In the explosive tragedy of the Vietnam War, the USAF’s Republic F-105 Thunderchief was a sleek supersonic hooligan raining down destruction. Fast, and extremely tough, the F-105 was a worthy descendent of the P-47. We spoke to Vietnam veterans Vic Vizcarra and Paul Metz to find out more about the experience of flying the ‘Thud’ into war.

(answers are by Vic unless otherwise marked)

Describe the F-105 in three words..

VV: Stable weapon platform

PM: Big, Rugged, Fast

What was the best thing about the F-105? 

VV: Its speed

PM:  Low attitude, high speed was unlike any airplane I have flown.  Above 600 knots it was a thoroughbred racehorse. At 800 knots even better.  

..and the worst? 

VV: Turning ability

PM:  It had a high wing loading and was not an air-to-air dogfighter.

What is the biggest myth about the aircraft? That it couldn’t hold its own in a dog fight and how it got the nickname “Thud” which I cover in the answer to your question #11.

What was your first combat mission like? Relatively easy since the target was not heavily defended.

What was your most memorable experience flying the F-105?  First flight since it was before the two-seat “F” Model. Only time in my Air Force career where I took off by myself in a plane I had never flown before. The Check Out process consisted of doing an engine start and all after start checks with an Instructor pilot standing on a stand next to the cockpit and observing the student the day before the first flight. Then The Powers At Be wanted students to go home and think about it overnight.

What was the role of the F-105 in Vietnam? It was the primary fighter-bomber conducting 75% of all Air Force Strikes in North Vietnam the first five years of the war.

How would you rate it in the following categories

A. Instantaneous turn rates Comparable to the majority of US Air Force Fighters. 
B. Sustained turn Slightly below the majority of US Air Force fighters.
C. Climb rate Good. Best Climb Was At Mach 0.9 until Intercepting and Maintaining 400 Kts.
D. General agility Good stable flight characteristics throughout its flight envelope.
E. High angle of attack performance? Excellent, Sufficient stall warning aircraft is about to depart
F. As a bomber Superior. Could carry largest weapons load further and faster than any other single engine Fighter-Bomber.
G. As a fighter Adequate. Maintained a positive air-to-air exchange record in Vietnam Even though That was not its mission.
H. As a SEAD platform Excellent. Duel seat F-105 “F” and Follow-On “G” Models were the primary Wild Weasel Platforms In Vietnam Era.

What was the mission of the F-105G and why was it so dangerous? 

PM: The F-105G Wild Weasel was a role created in the turmoil of battle.  It was a concept to counter the SA-2 radar guided surface to air missile (SAM).  The concept was that the 2-seat F-105G would enter the target area ahead of the larger strike force and entice the SAM operators to shoot at the F-105G, the Wild Weasel.  Then while the Weasels are dodging the SAMs, the strike force would attack and bomb the target and then quickly exit the target zone.  Then, when the strike force was safe, you, the Wild Weasel, could exit the target area.  This became an acronym which is stil used by the Weasels of today, “FILO” (“First In, Last Out“).  The Weasel mission was obviously dangerous and many Weasels were shot down by SAMs and enemy anti-aircraft artillery (Triple A).

I. In terms of combat effectiveness and survivability? Excellent. The aircraft was known for its toughness and ability to return to base with extensive battle damage, especially after a third hydraulic line was added along the top of the aircraft spine away from the redundant duel flight control lines that ran together along the top of the bomb bay. A hit on one line usually meant both lines would be cut. Original layout provided redundancy in peacetime operations but not in combat.

J. Cockpit layout and comfort? Best ergonomic designed cockpit, way ahead of its time. Allowed the aircraft to be designed as a single crew platform.

What is the biggest myth about the type? 

PM: I don’t know if there were any myths that stuck. Early in its life there were several accidents and there were suggestions of it being a “widow maker”. Meant originally as derogatory comment the nickname Thud was supposedly the sound it made when hitting the ground — “Thud”.  In the end it became a dive bomber, a far cry from the role of low level nuclear bomber it was designed for.  “Thud driver” is a mark of honour to those who flew her.

What should I have asked you? You didn’t miss a thing! Excellent list of questions.

Did the aircraft have a nickname? Yes, “Thud”. There are a couple of myths about the origin of the nickname “Thud”. The most popular myth was that it came from a character named Thunderchief In a kids TV Show. But here is the real origin, you can take this to the bank. When the F-105 came into the inventory it was way ahead of its time and initially encountered a lot of maturation problems, Especially with maintenance. The aircraft experienced many aborts, ground and air. This and designed with a bomb bay, Gave the Non-F-105 fighter community ammunition to razz the new F-105 community with the rhetorical question, “What sound does an F-105 make when it hits the ground?…….Thud!   

Which weapons did you deploy and which was the most spectacular from the cockpit? The most common weapons load was the Mk 117 750-lb bomb with six loaded on the Multiple Ejector Rack (MER) carried On the centerline station on the belly, plus one on each outboard station. The outboard station bombs were replaced With AIM-9 Sidewinder Missile For self defense when MiG-17s started appearing. When SAMs started appearing, the ‘Winders were replaced with QRC-160 Electronic Jamming pods. The most spectacular from the cockpit was the CBU-58 which was a bomb that would split in half and release 650 Bomblets that had small vanes causing the bomblet to spin and arm. The bomblets would spread over a large area causing destruction of soft targets and personnel. Great Weapon Against Flack Sites. Beauty of the weapon was you didn’t have to be precise or that accurate upon release. Another spectacular weapon was the M-118 3,000 Lb bomb because of its size. We carried two, one at each inboard wing station. 

What was hardest about your combat deployment? Leaving the Family. This was pre-internet days so communicating with the family took close to two weeks to establish continuity between discussions.

Do you love the aircraft? Definitely. I feel honoured to have flown it with fellow pilots during an era In which this aircraft joined the annals of history.

Both pilots have books and I recommend them.      

This site will pause operations if it does not hit its funding targets. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here

Which new techniques of air warfare were pioneered by the Soviets in Afghanistan?
The Soviets perfected the use of the attack helicopter to support their counter-insurgency operations and for convoy protection. They also developed the tactics for Heli-borne assaults.

Which Soviet aircraft types proved capable?

The most successful soviet type must be the Mi-8 (Hip), which was also used throughout the Coalition operations both by civilian contractors and coalition military forces – even the Canadian armed forces operated one!

…And which disappointed?

The Yak-38 Forger was deployed for a few months but proved to be completely unsuitable – difficult to fly, performance limited and with a puny war load.

Which new techniques of air warfare were pioneered by US or NATO in Afghanistan?
Afghanistan (and the contemporaneous Iraqi insurgency) brought a sea change in the way that offensive support air power operated: where previously aircraft would get airborne to follow a pre-planned mission profile, often in isolation to the ground forces, in Afghanistan pilots got airborne not knowing where they were going or what they would face when they got there, and they were completely integrated into ground force operations.

Which US or NATO in aircraft types proved capable?
Pretty much all the types used by the US/ Coalition air forces proved very capable – especially the B-1B which was, rather surprisingly, extremely effective close air support platform. The Predator and Reaper RPAS also showed their value both as surveillance tools and also as strike assets.

Did US/NATO fail to note any lessons learnt by the Soviets in Afghan?
I think that the point about Afghanistan is that no-one at any stage appears to have looked at what could be learnt from previous conflicts in the country. The writing was on the wall in 1841!

What did anti invader Afghan forces learn in Soviet occupation that they could apply to the 21st century conflict?
The Soviet invasion gave the Afghans the opportunity to practise their basic infantry skills and to perfect insurgent/ guerrilla warfare and they became particularly accomplished in ambush techniques.

Were Stingers very important or significant in the time of the Soviet occupation?
Yes – they severely limited the use of Soviet tactical air power in the second half of the decade, which led to a drop-off in the effectiveness of Soviet air power.

How did any of the wars affect aircraft development?
They didn’t! Most aircraft types since the 1970s onwards have been very capable and incredibly flexible, so the change was actually in the way that they were used tactically (see point 4 above), rather than any need to change the design. I think that the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts did accelerate the employment of smaller precision guided munitions, in an effort to minimise collateral damage.

What is the current state of the Taliban’s air forces?
Unknown – much of the Afghan Air Force inventory was flown out of the country when the government fell in 2021. Some light aircraft, helicopters and possibly transport aircraft remain, but their serviceability state is unknown, as is the number of pilots to fly them.

What was your biggest surprise in researching the subject?
Really how little was learnt from prior conflicts! I was also surprised (because I had never really thought about it) to learn that because of the long range involved, the B-2 stealth mission on the second night took off before the first day of the war had even happened!

What is the biggest myth?
That there was ever a military solution, or indeed any ‘foreign’ solution, to Afghanistan.

What should I have asked you?
“What was the most important aspect of air power during the Soviet and Coalition occupations of Afghanistan?” – I would have answered air transport, since because of the geography of, and limited infrastructure in, Afghanistan, pretty much everything that the foreign forces needed (supplies, equipment, personnel) had to be transported into and around the country by air.

Do you talk to aircrew who fought about how they feel about the current state of Afghanistan and whether they feel the effort was advisable or worthwhile?
No, I have purposely not discussed that aspect – I think that it is emotionally difficult for them, since despite their best efforts over two decades and an incredible amount of bloodshed, nothing really changed in the long run.

