F-101 Voodoo | The U.S. Supersonic Nuclear Armed Fighter Bomber And Photo Reconnaissance Aircraft
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 июл 2023
- The McDonnell F-101 Voodoo is a supersonic jet fighter that served the United States Air Force (USAF) and the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF).
Updated audio and upscaled version.
Initially designed by McDonnell Aircraft Corporation as a long-range bomber escort (known as a penetration fighter) for the USAF's Strategic Air Command (SAC), the Voodoo was instead developed as a nuclear-armed fighter-bomber for the USAF's Tactical Air Command (TAC), and as a photo reconnaissance aircraft based on the same airframe. An F-101A set a number of world speed records for jet-powered aircraft, including the fastest airspeed, attaining 1,207.6 miles (1,943.4 km) per hour on 12 December 1957. They operated in the reconnaissance role until 1979.
Delays in the 1954 interceptor project led to demands for an interim interceptor aircraft design, a role that was eventually won by the B model of the Voodoo. This required extensive modifications to add a large radar to the nose of the aircraft, a second crew member to operate it, and a new weapons bay using a rotating door that kept its four AIM-4 Falcon missiles or two AIR-2 Genie rockets hidden within the airframe until it was time to be fired. The F-101B entered service with USAF Air Defense Command in 1959 and the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1961. US examples were handed off to the USAF Air National Guard where they served until 1982. Canadian examples remained in service until 1984.
The Voodoo's career as a fighter bomber was relatively brief, but the reconnaissance versions served for some time. Along with the US Air Force's Lockheed U-2 and US Navy's Vought RF-8 Crusaders, the RF-101 reconnaissance variant of the Voodoo was instrumental during the Cuban Missile Crisis and saw extensive service during the Vietnam War. Interceptor versions served with the Air National Guard until 1982, and in Canadian service, they were a front-line part of NORAD until their replacement with the CF-18 Hornet in the 1980s.
While the Voodoo was a moderate success, it may have been more important as an evolutionary step towards its replacement in most roles, the F-4 Phantom II, one of the most successful Western fighter designs of the 1950s. The Phantom would retain the twin engines, twin crew for interception duties, and a tail-mounted well above and behind the jet exhaust but was an evolution of the F3H Demon while the Voodoo was developed from the earlier XF-88 Voodoo.
The initial design on what would eventually become the Voodoo began just after World War II in response to a USAAF Penetration Fighter Competition in 1946. This called for a long-range, high-performance fighter to escort a new generation of bombers, much as the North American P-51 Mustang had escorted the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortresses and Consolidated B-24 Liberators in World War II. Several companies responded with designs, and the Air Force provided funds for several of them to produce prototypes.
After being awarded a contract (AC-14582) on 14 February 1947, McDonnell built two prototypes, designated the XF-88 Voodoo. The first prototype (serial number 46-6525), powered by two 3,000 lbf (13.3 kN) Westinghouse XJ34-WE-13 turbojets, flew from Muroc on 20 October 1948. Preliminary testing revealed that while handling and range were adequate, the top speed was a disappointing 641 mph (1,032 km/h) at sea level. After fitting McDonnell-designed afterburners to the second prototype, the thrust was increased to 3,600 lbf (16.1 kN) with corresponding performance increases in top speed, initial rate of climb and reduced takeoff distance. Fuel consumption was greatly increased by use of the afterburners, however, reducing the range.
General characteristics
Crew: 2
Length: 67 ft 5 in (20.55 m)
Wingspan: 39 ft 8 in (12.09 m)
Height: 18 ft 0 in (5.49 m)
Wing area: 368 sq ft (34.2 m2)
Airfoil: root: NACA 65A007 (modified); tip: NACA 65A006 (modified)[43]
Empty weight: 28,495 lb (12,925 kg)
Gross weight: 45,665 lb (20,713 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 52,400 lb (23,768 kg)
Fuel capacity: 2,053 US gal (1,709 imp gal; 7,770 l) internals plus 2x optional 450 US gal (370 imp gal; 1,700 l) drop-tanks
Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney J57-P-55 afterburning turbojet engines, 11,990 lbf (53.3 kN) thrust each dry, 16,900 lbf (75 kN) with afterburner
Performance
Maximum speed: 1,134 mph (1,825 km/h, 985 kn) at 35,000 ft (11,000 m)
Maximum speed: Mach 1.72
Range: 1,520 mi (2,450 km, 1,320 nmi)
Service ceiling: 58,400 ft (17,800 m)
Wing loading: 124 lb/sq ft (610 kg/m2)
Thrust/weight: 0.74
Armament
Missiles: 4 (originally 6)× AIM-4 Falcon, or 2× AIR-2 Genie nuclear rockets, plus 2× AIM-4 Falcon
Avionics
Hughes MG-13 fire control system
#voodoo #F101 #aircraft 
Наука
Click the link to watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories, and missions: www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes
Please please,lose the music, you Don’t need it and it Sounds so outdated now!
My long time best friend (who just died a month ago) was the all time, high time Voodoo driver with almost 4,000 hrs, mostly in the B model. He went from Otis AFB where he spend several years (and was the maint. officer there). He was recruited by the CIA to go to area 51 to fly the Voodoo as a chase pilot in support of the "Oxcart" (CIA A-12 Blackbird). They then "enticed" him to switch over to fly the A-12 himself. He was the youngest of the 6 Operational blackbird pilots until the program was phased out in June of 1968 when the A-12 was replaced by the SR-71.
A sad loss
But a life well lived by the sound of it
My father was stationed at Otis flying the 101 then to Roswell and then to Charleston all flying the 101B. Timeframe from late 50’s to mid 60’s. I wonder if they flew togeather?
My Dad flew the F-101 for years with the Maine Air National Guard in Bangor ME. I remember watching all of them depart for the bone yard in the middle of the night in pairs, afterburners blazing with the distinctive "Boom pause Boom" as left and right burners were engaged and then continue a maximum climb rate to altitude. I wish i had had a way to film it, it was very impressive.
❤️
Very informative video. Thanks, I read several books about F-101 and variations, nothing is more vivid and impressive than this visual document on this subject. Thanks for the efforts in research and compiling this video.
🙏🙏
Oh yeah! Century fighters!
While stationed in Germany in the late 80's we had a VooDoo that we used for Battle Damage Repair Training. Very cool aircraft...
I knew the RF-101, working on them in Thailand 1966-67.
The Voodoo was a wonderful & highly reliable combat aircraft. Super impressive, at a time when new RF-4s were highly unreliable (daily ground aborts with RF-101 backing up all the RF-4s missions.
But with the streaming multitudes of fickle USAF changes, it's a miracle the Voodoo ever became operational!! 😂
My dad was a Voodoo Scope Wizard when I was born. He was in an all-weather interceptor squadron stationed on the S.E. coast of the U.S.
Make us envious - Tell us you got to follow in his footsteps too 😜
@@Farweasel Nah, I didn't choose a life in the military, much to my regret, in hindsight.
What a powerful and sexy looking machine. Always loved the shape of the inlets flowing into the rounded underside bulges for the engines, then into the longer afterburners of the later models. A sleek and powerful jet. Wish I could have flown in one!!!
McDonnell Aircraft Co in St Louis Mo ...producted great fighters
.
F101..Voodoo
F4C FATHOM
F-15 Eagle..
I'd love to see a study level model of the Voodoo built for MSFS. The RF-101 would be ideal, with working cameras.
If you ask an AI for a picture of a jet fighter. It will probably look like this.
A two seater & single seater jet fighter. 🇨🇦🇺🇸💯
This channel is full of great videos. I love it
With out a doubt, the sexiest implement of destruction ever engineered
It just dawned on me that the B-1 takes a lot of inspiration from the Vodoo design. As a bigger plane with similar startegic mission.
❤😊🎉👍😁☺️🤩💯🇨🇦🇨🇦🇺🇸🇺🇸 U.S. Air Force & RCAF nice jet two engines afterburners. I want a model of this jet for myself. Love jets.
Better gat an oil well first!
Awesome video!!!
Thanks Gordon
Powerful 🌠
Paint it matt gray.. will look very modern!
That's "sack" not S A C
I grew up on Kadena Air Force Base where my father flew RF-84F’s and later RF-101C’s in the 15th TRS
It's so good looking.
Interesting to hear the comments by the pilots who liked the Voodoo but commented on her unforgiving nature.
I'd heard/seen a video with General Robin Olds making a brief reference to flying the Voodoo, and it didn't sound too positive. I don't think he called it a pig, but it seemed clear he wasn't impressed, but that may have been out of context. Anyone else here see/hear his comments along those lines, and recall any more about it?
I remember building a model of the RF-101 as a kid and thinking that was a good looking version of the plane.
To those who were alive during the time of the Strategic Air Command the short name was pronounced "SACK", not S. A. C.
"Roger that, over"! 😀
and T.A. C. was TACK
@@ILSRWY4 So what was ADC then? "AIDS"?
And THAT led to the F4 Phantom
Pretty good going by anyone's reckoning
I just have to mention the narrator pronouncing Arkansas as “R-Kansas”.
It was a terrific plane, I hope one day they can get a F-101/RF-101 flying again, will be a big draw at any airshow.
Neato!
Even the F-86 was used operationally with a nuclear weapon on a centerline point standing alert in Germany.
One of th se beautiful aircraft sits in the war museum of Canada
The Thumbnail requires a double take. I thought what on earth is an F101 VOOOOO 🤔
Tricycle landing gear is not conventional landing gear.
Conventional landing gear is the taildragger configuration.
I don't know, but I've been told that the F-101 variants had the lowest accident rate of all of the Century-series airframes.
A German bloke Chris something - runs another of the better RUclips aviation channels called Military Aviation History ..... Very recently did an an anlysis of 'Was the F104 Starfighter as dangerous as many suggested' sort of thing.
Reams & reams of data - Which includes all kinds of aircraft statistics ..... including the Century series
Spoiler alert the F101 VooDoo does indeed impress
The whole thing's fascinating (but I must admit I mostly ran it at 1.25 speed to get through it all) 🙄
The F-106 had the lowest accident rate, around 7 losses per 100k flight hours. The Voodoo's rate was 9.64/100k.
_Anything you can do, _*_VOODOO_*_ can do better than you can do _*_. . ._*
Rozczarowanie! Brak napisów polskich.....
8:00. Sounds like the Airbus problem?
😁👍
you make quality content, but i can give you a tip: lose the text-to-speech narrative in the beginning, it just comes of as lazy, void of interest or emotion and monotone.
1:50 not a jet engine, C33 7500 hp turbo prop
Have a nice day my dear friends
The sexiest plane that kind of sucked.
You're AI voice is pronouncing SAC as s-a-c. Lazy.
There was nothing "Fighter" about this light bomber.
The F-101A/C models were Fighter-Bombers, like the F-105, maybe not as capable but very similar.
The F-101B was a true all-weather Interceptor, and while not as capable as the F-106, mostly because it lacked the superior fire control radar, at least better than the F-102.
So, Fighter-Bombers as well as Interceptors are subcategories of fighters, aren´t they?
I mean it was clear very soon that the Penetration-Escort-Fighter concept went nowhere before the advent of routine in-flight refueling when you look at the range of a B-36. Even then, you would also have to protect the tankers...
The time of the Century-Series is so fascinating, because it was all about speed, which is the most important aspect of a fighter. With hit-and-zoom tactics you can always defeat a slower but more maneuverable fighter. This was already clear in WWII.
The Century-Series´ timeframe was also the transition from having high-performance daytime fighters and anaemic night-fighters to all-weather fighters.
Yet before the F-4 (wich was also a heavy slug) and later the multirole Teen-Series there were dedicated niches, like the 101B, 102 and 106 interceptors, the short range 104 daytime fighter, the 101A/C and 105 fighter-bombers.
What did the US had at the time in terms of true air superiority fighters?
There was the F-100, which lacked radar and Mach 1.5+ speed. It was relegated to Fighter-BOMBER missions in Vietnam.
And the F-104 was on the horizon, which lacked range and all-weather capabillities. And it was also all about speed, not maneuverability. It saw only limited use in Vietnam and was retired out of US service quickly.
@@philp8872 that's a lot, and I can't read it all right now, but I agree with the first part.
The F-101 as an interceptor is believable. A lumbering bomber destroyer that was fast-ish in a straight line. Even at this it was quickly rendered obsolecent, if not totally obsolete.
If forced to deal with any fighter threat it couldn't out run, it sure as heck couldn't fight. Inspite of it's "F-" moniker, it really wasn't a fighter at all.
@@jacobmccandles1767 Thanks for your quick response!
First, yes, an interceptor is about to destroy incoming bombers. In nuclear age speed to destroy them as far away from their targets as possible is key.
Second, if we compare it to its contemporaries:
The delta wing 102/106 might have better INITIAL turn radius, but a delta looses speed very quick in a turn. From what I can tell, a 101 has a better SUSTAINED turn radius. (And keep in mind, the 101B was explicitly developed because of the 102´s disappointing performance, while development of the 106 proofed time consuming. The 102 was even slower than the F-100)
The 104 was surely a better air-auperiority fighter. But, as I said, it was mostly for daytime and lacked range. Although a high performance machine, the USAF soon got rid of them.
Third, yes you are right about the 101 getting obsolete quickly. But that was the times when everything got obsolete quickly, fueled by rapid development. The roots for this lay in the gains of technology from WWII, further advancing because of the Cold War.
On the other hand, this fascinating machines, like for example the Century-Series fighters, got developed in just a few years!
Just imagine: Getting from a P-51 to a P-80 to an F-86 to an F-100 to an F-101 or an F-104 in just about 15 years!
How long did the development of the F-22 or the F-35 took? 20+ years?!
Let´s look at its adversaries:
The Mig-21 would surely be superior to the 101, both in speed and maneuverabiltiy, but it was even a handfull to the F-4, which was a generation ahead of the 101 after all.
The highly maneuverable Mig-17 would be easily defeated by the 101 with hit and zoom tactics. That´s the point that you have to be aware of your aircrafts capabilities, a lot of F-4 pilots made the mistake to dogfight Mig-17s in Vietnam.
Su-7A / Su-9 / Su-11 were all very short range interceptors wich, to put it in your words "were ment to fly fast in a straight line".
Su-15 and Mig-23 only came a decade later at least, so not comparable.
Mig-19, although slower as the 101 would be a match when attacking from above with an energy advantage AND surely a maneuverability advantage.
Competitors from allied/neutral countries: Yes the Saab Draken and the British Lightning would be superior fighters to the 101.
No wonder the Canucks got it. Had Brit engines under license, no doubt. Short lived. Made some “recce” missions over SEA. What a dog.
Canadian Voodoos were ex-USAF machines powered by the original Pratt & Whitney J57-P55 engines. Not really a dog. Served well for a quarter century.
@@raynus1160 One of 4 nuclear weapon systems Canadians deployed back in the day. Right up until 1985 when the last electric one o wonder was retired from RCAF EW Service and sent back to the States.. Had the coolest all black paint job too that made it stand out amongst all the 101s produced.
The grandaddy of the F4 Phantom 2.