First Generation Jets, proposed Group Build, July-December '10

Modeling Subjects Aircraft
1

Hi all,

Here’s a new Group Build proposal which I’d like to air around the boards:

First Generation Jets (“Gen-1”)

There’s a wealth of material in this topic, being aircraft from the birth of the jet age to the end of the “first generation” of military technology, falling around the mid-1950s. I’m not sure if there is a recognised cuttoff point at which the “second generation” of the jet age begins, but here’s a rough list off the top of my head of the types which should certainly qualify:

Germany: Me 262, He 162, He 176, He 280, Ar 234

England: Gloster E28/39, Gloster Meteor, dehavilland Vampire and Venom, Hawker Hunter, Supermarine Swift and Scimitar; Camberra bomber.

US: P-59, P-80, P-84, P-86 (incl. F-93 and F-95), F-87, F-90, F-91, F-94; Convair SeaDart, McDonnell Phantom, Banshee, possibly Demon; Vought Pirate and Cutlass; Grumman Panther and Cougar. B-45 Tornado, B-47 Stratojet, YB-49.

Russia: MiG-9, 15 and 17, Yak-15, 17 and 23, Il-28, etc.

There are probably a great many more subjects that fall within the first generation of military jets around the world.

Proposed rules: All types, all users, all scales, OOB or AM fine, pre-started and crossovers acceptable too. The object is to have fun and build models, and if it provides the impetus to finish a shelf-queen then so much the better. Timeframe: July 1st to December 31st 2010, with overruns if needed.

After the great showing for my Achtraden 8x8s GB, and the magnificent work that’s been happening in my Official F-4 Phantom II GB, I feel inpired to launch some more GB fun, so if you like the looks of this, let me know and I’ll launch the build proper on the Group Builds forum on July 1st.

I think I’ll build Tamiya’s 1:48 Meteor F.3, an archetypical early jet in WWII camo.

If it’s a success, you can be sure Gen-2 and so forth will follow!

Cheers, and happy modelling,

Mike/Thunderbolt379

2

I’m not much of a jet guy, but what little reading I’ve done on them gives me the impression the jets used in Korea were really Gen-2; Gen-1 were either WW2 or just after and were typically underpowered and fuel hungry. By Korea (early '50s) the next generation were coming out with more powerful and more efficient engines (albeit not by much). Century Series (in the US) represented Gen-3; Phantoms (and their competitors) were squarely in Gen-4; and F-14/15/16/18 were Gen-5. Stealth is now Gen-6 (or SGen-2 if you want to count the F-117 as first Stealth Generation or SGEN-1).

German, British, US, Soviet, French, Swedish all had Gen-1 or Gen-2; it sounds like an interesting GB.

One modeler’s opinion…

Tim

3

Hi Tim,

That’s an interesting point you make, I guess there are many different criteria on which the generations of technological development can be judged. I was basing my inclusions on aeronautical discussion from a long time ago, and maybe things have changed. The definition I’ve used in the past classes Gen-2 as supersonics etc. of late-50s origin, Gen-3 as the F-14 to -18 and their contemporaries, with the new crop of stealths (F/A-22 etc.) as Gen-4. Given that the Raptor as actually a 21-year old design (or more!), I have a hard time calling it Gen-6! I would have to say that the six-generation system is a more restrictive definition than I had in mind, I wanted this GB to be a wide-open selection across the ten years or so in which jet development raced the fastest – mid-40s to mid-50s.

My own criteria for first generation jets would be:

  • Straight wing or first developments in swept;
  • Subsonic
  • System and airframe engineering rooted in the the prop age
  • Later derivations of early airframes

I would agree that perhaps the Hawker Hunter and Grumman Cougar drop into Gen-2, along with the Mig-15 and -17, though the direct derivation of the MiG-15 from the Ta-183 research cries out for a Gen-1 classification, and the Hunter was definitely experimental in its early days

What do others think? Should there be hard-and-fast boundaries for what can be included in an “Early Jets” GB, and if so, where should the line be drawn? Remember, the object is fun!

