Most Beautiful Aircraft

[Channel Hopper]

Alright - nobody disputes that jets with the two crew members side by side have been built and successfully used. Nobody disputes that they have been used as night righters. However, has a side by side arrangement ever been used with an aircraft that has been expected to dogfight with the bandit being acquired visually?

The Mosquito

 

[Wooden Wonder]

The Mosquito

Hmm, pedantic I know, but I think that only in the T3 did the pilot and co-pilot/instructor sit truly side-by-side - in the bomber variants the bomb-aimer sat a foot or so behind the pilot so that they had enough room to slide under the coaming to get into the nose. If anyone has more info on the seating arrangements for the FB variants then fire away.

 

[UKAviationGroup]

Trainer and CAS respectively, though. Not fighters (although the Provost was used to train fighter pilots; I've recounted how I used to lie on my school field as a kid and watch them far, far above me...).

In the late 1970's & early 1980's they were flown by civilian ex RAF pilots to train air traffic controllers at RAF Shawbury. Now home to all military pilots under going rotary basic & advanced flying training and rotary aircrew basic courses prior to air loadmasters and WSO's flight training as well.

The also utilise Tern Hill Airfield, which in the 90's was Clive Barracks as a relief landing site.

 

[tiv]

Hmm, pedantic I know, but I think that only in the T3 did the pilot and co-pilot/instructor sit truly side-by-side - in the bomber variants the bomb-aimer sat a foot or so behind the pilot so that they had enough room to slide under the coaming to get into the nose. If anyone has more info on the seating arrangements for the FB variants then fire away.

I have a vague memory of the side by side seating being a tight fit across the shoulders and the trainer was the only variant that used it.

 

[CrashTestDummy]

In the late 1970's & early 1980's they were flown by civilian ex RAF pilots to train air traffic controllers at RAF Shawbury. Now home to all military pilots under going rotary basic & advanced flying training and rotary aircrew basic courses prior to air loadmasters and WSO's flight training as well.

The also utilise Tern Hill Airfield, which in the 90's was Clive Barracks as a relief landing site.

Shawbury is still home to the air traffic school as well as CFS(H).

 

[Channel Hopper]

Hmm, pedantic I know, but I think that only in the T3 did the pilot and co-pilot/instructor sit truly side-by-side - in the bomber variants the bomb-aimer sat a foot or so behind the pilot so that they had enough room to slide under the coaming to get into the nose. If anyone has more info on the seating arrangements for the FB variants then fire away.

Bleeding pedants.

 

[syrup]

Alright - nobody disputes that jets with the two crew members side by side have been built and successfully used. Nobody disputes that they have been used as night righters. However, has a side by side arrangement ever been used with an aircraft that has been expected to dogfight with the bandit being acquired visually?

SU34?

FIGHTER / BOMBER

Russia announced on 30 November 2015 that Su-34s in Syria had begun flying combat missions while armed with air-to-air missiles.

On 28 May 2018, it was reported that Russian Su-34s intercepted two Israeli Air Force F-16s over Tripoli, Lebanon, forcing them to retreat.

 

[robinrocket111]

I have a vague memory of the side by side seating being a tight fit across the shoulders and the trainer was the only variant that used it.

Your right only T3, Fighters and Bomber Navigator seating was slightly staggered, with the Nav about 18” set back.

 

[smartarse]

Your right only T3, Fighters and Bomber Navigator seating was slightly staggered, with the Nav about 18” set back.

 

[CutLunchCommando]

View attachment 671836

Angus Lennies stature may not be helping there.

 

[SO110369]

Good grief.

Side-by-side seat night fighter by design, and Mig kills in Korea:

Douglas F3D Skyknight - Wikipedia

The Douglas Skyknight, aka the "Drut" (read it backwards).

Definitely not beautiful. Very charitably, homely.

 

[CrashTestDummy]

I know persec an all that, but as he died serving this country of ours, you should give him his name.

Sorry, I've only just seen this.

Great Uncle Tommy.

 

[Channel Hopper]

Hmm, pedantic I know, but I think that only in the T3 did the pilot and co-pilot/instructor sit truly side-by-side - in the bomber variants the bomb-aimer sat a foot or so behind the pilot so that they had enough room to slide under the coaming to get into the nose. If anyone has more info on the seating arrangements for the FB variants then fire away.

