highlighted a present threat to the nation that was on everyone's minds, simulated it with their own bombers, showing off that capability, and defended with fighters/interceptors, the other major capability of the Air Force and one that presented a solution to everyone's worry.
Big fan of your aircraft analysis, huge fan of your global, strategic, and political analysis that tied everything together. Great work as usual!
Great vid. A well balanced and easy to watch appraisal of an overlooked aircraft, and indeed an under documented facet of air warfare history.
You've earned a sub based solely on this, cheers ,👍🏻
These are brilliant, learning a lot about aircraft that rarely come up.
This is another excellent video. It is well presented with non-generic imagery, which is all-too-common in other videos. Your channel has very quickly become a personal favorite.
As an aside, your narration reminds me of the late, great Luke Swann.
Thanks so much for the comment! I’m glad you enjoyed it!
I’m trying hard to put in at least some original diagrams and charts into the videos. Definitely pushing my limited Procreate skills… my ambition is to make more ‘combat manoeuvring’ animations in the future, alongside technical diagrams adapted from various contemporary manuals.
Thanks for that - it was the kind of balanced, nuanced approach to a subject that has no place in the echo chamber that is the internet 🙂
I like the "cover artwork", sums up the image of the F-94 in my head as a "Dan Dare" futuristic aircraft. Another type for consideration along with the F-86D mentioned by a number of people, would be the Douglas F3D Skyknight - which had a good record in Korea as a nightfighter.
I enjoy your details on radars and fire control systems used in various aircraft. Excellent technical prowess. You didn't mention it, but, years ago I had been told that use of the nose rockets was eventually discontinued due to their tendency to induce a flameout.
One of the aircraft I've never heard of before. As a military aviation fan when I was a kid, the WWII, Sabre or Shooting Star, 100 series and modern planes were cool, but I never heard of this era's numerous examples. They weren't in the books. I love that you cover these planes and the doctrine they were to have executed.
I learned a lot from this video! My dad flew the "C" for a little while, but I don't remember any stories about that.
Just stumbled across this video. Amazing quality and work. Earned a subscriber and you deserve many more
It might have been a dog, but Revell put out a F94C plastic model in the 1950s, and at 8 or 9 years old, I thought it was the coolest in my collection.
Excellent video, subscribed. My earliest memories of aircraft were Starfires practicing dogfighting over my house in the early 50s. By the time I was old enough to really appreciate them, the model had faded into obscurity.
Your work is brilliant! No one has provided such detail about an aircraft that has been so easily forgotten as the war it fought in.
My father flew in the B model during the war with the 68th FIS.
Looking forward to watching all of your other videos.
You make a really good point. Many aircraft that people deem to be a "failure" or a "waste of money" serve the valuable purpose of developing technology that makes a future fighter invaluable. Just like people wonder why we have to keep making new aircraft. It is obvious that if we don't, we will forget how. And I always ask these people, would you want to go into combat in a car that is 15-20 years old? Most people that don't face the problems of other people just never think about it.
This also shows how many problems the military has with every fighter they ever made. None ever live up to the hype. There are always problems to be solved. And they usually get solved when the manufacturers are allowed to keep working on it. The difference today is that if a system is not perfect from the beginning, the press and public is simply breathless about how catastrophic it is, and are so ready to pull the plug. Thank goodness our military leaders are more practical and adult about it.
There’s a kind of industrial memory about how to design and produce these technologies, and an organisational one to introduce and refine them. Generational capabilities that can’t be fast tracked.
Minor nitpick: The photo shown at 05:13 is of a F7F Tigercat not a Black Widow.
also, the city Spokane in Eastern Washington is (usually) pronounced Spo-can (long O, but a short A). Awesome video. Those are the only nit-picks I can find & neither greatly affects the quality.
Man shut up. Nitpick THESE 🌰🌰
At 9:02 the cockpit shown is of an F-84 thunder jet.
