Falcon-Armed F-86Ds

As early as November 1950, North American Aviation (NAA) had proposed its “Advanced F-86D Transonic Interceptor” to USAF Air Materiel Command. Among its features, the Advanced F-86D would incorporate a low-mounted horizontal tailplane; a 45-degree swept wing, ‘Coke bottle’ area-ruled fuselage and inboard ailerons. Powerplants ranged from the ‘ultimate J47’ to Pratt & Whitney’s J57. Armament was to be a combination of up to 60, 2.75-inch FFAR rockets (and no other armament) or four MX-904 missiles and 36 FFAR rockets. The proposed aircraft would, according to NAA’s proposal, complete its first flight in early 1952 and be ready for service the following year.

It is likely that a routine line of communication was established between the AMC and its contractor for discussion of this topic, though no budget appears to have been put in place for further development under Air Force funding at that time.

Then in March 1952, NAA submitted a further study to AMC, which it continued to refine until August of that year when a less radical proposal for “MX-904 Falcon Missile and 2.75” FFAR Rocket Installation in F-86D Airplane” was proffered. This proposal was for a new-production version of the F-86D with four Falcon missiles replacing the internal Mighty Mouse complement of the standard F-86D and up to 24 of the unguided rockets now in wing packages or various other combinations. An extended ‘wet’ wing leading edge was also proposed, which would carry fuel and offset deletion of external drop tanks. A Hughes E-9A fire control system was a key component of the new F-86D proposal.

NAA proposed the conversion of two existing F-86Ds to test the Falcon installation, though modification of existing F-86Ds for the full (service use) configuration was deemed to be too complex to be worthwhile when ranged against new-build machines. North American suggested that if accepted, the revised configuration could be introduced on F-86D s/n 52-3898 (the first F-86D-45), providing agreement had been reached by 1 December 1952; a revised Engineering Change Proposal was prepared on 23 January 1953, this time proposing to introduce the configuration as a production fit from F-86D-55 s/n 53-557 so long as a contractual note had been received by 1 April 1953.

Ultimately no contract for prototype or production aircraft was set up, undoubtedly because funding was thought to be better spent on dedicated Century-series Falcon-equipped machines as well as similarly armed F-89H Scorpions in the interim.

NAA did however test the external Mighty Mouse rocket packages on s/n 52-3598 (the first F-86D-40 airframe) and the Falcons (externally) on F-86D-60 s/n 53-4061, the latter with the extended-chord wing later installed on F-86L interceptors.
 

Attachments

  • 520808a Falcon.jpg
    520808a Falcon.jpg
    268.5 KB · Views: 333
  • 520808b Falcon.jpg
    520808b Falcon.jpg
    343.9 KB · Views: 135
  • 520808c Falcon.jpg
    520808c Falcon.jpg
    154.1 KB · Views: 107
  • 520905 Falcon.jpg
    520905 Falcon.jpg
    259.7 KB · Views: 105
  • 520908 Falcon.jpg
    520908 Falcon.jpg
    778.8 KB · Views: 100
  • 520908b Falcon.jpg
    520908b Falcon.jpg
    201.8 KB · Views: 96
  • 520908a Falcon.jpg
    520908a Falcon.jpg
    207.9 KB · Views: 99
  • 520908c Falcon.jpg
    520908c Falcon.jpg
    292 KB · Views: 92
  • 520908d Falcon.jpg
    520908d Falcon.jpg
    170.4 KB · Views: 101
  • 530123 Falcon.jpg
    530123 Falcon.jpg
    560.1 KB · Views: 260
  • Falcon (2).jpg
    Falcon (2).jpg
    57.3 KB · Views: 304
  • Falcon (3).jpg
    Falcon (3).jpg
    51.8 KB · Views: 388
  • Falcon.jpg
    Falcon.jpg
    40.2 KB · Views: 381
Last edited:
how would these rockets be aimed when aim-4 is semi active radar homing because the F-86 radar filled the entire front of the aircraft
 
Last edited by a moderator:
how would these rockets be aimed when aim-4 is semi active radar homing because the F-86 radar filled the entire front of the aircraft
The same way as an F-102 of F-89H, which had the same armament combination - (And essentially the same radar) The weapon is selected, the radar is locked on, an the computer (Electronic Analog) on the airplane continuously computes the firing point for the weapon in relation to the target, and either guides the pilot to fly to that point by radar scope symbology, or flies the airplane to that point through the autopilot. The pilot holds down the Action witch (Trigger) and when the release point is reached, the Fire Control System releases the weapon or weapons (depending on the number selected). The RADAR Falcons used the pulse radar of the launch airplane to guide, and didn't require a separate Illuminator RADAR like the Sparrows.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, awesome find on the ‘Advanced F-86D Transonic Interceptor' Sabrejet!!

