There are sooooooo many fun little combos just waiting to happen. As was pointed out to me.. the J-52 is a derivative of the J-57 so you could use a scaled down version of the AB from it if you are wanting.
If it was modified a bit, I believe so. You would need a BLC system, drooping ailerons and an extended nose wheel to decrease launch speed. But it's doable
It would probably be right on the edge of what's possible. In OTL it made sense to go with Skyhawks because they had good low and slow handling characteristics and pilots loved them. And it was better than nothing.
They were also looking at the ST as the F-86 replacement as has been discussed, so there is the possibility of a unified fighter here. In regards landing on a Majestic? Depends on the wing. At 250 sqft no.. at 300 or above oh yeah! You could launch Banshee' and Cougar' from Bonnie with zero problems and both were as heavy as the F-11 but had more wing area and thus lower wing loading. With a 300 sq.ft wing the wing loading is the same as the A-4 with my "big" wing alternate in this thread you are looking at about 340 square feet and nearly identical landing and launch speeds to the F9 with the 337 square foot wing so a power on approach speed of about 91 mph. fit it with BLC you are looking at about 74 MPH.
As noted there a few...lol. Historically F-11 went to sea on Hancock class carriers, but I have never seen any actual record of them being used on H-8 equipped ships; saw an illustration of one claiming to be from the Bennington but nothing backing that up factually. The bigger wing, allows launch from any H-8 ship starting at 300 square feet of wing, at 300 she has the same wing loading as an A-4 and very likely the same limitations as the A-4.
I'd feel comfortable as well but then again the both of us will never have to , will we?* Chuckle*
Now if you want to convert some S2's to turboprops you could do some buddy tanking... get you some bomb load for a bunch of bother.
Well Archibald there was the Chance-Vought V-384 design, a smaller derivative of larger V-383 (F8U-1 Crusader), powered by the J65 turbojet. Although not the J79, the J65/V-384 derivative would have been supersonic, smaller and lighter and hence more suited to the smaller Majestic-class type carrier.
Given we have performance numbers of the historic Tiger with the early stage J-79 and the figures for the FJ-4B with an extra 5000 lbs of thrust from a rocket assist in the tail a lot of interesting permutations come in depending upon the amount of ZOOM you want with your boom-boom. 12,000 lbs of thrust should be enough to push her to Mach 1.41-1.61 and we know 10k was enough to push the historic Tiger to 1.1.
Centaur and Albion please, if you're going to do Carriers do it right. When 25 % of your annual operating budget goes to your Carrier Force.Simply put, you cannot afford gaps during refits.
I wonder if a combined Anglo-Dutch crew could have been used to keep Centaur an ASW asset?
Actually it was suggested at least 4 or 5 times between 1961and '71.
Sadly, I can see it being suggested, and shot down because of a combination of pride, politics and one real world concern. Namely, what if the UK gets into a war that Canada (or vice versa) isn't part of (like the Falklands)? Does the joint ship take part and put half the sailors who aren't belligerents in harms way? Or is the ship strictly a NATO asset? Which would severely reduce its usefulness.
Oh sorry!
I’ve read that wing thickness is also an important determinant for lift. Subsonic designs like the F9F had thicker wings which produced lots of lift but weren’t suitable for supersonic flight. As the wings got thinner for supersonic flight the approach speeds got higher (even keeping wing loading constant)…. maybe someone with a better understanding of aerodynamics could confirm.
Yeah, that's pretty much straight physics. With a thicker wing, the air moving over the top of the wing has a much greater distance to travel than the air moving along the bottom of the wing. This results in a greater disparity in their relative speeds, which generates a greater amount of lift than a thinner wing of the same size. Conversely, the thinner wing will create less drag, resulting in higher speeds and better fuel economy. To determine how big a difference there is between a thicker and thinner wing though? Well, that takes a lot of math. Lol. And seeing as it's nearly midnight here, I don't have the available brain cells to do it. Lol
Tried to find the Burchell Report of 1964: lots of references on the web, no hits for the report itself
I thought that was the deal, but like you said that involves a bit of the maths... speaking of I did look up what difference in wing area makes... forgot I did it for the first post it has been so long.
oh no... you might be able to land it if you were lucky.. but you are going to get craned off!
I did raise a thread on this once if I reccal correctly.....no one wanted to engage with it oddly...
