Lockheed drawing the bullseye around their own arrow?! Shocking! Jokes aside, the Fang is a great little plane concept, it looks like Northrop also really put effort into making maintenance access as simple as possible.
@rooseveltbrentwood9654
2 жыл бұрын
Northrop’s F-5 was know for it’s ease of maintenance…….
@itsjohndell
2 жыл бұрын
The J79 was a great engine, I flew them in Phantoms. Had a blade catastrophically go and shut down one with damage to the second, but that second held together and got me to Thule Greenland still producing full thrust (non reheat, didn't try that). Most godforsaken piece of real estate I was ever glad to see. Always been on the 104 getting short shrift side. Training and skills contributed to the Widow Maker name more than the design. Got a ride in a German two seater and that thing was awesome! Roll Axis could pop your eyes.
@garymckee448
2 жыл бұрын
Outstanding it definitely takes skills to fly such hotrods of the skies.
@yes_head
2 жыл бұрын
Lovers of the J-79 should check out the YT channel of this Canadian turbo jet maintenance shop: kzitem.info/news/bejne/lIl-m21rbJuCaaw
@spyridon3089
2 жыл бұрын
Remember the 8th Commandment
@scootergeorge7089
2 жыл бұрын
How about a Pratt and Whitney J-52 with after-burner. But the non A/B J-52-P408 put out 11,200 pounds thrust which would be very powerful in an aircraft projected to with 10,000 pounds. The thick winged A-4F "Super Fox" could exceed the speed of sound with this engine. Officially the Skyhawk but also known as the Scooter.
@jwenting
2 жыл бұрын
And thus we come back to the lesson that keeps being forgotten: if Lockheed enters a competition, it doesn't matter who else enters, they'll outbribe anyone.
@jonathanstein1783
Жыл бұрын
And someone within the Federal government HATED Jack Northrop. That grudge has been ongoing, for whatever reason.
@RedXlV
5 күн бұрын
Look at every single one of the export contracts for the F-104. In all cases, it was the worst of the fighters being considered and yet "won" because of bribery.
@KRW628
2 жыл бұрын
I'd never heard of the N-102. Very interesting. Thank you.
@kooperativekrohn819
2 жыл бұрын
Neither and I’m pretty clued up (obsessed) on this topic! 🥴😳😨
@Jedi.Toby.M
2 жыл бұрын
As always mate, thanks for the lesson in another aircraft I haven't heard of. Great content as usual.
@shawnbeckmann1847
2 жыл бұрын
F5 freedom fighter is still one of my favorite aircraft of all time what a beautiful jet
@16jan1986
2 жыл бұрын
The Lockheed Starfighter an example on how the usa bribed pressured and coerced its allies killing superior aircraft. Same thing happens today, an example is how Saab pulled out of Danish fighter competition due to unfair competition implying corruption.. makes me sick. And f35 which was the winner does not fit on airbases and price results in half as many planes as we had f16 a giant problem in today's world
@TheDing1701
2 жыл бұрын
This little guy with a J-79? Geez!
@silverpairaducks
2 жыл бұрын
Very....gnatish...thank u
@billsmith5166
2 жыл бұрын
What a shame. With the GE engine, I'd guess that it would have been quicker than greased lightning.
@michaelgautreaux3168
2 жыл бұрын
Grumman stuff a J-79 in a F11F & it was Outrageous. Still hobbled by range or lack thereof. GR8 point.
@bigblue6917
2 жыл бұрын
It's hard not to think they got the wrong aircraft.
@FinsburyPhil
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks Ed. I like to think I know a fair bit about military aviation but I'd never come across the N-102. 1945 - 1965 is such an interesting time period for interesting (and weird and whacky) concepts and prototypes.
