I remember reading that the MiG-15's had control problems above Mach 0.86
and a couple of Russian pilots were killed trying to keep up with the F-86
in a transonic dive during the Korean War. Given that TsAGI (the Russian
equivalent of NACA/NASA) did aerodynamic research just as good as what was
done in the West, I wonder why the MiG bureau didn't do enough with the
MiG-17 so it could exceed Mach 1 in a dive safely.
--
Raymond Chuang
Mountain View, CA USA
Maybe because the Soviet TsAGI was not nearly as competent as
NACA/NASA?? Soviet aircraft have never been exactly "state of the
art"
Al Minyard
It would be nice to have some technical input on this issue - perhaps
someone on the newsgroups has compared NASA/NACA work with the Russian
progress in the field?
I can tell you that a very large part of the current body of knowledge
about statistical and turbulent theory is entirely due to Soviet
progress and insight (Tchebychev, Markov, Liapounov, Bernstein,
Kolmogoroff, Tatarskii, Khintchine, etc), and that as theoreticians
they are very much respected and appreciated in the West, where
nowadays many of them work if not actually reside permanently (having
a position at a Russian academic institution, but working outside the
country to earn money, not to mention the usual scientific exchange
programs). I have had the great pleasure and honour of working with
several of the gentlemen currently active in the fields mentioned, and
also atmospheric physics. Some work at the top US institutions (NOAA,
NASA, MIT) in the field, disseminating their knowledge to younger
scientists, for which again I am most grateful. When you hear someone
hand out advice beginning with, 'Kolmogoroff used to say to me....',
then you are already listening 150%!
I am not in the aircraft industry, but whatever theory the Russians
have available on physics of atmospheric turbulence and dynamics is
certainly state of the art.
--
Gernot Hassenpflug MSc.(Eng.) Kyoto University
Radio Science Centre for Space and Atmospheres
mailto:ger...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp
http://www.kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/radar-group/members/gernot
Well, whether it was a typo or not, they did do something with the _MiG-17_ so
it could exceed Mach 1 in a dive, safely. The MiG-17 was essentially an
aerodynamically refined MiG-15, to eliminate the transonic problems that the
MiG-15 had. It also eliminated many of the other deficiencies of the earlier
a/c.
Guy
Research and theoryand application (capacity to apply) are often divergent.
: Maybe because the Soviet TsAGI was not nearly as competent as
: NACA/NASA?? Soviet aircraft have never been exactly "state of the
: art"
That is incorrect. There have been periods when Soviet
aircraft were not only state of the art but even the
world leaders, and TsAGI certainly made large
contributions to that. The MiG-15 certainly was not a
backward design; nor where the I-16, MiG-19, or later
Soviet fighter designs. Their weakness was usually in
electronics and radar, not in aerodynamic design.
Probably the MiG-15 suffered from the priority given
during WWII and immediately thereafter to solve
short-term problems of fighter design, which left too
little time for adequate research. NACA could still
devote resources to swept-wing research during WWII.
The captured German research did not help much, as the
Germans had not solved the problems of the high-speed
stability of swept-wing designs either. And the first
Soviet jet fighters were built in extreme haste.
The La-15 had better handling characteristics than the
MiG-15 and would perhaps have been a better match for
the F-86 than the MiG-15, but the fragility of the
design argued against its deployment to Korea and to
continued production.
In any case, the handling problems were solved in the
MiG-17, which would later prove more than a match for
the F-100 and would enjoy a very long career.
Emmanuel Gustin
And why would you say that?? Without the classified supercomputers,
which exist only in the US, such research, while brilliant, is not
going to obtain the same, or even nearly the same, results as US
research. I do not recall the Soviets coming up with a B-2, eg.
Al Minyard
And the MiG-19 didn't (in original form). The USAF would probably been
better off with an "ulltimate Sabre" upgrade rather than the F-100 as
a fighter. Too much was sacrificed to get marginally supersonic
flight.
It's interesting how few really superb aircraft designs there have
been in the last fifty years, identified by long and successful
service lives. The BUFF is one as was the A4D and also the Tu-95.
MiG-17 was one of those but MiG-19 and -21 weren't. None of the Sukhoi
designs before the current generation were noteable, unlike the
Dassault Mirage-III.
You might almost say that a design house get (if it's good and lucky)
about two superb designs every 30-40 years. Here's my guesses:
Douglas: A1D, A4D
Boeing: B-52, KC-135
McDonell: F-4
Grumman: A-6, E-2
GD: F-16
Lockheed: C-130, F-104, SR-71
--
"To forgive and forget is to surrender dearly bought experience"
Paul F Austin
pfau...@bellsouth.net
> In any case, the handling problems were solved in the
> MiG-17, which would later prove more than a match for
> the F-100 and would enjoy a very long career.
The MiG-17 was definitely a major improvement over the MiG-15--it was
probably the best subsonic fighter ever built, probably even better than the
Hawker Hunter in many ways.
The only reason why "Colonel Toomb" got shot down in 1972 was because he
tried to out-climb an F-4, which was not the MiG-17's forte.
The biggest downside to the MiG-17 was the fact anytime you turned on the
afterburner on the VK-1 engine it became a magnet for any decent
heat-seeking missile--a lot of MiG-17's were shot down by Sidewinder
missiles.
What puzzles me is the fact that the North Vietnamese fared poorly with the
MiG-19. It seems the NVAF didn't take advantage of the MiG-19's supersonic
speed and its superior cannon firepower properly. This was unlike the
Pakistani AF, which had GREAT success with the MiG-19 (flying the
Chinese-made F-6 model) in shooting down Indian AF jets in the middle
1960's.
Pilot training or not, the MiG-15 was a goner trying to keep up with an F-86
in a dive--a couple of Russian pilots found out the hard way during the
Korean War. Small wonder why the MiG-17 was quickly developed to correct the
high-speed stability issue.
> "Emmanuel.Gustin" <gus...@hhipe.uia.ac.be> wrote in message
> news:apeu7g$vvsl$1...@fu-berlin.de...
>
> > In any case, the handling problems were solved in the
> > MiG-17, which would later prove more than a match for
> > the F-100 and would enjoy a very long career.
>
> The MiG-17 was definitely a major improvement over the MiG-15--it was
> probably the best subsonic fighter ever built, probably even better than the
> Hawker Hunter in many ways.
>
> The only reason why "Colonel Toomb" got shot down in 1972 was because he
> tried to out-climb an F-4, which was not the MiG-17's forte.