Cheers, Mike/TB379

4

As far as jets go the early years (1940-60) are my favorites, I was actually just thinking about something like this the other day, so I’m in.

There is a Korean War GB starting in a few days, so it would be nice if this extended to aircraft of the mid to late 50s opening up a larger pool.

How do you feel about the post war turbo prop designs? They kind of fit the theme being a different adaption of jet engines and bridge the gap between props and jets. I could go either way but thought they are interesting and should at least be mentioned.

5

Mike,

I by no means want to restrict the GB terms. “Early Jets” and “Gen-1” are 2 different things to me.

I generally define a new generation as one which is a shift in the design/solution based on lessons learned from the previous generation; and new technologies.

The Ta183 was a development based on lessons learned from the Me262 and engine development. It reflected a greater sweep and the ability to use a single engine (although as a prototype it never flew). That it was the forerunner of the MiG15 is important given the previous Soviet jets were all straight wing. I agree the MiG17 was probably same generation as the MiG15 but the MiG19 may be classed in Gen-3, or maybe not. Once we shift to regular supersonic capability I would consider that a new generation. After that is composites, then stealth.

The only reason I class the F22 as a new generation of stealth is that it’s curvy, whereas the F117 is angular. Two different concepts and the F22 also brings supercruise and other technologies the F117 Team only dreamed of. The F35 is about the same generation as the F22, just a linear improvement of the same technologies (IMHO).

But I’m pulling the thread away from the topic.

Tim

6

We have a good discussion here, Tim! Yes, definitely the MiG-19 would be the next generation, a much more ambitious design, a more accutely swept wing, twin engines, brute-force supersonic ability.

According to Ben Rich, who took over management of the Skunk Works from Kelly Johnson, the difference in stealth aircraft from the F-117 to the F/A-22 is not conceptual but a function of computing power. The Nighthawk was faceted purely because the computers of the late 1970s could not handle the calculations for an optimally radar-deflective organically-curved hull. By the late 80s computing power had gone up enormously and a slippery, supersonic radar-deflective body design was a practicality. Still, the aircraft do embody different approaches, one was a tactical bomber, the other is a full-spectrum fighter, and the raptor benefits from the considerable experience that had been gained by that time in stealth operations.

Perhaps “Early Jets” would be the better name for the build, as it could incorporate anything from fighters to airliners, and, as has been suggested, take in turboprops, another permutation of jet technology which would introduce types such as the Westland Wyvern, Ryan Darkshark and Convair Pogo. Still, there needs to be a distinction of some sort, or, on that basis, turboshaft helicopters would also qualitfy, which was not the intention.

Cheers, Mike/TB379

7

Mike,

So for “Early Jets” I’m actually interested in the GB, even though I’m not a jet guy.

I generally view any aircraft not actually developed to the point of operational use as just a prototype or concept demonstrator. The Ta183 is an obvious example, the Gloster E.28/39 is another. The P-59 also fills that role to me, but could have been operational. Although against most piston fighters it would not have done well! I don’t model prototypes (yet) but when I build something like the Ta183 it’s a “what if” build. I’ve done 2-3 in my life…but I digress.

Doing this GB will force me to do some research, my primary enjoyment of this hobby. I’ll need to understand all the Gen-1 jets out there and determine which I want to do – or do a “what if”!

Tim

8

Sounds good! Okay, I guess we’re waiting on a few other expressions of interest. The fact is, the northern summer may be the wrong time to launch a build of any sort, which, if it’s the case, will become clear, and I’ll probably defer the build to the northern winter. That’s okay, it gives plenty of time to sort out what’s acceptable and to clear the build backlog from a few benches.

Cheers, Mike/TB379

9

If its in the northern winter id be keen. im forced to take 2 weeks off over Christmas so ill need something to do. Ive been wanting to build a vampire or a venom for ages. ATM though my build log is a little full (as seen in my Sig)

10

Mike - after participating in the Actraden GB I would be honored to join another of your GBs. Im in for the Hasegawa 1/32 ME-262A with JV44 - Adolf Galland

Bob

11

Mike i’d be interested in this one, i have a partially constructed Hasegawa 1/48 Arado AR 234 nightfighter on the shelf of doom… The office is done and the fueselage halves are joined but thats as far as igot…let me know if thats acceptable…

12

Hi Julez – yep, the Ar 234 would definitely be in!

