Defensive circle

[Dave Eadsforth]

Greetings All,

I wondered if anyone could provide some comment on the use of the
defensive circle in WWII? (Apologies if this was ever covered in detail
in the past - if so, I missed it.)

It occurs to me that the use of the defensive circle (or Lufbery) might
have been somewhat limited as it implies a particular set of
circumstances:

1. You are outnumbered
2. The opposition can outperform your own aircraft type in all but
rate of turn, which makes escape difficult
3. You have the time, fuel and the inclination to sustain the
manoeuvre but the opposition lacks some or all of these to make serious
attempts to break it (this should be true if you are over home ground
and the opposition is remote from its base)
4. Your flight commander made an early decision to enter the manoeuvre
- before the flight got broken up into a dogfight which would have made
it impossible to form up

Given the normal impulse of fighter pilots (other than novices, who have
yet to gain confidence and experience) to mix it, adopting the defensive
circle would actually take a degree of discipline and an acceptance that
this was the best response to make in the prevailing circumstances.

Would it be right to assume that the defensive circle would be even more
effective at low level as it would inhibit one circle breaking method,
sideslipping inside, more difficult?

Would it also be right to assume that there is an effective limit to the
number of aircraft in the defensive circle - too many and would it not
be too big to be effective?

Actual scenarios for usage:

Possibly a flight of patrolling Spitfire Vs (containing some novices)
meeting a strong force of FW190s in 1942?

Possibly a flight of older Russian fighters meeting a strong force of
Luftwaffe fighters?

Any comments (including any actual reported situations) would be very
welcome.

Thanks in anticipation,

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Cub Driver]

I have seen references to the circle's being used by German and
Japanese (JAAF) pilots. In the German case, it was Bf-110s over
Britain. In the JAAF case, it was Ki-43s over Burma.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[WaltBJ]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> I have seen references to the circle's SNIP:
In the Western Desert in WW2 Hans Marseille solved the Lufberry Circle
problem by high angle deflection shooting at minimum range - knocking
down serial kills of Hurricanes and P40s daily. The 'circlers' were
essentially helpless against this tactic when used by an opponent of
superior energy capability. Note that with more or less equal aircraft
(and more aircraft available to join the fight) the Circle isn't that
successful. It's also a way to get 'anchored' over enemy territory -
when the fuel level rate of drop becomes an item of interest. The
Circle worked well against conventional curve of pursuit attacks aince
an attacker necessarily flew in front of the preceding defender,
unless attacker had a much higher rate of knots so he could get in and
get out before said second defender could get guns on him. Nowadays
missiles defeat the defensive circle.
Walt BJ

[Jukka O. Kauppinen]

> Actual scenarios for usage:

Such scenarios were also:

American P-47s or P-51s defending against Luftwaffe fighters

British or American fighters defending in Mediterranean

Russian fighters defending against Finnish fighters

Spanish, German and whatever planes defending in Spanish civil war

Same lufbery circles were used and encountered by all sides throughout
the WW2 from what I've read.

jok

[Dudley Henriques]

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
> Cub Driver > wrote in message
>...
> > I have seen references to the circle's SNIP:
> In the Western Desert in WW2 Hans Marseille solved the Lufberry Circle
> problem by high angle deflection shooting at minimum range - knocking
> down serial kills of Hurricanes and P40s daily. The 'circlers' were
> essentially helpless against this tactic when used by an opponent of
> superior energy capability. Note that with more or less equal aircraft
> (and more aircraft available to join the fight) the Circle isn't that
> successful. It's also a way to get 'anchored' over enemy territory -
> when the fuel level rate of drop becomes an item of interest. The
> Circle worked well against conventional curve of pursuit attacks aince
> an attacker necessarily flew in front of the preceding defender,
> unless attacker had a much higher rate of knots so he could get in and
> get out before said second defender could get guns on him. Nowadays
> missiles defeat the defensive circle.
> Walt BJ