>
> The biggest downside to the MiG-17 was the fact anytime you turned on the
> afterburner on the VK-1 engine it became a magnet for any decent
> heat-seeking missile--a lot of MiG-17's were shot down by Sidewinder
> missiles.
>
> What puzzles me is the fact that the North Vietnamese fared poorly with the
> MiG-19. It seems the NVAF didn't take advantage of the MiG-19's supersonic
> speed and its superior cannon firepower properly.
Almost certainly because it strained their maintenance capabilities severely, as
well as having only a limited number of pilots for it. They'd only received a
total of 54 J-6s from the PRC from 1968-69, and by late 1972 combat and
operational attrition seems to have reduced them to just a handful of a/c.
> This was unlike the
> Pakistani AF, which had GREAT success with the MiG-19 (flying the
> Chinese-made F-6 model) in shooting down Indian AF jets in the middle
> 1960's.
1971, actually, as they didn't receive and J-6s from the PRC until well after
the '65 war. Pakistan's maintenance infrastructure and average piloting skills
were rather more advanced than North Vietnam's, and they also had Sidewinders
mounted on their Farmers.
Guy
Kaman HH-43 and H-2. Although the Husky didn't stay along all that long a
time, the Hooky Took stayed in US service from 1960-1999, before switching over
to foreign duties.
The Sikorski house has the H-3 series, which is older'n shit and still in
service world wide.
>McDonell: F-4
Their Eagle would certainly qualify for your list!
v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew
"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."
Not to pick nits, but this goes in the face of what Yeager and Carl said after
their dogfights in that pair.
By the way, Ray, its good to see you back posting again.
And all designed without high powered computers. And although the US
never bought a lot of them I'd have to add the F-5/T-38 to that list.
Most of the time, you make your own luck.
> about two superb designs every 30-40 years. Here's my guesses:
Presumanbly you're talking postwar, so:
> Douglas: A1D, A4D
What, then about the A3D, the F5D (Although it wasn't produced), the
C-124, the DC-6/DC-7, the DC-8, and the DC-9
> Boeing: B-52, KC-135
B-47, C-97, 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777...
The B-47 probably did more to bring about the jet age than any other
single aircraft. Boeing went into teh airliner business with more
heavy het experience than anyone else in the world because of it.
> McDonell: F-4
FD-1 Phantom, F2H Banshee, F/RF-101, F-15
> Grumman: A-6, E-2
F9F-2-5, F9F6-8, F11F, S2F, E-1, F-14
> GD: F-16
Don't forget that GD was Convair, once upon a time.
F-102, F-106, B-36, T-29/C-131/CV-240/340/440 even the F-111, if you
use it right.
> Lockheed: C-130, F-104, SR-71
F-80/T-33, F-94, Jetstar, U-2.
You also forgot North American
F-86A/E/F, F-86D/l, F-86H, FJ-3, FJ-4, F-100, A-5, B-70 (And those wer
just the good ones)
And Republic - F-84 plank wings F-84 Swept, F-105
All were outstanding, and had long service lives, (Except for some of
the prototypes, like the F5D< which had the misfortune to be competing
with the F8U Crusader, and the B-70)
It wasn't a U.S. Phenomenon by any means. MiG-15, MiG-17, MiG-21, MiG-25,
Tu-16, Tu-95, Tu-26...
Sea Hawk, Hunter, Harrier, Hawk
Mystere IV, SMB.2, Mirage III/5, Mirage IV, Mirage F.1, Mystere Bizjets
It seems that some places can put together a good team, ususally under
a strong leader, and keep the objective of the project in mind.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
I really don't think that that would help. If you ever get a chance,
go stand next to a MiG-15 or -17 sometime. Thise things are tiny
compared to Western aircraft, (Except possibly for the Mirage). There
just isn't the space on teh wing to hang anything more, and there's no
fuselage volume available for all those sensors and computers that
made the A-7 what it was. (Not to mention having no radius to speak
of, when the drop tanks aren't on.
Hey, H-43s and HOK/HUK types were in active military service from the
early '50s through the '70s. That oughta count for something.
>
> The Sikorski house has the H-3 series, which is older'n shit and still in
> service world wide.
And The H-5, and the H-19, and the H-34, and the H-54, and the H-56,
and even the Lowly Goat H-52.
Forgot about all those flapping/fluttering things, before.
As you point out, (and others in the thread), indeed there are huge
divergences between theory and practice. However, I was pointing out
that supercomputers etc do not invent theory, they can just put into
practice the theory that intelligent people have come up with up to
date.
Thus, the West is making great use of the vast body of theoretical
knowledge that the Soviets accumulated. This use then leads to even
greater theoretical understanding of nature, and towards practical
applications of the existing theory.
...and I point you to Emmanuel Gustin's excellent response where he
points out that you should not confuse aerodynamic advances with
advances in other fields. There is nothing wonderful aerodynamically
about the B-2, what is amazing is that it can be effectively
controlled by highly advanced systems.
> The B-47 probably did more to bring about the jet age than any other
> single aircraft. Boeing went into teh airliner business with more
> heavy het experience than anyone else in the world because of it.
Indeed.
Many of the aerodynamic innovations found on the B-47 (especially the thin,
swept-back wings and the pod-mounted jet engines) formed the basis for the
modern jet airliner. The Sud-Aviation Caravelle added the innovation of
mounting engines on the rear of the airplane, which paved the way for the
Boeing 727, Hawker Siddeley Trident, BAC 1-11 and Douglas DC-9, and very
likely inspired the Tu-134.
By the way, didn't the MiG-15 design owe something to the Ta 183 jet fighter
studies Kurt Tank did in 1944-1945?
What "goner"? MiG-15's airbrakes would automatically extend at Mach 0.84.
This discussion about MiG-15 have been chewed up almost two years ago!
It seems that everyone here has forgotten Mr. Dave Sutton's posts (via
Funkraum). The guy owns and flies MiG-15, 17, 21, Fouga Master...
To make long story short, I'll quote his post dated Jan 2, 2001( his answers
are marked as "#"):
<Quote>
">Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: Fastest propeller aircraft?
>funk...@hotmail.com.ANTISPAM writes
Herein, a response forwarded to me by Mr Sutton:
# dsu...@redstaraviation.org.ANTISPAM writes:
>> Jor...@worldwar2aviation.com (C.C.Jordan) wrote:
>>> "Raymond Chuang" <rch...@slip.net> wrote:
>>>In fact, during the Korean War several Soviet MiG-15 pilots foodhardedly
>>>tried to break Mach 1 on shallow dive, but unfortunately the airframe
could>
>>>not take the strain of transonic flight and a number of them broke up in
>>>mid-air.