@densealloy
2 жыл бұрын
I see a bit of A4 Skyhawk going on here. Obviously different intake and shoulder mounted wing but the size, design sensibility and while they foresaw ground attack capabilities the A4 turned out to be a very nimble A2A attack aircraft that was called Heineman's Hotrod. Heinemann is another designer responsible for just a few iconic aircraft, he spent the majority of his career at Douglas but ended at as a VP at General Dynamics where he oversaw the development of the F-16. Thank you for an excellent video.
@stevepirie8130
2 жыл бұрын
My first impression of high mounted wings and that cockpit was a Jaguar.
@MikeBracewell
2 жыл бұрын
Excellent video. I knew nothing about this until now, & I'm supposed to be an aviation enthusiast! Your channel is rapidly becoming a fav of mine, thank you! What a lovely looking thing it was, years ahead of it's time. Shame it never flew. My guess is it would have been a much better dogfighter than the '104 (which wouldn't have been hard) though the delta would have bled off energy rapidly sustained turns. The bigger wing should also have led to better take-off/landing performance at heavier loads but would have offered inferior performance in high-speed low-level flight, due to the increased buffeting induced by it (the '104 excelled in this). Performance wise, probably little to choose between the two. All speculation though.
@rodgerhecht3623
2 жыл бұрын
Dont feel bad i worked for Northrop foe 33 years and didn't find out about untill id been there 28 years. Found it serching around on the company's internal web site.
@donovannotmyname7306
2 жыл бұрын
Really makes you wonder how different things would be if we had given other aircraft a fair shake
@paulvanobberghen
2 жыл бұрын
Nice to see one of our Belgian F104 « Starf’ ». I’m old enough to remember them flying out of an airbase near our vacation stay at Koksijde Air Force base on the Belgian coast. One could rarely see them, but God could you hear them! These J79 are the loudest jet engine ever build, I guess. The F4 had 2 of them, and I remember one flying by at Duxford. That was twice as loud as the F104, obviously. Yet the F104 is probably one of my preferred type. The missile with a man in it, as they once called it. And yes it caused a few widows here too, but not as much as in Germany.
@jb6027
2 жыл бұрын
This channel never fails to amaze me with its brilliant content. Well done!!.
@Sup_ERS_Tar
2 жыл бұрын
Great video! "Flying Wings and Radical Things," by Tony Chong, is a must-read for anyone interested in Northrop and/or innovative combat aircraft design, whether or not the result was a contract.
@Cartoonman154
2 жыл бұрын
Bot
@atomicshadowman9143
2 жыл бұрын
Great lecture, watched both of them.
@stevenborham1584
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for sharing the book title, I just found and bought a copy, a gem in the book shelf no doubt 🤓
@skidplate4150
Жыл бұрын
Excellent Mr Nash never heard of it. 👍👍👍
@chonqmonk
2 жыл бұрын
Your channel is great!
@jehb8945
2 жыл бұрын
I can also see a little general Dynamics F-16 Fighting falcon in that and like our esteemed narrator said this could have been a multi-role aircraft being more maneuverable than the f-104 Starfighter and possibly having a little bit more range and payload than the f-100 super saber Also this could have been a much better plane to fight the migs over North Vietnam with and while not quite having the phantoms rate of climb it would have been a lot more maneuverable and one can imagine this having Sparrow capability as well as having the all-important m61 cannon You could also imagine this ending up with an afterburning turbofan and the 1970s and with upgrades to include a look down shoot down radar and possibly even a new wing
@michaelgautreaux3168
2 жыл бұрын
Sweet! Never knew 'bout this one. The issue I can offer is that the "Fang" would have been prone to severe PIO & the engine- landing packaging would have been a Real joy...lol. To point; w/ the center line of thrust so far below the center line of flight, it may have suffered like the "Seadart" (XF2F-1, YF2F2). There again the Ryan "Firebee/Lightningbug" didn't. Still a hottie! GR8 vid & many thanx 👍👍 Add on: drop the wing by 2/3rds & it favors the X31!