Next nitpick: the P-61 had a service ceiling way beyond the 10kft shown in your graph
Excellent video. Appreciate you giving the context of the plane and details about its service.
The Starfire was one of the first Revell plastic models I built. A beautiful aircraft.
Really interesting video on a plane I've been interested in but haven't looked into much. I appreciated your conclusion as well.
Looking forward to your F-89 vid next!
always good videos. never even knew what a starfire is
If the Starfire is successful in strategic viewpoint, then the MIG-21 is arguably the most successful interceptor ever built from tactical standpoint in human history, while the F-5 is one the most successful dedicated fighter ever made from both strategic and tactical standpoint.
Se entiende la ironía...pero voy a citar lo que lei dicho por sus propios pilotos;"podemos agarrar a los Rusos a menos que...este lloviendo o sea de noche"....
Both are arguably true.
The F-15 Eagle had an
Infinite kill ratio. Some 300+ A/A kills with no combat losses from any means. No other fighter even comes close.
@@marcelofolcia2561So Funny!
@@Frankie5Angels150: The eagle is a great fighter but it has never gone against a pure adversary, not once! Infinite means nothing when you’re adversaries is trash
The scenario you set up at the start is actually frighteningly similar to a real occurance. Of January 23 1961, where a pair of B52s where in the air over Carolina as at the time they were expecting a nuclear exchange at any moment, met in climate weather and were forced to drop their loads to be able to ride out a storm.
When the bombs were recovered from a field outside the Goldsboro North Carolina it was found that one of the bombs was actually armed and a single low voltage switched had prevented the hydrogen bomb from detonating.
The “almost detonation” part is not true. For classified reasons I cannot say why here, but a lot is involved in detonating an American nuclear device. Those criteria were not engaged for The Goldsboro Incident.
Some documentation indicates that on the recovery of the bomb it was found that 5 out of 6 steps taken to detonate the bomb were initiated, with the final step, a small low voltage switch(which was never intended to stop the bomb detonating without the other measures in place)being the only thing not engaged on the bomb.
So I'd be inclined to say that 'nearly detonated' is a good enough description, as 6/6 safeties should have been engaged when that bomb fell out of the sky over Northern Carolina.
Also, LOL, try not to cut yourself on your own edginess mate. Those bombs have been out of service for like 60 years and have no doubt all been decommissioned by this point, there is nothing really classified about the steps that were required before they could detonate. The incident has been declassified and the documentation about it publicly avaliable.
@@rileyernst9086 Frankie is correct. You are not.
@@rileyernst9086 Yes, quite a lot of the safety and command and control systems in use at that time are still classified, and will probably remain so forever ... for reasons you probably cannot understand.
Oh what a jem this channel is! Subbed and on the binge-watch.
Damn you're knocking it out of the park!
Thanks for the comment - I'm really glad you enjoyed this one. I was a bit worried that I'd gone too niche! Perhaps I need to try harder!!
@@notapoundo no no, niche is YOUR niche. There's a million Spitfire vs BF109, Spit or Mustang?, how the Me262 could have changed everything videos and so on. You're like the Allied version of channel "Paper Skies". I mean that as high praise because that's my favorite vintage military aviation channel but you're hot on his heels.
@@notapound It's more about creating a catalogue of good listening. I don't think there's such a thing as niche for aviation nuts. Especially when one aircraft contributes to the others like you mention in this video. It's great to learn about how they mostly all benefit from each predecessors successes or failures.
@@bcluett1697I meant to say that youtube is loaded with videos about all the famous planes like Spit or Mustang, The Merlin engine, did Adolf have secret Stealth tech, the secret nazi rocket plane that dissolved it's pilots and so on. They are great to get people in to historical military aviation but covering the period just after WWII on through the cold war is really the golden years of aviation. It's nice having a channel like this which forgoes the famous planes unless it's a little know story. That's all
An excellent and highly detailed anaysis. I'm a new subscriber now.
