Have you heard of the Magnus effect? Of course you have. Anyway, just in case you’ve forgotten, the Magnus effect is a phenomenon that affects spinning circular or spherical objects in motion. The spin causes the object to behave in a way that it would not if spin were not present, the most commonplace examples of this effect occur in sport, a spinning football arcs or swerves through the air due to the Magnus effect. Vertically mounted spinning cylinders have been used to power ships (they are known as Flettner rotors). Turn the cylinder 90 degrees and the same effect means that top spin causes a downward arc but back spin effectively generates lift.

In 1910 Butler Ames, a serving member of the US Congress, built a machine he called the Aerocycle that featured two rotating drums powered by a V-8 engine. This was sufficiently promising to have been mounted on to a platform on the USS Bagley but it is unclear if it worked in any meaningful fashion.

Back in 1910 aviation was still very new and Ames could always use the valid excuse that no one knew what an aeroplane was supposed to look like back then.

However by 1930 literally thousands of aircraft were flying about supported by conventional wings which, you would think, might make the development of a weird new aircraft supported by spinning cylinders seem potentially redundant. Nonetheless three inventors, their identities sadly lost to posterity, decided that that was exactly what the aviation world needed and built the Plymouth A-A-2004. It is alleged to have made more than one successful flight but evidence is scanty though there is no particular reason to discard the claim out of hand. Nonetheless the Plymouth A-A-2004 was a dead end. The obvious and compelling reason why the world is yet to fully embrace the Magnus effect aircraft is that in the event those cylinders stop spinning due to engine failure (a relatively common occurrence in 1930), they stop producing any Magnus effect lift at all and the aircraft would simply plummet to the ground due to the Gravity effect.

Fancy a longer read on interesting moments in aeronautical design? Try this

THIS SITE NEEDS A SMALL DONATION FROM YOU TO CONTINUE. IF YOU’VE ENJOYED AN ARTICLE PLEASE DONATE HERE. IT ONLY TAKES A MOMENT. RECOMMENDED DONATION £15.

 

Rusting away in the desert of history, ten charismatic American fighter aircraft failed to make the grade. Since the early 1940s, the United States has created some of the most capable fighter aircraft in the world. But the road to designing, building and then selling something as technologically demanding as a fighter is not easy, and many – often brilliant – planes fell by the wayside. Here are 10, though we could happily share another fifty, of the most charismatic fighter aircraft never to make it to widespread service. Some featured innovative thinking that was just a little too ahead of its time, some were clearly the wrong idea, and some were just plain unlucky; regardless, they are fascinating aeroplanes that tell a great deal about engineering history. 

10. Grumman (G-34) XF5F-1 Skyrocket (1940) ‘The Un-reluctant Rocket’

Thirty years before the F-14 Tomcat, Grumman built another extremely advanced twin-engine carrier fighter, the superb G-34. Twin-engined carrier fighters were not a thing in 1940, but despite this the first example of this breed proved a winner. Trials in 1941 pitted the type against all the most advanced Allied fighters, including the XF4U Corsair; according to the man in charge of the test, “. I remember testing the XF5F against the XF4U on climb to the 10,000 foot level. I pulled away from the Corsair so fast I thought he was having engine trouble. The F5F was a carrier pilot’s dream, as opposite rotating propellers eliminated all torque and you had no large engine up front to look around to see the LSO (landing signal officer) … The analysis of all the data definitely favored the F5F, and the Spitfire came in a distant second. … ADM Towers told me that securing spare parts … and other particulars which compounded the difficulty of building the twin-engine fighter, had ruled out the Skyrocket and that the Bureau had settled on the Wildcat for mass production.” The effort was not a waste of time however, as the design evolved into the Tigercat, one of the finest piston-engined fighters ever flown.

9. McDonnell XP-67 ‘Moonbat‘ (1944)

The radical aerodynamics of the Moonbat gave this US fighter prototype the look of a flying stingray. The design emphasised low drag and harvesting a high amount of fuselage lift through a blended wing/body design. The fuselage, like the wing, had an aerofoil cross-section. This idea had been seen earlier on the Westland Dreadnought based on the blended fuselage-wing ideas of Russian inventor N. Woyevodsky, a Russian emigre scientist who lived in England.

The first two manifestations of this design failed to arouse the USAAF, but promises of a 472mph top speed tantalised the authorities and funding was granted. McDonnell considered serious armament options, including a 75-mm gun.

The resultant aircraft flew in 1944 and proved the unknown adage ‘if it looks like a stingray it will fly like one’. It was underpowered, with poor handling, a long take-off run, terrible fuel consumption and stall characteristics that even a 1940s test pilot didn’t have the bottle to explore. A prototype crashed, and the project was deemed too dangerous to continue.

However, the blended wing body concept has not died. It was later used with great success, among other things, in the SR-71 Blackbird. It is also being studied in its purest form for several future airline concepts.

8. Northrop F-18L ‘Scornet’

The F/A-18 Hornet is no slouch in a dogfight, and the land-based F-18L was even better. Freed from the extra weight of carrier compatibility, it was almost 30% lighter than the F/A-18A. This gave it a superior range and manoeuvrability and enhanced practically all other aspects of its already sparkling performance. It also boasted a Sparrow missile capability, something the F-16s of the time lacked. In fact, medium-range weapons were not carried by any other lightweight fighters in the 1970s.

The F-18L was offered to Canada for the New Fighter Aircraft Project of the late 1970s. It was a better aircraft for the role than the F/A-18A, but the naval version had the backing of the extraordinarily aggressive and effective McDonnell Douglas sales department and the benefit of being an ‘off-the-shelf’ product.

As an aside, the Canadian Hornet deal was almost dropped in favour of eighty secondhand Iranian F-14s Tomcats!

This site needs a small donation from you to continue. If you’ve enjoyed an article, please donate here. It only takes a moment. Recommended donation £15.

7. Curtiss-Wright XF-87 Blackhawk (1948) ‘Wrong said Fred’

At the end of World War II Curtiss-Wright was the largest aircraft manufacturer in the world. Three years later, it was gone. The nail in the coffin was the Blackhawk. The name followed a company naming tradition begun in the early 1930s for including ‘hawk’; their most successful fighters were the Tomahawk, Kittyhawk and Warhawk. There was nothing particularly terrible about the XF-87, although four engines is unusual in a fighter*. The USAF ordered the fighter (modified from an attack-optimised design) before succumbing to the charms of the F-89 Scorpion and opting out.

It is often said that the company had been so busy in the mass production and incremental improvement of wartime aircraft types that they had not been able to respond to the jet revolution as well as their more forward-looking rivals. This is not entirely fair as they were working on some exceptionally fair as they worked on some remarkably radical concepts, especially the XP-55 Ascender.

Other aircraft have used the name ‘Blackhawk’: the Carr Special racing aircraft of the 1930s, the S-67 attack helicopter, and today’s famous S-70 series. I think there is another interwar type, which I’ve forgotten.

*The Swiss EFW N-20 Aiguillon had four engines and also failed to enter production

6. Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender (1943) ‘The Cursed Starship’

In late 1939, the US had a pretty lacklustre air force, generally equipped with obsolete or mediocre aircraft. With international war erupting around the world, it seemed a wise idea to rectify this situation, so the United States Army Air Corps issued R-40C, a requirement for radical new fighter concepts.

The emphasis on the aircraft as a high-speed gun platform with good visibility and acknowledgement that unconventional thinking was to be encouraged led many of the 50 entrants who replied to the requirement to adopt the pusher layout. The XP-55 was one of three designs given the thumbs-up to be produced in prototype form for evaluation.

Despite an utterly exotic appearance—canard foreplanes, a tricycle landing gear, a swept wing (for balance not to counter transonic drag), and a pusher engine—its performance was less-than-stellar. Far lower-risk contemporary designs offered superior performance. But a speculative improved laminar flow wing version seemed promising, so the programme carried on.

But the Ascender’s vicious stall characteristics could not be tamed, and the programme ended after the third prototype crashed at Wright Field during an air show. This was the second crash of only three aircraft built. The risks were too high, and the type offered nothing that conventional fighters couldn’t do better.

5. North American YF-93 ‘The Leggy Sabre’

THIS SITE NEEDS A SMALL DONATION FROM YOU TO CONTINUE. IF YOU’VE ENJOYED AN ARTICLE PLEASE DONATE HERE. IT ONLY TAKES A MOMENT. RECOMMENDED DONATION £15.

The superb F-86 Sabre design formed the basis of several aircraft, and the YF-93 was one of them. The rather handsome North American YF-93 was intended as a penetration fighter able to fly into the Soviet Union and destroy interceptors in their own airspace and as a secondary task escort to USAF bombers. It started as a modified F-86 but soon grew different enough to merit its own designation. Compared to the Sabre, it had far more fuel, twice the range, and was far bigger. With the SCR-720 search radar and six 20 mm (.79 in) cannon occupying the nose, the nose intake of the F-86 was replaced with flush-mounted NACA-designed side intakes. Though very elegant in appearance, they were ineffective and replaced with a more conventional intake.

  The arrival of a bomber, the B-47, with a similar top speed revealed the XF-93 to be too pedestrian in performance and the order for 118 aircraft was cancelled. It should be noted that the RAF accepted the Hawker Hunter into service in 1954, an aircraft of very similar top speed but with an inferior range.

4. Heinrich Pursuit ‘The Pursuit of hate’ (1917)

In 2020, nineteen months is insufficient time to develop and integrate a major software update on a warplane, but in 1917, it was a liftime in military aviation. The USA was only fighting in World War for nineteen months, but several attempts were made to develop a high-performance indigenous fighter from scratch. The Pursuit was powered by the 100 hp Gnome Monosoupape 9 Type B-2 nine-cylinder rotary engine and had an unequal-span biplane configuration.

Whereas the British Bristol F2.B of 1916 was named ‘Fighter’, a word which describes the mission to this day, Heinrich chose ‘Pursuit’ (the term ‘pursuit fighter’ in official terminology until the XP-92 of 1948).

Quite unlike the modern world in which the US will do almost anything to avoid buying foreign aircraft (see the tanker fiasco for example) the opposite was true in 1917. As with many fledgling warplane-producing nations, there was an initial preference for proven foreign designs. This is rather a shame as the Pursuit was a decent enough aeroplane of very clean aerodynamic form. Though not procured as a fighter it was seen to have potential as a fighter trainer. Two Mk II aircraft were ordered, and these were particularly fine, with a cleaned-up design offering a 77 kg weight reduction and inclusion of the more reliable Le Rhone 80 hp rotary engine.

3. Grumman XF10F Jaguar ‘The oldest swinger in town’ (1952)

As with most excellent carrier aircraft (certainly the Phantom II and Buccaneer among them), the road to the F-14 Tomcat was paved with the smoking carcasses of earlier abysmal efforts. If the F-14 were to write its own autobiography, it would speak of the Grumman XF10F Jaguar as its drunken, dysfunctional father, but a father nevertheless. Rambling mixed metaphors aside, the Jaguar was Grumman’s first attempt at a variable geometry warplane, and the first in the world to fly.

‘Swing-wings’ appealed to the US Navy, as they promised the docile take-off and landing characteristics of a straight-wing with the higher wing sweep required for trans- and super-sonic flight. Such promise could not be ignored, and the Navy ordered 112 Jaguars

We sell fantastic high-quality aviation-themed gifts here

It followed on from progress made by, among others, the Westland-Hill Pterodactyl IV of 1931, the British Vickers Wild Goose (1950) but more directly by the Messerschmitt P.1101 concept (unflown) and the experimental Bell X-5.

Test pilot Corwin ‘Corky’ Meyer, the only pilot to fly the Jaguar, found it as entertaining to fly “because there was so much wrong with it.” Among its issues: a dangerously unreliable XJ-40 experimental engine; poor stability; a cockpit canopy that opened in flight of its own accord and could not be shut and left the pilot unable to eject; shoddy manufacturing that – in one case a 5-inch screw was used where .4 should have been, mangling the delicate electronic circuitry within; jamming of the wing mechanism as poorly maintained hydraulic fluid turned to jelly. So much attention had been paid to getting the wing sweep mechanism right that other aspects had been neglected. The wing sweep mechanism was the only part of the Jaguar that worked flawlessly. Even by 1950s naval (and experimental) standards, this was clearly a terrible aeroplane, and after 32 test flights, the project was mercifully halted and the order cancelled.

2. Lockheed XF-90 ‘Screamin’ Jet Hawkins’

A competitor to the YF-93 above, the futuristic XF-90 was designed at the Skunk Works by Willis Moore Hawkins under the supervision of the US master of aircraft design and amateur arm wrestler Kelly Johnson. Though lacking the fame of Johnson, Hawkins was a significant figure. He worked on many projects, including the Constellation and F-104, and was instrumental in creating the C-130 and Abrams main battle tank. The XF-90 was not his finest moment, and its lukewarm performance made it lose out to the XF-88. Still, it was an extremely good-looking machine.

1. Vultee P-66 Vanguard ‘Brute 66’

If you described a modern fighter as ‘cancelled’ despite 146 being produced, you’d be labelled a wack-job and carted off to an anti-mask Flat Earther Trump rally to hang out with new friends. But this was at a time when fighter aircraft were produced in their thousands. Even the less than A-list Bell P-39 Airacobra production total was pushing 10,000 (so I think it is fair to include the Vanguard. I also want to include it as it seldom gets mentioned in aviation history books.