Michael Napier is a former RAF Tornado pilot and author of Afghan Air Wars

This site will pause operations if it does not hit its funding targets. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here

Complete this sentence..the Mosquito was amazing because…
as if it had been found in the bear’s cottage by Goldilocks, it was ‘just right’

What was the role of the Mosquito in WW2 and in which was it most and least proficient?
As far as I can tell, the Mosquito is the only aircraft in history to have successfully performed all four roles required of an air force by air power doctrine: air defence, attack, intelligence and mobility. It was an successful night fighter, a hugely effective bomber, perhaps the outstanding reconnaissance aircraft of the war – that was certainly the view of FDR’s son Elliot, who commanded a USAAF reconnaissance wing – but, after dozen Mosquitos were pressed into service with BOAC to fly passengers, cargo and diplomatic mail between Sweden and RAF Leuchars in Scotland, it can also claim to have been useful transport asset. Given the different demands each of these roles requires of an airframe, performing all four gives the Mosquito what I think is a unique full house. It was not, despite its great range, an escort fighter. While it was fast and manoeverable, it couldn’t hope to match the the agility of much smaller single-engined fighters like the Me 109 or Fw 190.

How does a twin-engined fighter survive an attack from a more agile single-engined fighter? How did the Mosquito agility compare to likely fighter opposition?
Turn, dive or find cloud. The speed differences between the Mosquito and the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 varied according to height, but the Focke-Wulf never had a sufficiently decisive advantage to be able to overhaul a Mosquito from behind in a straight and level race. Instead they needed to dive down on to the Mosquitos. If the latter could confound the initial attack by turning to throw the fighter’s aim, then pour on the coals, it was likely to be able to get away. But a Mosquito flying predictably straight and level on a bombing run or reconnaissance mission was always going to vulnerable to fighter attack – like any other aircraft.

What was its survivability like compared to heavy bombers?
After entering service with 105 Squadron in its intended role as an unarmed day bomber, the Mosquito actually suffered heavier losses than the Blenheim it replaced. To the point where many were coming to the conclusion that that they’d been right all along about the folly of an unarmed bomber using speed alone for protection. That changed in the latter half of 1942 under the leadership of the squadron’s new CO, Australian Hughie Edwards VC. Instead of high level daylight attacks along the predictable flight paths that had made them vulnerable to detection and interception, Edwards would cross Europe at low level in the late afternoon, attack at dusk, then return to base under the cover of darkness. His initiative transformed the Mosquito’s fortunes. And during the Battle of Berlin over the winter of 1943 and 1944, Bomber Command’s heavies suffered losses at around ten times that Mosquitos the Light Night Striking Force.

How wooden was the Mosquito? Was it wood or laminate or what percentage of the weight or volume did it make up?

More wooden than Keanu Reeves (67%) less wooden than Steven Seagal (100%). With respect to the use of solid woods and laminates, see my next answer …

Where did the wood come from?
Sitka Spruce, from forests in British Columbia, was used to build the two spars that ran unbroken from wingtip to wingtip. Britain entered the war with stock of two hundred standards of Sitka Spruce. To cover the first year of fighting, Timber Control needed eight thousand. European Ash was used for the Mosquito’s primary structure. The stringers that completed the internal skeleton, help dissipate loads around airframe, were sawn from Douglas Fir sourced from forests in British Columbia and American’s Pacific North West. The all-important plywood skin of the aeroplane was actually part of a sandwich comprised of two layers of hard three-ply Birch filled with balsawood, which was so soft you could push your thumb into it. As far as was known at the time, Balsa grew only in Equador and, demand might outstrip supply, Timber Control, the organisation responsible all Britain’s wood requirements during the war, sent an explorer to Central America to find an alternative source. After travelling thriough seven counties he found none of sufficient quality, but in Panama’s remote Darién Gap, the expedition discovered the Quipo tree that, at the base of its trunk, contained wood that was sufficiently light to fall within narrow density range specifed for the Mosquito. Samples were sent back to Hatfield where de Havilland used them to build an experimental fuselage and by the end of 1942 a modern sawmill had been built in Panama to supply it.

Biggest myth about the Mosquito?
That it was wooden. I was very surprised to discover that this was just a rumour put around to puzzle and annoy the Germans – like carrots helping you see in the dark. You heard it here first …*

What is your book about?

Ah, I know this one. At its heart the book’s about the RAF Mosquito raid on the Gestapo headquarters in Copenhagen in March 1945. But the more I got into in to it the more it became this remarkable weaving of aerial action with the story of spies, special forces and saboteurs on the ground. It’s like a real-life 633 Squadron. I’ve never written about the Second World War before and opening my account with the Mosquito was a gift. It’s such an extraordinarily capable and charismatic machine, and 2 Group’s low level pinpoint raids that were the focus of Mosquito are so inherently dramatic, that I was spoilt for material. There was simply so much good stuff. But in the end, as ever, it’s the people I’m writing about on which the book depends, from the man who led 2 Group, Air Vice Marshal Basil Embry, whose story was so remarkable that if you made it up, no one would believe you to the incredible Danish commando, Anders Lassen, the only member of the wartime SAS to win the VC, I was blessed with such a rich cast of characters that the worry was whether I could do them all justice. I hope I have. I’ve tried to weave together some amazing stories along the way, but ultimately all roads though lead to the wildly difficult and dangerous Mosquito mission to Copenhagen to prevent the destruction of the Danish resistance and need to forestall any possibility of Denmark becoming the scene of a catastrophic Nazi last stand. In the words of my publisher it’s ‘the story of that legendary aircraft told through that one impossible mission’.

How much did the DH.88 racer and other interwar type actually contribute to the Mosquito’s design?

It was a useful stepping stone. After spending twenty years building civilian machines for general aviation and commercial air transport, de Havilland was out of practice when it came to building high performance waplanes. A fast, long-ranged twin-engined racer with a crew of two, the Comet served as something of a proof of concept. There was even some discussion at de Havilland about developing a military version of the Comet. As significant a proof of concept, though, was de Havilland’s DH.91 Albatross. A four-engined airliner that first flew in 1937, this achingly beautiful design, was built of wood using exactly the same construction methods.

At We Have Ways Festival, you and I discussed the Whirlwind – what was similar and different about the aircraft?
They’re superficially similar, but in reality very different. They share a muscular twin-engined layout – Geoffrey de Havilland thought Mosquito prototype looked like it was ‘largely made up of engines and propellers’. But in many ways the DH.88 Comet was a much closer analogue. The low-winged Comet and Whirlwind were almost exactly the same size and layout. The Mosquito was about a third bigger and nearly twice the weight of the Whirlwind. Geoffrey de Havilland reckoned that the qualities required of a successful aircraft were ‘simplicity, right size, cleanness in design and, of course, a very reliable engine.’ The Whirlwind actually had three of these – even the much-maligned Peregrine engine was generally pretty reliable – but it’s small size and single-seat limited its development potential in comparison to the Mosquito The problem in the end was that the bigger Mosquito, with it’s two-man crew, bomb bay and long range, could do all sorts of things that a Spitfire could not. The smaller Whirlwind, even if it had enjoyed the sort of time, money, care and attention lavished on the Spit, would never have been able to offer a meaningfully different capability.

Could DH been more forthcoming telling Westland about the DH propeller issue on the Whirlwind -and in what ways (if any) did DH cockblock Westland?

There’s no doubt that Havilland, who designed and built the Whirlwind’s propellers, could have helped. But so too could Rolls-Royce, the RAF and Farnborough. The latter even conducted wind tunnel tests in 1940 that highlighted the compressibility drag caused by the Whirlwind’s thick propeller blades. The issue could easily have been solved but by that point the Whirlwind’s ship had sailed. The lack of high-altitude performance those propellers inflicted on the Whirlwind kept it benched up in Scotland during the Battle of Britain and its reputation never recovered. During the banking crisis we became familiar with the idea that some institutions were simply deemed to be too big to fail. In the end, the Whirlwind programme was too small to succeed. As more and more resource was focussed on a handful of aircraft – a policy to which even the Mosquito nearly fell victim – the Whirlwind, with its unloved, bespoke Peregrine engines, was a luxury and a distraction and so was allowed to fall behind the drag curve, a victim of neglect rather than any inherent fault in the design.

Was the Mosquito more precise at bombing than other fighter-bombers, if so, why?
I’m not sure that it was particularly. It’s only real advantage over single-seat fighter bombers like the Typhoon and Thunderbolt was that it had a two-man crew that brought with it better situational awareness – the life blood of successful tactical aviation. They had a better chance of actually finding the target than the single-seaters. With respect to accuracy, the starker comparison is with rival bombers. Compared to other medium bombers like the Boston and Mitchell the Mosquito required a far smaller tonnage of bombs to ensure the destruction of a target. On average, the Mosquito required less than forty tons of bombs to destroy a V1 launch site. The next lowest figure was 195 tons required by USAAF Flying Fortresses. The big difference was the altitude at which they attacked. Of the bombers, only the Mosquito had the fighter like performance to attack from low-level. And Air Vice Marshal Basil Embry made sure that his crews extremely well trained, building a full scale model of a V1 on the bombing range to ensure they were adept at identifying the correct aiming points for a bomb run flown at a height of just twenty feet.