Thank you! Really glad you enjoyed it!
A clear-headed and profound history with analysis. ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Good Video. I Know This Is Not Relevant But 55 Years Ago I Remember Walking To Burt's Five & Dime & Buying This Model. Some Memories Never Fade. Thank You.
Local Five and Dime for me as well. The Aurora models had a tinted canopy.
@@steveturner3999 You Know, I Was Trying To Remember If It Was Aurora Or Not. I Remember When The Law Changed & I Couldn't Buy The Glue Anymore & My Dad Bought A Tube For Me At Pak-A-Sak!
Absolutely stunning video. Hope you'll make a video on the history of DEW up to the emerging North Radar project between the U.S. and Canada.
Great video once again. Couple of voice bloopers you could have re-recorded but nothing too serious!
You could have maybe also have used some outro music for the final black screen. Otherwise, really great stuff! Your script and narration are excellent, with excellent composition and am avoidance of cliches that are all to common on TH-cam. Keep it up!
Another great video. I have noticed that the audio volume is much higher than your earlier videos. Not exactly sure how that happened but it is much appreciated!
Wow, you can really see the speed reduction induced on the C model after the rockets were fired 16:25 You definitely wouldn't want to do that close to stall speed
Until I started researching it, I didn’t appreciate how heavy a volley of rockets was.
@@notapound There was an early Soviet jet (I'm thinking a fighter but surely it must have been anti-tank?) which had a cannon so powerful it damn near stalled when it fired.
That said the RAF had a couple of similar problems mounting relatively bloody enormous very slow firing canon for anti-shipping attempts circa 1941 / 42
I've very vague recollection they may have tried resurfacing the idea with some of their 'Tsetse' Mosquitoes after the war too.
Is this a recoil/aerodynamic effect or is it due to the engines ingesting rocket exhaust?
16:20 shoes the aircraft dropping the nose after firing the nose rockets, but 16:23 and 16:30 both firing the wing pods without a noticeable dip of the aircraft.
A time of rapid technical advancement and fundamental changes in strategy when the possibility of nuclear war with the Soviet Union was very much on everyone's mind. When it wasn't clear which way the technology would go or what would be needed, the only safe thing to do was to try everything. The fifties must have been a great time to be an engineer.
@danpatterson8009...Yes, and I imagine that there was never dull moment with everything advancing and changing so quickly, not only for engineers but the maintenance crews and of course the pilots.
It took all of these incremental steps and gap filling planes to acquire the technology and know-how to develop the modern fighters & bombers.
The other part of the 50's military development was the R & D of rockets. That was another field that was constantly changing & improving, and led to NASA and to the Moon.
An early cold war scenerio you may be interested in is the Cathay Pacific VR-HEU incident, or more specifically the aftermath where two A-1 skyraiders shot down a pair of PLAAF LA-7s.
Thanks for the lead - I’ve got a couple of Cold War piston engine videos on the go so I will definitely look at this! Appreciate the comment!
That Sounds like a cool story! I never knew that! That easily could have gone the other way too since the La-7 was like the pinnacle (well maybe La-9 was the top of the series) of the La-5/7 series. But still very cool! 👍
Woo, @3:30 its the SRa1! I work with the last remaining one, and it is an absolute beauty!
i had a friend that flew the F-94s with the MN ANG for awhile before his unit got F-89s.
Excellent! Thank you!
Just found you. Thanks for this information on an era that there isn't usually a lot of information about.
My father flew F-94Cs for a few years in the late 50s. I remember him saying that they were happy to get the F-89s.
I think it might have been the model that he used to take my grandfather for a ride - a memorable day for a South Dakota farmer. Yes, the rules were a bit more lax back in the day.
What fell off that pilots flight suit @11:45 and landed on the ground ? Flashlight ?
Grateful to hear a voice over that is a human, raspy or not.
My mother's first husband flew the trainer variant in the early fifties at Webb AFB, TX. Later in the fifties he lost his life in a night training mission in Africa while flying the F86 Saber.