@treyriver5676
2 жыл бұрын
F104 was not widow maker. The Luftwaffe command that made pilots that were no prepaird for Mach + fighter were far more resposible and making it do low level attack (a task it was not built for) was not good either.
@magoid
2 жыл бұрын
Luftwaffe was not the only one getting 30 to 40% of their fleet lost in crashes. Several other air forces did too, to the point a couple of them even abandoned single engine fighters.
@SgtBeltfed
2 жыл бұрын
@@magoid The core of the problem was still the same though. You're taking a bunch of air forces that had at best previously operated post WWII subsonic jets, and put a Mach 2 interceptor in their hands. That's a big leap for training programs to make, even if they were handed the manual. Germany was simply the worst off of all them, building an air force with what was left from WWII with Bf109 experience, partly skipping the post WWII subsonic jets, and diving straight into trying to do everything with the F-104. Doable, but very painful, as the Germans found out. Both Germany and Italy eventually got their F-104 programs under control, and were both long term successful operators of them.
@treyriver5676
2 жыл бұрын
@@SgtBeltfed kzitem.info/news/bejne/qqpm2Gemh5-WgW0 Why Germany had so many accidents F104 Starfighter
@aterxter3437
Жыл бұрын
2:20 I didn't knew the XF-104 had fixed section air intakes, I remember that the production version had variable intakes (with mousses appendages as we call them in France) Thanks for the video. PS I recognized such a detail as the F-104 was my first plastic airplane model kit
@RobSchofield
2 жыл бұрын
What a truly lovely-looking airframe. If only...
@johndavey72
2 жыл бұрын
Well done Ed. Another good insight into what if ? And another one l hadn't heard of !! Thanks .
@Simon_Nonymous
2 жыл бұрын
Great video - glad you mentioned the F-16 as there's a few features that reminded me of the similarity too!
@thewatcher5271
2 жыл бұрын
As Always, You Are The "What If" Master! Never Heard Of This One, Either. Thanks For Sharing.
@atomicshadowman9143
2 жыл бұрын
Jack Northrop always got F'd over.
@hobbyhermit66
2 жыл бұрын
Northrop sure designed em pretty. Would like to model the Fang in some 'what if' color schemes.
@ooo895
2 жыл бұрын
Great video Ed! One of my long time favorites, ever since I saw the concept art on a website somewhere.
@rbilleaud
2 жыл бұрын
Of course, Northrop's best development was the T-38/F-5. Hey, when the Thunderbirds choose your airplane as their ride, you know you've done something right.
@wingmanjim6
2 жыл бұрын
As usual, superb subject and presentation ! Many, many thanks !
@skaldlouiscyphre2453
2 жыл бұрын
This is the granddaddy of the F/A-18 Hornet. It's also the fighter Americans wish they had in Vietnam.
@egmccann
2 жыл бұрын
Yep. I was going to comment on the same thing. Concept still in service as the F-5, true... which got stretched, scrambled and tweaked into the YF-17... which got turned into the F/A-18.
@skaldlouiscyphre2453
2 жыл бұрын
@@egmccann Pretty much, along with the intermediate designs N-300, P-530, and the P-600/610. I'm pretty sure the very final evolution is the Northrop-Dornier ND-102 International Fighter (aka N-310 or P-700). It's got a trapezoidal wing like the YF-23 and was designed anticipating the failure of the Eurofighter project back in the 80s.
@ReviveHF
2 жыл бұрын
Also this plane is also the granddaddy of F-16, JF-17 and F-CK1 Ching Kuo.