So sleek was the cowling on early examples that you might be forgiven for mistaking the Vanguard for having an inline engine. It was actually a radial, a 1200 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1830-33 Twin Wasp. However, this figure-hugging cowling caused the engine to overheat, and it was replaced with one with a more conventional appearance.

The P-66 had generally excellent handling and a decent performance. In 1940 the Swedish government ordered 144 as the V-48C. The V-48C had a heavier armament (two fifty-cals and four rifle-calibre machine guns) and improved high-altitude performance. Following the Pearl Harbor attack, the US decided there were better things to do with fighters than export them to a neutral country and an embargo was placed on aircraft for Sweden. Fifty were taken into the USAAF for both pursuit and pursuit training roles. Much of this order was then given to the Royal Air Force of Britain, who hated the type and decided to give it to China. The British planned to use them as a training force based in Canada. However, their tendency to ground-loop, their fragility, and the political goodwill of gifting them to China all contributed to the RAF letting them go. These airframes went on an epic adventure travelling to India in USAAF colours, where both testing and the perilous transit to China destroyed many of the aircraft.

Two Chinese squadrons took the P-66 into combat from 1943 but they took a mauling. When not being destroyed by friendly anti-aircraft forces unfamiliar with this rare shape, they were shot down by faster, more agile Japanese types using superior tactics. In 1943, they were replaced by P-40s. A few surviving P-66s were hidden in caves in Chungking for use in the civil war against Mao’s communists, but as late as 1947, they were generally still in their crates.

Have a look at The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 3 here.

Upgrade your pledge to The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes and see what you can get

If you haven’t yet pre-ordered your copy you can do it here

Where does the stereotype of the gay air steward come from? Is it true? Why do we sexualise air stewards? I spoke to the brilliant Phil Tiemeyer, author of ‘Plane Queer’ to find out more.

The stereotype of a male flight attendant is gay, how old is this stereotype and is it rooted in truth?

“The stereotype goes back to the first full decade of commercial air service and the dawn of the flight attendant career in aviation. We don’t know if any of the first stewards—who actually predated the first stewardesses in the US by a few years—were actually gay. But we do know from accounts in the airlines’ publications in the 1930s, including magazines produced for customers to peruse while in flight, that these men were perceived as less masculine than the pilots, mechanics, and managers who worked for the airlines (at least according to the relatively rigid standards of masculinity at the time). This perceived effeminacy led these men to be criticized or teased in various stories carried in publications like Pan American Airways’ Clipper magazine, which even made a comic strip about a steward named “Barney Bullarney” who gets made fun of and even physically abused by his coworkers. So, at the very least, we can say that homophobia in the industry dates back to the 1930s, even if we’re not sure whether homosexuality does.

Why does the job attract a large amount of gay men?

“The most clear answer to this question is that in-flight careers have never been family-friendly. It’s really hard for a pilot or flight attendant to be available for spouses and children when working. This was especially true in the so-called golden age of flying, from the 1950s through the 1970s, when airlines like Pan Am often required their crews to serve on weeks-long routes and also encouraged them at times to relocate to bases overseas. Single women could adapt to these demanding work norms better than others, as could gay men—especially back in the day when society discouraged gay men from having spousal commitments and families of their own.

The other crucial element, though, is that men serving in this job had to be relatively comfortable putting up with the homophobic attitudes of certain co-workers and customers. Several of my interviewees who worked from the 1950s through the 1970s asserted that certain pilots could be particularly demeaning to male flight attendants, ordering them to make coffee for them in break rooms the way a stewardess would or denying them access to the cockpit to deliver meals. Gay men were simply more used to, and thereby were a bit more tolerant than most straight men, of being targeted in such aggressive and emasculating ways.”

Why do we sexualise flight attendants?

“I think we sexualize flight attendants because we sexualize flying. Plenty of Freudian psychologists have for decades explained that most aviation fanatics are attracted to the adrenaline rush of high-speed travel and the penetration or conquering of the sky. These sorts of sensations aren’t too far off from how sexual pleasure is experienced by some here on the ground. Already in the 1930s Hollywood was turning this erotic attraction to flight in the direction of stewardesses, with the first movies in which a stewardess served as the romantic lead coming out in that decade. And once the US’s censorship of pornography was liberalized by the late 1960s, the first X-rated stewardess movie was made.

It’s therefore not surprising that when the US Supreme Court ruled in 1971 that all US airlines had to hire men on an equal basis as women for the flight attendant job, this created a new sub-type of gay male heartthrob: the steward. What was then the only national gay magazine, the Advocate, celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision by expressing gratitude that gay men would now have their own sex objects in the sky to ogle at while flying…not a very enlightened response to an important case for workplace equality!”

This site needs a small donation from you to continue. If you’ve enjoyed an article please donatehere. It only takes a moment. Recommended donation £15.

There is an idea that flight attendants are promiscuous, is this rooted in truth?

“The promiscuity that has been associated with both male and female flight attendants is rooted in the fact that the vast majority of workers in this field during aviation’s golden years were hired when they were young and had no families. This demographic, sexologists will point out, are typically going to have the most sex in a society. Plus, when you’re able to host sex partners in your own hotel room and have scheduled layovers in the world’s most cosmopolitan party cities, you have even more sexual opportunity than your peers. Of course, though, the choices about the frequency of one’s sexual activity depended on the individual, and my interviewees reported a wide spectrum of choices about how often they had sex. Sex was, almost always, one’s personal choice.

That said, especially female flight attendants were sometimes pressured into sex they didn’t want to have: from customers somewhat rarely, but from pilots and airline managers more frequently. Such incidents of sexual harassment or rape most commonly went unreported, since the airlines did not foster a culture of sexual responsibility among their employers nor did they institute protections for workers to come forward and report misconduct by more powerful co-workers.”

Did male flight attendants face any discrimination or peculiar difficulties?

“They absolutely did. Men were nearly completely excluded from this job by the mid-1950s. That’s when two main US airlines which traditionally hired men, Pan Am and Eastern Airlines, stopped hiring them. Thereafter, a couple of airlines like TWA or Northwest Airlines hired men as pursers (flight attendant positions with more demanding administrative responsibilities) for their international routes, but the percentage of flight attendants who were men shrank to just 3-5% by the late 1960s. The reason Eastern and Pan Am stopped hiring men is due to homophobia in the 1950s: increasing fears on the part of the airline that customers would find these men undesirable. Delta Airlines even confessed in court documents that their short-lived attempts to hire men around that time ended out of fear that customers would perceive their male flight attendants as gay and feel threatened by them.”

How were male flight attendants involved in the civil rights movement?

“The biggest direct impact of male flight attendants (or at least aspiring male flight attendants) on civil rights was the Supreme Court case I noted above from the very early 1970s. The case name was Celio Diaz, Jr. v. Pan American Airways. Diaz was a Miami resident who really wanted to work as a flight attendant. But a Pan Am employee in the hiring office refused to let him apply, claiming the position was for women only. This, however, was 1967, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act was now in effect—the one pressed on Washington politicians by the African American civil rights movement in order to end segregation and workplace discrimination based on race. The workplace protections in the Civil Rights Act also prevented sex-based discrimination, so Diaz was able to claim that the airline’s refusal to consider his application was illegal. It took about four years for the case to be decided, but when Diaz finally won, it meant that all airlines in the US would be forced to hire men on an equal basis with women.

I think of Diaz v. Pan Am as a sort of stealth victory for gender-queer people in America: it meant that men who aspired to jobs that were notionally ‘women’s work‘ would be protected, and so would the far more numerous women desiring to do ‘men’s work.’ Of course, though, you didn’t have to be too queer—and certainly not gay, just as Diaz himself was not—to want to do such work. It was really America’s overly rigid sex norms that needed correcting, and Diaz was the right kind of plaintiff to start to make this happen.”

In the 1960s were male and female flight attendants paid the same?

“This is a complicated question. First, remember that there were only a few men working in the 1960s, due to the homophobia of the 1950s. Those who did work in the industry were covered by the same work contracts as women, the ones negotiated by their labor unions. Thus, on paper, men and women were paid the same. That said, men had two distinct pay advantages. First, at airlines like TWA and Northwest that hired men only for purser positions, these jobs paid more, consistent with their increased administrative responsibilities. Second, men in the 1960s were free to keep their jobs as long as they wanted to work, at least up to or beyond age 60, which meant they were accruing decent amounts of seniority and therefore getting better pay and benefits than newcomers to the field. Women, however, were actively forced out of these jobs at a very early moment in their careers. Most of them left within 18 months, since almost all US airlines forbid them from continuing to work when they married (these women were very eligible marriage material, after all). For the women who tried to make a career of it, most US airlines also imposed additional policies which fired them when they reached age 32 or 35. It was these overt forms of discrimination against women that kept them underpaid compared to their male colleagues.”

NEW DEAL

Upgrade your pledge to The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes and see what you can get

Tea Towel and Badge with Signed Book

A high quality tea towel decorated with the original ‘blood chit’ design handed to British aircrews flying missions over Soviet controlled regions in World War II. Disclaimer: We cannot guarantee the safety of aircrew who use these if downed over modern Russia. 

PLUS:

• WW2 replica badge
• Signed first edition
• Your name printed in the book
• Ebook

If you haven’t yet pre-ordered your copy you can do it here

In what ways has the flight attendant community helped gay rights?

“In the late 1940s and early 1950s, gay men were finding out by word of mouth that steward positions were open and somewhat welcoming to gay men. Thus, at a time when US society was actively trying to keep gays out of work (all government, military, and defense industry jobs were declared off-limits), there was this one place where men could still find work and see the world—at least until Pan Am and Eastern closed the doors to these jobs. But when Celio Diaz re-opened this profession to men, it very quickly went back to being a place where gay men could still find jobs, earn a steady income, and partake in ample travel opportunities.”

What is the biggest myth about male flight attendants?

“The grandest of all flight attendant myths is that a gay flight attendant, Air Canada’s Gaetan Dugas, was the ‘Patient Zero’ of the AIDS crisis and actually (allegedly) was the first person to bring HIV/AIDS to the United States. My book and other impressive work by Canadian historian Richard McKay shows definitively that Dugas was nothing more than a salacious scapegoat for a panicked America. The salacious stories of his prolific sex life, coupled with his early diagnosis with AIDS and his persistence in having sex after the diagnosis, made him exactly the sort of villain that Americans wanted to blame for this ‘gay cancer’ (which was the original name for the disease). The reality, as we’re again seeing during the COVID pandemic, is that pandemics run their course with unrelenting ferocity. It doesn’t come down to a few ‘super-spreaders’ as to whether the disease will spread far and wide. They certainly don’t help things, but they don’t cause the pandemic.”

What should I have asked you?

“Which airline had the best flight attendant uniforms. While there were other uniforms in the US that were far more eccentric, I’m partial to the women’s outfits designed by the famed Florentine designer Emilio Pucci in 1965 for Braniff Airways.

Pucci at the time was designing brilliantly colored casual-yet-formal dresses for the likes of Sophia Loren and Jackie Kennedy, so it was quite the thing for this relatively small Texas-based airline and its mostly-Texan flight attendant corps to wear these colorful designer outfits.

Pucci brought sophistication to an upstart, provincial carrier, though I’m not thrilled that the airline’s marketing team refused to keep things classy: they turned these practical and stylish outfits into a striptease show—the airline released commercials called ‘The Air Strip’ promising that a stewardess would discard an additional item of Pucci’s multi-layered outfits every time she walked down the aisle.

This site needs a small donation from you to continue. If you’ve enjoyed an article please donate here. It only takes a moment. Recommended donation £15.

It truly seems that female flight attendants circa 1965 endured what seemed on the exterior to be the best of times for the profession, while they simultaneously were the worst of times.

The men I interviewed each had their own favorite uniforms, and thankfully, their return to the profession by the early 1970s forced airlines to tone down the overt eroticization of their stewardesses through their uniforms.

In the early 1970s, Pan Am had hired high-end designers of their own to create a new male flight attendant outfit that complemented the women’s uniforms. They were elegant, crisp, modern suits inspired by Carnaby Street fashions and even had matching umbrellas. One Pan Am steward confessed that he loved walking through airport terminals wearing the suit, because he knew every gay man watching him would be both turned on and envious when they saw him.

We sell fantastic high quality aviation-themed gifts here

Phil Tiemeyer is the author of Plane Queer: the history of men working as flight attendants. Beginning with the founding of the profession in the late 1920s and continuing into the post-September 11 era, Plane Queer examines the history of men who joined workplaces customarily identified as female-oriented. It examines the various hardships these men faced at work, paying particular attention to the conflation of gender-based, sexuality-based, and AIDS-based discrimination. Order a copy here.

By Louis S. Gundlach, Senior Air Warfare Analyst, Retired Marine Corps Fighter Pilot and Denver Bronco fan.