>
#This is nonsense. The MiG-15 suffers from aeroelasticity of the
#wings that can lead to roll control reversals at high mach numbers
#(in excess of 0.84 or so). The MiG-15 is fitted with automatic#
#speedbrake extension to prevent inadvertant flight in excess of
#0.82 mach. But to say that they 'could not take the strain
#and...... broke up" is not accurate.#
#
>>> I believe that the MiG-17 could break Mach 1 in a shallow dive,
>>>thanks to a stronger airframe and also that afterburning engine.
#
#No, the MiG-17 will break Mach-1 at IDLE in a shallow dive
#-with the same airframe as a MiG-15- due to the far better
#wing design, and the better hydraulic flight controls. The MiG-17#
#should really be considered the MiG-15B, since all that's
#different is the 1 meter fuselage stretch and the better wing. In
#fact the early MiG-17 'Glattt' had the same VK-1 non-afterburning#
#engine as the MiG-15Bis, and the first prototype MiG-17's were
#actually constructed from MiG-15 airframes.
#
#
>>Yep, the MiG-15 was a death trap at high transonic speeds. Rudder
>>flutter would rip the entire tail off.>
#
#In a word: Naah... I won't use it. An F-86 will walk away from a #
#MiG-15 in any sort of dive, but the structure of the MiG was never an
#issue, just the aerodynamics.
#
#Just curious how many hours of MiG-15/17 time anyone else here
#other than myself actually has? ;-). To paraphrase Mary Shafer,
#"I have one sitting in my hangar and I -know- what it does".#
#
#
#Regards,
#
#Dave Sutton MiG-17F 1C1705
#"
<End quote>
I'm nobody's lawyer, but the guy said it since it fixes and flies the darn
thing. Also, in the article "Private MiGs", by Dave Sutton, Copyright C Dave
Sutton, 1995-97, among other things he wrote (excerpt):
<Quote>
"Flying qualities are as follows:
The MiG-15 is a simple, durable, and decent aircraft in most all respects.
It is fairly agile, has adequate power, and good overall handling. It does
however have some drawbacks, in that the wing has a fairly low critical mach
number and that it does some rather untidy things if the wing is pushed to
high speed. Also, it has a propensity to depart from controlled flight in
high G/high alpha flight as some fairly good pilots have found out to their
immortal dismay while doing low level display flights."
<End quote>
There's also a great article on the Internet from Mr.Mark Linney, "Flying
The MiG 15", where he describes his flight in MiG-15U (preflight check,
controls, plane's behavior, landing and many other stuff). Since the article
is long, I will not post it there (I wish I have a link-try Google, His name
and "Old Flying Machine Company" (or OFMC) for the site.
Greetings,
Nele
NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
Do a web search on Corean war and you mey get an answer or two. The
way I remember it, F-86 pilots used high G spiral dives to extend when
in trouble. Now, the F-86 pilots had G-suits, while the MiG pilots
didn't have those, so the ability of Russian/Korean pilots to follow the
F-86 also depended on their physical condition. I read a story written
by an American ace stating that a MiG, during the corean war, followed
him to the deck through a spiral dive, but expended all his ammo trying
to hit the Sabre. MiG-15 was a capable aircraft for it's time, but
lacked the cockpit ergonomics, G-suit and a proper gun aiming system
(gyro-stabilised gunsight proved unefficient for its guns), so only
exceptional pilots could fly it competently.
--
_/ G R E E T I N G S ! ! \_
\ leo...@EUnet.yu /
That would be why NASA had to hire the Soviet Tuploev Tu-144LL for supersonic
research then ?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think the only super computer that Kelly Johnson used
in developing the YF-12A/SR-71 was a Pickens Log Log
slide rule..................................
A "slight" exaggeration. The aircraft is supersonic, albeit barely.
> #-with the same airframe as a MiG-15- due to the far better
> #wing design, and the better hydraulic flight controls. The MiG-17#
> #should really be considered the MiG-15B, since all that's
> #different is the 1 meter fuselage stretch and the better wing. In
> #fact the early MiG-17 'Glattt' had the same VK-1 non-afterburning#
> #engine as the MiG-15Bis, and the first prototype MiG-17's were
> #actually constructed from MiG-15 airframes.
The 17 is a super jet. It retains its energy well. The most maneuverable
jet I've encountered. OTOH it has serious ergonomic problems and visibility
from the cockpit is not great. It also has insufficient flight control
boost to handle high Q flight (something like 2G available above 480KIAS).
The horizontal stab and elevator lose effectiveness at low airspeeds.
It's a small aircraft, fairly difficult to see. Fuel a limiting factor,
particularly if A/B is used. The 17, properly flown, is a tough adversary
in a rear-hemisphere ordnance world.
R / John
I'm surprised that the NVAF didn't get that many MiG-19 licensed copies from
China. The MiG-19's excellent high-speed performance and that triple NR-30
cannon setup made it a potentially lethal interceptor--it would have been a
match for the F-8 Crusader and F-4 Phantom II in the right combat
environment.
'Cause the B-70 has been in a museum for about 35 years? :)
And the Russians wanted to do some high-speed data gathering on their
own, and were able to quote a low bid on a high-speed flying
laboratory?
But TsAGI "not nearly as competent as NACA/NASA?? "
and " Soviet aircraft have never been exactly "state of the art"
C'mon...........
>
>"Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote
>> Alan Minyard wrote:
>>
>> : Maybe because the Soviet TsAGI was not nearly as competent as
>> : NACA/NASA?? Soviet aircraft have never been exactly "state of the
>> : art"
>>
>> That is incorrect. There have been periods when Soviet
>> aircraft were not only state of the art but even the
>> world leaders, and TsAGI certainly made large
>> contributions to that. The MiG-15 certainly was not a
>> backward design; nor where the I-16, MiG-19, or later
>> Soviet fighter designs. Their weakness was usually in
>> electronics and radar, not in aerodynamic design.
>
>It's interesting how few really superb aircraft designs there have
>been in the last fifty years, identified by long and successful
>service lives. The BUFF is one as was the A4D and also the Tu-95.
>MiG-17 was one of those but MiG-19 and -21 weren't. None of the Sukhoi
>designs before the current generation were noteable, unlike the
>Dassault Mirage-III.
>
>You might almost say that a design house get (if it's good and lucky)
>about two superb designs every 30-40 years. Here's my guesses:
>Douglas: A1D, A4D
>Boeing: B-52, KC-135
>McDonell: F-4
>Grumman: A-6, E-2
>GD: F-16
>Lockheed: C-130, F-104, SR-71
Oops, I think that you forgot the F-15.