They weren't kidding about the awkward getting in and out of the aircraft. The radar operator had to be a contortionist to get in there.
Good information on these early jets.The P 40 early versions were designated Tomahawks.These were easily identified by the 2 50 cals firing thru the propeller.2 30 cal on each wing.This was the model flying Dec. 7th.Next version known as the Kitty hawk had 6 50s,3 per wing.Warhawk was applied to later versions.Info from the book The Flying Tigers.
Hey! I live in Spokane, WA. Fun to hear my home town mentioned in a video!
Judging from many of your thumbnails such as here borrowed from the box art of the original issue of the Lindberg, Lockheed F-94C "Starfire," plastic kit, do you collect these vintage models? Anyway, outstanding story on this lesser known, cold war, USAF fighter. Thanks for sharing!
Very good video and commentary!
Thanks!
Excellent presentation.
"Things are things." Great closing line.
Good video, learned a few things. One thing is being harsh on the ejection seat isn't that fair considering it is one of the first operational seats and wasn't very mature so for its time it was ok. The problems you mentioned may have to do with pilots ignoring the warnings about seated knee length which required either not flying or using a narrow packed parachute that should be checked before flight. The F-94C had a unique seat design that was developed for exactly that reason, with a modification to move the catapult to the side of the seat back. That allowed the seat back to be a few inches thinner and thus the crew had more reasonable knee length restrictions. The other thing about the large scope in the back seat of the C model was it folded up out of the way when not in use and for entry/exit. As part of the pre-ejection system it would be retracted by a thruster to allow the seat to clear. The offset catapult was only used in two other aircraft and was coupled with an interesting telescoping rail system.
I dedicated myself to collecting all the "Great Planes" series about a decade ago when I found them by chance and realised the series was already 30yrs old. Your narration style is awfully close to that of the Great Planes series narrator (in only a handfull of the titles) who sounded more Australian. Your research and editing is by far better than any aircraft covered by that series especially as you cover spin offs of the main aircraft types aswell.
17:23 Isn’t that footage of Scorpion testing?
The nose gun arrangement on the Lockheed P-80 (later, F-80) was quite similar to the nose gun arrangement on the Lockheed P-38 (no surprise, given the rapid development of the P-80, that existing designs would be employed in the aircraft to save time, cost & effort).
Good point!
at 2:56 - are those 3 radars in New Mexico the same ones that came online shortly before the Roswell incident in 1947?
The first of a new generation of high powered radars that allegedly downed a UFO, with the object crashing right in the middle of the three installations?
There were nearly 200 CF-100 "Clunks" assigned to NORAD in the late 1950s to early 1960s. They were there to protect SAC bases, not Canadian cities.
Thank you for this video of a forgotten cold war aircraft.
See also the CF100 Cannuck.
On my list as it’s essential to understand North American air defence in the period. I’m struggling to resist my urge to make a dozen interceptor deep dives… Canuck, Sabre Dog, Javelin, Twin Mustang, Fishpot, Flagon… Good for the soul, but probably not for the health of the channel!
Thanks for the comment!
Merricans never want to hear that their allies know how to build good systems.
Thanks for this very interesting video on,the F-94, probably the best i saw on this airplane as i know next to nothing. It did had it's ugly share of serious problems but slowly but surely it became a reliable aircraft. Good job 👏 👍 8
Great presentation
18.24 graph is bizarre, P61 service ceiling is way more than 11000 feet, and F82 service ceiling is at least, the same as a regular Mustant, so 35000 feet minimum
Always have had kind of a soft spot for the F-94. My favorite version is the B version. Have to get around to building my Heller 1/72 scale kit one of these days! But anyway excellent job on this one, going to watch the F-89 Scorpion one next! 👏
Love the Starfire, fantastic machine from the golden age of jet aircraft
The one in Dayton AF museum is a really nice bit of kit.
When I ws a child, annual birthday parties for a great grandfather were held at a recreation center that had what looked like one of these on display. I could squeeze into its vacant engine compartment through one of the air intakes, or more easily through its exhaust opening.
If find the winglets on droptanks to be really interesting. Vortices turned into lift ?
20:01 actually the aircraft that was captured by aliens was the F-89 Scorpion piloted by Felix Moncla (pictured)and Wilson in the Kinross Incident
Can you explain this?
@@Frankie5Angels150He crashed into Lake Superior and UFO nuts claimed it was something else.
Flying from space to capture an F-89 seems like a step backwards
@@raymondclark1785 the story is….the UFO was tracked on radar and was deemed an unknown, so Kinross AFB launched the F-89 to investigate….the UFO was likely defending itself.
Remember fighters are used for defense or gaining air superiority so the attack aircraft can go their thing. I love all aircraft so it’s not a big deal that you only like fighters but remember their job is for clearing the skies to let the real work begin pounding the enemy into submission.
The F-94 series are really nice looking planes.
The F94 was out of service by the time i became an Intercept Control Tech in 1962
But there were still F-89's in ANG units and using them to defend the US against TU-95's would be a nightmare
Aliens love the charm of early jet fighters 😂
@17:52 "I pressed the fire control, and ahead of me rockets blazed through the sky..."
I wonder how much replying the 50 cal with cannons would have helped the A and B
Thanks for the comment. I also wondered about this. The possibility isn’t mentioned anywhere.
My conclusion is that speed of development meant that the ‘A’ just continued with the Shooting Star armament.
There was general disappointment that the rockets weren’t available for the ‘B’, so I imagine they were expected and therefore an alternative wasn’t developed.
In the F-89 video I did a size comparison between the Scorpion and the P-80. The former is much bigger, which gives the additional space one needs for the cannons, ammunition and the case collection system. Perhaps it just wasn’t possible to package cannons in the F-94?airframe alongside radar etc?
@@notapound the expectation of the rockets was probably why the development wasn't put into making 20mm work
But then again if you are rushing an interim system don't change something that doesn't need to be
The big problem with autocannon available at the time was that they were lacking in rate of fire and muzzle velocity, while being a lot heavier than the 50 cal. That extra weight meant that you weren't really looking at a 1-to-1 replacement. It might be closer to replacing 2 50 cal with 1 autocannon. So overall, they might be a little more effective against bombers in a high speed pass, but even that wasn't so clear.
Rockets seemed to be the most promising alternative, combining heavy firepower with light weight.
BTW: The Tu4 (Bull) was a rivet for rivet copy of the B-29 since 3 damaged B-29s had landed in the USSR during the last few months of WW2 in the Pacific.
The only big differences was the use of Soviet engines and the use of 23mm machine cannons in larger turrets .vs. the B-29's .50 machineguns.... The use of 23mm machine cannons was one of the reasons that the use of rockets to shoot down the Tu-4. Plus the fact that the Tu-4 would be carrying nukes meant that they wanted to shoot down the "Bull" on the first pass! Hence a rocket that would hit like a 75mm HE shell.
Finally the Tu-4 had 5 turrets, including the Tail Turret!!
In today's USAF there is a professional corps of Enlisted GCI controllers. the AFSC 1C5 - formerly Aerospace Control & Warning Systems, now Command & Control Battle Management Operations - specially selects Airmen in the rank of Senior Airman or above to become Weapons Directors, the official duty title of Enlisted Controllers. WDs are the primary controllers in the Air Force's ground based field deployable CRC Air Control Squadrons. WDs are have done the brunt of the tactical control over Iraq & Afghanistan since the earliest days of Operations Northern & Southern Watch. WDs were the first Enlisted career field with an advanced course at US Air Force Weapons School (receiving a different graduate patch prior to 2016), and in the 337th Air Control Squadron at Tyndall AFB, Enlisted controllers train the Officer controller students that will end up as crews that man E-3 AWACS, as well as limited positions in the CRCs as well. USAF Enlisted Controllers are considered as qualified, if not more so than Officer equivalents in other forcers.