@That70sGuitarist
Жыл бұрын
@@ReviveHF To my eyes, the JF-17 Thunder looks a Hell of a lot more like a slightly reimagined F-20 Tigershark, apart from the diverterless intakes and a somewhat higher mounted wing. Had Northrop chosen to position the wing of the F-20 higher, blending it into the upper fuselage surface (since blended wing/fuselage designs pretty much dominate the Gen 4/5 classes) they would've had a real world beater in their hands. As it was, their decision to "play it safe" by keeping the same basic wing design as the F-5 (albeit with a vastly improved LERX) effectively doomed the otherwise superb F-20 to failure. The most peculiar drawback of the JF-17 is the patently absurd choice of angling the gun down by -7 degrees. The designers reasoned that it would make it that much better at attacking ground targets, but it makes it extremely difficult (if not entirely impossible) to use the gun effectively in a close-in fight! I mean, what on Earth could they have been thinking?🤣
@petesheppard1709
2 жыл бұрын
There was also the T-38 Talon. On a tangent, the belly intake reminds me of an episode of the mid-'60s cartoon 'Johnny Quest', where jet fighters were depicted with belly intakes. The F-16 first reminded me of the cartoon, the inspiration may have been the N-102.
@douglasfur3808
2 жыл бұрын
The cheap aspect interests me. Right now the Turkish drone is the Cinderella of cheap. Can you do a video on It development? If it's too new to have data available maybe a general video on cheap UMAV alternatives. What's out there that's under $5M each, the Mosquito or IKEA of drones?
@Ob1sdarkside
2 жыл бұрын
Excellent as always
@larrybutler8794
2 жыл бұрын
The mock-up was at the Northrop Aeronautical Institute in Inglewood CA in 1956.
@garymckee448
2 жыл бұрын
Another excellent video, thanks 👍
@tedsmith6137
2 жыл бұрын
Any clue where the main gear legs would sprout from? If fuse mounted, they would have to stow above the engine pod and have an interesting folding system. If from the wings, they would have had to be quite long and be hard to fit inside such a thin wing.
@stevetournay6103
Жыл бұрын
And again it's a bit reminiscent of the Arrow. The wing mounted main gear on that shoulder-wing delta were complex and problematic, two of the five flown Arrows being substantially damaged when main gear failed on landing...
@billnu
2 жыл бұрын
Another good one Ed
@shaunybonny688
2 жыл бұрын
Cool looking plane
@clydecessna737
2 жыл бұрын
Low wing loading = good turn performance. I think this little darling would have done well if it had got J-79s.
@DavidSiebert
2 жыл бұрын
Another plane that might have been better than the F-104 was the j79 powered Grumman Tiger.
@stevetournay6103
Жыл бұрын
The RCAF had every intention of buying the Super Tigers for the NATO tactical fighter units. But, of course, the 104 won out, against the air force's wishes...
@RedXlV
Жыл бұрын
It's kind of amazing, really. Lockheed made so many design compromises to create a Mach 2 lightweight fighter, and yet Grumman achieved the same speed almost by accident while also having a easier to fly, more maneuverable, and more rugged fighter.
@1joshjosh1
2 жыл бұрын
I want to build a model of one now. Nice little documentary and good looking airplane.
@thearisen7301
2 жыл бұрын
Too bad no one else took interest. Fang looks like a fantastic aircraft.
@whitewidowgaming4887
2 жыл бұрын
Very ineresting, As always, Thanks.
@stevetournay6103
Жыл бұрын
Front three quarter view of this thing recalls the Canadian Avro Arrow in smaller scale. Interesting little machine.
@mikelarin8037
2 жыл бұрын
Oh this is super Interesting, I love the looks. I might have to make a remote control mini of this and see how it flies
@chrisamies2141
2 жыл бұрын
The underside intake reminds me of the Hawker P.1121 of the mid-1950s, cancelled in 1958 before it could be flown. That was a much larger aircraft though.
@WildBillCox13
2 жыл бұрын
Great content and thanks for posting. Apart from the historical debate* . . . and the truth that airframes (and their engines) designed for high altitude, high speed, flight make terrible ground attack aircraft . . . there is a matter of Lockheed's massive bribery scandals involving the F-104 in its competition for foreign air forces. The F-104 did not deserve its limited success, because its company was corrupt as a microwaved poodle brain. *And our ongoing love affair with Kelly Johnson.