Prior to the Vietnam War, leadership in the US Air Force and US Navy felt that superior technology, in aircraft and weapons, would lead to air supremacy over any enemy.  Fighter aircraft like the F-4, with powerful radars and beyond visual range missiles would sweep the sky of enemy fighters. Older fighters, it was thought, would not fair as well as the F-4. The air-war over North Vietnam, especially the fight against the North Vietnamese MiG aircraft, drew much media and military leadership attention because it would put this theory to the test, albeit against a drastically inferior foe. From 1965 to 1968 and then again in 1972 United States aircraft flew into an almost daily battle over North Vietnam against a much smaller and vastly technologically inferior foe.  The United States air forces found that its reliance on technology was not up to the task of providing air superiority over North Vietnam and the U.S. air forces tallied a disappointing 2 kills for every U.S. aircraft shot down by Vietnamese fighters.  This was much lower than the 14 to 1 kill ratio claimed in the Korean War.  (Historians have recently disputed this claim and some of estimated the kill ratio in Korea to be closer to 8 to 1).  This poor kill ratio greatly distressed the leadership of the U.S. Military. The Vietnamese Air Force, purportedly poorly trained and equipped with mostly antiquated fighters, was proving itself capable of defending itself against the a vastly more well-equipped foe. The U.S. fighters and pilots, equipped with advanced technology and weapons, found that their training, tactics, and aircraft were not up to the task in Vietnam, save one aircraft.  The Navy’s F-8 Crusader, made by Vought, racked up a much more respectable 6 to 1 kill ratio and with probable claims added into the equation a 7 to 1 kill ratio was achieved in the first three years of the Vietnam War.¹  How did the Crusader pilots achieve such a drastic difference in success when compared to newer and more advanced American fighters?  A comparison between the F-8 and its two adversaries of the Vietnam War, the MiG-17 and MiG-21 shows that the F-8 was fairly evenly matched against the two MiGs.  The F-8 was a proven aircraft by 1965 with fair maneuverability along with a respectable weapons suite and mature training program.  The F-8’s tactics and training were based on its lack of a beyond visual range weapons and it reliance on rear quarter IR missiles and four 20-mm cannon. The nature of the air war over Vietnam handcuffed the American forces with many disadvantages.  Stringent rules of engagement, weather, and long flight distances were some of the disadvantages that enabled the North Vietnamese MiG pilots to pick the opportune time to attack.  This led to the air battles becoming a visual maneuvering affair, an affair that the F-8 pilots were knowledgeable with.  The proper experience, one that could translate easily into a wartime situation, was instrumental in the success of the F-8 over North Vietnam.

Chance-Vought F-8 Crusader

The Vought F-8 Crusader entered service in the United States Navy in 1957.²  It was a single seat and single engine air superiority fighter.  Capable of speeds approaching Mach-2,³ the F-8 was built with one goal in mind: find enemy aircraft and shoot them down.  The Crusader was armed with four Colt Mark-12 twenty-millimetre cannon and could also carry four AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles.  The Mark-12 cannon were capable of firing 660 rounds per minute but were prone to jamming.⁴  F-8 squadrons found that consistent use and maintenance of the Mark-12 would reduce jamming incidents in training. Unfortunately, the training environment, whether shooting at a target on the ground or shooting a target banner at 30,000 feet, did not simulate the rigours of a dogfight over North Vietnam. F-8 pilots often practiced air-to-air gunnery by shooting a cloth banner, impregnated with some radar receptive material, which was towed by another fighter. The pattern was usually flown at 20,000 feet and the supersonic pattern was flown at 30,000 feet.⁵  To score hits on the banner a pilot needs to fly a smooth and precise pattern through the air.  While G-forces during the firing run can approach 6G, the G-force is usually applied with a smooth, consistent pull.  Contrast this with a dogfight in which a fighter is trying get into a firing situation on another aircraft that is manoeuvring in three dimensions. The fight is characterised by rapid onset of G-forces followed by rapid un-loads or negative G-forces. This difference between shooting situations in training and combat caused the cannon-jamming problem to return during missions over North Vietnam.  

Sadly, funding for this site is currently at a very low level. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here.

The AIM-9 sidewinder used by the F-8, was a short-range infra-red homing missile.  The F-8s used two different variants of the AIM-9 during the first part of the Vietnam War, the AIM-9B and the AIM-9D.  The AIM-9B/D during the Vietnam War was limited in the fact that they had poor IR sensitivity, which led to susceptibility to track a heat source on the ground vice the target aircraft.  The AIM-9s during this period had to be fired at the rear quarter of an enemy aircraft and it also was severely limited in its ability to track and hit a maneuvering target. The AIM-9B could only be effective at less than 20 degrees angle of the tail (AOT) of the enemy aircraft.  The AIM-9B also could only be launched effectively with less than 2 Gs on the launching aircraft.  The AIM-9D had a cooled seeker head that gave it better heat discrimination and a better motor for better performance.⁶  The AIM-9D could be effective out to 40 degrees AOT, but the F-8 Tactical Manual (TACMAN) stated it could be effective out to 90 degrees AOT.⁷  The AIM-9D could also be fired with more Gs applied to the launching aircraft and had better effectiveness against a maneuvering target.  Effective range for a missile is altitude dependant but below 10,000 feet, where almost all of the air-to-air engagements over North Vietnam took place, the AIM-9 had an effective range envelope from a quarter of a mile out to just over 2 miles at 10,000 feet. 

 F-8 pilots practiced during the 1960’s with captive carry AIM-9s, which gave all the indications of a valid track, but the missile did not have a motor or warhead.  This gave the pilots the knowledge of the missiles envelope and enabled the F-8 pilots in combat to have a better success rate than their US counterparts.  The F-8 did have the ability to carry the AIM-9C, a short-range, semi-active radar homing missile, which had the ability to shoot down enemy aircraft head on out to 6 miles at 10,000 feet.  A semi-active missile would guide on a radar return.  For the AIM-9C to guide, the F-8s radar had to be fully operational and locked on a target. The AIM-9C did have some success in training exercises and was carried occasionally in combat over Vietnam, but the opportunity to be used never arose.⁸  

            The F-8 carried Air-Intercept (AI) pulse radars, the APQ-84 and the APQ-134.⁹ The APQ radars provided rough range, altitude, and bearing out to about 20 miles with the APQ-134 against a fighter sized target.¹⁰  The pulse radar did not have a look-down capability so the F-8s radar could not see a target much below its own altitude.  F-8s pilot practiced acquiring aircraft with its radar and using the information to enter the visual arena in an advantageous position.  The transition to the visual maneuvering arena was always part of the F-8 pilots training package and this separated it from the training that the F-4 aircrews received.  Due to the limited capability, range, and reliability of the F-8s radar the Crusader was dependant on good GCI or AIC (Ground Controlled Intercept or Airborne Intercept Control, controllers on the ground or airborne, who monitored powerful radars and directed the fighters) and a good visual lookout doctrine.

F-8, MiG-17, MiG-21 comparison

            During the air war over North Vietnam, air-to-air engagements, especially those that took place in the visual arena, depended on three dominant characteristics to be successful.  The ability to pick up another aircraft visually usually was the first precursor to a successful attack.  Visual pick -ups could be dependant on the visual acuity of the individual pilot, but cockpit visibility played an important role.  Also, the ability to see an attack could enable a pilot to survive to fight another day.  Visibility had an added importance to a pilot’s situational awareness due to unreliable ground control radars and unreliable or non-existent (for the MiG-17) fighter radars.  Aircraft maneuverability is an important performance factor in a visual dogfight when both adversaries see each other and are manoeuvring.  Altitude and airspeed play a role in this factor, one aircraft might be superior at low altitude and sub-sonic speeds while another might be superior at high altitude and super-sonic speeds.  For combat over Vietnam, the comparison is made where the combat mostly took place, below 10,000 feet and subsonic airspeeds.  The last factor to compare for successful air combat in the visual arena is weapons and the systems that control those weapons.  If a fighter can sight another aircraft, manoeuvre into a position to shoot down that aircraft, but the weapons and associated systems are incapable of finishing the job, the fighter is impotent. A comparison of the F-8 to the two North Vietnamese fighters it faced will show that each aircraft had weaknesses that were exploitable by the other aircraft. 

Visibility for the pilot in the F-8 was poor by modern standards, with a large blind spot behind the pilot and multiple canopy bows to the front.  It did offer better visibility than most fighters of the time, with good visibility up, to the sides, and down.¹¹  The MiG-17 had very poor visibility to the front of the fighter due to canopy bows and thick bulletproof glass.  The MiG-17 pilot also sat very low in the cockpit, which hindered his downward and rear views.  The MiG-17 pilot did have a good view up and to the sides.¹²  The MiG-21 had the worst visibility of the three fighters.  The front glass also had very thick bulletproof glass with large canopy bows.  The MiG-21’s rearward visibility was non-existent with a blind cone that extended 40 degrees from either side of the tail.  Some MiG-21s had a rear looking periscope, but this was fairly ineffective in a combat situation.  The MiG-21’s rearward visibility was so poor that US visual game plans developed in the late 1960’s through secret exploitation programs relied heavily on exploiting this weakness.¹³

The ability to manoeuvre a fighter plane into a position to shoot down another aircraft has been a hallmark of fighter design since the First World War. Fighter maneuverability is a wide-ranging concept that has to take into account different airspeeds, altitudes, and configurations.  Since the combat over Vietnam took place at a relatively consistent altitude and airspeed, below 10,000 feet and subsonic airspeeds, a comparison can be made between the three fighters. Configurations in the fighter roles also remained fairly constant throughout the war for the three fighters. For an initial comparison of maneuverability, a fighter’s wing loading can be contrasted.  Wing loading is the fighters weight divided by wing area.¹⁴  A low wing loading aircraft usually has a better turn performance than an aircraft with a high wing loading, especially at subsonic airspeeds.  Instantaneous turn rate and radius at differing altitudes can offer a look at a first turn capability of a fighter aircraft, while sustained turn rate and radius focus on the fighters turn performance over time.  Unfortunately, the F-8s turn rate and radius numbers remain classified at this time.¹⁵

The F-8 Crusader was built as a pure air superiority fighter with the Mark-12 20-mm cannon as the primary weapon.  The ability to manoeuvre to achieve a weapons solution was an important consideration in the design.  Although supersonic speed and high-altitude performance were also features that influenced the aircrafts design. Compared to other US fighters of the time, the F-8 had decent maneuverability with wing loading of 69 lbs per square foot.  The F-8 would stall below 220 kts in a turn and could have some difficult departure characteristics.¹⁶  At supersonic, high subsonic airspeeds, and high altitude the F-8 had good turn performance.  At low altitude, lower wing loaded aircraft had a definite turn advantage over the Crusader. 

The MiG-17 was a very maneuverable aircraft.  With a lightweight and a low stall speed, this swept wing aircraft had very impressive instantaneous turn and sustained turn rate and radius.  The MiG-17 had a wing loading of 44 pounds be square foot.¹⁷  It had an instantaneous turn rate of 21 degrees per second and a sustained turn rate of 13 degrees per second.¹⁸  The MiG-17 also had a sustained turn radius of about 1800 feet at low altitude and a best turn speed of just over 300 knots.  At slow airspeeds the MiG-17 could continue an impressive turn all the way down to a speed of 120 knots.  At high airspeeds the MiG-17 turn rate and radius became less impressive.  Above 450 knots the MiG-17s controls began to stiffen and the aircraft would begin to ‘arc’. ‘Arcing’ is a term used by fighter pilots to describe a turn that is characterized by a large turn radius and a low rate of turn.  At slower airspeeds the MiG-17 could outturn any of the US fighter aircraft.   

Interview with a Crusader pilot here.

The MiG-21C was designed for high altitude interception.  It was capable of Mach 2 and had a delta wing design and a wing loading of 58 pounds per square foot.  At high altitude the MiG-21C had good turn performance but as the altitude decreased its performance also decreased.  At 5000 feet the MiG-21 C has an instantaneous turn rate of around 15 degrees per second and a sustained turn rate of 9 degrees per second.  Its instantaneous radius was less than 2000 feet and its best airspeed was above 350 knots.¹⁹  

            Weapons and weapons control suite control a fighter’s ability to down another aircraft.  Once that aircraft had been sighted and through maneuvering or surprise the aircraft brings its weapons to bear, the accuracy and reliability of the weapons become the last part of a visual arena kill in air to air combat. The weapons and weapon control systems were fairly similar and were consistent with the fighter technology developed in the 1950’s.  The F-8’s weapons suite consisted of a pulse radar, two or four AIM-9 missiles, and four 20-mm cannon.  The F-8s radar and weapons computer provided range and a computed gun solution for the gun sight.   Unfortunately, the radar and computer had a 3 second settling time before it provided accurate information.  What this meant was that an enemy aircraft had to fly the same course and airspeed for at least 3 seconds for the F-8 pilot to get accurate information for a radar guided gunshot.  A non-maneuvering or steady state fighter in a visual engagement was a highly unlikely.  The F-8s Mark-12 20-mm guns, as stated previously, were highly susceptible to jamming in a high G environment.  The Mark-12s also were inaccurate with a 12-mil dispersion.²⁰  This meant that bullets would land in a 12-foot wide circle when fired at 1000 feet. The 12-mil dispersion is fairly large when compared to the 3-mil dispersion of previous fighters.  The AIM-9B and D were fairly reliable against non-maneuvering aircraft, but both had varying degrees of difficulty with maneuvering targets. The F-8’s radar was also temperamental and was frequently inoperative. The F-8 could operate and often did effectively without its radar operating.  Due to unreliability of its guns and limitations of the AIM-9B/D, the F-8 could and did find itself in a position to shoot down an enemy fighter but unable to finish the job. 