What was the Mosquitos biggest failing or limitation?
Well, as I’ve mentioned, it wasn’t actually terribly successful in the role of high level day bomber that it was designed for, but that was largely a failure of tactics and imagination not the aeroplane. When the Mosquito was first deployed to Southeast Asia there the heat and humidity caused issues with the glue that occasionally led to what Space X would call ‘rapid disassembly’, but this was solved to the extent that the RAF was still using the Mosquito on operations in Malaya into the late fifties. If you’d asked Mosquito veteran Colin Bell the same question, he’d have said only that ‘it pulled a bit to the left on take-off’ …

How lucky was the Mosquito?
There were undoubtedly lucky breaks, but then I think you can probably argue that all successful aircraft are lucky, such are the odds against any putative design actually making it into full-scale production. De Havilland were certainly fortunate to have Air Vice Marshal Wilfred Freeman in the corner. Responsible for RAF procurement, he kept the programme alive despite a lack of interest from Bomber Command and an effort to cancel it by Churchill’s Minister for Aircraft Production, Lord Beaverbrook. At the same time, though, de Havilland made their own luck: they took a deliberate decision to develop the Mosquito as private enterprise without the backing of the Air Ministry, to build it out of wood to speed it into production and then design a flying machine which nailed it pretty much straight out of the box.

This article is here to plug your book but I want to plug mine too, what are you most looking forward to in The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 2?
More of what made the first Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes such a brilliantly entertaining and informative read. There aren’t many aviation books I read for fun, but the Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes was a notable exception. So I’m looking forward to curling up on the sofa and enjoying a bit of me time with THKBOW2. Also, I hear that it’s going to feature a surprisingly sweary piece about one of my favourite aeroplanes, the one-off, none-more-black Vickers Valiant B2 ‘Pathfinder’. The V-bomber the RAF should have bought …

Is it true that a vital meeting that led to The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes took place between yourself and I mere metres away from where the Royal Air Force was formed?
Fact! And I think they’ve even put a plaque on the wall to mark the significance of the location. There might be one about the RAF too …

What analogues of the Mosquito were there from other manufacturers?

Focke-Wulf actually tried to build a wood and glue nightfighter of their own in the shape of the Ta 154 They even called it the Moskito! But its performance was disappointing and it was cancelled. ‘Let’s build the Mosquito!’, ranted Herman Göring to the technical heads of the German aviation industry, ‘That’s the simplest thing to do.’ Interestingly, Argentina developed a couple of aircraft, the Calquin and the Ñancú that looked very similar to the Mosquito – the former proving beyond all doubt that radial engines would have turned the Mosquito into a bit of a minger. But perhaps the best analogue was the machine that amounted to the Mosquito’s replacement in the RAF, the Canberra. Designed, like the Mosquito as a high-performance twin-engined bomber, it was also extremely versatile and, after a first flight in the 1940s remained in service with the RAF until well into the 21st century.

What should I have asked you?
What responsibilities does an author have in writing about a subject that may provoke nationalist or ‘fun’ war feelings in the readership?

What responsibilities does an author have in writing about a subject that may provoke nationalist or ‘fun’ war feelings in the readership?
Oh …

Mosquito The RAF’s Legendary Wooden Wonder and its Most Extraordinary Mission is available here

—

This site will pause operations if it does not hit its funding targets. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here

• I lied about this. The Mosquito was of course wooden …

It may surprise some readers to know that from 1963 to 1984 Canada had nukes. During the Cold War, RCAF pilot Hugh Bacon was tasked with nuclear strike from the cockpit of the sleek CF-104 Starfighter. We caught up with to find out more.

Describe the CF-104 in three words..
Speed, altitude, sound.

Was anything equipment peculiar to Canadian Starfighters?
We had the Lockheed C2 ejection seat vs. the Martin Baker ejection seat in the ‘104G.

What was your most memorable experience?
There were many but one comes to mind. During a test flight of a clean/clean bird at Mach 2 plus at 35000 feet, full burner was putting me beyond Mach 2 so I decided to climb using excess thrust while maintaining Mach 2. Climb rate was around 5000 feet per minute. I levelled at 53, 000 feet and was able to reduce afterburner by one stage while still maintaining Mach 2. OK, time to RTB!

Did you fly DACT – if so, against which types?
No. Our role at the time I was on squadron in Europe, ‘66 to ‘69 was low-level nuclear strike. Nevertheless, there were endless opportunities to get involved in a 1 v 1 or 1 v 2 but only recreationally. Types varied: F-86, Mirage, F4. . . .

How did the CF-104 perform against F-4s in a2a?
With the CF 104, one had to keep the speed high. The moment you allowed the situation to deteriorate into a slow speed game, you were done. The Starfighter was not a dogfighter.

What would the CF-104 have done in war and how effective would they have been?
In our role of low level nuclear strike we would have been highly effective.

What is the biggest myth about the CF-104?
Probably the “Widow Maker”.

What advice should have been given to a new CF-104 pilot?
Keep the speed up!

You also flew the F-86, how did the Starfighter compare with the Sabre?
The F-86 Mk 6 Sabre was probably the best dogfighter of its era whereas the Starfighter was a very good air to air interceptor especially at high altitude. Even now it was faster than our present CF-18s. The CF-104 was much smoother at low altitude than the F-86 primarily because of its higher wing loading and of course it was much faster.

What was the best thing about it?
Straight line speed and great manoeuvrability above say 450 knots IAS

And the worst?
Limited manoeuvring capability at slower speeds.

How did you feel about using nukes?

At the time of course I looked at it from a close post WWII perspective with the eyes of a 24-year-old. By the mid-sixties nuclear proliferation had created a sufficient stalemate in offensive capability to make it highly unlikely that either side would rationally fling a nuke. The Cuban Crisis had been resolved and in so far as Europe was concerned it was my view that sanity would prevail. We knew that if the balloon went up there would be little chance of survival. Base civilian dependents were directed always to have at least a partially full fuel tank in the car to afford a mass exodus down the autobahn to Switzerland.  We on Quick Reaction Alert were ready to go 24/7 to hit selected targets. Should such a cataclysm eventuate, pilots did not expect a base to return  to. So while the missions were planned as two-way, such missions were commonly viewed as being one-way with enough fuel remaining to go somewhere. No one had any precise plan but it would be westbound on the deck at speed to an alternate recovery base in Western Europe or failing that, a bailout over friendly territory.

In practice, most of our people did not lose too much sleep what-iffing. We were young, we felt invincible and we were enjoying the great adventure. Too, we were  secure in the knowledge that we were contributing to peace under the circumstances of the sixties. As we now know, we were correct!

Do you feel the same way today?
About back then? Yes indeed.

What was the biggest threat to low flying CF-104s?
I would have to say it was the individual pilot. Think 450 Knots at about 500 feet above ground (AGL) and for the final part of the simulated attack Mach .85. In and out of cloud sometimes on autopilot at 1000 feet AGL in solid cloud relying on a handheld strip map with radar predictions on one side matching that up with radar returns knowing the altitude was only safe to maybe five nautical miles either side of desired track. Screw that up and you had better climb out or run the risk of ground impact. Yes, I had close calls but was lucky; others were not so lucky.

Why was the aircraft well suited to the role?
It was an incredibly stable platform even in significant turbulence. There was a lot of cockpit work necessary to navigate low level at high speed. At least we could always see our map without violent movement in the office!

This site will pause operations if it does not hit its funding targets. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here

The United States Navy has a reputation for operating the best naval aircraft of all time, at least partly by waiting to join WW2 until they’d managed to sort them out. However, they’ve still managed to fly some aircraft that make the Blackburn Blackburn look like the F-4 Phantom of its day.

• Bing Chandler

10. A-5B Vigilante

The finest long range reconnaissance aircraft operated by any navy it’s important not to embarrass the RA-5C by asking it why it was built in the first place. Designed as a nuclear bomber it suffered the minor indignity of towing the bomb behind in its wake when dropped and the decision was made to keep it away from any weapons for its own safety shortly after the first production A-5B flew.

McDonnell F3H Demon

The first F3H-1N were so bad the USN didn’t even fly most of them, shipping them off to be used as ground instructional trainers. Things didn’t get much better when one flew around on its own for over an hour when the test pilot thought he was safer getting out mid-flight. Slightly redeemed by replacing the Westinghouse J40 for an actual jet engine, the later models were themselves redeemed by being replaced by F-8 Crusaders.

Ryan Fireball

Hedging its bets by asking for an aircraft with a jet and piston engine the USN got the Ryan Fireball. Fortunately for all involved the Japanese surrendered before it could get near a combat zone. With nose gear apparently made from one of the softer cheeses half its landings appear to involve it breaking off. Meanwhile the wings were in danger of coming away leading to a G limit being imposed and on at least one occasion the whole aircraft just broke in two on landing.

McDonnell FH Phantom ‘The Phantom menace’

The USN’s first all-jet aircraft the Phantom was an innocuous single seat monoplane. With performance only slightly better than existing propeller fighters its career consisted of conducting carrier trials before being given to the Reserves. Who were presumably supposed to be grateful for having something so new. Powered by two Westinghouse J30s it probably would have improved things if McDonnell’s engineers had installed the eight, they’d briefly toyed with.

Curtiss Helldiver

The Fleet Air Arm gratefully received a range of aircraft from the USA during WW2, even ones the USN wasn’t convinced could be operated off aircraft carriers. The Helldiver was not one of them. After equipping one squadron, 1820NAS, trials indicated its handling around the flight deck was so bad the Royal Navy decided it wasn’t that fussed about having a dive bomber squadron after all. A lot of USN pilots apparently agreed, dubbing the S2BC the Son of a Bitch Second Class.

Vought F6U-1 Pirate

Vought made many great naval aircraft; the Pirate was not one of them. A stubby straight winged monoplane it was powered by one of Westinghouse’s family of appalling jet engines, in this case the J34. First flying in June of 1949, the evaluation by VX-3 was complete by the following October and concluded ‘The F6U-1 had proven so sub-marginal in performance that combat utilisation is not feasible’. Only 33 were built before the programme was terminated some airframes being used to test arrestor gear and barriers, no one being particularly concerned if they got damaged.