Al Minyard
>Alan Minyard <aminya...@netdoor.com> writes:
>
>> >I am not in the aircraft industry, but whatever theory the Russians
>> >have available on physics of atmospheric turbulence and dynamics is
>> >certainly state of the art.
>>
>> And why would you say that?? Without the classified supercomputers,
>> which exist only in the US, such research, while brilliant, is not
>> going to obtain the same, or even nearly the same, results as US
>> research. I do not recall the Soviets coming up with a B-2, eg.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>...and I point you to Emmanuel Gustin's excellent response where he
>points out that you should not confuse aerodynamic advances with
>advances in other fields. There is nothing wonderful aerodynamically
>about the B-2, what is amazing is that it can be effectively
>controlled by highly advanced systems.
I believe this to be false. The B-2's flying wing shape, and the
integration of stealth into the aerodynamic design (or, if one
preferrer, the integration of aerodynamic design into the stealth
requirements, is indeed a triumph of advanced aerodynamics.
Al Minyard
/sarcasm on
Of course, the fact that the gentleman owns a MIG would never color
his judgement in any way!!!
/sarcasm off
Al Minyard
Because it was a cheap, low tech airframe that, if lost, would be no
big deal. Note NASA did not "have" to hire the Tu, but it happened to
be convenient.
Al Minyard
> Alan Minyard wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 07:33:06 -0700, "Raymond Chuang"
> > <rch...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > >While technically the MiG-15 was superior to the F-86 Sabre in many ways, I
> > >remember the MiG-15 had one major weakness--high speed stability.
> > >
> > >I remember reading that the MiG-15's had control problems above Mach 0.86
> > >and a couple of Russian pilots were killed trying to keep up with the F-86
> > >in a transonic dive during the Korean War. Given that TsAGI (the Russian
> > >equivalent of NACA/NASA) did aerodynamic research just as good as what was
> > >done in the West, I wonder why the MiG bureau didn't do enough with the
> > >MiG-17 so it could exceed Mach 1 in a dive safely.
> >
> > Maybe because the Soviet TsAGI was not nearly as competent as
> > NACA/NASA?? Soviet aircraft have never been exactly "state of the
> > art"
> >
> > Al Minyard
>
> That would be why NASA had to hire the Soviet Tuploev Tu-144LL for supersonic
> research then ?
Ше цфы еру сруфзуые щзешщтю
Ken, when have I ever said that? The Russians, and the Soviets before
them, are just as smart as anyone else, they were just working under a
different set of rules. (Political and economic Numbers counted far
more than quality, and machines were expensive, but people were cheap,
are teh most basic imperitives, there.)
Let's put it this way - what was the more economical and maintainable
way to get 2 first-generation AAMs up behind an incoming bomber, a
MiG-21, or an E.E. Lightning?
> Can someone suggest a good written account, either print or web, of the
> Indo-Pakistani air wars?
There are a fair number out there, but they are often hard to find, and most are
either written completely from one side or the other's bias, or else use those works
as primary sources. Look for books and articles (especially those in Air
International) by John Fricker (PAF) and Pushpinder Chopra Singh (IAF) for respective
semi-official accounts (there were articles by each man describing the '71 Air War
from each side's viewpoint, that appeared in consecutive issues of Air International
(it may still have been Air Enthusiast back then) within the year following the war.
Among the ones I've read and found most useful, other than the above, are:
"Fiza-ya: Psyche of the Pakistan Air Force," by Singh, Rikhye, and Steinemann.
Actually written from the Indian side, this is a reasonably balanced view of PAF
claims and accounts (often from Fricker) against Indian sources, although some bias
does come in occasionally (especially in negative comments about Mohammed Alam [see
below], many of which are based on misinterpretation, whether deliberate or
accidental, of Alam's own account). Can be tough to find.
"Air Warfare in the Missile Age," by Lon Nordeen. Includes one chapter each on the
'65 and '71 wars, based largely on accounts by Fricker, Singh and others. Probably
the easiest to find.
"Battle for Pakistan: the Air War of 1965," by John Fricker. Semi-official account
from the PAF side. Out of print.
"My Years with the IAF," by ACM P.C. Lal. Memoir by the IAF CAS during the '71 war,
and very useful for comparing with Pakistani accounts. Includes the first public
evidence (that I know of) from the IAF side which effectively contradicts the PAF
claim that Sq. Ldr. Mohammed Alam shot down 5 Hunters in one mission (aka "Thirty
Seconds over Sargodha"), and shows that it was two for sure, possibly three and maybe
one damaged. What makes it more credible was that Lal mentioned it as an aside, to
show the kind of confusion inherent in combat. Published (posthumously, by Lal's
wife) by what appeared to me to have been a small english language vanity press in
India, on thin paper and with erratic type-setting and editing, but well worth looking
for if you can find it (I was lucky enough to find a copy at U.C. Berkeley some years
back).
The official histories of both sides have some useful info and anecdotes, but
cross-checking and allowing for a large share of bias is definitely required.
Here's a further bibliography (and excellent IAF website, with many combat accounts)
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/Misc/Bibliography.html
And here's a good website with PAF history and combat anecdotes:
http://www.piads.com.pk/users/piads/airindex.html
That should get you started, and Google will undoubtedly turn up others.
Guy
--
_/ G R E E T I N G S ! ! \_
\ leo...@EUnet.yu /
"Nele_VII" <doc_nele...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:apg2dp$jue$1...@fegnews.vip.hr...
The A3D was good but not great and the F5D never got out of the gate.
I suspect NAVAIR was right to select the F8U, another good but not
great aircraft.
> C-124, the DC-6/DC-7, the DC-8, and the DC-9
>
> > Boeing: B-52, KC-135
> B-47, C-97, 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777...
> The B-47 probably did more to bring about the jet age than any other
> single aircraft. Boeing went into teh airliner business with more
> heavy het experience than anyone else in the world because of it.
The B47 pioneered the winning formula for subsonic heavy aircraft when
it was by no means obvious but it wasn't a _great_ bomber because the
airframe lacked the versatility that the B-52 had.
>
> > McDonell: F-4
> FD-1 Phantom, F2H Banshee, F/RF-101, F-15
Again, I think standing the test of time is a key measure of
greatness. The F-15 qualifies, the others didn't.
>
> > Grumman: A-6, E-2
> F9F-2-5, F9F6-8, F11F, S2F, E-1, F-14
F11F??
As fond as I am of the Turkey, because the right engines and avionics
were so long in arriving, the -D was too late for the dance and not
enough were built. If the F-14C had arrived on schedule in about 1980,
there's no doubt that the Navy would keep them in service through
2020.