@skaldlouiscyphre2453
2 жыл бұрын
The F-104 airframe was well suited for low-level penetration due to it's high wing loading, but you're right that the J79 wasn't the right engine for that job.
@andyh4412
2 жыл бұрын
Also, according to some stories, the Lockheed boards bribes killed the Saunders Roe Sr.177. The German Navy were interested in procuring the aircraft and Heinkel apparently had a deal to produce airframes under license. However, the advent of the F-104 reportedly killed this
@WildBillCox13
2 жыл бұрын
@@andyh4412 Yep.
@gort8203
2 жыл бұрын
The fact that the wing of the follow-on F-5 more closely resembled that of the F-104 than it did that of either the MiG-21 or Mirage might be indicative of how exaggerated the "widow maker" narrative has become.
@rooseveltbrentwood9654
2 жыл бұрын
From what i’ve seen (on youtube) the “widowmaker” reputation of the early 104s in German service was not exaggerated, although this was not entirely the fault of the aircraft. Rather it was mostly the result of insufficiently trained pilots who were simply not prepared for an aircraft like the 104. Added to this the early 104s had downward firing ejection seats, which are useless when taking off and landing, which of course are the times when most accidents occur. Once the Luftwaffe reorganized, retrained pilots, and got proper ejection seats the 104’s safety record improved immensely.
@gort8203
2 жыл бұрын
@@rooseveltbrentwood9654 From what i’ve seen (on youtube) the “widowmaker” reputation of the early 104s in German service was not exaggerated, although this was not entirely the fault of the aircraft. The very moniker "widow maker" is applied in order to attach fault to the aircraft. That is not deserved. As you point out yourself, the initial accident rate experienced in German service was due factors related to training and operations rather than the airplane itself. It was not a widow maker; but you if you have to use that term you could say the service operating it was, a for a time, a widow maker.
@rooseveltbrentwood9654
2 жыл бұрын
@@gort8203 It’s a similar situation to to the Beechcraft Bonanza or the Porsche 911 being called “Doctor Killers”. Neither one are necessarily bad machines, but they are powerful and have unique performance characteristics. In inexperienced hands they can be deadly, and in the early days of the F-104 most hand were inexperienced. Also early model Century Series aircraft represented such a leap forward many came with unforeseen problems, one great example is the F-100 and its “Saber Dance”. Of course zero-zero ejection seats change everything.
@gort8203
2 жыл бұрын
@@rooseveltbrentwood9654 I think you are agreeing with my point that the aircraft was not to blame for its unusually high accident rate in service with Germany.
@rooseveltbrentwood9654
2 жыл бұрын
@@gort8203 Essentially yes. I believe the early aircraft were unrefined, rushed into service, and put into roles they were not designed for, but there is nothing inherently wrong with the design.
@andrewharper3165
2 жыл бұрын
Another what could of been. Never heard of this one, looked good so probably 🤔 would of flown 👍 good.
@janvanhaaster2093
Жыл бұрын
Maybe a good idea to make story of the competition for the F-5: the Lockheed CL1200 Lancer; developed from the F-104....
@miketeeveedub5779
2 жыл бұрын
Slick little plane - it should've been built instead of the Starfighter. But knowing Lockheed's past financial dealings, we now understand why it was not meant to be.
@dl6519
2 жыл бұрын
Great video! For anyone interested in Northrop and/or innovative combat aircraft design whether or not the result was a contract, I very highly recommend "Flying Wings and Radical Things", by Tony Chong.
@atomicshadowman9143
2 жыл бұрын
Cheech is hilarious but Chong's daughter was a smoke show 😍
@RedXlV
Ай бұрын
One thing we know for sure, is that even if the N-102 Fang had been allowed to have a prototype built, even if it had beaten the F-104 in a fly-off for the USAF, it ultimately wouldn't have gotten as many export customers. Because the F-104 got its contracts via bribery, not by being the best fighter for the job. Remove the bribes and Japan would've bought the Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger, the Netherlands would have bought the Mirage 5, and Germany might have saved the British aviation industry by buying the Saunders-Roe SR.177.