Vought F7U Cutlass

Vought made many great naval aircraft, although their hit rate doesn’t seem that good considering this was a follow up to the Pirate. Looking like it had come from the pages of Dan Dare, the Cutlass was a captivating design let down by unreliable hydraulics and underpowered engines from Westinghouse, who by this stage it must be assumed were in fact, Soviet agents. Over a quarter of the 320 examples built were destroyed in accidents and the first two operational cruises saw the Cutlass squadrons ordered ashore.

Douglas TBD Devastator

First flying in 1935 the Devastator was a torpedo bomber that suffered from two main problems. The first was the rate of advance in aircraft development before it saw combat and the second was its primary weapon the Mk13 torpedo. This had the undesirable characteristic of being damaged when dropped into the water and then not working. By the time this was resolved the Devastator had already fought at the Battle of Midway where 35 of 41 aircraft were lost without hitting any ships and the USN immediately withdrew it from frontline use.

Brewster Buffalo

Everyone’s favourite Finnish fighter originally entered service with the USN in 1939 and was a light, manoeuvrable – if not especially fast – fighter. By adding things like guns and armour to make it operationally useful it became a heavy sluggish if not especially fast fighter. Brewster meanwhile so annoyed the USN with their inability to produce aircraft on schedule that they’d eventually be one of the few arms manufacturers to go out of business during a war. Everyone was presumably relieved when it was decided to buy Wildcats instead.

Curtiss SO3C Seamew

A relatively innocuous scout floatplane the Curtiss Seamew came with a range of problems it wasn’t possible to fix in wartime. Apart from an inability to take off from the water with a full fuel load, in heavy seas the prop could hit the centreline float. This required a cut out to be made which was then covered with balsa wood for aerodynamic purposes. The landplane version meanwhile could take off in an attitude where there was no aileron control or possibility of recovery. The USN withdrew them from service in favour of their biplane predecessor while the RN scrapped its after nine months of second line operations.

This site will pause operations if it does not hit its funding targets. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here.

Legendary German film maker Werner Herzog* took time out of his busy schedule to choose his favourite Engine Testbed aircraft and to ponder on what went wrong enough in your life to lead you to spend time on aviation blogs.

“Guten tag. Ich bin Werner. The flying engine testbed is a mother nurturing a cuckoo that in all too many cases will result in her own downfall. This cursed aircraft may carry an engine not designed to aid its own type’s propulsion, but is instead a parasite, often hanging with ugly imbalance from the exploited wing or nose. Yet again cruelty triumphs. Walk with me to the abyss to a place even more hopeless than that of the cropdüster.”

*Not Werner Herzog

Aguirre, the Wrath of God

If there is a God, he made the 108 in a state of anger. The baseness and obscenity of this design is as if God vomited on those wishing to bring the Taurus, Sabre and Griffon into the world.

Avro Vulcan

Fireball: Visitors from Darker Worlds

Look at this haunted albatross, his gentle innocent face belying his murderer’s belly. The universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of the Vulcan. Man’s hubris is never more loudly shouted than by the nuclear bomber. The sadness of the atomic end is sad only to us. Though Avro founder Alliott Verdon Roe had been a card-carrying fascist, Avro’s Lancaster would taken part in the obliteration of the Nazi state, each bomb seemingly loaded with high explosive irony. The blockbuster film is named for the bomb which can destroy a block of houses, and today the blockbuster film can destroy the imaginations of a block of houses. The Vulcan could have finished humanity and left space for the trilobites or woodlice to take over. He did not destroy us but instead was an essential part of the development of both Concorde and the Panavia Tornado.

Avro Lancastrian

Like a writer using Chat GPT, this Avro Lancastrian is assisting the suicide of her own kind. Look how she carries the precious Sapphire turbojet under her wing. The fool. She was haunted by Ghosts, Griffons and the troubled flow of the Nene and Avon.

Gloster Meteor

The Meteor was the master of moderation. While the Messerschmitt 262 fought until the end of the death cult that spawned it, the Meteor observed the War from a distance. It looked forward to a civilised future of quiet flights from Bristol to Dublin, and so gave the world the turboprop.

Ilyushin Il-76LL: Meeting Gorbachev

The young Sergey Ilyushin was a gutter cleaner who dreamed of balloons. With a boxer’s face and the sleek hair of a presidential candidate, his aeroplanes contained despair. How can one talk of Russia and the Soviet Union without addressing the sadness?

Apart from the fact that it fed on fish, almost nothing else is known about the extinct Spectacled cormorant of Russia. Perhaps the Il-76 was built as a flying memorial to the cormorant. It is said that Sergey was originally inspired by the albatrosses over the sea, so this would follow.

High-winged and beefy (I’ve been called worse) with space for a team of engineers, the Il-76 is an excellent engine testbed. Beneath its maternal wings it has coaxed the NK-86 turbofan, TV7-117A turboprop, D-90 turbofan, D-18T, PS-90, NK-93 shrouded propfan, D-236T propfan, 30KP and notably, the Franco-Russian PowerJet SaM146 and Indian Kaveri.

Hawker Hart

I have so much disdain for the Hart and I will not share its sordid story of Merlins, Napier, Mercury and Pegasus.

Even Dwarfs Started Small

The first aircraft to fly with ram-jets, the Polikarpov I-15bisDM, was, somewhat bizarrely, a biplane.

North American B-45 Tornado The Wild Blue Yonder

Fast, brutish and stylish, the General Electric J79 is the engine of the jet age. If it was silver and penetrating the ether in the most thuggish American style, then it had a J79. Be it the Hustler, Phantom, Super Tiger, Vigilante or even nutso land speed record hunting cars, the J79 is the unruly howl of post-war America in all its glorious lunacy. The North American XB-45 had the honour of taking it into the sky for the first time. 17,000+ J79s made the Cold War a lot more exciting and it all started with the B-45. Americana, so bland in its madness, has no place at my table.

Little Dieter Needs to Fly

Despite what the Bristol-knockers will tell you, the Bristol Hercules radial engine was a massive success: powering over 25 different aircraft types including the Beaufighter, Stirling and Wellington. The Wellesley Type 289 engine testbed was used to test the Hercules HE.1S and was vital to its development. Ok, so maybe we’re overselling it here. The Wellesley was one of several types used as testbeds for the Hercules, it was no more important than any of the others, which included the desperately charismatic Northrop Gamma and at least one of the painfully uncharismatic Fairey Battle.

In mythology the baby Hercules was nurtured by his would-be assassin Juno who had been tricked into looking after the baby she wanted dead. Juno suckled Hercules at her own breast until he bit her nipple, spilling her milk across the night sky and so forming the Milky Way.

Fairey Battle

(As an aside, if you’re including testbed use on engines in the positive column for any aircraft then you have to consider the often-dissed Fairey Battle a resounding success as it was testbed for the Hercules, the Taurus, the Sabre, the Monarch and the Exe. By this criterion the magnificently ugly Hawker Horsley is probably the most successful aircraft of all time).

Caravelle

The CFM International CFM56 is so boringly name its easy to gloss over the fact its massive significance. This Anglo-French masterpiece powered into the sky for the first time on March 17 1977 on the elegant rear-end of a Caravelle. 33,000 odd units later the 56 has conquered the world, powering all sorts Airbuses and Boeings. It was the Caravelle that ushered in this reassuringly unexciting revolution. It was also considered as a candidate to pioneer a rather more risky technology. In 1958, a nuclear propulsion option was proposed for the the Caravelle with an onboard nuclear turning the engine and replacing the need for conventional fuel. This radical, and probably terrible, idea was also considered for the Super-Caravelle, a supersonic design concept that fed into the later Concorde.

Hawker Horsley: Echoes from a Sombre Empire

They will tell you the Merlin engine was not named for the wizard – but for the British the name carried such a magical weight it might have well have been.

We must cry for the Horsley. It was was an extremely suitable airframe for the purpose of testing engines, being the right size for the larger engines that were coming along. Its bolted up steel tube structure meant it was easy to fabricate a new engine mount. It was strongly built and had plenty of drag which meant there was little chance of more powerful engines overstressing the airframe (which was an issue with Battle testbeds, hence some of them had fixed undercarriage). It also had plenty of fuel capacity for long testing flights, and docile flying characteristics that allowed engine testing to take place with little risk. The number and variety of engines that he trialled suggests to me that he was inherently suitable for the role – several models of AS Leopard, Jumo 204 diesel (and then the licence-built Napier Culverin), R-R Buzzard, apparently a Napier Lion though I haven’t seen direct evidence of that, and of course the Merlin. And the Merlin variant that it tested (contributing to its fitness to pass the 400-hour flight tests) was the important Merlin G, the first model with the parallel head, which became the Merlin III, which won the Battle of Britain. Furthermore, the experience with the Buzzard fed into the Merlin. And the experience with the Jumo 204/Culverin fed directly into Napier’s development of the wonderful Deltic engine – not an aero-engine but a huge contributor to postwar warships, torpedo boats and trains, some of which were in service until 2018.

The Horsely died the anonymous death of a capable manservant. The egotistical Spitfire meanwhile, high on the snorted ground bones of the proletariat, sang itself into eternal fame.

Time to pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 2 here. Running the Hush-Kit site takes a lot of time and effort. If you wish to see this site carry on please consider making a small (or large) donation. Recommended donation £12.00. Every donation is greatly received. Donate here and be part of our story.