Alright - nobody disputes that jets with the two crew members side by side have been built and successfully used. Nobody disputes that they have been used as night righters. However, has a side by side arrangement ever been used with an aircraft that has been expected to dogfight with the bandit being acquired visually?

OK, back to the P/F-82, around page 3.

This Forgotten Fighter Drew First Blood in Korean Skies

In a brief but eventful combat career, the F-82 Twin Mustang proved its worth over Korea. By early 1945 it seemed obvious to the Allies that Japan would

www.historynet.com

 

[Stovepipe]

Thanks for that, its alway puzzled me as to why the Sea vixen adopted that cockpit configuration.

They hadn't got enough room for tandem seating so the observer got a coalhole instead. He could see the pilots right boot.

 

[Ryder02]

No strategic role. Riiiiiight.

Military Deterrence of International Terrorism: An Evaluation of Operation El Dorado Canyon | Office of Justice Programs

General Dynamics / Grumman EF-111 Raven

Page details technical specifications, development, and operational history of the General Dynamics / Grumman EF-111 Raven including pictures.

www.militaryfactory.com

RAAF Museum: RAAF Aircraft Series 3 A8 F-111

So much so, that the USAF (that well known bunch of idiots when it comes to strategic strike) operated 340 of the things.

The F-111 had a similar role’ish to the Tornado - Interdiction/strike/penetration bomber. It’s high speed at low level made it very useful in this role.

For strategic use the US Air Force used the FB-111 - although it was listed as a medium range bomber, a replacement for the B-58 and a sort of stop gap for the B-1B. It had longer legs than the standard version.

 

[Cold_Collation]

The F-111 had a similar role’ish to the Tornado - Interdiction/strike/penetration bomber. It’s high speed at low level made it very useful in this role.

For strategic use the US Air Force used the FB-111 - although it was listed as a medium range bomber, a replacement for the B-58 and a sort of stop gap for the B-1B. It had longer legs than the standard version.

It wasn't a stopgap for the B-1B.

The B-1A was supposed to replace both the B-58 and B-52 but got overtaken by developments.

The first few paragraphs of the Wikipedia entry are worth reading.

Rockwell B-1 Lancer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Soluton Architect]

Alright - nobody disputes that jets with the two crew members side by side have been built and successfully used. Nobody disputes that they have been used as night righters. However, has a side by side arrangement ever been used with an aircraft that has been expected to dogfight with the bandit being acquired visually?

Well the two-seat EE Lightning was fully combat capable and less draggy than the single-seater.

There's a decent argument to be made that the RAF should have converted all its Lightnings to twins, the cockpit workload would have fallen from 'manic' to 'severe'

 

[Yokel]

The pilot workload was one of the reasons that the proposed naval version, the Sea Lightning, never got off the drawing board.

Probably a nightmare to land on a carrier, and not suited to moving around the carrier deck or moved around in any sort of rough sea. Ramp strikes and crashes on deck are not attractive. The fuselage and landing gear would have needed reinforcement which would have added weight...

Another proposal redesigned the nose:

Discussed from here onwards on the Ugly Aircraft thread.

 

[Cold_Collation]

The pilot workload was one of the reasons that the proposed naval version, the Sea Lightning, never got off the drawing board.

Probably a nightmare to land on a carrier, and not suited to moving around the carrier deck or moved around in any sort of rough sea. Ramp strikes and crashes on deck are not attractive. The fuselage and landing gear would have needed reinforcement which would have added weight...

Another proposal redesigned the nose:

Discussed from here onwards on the Ugly Aircraft thread.

Shades of Nimrod MRA4 there, in that if you put enough appendages on it, it'll be stable... somehow.

 

[tiv]

The pilot workload was one of the reasons that the proposed naval version, the Sea Lightning, never got off the drawing board.

Probably a nightmare to land on a carrier, and not suited to moving around the carrier deck or moved around in any sort of rough sea. Ramp strikes and crashes on deck are not attractive. The fuselage and landing gear would have needed reinforcement which would have added weight...

Another proposal redesigned the nose:

Discussed from here onwards on the Ugly Aircraft thread.

Lightning P8, proposed development of the original design, area ruled and with the main gears attached to the fuselage, stowing in the area rule bulges. This would have left the whole wing free for fuel.