F-8's radar controls: A short thread on why on earth the early F-8's radar controls were so bad.
Our story actually starts with the F2H-3, the night fighter version of the F2H. In the F2H-3, the radar was controlled by a joystick and a range thumbwheel.
At this time, radars required high pilot workload. Scope gain was controlled manually, there was no search antenna stabilization, and acquisition had to be done manually by pointing the antenna at the target and placing the range gate over the target.
Short reminder of what a range gate is:
One of the problems with this was in steps four and five, as shown above. The radar could not provide heading information, so the pilot had to estimate it.
Due to estimation, acquisition was often difficult because of error in estimation and time delay before lock-on.
Because of this, pilots would often position the target close to the center of the radar screen to reduce error in estimation before beginning lock-on.
In 1951 an alternate system was proposed. With this, in the acquisition mode, target acquisition was limited to the radar boresight to allow the pilot to more easily manipulate the radar display controls and keep control of the aircraft. All he had to do was align the range gate.
This system was deemed worth the trade-offs, and so it was applied to a follow-on aircraft: the F-8 Crusader. On the F8U-1E(F-8B) and F8U-2, the first Crusaders with search and track radars, this system was used.
Obviously, this was not ideal. This could provide similar issues of lack of lock-on in extreme crossing-target scenarios. The F8U-2N(F-8D) and 2NE(F-8E) rapidly reintroduced the radar joystick controls alongside their new APQ-83/APQ-94 radars, but with a much different layout.
The main control joystick likely took design cues from Convair's F-102 and F-106 interceptors, which used a similar style of joystick/radar joystick assembly. (Photo:) flickr.com/photos/ian_e_a…
This was a much more modern system that benefitted from increased computerization in radars, allowing for simplified acquisition from search. A boresight acquisition mode that performed exactly like the previous system was retained with Automatic Range Only (ARO) mode.
This isn't particularly groundbreaking or shocking, but I've spent some time confused as to why the radar control ergonomics started out as unsatisfactory on the F-8. This is the answer!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
With the renewed interest in the Europa wars, this may be the best time to bring up the unusual short ranged missile developed for space-superiority craft.
The AIM-95E "Europa Agile," the only missile designed for operation in deep space AND within thin atmospheres.🧵
First off, I apologize in advance for the lack of photos on this topic. All existing photos of Agile are of the ones designed in the 1970s for operation within Earth's atmosphere. Therefore, you will have to imagine some of these changes to the system.
The Agile for aerial use was cancelled in the mid 1970s after about $50m was wasted developing several different airframes and seekers. This spelled the end for the program as most know it, but this would only be the starting point for the Europa Agile.
For my entire life I have been taught about the importance of effective searches. Since May 2024, I have fought with an unwanted feature that has made my experience worse.
A rant about "AI Overview," AI assisted search and their impact on using Google as a tool for research.🧵
Google has billed these features as "taking the legwork out of searching" and "able to answer complex questions." This is a bald faced lie.
The AI has wasted more time than it has saved me, lied about results, and forced me to learn methods to get around it rather than to use it.
I do a lot of research using keywords that I need matched exactly. For example, right now, I was looking up the specific thrust of the General Electric F414 engine used in the X-59, an experimental plane in development for NASA. This should be a simple question to answer.
For years, I've been working towards building a website to house all of my opinions and research. Today, it goes live with the launch article: Jet Fighter Generations Aren't Real.
This website comes with a major change in how I produce and share content, so please read. 🧵
First, here's a link to the article. I would have put it in the tweet above, but this website hates external links, and so it wouldn't have been shown to many of you.
For this reason (among others), I politely ask you to spread the word about this website.greatdefensesite.org/articles/fight…
X has unfortunately limited the topics I can present, the formats I can present them in, and the wording I can use to make a point. This website, for all its claims of free speech, has countless filters and algorithm features that harm post visibility. I'm tired of that.
I think I've found my least favorite Sidewinder variant. From everything I can tell, it's a perfectly serviceable heat-seeking Air to Air missile with decent capabilities. But I hate it.
This is the Republic of China's Tien Chen-1 (天劍一).
🧵
The TC-1 was the ROC's first attempt at an indigenous air-to-air missile. From what I can tell, it appears to be slightly better than the AIM-9P-5, which is a great showing, but again, I hate it.
To explain why I hate a missile that looks like an AIM-9L, we have to take a few steps back. When the AIM-9D was developed as a follow-on improvement to the AIM-9B, the Sidewinder went through a major redesign.
During the development of the Tomahawk Cruise missile, an airfield attack version was proposed.
This was to utilize runway-cratering submunitions as an alternative to manned missions or nuclear strikes to disable a Soviet airfield in a war.
This was MRASM BKEP, or AGM-109H.
🧵
MRASM BKEP was a sub-variant of MRASM, which itself was a subvariant of Tomahawk. AGM-109H (Photo 4) should also be distinguished from the AGM-109 variant proposed to compete with the Boeing AGM-86 (Photo 3) and the shorter tactical AGM-109L (Photo 2).
MRASM as a concept started life in the late 1970s, as a joint program between the USAF and USN. It was mostly ignored until 1980, when Boeing won the Air Launched Cruise Missile competition with the AGM-86. Though AGM-86 was better for the role, AGM-109 offered unique advantages.
AAM-N-3 started life sometime in the early 1950s as a replacement for the beam-riding AAM-N-2 Sparrow I, which proved to be wholly inadequate. It featured an aerodynamic redesign and an active radar homing seeker.
Sparrow II was the odd one out.🧵
[Thread update]
Developed by Sperry-Douglas, like the first one, the second Sparrow was primarily intended to provide a better guidance system to allow for successful intercepts of maneuvering targets, or from other angles besides directly ahead or astern of the target.
A secondary goal was the higher survivability that Sparrow II would offer to the launching aircraft, as it did not have to maintain a target lock to guide the missile.
In bomber interception, this meant that the pilot could turn away long before he entered cannon turret range.