Interview with former RAAF F-111 Aardvark pilot Michael Crain

The Royal Australian Air Force had the most formidable warplane in the region with the swing-wing F-111. We spoke to former F-111 pilot Michael Crain to find out more.

Best thing about the F-111?

It was fast with buckets of fuel and handled exceptionally well at low level.   

You could cruise at 480KIAS on the deck for 2.5 hours with only internal fuel.

…and worst? 

Visibility mainly due to side by side seating.

Complete this sentence: ‘The F-111 was better than the Tornado because…

“It could drop a bomb in a bucket MORE than 25 miles from base” (stolen from the Buccaneer Song)

Complete this sentence: ‘The F-111 was better than the F/A-18 because…

…we could hit the targets!  We had friends 🙂

What are the pros and cons of side-by-side seating? 

Crew coordinations somewhat better. You can see what your crew mate is doing and someone brought in a knee tap as the signal when certain switch changes were made by the NAV. Resources can be shared so you don’t need to take two sets of everything and on long flights the Nav can prepare a gourmet meal while the pilot makes sure the autopilot behaves.

The Nav can act as a co-pilot during non tactical phases. That is how we trained them. And many were pretty good pilots once the jet was cleaned up and out of the circuit/instrument pattern. That’s where it was most difficult to fly well. 

The biggest negatives would be lookout. The Nav spends a lot of time heads down so can be vulnerable from the right.  One can offset this disadvantage by flying bloody fast and keeping all the bad guys in front where you can see them on the radar. This was very effective as we were looking up at any threats despite not having a pulse doppler radar and we were able to stay in ground clutter and limit observability from ground threats.

What is the fastest you ever took a F-111? 

M2.2 at 50,000’ We were still climbing at 10,000 fpm at start of level off and I’d been trying to keep it at about M2. It was a rocketship! The jet was straight out of the AUP (Avionics Update Program) for its test flight schedule and my 3rd last flight.I have 1250kts Ground speed in my log book on a previous Mach 2 run with a student.   

Was it still viable when retired?

Oh for sure.   It was constantly being updated and better than when I left.  The AUP meant we could do mission software upgrades, Paveway 3 and AGM-142 with a huge standoff range. We had better electronic warfare kit and Night Vision Goggles etc.  Obviously it’s not stealthy but we were never a poor cousin to anyone in the big exercises.It would always depend on the opposition but I can’t remember ever being shot by any of our regional “opponents” on exercise.

For example I spent a week fighting Eagles in the Northern Territory on a RAAF FCI (Fighter Weapons School equivalent).  They had AMRAAM and we were able to avoid them enough to stay out of range.   Even after our F-18 escort had all ‘kill removed’ (left exercise after being ‘shot down’).   

It’s harder at exercises such as Cope Thunder and Red Flag where the airspace is more limiting and forces everyone through a fairly narrow flightpath to do the same, but the point of those exercises is to push everyone through their limits and while you may get through the fighters you still have the ground defenses to get through.   Fairly similar to what the Tornados saw when they were low in the first phase of Desert Storm.

What kind of upgrades did it need? 

A head up display would have been good. Our deployment of Sidewinders was clunky and involved selecting the fuel transfer to the inboard or outboard station to uncage the seeker.   Which made it a two person job! A case of HOTAS + a Nav!

While the Avionics Update program made the mission system and flight controls digital, it was politically sold as a maintainabilty update and not as a mission enhancement program and thus the left side of the cockpit was basically untouched.   In reality it was a massive enhancement to our mission capability and that progress was ongoing after I moved on.

Datalink, better anti air capability for self defence,JDAMs and other J series weapons

Describe your most memorable mission 

That’s quite hard to answer. Things that stand out are dogfighting Tornados and Hawks in Malaysia, shooting an F-16 at Red Flag, dropping a stick of high drags in the Cope Thunder using the pitot probe as sight (with the Nav who bombed Gaddafi’s Ilyushin in Eldorado Canyon whose PaveTack video was shown to the world), watching a Mk 84 bomb detonate beneath me and seeing the massive shockwave dome of rarefied air, to going head-to-head with an F/A-18 low level at over 1000kts closure while guns tracking.

But perhaps one I felt a sense of achievement was at Red Flag. Loaded with live Mk 82 bombs our target was an airfield in the range complex where we planned to simultaneously attack in pairs spread formation with just enough separation to stay out of each others frag envelope.  On taxi our INS decided to head to Caesars Palace for an early beer, basically turning us into a 40-tonne-dump truck. I’d experienced the same problem on the range at home not before and after dropping all my practice bombs about 500 feet short doing how we had been trained for degraded visual delivery modes, I worked through the systems and developed a strategy in case it happened again.   And now it had and it was time to test the theory.   

Anyway after talking the Nav out of joining the INS at the bar we launched, fought our way through blue air.  Jinked and chaffed though the layers of SA3s SA6s and ZSU-23-4s and eventually rolled out long enough to line up the target at exactly 550KIAS and 500’ dead level.  The sight was now just a manually depressed dot with extra dialled in to account for AoA.  No stabilisation, nothing. Took a deep breath, said a prayer and released.

We then fought our way back to the egress point while providing fighter escort for the B1Bones since Blue air had all bingoed out by then. After landing we had the big debrief and had to nervously await the results of all the strikers.  Direct Hits, job done, a sigh of relief and that was the end of my Red Flag which I suppose was as close to combat as I ever got. So nothing really compared to those who have served in theatre.

What did maintainers think of the F-111? 

At the Squadron level they loved what they did although they often put in long hours to have the jets mission ready.   Our servicability rates where pretty good despite it being a relatively old airframe. There was a lot of pride throughout the maintenance organisations within the group.  From depot level down to the squadron maintenance.

Which aircraft types did you feel competitive with and which did you look down on? 

We felt we could hold our own against anyone.   We trained so much with 4th generation fighters especially our own F-18s that we developed tactics to deal with them.   We were quite aggressive in our own formation self defence which helped get the job done and notch up quite a few kills on bad guys with poor SA.  There is not much more fun than getting a tone on a F-18 or F-16 and letting loose. And didn’t they hate being shot by a pig!

We didn’t look down on anyone, however we felt we had a pretty good advantage over anyone in the region.   Especially with respect to training and competence with our equipment.   But one can never be overconfident so all threats were treated with respect. 

A big advantage we had was simply an honest, no holds barred and thorough debrief as one is accustomed to in Western forces. Lets just say that some/many regional forces don’t like losing face which does detract from learning opportunities.   

What was the role of RAAF F-111s and is this adequately performed by the current types? 

Land and Maritime Strike,

Reconnaissance

Precision Air Support (Tank Plinking)

Air Defence (against non fighter type)

CAIRS (in the G model)

Central gas Light and Heating (side job for major events)

The RAAF is highly capable now.   While no individual asset probably has the capability of an F111 on its own and in its time, the force structure is excellent.   Super Hornets including the Growlers are highly capable.   With F35s, KC-30 tankers and Wedgetails they can project Air Power successfully within the region and beyond.   One of our old mottos was “do more with less” and we were very good at getting the most of what we had, but since the mid 90s the RAAF has been working on plugging the gaps in its own capability.

Tell me something I don’t know about the F-111? 

We could use the Pavetack to get a sidewinder lock on a non manoeuvring target in the dark. 

I helped develop no lock intercepts from an ex Mirage pilot. We could be vectored (or do it ourselves) onto a target and complete an intertept where we rolled out behind the target.  The Pavetack could be cued to the same reference as an AIM9 and the Nav would talk the pilot up/down/left right etc to get a lock.  Sort of boring and interesting at the same time!

What should I have asked you? 

Who’s the best pilot? Although probably best you didn’t since unfortunately it’s not me!

Do ‘dump and burns’ have any tactical application?

Dump and burns are just a party trick although the quickest way to reduce wight at around 4000lbs/minute.   Simply light the afterburners, turn on fuel dump and try not to go supersonic through the High St :).  It really has no practical function although maybe it would confuse an IR missile.  It just feels the same as every time you select full afterburner – 5 distinct kicks as each zone lights up (that’s what select zone5 means) and a massive acceleration.  There really isn’t anything else comparable (except the roller coaster at Ferrari world Abu Dhabi-thats like carrier launch!).

Time to pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here. Running the Hush-Kit site takes a lot of time and effort. If you wish to see this site carry on please consider making a small (or large) donation. Recommended donation £12.00. Every donation is greatly received. Donate here and be part of our story. (In case my WordPress skills are not good enough and this link won’t work, please use the button below and to the right)

Could you beat a Tornado in a drag race?

Pretty much  if you start at say 450kts though it would be neck and neck with a Tornado until their low fuel light comes on)).   Imagine the Tomcat B would be the same.   But we could pretty much out run anything.   I noted an Hornet flights that their acceleration hit a bit of a wall at around 550 kts whereas we would just sweep the wings back  and maintain the acceleration.

F-111 versus Su-24: thoughts?

 Ford versus Ferrari or Lada versus Cadillac 

The F-20 was the ultimate US F-5 derivative. However unlike the twin-engined Tiger II and Freedom Fighter, the F-20 was powered by a single engine. It was intended to serve the needs of US client nations not cleared for fighters as advanced as the F-16. The F-20 had similar performance to the F-16 but would have been easier to maintain and cheaper to operate. Flight trials went extremely well and Chuck Yeager became an enthusiastic advocate of the type. When restrictions on F-16 exports relaxed, the F-20 lost its raison d’etre. An attempt to provide F-20s for the US aggressor fleet proved unsuccessful. In the end this privately funded fighter fell by the wayside.