The MiG-17 was a follow on to the MiG-15.  It was to be operated from unimproved fields and carried rudimentary armament. The North Vietnamese operated two main variants of the MiG-17, the MiG-17F and the MiG-17PF.  The MiG-17F was armed with two 23-mm cannon and one 37-mm cannon.  The MiG-17PF had the same armament but also had a range only gun radar.  Both MiGs had a slow rate of fire, carried very few rounds, and their cannon and gun sight were notoriously inaccurate.  The cannon had tremendous killing power and one hit could bring down a US fighter.  The MiG-17PF’s radar was hard to maintain and often was inoperable. The MiG-17 could carry two AA-2 Atoll missiles, copies of the AIM-9B, but most often this configuration was not seen.²¹  

Sadly, this site will pause operations in mid June if it does not hit its funding targets. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here.

The MiG-21C was a vastly more modern fighter than the MiG-17 and on paper it appeared to be much more of a threat than the MiG-17.  The MiG-21C carried a range only ‘Sky Fix’ radar that had a lock-on range out to four miles.  It provided the pilot with a missile and gun in-range cueing.  The MiG-21C’s main armament was the AA-2B and it could carry 2 of the missiles.  The AA-2B had an un-cooled seeker head and a range out to 1.5 miles at low altitude.  The AA-2B was a rear quarter, 20 degrees AOT or less with limited manoeuvrability or ability to discern a target from ground heat.²²  The MiG-21C also had a single Gsh-30 30-mm cannon.  The radar and range computer were somewhat inaccurate, and a phenomenon known as ‘gun sight jitter’, where the gun sight pipper jumps about the gun sight when the gun is fired, was prevalent in the MiG-21C.  Like the MiG-17, the MiG-21 C’s cannon did have a tremendous punch and could bring down a US fighter with a single hit.²³

A comparison of the three fighters shows that each had its own advantages and disadvantages.   The F-8 had better visibility from the cockpit than the two MiGs. This visibility would provide the F-8 pilots with an offensive entry or could provide them with a chance to see an attacker before it was too late.  The F-8 and the MiG-21 were evenly matched at low altitude in terms of manoeuvrability.  The MiG-21C’s delta wing limited some of its low altitude manoeuvrability, so the wing loading comparison is a little deceiving.  The MiG-17 could out turn the F-8 by a wide margin at low altitude and slower than 450 knots, but the Crusaders much higher speed and acceleration meant a savvy pilot could stay out of range of the MiG-17’s powerful guns.  A slow speed dogfight at low altitude against a MiG-17 could prove fatal to any US fighter. The three-fighter aircraft carried comparable weapons. All three had inaccurate cannon but the MiG’s killing power was superior. The F-8 had a distinct advantage starting in 1967 when the AIM-9D was introduced to the Navy fleet squadrons.  The AIM-9D was superior in range and seeker head capability to the AA-2B and the AIM-9B.²⁴  The F-8s radar was also superior to the MiG’s radar systems and its capability to detect and lock enemy aircraft could aid a pilot greatly in visual acquisition.  

F-8 Pilot Training

The first F-8 models were pure air superiority fighters.  Until the F-8E was introduced in the early 1960’s, the F-8 did not have a bomb carrying capability.  The F-8 was also designed with the four Colt Mark-12 20-mm cannon as the primary weapon.  F-8 pilots all report that the aircraft was fun to fly and was an honest aircraft.  It would let you know when it was going to depart, but it could have some nasty post stall gyrations and departure characteristics.  US Navy and Marine Corps F-8 training in the late 1950s and early 1960s revolved around the air superiority mission.  F-8 pilots racked up large amounts of flight hours and experience.  Rules during this time were not very stringent and F-8 pilots would practice their trade on any aircraft they could find.  Un-briefed dogfights were the norm and in the absence of different aircraft, the F-8s would fight against each other.  Even with the introduction of the F-8E and the air-to-ground mission, the F-8 pilots reported that they would continue to fight against each other at the end of each mission. A large number of pilots had vast experience in dogfighting and knew the capabilities and limitations of the F-8.²⁵

            F-8 pilot’s experiences with air-to-air gunnery differed although all did have some experience with shooting at the banner.  Like much of Navy and Marine Corps training at the time, individual F-8 squadrons drove the training syllabus and events.  One squadron might conduct air-to-air gunnery shoots on a regular basis while other might do it during an operational inspection.  The air-to-air gunnery pattern had three positive effects on F-8 capabilities.  By exercising the guns in an environment that they may be shot in combat, maintenance and reliability would improve.  Pilots would gain valuable experience on how the jet reacted to the 20-mm guns being fired.  The last thing a pilot would want is to be startled by his own guns in a combat situation.  Lastly, the pilots would learn how to score hits and overcome the limitations of the gun and gun sight system.  Reliance on the gun system would drive tactics that would force the F-8 into close visual maneuvering situations, much like the situations they would find over North Vietnam.²⁶

            The F-8 community in the 1960s added an important facet to its training, the captive carry AIM-9 missiles.  These missiles had the seeker head of a regular AIM-9 but without the warhead or motor.  The captive carry missiles could lock other aircraft and give the pilot all of the indications he would see in combat.  Since combat simulators for aircraft were non-existent at this time, the ability to train with the differing tones and indications of an air-to-air missile was invaluable.  The F-8 pilots could point to this use of the captive carry missile as another part of their success in Vietnam.  Although the overall success of the AIM-9s fired by F-8s in combat was not drastically different than that of other fighters, the AIM-9 was the dominant weapon used by F-8s in combat over Vietnam.

            By its nature, dogfights, especially ones involving many aircraft, are complex three-dimensional affairs that require experience for a pilot to become effective at surviving and killing enemy aircraft.  A pilot needs to be able to recognize what the enemy aircraft is doing, its energy state and position as well as his own aircrafts position in a fight.  In a multi-plane engagement, a pilot will learn to know where to find aircraft after taking his eyes off of one to evaluate or attack another.  Though people like to romanticize that some pilots are naturally born fighter pilots, the truth is that only through experience and training is an effective fighter pilot developed.  While some pilots are better than their peers at maneuvering their aircraft and some can quickly learn to beat more experienced pilots in one on one combat.  Only experience in engaging differing aircraft in different numbers can a pilot become effective in the multi-fighter engagement.  By becoming a master of one’s own aircraft and participating in hundreds or thousands of aerial engagements, a pilot can become the master of his domain.  F-8 pilots, by the nature of their mission and training focus, unknowingly prepared for the engagements over Vietnam by fighting day after day.  While other US aircraft worked on techniques for nuclear bomb delivery or all-weather radar attack procedures, F-8 pilots practiced the mission that their aircraft was developed for. This experience would pay dividends over North Vietnam.  

Environment over North Vietnam

The North Vietnamese Air Force, on paper, did not match up well against the air forces of the United States.  They did not have the numbers of aircraft and many were technologically inferior.  Most of their pilots had very limited experience and they did not have the training opportunities that the US pilots had.  The North Vietnamese Air Force did have many advantages though.  They were defending their home country and their fighters did not have to fly far to engage the US fighters.  The North Vietnamese Ground Control and Early Warning Radars could see the US aircraft forming up and gave their fighters plenty of time to launch and prepare to attach.  The North Vietnamese fighters were only a part of the air defense system with the US aircraft having to concern themselves with Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs) and Anti-Aircraft-Artillery (AAA), along with the MiGs.  The United States engaged in a limited bombing campaign where the North Vietnamese MiG bases were off limits most of the time.  This enabled the MiGs to have a safe haven and the ability to choose the time and place of their attacks.  If the MiGs did not have a positive tactical situation they could leave and fight another day because their aircraft were mostly immune to attack while on the ground.²⁶

            The US fighters and bombers faced a daunting task over North Vietnam.  Attack timing, routes, and targets were often picked in Washington D.C. by non-aviators, not for attack results or sound tactics, but for avoidance of collateral damage.  Often unsound tactics were ordered by planners, which often put US pilots in extreme danger, for targets that often did not have significant value.  North Vietnamese defenses were often left alone to threaten US aircraft day in and day out.    Weather often played a role over North Vietnam.  Poor weather would limit the ability of the pilots to see their targets or any threats until it was too late.  Vietnam was characterized by a long monsoon season and heavy thunderstorms at other times.  This weather also put US aircraft in danger.  The fact that US pilots of all services continued to fly over North Vietnam when they could quit at any time speaks volumes for the courage and dedication to duty.

Engagements

The US Navy lost three F-8 Crusaders in aerial combat over North Vietnam.  All three loses had many of the same characteristics.  When the F-8s were attacked the MiGs had a significant tactical advantage.  Some or all of the MiGs had an altitude advantage and gained an unobserved entry into the dogfight.  All three of the engagements were multi-plane engagements with multiple MiGs in the area.  The weather for all three had cloud cover that could hide enemy airplanes and make ‘Tallies’ (visual acquisition of enemy aircraft) difficult.  The nature of a multi-aircraft visual turning engagement makes it difficult for a pilot to keep track of all of the turning opponents.  This is where the experience mentioned in the previous paragraph on training becomes so important.  Poor weather will limit the ability of a pilot to maintain tally of all of the enemy aircraft and some will invariably become lost in the mix.  This was the case on all three of the F-8 shoot downs.  One F-8 pilot claimed that AAA damaged his aircraft and the MiGs finished him off.²⁷  His aircraft did not have the ability to defend himself.  Another F-8 was shot down without every seeing his attacker who dropped out of the clouds right behind the Navy pilot was prosecuting an attack against anther MiG.²⁸  The last F-8 shot down was jumped by a flight of four MiG-17s and the pilot’s defensive reaction was too little, too late.²⁹  The F-8s tactics and training drove it into to close proximity of enemy fighters and invariably the enemy fighters could find itself with a weapons employment opportunity on the American fighters.  Because the tactical situation over North Vietnam was so disadvantaged for the US aircraft, it speaks highly of the F-8 pilots experience and ability that more F-8s were not lost to MiGs over North Vietnam. 

            The F-8s achieved 18 or 19 kills, depending on which resource you check, over North Vietnam during the first three years of the war.  Much of the combat was multi-aircraft visual dogfights, often with the F-8s fighting an in-close dogfight with MiG-17s, a situation that should have greatly favored the MiG-17s.  The first MiG kill of the war was by a very experienced Navy Commander with 1,400 hours in the F-8 and over 5,000 hours in fighters.  The dogfight was a four versus four visual turning engagement down at 2,000 to 3,000 feet.  The F-8s outmaneuvered the MiGs with the Commander achieving a kill with an AIM-9B.  More kills would probably have been achieved by the F-8s, but weapon failures were rampant in the flight.  Three F-8s had gun failures when the American fighters were in firing solutions on MiGs.  Eight AIM-9s failed to hit targets when launched with the failures either being missile failures or pilot error.³⁰

Interview with a Crusader pilot here.

            The next MiG kills were achieved by two second cruise Lieutenants with about 1,000 hours each in F-8s.  Their flight lead was shot down at the beginning of the engagement by either AAA and/or MiGs.  The F-8s out maneuvered the MiG-17s; one was shot down by an AIM-9B and the other by the F-8s 20MM cannon.  Of note, this kill was the only gun exclusive kill credited to the F-8 during the Vietnam War.³¹

            A Commander with 15 years of fighter experience and over 1,000 hours in the F-8 scored the first MiG-21 kill by a Navy aircraft.  The flight of F-8s had good radar vectors and an early tally on the flight of four MiG-21s.  The Commander maneuvered to an offensive position and dropped the MiG-21 with an AIM-9B and an AIM-9D.  The combat took place below 4,000 feet.  This Commander had been shot down by MiG-17s four months earlier.³²

            In spring 1967, F-8s were involved in multiple engagements with North Vietnamese MiGs.  A Lieutenant Commander with 10 years of experience and over 3,000 hours in the F-8 damaged a MiG with 20 MM hits and a Zuni rocket hit. (The Zuni was an unguided air to ground rocket with a warhead and an AIM-9 motor)  The Lieutenant Commanders guns jammed while he was in a gun solution at 3,000 feet.  Later another experienced Lieutenant Commander would gain a tally on a low flying MiG-17 and maneuver to kill it with an AIM-9D.  The F-8 then outmaneuvered another MiG-17 and damaged it with his 20 MM cannon.³³  

Support Hush-Kit with our high quality aviation themed merchandise here

            A large dogfight ensued in May 1967 with three MiG-17s being shot down and another being a probable kill by F-8 pilots.  A Commander maneuvered behind a MiG-17 and dropped it with two AIM-9D missiles.  Two experienced Lieutenants outmaneuvered two different MiG-17s and hit them with AIM-9Ds.  One of the Lieutenants found his MiG behind him and was hit by the MiGs cannon but managed to outmaneuver the North Vietnamese pilot and shoot him down.  Lastly a Lieutenant Junior Grade downed the final MiG with an AIM-9D.  All of the combat took place below 5,000 feet.³⁴

            In July of 1967 another large dogfight ensued with the F-8s once again getting the better of the North Vietnamese fighters.  A Commander downed one MiG-17 and damaged a second with AIM-9Ds.  (In some records the Commander is giving credit for the second MiG)  A Lieutenant Commander damaged a MiG-17 with an AIM-9D and finished the MIG with the 20MM cannon.  Anther Lieutenant Commander damaged a MiG-17 with the 20MM cannon and finished the job with a pair of Zuni rockets.  A Lieutenant damaged a MiG-17 with an AIM-9D and was given a probable kill.   The combat was once again at low altitude.  The flight of F-8s had seven AIM-9 misses or failures during the fighting.³⁵  

            A second cruise Lieutenant achieved a MiG-17 kill in December of 1967 when he outmaneuvered the MiG and downed it with an AIM-9D.  A Lieutenant Commander also out flew a MiG in this flight but had two AIM-9 misses and a gun jam which denied him of his chance to down a MiG.  This pilot out flew 4 MiG-17s at medium altitude for almost fifteen minutes.  His actions kept the fighters off of an A-4 Skyhawk that was involved in the fight.  This combat was unique since it took place at 10,000 to 20,000 feet.  Another Lieutenant in the flight missed with an AIM-9D.³⁶  

            Throughout the summer on 1968 the F-8 pilots continued to engage and kill MiGs without loss.  A Commander with 2,500 hours in the F-8 out maneuvered a MiG-21 and downed it with an AIM-9D and his 20MM cannon.  A Lieutenant Commander with 2,400 hours in the F-8 out fought a MIG-17 and downed the aircraft with the 20MM cannon and an AIM-9D. Another Commander was involved in a large dogfight at low altitude and downed a MiG-17 with an AIM-9D.  His flight ran into weapons failures that inhibited more MiG kills.  Four AIM-9 misses, and a jammed gun foiled the attacks of the rest of the F-8 pilots.  Other flights also ran into armament problems.  11 AIM-9 misses and 2 gun jams in three engagements let some MiGs survive.  The last three kills by F-8 pilots were against MiG-21s.  Experienced pilots, below 10,000 feet, achieved these kills and the fights were characterised by the F-8s outmanoeuvring the MiGs.  The MiG-21s were all downed by AIM-9Ds.³⁷

Sadly, funding for this site is currently at a very low level. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here.