>
> > GD: F-16
> Don't forget that GD was Convair, once upon a time.
> F-102, F-106, B-36, T-29/C-131/CV-240/340/440 even the F-111, if you
> use it right.
I think you can argue that the F-106 and F-111 are prime candidates
but the others were lacking a bit.
>
> > Lockheed: C-130, F-104, SR-71
> F-80/T-33, F-94, Jetstar, U-2.
U-2 of course but the F-80 was very quickly superceded, with reason.
>
> You also forgot North American
> F-86A/E/F, F-86D/l, F-86H, FJ-3, FJ-4, F-100, A-5, B-70 (And those
wer
> just the good ones)
All the F-86's were very good airplanes but they didn't stand the test
of time. Technology moved too fast for them. The A5 likewise. The
airplane had _great_ potential which was never developed.
>
> And Republic - F-84 plank wings F-84 Swept, F-105
I'd have difficulty calling any of the F-84s "great" but the F-105
>
> All were outstanding, and had long service lives, (Except for some
of
> the prototypes, like the F5D< which had the misfortune to be
competing
> with the F8U Crusader, and the B-70)
Howcome you didn't vote for either the F8U or A-7?
> It wasn't a U.S. Phenomenon by any means. MiG-15, MiG-17, MiG-21,
MiG-25,
> Tu-16, Tu-95, Tu-26...
> Sea Hawk, Hunter, Harrier, Hawk
Hunter was 'way too late to the dance but Harrier is certainly a great
design.
> Mystere IV, SMB.2, Mirage III/5, Mirage IV, Mirage F.1, Mystere
Bizjets
The Dassault designs make an interesting group. To my mind, the Mirage
III is the only candidate for greatness. The F-1 was tre' ordinary.
>
> It seems that some places can put together a good team, ususally
under
> a strong leader, and keep the objective of the project in mind.
Yep. Ed Heineman's are hard to come by.
--
"I go from exasperation to a state of collapse, then I recover and go
from
prostration to Fury, so that my average state is one of being
annoyed."
Paul F Austin
pfau...@bellsouth.net
Much thanks. All I've ever seen is the occasional anecdote -- "lots of old-fashioned
deflection shooting," "disappointing Starfighter performance," etc. This'll help.
David
Paul Austin wrote:
> You might almost say that a design house get (if it's good and lucky)
> about two superb designs every 30-40 years. Here's my guesses:
> Douglas: A1D, A4D
??? Well, to me DC-3 is the better sample
> McDonell: F-4
Well... strange choice. F-15?
--
Vladimir Malukh Novosibirsk, Russia
-----------------------------------------
Well, I really have to disagree with you about the A3D. In the 1950s,
it kept Naval Aviation in the game, giving them a nuke delivery
platform that equalled, say, a B-47, (Exceeded in some areas), and
could fit on an SCB-125 Converted Essex class carrier. In the '60s
and '70s it was the major tanker an ECM support asset for the Fleet
worldwide, and kept at it through the 1980s, only going out of service
after the Second Gulf War. Raytheon's still flying some.
As for teh F5D, you can make a pretty good case that it was a better
fighter than the early F8Us. The deficiencies of the F4D (You notice
that I didn't put it on the list) were corrected, and it came with an
effective radar and weapons for a night/all weather capability right
out of the box. And I dare, no, I defy you to walk into some
collection of old Navy fighter-drivers and proclaim (so as they can
hear) that the F8U wasn't an inspired classic.
One of the reasons for selecting the F8U over the F5D was that there
was a very real fear of carriers putting to sea with all-Douglas Air
Groups. Vought hadn't done so well with the F6U and F7U, and had
nothing else other then the F8U to bring to the table at that time.
>
>> C-124, the DC-6/DC-7, the DC-8, and the DC-9
>>
>> > Boeing: B-52, KC-135
>> B-47, C-97, 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777...
>> The B-47 probably did more to bring about the jet age than any other
>> single aircraft. Boeing went into teh airliner business with more
>> heavy het experience than anyone else in the world because of it.
> The B47 pioneered the winning formula for subsonic heavy aircraft when
> it was by no means obvious but it wasn't a _great_ bomber because the
> airframe lacked the versatility that the B-52 had.
Let's see... Dominated the strategic balance of teh entire planet for
a decade, Pioneered teh aerodynamics that changed air travel from a
long, expensive grind to Everyman's way to travel, and, as for
versatility, performed in the Bombing, Photo Recon, Electronic Recon,
Escort Jammer, Weather Recon, and Post Attack Command and Control
roles. (Leaving out all the test ships) The last one left GOvernment
Service in '78 or so... As for teh B-52, classic that it undoubtable
is, it's been tasked for Bombing, and, in the early days, a few were
set up for Strategic Recon. (And I haven't heard of anybody doing
LABS drops from a B-52)
>
>>
>> > McDonell: F-4
>> FD-1 Phantom, F2H Banshee, F/RF-101, F-15
The FD-1 was the first jet to be able to get off a carrier, and back
on again, under service conditions. The F3H was teh backbone of the
Navy;s Fighter-Bomber and All-Weather Fighter forces through the Early
and Mid '50s. The F-101, while not a SuperDuperDogfighter, was tough
to beat for the low level nuke delivery role, was the backbone of
Tactical Recce though the late '50s & '60s, and the F-101B took up
most of teh Air Defence load when the F-106 was delayed, sticking
around until the late '70s. If that's not the test of time, I think
you need a new watch :)
> Again, I think standing the test of time is a key measure of
> greatness. The F-15 qualifies, the others didn't.
>>
>> > Grumman: A-6, E-2
>> F9F-2-5, F9F6-8, F11F, S2F, E-1, F-14
>
> F11F??
Yep, small, supersonic carrier interceptor. While not the equal of
the F8U n range or speed, it had what has been referrred to as the
best handling ever for a supersonic carrier jet. It was the main
airplane of the Blue Angels from the late '50s until the F-4 era in
'bout 1970 or so. Think of it as a Folland Gnat on steroids, enough
bigger that it could carry a sueful amount of ammo, and enough fuel
to Go Places and Do Things. The J78 engined flavor was the most
realistic competitor to the F-104 in the Supersonic Fighter flyoffs
that created teh F-104G.
> As fond as I am of the Turkey, because the right engines and avionics
> were so long in arriving, the -D was too late for the dance and not
> enough were built. If the F-14C had arrived on schedule in about 1980,
> there's no doubt that the Navy would keep them in service through
> 2020.