@supertucano604
2 жыл бұрын
It looks a lot like an overwing A4 skyhawk... neat. Narrator sounds like the plant director from chernobyl also. Nice.
@hertzair1186
2 жыл бұрын
Edgar Schmued, ironically, was a German-born and educated engineer. Most P-51 fans don’t realized their hero-fighter was German engineered.
@Holland41
2 жыл бұрын
Like a supersonic Folland Gnat. Could have been a great success.
@muunilinst-1090
2 жыл бұрын
You should consider doing a video on the North American NA-335
@wilomica
2 жыл бұрын
The F-104 was called the widow maker for a reason. The advantage Lockheed had at the time was their expertise in bribery & corruption. The F-104 nearly destroyed Lockheed when the shenanigans were brought to light. Only the Lockheed/Martin merger saved the company. You can be reasonably certain the F-102 was the better plane.
@kitbag9033
2 жыл бұрын
The widowmaker sobriquet for the F-104 kind of depends on the operator; I believe Germany lost nearly 40% of their fleet to Starfighter lawn darts, on the other hand the Spanish and Japanese were about 15% (better than many other contemporary types), and the Belgians didn't lose a single one. Not very funny joke; 'how do you get your own Starfighter? Buy a field in Germany'. No doubt the bribery shifted judgement in procurement, but the European weather was the real enemy of this aircraft. Final point I was surprised that N156 doesn't seem to follow any of the design cues of the N102, given their proximity in time and role, whereas other manufacturers evolution in this period is often quite clear.
@conservativemike3768
2 жыл бұрын
Very aesthetic aircraft.
@martinradcliffe4798
2 жыл бұрын
Smart little device- new one to me.
@bartleymollohan1090
2 жыл бұрын
If the FANG had gone into production, it would have saved Lockheed from having to spend so much money on bribes… 🧐
@robertdragoff6909
2 жыл бұрын
It might not have gone into production, but it was a learning experience for Northrop. It’s a shame they didn’t build a prototype to see what it could do, and maybe come back in a new program.
@blue387
2 жыл бұрын
4:37 Personally I would have the designers move the air intakes to under the wing like the F-18 and lengthened the aircraft by a few inches.
@millerlight2592
Жыл бұрын
This is a shockingly modern looking fighter from back then
@None-zc5vg
2 жыл бұрын
The underslung air-intake behind the nosewheel would have been prone to ingesting runway-debris.
@nicoferguson1215
2 жыл бұрын
Can you do a video on the Ryan Fireball mixed power aircraft?
@scootergeorge7089
2 жыл бұрын
Looks like that low intake would tend to suck up every bit of FOD on the taxiway and runway.
@RedXlV
Жыл бұрын
Not that different from the F-8, A-7, and F-16. Lots of aircraft have done well with a belly intake.
@wwclay86
2 жыл бұрын
Have you looked at the Boeing model 909? It's another f-16 looking fighter
@bernardwills9674
2 жыл бұрын
Better turning performance than the F104 is not exactly a high bar.
@robandcheryls
2 жыл бұрын
Cool 👍
@bobyoung1698
2 жыл бұрын
It looks like the Avro Arrow. Maybe that's what became of it.
@dude126
2 жыл бұрын
Classic "what might have been".
@bpora01
2 жыл бұрын
I wonder if the development pendulum will begin tilting back towards specialist aircraft
@daviddavid5880
2 жыл бұрын
The delta wing 20sec in, anybody know what that oddball protruberance at the base of the rudder is?