            The F-8’s over North Vietnam started the war by losing 3 fighters and shooting down 3 MiGs.  After that the Crusader pilots went on a 15 (or 16 depending on the source) to nothing tear.  Most of the combat involved maneuvering multi-plane engagements at low altitude.  The low altitude regime should have favored the MiG-17s.  AIM-9s were involved in all but two of the kills.  11 of the MiG killers were either Commanders or Lieutenant Commanders.  6 Lieutenants and one Lieutenant Junior Grade rounded out the kill column for the F-8.  Most of the Lieutenants were at least on their second cruise and had over a thousand hours in the F-8.  The unreliability of the F-8s weapons was a cause of multiple missed kill opportunities.  While it is doubtful that all or even a majority of these opportunities would have resulted in more MiG kills, at least a few would probably have resulted in a downed MiG.

Interview with a Crusader pilot here.

Conclusion

The air war over Vietnam was mismanaged by the United States at the highest levels.  The deck was stacked against the US air forces.  The F-8 Crusader was a mature aircraft at the time of the war with some very experienced pilots.   The F-8 had visual weapons only had to rely on manoeuvrability and pilot skill to achieve a weapons solution.  The nature of the combat that occurred over Vietnam, mostly visual turning engagements, was similar to the training that the F-8 community had practiced for the previous 10 years.   The in close dogfight over hostile territory against aircraft that were more manoeuvrable should not have been to the F-8s advantage.  The North Vietnamese MiGs had good radar coverage and control and could pick its engagements.  When the MiGs did engage, it was often with an advantage, against aircraft that it could out turn.  The F-8 pilots training over the previous ten years had more than evened the tables in the skies over North Vietnam.  The countless dogfights, the dedication to aerial gunnery, and the experience that came with both were the deciding factor in the success of the F-8.  Only 18 F-8 pilots were able to down MiGs over North Vietnam.  Other pilots had the opportunity, but weapons failures or other unforeseen circumstances foiled their attempts.  The vast majority of F-8 pilots never had the chance to see and engage the MiGs over North Vietnam.  Many other F-8 pilots had the knowledge and experience to achieve MiG kills but were never in the right place at the right time.  The F-8 was a good aircraft with some strong attributes and some faults, but it was the pilots training and experience level that led to air-to-air success over North Vietnam.

WORKS CITED

1.  Barrett Tillman, MiG Master, The Story of the F-8 Crusader (United States: Nautical Aviation Publishing Company of America 1980) page 130

2. Tillman,  page 24

3. Michael O’Conner, MiG Killers of Yankee Station (Wisconsin, New Past Press, INC 2003) page 17

4. Tillman, page 68

5. Paul T. Gillcrist, Rear Admiral (USN ret) Crusader! Last of the Gunfighters (Pennsylvania, Schiffer Publishing LTD, 1995) page 74

6. Marshall Michel III, Clashes, Air Combat over North Vietnam 1965-1972 (Annapolis, Maryland, Naval Institute Press 1997) page 54

7. Vought F-8 E/H/J Tactical Manual (Naval Publishing 1967) page 44

8. Tillman, page 75

9. F-8 E/H/K Tactical Manual, page 51

10. F-8 E/H/K Tactical Manual, page 55

11. Gillcrist, page 235

12. Gillcrist, page 237

13. Michel III, page 82

14. Website, Basic Aerodynamics. available [online]: http://142.26.194.131/aerodynamics1/Basics/wing_loading.html

15. Correspondence, Major Matt Taylor, Test Pilot VX-23, NAX Pax River, MD

16. Tillman, page 28

17. Michel III, page 82

18. Website, MiG-17, Home of a True Fighter. Available [online] http://www.mig17.com/specifications.html

19. Michel III, page 82

20. Tillman, page 66

21. Michel III, page 234

22. Michel III, page 78

23. Gillcrist, page 237

24. Michel III, page 54

25. Harold L. Marr, Commander USN, “We Will Get MiGs” Grumman Horizons, vol. 8 no1. pp. 4-11

26. Billy Phillips, Captain USN, “It Takes a Special Kind of Man” Grumman Horizons, vol 8 no 3. pp 3-12

27. O’Conner, page 39

28. O’Conner, page 42

29. O’Conner, page 49

30. O’Conner, page 38

31. O’Conner, page 42

32. O’Conner, page 52

33. O’Conner, page 68

34. O’Conner, page 70

35. O’Conner, page 81

36. O’Conner, page 101

37. O’Conner, page 133

Other Works Cited

Peter Mersky, F-8 Crusader Units of the Vietnam War, (Osprey Publishing LTD, London, England 1997)

Robert K. Wilcox, Scream of Eagles, (Pocket Books, New York, NY 1990)

Ivan Rendall, Rolling Thunder, Jet Combat from World War II to the Gulf War, (The Free Press, New York, NY 1997)

Peter B. Mersky & Norman Polmar, The Naval Air War in Vietnam, (Kensington Publishing Co. New York, NY 1981)

Zalin Grant, Over the Beach, The Air War in Vietnam, (W.W. Norton and Company INC, New York, NY 1987)

John Darrell Sherwood, Fast Movers, Jet Pilots and the Vietnam Experience, ( The Free Press, New York, NY 1999)

Frank Harvey, Air War-Vietnam, (Bantam Books, New York, NY 1967)

Robert L. Shaw, Fighter Combat, Tactics and Maneuvering, (Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD 1985)

VC-2 FLEET COMPOSITE SQUADRON TWO website, F-8 Crusader specifications, available online [http://home.earthlink.net/~dlee0005/F-8%20Crusader.htm]

Email Interview, re: F-8 questionnaire, Tom Corboy, April 11, 2005

Email Interview, re: F-8 questionnaire, Art Krause, April 3, 2005

Email Interview, re: F-8 questionnaire, Lou Pritchet, March 29, 2005

Email Interview, re: F-8 questionnaire, Orson Swindle, March 21, 2005

Email Interview, re: F-8 questionnaire, James Hagen, March 21, 2005

Email Interview, re: F-8 questionnaire, LtCol Stoney Mayock USMC (ret), March 19, 2005

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes features the finest cuts from this site along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Buy The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.

Thank you. Our merchandise shop is here and our Twitter account here @Hush_Kit. Sign up for our newsletter here.

From the cocaine, blood and flying scarves of World War One dogfighting to the dark arts of modern air combat, here is an enthralling ode to these brutally exciting killing machines.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazines (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as:

“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planes”.

The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.

FEATURING

• Interviews with pilots of the F-14 Tomcat, Mirage, Typhoon, MiG-25, English Electric Lighting, Harrier, F-15, B-52 and many more.
• Engaging Top (and bottom) 10s including: Greatest fighter aircraft of World War II, Worst British aircraft, and many more insanely specific ones.
• Expert analysis of weapons, tactics and technology.
• A look into art and culture’s love affair with the aeroplane.
• Bizarre moments in aviation history.
• Fascinating insights into exceptionally obscure warplanes.

The book will be a stunning object: an essential addition to the library of anyone with even a passing interest in the high-flying world of warplanes, and featuring first-rate photography and a wealth of new world-class illustrations.

This book can only happen with your support. Preorder your copy today here. 

I was curious to know what a normal (non aeroplane obsessed) person knows about aviation, so I asked the artist and actor Penny Klein. This is directly from her memory with no research, fact-checking or googling.

“I don’t know much about aviation, but I know the word aviation is to do with aeroplanes. I imagine the root of the word is ‘aviate’ or ‘av’, and is something to do with being in the air. I would hazard a guess that to ‘aviate’ is to ‘go in the air’. Planes are best known, of course, for doing exactly that. It can’t be that long since aviation has been going, as a topic, as planes are not that old.

“Land rules don’t apply and the little nuts just don’t soak up all that booze.”

I reckon they were invented as some kind of weapon, and leisurely flying came a lot later. I think it must have taken quite a long time for people to work out how far planes can go up in the air, so they don’t collide with the edge of the o-zone layer. I can’t say with certainty that the discovery of the o-zone layer came before the invention of planes, but I think it probably did. There is bound to have been a plane that went too high. There is also probably a long and documented history of planes that went too low. The thing is, it depends on how many people are on the plane. Small light aircraft can do all sorts of tricks in the sky that you would never see larger planes do. I don’t think anyone would even try, because the size and scale is just all wrong. I get a funny feeling just thinking about it.

Aviation as an industry has probably done a lot over the years to help regulate against anyone taking dangerous risks with aeroplane flying. And of course it is hard to hide aeroplane experiments, because they take place in the sky which is practically impossible to hide from people. I don’t really want to go into it, but aviation research probably has a lot to say about plane crashes. It probably talks about it in quite an unemotional way, because aviation is more of a science. So it would be looking at the scientific and engineering factors involved, things like balance and velocity. I know that planes have wheels on them for when they are on land, and I imagine aviation theory has a lot to say about this. I wonder if the wheels on aeroplanes used to be a lot bigger in the past. Aviation history would be a good place to turn for this kind of information. It would also be a good place to turn if you wanted a comprehensive history of international flight patterns. For instance where were the first flights to and from? Why? Aviation historians must get asked this kind of thing a lot, and I’m sure they are happy to divulge.

We sell fantastic high quality aviation-themed gifts here

The aviation industry has probably been unwittingly involved in its fair share of scandals and court cases, as aeroplane flights are often mixed up in nefarious tabloid worthy affairs. Blowjobs in the toilets, Xanax and champagne, smuggling, bigotry, that kind of thing. It is hard to tell whether a lot of this is just salacious gossip or whether there is something more orchestrated going on. Land rules don’t apply and the little nuts just don’t soak up all that booze, if you know what I mean. For that reason, in the eye of the public, the aviation industry tends to have a bit of a shady side. Perhaps this is reinforced by the idea of aviator sunglasses, which seem to denote something a bit depraved. Certain pop culture references do a lot to back this image up, which makes me wonder if there is some kind of agenda. Whatever is going on, you don’t work in the aviation industry and stay innocent.

That said, I think it is a serious business and shouldn’t be taken lightly. We’re talking huge machines here, that carry a lot of people and also ‘cargo’. Cargo is the stuff that people put in the aeroplanes, down in the bottom bit, and contains all kinds of things. It is down here where you can have aerosols and sharp objects. I would imagine the aviation department of any major airline has some stories to tell about cargo.

Aviation as a subject has probably expanded over the last couple of decades as planes have become more sophisticated, and more people can fly, and as there has been more research into automated flying. I know that planes still have pilots, but for how long? There are probably aviation specialists who are more interested in helicopters, I can’t even imagine what they get up to.

There will undoubtedly be those who are stuck in the past, and only like lecturing about wooden planes, before they had ovens and fridges on them. There are undoubtedly disagreements about fuel type and tail shapes, and let us not forget design. Airline graphics are a big business, and I don’t think for a second that aviationists are on the fence about that Ryan Air logo!
All in all I have a lot of respect for anyone involved in the field, and I’d be interested to learn more about how it works and what it really means to say as a young child to your career advisor: “I’ll do aviation, please.’‘

Thank you! We’ve done it!

I’m extremely excited to announce The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes has reached 100% funding thanks to your support. We can now commence with work on what promises to be an exceptional coffee table book.

You may pre-order the book here.

More updates to follow soon.

“There comes a time for me to recount my last flight at the controls of a military aircraft. A flight of four launched out of NAS Miramar on a beautiful, clear, California Fall morning, October 3, 1968. It was a flight of four F-8H Crusaders belonging to the VF-111 Sundowners, out for an air-to-ground weapons training flight.

The F-8’s cockpit visibility wasn’t the greatest, so you always raised your seat as much as you could. But you didn’t want it so high that you would have trouble grabbing the two yellow-and-black-striped handles above your helmet, the handles that fired your ejection seat.