I'm wondering how the rocket exhaust gas ingestion into the main intake from the Aim-4’s might have effected the performance and safety of the turbojet?

Sadly the four external underwing Aim-4 Falcon arrangement seemed to have made so much sense.

Now for the era, surly NAA would have built a beautiful scaled table top model to support their proposal the the USAF!
Hopefully more drawings might come out of this.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
Bear in mind that the Falcons wouldn't have taken up much more space than the Mighty Mouse rocket pack. Also NAA was already looking into revised forward fuselage contours.
 
how would these rockets be aimed when aim-4 is semi active radar homing because the F-86 radar filled the entire front of the aircraft
The same way as an F-102 of F-89H, which had the same armament combination - (And essentially the same radar) The weapon is selected, the radar is locked on, an the computer (Electronic Analog) on the airplane continuously computes the firing point for the weapon in relation to the target, and either guides the pilot to fly to that point by radar scope symbology, or flies the airplane to that point through the autopilot. The pilot holds down the Action witch (Trigger) and when the release point is reached, the Fire Control System releases the weapon or weapons (depending on the number selected). The RADAR Falcons used the pulse radar of the launch airplane to guide, and didn't require a separate Illuminator RADAR like the Sparrows.
I think that aim-4 have IC guiding except semi active radar guiding
 
Bear in mind that the Falcons wouldn't have taken up much more space than the Mighty Mouse rocket pack. Also NAA was already looking into revised forward fuselage contours.
Not just cube, but mass as well - an F-89H with the same weapon mix, but displays for 2 seats hauled around about 900 lbs (400+ kg) of fire control system. There's a reason why the F-102 was so big.
 
Fascinating, it would've been interesting to see this implemented at least on a limited basis.

Not just cube, but mass as well - an F-89H with the same weapon mix

Talking about the F-86H is their a thread I can post an interesting video recently uploaded about the F-86H?
 
If it's the video I'm thinking of (F-86H rather than F-89H that P-STICKNEY referred to), it contains a lot of inaccuracy and misleading info, for example regarding Gun-Val etc.
 
If it's the video I'm thinking of (F-86H rather than F-89H that P-STICKNEY referred to), it contains a lot of inaccuracy and misleading info, for example regarding Gun-Val etc.

Would you elaborate please if possible? I'm just about four minutes into the video.
 
As early as November 1950, North American Aviation (NAA) had proposed its “Advanced F-86D Transonic Interceptor” to USAF Air Materiel Command. Among its features, the Advanced F-86D would incorporate a low-mounted horizontal tailplane; a 45-degree swept wing, ‘Coke bottle’ area-ruled fuselage and inboard ailerons. Powerplants ranged from the ‘ultimate J47’ to Pratt & Whitney’s J57. Armament was to be a combination of up to 60, 2.75-inch FFAR rockets (and no other armament) or four MX-904 missiles and 36 FFAR rockets. The proposed aircraft would, according to NAA’s proposal, complete its first flight in early 1952 and be ready for service the following year.

Does exist any drawing / model of this interesting proposal? It is remarkable that the follow-on F-100 did not use area ruling.
 
I'm sure there would have been basic layouts and an NAA brochure. The low-set tailplane was tested on an F-86D as part of what NAA referred to as "tailplane aerodynamic improvement" (or similar) but seems to have later morphed into F-100 development using the same configuration. A revised canopy and extended-chord inboard wing sections were also flight-tested by NAA for an unspecified project, but likely to have been in relation to the Advanced F-86D or one of its relatives.

There seems to be a lot of cross-pollination between Super H, Super D, the Advanced Transonic Interceptor and what finally became the F-100.
 
I'm sure there would have been basic layouts and an NAA brochure. The low-set tailplane was tested on an F-86D as part of what NAA referred to as "tailplane aerodynamic improvement" (or similar) but seems to have later morphed into F-100 development using the same configuration. A revised canopy and extended-chord inboard wing sections were also flight-tested by NAA for an unspecified project, but likely to have been in relation to the Advanced F-86D or one of its relatives.

There seems to be a lot of cross-pollination between Super H, Super D, the Advanced Transonic Interceptor and what finally became the F-100.

Any links to details on these F-86D projects, please?
 
Does exist any drawing / model of this interesting proposal? It is remarkable that the follow-on F-100 did not use area ruling.
No area ruling - would the F-100 have gone past Mach 1 without it?
 
No area ruling - would the F-100 have gone past Mach 1 without it?
Yes - because it did.

Now it didn't go very far past it, but the first YF-100 (with a slightly de-rated J57-7) did go past Mach 1 on its first flight, and the F-100 produced the first supersonic ejection when George F. Smith (NAA test pilot) ejected during a low-altitude speed run at Mach 1.05.

Mach 1 at 35,000 ft in normal conditions is 660.7 mph - the F-100A's top speed at 35,000 ft was 852 mph (fully-rated J57-7).