[Dudley Henriques]

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
> Cub Driver > wrote in message
>...
> > I have seen references to the circle's SNIP:
> In the Western Desert in WW2 Hans Marseille solved the Lufberry Circle
> problem by high angle deflection shooting at minimum range - knocking
> down serial kills of Hurricanes and P40s daily. The 'circlers' were
> essentially helpless against this tactic when used by an opponent of
> superior energy capability. Note that with more or less equal aircraft
> (and more aircraft available to join the fight) the Circle isn't that
> successful. It's also a way to get 'anchored' over enemy territory -
> when the fuel level rate of drop becomes an item of interest. The
> Circle worked well against conventional curve of pursuit attacks aince
> an attacker necessarily flew in front of the preceding defender,
> unless attacker had a much higher rate of knots so he could get in and
> get out before said second defender could get guns on him. Nowadays
> missiles defeat the defensive circle.
> Walt BJ

Right on!

Lufberry's looked good on paper....that is until the circle was engaged by
fighters with lower wing loadings; and flown by pilots who knew how to bleed
down and arc. Snap shooters like Marseille could play dixie on these
circles...and did just that...against poorly flown Lufberry's. In fact, even
a higher wing loaded fighter could engage through low yo yo's and arcing if
flown by superior pilots. This was the "real" learning period in ACM. It
involved the painful transition from thinking defensive to thinking like a
Hans Marseille......attack! Just like Hartmann, he boresighted for
conversion range using the windshield bow for wingspan instead of using the
sight, then he pulled g for lead; raised the nose in the turn for gravity
drop; centered the ball for trajectory shift, and hosed them at high angle
off before he bled down and out of the cone.
Pilots who were thinking about things like Lufberry's as they entered the
war didn't last very long in combat. Nothing kills a fighter pilot faster
than over thinking the defensive side of the ACM equation.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
For personal e-mail, use
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
(replacezwithe)

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Dave Eadsforth
> writes
>
>Greetings All,

Just wanted to say thank you to everyone for all the valuable historical
and expert comments - I think I understand the pros and cons very well
now.

Very much appreciated!

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 04:27:15 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>
>"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
>> Cub Driver > wrote in message
>...
>> > I have seen references to the circle's SNIP:
>> In the Western Desert in WW2 Hans Marseille solved the Lufberry Circle
>> problem by high angle deflection shooting at minimum range - knocking
>> down serial kills of Hurricanes and P40s daily. The 'circlers' were
>> essentially helpless against this tactic when used by an opponent of
>> superior energy capability.
>> Walt BJ
>
>Right on!
>
>Lufberry's looked good on paper....that is until the circle was engaged by
>fighters with lower wing loadings; and flown by pilots who knew how to bleed
>down and arc. Snap shooters like Marseille could play dixie on these
>circles...and did just that...against poorly flown Lufberry's. In fact, even
>a higher wing loaded fighter could engage through low yo yo's and arcing if
>flown by superior pilots. This was the "real" learning period in ACM. It
>involved the painful transition from thinking defensive to thinking like a
>Hans Marseille......attack! Just like Hartmann, he boresighted for
>conversion range using the windshield bow for wingspan instead of using the
>sight, then he pulled g for lead; raised the nose in the turn for gravity
>drop; centered the ball for trajectory shift, and hosed them at high angle
>off before he bled down and out of the cone.
>Pilots who were thinking about things like Lufberry's as they entered the
>war didn't last very long in combat. Nothing kills a fighter pilot faster
>than over thinking the defensive side of the ACM equation.
>Dudley Henriques

Great stuff guys. Yet, the primary tactic of the A-10 if attacked by
enemy aircraft remains to "circle the Hogs". As you describe, for the
typically energy superior fighter, the problem is simply one of flying
back and forth across the circle taking high angle shots (or for that
matter, all-aspect IR shots) at the rotating targets.

The theory of the Hogs is that with their tight turn radius they can
snap the nose around and bring the gun to bear on the attacker.
Unfortunately, the attacker simply zooms out of plane, exceeding the
energy ability of the Hog to sustain an extreme nose high position for
more than a few seconds. Throw in lack of a lead computing sight, and
the big gun become little more than a nuisance threat.

On the positive side, the low altitude denies half the maneuver sphere
to the attacker, and ground IR return helps to reduce IR missile
effectiveness, but modern missiles are pretty good discriminators and
Doppler based radar missiles don't much care about ground return.

From another perspective, however, I had always learned that a
Lufberry was a 1-v-1 situation in which the attacker and defender were
trapped in a single circle, same plane fight, tail-chasing each other
and simultaneously trying to attack and defend against the other guy.
If transitioned from horizontal to vertical, it became a rolling
scissors.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 04:27:15 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> Cub Driver > wrote in message
> >...
> >> > I have seen references to the circle's SNIP:
> >> In the Western Desert in WW2 Hans Marseille solved the Lufberry Circle
> >> problem by high angle deflection shooting at minimum range - knocking
> >> down serial kills of Hurricanes and P40s daily. The 'circlers' were
> >> essentially helpless against this tactic when used by an opponent of
> >> superior energy capability.
> >> Walt BJ
> >
> >Right on!
> >
> >Lufberry's looked good on paper....that is until the circle was engaged
by
> >fighters with lower wing loadings; and flown by pilots who knew how to
bleed
> >down and arc. Snap shooters like Marseille could play dixie on these
> >circles...and did just that...against poorly flown Lufberry's. In fact,
even
> >a higher wing loaded fighter could engage through low yo yo's and arcing
if
> >flown by superior pilots. This was the "real" learning period in ACM. It
> >involved the painful transition from thinking defensive to thinking like
a
> >Hans Marseille......attack! Just like Hartmann, he boresighted for
> >conversion range using the windshield bow for wingspan instead of using
the
> >sight, then he pulled g for lead; raised the nose in the turn for gravity
> >drop; centered the ball for trajectory shift, and hosed them at high
angle
> >off before he bled down and out of the cone.
> >Pilots who were thinking about things like Lufberry's as they entered the
> >war didn't last very long in combat. Nothing kills a fighter pilot faster
> >than over thinking the defensive side of the ACM equation.
> >Dudley Henriques
>
> Great stuff guys. Yet, the primary tactic of the A-10 if attacked by
> enemy aircraft remains to "circle the Hogs". As you describe, for the
> typically energy superior fighter, the problem is simply one of flying
> back and forth across the circle taking high angle shots (or for that
> matter, all-aspect IR shots) at the rotating targets.
>
> The theory of the Hogs is that with their tight turn radius they can
> snap the nose around and bring the gun to bear on the attacker.
> Unfortunately, the attacker simply zooms out of plane, exceeding the
> energy ability of the Hog to sustain an extreme nose high position for
> more than a few seconds. Throw in lack of a lead computing sight, and
> the big gun become little more than a nuisance threat.
>
> On the positive side, the low altitude denies half the maneuver sphere
> to the attacker, and ground IR return helps to reduce IR missile
> effectiveness, but modern missiles are pretty good discriminators and
> Doppler based radar missiles don't much care about ground return.
>
> From another perspective, however, I had always learned that a
> Lufberry was a 1-v-1 situation in which the attacker and defender were
> trapped in a single circle, same plane fight, tail-chasing each other
> and simultaneously trying to attack and defend against the other guy.
> If transitioned from horizontal to vertical, it became a rolling
> scissors.

I would agree entirely with this, considering as well the shooter couldn't
match g, or he might soon become the defender!! :-)))
I believe there's is a point where the turning performance delta between a
shooter and a defender turning in plane can become so great that engaging by
the shooter with a high rate of closure in a decreasing angle off pursuit
curve; taking a snap shot going through the overshoot would seem the best
way to go rather than trying to bleed down and arc low through the circle.
Keep in mind also that when I speak at all about Lufberry's, I'm going
mentally backwards to the good old gunning days of yore, when men were
men.....and woman were........and your shooting world was centered on an
angular velocity cone inside 2000 feet and 35 degrees angle off :-)))
I agree with Walt also. Modern tactics and missiles have long ago
outdistanced any advantage in a Lufberry per se', and as for being defensive
to the point of initiating a rolling scissors against a smart
shooter.........that's a heart attack on a bun for sure!!!
:-))))
BTW Ed, if you ever want to see a text book perfect example of vertical
rolling scissors; check out an old movie favorite of mine, "The Battle of
Brittain". There's a beautiful shot of a Spit shaking a 109 by using a
vertical rolling scissors. He initiates nose down and rolling just as the
109 overshoots and the Schmit is just slow enough in the overshoot to pull
back into him by increasing g and pulling back down into the cone. As the
two of them head down, the Spit pops flaps and tightens the roll. The 109
can't follow in time and overshoots wide and outside. It's absolutely
gorgeous!! The Spit separates instead of converting....a bit puzzling, but a
wise move considering he might well have lost him visually in the roll.
Of course, as I said, and I'm sure you agree. You don't get away with this
crap often enough to classify it as anything but "last ditch" type of
stuff!!
Dudley

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 14:17:33 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...

>>
>> From another perspective, however, I had always learned that a
>> Lufberry was a 1-v-1 situation in which the attacker and defender were
>> trapped in a single circle, same plane fight, tail-chasing each other
>> and simultaneously trying to attack and defend against the other guy.
>> If transitioned from horizontal to vertical, it became a rolling
>> scissors.
>
> Modern tactics and missiles have long ago
>outdistanced any advantage in a Lufberry per se', and as for being defensive
>to the point of initiating a rolling scissors against a smart
>shooter.........that's a heart attack on a bun for sure!!!
>:-))))

When we used to instruct the scissors, either as a classic reversing
scissors or the rolling scissors, I used to tell the students that it
was the last place they ever wanted to be since more than 50% of the
people who enter a scissors die there.

They would look quizzically and then suggest it wasn't possible, as
one would be the victor and one the lose, hence 50%.

I then would point out the high likelihood of a mid-air between the
two frantically reversing aircraft, each trying to reacquire nose-tail
separation. Yep, more than 50%!

[Dudley Henriques]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 14:17:33 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>
> >> From another perspective, however, I had always learned that a
> >> Lufberry was a 1-v-1 situation in which the attacker and defender were
> >> trapped in a single circle, same plane fight, tail-chasing each other
> >> and simultaneously trying to attack and defend against the other guy.
> >> If transitioned from horizontal to vertical, it became a rolling
> >> scissors.
> >
> > Modern tactics and missiles have long ago
> >outdistanced any advantage in a Lufberry per se', and as for being
defensive
> >to the point of initiating a rolling scissors against a smart
> >shooter.........that's a heart attack on a bun for sure!!!
> >:-))))
>
> When we used to instruct the scissors, either as a classic reversing
> scissors or the rolling scissors, I used to tell the students that it
> was the last place they ever wanted to be since more than 50% of the
> people who enter a scissors die there.
>
> They would look quizzically and then suggest it wasn't possible, as
> one would be the victor and one the lose, hence 50%.
>
> I then would point out the high likelihood of a mid-air between the
> two frantically reversing aircraft, each trying to reacquire nose-tail
> separation. Yep, more than 50%!

You are so right about losing sight. One of the greatest misunderstandings
among novices about aerial combat, and something they learn very quickly as
they move into the learning curve, is the value of sight. Many come in
visualizing only the written material, which as you and I well know, doesn't
begin to paint the "real picture" of what it's like up there when you start
yanking the damn thing around. They all seem to have that rock solid line
drawing view of what to expect. Then, all of a sudden, reality sets in as
they go nose to nose with a closure of 1000 kts or more. In fact, I don't
know about you, but one of the earliest "lessons" I had to deal with
personally when aggressively maneuvering a fighter was that my damn helmet
would slip down and block my vision in direct proportion to the g I was
putting on the airplane. Hell, I began to "really" learn something when I
realized that I could almost tell the g I had on the bird at any moment by
where the upper lip of the helmet was on my forehead!! :-)))
I also remember that one of the first things you encounter as an acm
instructor is getting them through that first hour of 1 v 1 with some kind
of feeling of self accomplishment, as all their preconceived "book learn'in"
and "notions" go right out the canopy and they start screaming through the
ICS...."How much offset did you say I need"......."Where is he????.......
Where the hell IS HE?????" "DAMN!!!! THERE he is!!!!........"
:-)))))
Dudley

[Corey C. Jordan]

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:35:06 GMT, Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>
>Great stuff guys. Yet, the primary tactic of the A-10 if attacked by
>enemy aircraft remains to "circle the Hogs". As you describe, for the
>typically energy superior fighter, the problem is simply one of flying
>back and forth across the circle taking high angle shots (or for that
>matter, all-aspect IR shots) at the rotating targets.
>
>The theory of the Hogs is that with their tight turn radius they can
>snap the nose around and bring the gun to bear on the attacker.
>Unfortunately, the attacker simply zooms out of plane, exceeding the
>energy ability of the Hog to sustain an extreme nose high position for
>more than a few seconds. Throw in lack of a lead computing sight, and
>the big gun become little more than a nuisance threat.

Breaking up a defensive circle is easy as long as it is at an altitude
sufficiently high to allow unrestricted vertical maneuvering. My view is that
the defending aircraft want to get right down in the weeds ASAP. Down on the
deck they can use topography to mask themselves, even conceal a sneaky reverse.
This also introduces the difficulty of visually picking out individual aircraft
in the ground clutter. The circle should not be so tight that aspect changes are
minimalized. I'm sure you've seen what happens when turning circles are so tight
that the relative aspect between target and shooter barely changes due to
a very tight turn radius, yet poor turn rate (in degrees/second).

My regards,

Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.netaces.org
http://www.hitechcreations.com

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 04:27:15 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> Cub Driver > wrote in message
> >...
> >> > I have seen references to the circle's SNIP:
> >> In the Western Desert in WW2 Hans Marseille solved the Lufberry Circle
> >> problem by high angle deflection shooting at minimum range - knocking
> >> down serial kills of Hurricanes and P40s daily. The 'circlers' were
> >> essentially helpless against this tactic when used by an opponent of
> >> superior energy capability.
> >> Walt BJ
> >
> >Right on!
> >
> >Lufberry's looked good on paper....that is until the circle was engaged by
> >fighters with lower wing loadings; and flown by pilots who knew how to bleed
> >down and arc. Snap shooters like Marseille could play dixie on these
> >circles...and did just that...against poorly flown Lufberry's. In fact, even
> >a higher wing loaded fighter could engage through low yo yo's and arcing if
> >flown by superior pilots. This was the "real" learning period in ACM. It
> >involved the painful transition from thinking defensive to thinking like a
> >Hans Marseille......attack! Just like Hartmann, he boresighted for
> >conversion range using the windshield bow for wingspan instead of using the
> >sight, then he pulled g for lead; raised the nose in the turn for gravity
> >drop; centered the ball for trajectory shift, and hosed them at high angle
> >off before he bled down and out of the cone.
> >Pilots who were thinking about things like Lufberry's as they entered the
> >war didn't last very long in combat. Nothing kills a fighter pilot faster
> >than over thinking the defensive side of the ACM equation.
> >Dudley Henriques
>
> Great stuff guys. Yet, the primary tactic of the A-10 if attacked by
> enemy aircraft remains to "circle the Hogs". As you describe, for the
> typically energy superior fighter, the problem is simply one of flying
> back and forth across the circle taking high angle shots (or for that
> matter, all-aspect IR shots) at the rotating targets.
>
> The theory of the Hogs is that with their tight turn radius they can
> snap the nose around and bring the gun to bear on the attacker.
> Unfortunately, the attacker simply zooms out of plane, exceeding the
> energy ability of the Hog to sustain an extreme nose high position for
> more than a few seconds. Throw in lack of a lead computing sight, and
> the big gun become little more than a nuisance threat.

<snip>

Of course, since a year or two after DS the Hogs have had a lead-computing
gunsight (LASTE), and they had AIM-9Ls before DS. And they also had a special
waiver at Red Flag (at least in the '80s) that allowed them to take head-on gun
shots inside the 1,000 foot bubble, implying that their primary defensive move
(along with getting as low as possible) would be to use their turn rate and
radius to face the threat and pop him with either a missile or the gun. And all
those chaff and flares don't hurt either, if defeating a missile becomes
necessary.

Guy

[Cub Driver]

About the Warthog: The A-10 has been in the inventory for longer than
many or most of the posters on this newsgroup have been alive. It has
served creditably in three wars that I know of. Has it ever had to go
into a defensive circle?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Ron]

>About the Warthog: The A-10 has been in the inventory for longer than
>many or most of the posters on this newsgroup have been alive. It has
>served creditably in three wars that I know of. Has it ever had to go
>into a defensive circle?
>

One of my friends that flies F-16s got into one with 3 A-10s once. There was a
altitude limitation placed on him, so he couldnt just go up and do a "Hog
pop"..

He said it ended up being a draw, neither could get in firing position on the
others, and that an A-10 can potentially turn inside its own ass under the
right conditions.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 06:08:05 -0400, Cub Driver >
wrote:

>About the Warthog: The A-10 has been in the inventory for longer than
>many or most of the posters on this newsgroup have been alive.

I wish you wouldn't write stuff like this. I remember the A-10 first
flight, which was after I got out of college and was working at
Edwards. It's one thing to be older than dirt, but another entirely
to be older than the Warthog (and the Eagle, Viper, Turkey, Plastic
Bug, C-17, Tornado, Gripen, and Mach-1-plus flight).

Mary
--
Mary Shafer
"There are only two types of aircraft--fighters and targets"
Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC

[John R Weiss]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote...
>
> It's one thing to be older than dirt, but another entirely
> to be older than the Warthog (and the Eagle, Viper, Turkey, Plastic
> Bug, C-17, Tornado, Gripen, and Mach-1-plus flight).

Just consider yourself a walking aviation history library! :-)

[Dudley Henriques]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:6w6fb.25559$%h1.15156@sccrnsc02...
> "Mary Shafer" > wrote...
> >
> > It's one thing to be older than dirt, but another entirely
> > to be older than the Warthog (and the Eagle, Viper, Turkey, Plastic
> > Bug, C-17, Tornado, Gripen, and Mach-1-plus flight).
>
> Just consider yourself a walking aviation history library! :-)

Now that she's retired , I was hoping I could get her to come over here and
help me with my retirement work.......you know; yard work!!! :-)))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
For personal e-mail, use
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
(replacezwithe)


>

[BackToNormal]

"John R Weiss" > wrote:

> "Mary Shafer" > wrote...
> >
> > It's one thing to be older than dirt, but another entirely
> > to be older than the Warthog (and the Eagle, Viper, Turkey, Plastic
> > Bug, C-17, Tornado, Gripen, and Mach-1-plus flight).
>
> Just consider yourself a walking aviation history library! :-)

And very much appreciated by lurkers like me.

ronh
--
"People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine

[Cub Driver]

Wonderful! Thanks.

The A-10 is a testament to unintended consequences, or something or
other. Here's a plane that's obsolescent, that has served well, and
that has never seen combat that involved an enemy air force of any
significance. Probably most of the Air Force officers who argued that
the plane was unsuitable because it couldn't survive in the air have
retired by now, and the A-10 is still soldiering on.

Here's an interview with Killer Chick aka Kim Campbell, Hog driver in
the recent unpleasantness: www.warbirdforum.com/chick.htm

And here's a review of a book about the A-10's role in the USAF:
www.warbirdforum.com/warthog.htm


On 02 Oct 2003 16:08:57 GMT, (Ron) wrote:

>>About the Warthog: The A-10 has been in the inventory for longer than
>>many or most of the posters on this newsgroup have been alive. It has
>>served creditably in three wars that I know of. Has it ever had to go
>>into a defensive circle?
>>
>
>One of my friends that flies F-16s got into one with 3 A-10s once. There was a
>altitude limitation placed on him, so he couldnt just go up and do a "Hog
>pop"..
>
>He said it ended up being a draw, neither could get in firing position on the
>others, and that an A-10 can potentially turn inside its own ass under the
>right conditions.
>
>
>Ron
>Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Mary Shafer]

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 04:07:49 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>
>"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
>news:6w6fb.25559$%h1.15156@sccrnsc02...
>> "Mary Shafer" > wrote...
>> >
>> > It's one thing to be older than dirt, but another entirely
>> > to be older than the Warthog (and the Eagle, Viper, Turkey, Plastic
>> > Bug, C-17, Tornado, Gripen, and Mach-1-plus flight).
>>
>> Just consider yourself a walking aviation history library! :-)
>
>Now that she's retired , I was hoping I could get her to come over here and
>help me with my retirement work.......you know; yard work!!! :-)))

I cleverly retired to a place with postage-stamp-sized lots and
draconian restrictions on the number of plants, just to avoid yard
work. The hardest thing I do in the yard is pick lemons off the tree.

I have to admit that the dogs do cause a certain amount of work in the
yard. That's not yard work, per se, but dog work, though.

Mary
--
Mary Shafer
"There are only two types of aircraft--fighters and targets"
Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC

[WaltBJ]

A tight turning circle down in the weeds is damn difficut to attack
without hitting the ground yourself. By DIW I mean the defender is
flying as low as he can and still stay alive, 25 feet or less. The
attacker has his hands full trying to pull lead and keep from slipping
below the defender's turning plane. You can find cases of this in BoB
records where RAF pilots were down low and had a 109 trapped at six
but got out of it by getting even lower. I know a PRANG pilot back in
the 70's who got bounced by 2 F14s and kept them from tracking him by
going down just above the waves. He was creaking around for a week
after pulling 7G for way too long but they ran out of fuel before they
ever got 'guns' on him. That was after his flight successfully
attacked the Ike by coming in at zero feet in sea clutter.
Walt BJ

[vincent p. norris]

>I wish you wouldn't write stuff like this. I remember the A-10 first
>flight, which was after I got out of college and was working at
>Edwards. It's one thing to be older than dirt, but another entirely
>to be older than the Warthog (and the Eagle, Viper, Turkey, Plastic
>Bug, C-17, Tornado, Gripen, and Mach-1-plus flight).

Don't complain, Mary. I'm older than the P-6E!

vince norris

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, Mary Shafer
> writes
>On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 06:08:05 -0400, Cub Driver >
>wrote:
>
>>About the Warthog: The A-10 has been in the inventory for longer than
>>many or most of the posters on this newsgroup have been alive.
>
>I wish you wouldn't write stuff like this. I remember the A-10 first
>flight, which was after I got out of college and was working at
>Edwards. It's one thing to be older than dirt, but another entirely
>to be older than the Warthog (and the Eagle, Viper, Turkey, Plastic
>Bug, C-17, Tornado, Gripen, and Mach-1-plus flight).
>
>Mary

Even worse, I was born the day the last Sunderland was launched, and
I've not had as interesting a professional life (in aviation terms,
anyway). :-(
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!