The last thing I always did before taking the runway was make a reflexive grab for the face curtain handles. That turned out to be a useful exercise.
After a short flight east, over the mountains into the southern California desert, we reached the target, radio call sign ‘Inky Barley.’ Loaded with both 20-mm machine gun ammunition and practice bombs, we set up a race track strafing pattern around the target at 4000 feet, 450 knots.

As the target went past 90 degrees to your left, you’d roll into a 25-degree dive and accelerate to 500 knots as you lined up your gun sight on the target. Since this aircraft lacked a heads-up display, you had to watch the unwinding altimeter out of the corner of your eye. You wanted to be sure you initiated recovery early enough to avoid ‘controlled flight into terrain.’

I didn’t.

When Tom Garrett, the flight leader, called “last pass,” I was determined to ‘fire out’ (to expend all my ammunition). Word was that it was a lot of extra work for the aviation ordnance crews to disarm unexpended munitions. Trying to be helpful, I hosed away at the target with the F-8’s four Colt 20-mm cannon. A phenomenon called target fixation caused me to miss a revolution of the altimeter.

As I pulled four G’s to recover, I looked up and to the left, looking for the aircraft ahead of me in the pattern. I have a vague memory of seeing sage brush, zooming by to my lower left. I felt a slight bump, which was the tail of the aircraft brushing a sand dune. I had hit the ground in a wings-level, slightly nose-up attitude, at 500 knots, about 550 mph. I reflexively grabbed for the face curtain.

I was strapped into a Martin-Baker Mk-F5A ejection seat, the last of the ballistic models. Pulling the face curtain handles fired a charge that set the seat moving up and out of the cockpit on a telescoping tube. As the seat moved up, two successive charges were fired by the hot gasses from the first. Ideally the three successive charges propelled you high enough for separation from the seat and deployment of your main parachute.

My situation wasn’t ideal. For one thing, ground-level was 100 feet too low for the speed of 500 knots. The seat delayed main chute deployment until a small drogue chute had slowed you down enough to avoid damage to the main chute. But a larger problem was that the ejection gun, the telescoping tube, ruptured as the aircraft was disintegrating. I only got one of the three charges; the other two were recovered unexpended from the wreckage.
I didn’t clear the aircraft’s vertical tail. It chopped off my right heel like a guillotine.

My main chute streamed but didn’t fill. On the plus side, it snagged in sagebrush, keeping me from tumbling. I hit the ground feet and butt first. Femurs stayed together but tibias and fibulas broke; remaining ankle bones were shattered. The five-inch-thick seat pan, containing life raft and other supplies, acted as a crush- zone, but I still ended up with a fractured pelvis.
The first thing I remember upon regaining consciousness, face up on my back, was a cool breeze across my face. That wasn’t right, because I should have been wearing a hot, rubber oxygen mask. It had been dislodged somewhere along the way. Then I heard the sound of another aircraft, orbiting overhead. That reminded me I had been flying my own aircraft a moment ago.

I was in shock. I felt no pain. I tried to sit up, but the broken pelvis and legs, as well as the parachute harness, made that problematic. I raised my arms and notice that my left forefinger had been dislocated. Well, I didn’t particularly want to see that.
I had no sensation of time passing. Next thing I knew, one of the target crew appeared in my field of view. I asked him if I still had any legs. He said I did, but they didn’t look so good.

Meanwhile, back in the strafing pattern, my flight leader, Tom Garrett, was directly across from me. He said later that he thought I was pulling out too low. He keyed his mic to say “Pull up,” but instead transmitted “Oh shit” as my aircraft erupted into the typical black mushroom cloud.
Recovering quickly, Tom immediately lit burner to climb high enough to get line- of-sight radio contact back to Sundowner base at Miramar. He ordered Hugh Risseeuw, the less experienced pilot to return to Miramar independently and the more experienced pilot, Tom Laughter, to orbit low and maintain contact with the target crew.

Since there was no rocket exhaust from my ballistic seat and since no chute had blossomed, Tom assumed I was spread over a mile or so with my aircraft. When he returned to target frequency the target crew reported that I was not only alive but also conscious. Tom got on the horn to MCAS Yuma, some 40 miles to the southeast. Yuma scrambled an H-34 helicopter, but its oil sump chip light came on en route. It had to make an emergency landing in the desert.

Tom then called NAF El Centro. Listening in on tower frequency was a Navy reserve flight surgeon, getting in his required flight time in a C-130 doing touch- and-go landings. He called for a full-stop, transferred to a helicopter, and was on his way to Inky Barley.

All I remember about the helicopter was being loaded into it. I heard somebody cry out in pain. I realized somewhere in my shock-anesthetized brain that it was I.

Back to El Centro and into the C-130 for the flight back west over the mountains to Miramar. Time had no meaning; I was only marginally conscious. At one point, I noticed a placard on the bulkhead, “Do not store body bags aft of frame 58.” I asked the doctor what frame we were next to. He told me not to worry about it.

Next thing I know, I’m being transferred to an ambulance bound for Balboa Naval Hospital. I see the faces of squadron mates and CDR Finney, the skipper. “Sorry I fucked up, skipper” I remember saying. “Don’t worry about it” he said.

Save the Hush-Kit blog. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Your donations keep this going. Thank you. 

Next memory is the Balboa ER. The anesthesiologist is explaining that he’s about to intubate me. I will feel a choking sensation, he warned, but then the tube would slip into place and everything would be fine. Then he commences shoving a broomstick or something down my throat. Well, hell yeah I felt a choking sensation! Then I tried to tell him that, yes, it did slip into place, and everything was fine. All that come out was a whisper of breath. “Oh, don’t try to talk; you can’t; the tube goes through your vocal cords.” Oh, OK.

I come to in the recovery room or ICU or who knows? The patient is the last to know. Turns out that I have tubes everywhere: a nasogastric tube, wound drains in open reductions of fractures on both legs, a Foley catheter, a cephalic vein IV, and a jugular intracath. I have a plaster cast on my left hand, where the dislocated metacarpophalangeal joint was reduced. I have a splint on my right elbow, where a large laceration was sewn up. I have a plaster boot on my left foot. I have a bivalve cast on my right leg, along with a Steinmann pin through what’s left of the heel. And I have an ugly-looking incision from sternum to pubis, thanks to a laparotomy that allowed repair of a lacerated liver.

Thanks to better living through chemistry, the only pain I felt through all this was a dull ache from the fractured pelvis. At one point, I thought I was dying as consciousness slowly faded. Turns out I was only falling asleep.
My orthopedist characterized my recovery as “stormy.” That is a euphemism for raging pseudomonas infection in the huge defect that used to be my right heel, plus uremia. My kidneys had shut down—distal tubular necrosis, consequent to shock.

I was raving insane and had to be restrained lest I pull out my IV’s. I was told I was about to be dialyzed before my kidneys rebooted and my BUN peaked at 180.

I did a tour in the Balboa ICU. The Red Cross flew my parents out from Maryland, something they do, I later learned, only in situations expected to be terminal. I was recovering from uremia then, so I don’t remember much about the visit.
The worst part was being NPO (Latin for nulla per os, nothing by mouth). I could have only a shot class of D5W, sugar water, every hour. It’s a great weight-loss regimen—see the picture below. I’d live for that shot. The nurses would never let me have it early, but they didn’t seem bothered if it was late.

Support Hush-Kit with our high quality aviation themed merchandise here

Toward the end of my ICU stay, I was visited once by one of the members of my last flight of four, Hugh Risseeuw. I enviously watched him finish a cup of coffee. Hmmm, there was a container of D5W on my table. He had a cup. Why not? “Hugh, sneak me a slug of water from that jug.” There was a little ring of coffee left in the bottom of his cup. After weeks of nothing but sugar water, I still remember that sip as the richest, most exotic thing I have ever tasted. This is when I realized I had turned the corner.

I have a load of hospital stories. I was shipped back home to Maryland to Bethesda Naval Hospital. Finally had my right foot amputated. Met the Navy nurse whom I later married. But this is supposed to be the story of how my last Crusader flight ended. To this day, every time the wheels squeal against the runway, I say to my seat-mate, “Cheated death again!”

RATE THE F-8 IN THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES

Joe, I’m not an aeronautical engineer, nor have I ever flown another fleet-type aircraft. Consequently my ratings are purely anecdotal.

INSTANTANEOUS TURN

“Excellent.”

SUSTAINED TURN

“Good, with burner.”

ACCELERATION

“Excellent, with burner.”

ENERGY PRESERVATION

I have no idea.

CLIMB RATE

“Excellent, with burner.”

COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS

“No experience. See Peter Mersky or Barrett Tillman’s books.”

COCKPIT ERGONOMICS

“Small canopy made cockpit visibility poor. Raising the seat to improve visibility reduced clearance for face-curtain ejection grips.”

Which units did you fly with?

“VF-111 Sundowners.”

How does it feel to take-off and land from a carrier in an F-8?

“Catapult shot is straightforward. The variable incidence wing eliminated need for nose-up rotation off the bow.”

Landing was assisted by the approach power compensator, engaged in the groove with a press-switch on the throttle grip. In APC, the pilot uses only the stick to keep the ball (the yellow light of the lens landing system) centered between the green datum lights. The APC (an analog computer system) adjusted the throttle to maintain optimum (max lift/drag) angle of attack.

The H model was the only version I operated on/off carriers, and it handled well. Pilots of the J model tell a different story. Air was bled from the engine for boundary layer control. Experienced friends have told me that on bolter or wave-off in basic engine, one could either climb out straight ahead or turn downwind—but not both at the same time!

Did it have any nicknames?

“The usual shipboard one was ‘Sader’ from Crusader, of course. Rolling into the groove, the pilot would call, “[Modex, e.g., AH-107], ‘Sader, ball, [fuel state].” Now that it’s obsolete, it’s usually called ‘Gator’ because of the long, thin fuselage and the spindly main gear.

What is the biggest myth about the F-8?

“Not really a ‘myth’ but…. It was common to speak of raising or lowering the variable incidence wing. Aerodynamically, the wing maintained its angle of attack, while the fuselage was lowering or raising respectively.”

Have you flown a combat mission, if so what are your strongest recollections?

I managed to avoid combat missions by failing to see and avoid planet earth, i.e., target fixation followed by controlled flight into terrain. Hospitalized and retired for disability.

How important were guns to the Crusader?

Critical to its image as the last of the gunfighters (at least in the Vietnam era)! The VN rules of engagement required a visual ID pass before engaging an enemy, which ruled out long-range AIM-7 Sparrow shots or sneaky AIM-9 Sidewinders. The Navy added a gun-pod to its F-4 Phantoms. Mersky and Tillman books have the details on missile-vs.-gun combat effectiveness.

The problem with the Crusader’s guns was performance under G-load. They worked great at one G. As G-loads increased in air-combat manoeuvring, the likelihood of jamming the Colts increased proportionally. Dick Schaffert will tell you the guns were useless at five G’s.

Complete this phrase: An F-8 is better than a F-4 because…

“F-4 pilots/rios were taught (back in 1968) that long-range Sparrow capability meant no more worries about dog-fighting. I remember F-8-vs.-F-4 syllabus flights when F-8’s of VF-124 went against F-4’s of VF-121. (Those were the two squadrons, colloquially known as RAG’s, for Replacement Air Groups, at then NAS Miramar in 1968.) As the engagement began beyond visual range, the F-4 would gleefully transmit, “Fox away!” (Such a scenario should not have happened under the then-current rules of engagement, which required a visual ID pass.) Then reality would intrude, as the F-8 neatly turned inside the F-4. The F-4 would use the vertical, giving the F-8 driver a spectacular view of twin J-79’s, blazing in zone-5 afterburner. The F-4 seemed to zoom higher, but the F-8 could simply turn inside it as it headed back down. Repeat until bingo.

How easy is a F-4 to defeat in DACT? How would you do this?

“The key is to avoid a BVR Sparrow. Then see the foregoing paragraph. The F-8 could yo-yo with the F-4, frequently in position to use guns (without all those pesky G’s).”

What equipment would you have liked to have seen added to the F-8?

“That’s an easy question for me 😊: a HUD!! In strafing, the pilot would be accelerating from 400 to 450 knots in a 25-degree dive, concentrating on lining up the reticle’s pipper on the target, while glancing down at the altimeter to check progress. Why, for a novice, this sounds like a recipe for target fixation and CFIT!”

Tell me something I don’t know about the F-8…

It had flaps, rudimentary though they were. In the landing configuration, the ailerons drooped 20 degrees, looking like huge flaps. But they still operated as ailerons, while there was a small, fixed flap next to the fuselage.

How would you describe the Crusader in 3 words?

“Fun to fly.”

What was the best thing about it?

Performance in afterburner. P&W J-57 went from 10000 lbs. thrust to 17000 lbs. in a single-stage light-off.

And the worst?

“Cockpit visibility.”

— George Wright

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes. Preorder your copy here. 

From the cocaine, blood and flying scarves of World War One dogfighting to the dark arts of modern air combat, here is an enthralling ode to these brutally exciting killing machines.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazines (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as:

“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planes”.

The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.

FEATURING

• Interviews with pilots of the F-14 Tomcat, Mirage, Typhoon, MiG-25, MiG-27, English Electric Lighting, Harrier, F-15, B-52 and many more.
• Engaging Top (and bottom) 10s including: Greatest fighter aircraft of World War II, Worst British aircraft, Worst Soviet aircraft and many more insanely specific ones.
• Expert analysis of weapons, tactics and technology.
• A look into art and culture’s love affair with the aeroplane.
• Bizarre moments in aviation history.
• Fascinating insights into exceptionally obscure warplanes.