Uhm, the F-14s Avionics were like one of my '57 Chevy engines,
outlasting 3 bodies. AWG-9 was originally developed for teh Douglas
F6D Missileer, was the root of the F-111B, and finally got to earn its
keep on the F-14. While it's never been the most agile of the Teen
Fighters, it's ability to protect the Fleet ahs never been an issue.
As for the Test of Time, consider that they've been the
backbone of the Fleet's Air-to-Air specialists for more than 25 years
now, and I haven't heard anybody realistically suggest that they're
entirely happy with the Super Bug as an F-14 replacement.
>
>>
>> > GD: F-16
>> Don't forget that GD was Convair, once upon a time.
>> F-102, F-106, B-36, T-29/C-131/CV-240/340/440 even the F-111, if you
>> use it right.
>
> I think you can argue that the F-106 and F-111 are prime candidates
> but the others were lacking a bit.
Funny, I'd say that if any were lacking, it'd be the F-111, fond of it
as I am. The Convairliners were the postwar DC-3.
>
>>
>> > Lockheed: C-130, F-104, SR-71
>> F-80/T-33, F-94, Jetstar, U-2.
>
> U-2 of course but the F-80 was very quickly superceded, with reason.
Oh, so? When was the last F-80 dropped from the U.S. Inventory? The
last Regulars flew in 1955. They stuck it out with the Air Guard
until 1958. TF-80s (T-33s) were what taught the Western World how to
fly jets. The F-94 was an F80 with Overdrive & TV, and also stuck
around through the late '50s/early '60s.
>
>>
>> You also forgot North American
>> F-86A/E/F, F-86D/l, F-86H, FJ-3, FJ-4, F-100, A-5, B-70 (And those
> wer
>> just the good ones)
>
> All the F-86's were very good airplanes but they didn't stand the test
> of time. Technology moved too fast for them. The A5 likewise. The
> airplane had _great_ potential which was never developed.
The last US operated fighter F-86s were phased out in 1971. I'd say
that over 5,000 produced, and benig flown by more countries than
anything but the MiG-21 counts for something. As for the A-5, well,
let's look at the competition. The F-111 was a better bomber, not much
dount there, but the A-5 did CARQUAL, and the F-111 didn't. The
Mirage IV is a sexy looking beast, but it has no range, ans even less
bombs. The TSR.2 might have exceeded it, but we'll never know that
one, will we? Oh, and as a comparison of the Sabre to its successors,
the _only_ airplane that old F-8 drivers have told me that they liked
better than the Crusader was the FJ-3.
>>
>> And Republic - F-84 plank wings F-84 Swept, F-105
>
> I'd have difficulty calling any of the F-84s "great" but the F-105
The early straight-wings were pretty bad. But, the F-84E and F-84G
took most of the Fighter-Bomber burden of the Korean War, started the
whole Tactical Nuke thing, and, in SAC's Strategic Fighter Wings, were
liable to show up anywhere in the world on no notice.
Check out the USAFE and NATO Orders of Battle for teh early and mid
'50s, and you'll see where they all were. The last active duty F-84Gs
didn't retire until 1960. (PACAF)
>>
>> All were outstanding, and had long service lives, (Except for some
> of
>> the prototypes, like the F5D< which had the misfortune to be
> competing
>> with the F8U Crusader, and the B-70)
>
> Howcome you didn't vote for either the F8U or A-7?
Why didn't you? Vought just didn't build that many airplane types in
the period. The F6U was a dog, and teh F7U was a disaster.
>
>
>> It wasn't a U.S. Phenomenon by any means. MiG-15, MiG-17, MiG-21,
> MiG-25,
>> Tu-16, Tu-95, Tu-26...
>
>
>> Sea Hawk, Hunter, Harrier, Hawk
>
> Hunter was 'way too late to the dance but Harrier is certainly a great
> design.
When did the last Hunter leave active service? Late '90s, I believe.
Ask the Indians or teh Jordanians if they were unhappy with them. (And
the Indians were flying MiG-21s at the same time, and the Jordanians F-104s.)
>> Mystere IV, SMB.2, Mirage III/5, Mirage IV, Mirage F.1, Mystere
> Bizjets
>
> The Dassault designs make an interesting group. To my mind, the Mirage
> III is the only candidate for greatness. The F-1 was tre' ordinary.
>>
>> It seems that some places can put together a good team, ususally
> under
>> a strong leader, and keep the objective of the project in mind.
>
> Yep. Ed Heineman's are hard to come by.
Well, Ed Heinemanns, Kelly Johnsons, Lee Begins, Ed Shmueds...
McDonnell was kinda unusual in that there wasn't a single dominant
manager to keep things progressing.
> In article <X6%u9.6338$wZ2...@news.bellsouth.net>,
> "Paul Austin" <pfau...@bellsouth.net> writes:
> >
> > "Peter Stickney" wrote
<snip>
> > I suspect NAVAIR was right to select the F8U, another good but not
> > great aircraft.
> And I dare, no, I defy you to walk into some
> collection of old Navy fighter-drivers and proclaim (so as they can
> hear) that the F8U wasn't an inspired classic.
Hell, posting it over on r.a.m.n. would get his ears singed ;-)
> >> > McDonell: F-4
> >> FD-1 Phantom, F2H Banshee, F/RF-101, F-15
>
> The FD-1 was the first jet to be able to get off a carrier, and back
> on again, under service conditions.
A very minor honor, and if it hadn't of been the FD-1 it would have been an
FJ-1. The a/c quickly disappeared, with the far superior F2H and sundry F9F-2/5s
taking over.
> The F3H [sic. F2H] was teh backbone of the
> Navy;s Fighter-Bomber and All-Weather Fighter forces through the Early
> and Mid '50s. The F-101, while not a SuperDuperDogfighter, was tough
> to beat for the low level nuke delivery role,
Oh, I'd say both the F-104 and F-105 were its superior in that role. Both beat
it in ride and handling qualities, and the F-105 (at least; not sure about the
104) in range. I suspect the Zip and Thud were faster down low, too.
> was the backbone of
> Tactical Recce though the late '50s & '60s, and the F-101B took up
> most of teh Air Defence load when the F-106 was delayed, sticking
> around until the late '70s. If that's not the test of time, I think
> you need a new watch :)
>
> > Again, I think standing the test of time is a key measure of
> > greatness. The F-15 qualifies, the others didn't.
> >>
> >> > Grumman: A-6, E-2
> >> F9F-2-5, F9F6-8, F11F, S2F, E-1, F-14
> >
> > F11F??
>
> Yep, small, supersonic carrier interceptor. While not the equal of
> the F8U n range or speed,
Or climb.