The F-100C, with a more-powerful J57-21 variant, set the first official supersonic speed record by running a 15+km course at 40,000 ft and 822.135 mph (M1 at that altitude is 659.8 mph) - and yes, it was a standard unmodified production version.

The F-100D (also J57-21), the type most used in Vietnam, had a max speed at sea level of 770 mph (clean, M1 at sea level is 761.1 mph) and 864 mph (M1.3) at 36,000 ft.

The two-seat F-100F could hit 760 mph at sea level and 852 mph at 35,000 ft.


However, area ruling would likely have seen those speeds increased to M1.5, where the intake geometry would have started to limit going any faster.


For example, the non-area-ruled YF-102 (powered by a J57-11, similar in thrust to the J57-7) could not break M1 in level flight at any altitude, and only reached M1.24 in a steep dive (the YF-100 hit M1.44 in a similar dive).

The F-102A, with area ruling and a more-powerful J57-23, could reach M1.2 in level flight. After a few more tweaks to the wing shape it would hit 825 mph (M1.25) at 35,000 ft.

The fat-nosed TF-102A could only reach 646 mph at 38,000 ft (M.97).
 
Last edited:
I know the F-100 went past Mach 1.
NAA seems to have had more luck in shaping the F-100 than Convair had with the F-102. I have a niggling suspicion NAA may have been more familiar than Convair with the work of Busemann, Whitcomb and others. Maybe because first concepts for the F-102 predated those for the F-100?
 
Although F-86D, F-86K and F-86L never used the AIM-4 Falcon I wonder if any of them were modified after 1958 to carry the AIM-9B Sidewinder?
 
Although F-86D, F-86K and F-86L never used the AIM-4 Falcon I wonder if any of them were modified after 1958 to carry the AIM-9B Sidewinder?
First combat Sidewinder kill was from a Sabre, I believe. Taiwan.
Never carried Sidewinders in the US to my knowledge.
 
Never carried Sidewinders in the US to my knowledge.

I do believe there were some F-86Ks (These were a de-rated export version of the F-86D), second-hand F-86Ds and F-86Ls in foreign ownership that were equipped with AIM-9Bs.
 
Beat me to it. The Dutch air force F-86Ks (not F-86L) used four 20 mm cannon, from 1960 onwards they were refitted by Aviolanda in Papendrecht with a wider chord wing. In 1961 they received pylons and electronics to use AIM-9B Sidewinders. In 1964 the F-86K was completely replaced by the F-104G in Dutch service, eight F-86Ks were transferred to Italy.
Six of the 62 used by the Dutch air force were licence-built assembled from NAA-supplied kits by FIAT, the remaining 56 were built by NAA.
 
Last edited:
I do believe there were some F-86Ks (These were a de-rated export version of the F-86D)

This is a misconception; the F-86K used the same basic airframe as the F-86D/L but with an extended fuselage to maintain CG. The F-86K used the same fire control system as the F-86D but modified for gunnery rather than rockets. In terms of kill effectivity, the F-86K cannon armament seems to have been better option, notably because the cannon shells did not possess the wild trajectories that the rockets in the F-86D often adopted. Furthermore the F-86K featured an optical gunsight as standard (as well as the radar scope) whereas the F-86D/L only had it as an option. The F-86K had a nominal ground attack capability while the F-86D did not.

NAA had already investigated the use of cannon armament for the F-86D but chosen rockets; many F-86D pilots I've spoken to thought it was a mistake.
 
I'm sure there would have been basic layouts and an NAA brochure. The low-set tailplane was tested on an F-86D as part of what NAA referred to as "tailplane aerodynamic improvement" (or similar) but seems to have later morphed into F-100 development using the same configuration. A revised canopy and extended-chord inboard wing sections were also flight-tested by NAA for an unspecified project, but likely to have been in relation to the Advanced F-86D or one of its relatives.

There seems to be a lot of cross-pollination between Super H, Super D, the Advanced Transonic Interceptor and what finally became the F-100.
Where does the Sabre 45 fit into this lineage?
 
I do like the lines of the Dog Saber... Plus a lot of the training bits at my A&P school were from an F-86D.

School got a complete plane, that was then ordered to be stripped down and broken up at some point, afraid that the school would sell off the plane to some undesirable foreign nation...
It's doubtful that was the reason; Yugoslavia bought F-86Ds after all. Which A&P School?
 
The Battle of Palmdale proved that an "unguided rocket only" armament was virtually useless.
Not exactly. The rockets were fine - the E-6 fire control system was not designed to dealt with small circling target (because strategic bombers kinda not do that). The radar could not get a lock, so computer could not work out automated firing solution. The pilots were forced to fire rockets on manual control, and since they did not even have standard gun sights for that (they were removed, because viewed as redundant) they utterly failed.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom