Best Fighter For It's Time
Charles Talleyrand
the other fighters of it's time frame?
For example, the Fokker Eindekker would clearly lose to an F-14. However, the
Eindekker had a large advantage over other fighters when it was introduced.
An F-14, though a fine plane, did not have so clear cut an advantage over it's contemporaries.
Planes clearly NOT on the list
Albatros (not clearly better than a Spad)
Spitfire (was about as good as a Me-109)
F-14 (not clearly better than an F-15)
Planes ON the list
Fokker Eindekker
Me-262
F-4 (clearly better than the Mig-21 and the Mirage (maybe))
Tom Cooper
"Charles Talleyrand" <rapp...@nmu.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:vhsaf97...@corp.supernews.com...
Ahem, err, the F-14 was not "clearly better" than the F-15?
Not only is the plane more maneuvreable at lower speeds (bellow 450kts) and
speeds over Mach 1, or in posessiong of a far superior weapons system, but
it had - until the AIM-120 was introduced on the F-15C MSIP-II Eagles - also
a distinct superiority in medium-range, and it remains superior to anything
world-wide in long-range arena.
Besides, the total combat score for the F-14 is also (at least) two times
better than that of the F-15.
Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq; War in the Air, 1980-1988
http://www.schifferbooks.com/military/aviationjetage/0764316699.html
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585
Drewe Manton
news:xGrTa.325965$1F6.3...@news.chello.at:
> Besides, the total combat score for the F-14 is also (at least) two
> times better than that of the F-15.
>
Errr. . as I understood the Tomcat's score stands at something in
the high forties - something like 5 from the US Navy and forty-odd
from Iran, whilst the F-15's stands at something over 100, 30
something for the USAF, a few (four? two Phantom and two Mirage
F-1) for the Saudis and the balance with the IAF, mainly over the
Bekaa in 1982. So as far as I'm aware the F-14's score is something
less than half the F-15's (unless the Tomcat scored a quiet 150
somewhere to give it a ratio of (and I quote) "(at least) two times
better than that of the F-15" Could you cite sources for your claim
please? Wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong, certainly
wouldn't be the last!
--
--------
Regards
Drewe
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
Guy Alcala
> My question is this: Which fighter had the clearest advantage over it's
> the other fighters of it's time frame?
Not that I expect to head off the no doubt hundreds of posts that will follow because versionsof
this question are a perennial favorite on the NG, but the correct reply is that your question is
far too general for any answer to be meaningful.
Guy
Stephen Harding
Don't know that's entirely true. Certainly lots of gray area in such a question,
but the Me 262 was pretty clearly a leap ahead of anything (available) in the air
doing its job during its activity period.
Perhaps a bit less true with the Fokker Eindekker, but it certainly wasn't labeled
a "scourge" for nothing.
Problem is, it is very rare for competing designs to be very far apart in technology
at any given time. This is true for ships, stereos and automobiles as much as
aircraft.
I think I might be inclined to throw in the F-117, even though it is not really a
"fighter", as long as we limit the discussion to competing designs doing the same
type of job. A Learjet with a machine gun could shoot down a 117 in a dogfight, but
that's not what an F-117 is designed to do.
How about the A6M2 "Zero"? Although it didn't reign supreme for long, it was pretty
clearly superior to everything it met when flown and fought as doctrine dictated at
the time.
SMH
Ed Rasimus
>My question is this: Which fighter had the clearest advantage over it's
>the other fighters of it's time frame?
You have to follow up with some qualifications. Doing what? Best
air/air? Best performance stats? Best kill ratio? Best doing the
mission for which it was optimized?
>
>For example, the Fokker Eindekker would clearly lose to an F-14. However, the
>Eindekker had a large advantage over other fighters when it was introduced.
>An F-14, though a fine plane, did not have so clear cut an advantage over it's contemporaries.
>
>Planes clearly NOT on the list
>
> Albatros (not clearly better than a Spad)
> Spitfire (was about as good as a Me-109)
Gotta suggest that there were a number of "Marks" of the Spit produced
and the later ones were clearly superior to the 109.
> F-14 (not clearly better than an F-15)
Duh? Here's where those qualifications come into play. While the F-14
with its programmed wing-sweep and well-BVR weapons had some
advantages over the F-15, when you get to close engagements, the Eagle
is considerably more agile than the Tom.
During a lot of Mediterranean exercises that I coordinated while at
USAFE Hq, we played Eagles vs Toms. Since we couldn't regulate Phoenix
kills and wouldn't get much training if we did, the ROE usually
specified Visual ID. The debriefs usually involved the AF guys citing
gun video as clear proof of their superiority while the USN guys would
caveat the results by stating that the Eagles were all morted prior to
the merge.
>
>Planes ON the list
>
> Fokker Eindekker
Agree--one wing and low drag.
> Me-262
Agree. Speed superiority was noteworthy.
> F-4 (clearly better than the Mig-21 and the Mirage (maybe))
Nope. Emphatically! While the F-4 could go farther and carry more
weight along with a better (at least more diverse) A/A weapons suite,
it certainly wasn't more maneuverable and didn't have the T/W ratio of
the Fishbed. As for the Mirage, I've sat in my F-4 and watched a
Mirage III do absolute magic at high altitude. No superiority for the
venerable Phantom there.
>
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038
Dudley Henriques
"Stephen Harding" <har...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in message
news:3F1E8EC6...@cs.umass.edu...
What Guy said is considered in the fighter community to be the right answer.
The reality of this oft asked question is that no single aircraft can be
found supreme throughout it's performance envelope when compared directly to
the entire performance envelope of another aircraft. This has been proven
out again and again in our modern comparison performance or delta Ps
performance testing. The answer is ALWAYS where in the envelope and/or
mission parameters is the comparison taking place?
The reasons are extremely complex, and go to the very root of comparison
performance testing, and basically involve not only design parameters, but
constantly changing dynamics as expendables are used. Most of us in the
community agree as well that even if performance is standardized, as in 50%
fuel and combat weight presented as specific units, a difference between the
cockpits (pilot factor) can nullify any and all performance data as the
comparison progresses in real time.
Nailing a "best fighter" down to one single answer is a question often asked
and discussed by "historians". You can actually get it close (enough for
government work anyway :-).......but when you get down into the guts of a
real answer, most of us in the community consider this quest a single "best"
fighter a moot discussion. But don't get me wrong here........go to the O
club on a fighter base on any given night, and you will run into a whole
flock of fighter pilots arguing like hell about just this question; but when
the bar closes, they all seem to leave scratching their heads just like the
rest of you!! :-)))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI
Retired
John Halliwell
<har...@cs.umass.edu> writes
>Don't know that's entirely true. Certainly lots of gray area in such a
>question,
>but the Me 262 was pretty clearly a leap ahead of anything (available) in the
>air
>doing its job during its activity period.
Even that isn't clear cut either. The first 262s entered service 8 days
_after_ the first Meteors went operational. Whilst the various merits of
the two aircraft are often debated, overall they both represented
roughly similar performance.
--
John
ArVa
news:968thvs81vab831om...@4ax.com...
> As for the Mirage, I've sat in my F-4 and watched a
> Mirage III do absolute magic at high altitude. No superiority for the
> venerable Phantom there.
>
If it's not classified, can you tell us where it was? Australia? Israël?
France? Somewhere else? Just curious...
Regards,
ArVa
Stephen Harding
> "Stephen Harding" <har...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in message
> >
> > Don't know that's entirely true. Certainly lots of gray area in such a question,
> > but the Me 262 was pretty clearly a leap ahead of anything (available) in the air
> > doing its job during its activity period.
>
> What Guy said is considered in the fighter community to be the right answer.
> The reality of this oft asked question is that no single aircraft can be
> found supreme throughout it's performance envelope when compared directly to
> the entire performance envelope of another aircraft. This has been proven
> out again and again in our modern comparison performance or delta Ps
> performance testing. The answer is ALWAYS where in the envelope and/or
> mission parameters is the comparison taking place?
Well of course it's true performance varies over the range of use, and given
the wide range of air combat environments, any definitive answer to "what's
best" is more personal bias than anything.
However the question wasn't "what plane was best" per se, but which had the
largest technological edge over its rivals in its day. Not quite the same
thing as I interpret it.
The Me 262 was a superior aircraft to anything the allies were *using*. It
never went up against P-80's or Meteors. It fought P-51s, P-47s, Spitfires
and maybe some Typhoon/Tempests (maybe a Yak now and then???).
The fact that a 262 was vulnerable during takeoff or landing, or had very slow
acceleration/throttle response compared to piston engine aircraft, or had engines
that didn't last too long doesn't take away from the fact that when it was up
doing it's thing (shooting down bombers, or enemy fighters), the guy in the
262 had a very good hand to play.
I think there are some aircraft that were clearly superior to their
contemporaries in their particular duties, but those superiorities could be
countered or eliminated using fighting doctrine.
The Zero might be a great example of this. A clearly superior dogfighter to
any aircraft contemporary. Unfortunately for the Japanese, close in dogfighting
was not the way the bulk of the Pacific war was going to be fought in the air.
Perhaps we're simply arguing around each other here. In the future (maybe
even now) aircraft performance in any part of its flight envelope won't matter.
It will be the electronics on board that determine the winner of the fight (and
the training of the pilot, and combat doctrine of course).
The "best" plane will be best due to reasons having little or nothing to do with
how well it flies!
SMH
Orval Fairbairn
"Charles Talleyrand" <rapp...@nmu.edu> wrote:
F-16
F-16 was a return to the fighter concept: manueverability, range, speed
-- in spades!
F-22
F-22 is a quantum leap in capability: supercruise, stealth,
maneuverability, range, fire control system. Nothing else comes close!
--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called ³Random Signatures² into your Preferences folder.
Chad Irby
Stephen Harding <har...@cs.umass.edu> wrote:
> The "best" plane will be best due to reasons having little or nothing
> to do with how well it flies!
That might not even come into play. Look at the F-20 Tigershark. Very
nice plane, flew as well as just about anything in the air at the time,
and had *big* advantages in maintenance (as low as one-third the cost of
the F-16 to support). In some fields (interception and scramble
flights), it was better than anything (from the time the pilot hit
"start" to 30,000 feet was about 2.5 minutes).
Nobody bought any.
Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
Emmanuel Gustin
news:vhsaf97...@corp.supernews.com...
> Albatros (not clearly better than a Spad)
It was in service a few crucial months earlier, however,
and its advantage was extended by the initial low production
rate of the SPAD.
> Fokker Eindekker
The Eindecker could be claimed to be the *only* fighter of
its time. However, in terms of performance and handling, it
was a rather mediocre aircraft, and its time of superiority
was fairly short.
> Me-262
A contemporary with the roughly equivalent Meteor.
> F-4 (clearly better than the Mig-21 and the Mirage (maybe))
Not in a dogfight. I admit that it could carry more bombs :-)
I think one aircraft that might be a good candidate is the
Polikarpov I-16, a revolutionary aircraft for its time, and
far ahead of anything until the first Bf 109s entered service.
--
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel.Gustin -rem@ve- skynet.be
Flying Guns Page: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/
Ed Rasimus
>In article <3F1ED461...@cs.umass.edu>,
> Stephen Harding <har...@cs.umass.edu> wrote:
>
>> The "best" plane will be best due to reasons having little or nothing
>> to do with how well it flies!
>
>That might not even come into play. Look at the F-20 Tigershark. Very
>nice plane, flew as well as just about anything in the air at the time,
>and had *big* advantages in maintenance (as low as one-third the cost of
>the F-16 to support). In some fields (interception and scramble
>flights), it was better than anything (from the time the pilot hit
>"start" to 30,000 feet was about 2.5 minutes).
Well, not exactly. The F-20 was nice, when competing against the
Foreign Military Sales competitors--the F-16/79, an upgraded A-7 and
something else that I can't currently recall. It was a bit behind the
power curve in T/W compared to the F-16 and really couldn't do the
"big iron" job for distance. It certainly wasn't offering CCIP bombing
to the standard already well established by the F-16.
The time to scramble was a neat ad campaign resulting from the fast
alignment feature of the ring laser gyro INS, but once scrambled, the
radar certainly didn't compete with the F-15 and the lack of AIM-7F
(and AIM-120) capability meant it was quick to the fight but without
credible weapons.
And, the cockpit ergonomics were decidely sub-standard. I only offer
this opinion as a former Northrop worker with a couple of hundred
hours in the F-20 cockpit of the dome, although not always with F-20
flight parameters as the operating model.
Ed Rasimus
It's a story I've told here before. It was a Spanish Mirage III out of
Valencia. I was tasked as a "faker" or A/A target--F-4C fully loaded
with three tanks off a KC-135 in the Med east of Gibraltar. Profile
was A/B at the coast of Spain above FL 400. Supersonic run all the way
to Madrid. With three tanks, got just above the mach at the coast. As
the C/L tank went dry, hit 1.3 M. By the time the outboard went dry I
was at 1.5 and finally just over mach 1.6 at FL 460 as I approached
Madrid.
Picked up a Mirage intercepting me by his contrail. He did a
magnificent conversion into firing parameters just as I hit Madrid
TACAN. I eased out of A/B and zoomed into this attack, passing through
FL 630 as I slowed below the mach, then spiraled down through 20,000
with the Mirage firmly (and quite comfortably camped in firing
position). The guy was good and the airplane was great.
We also used to get intercepted by Mirage IIIs of the Spanish AF while
deploying to Turkey from Spain. Flight of four on the wing of a
tanker, the Mirage would join up, then do a level 360 back to the wing
at FL 310--apparently without effort. I would hate to have fought one
at altitude.
At low alt, maybe there would be a chance, but in those days before
"look down/shoot down" Doppler radar, it would have been very
challenging. I've got great respect for the Mirage.
Charles Talleyrand
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:WBxTa.145$T4...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> What Guy said is considered in the fighter community to be the right answer.
> The reality of this oft asked question is that no single aircraft can be
> found supreme throughout it's performance envelope when compared directly to
> the entire performance envelope of another aircraft. This has been proven
> out again and again in our modern comparison performance or delta Ps
> performance testing. The answer is ALWAYS where in the envelope and/or
> mission parameters is the comparison taking place?
This is true, but perhaps besides the point.
Suppose you're an air minister. The Fokker Eindekker has just come out.
Do you want some? YES
Suppose you're a pilot. You can fly either a Fokker Eindekker or it's
competitor. Which would you pick?
Can you think of some equally dominating airplane?
Charles Talleyrand
"Chad Irby" <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:d_ATa.145784$ic1.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> In article <3F1ED461...@cs.umass.edu>,
> Stephen Harding <har...@cs.umass.edu> wrote:
>
> > The "best" plane will be best due to reasons having little or nothing
> > to do with how well it flies!
>
> That might not even come into play. Look at the F-20 Tigershark. Very
> nice plane, flew as well as just about anything in the air at the time,
> and had *big* advantages in maintenance (as low as one-third the cost of
> the F-16 to support). In some fields (interception and scramble
> flights), it was better than anything (from the time the pilot hit
> "start" to 30,000 feet was about 2.5 minutes).
>
> Nobody bought any.
This thread isn't about 'best'. It's about 'very clearly superior for it's time'.
You can argue the F-20 was better or worse than the F-16, but it was not
very clearly superior. To use a naval example, I'm looking for
Dreadnoughts and not Queen Elizabeths. Revolutionary designs and not
just good planes.
Tom Cooper
Err... no! ;-))
The story with 40 kills is based on the Mullahs taking away something
like 70% of IRIAF's air-to-air kills and crediting them to the IRGC
air-defence units after the war with Iraq.
IRIAF F-14's score goes into 120+, with some 30 probables more (so,
yes, it's very likely around 150) - for three confirmed losses, plus
two LARAF Su-22s, two MiG-23s, and an Iraqi Mi-8 shot down by USN
F-14s. This is opposed by something like 70 US and IDF/AF kills scored
by F-15s, in exchange for two probable losses. BTW, IRIAF F-4s scored
over 100 too; F-5E/F's score shouldn't be too far either.
ArtKramr
>From: "Charles Talleyrand" rapp...@nmu.edu
>Date: 7/23/03 2:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Suppose you're an air minister. The Fokker Eindekker has just come out.
>Do you want some? YES
>
>Suppose you're a pilot. You can fly either a Fokker Eindekker or it's
>competitor. Which would you pick?
>
>
A Norden on an Eindecker? Sind sie verruckt? Auf ein zweidecker vielleicht.
Aber auf ein Eindecker? Niemals.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Greg Hennessy
>And, the cockpit ergonomics were decidely sub-standard. I only offer
>this opinion as a former Northrop worker with a couple of hundred
>hours in the F-20 cockpit of the dome, although not always with F-20
>flight parameters as the operating model.
I always thought Northrop missed a chance with the F-20. Rather than
shoehorning a f404 in to an f-5 airframe (it's still an F-5 but quicker).
An F5 sized airframe with an F16-XL style cranked arrow wing and large flat
underside would have given say 80-90% of the gripens performance 15 years
ahead of its time.
greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
She'll chew you up, ain't no lie
JDupre5762
>The story with 40 kills is based on the Mullahs taking away something
>like 70% of IRIAF's air-to-air kills and crediting them to the IRGC
>air-defence units after the war with Iraq.
>
>IRIAF F-14's score goes into 120+, with some 30 probables more (so,
>yes, it's very likely around 150) - for three confirmed losses, plus
>two LARAF Su-22s, two MiG-23s, and an Iraqi Mi-8 shot down by USN
>F-14s. This is opposed by something like 70 US and IDF/AF kills scored
>by F-15s, in exchange for two probable losses. BTW, IRIAF F-4s scored
>over 100 too; F-5E/F's score shouldn't be too far either.
>
>Tom Cooper
>Co-Author:
>Iran-Iraq; War in the Air, 1980-1988
>http://www.schifferbooks.com/military/aviationjetage/0764316699.html
>
>Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
>http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585
I will probably buy your book one day but I have to ask what kind of evidence
did you get to see in order to validate these claims? Have Iranian claims been
verified against admitted Iraqi losses? Given the secretive nature of both
regimes I have to wonder how accurate these fiqures really are. Does any other
nation confirm the Iranian victory claims? Does the Iraqi order of battle and
other sources really support 300 plus losses over 8 years? What do/did the
Soviets have to say about the exchange ratio? How many Iraqi wrecks can be
accounted for in Iran?
John Dupre'
Keith Willshaw
"Greg Hennessy" <spamc...@example.com> wrote in message
news:hj0uhvo5mjk36kjgp...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 21:27:32 GMT, Ed Rasimus <ras...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
> >And, the cockpit ergonomics were decidely sub-standard. I only offer
> >this opinion as a former Northrop worker with a couple of hundred
> >hours in the F-20 cockpit of the dome, although not always with F-20
> >flight parameters as the operating model.
>
> I always thought Northrop missed a chance with the F-20. Rather than
> shoehorning a f404 in to an f-5 airframe (it's still an F-5 but quicker).
>
> An F5 sized airframe with an F16-XL style cranked arrow wing and large
flat
> underside would have given say 80-90% of the gripens performance 15 years
> ahead of its time.
>
And required a lot of expensive R&D
Keith
Charles Talleyrand
"Ed Rasimus" <ras...@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:968thvs81vab831om...@4ax.com...
> Gotta suggest that there were a number of "Marks" of the Spit produced
> and the later ones were clearly superior to the 109.
Sure. Early Spits were roughly comparable to Me-109 and
late Spits were roughly comparable to F-190/P-51/F-6s.
The Spitfire was not revolutionary, in the sense the
Fokker Eindekker or the Me-262 was.
I'm looking for revolutionary, not 'good'.
> > Fokker Eindekker
>
> Agree--one wing and low drag.
And guns firing through the propeller arc. I believe that
was a very big deal.
Chad Irby
"Charles Talleyrand" <rapp...@nmu.edu> wrote:
> "Chad Irby" <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:d_ATa.145784$ic1.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > That might not even come into play. Look at the F-20 Tigershark. Very
> > nice plane, flew as well as just about anything in the air at the time,
> > and had *big* advantages in maintenance (as low as one-third the cost of
> > the F-16 to support). In some fields (interception and scramble
> > flights), it was better than anything (from the time the pilot hit
> > "start" to 30,000 feet was about 2.5 minutes).
> >
> > Nobody bought any.
>
> This thread isn't about 'best'. It's about 'very clearly superior for it's
> time'.
>
> You can argue the F-20 was better or worse than the F-16, but it was not
> very clearly superior.
For a smaller country with a limited budget, it certainly could be.
Maintenance costs were the big selling factor, and good time-to-scramble
was a nice point.
Tom Cooper
> I will probably buy your book one day but I have to ask what kind of
evidence
> did you get to see in order to validate these claims? Have Iranian claims
been
> verified against admitted Iraqi losses? Given the secretive nature of
both
> regimes I have to wonder how accurate these fiqures really are. Does any
other
> nation confirm the Iranian victory claims? Does the Iraqi order of battle
and
> other sources really support 300 plus losses over 8 years? What do/did
the
> Soviets have to say about the exchange ratio? How many Iraqi wrecks can
be
> accounted for in Iran?
Fair questions, John.
1.) What kind of evidence is there?
Actually multiple: starting from eyewitness accounts, via comprehensive
official records (including gun-camera shots, photographs of the wreckage
etc.), down to intel reports (via FOIA inquiries). In over 80% of the cases
we were very well able to cross-check the infos.
If you're not sure should you purchase a copy or not, try to get the volume
104 of the AirEnthusiast (published March this year), to see the article
"Fire in the Hills", which is detailing the fighting during only two smaller
Iranian offensives, undertaken October-November 1982. Examining the claims
for the "Mi-24 shot down an F-4 Phantom", or an "F-14 shot down six Iraqis
within few seconds" (which can be found also on this NG) to the last detail,
it's perfectly illustrating the wealth of sources we were able to use, and
the way it was possible to cross-examine the evidence.
2.) Were claims verified against admitted losses?
Against those officially admitted by Iraqi authorities: no. That is
impossible to do, as these barelly admited 20 own aircraft as lost during
the war, while issurd alone over 100 claims for Iranian F-14 shot down...
Otherwise, see point 1: in fact, we're better able to confirm what we're
talking about than most of those who published anything about the Israelis.
3.) Does any other nation confirm Iranian claims?
Nation: not. Service: yes (several of them).
4.) Does the Iraqi order of battle and other sources really support 300 plus
losses over 8 years?
In fact, they support a loss of something like 450 aircraft and approx 150
helicopters.
5.) What do/did the Soviets have to say about the exchange ratio?
Except that they were losing their own planes and pilots sent to Iraq for
testing as well, they are - in general - either as quiet as a grave or
babbling nonsence (the Archives of the Defence Ministry, however, remain
closed when it comes to this topic). Nevertheless, we've found several of
them (and few people from some other countries: East Germans, Poles etc.)
who were there - and ready to talk - too.
6.) How many Iraqi wrecks can be accounted for in Iran?
Don't know: the research is far (very far) from being over, but official
records (most of these containing photographs) exist for 250-300. Over 100
Iraqi planes were shot down over the Persian Gulf, and others were lost
elsewhere, where their wreckage could not be found.
I hope that helps.
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Emmanuel Gustin <REMOVE.Emma...@skynet.be> wrote:
>"Charles Talleyrand" <rapp...@nmu.edu> wrote in message
>news:vhsaf97...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Albatros (not clearly better than a Spad)
>
>It was in service a few crucial months earlier, however,
>and its advantage was extended by the initial low production
>rate of the SPAD.
>
>> Fokker Eindekker
>
>The Eindecker could be claimed to be the *only* fighter of
>its time. However, in terms of performance and handling, it
>was a rather mediocre aircraft, and its time of superiority
>was fairly short.
>
>> Me-262
>
>A contemporary with the roughly equivalent Meteor.
>
>> F-4 (clearly better than the Mig-21 and the Mirage (maybe))
>
>Not in a dogfight. I admit that it could carry more bombs :-)
>
>I think one aircraft that might be a good candidate is the
>Polikarpov I-16, a revolutionary aircraft for its time, and
>far ahead of anything until the first Bf 109s entered service.
I'd go for the *just* post-war aircraft, if only because their
competition had been removed! Neuport Nightjar or perhaps Fairey
Flycatcher post-WW1, maybe De Havilland Vampire or Gloster Meteor
IV (a big advance on the wartime Meteor) post WW2. Not. on
paper, perhaps a huge advance on the wartime types, but with all
the bugs worked out, better performance (enough!), better agility,
and familiar enough for available pilots to make the most of them.
Outside those limits, the i-16 is a good choice - a revlutionary
design, and sofar ahead of the competition from other nations as
to be ridiculous. The only trouble was figuring out WYF to do with
it, and even the Soviets weren't that sure, as witness the flip-
flopping back to biplane designs with the I-15bis and the I-153.
Without any way of really testing it there was no way of knowing they'd
really, really got it right - as they had.
Now, with not-fighters the answer is easy. EE Canberra.. Still peerless,
though admittedly as a recon. platform..
--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
John Halliwell
<rapp...@nmu.edu> writes
>Can you think of some equally dominating airplane?
Although not a fighter, the EE Canberra certainly had an impact. It
could fly higher than most contemporary fighters and out turn any that
managed to reach it high up.
Again not a fighter, the V2 rocket was streets ahead of anything else if
that counts?
--
John
John Carrier
> with its programmed wing-sweep and well-BVR weapons had some
> advantages over the F-15, when you get to close engagements, the Eagle
> is considerably more agile than the Tom.
Well, not actually. The F-15 has sufficiently superior T/W to the F-14A
that through careful energy management and skill, the F-15 will win the
engagement ... but in terms of instantaneous turn, pitch rate, etc, it's not
quite the equal of the Tom. Put the F110 engines in (F-14B/D) and it's
quite different. T/W is almost equal and the F-14 has an advantage
throughout much of the envelope. I think the F-15 weapon's system is
superior in most environments ... obviously so when AMRAAM is in the mix
(personally I think those individuals that denied the F-14 the AMRAAM ought
to face charges).
My opportunities to engage the Eagle in the Turkey were somewhat limited,
but when gas was not an issue (ie: I had a tanker and the use of A/B) I had
little difficulty in gaining a pipper-on guns position.
OTOH, while in a Phantom, I found myself quite helpless. I think the only
thing I could do where I might have had no disadvantage was to depart the
jet. The single seat A-4 (as configured for adversary work) often
frustrated the "superior" F-15.\
To return to the topic, I'd cast a vote for the F-8. Best air superiority
fighter in the US arsenal for its era (mid-50's competing with century
series, etc). Best kill ratio in real world combat (Vietnam). Best ramp
strike rate ... oh well.
R / John
phil hunt
>
>This thread isn't about 'best'. It's about 'very clearly superior for it's time'.
>
>You can argue the F-20 was better or worse than the F-16, but it was not
>very clearly superior. To use a naval example, I'm looking for
>Dreadnoughts and not Queen Elizabeths. Revolutionary designs and not
>just good planes.
How about these:
Fokker Eindecker. First fighter, can't get more revolutionary than
that!
Bf 109. First monoplane fighter with retractable undercarriage and
fully enclosed cockpit.
Me 262. First operational jet fighter.
Not sure what was the first supersonic jet fighter to successfully
use AAMs. Probably one of the MiG-21 or Phantom.
Harrier. First VSTOL fighter.
F-22. First stealth air superiority aircraft.
????. First unmanned fighter.
????. First weapon that makes combat aircraft obsolete.
--
Phil
"All alternate timelines need airships" -- Steve Glover
phil hunt
>
>F-22
>F-22 is a quantum leap in capability: supercruise, stealth,
>maneuverability, range, fire control system. Nothing else comes close!
Typhoon is maybe 1/2 as good... and costs maybe 1/2 as much.
Dudley Henriques
Hi Charles;
First off, Please know that I'm not trying to rain on your parade here; just
trying to be helpful!!
:-))
You can indeed ask your initial question exactly as you did. It's fine! I'm
only offering you some additional insight, just in case you ever get into
this issue with anyone from the flight test community as you are now with
me. The subject invariably digresses into a 1v1 scenario, which, from your
post above, is about where you are going with this now. It's no biggie
really, but consider the following;
In placing the Eindekker in competition with an unknown adversary as you
have here by the general context of your questions to me, you are getting
away from your initial context, which is again fine, but in these
discussions, you must always be aware that in the context you have placed
the issue, only a general answer that deals directly with design can exist
in reality. Individual aircraft can be discussed for their design advances,
and even in a design context per time period, but you can't start pairing
individual airplanes against each other unless you are also in consideration
of the parameters I have mentioned. Take your Eindekker for example, and the
questions you have asked me in this post.
Eindekker or no Eindekker, the result of the scenario you have described
would be ENTIRELY dependent on the factors I have already mentioned. If you
placed two comparison aircraft
on the ground together, you could easily state the design advantages of the
Eindekker for it's period and be totally correct. But put the Eindekker in
the hands of a novice pilot against a highly skilled adversary in an
aircraft without the design advantages of the Eindekker, and the design
advantages could easily be nullified....and even in a specific scenario,
where the Eindekker pilot hasn't the experience in type to take full
advantage of the aircraft's design advantage......easily reversed into a
negative for the Eindekker. The important point in all this is that in
fighter comparison, the data isn't really explored in the format you're
using.
I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, and you most certainly can make
a case for a particular aircraft as a stand out in it's time. The Eindekker
is a good example of that. I'm only telling you that we in the community
take the format you are trying to nail down as moot when it comes to a
discussion of fighters in the real world.
I'm also aware that what I'm
telling you isn't necessarily tied to the format you're discussing here. I'm
only passing it on to you as general information that you might want to
consider when discussing fighter comparison in ANY format . I know you guys
like to be as
accurate as possible when you get into these things, and the information I'm
giving you is simply some of the factors we consider when making up
comparison analysis format for 1v1. I hope it's helpful to you.
What you have said about the Eindekker, and what Stephen has said about the
262 and the Zeke are pertinent , and perhaps even more pertinent then
what I'm telling you for the format you're discussing.......as long as you
don't come down to a 1v1 scenario :-))))
Bottom line on this issue as it would be seen in the flight test community
is this. As long as you are just considering design advances per se, you can
safely discuss an individual airplane as a standout for it's time; but as
soon as you take that design advantage and put it into the sky with another
airplane, the whole ball game changes to exactly what I have explained about
delta comparison fighter analysis.
All the best,
David Nicholls
"John Carrier" <jx...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:EvudnR4IbpQ...@comcast.com...
<snip>
> To return to the topic, I'd cast a vote for the F-8. Best air superiority
> fighter in the US arsenal for its era (mid-50's competing with century
> series, etc). Best kill ratio in real world combat (Vietnam). Best ramp
> strike rate ... oh well.
>
> R / John
>
What about the Sea Harrier FRS.1 in the Falklands, with 20+ kills and no Air
to Air losses? Operating when outnumbered with about 5 Argentinian combat
a/c for every Harrier in service.
David
EB Jet
>It certainly wasn't offering CCIP bombing
>to the standard already well established by the F-16.
If I recall correctly,the F-20 had a CEP of 6 mils in CCIP bombing(I think 8
mils in CCRP,but don't hold me to that),which is pretty comparable to an F-16..
>the lack of AIM-7F
>(and AIM-120) capability meant it was quick to the fight but without
>credible weapons.
The F-20 fired both AIM-7M and AIM-120 during weapons trials,I have a vid
showing both.
ArVa
Thank you very much for this story, Ed.
I once read an article (with great pictures as the Australians gave some of
their planes really nice, colourful paint schemes) about the
de-commissioning of the Mirage III from the RAAF by the end of the 80's, in
which one pilot who had flown about the whole Western production of the
second half of the 20th century said this plane had the best flight commands
he had ever used and was really great to fly.
But since the guy was about to retire and the Mirage was his last plane,
maybe he was a little bit biased. I guess (fighter) pilots have a natural
tendency to cherish their last bird more than the ones they have previously
flown, don't they?
Regards,
ArVa
Lyle
so did the F-16, but you know what they say, puting a Sparrow on a
F-20/F-16 would be like puting a anchor on it. The F-16XL fixed this
by haveing the missles conformal. it could carry 4 Sparrows or Amraams
on the underside of the fusulage with very little drag. This is one of
the reasons why they carry the amraams on the wingtips.
Drewe Manton
news:aa532be4.03072...@posting.google.com:
Thanks for that. . . .if nothing else you've done a fine job of selling
those two books to me. . . they are now on the list!
--
--------
Regards
Drewe
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
Greg Hennessy
> The F-16XL fixed this
>by haveing the missles conformal. it could carry 4 Sparrows or Amraams
>on the underside of the fusulage with very little drag.
Would a single seat XL been available in time as an alternative to rolling
out the 'C' model I wonder ? The increase in capability over the standard
planform makes for an interesting 'what if'.
JDupre5762
>evidence
>> did you get to see in order to validate these claims?
>1.) What kind of evidence is there?
>Actually multiple: starting from eyewitness accounts, via comprehensive
>official records (including gun-camera shots, photographs of the wreckage
>etc.), down to intel reports (via FOIA inquiries). In over 80% of the cases
>we were very well able to cross-check the infos.
>3.) Does any other nation confirm Iranian claims?
>Nation: not. Service: yes (several of them).
>
>4.) Does the Iraqi order of battle and other sources really support 300 plus
>losses over 8 years?
>In fact, they support a loss of something like 450 aircraft and approx 150
>helicopters.
>
Lots of other stuff in reply as well.
Thanks so much for clarifying those points. Your book now goes close to the top
of my wish list. Fascinating stuff.
Any list or account of fighter or helicopter aces?
John Dupre'
Tom Cooper
news:20030724070325...@mb-m03.aol.com...
<snip>
>
> Any list or account of fighter or helicopter aces?
One of the problems with research to this topic is that many of the names of
those that survived can't be named in public, while most of those that can -
are dead. With other words: we named only those we could.
But, we interviewed almost 100 pilots from both sides, so there are plenty
of narratives in both books (BTW, next year also "Iranian F-14 Units in
Combat" will follow - again in Osprey's "Combat Aircraft" series).
Tom Cooper
"Drewe Manton" <dr...@btinternet.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns93C256DA394CFd...@130.133.1.4...
>
> Thanks for that. . . .if nothing else you've done a fine job of selling
> those two books to me. . . they are now on the list!
Thanks goes to you; I'm sure you'll find the results of our work
interesting. There are plenty of exclusive photos (including gun camera
shots, recce photos etc.) and different other - completely new -
informations, as well as pilot narratives in both books.
All the reactions to the first book are extremely positive, even if it some
parts were not that well edited.
Ed Rasimus
I can't argue authoritatively regarding the CCIP statement, other than
to note that there were no conventional weapons computer delivery
control heads in the F-20 cockpit we used in the dome at Northrop. If
such a system were available, it wasn't part of the FMS proposal.
The F-20 A/A suite was upgraded at end-game, when it was several years
without a single FMS customer. The last gasp option was to sell the
airplane as a "low-cost" (everything is relative!) option to the ANG
units for air defense applications. The airplane lost that battle to
F-15A and F-16A hand-me-downs as active units converted to C models.
One of the main problems of the airplane was the lack of avionics
growth space. I never saw either weapon as part of the proposal for
FMS sales. Radar missile technology, particularly current
generation/upgraded systems, were definitely not on the list of stuff
we were going to give up to any but our closest allies such as Israel.
Ed Rasimus
>But since the guy was about to retire and the Mirage was his last plane,
>maybe he was a little bit biased. I guess (fighter) pilots have a natural
>tendency to cherish their last bird more than the ones they have previously
>flown, don't they?
>
>Regards,
>ArVa
>
Well, for most of us, it's the first fighter, not the last that holds
the special place. Here's what no less a personage than Ernest
Hemingway had to say about love of fighters:
"You love a lot of things if you live around them, but there isn't any
woman and there isn't any horse, nor any before nor any after, that is
as lovely as a great airplane, and men who love them are faithful to
them even though they leave them for others. A man has only one
virginity to lose in fighters, and if it is a lovely plane he loses it
to, there his heart will ever be."
- Ernest Hemingway, August 1944.
Ed Rasimus
>> Duh? Here's where those qualifications come into play. While the F-14
>> with its programmed wing-sweep and well-BVR weapons had some
>> advantages over the F-15, when you get to close engagements, the Eagle
>> is considerably more agile than the Tom.
>
>Well, not actually. The F-15 has sufficiently superior T/W to the F-14A
>that through careful energy management and skill, the F-15 will win the
>engagement ... but in terms of instantaneous turn, pitch rate, etc, it's not
>quite the equal of the Tom. Put the F110 engines in (F-14B/D) and it's
>quite different. T/W is almost equal and the F-14 has an advantage
>throughout much of the envelope. I think the F-15 weapon's system is
>superior in most environments ... obviously so when AMRAAM is in the mix
>(personally I think those individuals that denied the F-14 the AMRAAM ought
>to face charges).
The voice of experience is hard to disagree with. My impression had
always been that the Eagle was considerably more agile, but the AIM-54
and TWS ability to engage multiple targets simultaneously made the Tom
a very dangerous airplane. I'd have to look at the performance charts
and find some Ps corners to compare. Regardless of outcome, I'll stand
by the original challenge regarding the Tom having distinct
superiority over the Eagle.
>
>My opportunities to engage the Eagle in the Turkey were somewhat limited,
>but when gas was not an issue (ie: I had a tanker and the use of A/B) I had
>little difficulty in gaining a pipper-on guns position.
You've said a mouthful there. If you can't have full reheat available
in every engagement you're distinctly handicapped.
>
>OTOH, while in a Phantom, I found myself quite helpless. I think the only
>thing I could do where I might have had no disadvantage was to depart the
>jet. The single seat A-4 (as configured for adversary work) often
>frustrated the "superior" F-15.\
My first encounter with a Tom while in a Phantom (an exercise in the
Med against America around '77) was to be intercepted during a low
(very) altitude attack on the boat. The -14 got vectored against me
from the left front quadrant--I picked him up visually at 10 o'clock
with about 150 degree heading crossing angle. Because I was (as usual)
very fast, I told the WSO--"no sweat, he's going to overshoot big
time" --followed immediately by an absolutely amazed, "holy shit, did
you see that" as the Tom did an incredible bat-turn into firing
parameters.
And regarding F-15s--I was often quite successful against Eagles when
working 2-v-2 in the lowly AT-38, provided the ROE was VID and the
Eagles were driven by relatively inexperienced guys. With a high-time
wingman and operating in fluid attack, we could run out of film taking
high angle gun shots.
>
>To return to the topic, I'd cast a vote for the F-8. Best air superiority
>fighter in the US arsenal for its era (mid-50's competing with century
>series, etc). Best kill ratio in real world combat (Vietnam). Best ramp
>strike rate ... oh well.
Kill ratio for the F-8 is the highest, but the numbers involved reduce
the stat to irrelevance. Not enough kills to be statistically
significant. Still, had there been enough of them and had the war been
one of air superiority, it sure would have been nice to have a whole
herd of F-8s.
David Lentz
John Carrier wrote:
>
> > Duh? Here's where those qualifications come into play. While the F-14
> > with its programmed wing-sweep and well-BVR weapons had some
> > advantages over the F-15, when you get to close engagements, the Eagle
> > is considerably more agile than the Tom.
>
> Well, not actually. The F-15 has sufficiently superior T/W to the F-14A
> that through careful energy management and skill, the F-15 will win the
> engagement ... but in terms of instantaneous turn, pitch rate, etc, it's not
> quite the equal of the Tom. Put the F110 engines in (F-14B/D) and it's
> quite different. T/W is almost equal and the F-14 has an advantage
> throughout much of the envelope. I think the F-15 weapon's system is
> superior in most environments ... obviously so when AMRAAM is in the mix
> (personally I think those individuals that denied the F-14 the AMRAAM ought
> to face charges).
I think the Navy is more concerned about getting rid of the F-14,
than extending their service life. The F-14 was bought as a
fleet defense fighter and that mission is not a major concern of
the Navy.
The carrier battle group has become the gun boat of the Twenty
First Century and the F-18 and F-35 are seen as better
multimission fighters.
David
John Halliwell
<ph...@cabalamat.org> writes
>Me 262. First operational jet fighter.
The Meteor went operational 8 days before the Me 262, the Me 262 may
have been the first jet fighter to fly, but it wasn't the first
operational.
--
John
ArVa
I first thought that the plane you are about to fly for the *last* time was
the most important, as a career's achievement and the last opportunity to be
part of a rather special community. But reading your answer and Ernest
Hemingway's statement I guess both of you are right. I didn't pay attention
enough to the emotional factor.
As for me, I never had nor will have the opportunity to fly a fighter and I
don't own a horse so it just leaves me with the women (which is not so bad),
but if I do remember the first one, the last in date is the one I prefer...
:-)
Regards,
ArVa
ArtKramr
>From: "ArVa" arva@no_spam_os.fr
>Date: 7/24/03 12:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3f202cca$0$15892$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>
To me it is the B-26 Martin Marauder. One in particular, " Willie the Wolf,
King Nine Jig. He had a stout heart of steel.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
phil hunt
>In article <slrnbhuahp...@cabalamat.cabalamat.com>, phil hunt
><ph...@cabalamat.org> writes
>>Me 262. First operational jet fighter.
>
>The Meteor went operational 8 days before the Me 262, the Me 262 may
>have been the first jet fighter to fly,
Ther He 280 flew before the Me 262.
>but it wasn't the first
>operational.
I stand corrected.
--
A: top posting
Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?
Ed Rasimus
>
>"Ed Rasimus" <ras...@adelphia.net> a écrit dans le message de
>> Well, for most of us, it's the first fighter, not the last that holds
>> the special place. Here's what no less a personage than Ernest
>> Hemingway had to say about love of fighters:
>>
>> "You love a lot of things if you live around them, but there isn't any
>> woman and there isn't any horse, nor any before nor any after, that is
>> as lovely as a great airplane, and men who love them are faithful to
>> them even though they leave them for others. A man has only one
>> virginity to lose in fighters, and if it is a lovely plane he loses it
>> to, there his heart will ever be."
>>
>> - Ernest Hemingway, August 1944.
>>
>I first thought that the plane you are about to fly for the *last* time was
>the most important, as a career's achievement and the last opportunity to be
>part of a rather special community. But reading your answer and Ernest
>Hemingway's statement I guess both of you are right. I didn't pay attention
>enough to the emotional factor.
Well, you didn't ask, but the reason I had the Hemingway quote handy,
is that I'm using it in my current project which is the story of my
F-4 combat tour during Linebacker I/II. Here's the follow up (in my
words) to the quote:
"Poppa was right on. I'd lost my cherry to the Thunderchief long
before I got my Phantom assignment. I'd wanted to fly the Thud from
the first day I'd seen one and I'd been fortunate to have been able to
meet the girl of my dreams, woo her and take her to bed in the vicious
days of Rolling Thunder. I'd lost my heart, my soul, my virginity to
an airplane with one seat, one engine and a gun. I'd been alone in bad
guy land in what was absolutely the best airplane in the world and I'd
been brought home safely more than one hundred times. How could one
not love her?
Now I was headed to F-4 school. I'd spent the last five years sparring
with Phantom drivers, sometimes seriously, sometimes jokingly about
the deficiencies of their airplane and the superiority of mine. There
were some deep-rooted issues regarding the views of the airplanes. On
the one hand, there was the simple issue of assignment out of pilot
training. I'd been fortunate enough to have the skills, the desire
and, most importantly, the healthy dose of luck required to gain an
assignment to a single seat fighter. The numbers told the story. There
were eight undergraduate pilot training bases pumping out USAF pilots
in a class every six weeks all year around. That meant about 325 new
second lieutenants joining the force every month and a half of which
nine would get to fly the F-105. The Phantom community was restricted
at that time to experienced pilots in the front seat and new graduate
pilots in the rear cockpit. In my graduating class there had been one
hundred and forty guys sent to back-seat pilot duties in the F-4. It
wasn't difficult to feel a bit superior. Nine guys got laid by a queen
of the prom and 140 got sloppy seconds with a fat, smoky,
double-breasted ex-Navy airplane that didn't even have a gun."
Harry Andreas
<rapp...@nmu.edu> wrote:
> My question is this: Which fighter had the clearest advantage over it's
> the other fighters of it's time frame?
Tested but not fielded, I'll vote for the YF-12.
Just the test results changed the whole Soviet approach to attacking CONUS.
Not to mention the first look-down shoot-down doppler radar.
Shooting down a target flying at (IIRC) 1500 feet while ownship cruise at
70,000. Part of this was the missile of course, but no fighter a/c lives
in isolation without it's weapons.
Range, speed, altitude and weapons were clearly superior to anything else
flying at the time.
--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur
John Carrier
> than extending their service life. The F-14 was bought as a
> fleet defense fighter and that mission is not a major concern of
> the Navy.
Very true. But the aircraft remains the best deep strike machine in the
CVBG commander's arsenal, despite the fact that the weapons system has never
been configured for some of the more exotic ordnance. Most of its basic
systems are not state of the art and coupled with age have made it a
maintenance nightmare. As maintainability is a big issue for any aircraft,
the F-14 will certainly go. One of the drivers is that with limited
capital, the Navy would rather spend its money elsewhere ... even if it
means accepting the newer machinery's limitations...in the case of the F-18
there are many.
> The carrier battle group has become the gun boat of the Twenty
> First Century and the F-18 and F-35 are seen as better
> multimission fighters.
As the F-18 has had the investment to accommodate weapons the F-14 has not
been given, true. The price is airframe performance. I think the F-35
might well be the airplane we really want.
R / John
Asbjörn
> In article <vhsaf97...@corp.supernews.com>, "Charles Talleyrand"
> <rapp...@nmu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>My question is this: Which fighter had the clearest advantage over it's
>>the other fighters of it's time frame?
>
>
> Tested but not fielded, I'll vote for the YF-12.
How about the F-101!? Fielded and tested...
Asbjorn
Ed Rasimus
>How about the F-101!? Fielded and tested...
>Asbjorn
Name one thing that the F-101 could do signifiicantly better than
other aircraft of the period--except for suddenly departing from
controlled flight at the most inopportune moments.
Thomas Schoene
news:trTTa.109335$EQ5.1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com
> I think the Navy is more concerned about getting rid of the F-14,
> than extending their service life. The F-14 was bought as a
> fleet defense fighter and that mission is not a major concern of
> the Navy.
And yet, even as it fades out of service, the F-14 is often touted as the
air wing's premiere strike asset.
> The carrier battle group has become the gun boat of the Twenty
> First Century and the F-18 and F-35 are seen as better
> multimission fighters.
Which is a real pity. The Navy could probably have achieved almost
everything it got in the Super Hornet with a modernized F-14 (Tomcat-21, for
example) for far less effort.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
mikema...@yahoo.com
>>How about the F-101!? Fielded and tested...
>>Asbjorn
>Name one thing that the F-101 could do signifiicantly better than
>other aircraft of the period--except for suddenly departing from
>controlled flight at the most inopportune moments.
Watching them as a kid around ADC bases, they *seemed* to
be able to outclimb the dueces and even the sixes (never saw
an F-104 fly until after the Voodoo's were sent off to Canada).
FWIW, they were definitely impressive (huge!) looking whether
on the ground or in the air and the roll rate was amazingly fast
for its size (wings level to 90-deg. angle-of-bank in the blink of
an eye). And a much sleeker, nicer looking twin-engined jet compared
to its younger, more capable F-4 brethren. Of course, no matter how
fast it could roll, the -101 turn radius was Boeing 727-like as the
-101 just seemed to continue flying straight regardless of
angle-of-bank 'till it reached the next county.
BTW, the -105 was equally as impressive due to its huge size, and
their long-legged gear hanging down and high angle-of-attack landing
approaches. Seemed the -101 and -105 flew the 360-deg. overhead
approaches at .9+ mach!
My vote for "best fighter for its time":
WW1-- Fokker D VII,
WW2 -- P-51D
Korea -- F-86A
Vietnam -- F-4E
Post 'Nam-to-Present -- F-15E
-Mike Marron
Charles Talleyrand
Fokker Eindekker (guns through the propeller arc, monoplane, wildly successful for it's time)
I-16 (I'm told this one)
Me-109 (first low-wing retractable gear used in large quantities)
Me-262 (First jet used in large quantities)
Harrier (VTOL)
F-117 (Stealth)
My list of other revolutionary aircraft
Bell Huey (first helo used in large numbers????)
AH-1 (first custom attack helo)
V-22 (first tilt-prop if it gets fielded)
B-70 (huge performance over other bombers but never fielded)
SR-71 (huge performance over any fighter)
E-4 AWACS (unique for it's day)
What's missing is the first fighter with a real AA missile/radar system that worked well.
Would that be the Mig-21/F-4/MirageIII or something else?
Finally, note I'm tempted to put the F-22 on this list not because of it's stealth or it's
performance (since these things have been done before) but because of it's networking
abilities. Would this be reasonable?
Keith Willshaw
"Charles Talleyrand" <rapp...@nmu.edu> wrote in message
news:vi1b5k1...@corp.supernews.com...
> My list of revolutionary fighters
>
> Fokker Eindekker (guns through the propeller arc, monoplane, wildly
successful for it's time)
> I-16 (I'm told this one)
> Me-109 (first low-wing retractable gear used in large quantities)
Hardly, the I-16 was a low wing monoplane with retractable gear
even if we discount that the Me-109 development was pretty
much in step with the Hurricane
The first Me-109 flight happened flown on September 5 1935
and enetered service in July 1937
The Hawker Hurricane first flew November 6,1935
and entered squadron service December 1937
> Me-262 (First jet used in large quantities)
As has already been pointed out the Meteor entered squadron
service BEFORE the Me-262
> Harrier (VTOL)
> F-117 (Stealth)
>
> My list of other revolutionary aircraft
> Bell Huey (first helo used in large numbers????)
Incorrect the Bell 47 preceded it by almost a decade
and remained in production until 1976
Keith
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
> Me-109 (first low-wing retractable gear used in large quantities)
First low-wing, unbraced, retractable-gear monomplane fighter to be used
in large quanitities was the i16..
--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
Cub Driver
>> My list of other revolutionary aircraft
>> Bell Huey (first helo used in large numbers????)
>
>Incorrect the Bell 47 preceded it by almost a decade
>and remained in production until 1976
Still, the Huey was a revolutionary aircraft because it was the first
to demonstrate that air-mobile warfare was practical. Not for nothing
that the whomp-whomp-whomp of a Huey's rotors is the seminal sound of
Vietnam.
I spent more Huey time skiing in the Canadian Rockies than I did
tootling around Vietnam, but still it's the rain forest and paddy
fields that I see whenever I hear those blades thumping. The Huey and
the M-16 are the tools with which we fought that war, and each was a
revolution, for the U.S. Army if not for combat generally.
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub
tadaa
stealth or it's
> performance (since these things have been done before) but because of it's
networking
> abilities. Would this be reasonable?
Haven't the mig-31's had this for ages?
And I tought that finnish f-18's had this too.
John Carrier
R / John
"Ed Rasimus" <ras...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:0sl0iv03q0c7ac2lt...@4ax.com...
Ed Rasimus
>Not bad as a recce aircraft according to a Reserve General friend.
>
>R / John
>
The RF-101 certainly carried a recce burden during the early years of
SEA, but it was pix only and didn't offer near the product that came
from the RF-4C.
Kirk Stant
> Med against America around '77) was to be intercepted during a low
> (very) altitude attack on the boat. The -14 got vectored against me
> from the left front quadrant--I picked him up visually at 10 o'clock
> with about 150 degree heading crossing angle. Because I was (as usual)
> very fast, I told the WSO--"no sweat, he's going to overshoot big
> time" --followed immediately by an absolutely amazed, "holy shit, did
> you see that" as the Tom did an incredible bat-turn into firing
> parameters.
Been there seen that! I did have one fight where my flight of
Phantoms (Chiefs out of S-J), with the help of a couple of Marine
Harriers out of Cherry Point, waxed a pair of Turkeys off some boat in
the Atlantic. Med alt head on setup, ROE was BVR but no Phoenix, we
ran in in tac spread (in mil power on our diesel J-79s) with a Harrier
tucked in tight on each Phantom. Just outside AIM-7 R-Max (I think),
we chaffed and did a 180 and dragged, smoking all the way, while the
Harriers split vertically to the bottom of the block. As planned, the
Turkeys glommed on to us and chased us, giving the Harriers
simultaneous, unobserved,low to high vertical conversions to Aim-9
kills followed by some guns tracking (Amazing how Marines love
shooting at the Navy). At this point we had pitched back, called the
Harriers off, and blazed in for a high speed F0X 1, FOX 2, Snap shot
to a separation. Poor Turkeys never got a shot off. God it was fun!
Kirk Stant
WSO (Ret)
ArtKramr
>Date: 7/25/03 9:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <dc8b21a6.0307...@posting.google.com>
Great stuff. More. More. More.
mikema...@yahoo.com
>Great stuff. More. More. More.
I'd have ya' shittin' yer pants in my *ultralight*, hardguy.
-Mike Marron
Ed Rasimus
>Been there seen that! I did have one fight where my flight of
>Phantoms (Chiefs out of S-J), with the help of a couple of Marine
>Harriers out of Cherry Point, waxed a pair of Turkeys off some boat in
>the Atlantic. Med alt head on setup, ROE was BVR but no Phoenix, we
>ran in in tac spread (in mil power on our diesel J-79s) with a Harrier
>tucked in tight on each Phantom. Just outside AIM-7 R-Max (I think),
>we chaffed and did a 180 and dragged, smoking all the way, while the
>Harriers split vertically to the bottom of the block. As planned, the
>Turkeys glommed on to us and chased us, giving the Harriers
>simultaneous, unobserved,low to high vertical conversions to Aim-9
>kills followed by some guns tracking (Amazing how Marines love
>shooting at the Navy). At this point we had pitched back, called the
>Harriers off, and blazed in for a high speed F0X 1, FOX 2, Snap shot
>to a separation. Poor Turkeys never got a shot off. God it was fun!
>
Great story. My comments--you can get away with that in training ACM,
but if it were for real you'd have to have "cojones al piedra" to pull
the trick. Assurance that your R-Max is the same for the bad guys
based pm intel takes a lot of confidence. Second, I'm surprised that a
Harrier can stay with a Phantom "in mil power on our diesel J-79s".
Third, I don't think I'd have the faith that my staunch Marine allies
would make the vertical conversion in a Harrier against a Tom in full
blow pursuit of the Phantoms. Finally, your pitch back, acquisition
and rapid FOXing shows a bit of befuddlement from the Nasal Radiators,
since they should have been face shooting you at the same rate.
All that said, it sounds like a bold plan well-executed. My own
experience in low-tech vs high-tech ACM often did the same thing--a
vertical rather than horizontal split of the element. Seems that young
aggressive warriors fixate on the first target and only sporadically
search for the second (despite the training artificiality of knowing
all the players). They search in sweep for the remainder, but seldom
scroll up and down to find the other threat.
I guess it reinforces what Dudley has already mentioned extensively
here--the training, experience and quality of the driver will often
compensate for the technology of the system.
phil hunt
>My list of revolutionary fighters
>
> Fokker Eindekker (guns through the propeller arc, monoplane, wildly successful for it's time)
> I-16 (I'm told this one)
> Me-109 (first low-wing retractable gear used in large quantities)
And reputedly built in larger quantities than any other aircraft.
> Me-262 (First jet used in large quantities)
> Harrier (VTOL)
> F-117 (Stealth)
I'd quibble with the last one; the F-117 isn't really a fighter (has
it ever shot down another aircraft?)
>My list of other revolutionary aircraft
> Bell Huey (first helo used in large numbers????)
> AH-1 (first custom attack helo)
> V-22 (first tilt-prop if it gets fielded)
> B-70 (huge performance over other bombers but never fielded)
> SR-71 (huge performance over any fighter)
> E-4 AWACS (unique for it's day)
I think the Montgolfier balloon and Wright Flyer were fairly
revolutionary; but you seem to be restricting your self to combat
aircraft.
>Finally, note I'm tempted to put the F-22 on this list not because of it's stealth or it's
>performance (since these things have been done before) but because of it's networking
>abilities.
Which are?
Charles Talleyrand
"Keith Willshaw" <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:bfqr27$bau$1...@selma.aspentech.com...
I accept correction on the Me-109. I was just repeating what I had been told. Oops.
> > Me-262 (First jet used in large quantities)
>
> As has already been pointed out the Meteor entered squadron
> service BEFORE the Me-262
That's true. But did the Meteor ever DO anything? Clearly the Me-262 saw
actual combat service, downing and being downed in large-ish numbers.
>
> > Harrier (VTOL)
> > F-117 (Stealth)
> >
> > My list of other revolutionary aircraft
> > Bell Huey (first helo used in large numbers????)
>
> Incorrect the Bell 47 preceded it by almost a decade
> and remained in production until 1976
Oops. I knew that!!!
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Charles Talleyrand <rapp...@nmu.edu> wrote:
>
>"Keith Willshaw" <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:bfqr27$bau$1...@selma.aspentech.com...
>
>I accept correction on the Me-109. I was just repeating what I had been told. Oops.
>> service BEFORE the Me-262
>
>That's true. But did the Meteor ever DO anything? Clearly the Me-262 saw
>actual combat service, downing and being downed in large-ish numbers.
In WW2 the Meteor F1 was mainly used for anti-V1 work, at which it was
successful, being faster, for longer, low down than 'most anything else.
If you count this as downing things, the Meteor F1 certainly downed
things. The much-improved F3 went into service in 1945, flying both from
the UK and from airfields in liberated areas, but there were restrictions
on flying over german-occupied territory for fear that the Germans might
get their hands on jet engines which actually worked properly (the engines
of the 262 were not in the same league for service life or combat
efficiency as the Derwents in the Meteor - the german engines, it is
claimed, had a nasty tendency to flame out when the throttle setting was
changed quickly - jsut what you don't want).
The Meat Box saw a lot of service post-war with a lot of countries,
generally being $NATION's first jet, where $NATION is any of a pretty
large number. I'm pretty sure it saw combat with some of these states.
One of the nations which used the Meteor was Argentina, where Adolf
Galland flew them and rated tham as better then the 262.
Admittedly, the Meteor (in RAAF service) did poorly over Korea against the
MiG-15, but tactics seem to have been flawed, not making the most of the
Meat Box's extremely good acceleration and trying to turn rather than
burn - the Meteor was not agile, unless handled by an exception pilot
(Zura, for example..). Against that, Meteors held the world ultimate speed
record several times, including pushing it over 500 and then, IIRC, up
to 600 mph, and had a very long service life. The RAF was still using
Meteors in supporting roles well into the 1980s and one example - Martin
Baker's ejection seat trials test-bed - is still in use with a service
number, so it could be said the Meteor is still in service use after 60
years.
And that's the last and possibly most important claim to fame of the
Meteor - as the workhorse of Martin-Baker's ejection seat programme since
the 1940s it's probably been responsible for saving the lives of more
pilots than any other aeroplane.
Not bad for a stop-gap design.
Cub Driver
>> As has already been pointed out the Meteor entered squadron
>> service BEFORE the Me-262
>
>That's true. But did the Meteor ever DO anything? Clearly the Me-262 saw
>actual combat service, downing and being downed in large-ish numbers.
I agree with Charles. If the criterion is first, then the Bell P-59A
beat the Meteor and is the revolutionary aircraft.
The Me-262 changed warfare utterly. I think everyone who saw that
plane in action, or who even heard about it, knew that the future
would not be the same as the recent past. That's what revolutionary
means.
Sticking the Meteor in there is like all the arguments that arise
trying to prove that the Wright brothers didn't bring the world into
the age of flight, or that Columbus didn't "discover" America. It's
just national pride, or plain cussedness that won't accept the
judgment of history.
M. J. Powell
<a...@aber.ac.uk> writes
snip
>And that's the last and possibly most important claim to fame of the
>Meteor - as the workhorse of Martin-Baker's ejection seat programme since
>the 1940s it's probably been responsible for saving the lives of more
>pilots than any other aeroplane.
Except for being the subject of the first joke I heard in the RAF:
Two airmen looking up at a contrail.
"It's an NF11"
"No, it's an NF12"
"What's the difference"?
"Different jacking points".
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Keith Willshaw
>
> "Keith Willshaw" <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bfqr27$bau$1...@selma.aspentech.com...
>
> I accept correction on the Me-109. I was just repeating what I had been
told. Oops.
>
> > > Me-262 (First jet used in large quantities)
> >
> > As has already been pointed out the Meteor entered squadron
> > service BEFORE the Me-262
>
> That's true. But did the Meteor ever DO anything? Clearly the Me-262 saw
> actual combat service, downing and being downed in large-ish numbers.
>
Well yes, amongst other things it knocked down V-1's and served
in air forces around the world including the RAF and RAAF in Korea
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Cub Driver" <lo...@my.sig.fil> wrote in message
news:pmm4ivc29m03h3vl6...@4ax.com...
>
> >> As has already been pointed out the Meteor entered squadron
> >> service BEFORE the Me-262
> >
> >That's true. But did the Meteor ever DO anything? Clearly the Me-262
saw
> >actual combat service, downing and being downed in large-ish numbers.
>
> I agree with Charles. If the criterion is first, then the Bell P-59A
> beat the Meteor and is the revolutionary aircraft.
>
If the criterion is first to fly then the Germans flew the first aircraft
followed by the Gloster E28/39, on 15. May 1941, from Cranwell
and the Meteor and Vampire in 1943
The Bell P-59A didnt make its first flight until October 1942
and used a General Electric Model 1-A, an improved version
of the "Whittle" engine
Its a matter of record that the first jet aircraft to enter squadron
service was the Gloster Meteor with 616 Squadron on July 12 1944
> The Me-262 changed warfare utterly. I think everyone who saw that
> plane in action, or who even heard about it, knew that the future
> would not be the same as the recent past. That's what revolutionary
> means.
>
> Sticking the Meteor in there is like all the arguments that arise
> trying to prove that the Wright brothers didn't bring the world into
> the age of flight, or that Columbus didn't "discover" America. It's
> just national pride, or plain cussedness that won't accept the
> judgment of history.
>
No comment
Keith
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
M. J. Powell <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Except for being the subject of the first joke I heard in the RAF:
>
>Two airmen looking up at a contrail.
>
>"It's an NF11"
>
>"No, it's an NF12"
>
>"What's the difference"?
>
>"Different jacking points".
I *like* that.
Thanks, Mike.
Charles Talleyrand
"Keith Willshaw" <keith@kwillshaw_NoSpam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:bftn6q$st1$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > actual combat service, downing and being downed in large-ish numbers.
> >
>
> Well yes, amongst other things it knocked down V-1's and served
> in air forces around the world including the RAF and RAAF in Korea
The after 1944 doesn't count since it wasn't revolutionary by then, for the
same reasons the Dreadnought was a revolution in 1905 but not in 1915.
Being the first to enter squadron service does count, but knocking down
V-1s is not so very impressive since planes of the previous generation could
do this with reasonable ease.
My impression is that the Me-262 was doing almost all the things a figher
was asked to do, and the Meteor was not. Part of this is likely the desperate needs
of the Germans and the abundence of good planes from the previous generation
of the allies.
The Me-262 is famous for being first regardless of facts. Why is that?
Ken Duffey
> "Keith Willshaw" <keith@kwillshaw_NoSpam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:bftn6q$st1$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > "Charles Talleyrand" <rapp...@nmu.edu> wrote in message
> > > That's true. But did the Meteor ever DO anything? Clearly the Me-262 saw
> > > actual combat service, downing and being downed in large-ish numbers.
> > >
> >
> > Well yes, amongst other things it knocked down V-1's and served
> > in air forces around the world including the RAF and RAAF in Korea
>
snip............
> The Me-262 is famous for being first regardless of facts. Why is that?
Because it is German - and 'sexy' - the Meteor is clearly neither.
It is just a competent design that was, in many respects, better than the Me-262.
You only have to look at the amount of model kits of German subjects - aircraft and tanks - on the market today.
They vastly outnumber kits of other nations weapons.
There seems to be an enduring fascination with all things German in WWII. Some people are still blinded by the seeming
superiority of German weaponry and will not brook any argument to the contrary.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Keith Willshaw
And a British policy of not allowing the Meteor over enemy held territory
> The Me-262 is famous for being first regardless of facts. Why is that?
>
People are ignorant of the facts.
Keith
ArVa
news:fde0ivgcvvr860nko...@4ax.com...
>
> Well, you didn't ask, but the reason I had the Hemingway quote handy,
> is that I'm using it in my current project which is the story of my
> F-4 combat tour during Linebacker I/II. Here's the follow up (in my
> words) to the quote:
>
> "Poppa was right on. I'd lost my cherry to the Thunderchief long
> before I got my Phantom assignment. I'd wanted to fly the Thud from
> the first day I'd seen one and I'd been fortunate to have been able to
> meet the girl of my dreams, woo her and take her to bed in the vicious
> days of Rolling Thunder. I'd lost my heart, my soul, my virginity to
> an airplane with one seat, one engine and a gun. I'd been alone in bad
> guy land in what was absolutely the best airplane in the world and I'd
> been brought home safely more than one hundred times. How could one
> not love her?
>
> Now I was headed to F-4 school. I'd spent the last five years sparring
> with Phantom drivers, sometimes seriously, sometimes jokingly about
> the deficiencies of their airplane and the superiority of mine. There
> were some deep-rooted issues regarding the views of the airplanes. On
> the one hand, there was the simple issue of assignment out of pilot
> training. I'd been fortunate enough to have the skills, the desire
> and, most importantly, the healthy dose of luck required to gain an
> assignment to a single seat fighter. The numbers told the story. There
> were eight undergraduate pilot training bases pumping out USAF pilots
> in a class every six weeks all year around. That meant about 325 new
> second lieutenants joining the force every month and a half of which
> nine would get to fly the F-105. The Phantom community was restricted
> at that time to experienced pilots in the front seat and new graduate
> pilots in the rear cockpit. In my graduating class there had been one
> hundred and forty guys sent to back-seat pilot duties in the F-4. It
> wasn't difficult to feel a bit superior. Nine guys got laid by a queen
> of the prom and 140 got sloppy seconds with a fat, smoky,
> double-breasted ex-Navy airplane that didn't even have a gun."
>
>
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (ret)
> ***"When Thunder Rolled:
> *** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
> *** from Smithsonian Books
> ISBN: 1588341038
To keep your metaphore, hadn't the queen of the prom got a twin sister
nicknamed "G" who also used to date two guys at the same time? And not only
helped these same guys to practice their dancing skills in her Uncle Sam's
garage but also gave them some real action on the dancefloor of some North
Vietnamese highschools?
I mean, was the most important to you to be alone in the cockpit, "in an
aircraft with one seat", or just to fly the gun-equipped, frisky F-105,
whatever was the version? Did you have the same feelings for both the F-105G
pilots and the Phantom assigned pilots?
ArVa
Ed Rasimus
>To keep your metaphore, hadn't the queen of the prom got a twin sister
>nicknamed "G" who also used to date two guys at the same time? And not only
>helped these same guys to practice their dancing skills in her Uncle Sam's
>garage but also gave them some real action on the dancefloor of some North
>Vietnamese highschools?
>I mean, was the most important to you to be alone in the cockpit, "in an
>aircraft with one seat", or just to fly the gun-equipped, frisky F-105,
>whatever was the version? Did you have the same feelings for both the F-105G
>pilots and the Phantom assigned pilots?
>
>ArVa
>
Someone will accuse you of being my shill for book promotion.
At the time of the prom in question, the two seater was the F model
and it was used in training. It wasn't much good as a training
airplane since visibility was so bad from the back seat that a student
or instructor (whomever was riding in the R/C/P) could neither take
off or land from that vantage. The F-model Weasel came into the war in
late May of '66 and proved itself very capable. The G-Weasel, which
was an upgraded F, not a new production aircraft, continued improving
capability to detect and attack SAM sites through the end of the war.
Yes, it was important to be in a single-seat, single-engine,
gun-equipped airplane. That's the traditional configuration of a
fighter. If one aspired to be a fighter pilot, one did it in that
format.
Now, I have the deepest respect for the F-105 Weasel pilots (both F
and G), since I flew beside them--first in the 105D in '66 and then
when I returned to the war in '72 and specialized in Hunter/Killer ops
flying the F-4E in teams with the 105G.
I've got deep respect as well for Phantom pilots, since I've got four
times as much flying time in the F-4C/D/E as I do in the 105.
And, I'm proud to say that based on my Hunter/Killer experiences, I'm
a member of the Society of Wild Weasels. #2488. It's an honor to be
accepted by them.
Robert Inkol
I would go with the Me 262. Eric Brown, who had extensive experience
flying the Me 262 and its contemporaries, has written that he would
"unhesitatingly propose Messershmitt's Me 262" if asked to nominate
the most formidable combat aircraft of WW II. He also noted (based on
his own observations) that it was tactically usable up to Mach 0.82
and that "this capability had undoubtedly endowed Messerschmitt's
fighter with a marked advantage over every other operational aircraft
of WW II." Brown also notes that the Meteor I was severely affected
by directional snaking above Mach 0.7.
Robert Inkol
Keith Willshaw
"Robert Inkol" <robert...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:ab792ef8.03072...@posting.google.com...
territory
>
> I would go with the Me 262. Eric Brown, who had extensive experience
> flying the Me 262 and its contemporaries, has written that he would
> "unhesitatingly propose Messershmitt's Me 262" if asked to nominate
> the most formidable combat aircraft of WW II. He also noted (based on
> his own observations) that it was tactically usable up to Mach 0.82
> and that "this capability had undoubtedly endowed Messerschmitt's
> fighter with a marked advantage over every other operational aircraft
> of WW II." Brown also notes that the Meteor I was severely affected
> by directional snaking above Mach 0.7.
>
> Robert Inkol
Nobody is stating that the Me-262 wasnt a potentially formidable aircraft,
the point I'm making is that its inaccurate to state that it revolutionised
air combat in WW2 in the way the eindecker did in WW1 or the
Mig-15 did in Korea.
It didnt, the aircraft had serious flaws, especially in its engine design
which had a vey short life and responded badly to sudden throttle
movements. Thousands of airframes were built but only a handful
got into the air as a result of the shortage of engines, pilots and
fuel. I have talked to may allied airmen, fkying active missions
in 1945 who werent even aware that such an aircraft existed.
The Meteor Mk 1 certainly had its flaws too but later marks
were much improved and cleared for higher mach numbers.
On June 14 1946 a Meteor F4 set a world record of
990.971 km / hr . The mach limit for Meteor's in squadron service
was set at 0.8 IRC.
The most telling difference was in serviceability. While the engines
of the Me-262 needed replacement after 25 hours or less the
engines of the meteor were good for 2000 hours or more.
Keith
ArVa
> "ArVa" <arva@no_spam_os.fr> wrote:
>
>
> Someone will accuse you of being my shill for book promotion.
Maybe, but don't you worry about that as I've became pretty used during the
last six months to reply to false accusations, blatant lies and dubious
rumours... :-)
Now, as for the fee for my promoting role you'll see it's quite reasonable :
that would just be a free, autographed copy of your upcoming book... :-)
>
> At the time of the prom in question, the two seater was the F model
> and it was used in training. It wasn't much good as a training
> airplane since visibility was so bad from the back seat that a student
> or instructor (whomever was riding in the R/C/P) could neither take
> off or land from that vantage. The F-model Weasel came into the war in
> late May of '66 and proved itself very capable. The G-Weasel, which
> was an upgraded F, not a new production aircraft, continued improving
> capability to detect and attack SAM sites through the end of the war.
>
> Yes, it was important to be in a single-seat, single-engine,
> gun-equipped airplane. That's the traditional configuration of a
> fighter. If one aspired to be a fighter pilot, one did it in that
> format.
>
> Now, I have the deepest respect for the F-105 Weasel pilots (both F
> and G), since I flew beside them--first in the 105D in '66 and then
> when I returned to the war in '72 and specialized in Hunter/Killer ops
> flying the F-4E in teams with the 105G.
>
> I've got deep respect as well for Phantom pilots, since I've got four
> times as much flying time in the F-4C/D/E as I do in the 105.
>
> And, I'm proud to say that based on my Hunter/Killer experiences, I'm
> a member of the Society of Wild Weasels. #2488. It's an honor to be
> accepted by them.
No doubt. Thanks for all the informations.
Regards,
ArVa
Peter Twydell
<keith@kwillshaw_NoSpam.demon.co.uk> writes
of John Logie Baird, the launch of the last Sunderland, and a
significant event in our family, especially for my mother and me.
>The most telling difference was in serviceability. While the engines
>of the Me-262 needed replacement after 25 hours or less the
>engines of the meteor were good for 2000 hours or more.
>
>Keith
>
>
--
Peter
Ying tong iddle-i po!
Keith Willshaw
"Peter Twydell" <pe...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:$aH0icARbMJ$Ew...@ntlworld.com...
> In article <bg19m3$ias$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>, Keith Willshaw
> <keith@kwillshaw_NoSpam.demon.co.uk> writes
> >
> >
> >The Meteor Mk 1 certainly had its flaws too but later marks
> >were much improved and cleared for higher mach numbers.
> >On June 14 1946 a Meteor F4 set a world record of
> >990.971 km / hr . The mach limit for Meteor's in squadron service
> >was set at 0.8 IRC.
> >
> Keith, I'm surprised at you. It was 7 September. 14 June saw the death
> of John Logie Baird, the launch of the last Sunderland, and a
> significant event in our family, especially for my mother and me.
>
Quite right June 14 1946 was the date of the first trial of the
Martin Baker ejector seat.
Keith
Kirk Stant
> but if it were for real you'd have to have "cojones al piedra" to pull
> the trick. Assurance that your R-Max is the same for the bad guys
> based pm intel takes a lot of confidence. Second, I'm surprised that a
> Harrier can stay with a Phantom "in mil power on our diesel J-79s".
> Third, I don't think I'd have the faith that my staunch Marine allies
> would make the vertical conversion in a Harrier against a Tom in full
> blow pursuit of the Phantoms. Finally, your pitch back, acquisition
> and rapid FOXing shows a bit of befuddlement from the Nasal Radiators,
> since they should have been face shooting you at the same rate.
>
> All that said, it sounds like a bold plan well-executed. My own
> experience in low-tech vs high-tech ACM often did the same thing--a
> vertical rather than horizontal split of the element. Seems that young
> aggressive warriors fixate on the first target and only sporadically
> search for the second (despite the training artificiality of knowing
> all the players). They search in sweep for the remainder, but seldom
> scroll up and down to find the other threat.
Well, it was a while ago - and as any good story, has gotten better in
the retelling - but the gist is correct. The reference to "Mil Power"
was that we didn't go to Idle/Min AB to kill our smoke on the run-in,
instead ran in at a tactical speed that the Harriers (fast little
AV-8Cs not big slow Bs, I think) could stay with, leaving a nice big
smoke trail for the Toms to see! But you are absolutely right about
this being a "training ACM sortie" kind of thing - the whole point was
to find a way to get the Harriers into the fight unobserved, tie up
the Tomcats in a turning fight, then play 7th Cavalry and save the
day. That day the plan worked.
I always felt that a lot of our ACM missions were wasted (probably
unavoidably) on canned setups, predictable 1V1 or 2V2, etc. Good for
practicing basics, but no relation to the real thing, as described in
all the Red Baron reports, WW2 books, etc. Then once and awhile
(usually during some exercise like Cope Thunder or Red Flag) a fight
would develop that would be uncannily similar to "the real thing".
And it usually didn't involve any fancy tactics, just (surprise!)
being at the right place at the right time and catching some guy
looking the wrong way. Case in point - A Cope Thunder in the mid 80s,
huge furball off the coast West of Iba, and we are coasting out from
Crow Valley after dropping some inert Mk-82s on rattan targets. No
real tactics, just stay low, skirt the outside of the furball, and
shoot an F-5 that pops out in front of us. Then back to the deck and
beat feet for home, low on gas as usual. Hardly had to turn at all,
just a quick stab-out lock up and a couple of Fox-1s, then sweating
out the illumination period.
When things get complicated and messy, the fancy tactics are the first
things to go. Then it's a matter of SA, systems knowledge, crew
coordination, and luck - not necessarily in that order!
>
> I guess it reinforces what Dudley has already mentioned extensively
> here--the training, experience and quality of the driver will often
> compensate for the technology of the system.
ABSOLUTELY!!!!
Kirk
Walt BJ
meet back then in a C-model. Here's a tale I got second hand from an
'enemy' pilot. He was flying a MiG21 against USAF fighters in a
serious test back in the late 60s. He saw and engaged an F4 - only as
he closed he saw a F104a (Dash 19 engine) zoom straight up off the
F4's wing - it had been hiding on the wing of the F4 and his GCI
controller of course never knew it was there. He told me he thought
'Aw s--t!" and now he had to fight both an F4 which was diving in and
under him and a 104 he'd just lost sight of. BTW the 21 pilot was a
Edwards test school graduate and when I knew him he was 737 chief
pilot for Air Florida. One of my good friends (squadron mate) was
flying the 104. That guy told me they could run both the 17 and 21 out
of gas and stay out of danger while doing it. At full mil in the
Zipper the 17 couldn't stay with them. .97 on the deck in mil (1.05 at
25000) and the ability to climb away from either aircraft while
sustaining 4G was very handy. FWIW a straight wing will always have
better fuel numbers than any swept wing - and the deltas are fuel hogs
with G's on.
Walt BJ
Walt BJ
students - in aviation what you don't now won't hurt you - it will
kill you. And in aerial combat you have to have the facts at your
fingertips. 'Let's see now' won't get it. For the same reason frequent
real intensive maximum performance training is mandatory if you have
to be ready to fight at a moment's notice. And you st be perfectly
honest in your critique of your performance and take remedial action
when you find weaknesses. God (fate, chance, karma, Buddha) has a way
of giving you a no-s--t tac eval every now and then and if you screw
up badly enough . . .
Cheers - Walt BJ