> it had what has been referrred to as the
> best handling ever for a supersonic carrier jet. It was the main
> airplane of the Blue Angels from the late '50s until the F-4 era in
> 'bout 1970 or so. Think of it as a Folland Gnat on steroids, enough
> bigger that it could carry a sueful amount of ammo, and enough fuel
> to Go Places and Do Things.
But not enough fuel to go many places and do many things, then return to a
carrier and hold in Marshall before making an ILS approach or three with
intervening waveoffs and/or bolters. The F-8 had it beat all to hell on range
and endurance.
> The J78 [typo for J79] engined flavor was the most
> realistic competitor to the F-104 in the Supersonic Fighter flyoffs
> that created teh F-104G.
And was massively inferior as an interceptor as far as accel and rate of climb,
although it would have been a lot easier to land in cruddy European weather.
Personally, I've always felt that the J79 powered, denavalised F-8 would have
been the toughest competition. A later version won the performance evaluation
for the late -60s IFA competition (although the Air Force Secretary se;ected the
F-5E on logistic and maintenance grounds, a proper decision IMO). But, for the
range of missions the Europeans required (Nuke Strike, Recon, Interceptor,
Maritime Strike) I think the F-104G met their needs better, except in the area of
forgiving handling for inexperienced pilots in bad weather.
> > As fond as I am of the Turkey, because the right engines and avionics
> > were so long in arriving, the -D was too late for the dance and not
> > enough were built. If the F-14C had arrived on schedule in about 1980,
> > there's no doubt that the Navy would keep them in service through
> > 2020.
>
> Uhm, the F-14s Avionics were like one of my '57 Chevy engines,
> outlasting 3 bodies. AWG-9 was originally developed for teh Douglas
> F6D Missileer, was the root of the F-111B, and finally got to earn its
> keep on the F-14. While it's never been the most agile of the Teen
> Fighters, it's ability to protect the Fleet ahs never been an issue.
Although the ability of the A model Phoenix to do so has been.
<snip>
> > I think you can argue that the F-106 and F-111 are prime candidates
> > but the others were lacking a bit.
>
> Funny, I'd say that if any were lacking, it'd be the F-111, fond of it
> as I am.
Blasphemy, Sir, but I'm feeling charitable this evening so I'll let it pass ;-)
<snip>
> >> You also forgot North American
> >> F-86A/E/F, F-86D/l, F-86H, FJ-3, FJ-4, F-100, A-5, B-70 (And those
> > wer
> >> just the good ones)
> >
> > All the F-86's were very good airplanes but they didn't stand the test
> > of time. Technology moved too fast for them. The A5 likewise. The
> > airplane had _great_ potential which was never developed.
>
> The last US operated fighter F-86s were phased out in 1971. I'd say
> that over 5,000 produced, and benig flown by more countries than
> anything but the MiG-21 counts for something.
Not to mention successfully fighting in another war (Indo-Pak) in 1971.
> As for the A-5, well,
> let's look at the competition. The F-111 was a better bomber, not much
> dount there, but the A-5 did CARQUAL, and the F-111 didn't. The
> Mirage IV is a sexy looking beast, but it has no range, ans even less
> bombs. The TSR.2 might have exceeded it, but we'll never know that
> one, will we? Oh, and as a comparison of the Sabre to its successors,
> the _only_ airplane that old F-8 drivers have told me that they liked
> better than the Crusader was the FJ-3.
I think you meant the FJ-4. I remember some old Marine types saying it was the
Air-Air king of the heap in its day.
> >> And Republic - F-84 plank wings F-84 Swept, F-105
> >
> > I'd have difficulty calling any of the F-84s "great" but the F-105
>
> The early straight-wings were pretty bad. But, the F-84E and F-84G
> took most of the Fighter-Bomber burden of the Korean War, started the
> whole Tactical Nuke thing, and, in SAC's Strategic Fighter Wings, were
> liable to show up anywhere in the world on no notice.
And flew the first Air-Refueled TransPac and first air refueled F-B missions
(ISTR some RF-80s flew the first AAR'd Recon missions a bit earlier. Both in
Korea).
> > Hunter was 'way too late to the dance but Harrier is certainly a great
> > design.
>
> When did the last Hunter leave active service? Late '90s, I believe.
> Ask the Indians or teh Jordanians if they were unhappy with them. (And
> the Indians were flying MiG-21s at the same time, and the Jordanians F-104s.)
And at least some Hunter pilots who also flew the Sabre prefer the latter,
although there's not a lot in it either way.
Guy
mea culpa.
>
>>I am not in the aircraft industry, but whatever theory the Russians
>>have available on physics of atmospheric turbulence and dynamics is
>>certainly state of the art.
>
>And why would you say that?? Without the classified supercomputers,
>which exist only in the US, such research, while brilliant, is not
>going to obtain the same, or even nearly the same, results as US
>research. I do not recall the Soviets coming up with a B-2, eg.
>
>Al Minyard
Big grin - are you sure ? Take a look at this one :
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/ho229.html
It's not what I was looking for, I saw something (in a game mag !)
about a German flying wing "Amerika" bomber that could allegedly have
reached American home territory targets in WW2.
Pete Lilleyman
pete.li...@blueyonder.co.remove.uk
(please remove ".remove" to reply direct)
Well yes but it was about as likely to happen as
Germany building more tanks than Russia
Keith
IIRC, the Hunter had a higher wing loading than the Sabre, and the
article I read about the Pak Sabre pilot who shot down 3 Indian
fighters attributed his success to 1) surprise 2) nimbleness of the
Sabre.
>Guy
>
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 08:56:32 GMT, Guy Alcala
> <g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
<snip>
> >And at least some Hunter pilots who also flew the Sabre prefer the latter,
> >although there's not a lot in it either way.
>
> IIRC, the Hunter had a higher wing loading than the Sabre, and the
> article I read about the Pak Sabre pilot who shot down 3 Indian
> fighters attributed his success to 1) surprise 2) nimbleness of the
> Sabre.
The Sabre could turn better at slower speed and may have been superior in roll in some
conditions, the Hunter (F.56, essentially an F-6) was faster, accelerated and climbed
better, and could hit harder. But at least some of the Pakistani Sabres had AIM-9Bs,
and (in 1965 at least), generally better pilots. The a/c performance was close enough
that who saw who first was the most important thing, as is usually the case.
This leads to a question I'd been considering asking for quite a while: how
widespread was the Fitment of AIM-9B's on Earlier NATO Fighters such as the
F-80, F-84 and F-86? did the RAF or RN actaully use the AIM-9 prior to
getting the Phantom (on the latter I've picked up hints that they did, but
no confirmation or details of which aircraft, the Sea Vixen, Javelin and
Lightning stuck to Firestreak/Red Top to my knowlage)
> >> > As fond as I am of the Turkey, because the right engines and avionics
> >> > were so long in arriving, the -D was too late for the dance and not
> >> > enough were built. If the F-14C had arrived on schedule in about 1980,
> >> > there's no doubt that the Navy would keep them in service through
> >> > 2020.
> >>
> >> Uhm, the F-14s Avionics were like one of my '57 Chevy engines,
> >> outlasting 3 bodies. AWG-9 was originally developed for teh Douglas
> >> F6D Missileer, was the root of the F-111B, and finally got to earn its
> >> keep on the F-14. While it's never been the most agile of the Teen
> >> Fighters, it's ability to protect the Fleet ahs never been an issue.
> >
> >Although the ability of the A model Phoenix to do so has been.
Hate to jump in the middle of a thread, but... The AWG-9 was state-of-
the-art when it was produced for the F-14A.
The radar systems in the F6D and F-111B were demo systems and
were not AWG-9s.
Were you thinking there was a better system available at the time?
--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur
> "Guy Alcala" <g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3DBF9AE5...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net...
> > clif...@netdoor.com wrote:
> >
> > But at least some of the Pakistani Sabres had AIM-9Bs,
> > and (in 1965 at least), generally better pilots. The a/c performance was
> close enough
> > that who saw who first was the most important thing, as is usually the
> case.
>
> This leads to a question I'd been considering asking for quite a while: how
> widespread was the Fitment of AIM-9B's on Earlier NATO Fighters such as the
> F-80, F-84 and F-86?
AFAIK, the F-80 never carried them, being phased out before they entered
service. I expect the straight-wing F-84s didn't either, for much the same
reason, and I've never seen a photo of an F-84F with one either, as their
primary task was A/G. Some of the export F-86Ks did get them, but I don't
think any of the U.S. F-86D/Ls ever did, although they may have been
retrofitted after they were exported; Walt Bjorneby would be the person to ask
on that.
> did the RAF or RN actaully use the AIM-9 prior to
> getting the Phantom (on the latter I've picked up hints that they did, but
> no confirmation or details of which aircraft, the Sea Vixen, Javelin and
> Lightning stuck to Firestreak/Red Top to my knowlage)
Personally, I've never seen any photos of RAF/RN pre F-4 a/c with AIM-9s. The
RAF operated the Sabre Mk.4 (essentially an F-86E) while they were waiting for
the Hunter, but that was before the AIM-9 was available, I believe. I think
the RAF Hunters were all tasked with ground attack by the time the AIM-9 was
widely available. Some (NATO) export Hunters were modified to carry AIM-9s,
though, in the early sixties, so it's possible some of the RAf Hunters were
also.
Guy
/someone said/
>> This leads to a question I'd been considering asking for quite a while: how
>> widespread was the Fitment of AIM-9B's on Earlier NATO Fighters such as the
>> F-80, F-84 and F-86?
>
>AFAIK, the F-80 never carried them, being phased out before they entered
>service. I expect the straight-wing F-84s didn't either, for much the same
>reason, and I've never seen a photo of an F-84F with one either, as their
>Personally, I've never seen any photos of RAF/RN pre F-4 a/c with AIM-9s. The
>RAF operated the Sabre Mk.4 (essentially an F-86E) while they were waiting for
>the Hunter, but that was before the AIM-9 was available, I believe. I think
>the RAF Hunters were all tasked with ground attack by the time the AIM-9 was
>widely available. Some (NATO) export Hunters were modified to carry AIM-9s,
>though, in the early sixties, so it's possible some of the RAf Hunters were
>also.
Outside .uk, but .nl operated Squarks (Hawker Sea Hawk) with AIM-9s.
The German Navy's Squarks may have had it too - they certainly had an
interresting 'bad-weather fighter' conversion. The Squark may have been
the 'oldest' jet to get them, unless the F-80 did. I'm pretty sure
Meteor, Vampire and Attacker didn't.
--
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)
<< SNIP>>
> > did the RAF or RN actaully use the AIM-9 prior to
> > getting the Phantom (on the latter I've picked up hints that they did,
but
> > no confirmation or details of which aircraft, the Sea Vixen, Javelin and
> > Lightning stuck to Firestreak/Red Top to my knowlage)
>
> Personally, I've never seen any photos of RAF/RN pre F-4 a/c with AIM-9s.
The
> RAF operated the Sabre Mk.4 (essentially an F-86E) while they were waiting
for
> the Hunter, but that was before the AIM-9 was available, I believe. I
think
> the RAF Hunters were all tasked with ground attack by the time the AIM-9
was
> widely available. Some (NATO) export Hunters were modified to carry
AIM-9s,
> though, in the early sixties, so it's possible some of the RAf Hunters
were
> also.
>
> Guy
While not NATO aircraft, the later Australian Sabres (CA-32) were fitted
with AIM 9B.
Regards
Dave Kearton
From what I've been able to find, F-80s and F-84s (Of either stripe)
never carried AIM-9s. F-86F-40s were set up for them, and I imagine
any 4 pylon (F-86F-30 and up) Daysabre could have been wired up for
them. I've never heard of U.S. Dogships carrying anything other than
FFARS, but I've some photos of Thai F-86Ls with AIM-9s ion inner wing
pylons. (L models got ths F86F-40 wing. Wiring for Sidewinders wasn't
too daunting a problem.
>
>
>> did the RAF or RN actaully use the AIM-9 prior to
>> getting the Phantom (on the latter I've picked up hints that they did, but
>> no confirmation or details of which aircraft, the Sea Vixen, Javelin and
>> Lightning stuck to Firestreak/Red Top to my knowlage)
>
> Personally, I've never seen any photos of RAF/RN pre F-4 a/c with AIM-9s. The
As I understund it, the Royal Navy put AIM-9Bs on Scimitars. (And,
possinly, removed the guns.) I've a memory of a former Fleet Air Arm
Scimitar driver posting here a few years ago. Perhaps he's still around?
> RAF operated the Sabre Mk.4 (essentially an F-86E) while they were waiting for
> the Hunter, but that was before the AIM-9 was available, I believe. I think
> the RAF Hunters were all tasked with ground attack by the time the AIM-9 was
> widely available. Some (NATO) export Hunters were modified to carry AIM-9s,
> though, in the early sixties, so it's possible some of the RAf Hunters were
> also.
Swiss Hunters got them for certain.