@BobSmith-dk8nw
2 жыл бұрын
Lockheed and the NATO Purchasing Agent sit down to talk. Lockheed: "Would you like some coffee?" NATO: "Yes. I would." Coffee is served and sipping from their cups they begin to talk. NATO: _"OK. We are facing surprise attacks by the Warsaw Pact. We need an aircraft that can climb like a bat out of hell to intercept them."_ Lockheed: _"Right you are. Got just the thing. The F-104 Star Fighter."_ NATO: _"Oh ... and can you make it a Ground Attack Aircraft as well?"_ Lockheed (Spit Takes): *_"AAAKKK?!?!?!?!_*_ Uh ... I mean ... of course we can!"_ .
@jmcfintona999
Жыл бұрын
How would some of these century fighters done against the mig21 and mig 17 in Vietnam?
@andrewfischer8564
2 жыл бұрын
f 5 was a financial failure too
@yonghominale8884
2 жыл бұрын
Is it me or does this thing look like the HAL Tejas (another lightweight fighter)
@paoloviti6156
2 жыл бұрын
Also I have never heard of this interesting airplane and as it is stated on the video it possibly had better performance in certain circumstances. I believe it was also more expensive than the F-104...
@brothergrimaldus3836
Жыл бұрын
I get X32 vibes
@jehoiakimelidoronila5450
2 жыл бұрын
Considering it's rival being the mig-21, the fang is, to me, the american version of mig-21. At least on the overall wing planform.
@DVDFGlenCo
2 жыл бұрын
Tigers definitely have fangs
@robandcheryls
2 жыл бұрын
I remember watching these (105’s) in the sky’s of Canada
@jeffreytinacanine5026
2 жыл бұрын
Northrop ( considering current f 23 crap into the mix ) should be used to being the bridesmaid.........The bridesmaid at the end who scores the trophy husband, sales are sales!
@ncktbs
2 жыл бұрын
do you know if anyone on the project was involved later on with the f16 because damn does that front half screem f16 forefather
@EdNashsMilitaryMatters
2 жыл бұрын
Not sure, but almost certainly with the f-17, ironically.
@SPak-rt2gb
2 жыл бұрын
This one got by me never heard of it, have you done one on the Convair Model 200
@EdNashsMilitaryMatters
2 жыл бұрын
Must admit i haven't.
@ChaohsiangChen
2 жыл бұрын
Imagine had the Fang fighters instead of the Starfighters..... Basically the American version pf MiG-21, and better. A lot of lives would have been saved had this were given a go.
@BobSmith-dk8nw
2 жыл бұрын
I'm confused why it has the same designation as the F-102 Delta Dart built by Convar? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_F-102_Delta_Dagger .
@RedXlV
Жыл бұрын
It doesn't. N-102 is Northrop's internal designation. It never progressed far enough to get a USAF designation. Had a prototype ever been ordered, it probably would've gotten the designation XF-108. (The actual fighter to get that number, the North American XF-108 Rapier, wouldn't even begin its development until a couple of years after Northrop cancelled the Fang. So it would've been the first unused number available in 1954.)
@patrickwentz8413
2 жыл бұрын
Nice looking aircraft. It would have unfortunately would have been used up in the war in Vietnam.
@coreys2686
2 жыл бұрын
Lockheed's lobbying and bribery had a lot to do with Starfighters being procured in the numbers they were.
@lebaillidessavoies3889
2 жыл бұрын
Not expensive enough.... rejected.
@davidpeters6536
2 жыл бұрын
The F5 was beautiful and sold well. The F104 was a good but not easy to fly plane the US military didn't want and didn't buy. Lockheed bribed (yes they did look it up) various European government officials to buy them instead of alternatives like the English Electric Lightning (not the French rubbish).
@shawnbeckmann1847
2 жыл бұрын
The j79.... ole smokey joe?
@comentedonakeyboard
2 жыл бұрын
If at first you dont succeed...
@silverpairaducks
2 жыл бұрын
Is this considered a century
@wwclay86
2 жыл бұрын
Too bad you couldn't get this or other unbuilt fighters in a simulation.. DCS I'm looking at you...
Пікірлер: 159