• Jim Smith

“..built at the administration’s suggestion as a so-called non-provocative fighter, which meant one that was designed to be sold to friendly countries but designed to be vulnerable to our own state-of-the-art interceptors. Arming our friends was good business, but being able to shoot them down if they became our enemies was good strategy. To build this kind of airplane required the permission and cooperation of the administration, which could otherwise block such hardware sales.” – Ben R. Rich & Leo Janos, Skunk Works

The key strand running behind the Tigershark story is the FX program. FX (Fighter eXport) was a result of a decision by the Carter Administration in 1977 that sales of US front-line equipment would be restricted to NATO allies, Australia and Japan. The intention was for the US to be seen as a force for peace in the world, rather than a promoter of conflict through the export of highly capable weapons of war. Part of the context for this decision would have been the decision by the preceding Ford Administration to sell F-14s to Iran and F-15s to Israel

While this noble aspiration to be a force for peace sounded good, there were a few immediately evident problems. The first of these was that many nations that fall loosely into a political category of West-leaning democracies felt threatened by peers and neighbours who were operating Soviet-built equipment. In order to support these nations it would be necessary to make available capable, but not absolutely top-end, aircraft that would be able to defend against exported Soviet systems, while not making use of the most sensitive US technologies. This was the driving objective behind the FX program. A secondary factor was that, in the absence of US aircraft being available for export, other countries were turning to alternatives, notably the Dassault Mirage 2000, and this was threatening to impact on US Industry.

As may be inferred from the short description above, the FX programme was really addressing State Department and industry objectives rather than US Defense Department needs, and as a result, the two departments had rather differing degrees of interest in the programme. Differences of emphasis between these Departments would later significantly affect FX programme outcomes.

The requirements for the FX programme were rather unusual. The aircraft to be supplied under the programme would have to meet the following requirements:
• Performance, cost & capabilities should be between those of the F-5E and F-16A
• Optimised for the air-to-air role, and with deliberately limited strike capabilities
• Payload/range performance had to be substantially inferior to that of contemporary fighters in the US inventory
• Deployment and maintenance had to be easier.
These requirements defined a second-class aircraft, with offensive (strike) roles limited, and emphasis given to air defence capability. In addition, the DoD took the view that such an aircraft was unlikely to be required by the USAF, and in consequence development of the aircraft would be the responsibility of the selected contractor, although the State Department and Department of Defense would assist with sales efforts.
This approach to the FX programme represented a considerable risk to Industry participants, who would have to carry much of the cost of developing and producing FX aircraft, and in the event, there were only two bidders, Northrop with the F-5G/F-20 Tigershark, and General Dynamics with the F-16/79.

F-5G/F-20 Tigershark technical characteristics

The F-5G was a development of the F-5E, originally intended for sale to the air force of Taiwan, intended as a higher-powered version of the F-5E, offering enhanced performance at a reasonable cost. The F-5G would be fitted with the GE-F404 engine in place of the 2 General Electric J85 engines of the F-5. The result of this engine change would be an additional 60% thrust in an airframe weighing only 17% more than the F-5E.

This aircraft would perhaps have been an attractive option for Taiwan, but for a change in US policy in regard to the People’s Republic of China. President Nixon’s visit to China in 1972 had begun a process of rapprochement and dialogue, and in pursuing this, the State Department were made aware of Chinese concerns about US arms sale to Taiwan. As a result of these concerns, President Carter blocked the sale of the F-5G to Taiwan, which then developed its own light fighter, the AIDC Ching-Kuo.

In early 1981, there was a change in administration in the US, with Ronald Reagan replacing Jimmy Carter as US President. In consequence, the attitude of the US to Arms Control began to change, and additional exceptions to the ‘no export of advanced weapons’ policy began to occur. Israel had already been allowed to purchase both the F-15 and F-16; following the change in US administration, a number of additional nations were authorised to procure the F-16A, including Pakistan, Egypt, Venezuela, Greece, Turkey, and South Korea. Other export sales to the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Israel were allowed under the earlier Carter policy.

Taiwan had been the main focus of the F-5G development, but sales to that nation had been blocked. In an effort to make the aircraft attractive to a broader customer base, Northrop approached the USAF and sought approval to re-badge the aircraft as the F-20 Tigershark, while at the same time introducing avionics and sensor upgrades to make the aircraft more competitive with the F-16.

Compared to the Northrop F-5E Tiger II, the most significant design changes for the Tigershark were the avionics upgrade, and the use of a single General Electric F404 engine, which was originally designed for the F/A-18 Hornet. The new engine provided 60% more thrust than the combined output of the F-5E’s two General Electric J85s. This improved the aircraft’s thrust-to-weight ratio substantially, and enabled an increase in maximum Mach to 2.0, with a ceiling over 55,000 ft (16,800 m).

The wing was similar to the F-5E, but had modified leading edge extensions (LEX), which improved the maximum lift coefficient of the wing by about 12% with an increase in wing area of only 1.6% and also reduced pitch stability. A larger tailplane was fitted to improve manoeuvrability, along with a new fly-by-wire control system.
The F-20’s avionics suite was significantly enhanced, adopting the General Electric AN/APG-67 multi-mode radar as the principal sensor, offering a wide range of air-to-air and air-to-ground modes. A large number of weapons, including Sidewinder and Sparrow air-to-air missiles, could be integrated on the aircraft, which was also armed with two 20-mm Pontiac cannon. Cockpit instrumentation and layout was brought up to the then-current state of the art, with a head-up display supplemented by two flat screen multi-function displays.

The small size of the F-20 meant that payload range was somewhat limited compared to larger contemporary fighters. The F-20 was fast, agile and hard to spot visually due to its small size, but was perhaps less well armed and equipped than some of its competitors, at least partially as a result of the constraints imposed by the Carter administration’s export policies. Nevertheless, there was some interest from Bahrain and Morocco, and also some interest from South Korea.

We spoke to test pilot Paul Metz, author of a brilliant new book on the F-20 to find out more:

Best thing? State of the art avionics and reliable.

Worst thing? It did not sell

How did it compare with the F-16? One thing we did not cover in our interview was the Fighter For Export (FX) concept as defined by the U.S. government.  In late1977, President Carter decreed that the FX had to have performance better than the F-5E but less than the USAF front line fighter, the F-16.  Two companies responded to this opportunity to build the next FX.    Northrop offered its F-20A and General Dynamics offered the F-16 re-engined with a General Electric J79, the so-called F-16J79.  The F-20 significantly out-performed this export version of an FX.  In 1981, President Reagan offered production F-16As to Venezuela, Pakistan and S. Korea.  This was a fundamental change in the U.S. FX program.  It authorized front line U.S. equipment, the F-16A/B, to traditional FX countries.  Northrop countered with changes to the F-20 which would equal and exceed the F-16. There simply was not enough time to make those changes.  National policy for the FX changed instantly.  Changing an airplane takes years.  

How do you rate it in the following areas

A. Sustained turn 
B. Instantaneous turn
C. Acceleration 
D. Climb rate 

 Again, an apples to apples comparison would be the F-20A versus the F-16J79 as an FX fighter.  I will answer with an apples to strawberry comparison of the F-20A to the F-16A (with the F100 engine).  My reference library of F-20 technical data has been donated to the Western Museum of Flight in Torrance, CA so I cannot provide the engineering details.  In any event there are no one-sentence answers to your questions.  There are areas where each airplane has a slight advantage over the other.  For example, at slow speeds the F-16 flight control computers limit angle of attack to 26°.  The F-20 has unlimited angle of attack maneuver capability.  At the same time, at slower speeds, the F-16 has a lower wing loading and thus a better sustained turn rate than the F-20 until the F-16 hits its angle of attack limiter.  In general the F-20 has better fuel specifics (analogous to miles per gallon).

Pleasure of flying The F-20 had a spacious cockpit and was a fighter pilot’s airplane-easy to fly, easy to operate, reliable with intuitive flying qualities, a legacy of the F-5 family. 

Cockpit roominess Excellent.

Ease of take-off and landing Piece of cake.

Why was it cancelled? Should it have been?  The Tigershark project was terminated by Northop who funded all project costs.  It was cancelled after the U.S. government changed the standing policy on sales of fighter aircraft to foreign allies.  Policy can be changed at the discretion of the President of the U.S.  A “policy” is not a law nor is it a contract between the government and the company providing the product.  A contractor assumes the risk of cancelation under these circumstances.  Northrop assumed those risks.  The government acted within their rights.  There was no business case for an intermediate fighter for export (FX) after the President offered front line U.S. aircraft (F-16s) to all .

Biggest myth?  That the Tigershark was as reliable as Northrop claimed.  It exceeded all frontline fighters by a wide (and some termed “Incredible”) margin.  

What should I have asked? Nothing to add. Good job.

Were you sad about its demise? Disappointed is probably more accurate. The loss of the Tigershark occurred with the win of the Advanced Tactical Fighter program that produced the YF-23.  So Halloween of 1986 was a bittersweet day at Northrop.

Pre-order your copy of The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 2 today.

Stay tuned to the Hush-Kit YouTube channel which will soon release an in-depth interview with Paul Metz.

Hush-Kit spoke to Saab’s Richard Smith to get a better understanding of the Gripen E’s electronic warfare and defensive capabilities.

How does the Gripen E compare to its peers in terms of how comprehensive its defensive suite is?

Gripen E’s wide-spectrum Electronic Warfare suite provides the war fighters with powerful comprehensive Electronic Protection, Electronic Support and Electronic Attack capability, designed to counter any threats present in conflicts of today and the future. More than 40 apertures placed around the Gripen E airframe enable spherical warning, sensing and suppression, using smart collaborative techniques to ensure state-of-the-art survivability including missile approach warning (MAW), target acquisition and identification as well as electronic attack.