In your timeline of early interceptors, you neglected to mention the F86D.
True. My understanding was that it wasn’t used for Continental air defence though? It was for theatre use… I’ve been thinking about a video on it and the ‘K’ as they’re pretty interesting aircraft.
Thanks for the comment!
Excellent video.
Cartoons: 15:57 Slow use of throttle or flame-out! 16:00 "Hot Rod Weekly" quote. 19:00 Foggy inside the cockpit.
Very interesting thank you
That P 61 black widow might have looked sleek and like it could’ve taken care of business if called on to do so but once you stripped back the veneer it was a piece of Northrop junk! It flew so-so but it was a pain in the neck to maintain and the radar on it constantly broke down, giving maintenance crews one hell of a headache.
You need to look at it in the time that it it first became operational. Its first flight was in 1942 and it became operational in 1944. It was obsolete in the late 40's because technical matters had moved way beyond what it was capable of so rapidly.
@@donadams8345 You’re 100% correct. However, even in World War II when it did work it was a plagued with mechanical and avionics related problems. Aside from what all I have read about that airplane I met a man who was in the US Army Air Corps back then and actually worked on P-61s. As he put it “of all aircraft I worked on the one that was the biggest maintenance pig was the black widow.“ He added “every time we saw one of those airplanes being towed our way we all thought to ourselves oh great…what broke this time!?“
Subscribed.
Thank you! Appreciate your support and hope you enjoy future videos.
From 2.75k when I fist saw one of your videos a week ago to 4.57k.
It is a little bit crazy to be honest. I’m glad… and amazed… that other people are as into niche Cold War aviation as much as I am!
@@notapound I like your channel. Something to watch while I wait for Ed Nash's Military Matters to upload a new video. I also find it funny that you leave in long pauses to read what you are going to say next.
Having the only confirmed kill with an E series weapons controls system is wild, it shows how unreliable all the rocket guidance systems were, and how great of an all weather aircraft the F-94 is.
Maybe in the numbers the F-94 is bad, but it was probably more effective than any of the pre-century series interceptors considering the F86D and F89 rocket targeting systems never worked, and arguably more effective than the F-102 considering that the AIM-4 sucked and the F-102 couldn't maneuver (it wasn't designed to maneuver but the F-102 ended up in dogfighting situations in Vietnam anyway).
As Soviet B-29s could only reach parts of the US on one-way missions the tests were more about possible future bomber threats. It was more a contest of perceptions - the Soviets would claim to have an effective Strategic bomber force (they didn’t) and the US would make a show of having an interceptor force.
In 1948 the Soviets had yet test their first atomic device.
Love your intro model aircraft box art. Aurora ?
Lindberg. Their kit represents the prototype F-94C with a rounded radome. Production F-94C's had a more pointed radome.
Ahh, the early jet age - flameouts, compressor stalls, vacuum tubes and analog circuit computers with electromechanical switching...😉
What amazes me is how fast the USSR went from "allies" to "enemy".
Aimost like it was planned or something.
I read Field Marshall Alanbrooke's war diaries a few years ago. The Soviets certainly didn't have much trust about the western allies. Allanbrooke mentioned numerous times how Churchill made it clear he felt the same towards them. After Hiroshima, Allanbrooke was a bit shocked with how Churchill behaved. According to him, Churchill was going on and on about how the Soviets will learn to behave themselves or their cities will be nuked until they did. Starting with Moscow! Of course this would have required cooperation from the Americans. I don't know if Churchill actually said anything like this to Truman?
The Russians were always hostile to the west, had Germany not attacked russia Stalin would have waited for WWII to wind down before attacking the victor. But Germany attacked and destroyed Russia's ability to produce weaponry. So the soviets had to play nice with the U.S. and great Briton.