The book will be a stunning object: an essential addition to the library of anyone with even a passing interest in the high-flying world of warplanes, and featuring first-rate photography and a wealth of new world-class illustrations.

Preorder your copy today here. 

Add discount code: ALMOSTAUGUST10 for a 10% discount on the Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes

Guns: before viruses took away the work of honest guns, people used these quaint objects to deprive others of life. Guns are horrible, but also exciting, things. Adding the excitement of the gun to the innately thrilling aeroplane produces a particularly compelling machine. Here are 17 designs that took this idea to extremes. Bang! 

Save the Hush-Kit blog. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Your donations keep this going. Thank you. 

Pre-order your copy of The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here. 

Nakajima G10N Fugaku, project Z (dis)honourable mention

What compares to forty rifle-calibre machine guns firing directly downwards from the belly of a huge aircraft? If nothing springs to mind, meet the Fugaku, proof that the Third Reich was not the only nation clutching at mad technical straws on the road to strategic ruin. The Fugaku project grew from the Imperial Japanese Army’s ‘Project Z’ calling for a bomber capable of attacking North America from the Kuril Islands. One of the proposed variants was a gunship version capable of firing 640 rounds a second, vertically downwards, from 40 bomb-bay mounted machine guns. Had the balance of resources in the Pacific war been a little different such a terrifying machine, possessed of an intercontinental range, may well have caused considerable disquiet to anyone liable to find themselves underneath it.

17. Naval Aircraft Factory N-1

Navies love big guns. When the age of the aeroplane arrived, navies of all nations decided to bolt the largest guns they could find to the newfangled flying machines. The fact that early aircraft were simply not ready for this sort of mighty weaponry doesn’t seem to have thwarted anybody’s enthusiasm. But then, if massive, seemingly unstoppable Zeppelins were bombing pubs and places of worship where you lived, well, you’d probably be willing to give something like the N-1/Davis Gun combination a go too. The aircraft was an underpowered float-equipped pusher biplane, something which wasn’t unusual in 1917. The Davis Gun was a little different though, the first relatively successful recoilless rifle it came in 40-mm, 62-mm and 76.2-mm versions, all aimed with a co-axial Lewis gun. It employed a counter charge firing a blast of steel balls packed in heavy grease out of the rear of the barrel to cancel the recoil generated from the round leaving the muzzle.

Four N-1s were built and none saw action unless one was to count two serious crashes as ‘action’. The Davis gun meanwhile was attached to various other more capable aircraft and several fairly incapable ones such as:

16. Pemberton-Billing P.B.29E/Supermarine Nighthawk

An interceptor with an endurance of up to 18 hours is pretty ambitious stuff, even by contemporary standards and was sensational for 1917. So was a closed and heated cockpit/observation compartment with an off-duty bunk for a crew of 3-5 men, a Davis gun, and an electric searchlight powered by an onboard generator. The only things it seemed to be missing were a baby grand piano and a humidor. The Nighthawk had everything, including massive drag. Hardly surprising when you have a stack of four 60-foot span wings. One thing it lacked in abundance however was horsepower. The combined output of its (unreliable) Anzani engines amounted to less than that of a mildly tuned Ford Fiesta and the ungainly Nighthawk could only drag itself to a maximum of 60 mph – thus rendering it slower than the Zeppelins it was supposed to chase down and destroy. This was R.J. Mitchell’s first ever aeroplane and it’s fair to say he went on to better things.

15. Robey-Peters Gun Carrier

It is difficult to overstate the effect that the initial Zeppelin raids had on Britain. These quite modest attacks, by modern standards at least, spurred a frenzied response from British aircraft manufacturers. One of the more impressive and least successful was the Robey-Peters Gun carrier. What could be more devastating than an aircraft mounting a Davis gun? Why, an aircraft mounting two Davis guns of course! Apparently ignoring petty concerns such as airworthiness and practicality, the Robey-Peters featured two tiny gondolas for gunners, armed with Davis guns, on either side of the fuselage under the top wing. Meanwhile the pilot was banished to a lonely outpost near the tail to perform his lowly duties in solitude. Alas, the Gun Carrier, in a fit of self-destructive irony, crashed into a mental institution on its first flight. No one was hurt but allegedly the President of the Robey Company considered it a bad omen and had the prototype burned. Meanwhile conventional machine-guns on existing aircraft were found to be reasonably effective against the dastardly German airships and interest in the various radical Zeppelin-killing aircraft with big guns had largely evaporated by 1918.

Pre-order your copy of The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here. 

14. Tupolev I-12

Two sections of municipal-grade steel pipe, each containing a 76.2-mm recoilless rifle were utilised to make this cannon fighter. Its push-pull mounted engines and twin boom layout make this a truly freakish artefact, even for the Soviet Union in 1931. Valid concerns regarding the pilot’s ability to escape in an emergency resulted in the grand total of one being built and flown.

13. Grigorovich I-Z

Designed, like the I-12 also to carry a pair of 76.2-mm recoilless rifles, the I-Z was a second Soviet attempt at a cannon-armed fighter. This one however, with its blast-reinforced fuselage to protect against self-inflicted damage, was a moderate success (by the decidedly mixed standards of this category of warplane at least). Although recoil had been eliminated, there were other serious issues to contend with. Sighting was problematic and rate of fire was non-existent as neither gun could be reloaded. Meanwhile shock waves emanating from the muzzle, smoke from burning propellant and spent casing discharge were also issues. Under 100 of these aircraft were eventually built, no doubt the machine’s two-round salvo was seen as a limiting factor though employment in numbers might have countered this deficiency somewhat. The I-Z was employed during development of the advanced Zveno parasite attack aircraft project but wound up little more than a curiosity.

12. Spad S.XII

Improved Spad S.VIIs with 37-mm cannon were envisaged to supplement squadrons equipped with the superb Spad S.XIII with its regular armament of two .303 Vickers guns. While that extra hitting power was welcome, getting there proved troublesome. All kinds of adjustments and compromises were made to accommodate the cannon and this resulted in a prolonged development period. The result was an aircraft completely different from the S.VII but ultimately not as good as the S.XIII. A geared V-8 engine was required to allow the weapon to fire through the propellor shaft and structural changes were dictated as well. The breech of the cannon, a Le-Puteaux quick firing infantry support gun with 12 rounds, also protruded into the cockpit obstructing the controls and compelling a change from an ordinary central control column to a trickier paired arrangement. Firing the gun was also said to fill the cockpit with smoke and the S.XII was unpopular in comparison to the S.XIII which was fast becoming a legendary warplane. Despite support and good results from aces, including Georges Guynemer and American ace Charles Biddle (the American Expeditionary force operated a single example), the project to add a big gun to Spad’s lineup can be fairly described as a case of fixing something that wasn’t broken. About 20 are thought to have been built of an order for 300.

11. Salmson-Moineau S.M. 1 A3

From early 1915 onward it was apparent that First World War pilots would have to direct a little more than dirty looks and half a dozen pistol rounds at their kind on the other side. An impressively heavily-armed early aircraft, the boxy S.M. 1 mounted a pair of 37-mm cannon. Sadly, two unconventional design approaches hindered what should have been a hard-punching aircraft. The first was the selection of a gearbox and shaft system for connecting a single 240-hp engine in the fuselage to propellers mounted on struts between the wings. This odd arrangement gave a good field of fire to the two gunners but the transmission system was maintenance heavy and prone to failure. The second was the employment of an auxiliary wheel below the nose. The latter gives the S.M. 1 a quirky appearance, looking as if it were trying to be a taildragger and tricycle gear configured aircraft at the same time. The nose wheel was merely designed to prevent the aircraft going over on landing rather than to accept the weight of landing. In service however, the nose wheel arrangement was weak and prone to collapse. Nonetheless 155 were built and despite being generally unpopular a few were used right through to the Armistice.

10. Blackburn R.B.3A Perth

An inter-war artillerist, the Perth, a large tri-motor seaplane, was the RAF’s largest ever biplane seaplane. As such it was seen as a natural candidate for a large calibre weapon. Its armament of a 37-mm Coventry Ordnance Works gun was unprecedented in 1934 and this mighty weapon was envisioned to mete out damage to such diverse threats as smugglers, pirates, enemy seaplanes, blimps, submarines, torpedo boats, and lighthouses should the occasion call for it. As it was it never saw action. Four were built and the type’s service life was barely five years in length.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz1MSHglGP4

9. Hawker Hurricane IID

Everybody’s second favourite aeroplane may be a surprise appearance on this list but it shouldn’t be. A pair of 40-mm Vickers S Guns saw the Battle of Britain veteran cracking tanks in North Africa before the Kanonenvogel (of which more later) got into action. A small production run of Hurricanes with extra armour was made available for ground support and by all accounts the results were good. Deletion of six out of the normal eight .303 machine guns found on most Hurricane variants compensated for the weight of the bigger guns but their drag still chopped this Hurricane’s maximum speed to below three hundred miles-per-hour. Each S Gun salvo is said to have depressed the nose of a Hurricane IID by five degrees, demanding constant re-sighting for a multiple shot run. The flying can opener badge is still to be found on the tails of 6 Squadron RAF’s Eurofighter Typhoons a lifetime later.

8. Messerschmitt Me-262A-1a/U5 Schwalbe

A conventionally armed Schwalbe with its four 30-mm cannon might have found an honorary mention in the flying artillery hall of fame anyway but a 50-mm anti tank gun in that shark-like nose definitely guarantees a place. Fortunately for Allied bomber crews the entire 262 programme, including two versions earmarked for either a Mauser or Rheinmetall 50-mm autocannon, was hamstrung by administrative stupidity and huge technical headaches. One to three 50-mm rounds were calculated to be enough to destroy a B-24 or B-17. Extra points are awarded for its intimidating appearance.

Pre-order your copy of The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here. 

7. Douglas AC-47 Spooky

Terrifying rivers of lead and brass poured from this aircraft at 6000 rounds a minute when the AC-47 pilot activated his guns. Already a transport with an enviable list of achievements on its resume the C-47 popped up in green-and-brown camouflage as a fire support aircraft in the Vietnam war. Envisioned as a cost-effective alternative to greater numbers of existing ground attack aircraft, the Spooky was an innovative approach that proved terrifically effective. After field-based modifications using .30 calibre machine guns in pods and some rotary gun trials in the United States it was decided that three 7.62-mm electric motor driven Gatling guns firing through window ports on the pilot’s side of the aircraft would be optimal. A simple pylon turn with the left wing pointing at the target resulted in a sustained sweeping effect over a large enough ground area to disrupt enemy ambushes and assaults with dramatic success. The Spooky would soon find itself in serious demand all over South Vietnam and experience with it directly fostered our number one aircraft.

We sell fantastic high quality aviation-themed gifts here

6. North American B-25G/H Mitchell

Complete with a gun of the same calibre as its ground-based equivalent, these two models of the ubiquitous Mitchell effectively became the Sherman tanks of the air war. Intended for the strike and anti-shipping roles they were offered to the RAF, USN and the USSR but only adopted by the USAAF. The short nose and squarish fuselage of the proven B-25 allowed for easy installation and operation (the weapon was hand loaded by the navigator) of a lightened version of the standard US medium tank gun. Considering that rockets, bombs, and no less than fourteen .50 calibre machine guns could be packaged on this platform it is a wonder it didn’t win the entire Pacific war single-handed. The aircraft was particularly effective against shipping, sinking barges, freighters and small craft and it was noted that a single well-placed hit could inflict considerable damage, even to a destroyer.

Pre-order your copy of The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here. 

5. de Havilland Mosquito FB Mk. XVIII ‘Tsetse’

Intended as a tank destroyer, the ‘Tsetse’ (named for an African biting fly) was created by fitting a 57-mm quick-firing anti-tank weapon called a Molins gun into a standard fighter-bomber Mosquito. This formidable weapon could fire 55 rounds per minute in fully automatic mode. The Molins gun replaced the Mosquito’s normal primary armament of four 20-mm cannon but two or four .303 machine guns were retained in the nose to sight the large gun (the aircraft retained the ability to carry bombs or rockets on its underwing hardpoints). By the time the conversion flew, the 57-mm weapon was no longer competitive against armour so it was decided to operate the new variant in the anti-shipping role instead. The results were spectacular.

In about 14 months, eight U-boats were destroyed wholly or in part by Mosquito Mk. XVIIs, suggesting a cost-to-benefit ratio of impressive proportions. Enigma decrypted information was used to place the Molins-equipped Mosquitoes on top of the U-boats at the approaches to their pens in French ports and to coordinate anti-shipping strikes. At least one Ju 88 was destroyed by a Tsetse Mosquito in a fight during which a single 57-mm round was seen to rip one engine clean off the unfortunate Junkers. If you think all that was impressive, a 96-mm gun was apparently tested successfully right at the very end of the war in a single aircraft though photographs of this machine are suspiciously elusive.

4. Junkers Ju 87 Stuka Kanonenvogel

The Hs 129 had so many teething problems that Luftwaffe management decided to rehabilitate the Stuka as an interim tank buster. Although something of a lash-up, it was sickeningly successful at this job, utilising a 37-mm FLAK gun under each wing firing tungsten-cored ammunition. The Stuka pilot flying low and slow was able to select a line of fire onto the less-armoured upper and rear surfaces of Red Army tanks. It is said that Fairchild Republic engineers starting out on what would ultimately become the A-10 Thunderbolt II were each locked in a box with nothing but a lamp and a copy of Stuka Ace (and unrepentant Nazi) Hans-Ulrich Rudel’s memoir of his days as the eastern front’s top Luftwaffe tank destroyer. Rudel himself was employed as a consultant on the A-10 project which was a practical, though morally problematic, idea.