1. A highly integrated use of the AESA radar, RWR and electronic signal measurement can precisely detect, identify and geolocate all sources of radiated EM energy, including unidentified non-directly emitting sources. This enables a powerful and highly flexible combat intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance (Combat ISTAR) capability, in class of the most modern peer western fighters, such as the F35.

2. What is Digital radio frequency memory jamming and how does it work? Is it necessary on the modern battlespace?

In modern combat air, the electronic jamming capability is one of essential instruments to successfully undertake combat winning operations. Two main jamming techniques are generally used; The first, electronic noise generation which is a jamming waveform designed to generate background noise on a radar receiver in order to mask a desired radar echo or spoof and conceal acquired targeting data, such as target range or doppler information. The second technique is multi-false target generation – also known as DRFM jamming. This is an active deception technique which creates multiple false echoes of real targets by sampling an incoming RF signal, digitally storing and recreating it while changing some or all of the parameters with the purpose of confusing the tracking radar, concealing real targets and to negatively affect an incoming missile’s probability-of-intercept. In Gripen E, these techniques and variants of them can be used in every platform autonomously, however what really makes the difference are the network enabled collaborative functions within the tactical formation. This allows whole new smart and flexible ways to fight, new novel tactics, techniques and procedures – to create situational awareness, suppress the enemy, ensuring successful survivability and lethality.
Powered by the new Human Machine Collaboration concept, the Gripen pilots are constantly supported by new unique decision support functions, using AI technology, machine learning and automated functions to predict outcome of events, propose the best course of action – to maintain low workload and full focus on the mission. To win the fight!

What are TRDs?

Towed decoy systems are used to protect military aircraft from radar-guided missiles. They provide a radio wave reflecting bait that attract RF-guided missiles away from the intended target. These counter measures, released from a pod or a hatch, can be towed behind a host aircraft protecting it against both surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles. Attached via a Fibre Optic link, used to send commands to the decoy RF emitter, it can produce electronic jamming required to spoof a missile away from the “parent aircraft”.
Generally, towed decoys are self-protection countermeasures. They can, however also be useful in a SEAD/DEAD scenario, where the decoy could simulate a large false target as bait for enemy SAM systems, while another aircraft can detect the sensor emission; identify, locate and attack.
Towed decoys are often called ‘first generation decoys’ as most developed towards the end of the Cold War. Today, modern tactical fighters, including Gripen E instead are equipped with expendable battery powered active decoys which provide off-board jamming capability, devices such as BriteCloud.

Do IR flares still work?

ORDER THE HUSH-KIT BOOK OF WARPLANES VOL 2 here

Yes they do – flares, and other dispensed counter measures are still today an essential ingredient in the survivability of a fighter platforms; to effectively avoid, deny, deceive and defend against any threat during a combat mission, in fighter terms, the Live Chain.

One of the many unique features in a Gripen E fighter is its ability to carry extensive amounts counter measures. These include;

• Flares, both conventional two-colour and thrusted, to provide protection against the air-to-air and surface-to-air IR missile threat (on both the mid and near IR-regions)

• Chaff and hot chaff to provide protection against surveillance and tracking radars

• Active electronic decoys (AED) to provide protection against RF-guided air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles.

In Gripen E, proactive and reactive counter measure techniques are fully integrated with the platform’s sensor and system, enabling automated functions ensuring protection during all phases of a combat mission. Would a Gripen be engaged, for instance by a pop-up SAM threat, automated counter measures are instantly initiated. In addition, every Gripen in the tactical formation automatically start suppressing the threat with collaborative multi-aspect jamming. To enable maximum survivability effect.

Can an AESA be used for EW? If so, how?

Today, many modern fighters are using multiple arrays to generate efficient electronic warfare. In most cases, the main array for this is the nose radar. In Gripen E, highly sensitive active and passive techniques are used in new ways to provide electronic protection, – support and -attack. A single Gripen has the capability to autonomously use passive sensing to detect, identify and geolocate threats even when not being illuminated with associated radars. Active techniques include multiple modes of jamming, but also SAR-modes for efficient ground mapping and detection of fixed, moving and manoeuvring surface targets. The Gripen E’s Raven AESA enables high radiating power, very flexible interleaved simultaneous scanning and tracking in the air/land/sea. Its swashplate design give the Gripen pilots over the shoulder radar field-of-view capability, unique in its design allowing much increased flexibility of use compared to all other fighters today.

How survivable is a non stealth jet in the modern battlespace?

It is all about generating survivability, which can be done in different ways. As modern sensors evolve into the multi-spectrum, low frequency scanning and tracking as well as networked function. We must ask ourselves whether geometric stealth shaping is still really relevant? Many systems, specifically designed to detect ‘stealth’ are already fielded and operational in the east and the Indo-Pacific. These, used in a networked IADS enable much improved targeting and missile guidance capabilities against low observable platforms, now posing a real threat against these previously perceived as ‘undetectable’ aircraft.

For Gripen E, we have made the deliberate choice to create survivability with means of smart powerful Electronic Warfare. Every Gripen is equipped with highly effective sensors able to detect, identify, locate and suppress hostile sensor- and weapon systems. The new revolutionary avionics design where flight critical and tactical software have been separated, allow capability to control, adapt and optimize tactical system performance, hence offering whole new ways to rapidly response to any threat, to introduce new capabilities whenever needed.

What are the key technologies a modern fighter should carry for EW/and defensive countermeasures?

Modern radar and air defence systems are increasingly agile in their operation. Through the use of the latest technologies, agile networking and new adaptive operating methods, today’s fighter pilots are faced with extremely complex and volatile signal environments. This means that requirements of modern fighting units’ and their EW capabilities are very demanding. One way to overcome these challenges is the utilisation of Network Enabled Warfare, where sensors and systems, both on-board and on other platforms, work collaboratively. This enables the execution of the EW mission in totally new and efficient ways that are unpredictable from the adversaries’ perspective. The automated information exchange, combined with the highly evolved Human Machine Collaboration (HMC) in the Gripen E, delivers a decisive information advantage which ensures the right course of action at every moment of the fight. As a result, the system guarantees unique situational awareness, optimized survivability and lethality and, maximized mission success for every mission.

ORDER THE HUSH-KIT BOOK OF WARPLANES VOL 2 here

As a result of the above and Gripen E’s open architecture, advanced software methods/techniques and the functional partitioning of flight and mission critical functionality, Gripen is designed to be easily adaptable as new capabilities can be rapidly introduced to the system as and when new threats arise and as new technologies evolve. This will ensure Gripen E’s continuous operational relevance through life of the platform and gives Gripen E all the necessary capabilities to control the Electro-Magnetic spectrum and deliver Air Dominance in high threat environments for decades to come.

The Barbie Jet is an overpowered oddity with some excellent design features. But, this extremely innovative jet features an extremely serious design flaw (if it were turned into a full-scale aircraft). Our independent analysis, by aero engineer Joe Wilding and Jim Smith, reveal a litany of serious aerodynamic and structural issues that would curse it, if it were made into a real aircraft.*

*There are no plans to make it into a real aircraft and as a toy it has no safety issues.

“…the aircraft has a glide ratio of 3.0, which is worse than the space shuttle when landing.”

There are two versions of the Barbie Jet. The Mk I first flew in 1999 and featured smaller, wing-mounted engines much like a 737 or A319. The Mk II first flew in 2021 and featured upgraded engines mounted on the aft fuselage, similar to a DC-9 or Gulfstream G-V.

• Mk.I “Airplane”:

Features include a working microphone (great for communicating with ATC), a “magical” food service center, and Real jet sounds!

• Mk.II “Dreamplane”

But wait, there appears to be a (possibly Saudi) knock-off, the “Sweet Holidays Airliner” with a single tail-mounted engine similar to a DC-10, and most like the single-engine PiperJet. This version features a few unique details such as a variable-geometry swing-wing, and a pivoting cockpit canopy for easier pilot egress. This variant didn’t have a successful commercial launch and only a few exist. The last known example was being flown by ‘Pilot Kent’ operating as an overworked smuggler for a “sweet” minor ex Soviet republic airline with a dubious safety record. Previously Kent was an Iranian test pilot, who took the IAIO Qaher-313 on its maiden flight. It is rumoured that Barbie had an affair with Roy Orbison while visiting pre-Revolutionary Iran and Pilot Kent is the son. Judge for yourself.

Wait, do we still say ‘maiden flight’? That’s pretty archaic. Is the pilot or the flight ‘taking’ the aircraft’s virginity, is the aircraft a maiden? All very strange. Is flying sex? Are unflown aircraft InCels? Are museum aircraft post sexual? Or is that mailplanes?

For the rest of this analysis, we will focus on the Mk.II Dreamplane.

First, a 3-view drawing was created to develop and extract all of the critical information needed for performance analysis, such as dimensions and surface areas. This 3-view was generated based on US intelligence photos taken from outside the BarbieLand International Airport fence, and the excellent coverage in the deep dive article from the Feb 2021 issue of Flight International. Scale is hard to determine from photos. A kid’s toy version of the aircraft was used to determine scale, knowing that the Barbie world is 1:6 scale. The toy length of 2.296 inches was used to determine a full-scale aircraft length of 13.78 feet. 

The aircraft has somewhat unique proportions. The overall length and wingspan is similar to a BD-5 Jet. However, the fuselage size and aircraft weight is quite a bit different from that zippy jet which James Bond flew in Octopussy.