M/TB379

13

I was specifically thinking of the Wyvern and Gannet when I mentioned turbo-props, but obviously there are quite a few particularly when you include all the experimental ones.

I think it would be easy enough to leave out helicopters, by only leaving it open to fixed wing, but even if you didn’t specifically exclude them, there were not many turbine powered helicopters until the 60s anyway which would probably fall outside the time of the GB anyway. Kaman was doing some work with turbines in the 50s but the HH-43B was the first to enter production in 1958 or 59. The Allouette II claims to be the first turbine powered helicopter to enter production and that was in 1957.

I think a bigger issue might be why allow turbo props and exclude post war props (AD-1 Skyraider, F8F Bearcat etc) although I think it is fairly easy to accept that while they have props they were really just using jet technology a little differently while the piston aircraft were obviously using the well established piston engine.

If you went with early jets instead of Gen 1 you could just look through some of the better known jets and pick an end date for “early” rather than having to deal with a somewhat vague generation breakdown. Wikipedia does have a decent list breaking down aircraft by type and include 5 generations of jets. It lists supersonic and missile armament as the requirement for Gen 2. It is wikipedia so not neccessarily an authorative source but it does give a pretty good place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fighter_aircraft

As far as start dates you could always split the difference say Aug-Feb, Sept-March so it doesn’t get so far out that people forget about it but gets it far enough out that people have time to finish their current GBs and still have time to work on this GB.

14

Aaronw – I think you make some excellent points. Yes, helicopters tend to be a self-answering question both becuase they’re not fixed wing and the late date at which turbine engines appeared in them.

Wikipedia is usually a good starting point, but of course never to be trusted for absolutes – for instance, early Sidewinders were mounted on Sabres in the 50s, so there’s a subsonic aircraft with missiles, which contradicts their parameters for Gen-2!

Okay, “Early Jets” sounds good. How about if supersonic in level flight as a design spec was the cutoff point? That would embrace the MiG-17 but not -19, the Dog Sabre but not the F-100, the Grumman Cougar but not the Grumman Tiger – does a separation like this make a decent generational break point?

Turboprops are a contentious point but an interesting one. An early subsonic turboprop could as easily be a C-130 as a Westland Wyvern – does it belong in the same GB as a Heinkel Salamander or a Yak-15?

Cheers, Mike/TB379

15

Thunderbolt379 if I can get my grimy fingers on a 1/48 Horton 229 I would join your build in a heart beat. If that one would fit in of course.

16

Hi Randy – Horten’s “bat outa hell” is a definite yes, it flew in prototype stage, was a potentially very potent fighter and would doubtless have been fielded in action if the war had lasted through '46. if you can find a Dragon kit for a decent price, welcome aboard!

Cheers, M/TB379

17

If you don’t mind me throwing my [2cnts] in, the first generation jets were those that were designed, and flown during or just after WW ll. This is a subject that even the experts can’t agree on but the general consensus is that after the end of the war, captured data and airframes evolved into the second generation of aircraft. The experts also agree that the swept wing F-86 and MIG-15 was the start of the second generation.

Other experts say the introduction of the twin spool turbojet was the start of the second generation. That isn’t possible as the F-86 and MIG-15 both used single spool centrifugal flow powered engines. Later versions of the F-86 used turbojet powered engines.

18

Berny,

You said what I couldn’t as I only have a passing knowledge.

Tim

19

T-Bolt: ahhhhhhhhh what the heck! Since you’re allowing models with some work on them please put me down with a 1/48 Nakajima Kikka ‘Orange Blossom’. I don’t think anyone can argue that it’s not a first generation jet. [:D]

20

I like “early jets” as a definition too. I have a 1/48 Whittle that would be cool.