3. Henschel Hs 129B-3 Panzerknacker

The Hs 129 was an emergency effort to create a ground attack aircraft that could visit as much hate as possible on the armoured fighting vehicles of the Third Reich’s enemies. For size, its 75-mm gun is only matched by the armament of the B-25 and only exceeded by the AC-130. With 870 units manufactured it is also the most prolific of these big gunners. In the end, however, the 129 was another too-hasty technical fix brought on when the biggest criminal enterprise in human history, Operation Barbarossa, went bad.

Visibility was impeded by three inch thick armoured cockpit glass and stick forces were said to be high, both bad news for an aircraft meant to fly and fight so close to the ground. It could also have used more powerful, less seizure-prone, engines and better armour for its large fuel tanks. This aircraft’s standout feature remains the enormous auto cannon on the B models, the Rheinmetall Bk 75mm. This weapon was well engineered for installation in a plane, it was lighter than previous aircraft-installed versions of the 75-mm with a hydraulic recoil damping system, a rotary magazine and an improved muzzle brake design. Yes, the Hs 129 killed plenty of tanks and trucks but it got killed a lot itself.

2. Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II

Save the Hush-Kit blog. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Your donations keep this going. Thank you. 

Letting this rugged aircraft retire seems to be impossible for the USAF. The chunky, turbofan-powered, straight-winged A-10 has written a whole new and lethally superlative chapter in all this ghoulish gun worship thanks to its hydraulically-operated, multi-barrel rotary cannon. Certainly, the wrecked Soviet-pattern tanks and other vehicles of the 1991 Gulf War alone attest to this weapon system’s effectiveness in terms of hitting power, rate of fire, accuracy and range. Consider the GAU-8A Avenger cannon for its weight alone at just over 600 lbs. That’s equivalent to more than two early examples of the PT6A turbine engine. Before a GAU-8 is removed from an A-10 for servicing a jack is placed under the tail so it will not drop to the ground, that’s how much influence the gun has on the design’s centre of gravity. Both the plane and the gun were called into existence in the wake of ground attack experience gained in the Vietnam war and with future possible conflict against the big battalions of the Warsaw Pact in mind. The war it was designed to fight thankfully never occurred but the straightforward A-10 has proved so relentlessly useful in a string of grubby conflicts over the years that it seems it will never be retired.

The GAU-8 was further developed into the 25-mm GAU-22 used by the F-35, a very powerful gun in its own right. Another aircraft that carried a 25-mm ‘gatling’ cannon was the Rutan Ares, with its GAU-12U.

It is a fact often overlooked that the Soviet MiG-27 also had a 30-mm rotary cannon. Whereas the A-10 was custom-made to handle such a big weapon the MiG-27 was an adaptation of a light fighter; the ‘Gasha’ was rather more gun than the MiG-27 could handle and its use came with a variety of technical issues.

1. Lockheed AC-130 Spectre

An armed version of a very familiar transport aircraft, with a history nearly as long as the Boeing B-52, the Spectre remains the most powerfully gun-armed aircraft yet flown. Guns including 105-mm howitzers, rapid fire 20-mm and later 25-mm and 30-mm rotary cannon, 40-mm Bofors guns (and even 120mm mortars in some versions) have been at the core of the AC-130’s strike capability since their introduction to the Vietnam war in 1967. The most recent version, the AC-130U, was still being accepted into service in 2017. Upgrade programmes for multiple sensor, targeting and navigation systems and a vast array of other weapons have been layered onto the AC-130 for decades now. Wherever the US has found itself fighting ground enemies this plane has been kept busy. Like the AC-47 did in its day, the AC-130 adds higher altitude loitering, allowing for an endurance no helicopter can match. When called by an observer to provide support the AC-130 can do so, with (mostly) great accuracy regardless of environmental conditions and with systems to protect it from hostile fire. None of this comes cheap but for fulsome effectiveness the Inspector Harry Callahan Lifetime Achievement Award goes to the AC-130.

– Stephen Caulfield/Ed Ward/ Joe Coles

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes. Preorder your copy today here. 

From the cocaine, blood and flying scarves of World War One dogfighting to the dark arts of modern air combat, here is an enthralling ode to these brutally exciting killing machines.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazines (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as:

“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planes”.

The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.

FEATURING

• Interviews with pilots of the F-14 Tomcat, Mirage, Typhoon, MiG-25, MiG-27, English Electric Lighting, Harrier, F-15, B-52 and many more.
• Engaging Top (and bottom) 10s including: Greatest fighter aircraft of World War II, Worst British aircraft, Worst Soviet aircraft and many more insanely specific ones.
• Expert analysis of weapons, tactics and technology.
• A look into art and culture’s love affair with the aeroplane.
• Bizarre moments in aviation history.
• Fascinating insights into exceptionally obscure warplanes.

The book will be a stunning object: an essential addition to the library of anyone with even a passing interest in the high-flying world of warplanes, and featuring first-rate photography and a wealth of new world-class illustrations.

This book can only happen with your support. Preorder your copy today here. 

Add discount code: ALMOSTAUGUST10 for a 10% discount on the Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes

Three years before the A-10 ‘Warthog’ was casting its jolie laide shadow over South Carolina, another, far faster, warplane was chewing targets to pieces with the awe-inspiring power of a 30-mm rotary cannon. The weapon was the GSh-6-30 and the aircraft was the MiG-27. Nicknamed ‘Gasha’, the 9A-21 gun was far lighter than the A-10’s GAU-8, with a greater rate of fire and a heavier projectile — it was very accurate and extremely loud. Anshuman Mainkar flew the MiG-27 with the Indian Air Force, here he gives the low-down on the other BRRRRRT.

What was the gun model and how was it mounted?  “Gryazev-Shipunov GSh – 6 – 30. It was a six-barrel, Gatling-type cannon mounted on the centre fuselage. It fired 30mm calibre rounds.”

How heavy and long was the gun?
“145 kilograms and I think it was just over 6 feet in length. Anyone by the name ‘Gasha’ come to mind?”

How many rounds did the gun have and how quickly could you expend them?“It fired 260 rounds at 5000 rounds/min, taking just over 3 seconds to expend. It may seem too little, but is actually considerable for air-air bursts or air-ground tracking. Of course, cannon overheating and gun-life considerations limited the burst to about 100 rounds (one-second bursts). For practice missions, 60 rounds were sufficient, and if you were smart with the trigger, you could actually pull off two passes.”

Was the airframe/gun combination a good one? “I am not aware of the actual details going into the development/mating of the gun into the airframe, but for a cannon originally designed for shipborne (ground-to-air) operations, modifying it for aerial use must have meant shedding weight, refining balance, and mating it perfectly with the airframe. It may be appreciated that the gun-sight had to cater to a variety of weapons and on-board stations, rendering limits to rigging/placement/positioning.  It is believable that during design/limit assurance tests, there would have been a few unfortunate incidents. For one, the gun was extremely potent. Also, located centrally on the fuselage, the vibrations would definitely have been felt in every rivet and frame. Not for nothing do they say that Russian flight manuals are written in red ink, the red signifying the ‘blood’ sacrificed in proving systems and operating limits. We owe all those brave stalwarts (including those in other Warsaw Pact / partner nations who did follow-up development work) our happy landings! Regarding the bad press on this subject, I think the cannon had matured into a good fit with the airframe by the time it entered service with the IAF. Provided it was treated and maintained well, there was absolutely no problem with it. There were laid out firing limits in the air, the anti-surge system kicked in seamlessly, and maintenance was top-notch too. Gun stoppage in the air was rare, and I always looked forward to front gun firing sorties. At ranges of 1.6 km, the target was hardly bigger than a full stop but the rounds tracked their way as if they had a will of their own (on more than a few occasions, quite literally).   Come to think of it, some people later had the audacity to put an electronic warfare support measures ‘bulb’ antenna on the chin of the aircraft. No way was the ‘Gasha’ having any of that nonsense. One gun sortie and the chin had tucked in, never to be seen again, a rather violent end to its short shared life with that beast of a gun.”

Did the gun cause damage to the aircraft? 
“Rarely. Gun operations were on the whole, pretty safe, thanks to a refined design, wonderful maintenance, talented engineers and loving pilots 🙂“

Did the recoil slow the aircraft down? What was it like to fire the gun? “Trigger press was something like going into a dream state. Inception-like. Imagine the clock’s second-hand decelerating to almost nothing. To break it down for you, while doing a front gun pass on a ground target, so engrossing is the cockpit workload – rolling out perfectly, gently riding up without push-pull forces (and catering to winds), and aiming to mate the gunsight to the target at the right height/speed combination, that the feeling can best be described as minutely observing your favourite single-celled organism through an electron microscope. Oh, and all this while descending at a rate exceeding 100 m/s and accelerating to 900 kmph. Picture that – using an electron microscope on a roller coaster!

Sadly, this site will pause operations if it does not hit its funding targets. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here and keep this aviation site going. Many thanks

Then comes the trigger press. Earthquakes may not be a common experience, but imagine the vibration on your game controllers times 500. In that instant, your carefully and patiently cajoled target picture (that you’ve birthed for the past 30 seconds) shakes all over the place, so much so that you can’t even observe the target anymore. The recoil is strong and were you not already peering into the gun-sight, you’d realise you’ve been pushed forward in your seat. There is the odour of cordite, smoke, and your instincts have already pulled your finger off the trigger. 
There is so much violence in that moment, that the subsequent actions of getting wings level and pulling up seem almost at a snail’s pace. The speed would have washed off by 100-150 kmph in that moment, but don’t ask me how. 

If you observe it from outside, as the Range officer does through his window, you’d only hear a shudder, smoke lines streaking to the  target, a momentary ‘pause’ (to the trained eye, since the rounds passing provide an illusion of speed) before the aircraft turns heavenward, in bliss. 

The vibrations and the force of the gun were momentary, but significant, and the possibility of disturbed airflow meant careful handling during the recovery.”

Support Hush-Kit with our high quality aviation themed merchandise here

Could the weapon knock out a tank?
“Knocking out a tank can come in three forms – Mobility Kill (M-Kill), Firepower Kill (F-Kill) and Catastrophic Kill (K-Kill). I’ll wager on M-Kill and F-Kill. But how? Considering modern Active Protection Systems (APS), it would be prudent to use the platform as part of a system, rather than a lone gunslinger. Its advantages include:Confronting the adversary with a higher volume of fire, more guns, more confusion; Direct/Indirect degradation fire can neutralise sensors and mountings, rendering armour blind, immobile and exposed; Bringing a vertical dimension to the tank fight, extending the arc of detection/countermeasures and complicating the tank’s tracking work.

Also, use of cannon in conjunction with a combination of anti-armour ordnance and platforms would be a better bet in a conventional fight.  
Tactics aside, hearing the BRRRRTTTT would likely have a more than average psychological impact on the adversary. Don’t think anyone staring down a Gasha-30 barrel would come out feeling all happy and well with the world.”

 

Did it cause engine surges? 
“It was a possibility but the anti-surge system kicked in automatically. The modified anti-surge system even expanded the envelop of front gun firing from 8000m to 9000m (altitude).It was impressive how it automatically regulated fuel supply (cut-off and on in time-fractions) to prevent overheat. As a side-effect, this caused a visible stop-start effect in-flight. 
If the aircraft wasn’t mishandled during dive recovery, she wouldn’t complain, except in the rare case. And even then, recovery actions were standard.“

What was the best and worst thing about the gun? 
“The best thing about the gun was the confidence it gave you. In my opinion it was the crowning jewel of the Flogger. Made it a unique customer. 
The worst thing about the gun was that it couldn’t be lugged around easily and had a poor memory for faces. I couldn’t, for all my trying, smuggle it out of the base even once. It simply refused to recognise me. After all the kind words showered on her.“

Tell me something I don’t know about the gun. 
“The initiation/charging process was pneumatic. It then used the gas trapped in the barrel (in contrast to hydraulic motors) to work the gun mechanism. In a sense, you could call it self-powered. This feature made it compact and modifiable for aircraft mounting (it was originally designed as a anti-air gun for shipborne operation).”

This article is from the Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes. Preorder your copy here. 

From the cocaine, blood and flying scarves of World War One dogfighting to the dark arts of modern air combat, here is an enthralling ode to these brutally exciting killing machines.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazines (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as:

“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planes”.

The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.

FEATURING

• Interviews with pilots of the F-14 Tomcat, Mirage, Typhoon, MiG-25, MiG-27, English Electric Lighting, Harrier, F-15, B-52 and many more.
• Engaging Top (and bottom) 10s including: Greatest fighter aircraft of World War II, Worst British aircraft, Worst Soviet aircraft and many more insanely specific ones.
• Expert analysis of weapons, tactics and technology.
• A look into art and culture’s love affair with the aeroplane.
• Bizarre moments in aviation history.
• Fascinating insights into exceptionally obscure warplanes.

The book will be a stunning object: an essential addition to the library of anyone with even a passing interest in the high-flying world of warplanes, and featuring first-rate photography and a wealth of new world-class illustrations.

This article is from the Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes. Preorder your copy here.