Weights

A proprietary statistical weights model was used to estimate the empty weight build-up of the aircraft, as shown in the following table (in pounds):

• These weights seem reasonable. One big advantage of this aircraft is the unusual BMI of the pilot and passengers. A “standard” scaled Barbie passenger (per the FAA and EASA) weighs only 105 lbs. 

• Propulsion
  • The Pinkjet 2000.23 is a highly proprietary engine, and no performance data has been published. However, it is known that the engine is a pure turbo jet, and the performance can be estimated by scaling the engine size and comparing to other turbojet engines of similar performance. The engine is 13.44 inches in diameter (a little less than a GE J85), and this results in an approximate takeoff thrust of 2,050 lb per engine at standard day, sea level conditions. The engine is estimated to weigh 280 lbs dry.
  • With a pure turbojet, it is very hard to be Stage V noise compliant. Therefore it is believed that the Barbie Mk.II Dreamjet uses a Hush-Kit (and yes – I do feel used)
• Fuel system The fuel is contained entirely in the wing. Roughly scaling the wing, and assuming the fuel is contained in the full wing span, between the forward and aft wing spar, the wing can contain roughly 7.5 US gallons per side, or a total of 120 lbs of fuel.
• Airframe
  • To say the fuselage is chunky is a gross understatement, it makes a P-47 look like a Romanian sausage. And size is a mixed blessing for the structural designer. On one hand, the height and width of the fuselage increases the bending stiffness. On the other hand, surface area is not your friend when trying to design a low-weight structure, particularly if it is pressurised. And all good jets are pressurised. 
  • And what about those windows? Wow, they are big and they are going to be heavy, especially when sized to carry pressurisation and bird-strike loads. But wait! The aircraft does not appear to actually have windows, just cutouts. So I guess the window weight is actually zero. Same for the pressurisation system. That is a brilliant minimalist design though there is a minor risk of lateral birdstrikes to passengers’ heads.
  • The blunt aft end of the fuselage is the biggest problem with the Dreamjet. It would produce separated flow and would increase the aircraft drag by 5-10 times compared to a conventional, streamlined jet, making it impractical.
  • Another questionable design feature is the fully opening fuselage. This makes entry and exit convenient, as well as transporting bulky items such as Barbie jet skis. However, it would be a structural and systems nightmare to design a robust door latching mechanism that had to carry all of the fuselage loads.
  • The wing is straight forward. It appears to have an 11% airfoil, which is a good compromise for a medium-speed subsonic jet, considering structural weight, fuel capacity, and aerodynamic drag.
  • The vertical and horizontal tails seem reasonable.
• The horizontal tail winglets are an interesting addition, not often seen on aircraft. Winglets improve aerodynamic efficiency by reducing lift-induced drag. They have a similar effect as higher wingspan, without the downsides of increased span, namely structural weight and ground operations constraints. On a properly designed aircraft, the horizontal tails generally produces very little load in cruise flight. Any negative load produced add to additional wing lift required and is referred to as “trim drag.” The effort to include tail winglets must mean that the aircraft is not balanced well and is indeed producing a lot of down force in cruise flight. On the other hand, details on aircraft sometimes have nothing to do with engineering or efficiency. It is possible the tail winglets flowed from the pen of the designer to compliment the other stunning lines of the Dreamjet.

• Stability and Control
  • The Dreamjet tails were analyzed using a method called “Tail Volume Coefficient”. This calculates the area of the horizontal and vertical tails, multiplied by the distance they are from the wing aerodynamic center. This value is then normalized based on the wing dimensions.
  • The Dreamjet has a Horizontal Tail Volume Coefficient of 1.03, and a Vertical Tail Volume Coefficient of .079.Both of these are similar to the statistical values for a jet transport. Therefore the tails seem to be sized well for this type of aircraft. The only concern is the placement of the main landing gear. It is quite far aft on the fuselage and the aircraft would need considerable speed before the horizontal tail could lift the nose for takeoff.
• Performance
  • Wing Loading: The Dreamjet has a wing loading of 68.0 lbs/ft^2, which is similar to other business jets. This would result in a stall speed of 100 knots, reasonable for a jet aircraft.
  • The Thrust/weight ratio is an eye-watering 1.54!!! This is 20% higher than the highest T/W ratio jet in the world, the F-22. This means the Dreamjet could climb to dreamland vertically.
  • Of course the biggest problem with the Dreamjet, and one reason for the high T/W ratio, is that it can carry very little fuel. Assuming an average turbojet fuel consumption of 1.25 lbs fuel per lbs thrust per hour, the Dreamjet could run at full throttle for exactly 1.4 minutes before its fuel was exhausted.
  • Would the F-19 have worked in real life? Find out here.
  • Takeoff: On a normal takeoff, the high T/W ratio would provide blistering performance: a 335 foot ground roll. Even factoring an engine failure during the takeoff roll, the Balance Field Length would be 1,500 feet. Impressive! 
  • Top speed The wetted area of the aircraft and a “clean” jet design would suggest a drag area as low as 1.6 square feet. This could produce a top speed well into the supersonic range, assuming it had enough fuel to accelerate long enough to reach that speed. However, the blunt fuselage it likely increasing the drag area of the aircraft to 15 square feet or more, 10x the ideal value. With this drag, the aircraft could still cruise at a speed around 300 knots, or Mach 0.5. However, the buffeting coming off the ass end of the aircraft would probably not make for the most comfortable ride.
  • Range Although almost everything before this point seems plausible, if not quite exciting, range is where it all falls apart. Let’s look at a climb scenario. You are sitting on the end of the runway. You advance the throttles forward. The 1.5g of acceleration is approaching that of a Formula 1 car. After a few seconds, the aircraft is airborne and the pilot could pull the nose vertical. For here, the aircraft accelerate and climbs like a rocket. Only faster. After 1 minute, the Dreamjet is at 30,000 feet. The pilot can then level out, turn off the fasten seat belt light, and they configure the aircraft for glide mode, because that is the Dreamjet will become a glider in the next 30 seconds. And with the massive airflow separation coming off the fuselage, the aircraft has a glide ratio of 3.0, which is worse than the space shuttle when landing. From 30,000 feet, the plane could glide for about 17 miles. But hopefully the pilot is skilled and can land on the first approach, because there is no fuel for a go around.
  • Summary If you could put a better tailcone on the aircraft to reduce drag, and you and your closest friend weighed an unchanging 105 lbs, the Barbie Mk.II could be a dream jet. And I am kind of fond of the pink colour and sassy pony-tailed Barbie on the tail. 
  • – Joe Wilding

If you enjoy this kind of thing (and we all do) it’s time to pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 2

We also sought the wisdom of Jim Smith

The Barbie Jet – Hot or not?

By Jim Smith

I have to say I really like the Barbie Jet. After all, one can never start too early in encouraging the next generation to take an interest in owning an entry level executive jet.

Why do I suggest this is an entry-level executive jet? Well, single-pilot operation plus generously spaced accommodation for two passengers is one aspect of this, as are the small rear-mounted jet engines, typical of this class of aircraft.

In fact, the appearance of the aircraft strongly suggests that the folks at Mattel have been looking for inspiration in the slightly more obscure end of this market, since, rather than the popular Citation Jet series, the Barbie Jet appears to have a very close relation in the form of the Swearingen SJ 30. Only 8 of these were built, one of which graces a scrapyard in Brisbane.

This aircraft so closely resembles the Barbie Jet, that there is little doubt that it is one of the parents of that aircraft. The Brisbane aircraft lacks its tailplane, but the configurations of the SJ 30 and the Barbie Jet are similar to the larger Sino Swearingen SJ-30-2 photographed at Farnborough by Dr Ron Smith, which shares the tailplane arrangement of both.

Of course, the element which sets the Barbie Jet apart from the SJ 30 is the large fuselage, and the loading arrangements, which take the freight door in a new direction. The large fuselage strongly suggests that the Barbie Jet is, in effect, the SJ 30-Beluga, with a capacious fuselage providing Barbie and Ken with luxurious accommodation, as well as offering the manufacturer a second line of business in supplying the urgent package-delivery trade.

Photo: Airbus Beluga

This impression is heightened by the colour scheme, which draws heavily on the signature colour used first by Clay Lacy for his Mustang, and later, by the FedEx air freight business.

Photo: Clay Lacy’s Mustang at the Compton Air Show

What about performance? Well, the low-powered small-business jets generally offer modest, but effective, performance, with budget operation enhanced by only requiring a single pilot. Typical runway requirements are about 1000 m, with payload-range dependent on aircraft size and weight. The performance of the Barbie Jet will be somewhat reduced by additional fuselage drag compared to competitors, which is likely to impact on cruise speed, take-off distance and range. Some small benefit in range may be obtained through the use of winglets.

One area of concern may be the effect of the large fuselage on behaviour at low speed. T-tail aircraft are known to be liable to experience handling difficulties at low speed, as the control and stability of the aircraft may be reduced as the tailplane is affected by wing and fuselage flows. The Barbie Jet is likely to require some control system assistance, such as a stick pusher, at low speeds. However, as the design is not strictly competing in the commercial airliner market, the penalty of some flight limitations, and a slightly higher approach speed, may be acceptable.

Hot or not? Always dependent on personal taste, but I’d suggest at least comfortably warm.

Running the Hush-Kit site takes a lot of effort. If you wish to see this site carry on please consider making a small (or large) donation. Recommended donation £12.00. Every donation is greatly received. Donate here and be part of our story. (In case my WordPress skills are not good enough and this link won’t work, please use the button below and to the right)