F-15 Eagle and F-14 Tomcat

[Chris Range]

I have an utterly stupid question. What is the difference between
these two fighters? From a distance, they look exactly the same.

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"Chris Range" > wrote in message
om...
> I have an utterly stupid question. What is the difference between
> these two fighters? From a distance, they look exactly the same.

Yep, it's an utterly stupid question alright. Except for the fact that they
were both originally designed to be the absolute best air-superiority
fighters for their respective services (Air Force and Navy), and are
amazingly capable aircraft, they have little in common. Rather than list all
of the differences and similarities, I'll give you a couple of links for you
to read up on:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-14.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-15.htm

These should give you all the information you'll ever need about the two
planes. They're very different.

[robert arndt]

(Chris Range) wrote in message >...
> I have an utterly stupid question. What is the difference between
> these two fighters? From a distance, they look exactly the same.


Well, in rather simplistic terms the F-15 Eagle is a terrestrial-based
(land dependent) USAF premiere air superiority fighter that was later
adapted into a limited strike aircraft in the E-model. A further
paint-scraped version was used for a series of world speed and height
records before losing them to the Su-27 Flanker.
The F-14, OTOH, is a naval carrier-based fleet defense interceptor
with swing-wings, a backseat RIO, and a nasty ultra long-range
Maverick missile for knocking out (back a couple decades ago)
predicted enemy "Bear" long-range Soviet bombers. Both aircraft are 3
decades old and need replacing.
Now, the USAF has a rather pathetic F-22 Raptor to fill the F-15 role
while everyone else is going with the more sensible cost-effective
VTOL F-35 Griffin* that is a true multirole aircraft.
The USAF, naturally being embarassed as hell, has subsequently tried
to sell the US taxpayer on a strike version, naval version, and even a
bomber version of the F-22 while simulateneously trying to justify the
astronomical unit cost of each Raptor approaching $200 million!!!
The number 22 seems unlucky as we have both the F-22 and V-22. We need
to axe them both... oops, sorry for going off on a tangent.

Rob

* current probable designation

[Evan Williams]

<snip some crap>

> The F-14, OTOH, is a naval carrier-based fleet defense interceptor
> with swing-wings, a backseat RIO, and a nasty ultra long-range
> Maverick missile for knocking out (back a couple decades ago)
> predicted enemy "Bear" long-range Soviet bombers. Both aircraft are 3
> decades old and need replacing.

The AGM-65 Maverick missile is an Air to GROUND missile that in my
experience is generally used against armored vehicles.

<snip some more crap>

Evan Williams
SSgt USMC (ret) I've waited twenty years to say that

[Yeff]

On 4 Jul 2004 18:40:06 -0700, Chris Range wrote:

> What is the difference between
> these two fighters?

The F-15 has a better Hollywood agent...

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> (Chris Range) wrote in message
>...
> > I have an utterly stupid question. What is the difference between
> > these two fighters? From a distance, they look exactly the same.
>
>

You probably shouldn't listen to this person, as he couldn't even get the
name of the F-14's long range missle right. It's the AIM-54 Phoenix, not the
Maverick. The quality of the rest of his information is approximately as
good.

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"Yeff" > wrote in message
...
> On 4 Jul 2004 18:40:06 -0700, Chris Range wrote:
>
> > What is the difference between
> > these two fighters?
>
> The F-15 has a better Hollywood agent...
>

You're thinking of the F-14.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Yeff" > wrote in message
...
>
> The F-15 has a better Hollywood agent...
>

Hmmm..., I recall the F-14 being featured in a major Hollywood production,
not so the F-15.

[robert arndt]

"Evan Williams" > wrote in message et>...
> <snip some crap>
>
> > The F-14, OTOH, is a naval carrier-based fleet defense interceptor
> > with swing-wings, a backseat RIO, and a nasty ultra long-range
> > Maverick missile for knocking out (back a couple decades ago)
> > predicted enemy "Bear" long-range Soviet bombers. Both aircraft are 3
> > decades old and need replacing.
>
> The AGM-65 Maverick missile is an Air to GROUND missile that in my
> experience is generally used against armored vehicles.
>
> <snip some more crap>
>
> Evan Williams
> SSgt USMC (ret) I've waited twenty years to say that


Absolutely correct, my bad... should read Phoenix... "Top Gun" was on
tv all day yesterday!
Thanks for the polite correction,
Rob

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)

>
(Chris Range) wrote in message
>...
>> I have an utterly stupid question. What is the difference between
>> these two fighters? From a distance, they look exactly the same.
>
>
>Well, in rather simplistic terms the F-15 Eagle is a terrestrial-based
>(land dependent) USAF premiere air superiority fighter that was later
>adapted into a limited strike aircraft in the E-model. A further
>paint-scraped version was used for a series of world speed and height
>records before losing them to the Su-27 Flanker.
>The F-14, OTOH, is a naval carrier-based fleet defense interceptor
>with swing-wings, a backseat RIO, and a nasty ultra long-range
>Maverick missile for knocking out (back a couple decades ago)
>predicted enemy "Bear" long-range Soviet bombers.

Teuton, congratulations, you have set a new low for yourself. Mavs are air to
ground.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Blinky the Shark]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Yeff" > wrote in message
> ...

>> The F-15 has a better Hollywood agent...

> Hmmm..., I recall the F-14 being featured in a major Hollywood production,
> not so the F-15.

I have no dog in this fight, but didn't

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091278/

feature the F-15?

IIRC there was even a sequel (which probably sucked <g>).

--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
New June 23:
Linux In 20 Steps: (at Blinkynet) http://snipurl.com/7amq

[Brett]

"Blinky the Shark" > wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> > "Yeff" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >> The F-15 has a better Hollywood agent...
>
> > Hmmm..., I recall the F-14 being featured in a major Hollywood
production,
> > not so the F-15.
>
> I have no dog in this fight, but didn't
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091278/
>
> feature the F-15?

F-16's

> IIRC there was even a sequel (which probably sucked <g>).

The original sucked and the studios made 3 more.

[Blinky the Shark]

Brett wrote:

> "Blinky the Shark" > wrote:
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>> > "Yeff" > wrote in message
>> > ...

>> >> The F-15 has a better Hollywood agent...

>> > Hmmm..., I recall the F-14 being featured in a major Hollywood
> production,
>> > not so the F-15.

>> I have no dog in this fight, but didn't

>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091278/

>> feature the F-15?

> F-16's

Oh. Well, awright, then. :)

--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
New June 23:
Linux In 20 Steps: (at Blinkynet) http://snipurl.com/7amq

[Scott Ferrin]

On 5 Jul 2004 23:21:46 GMT, Blinky the Shark >
wrote:

>Brett wrote:
>
>> "Blinky the Shark" > wrote:
>>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>>> > "Yeff" > wrote in message
>>> > ...
>
>>> >> The F-15 has a better Hollywood agent...
>
>>> > Hmmm..., I recall the F-14 being featured in a major Hollywood
>> production,
>>> > not so the F-15.
>
>>> I have no dog in this fight, but didn't
>
>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091278/
>
>>> feature the F-15?
>
>> F-16's
>
>Oh. Well, awright, then. :)


Iron Eagle <shudder> F-16s
Air Force One F-15s
Top Gun F-14s
Independence Day F-18s
Behind Enemy Lines F-18E (and a missile evasion sequence that makes
Iron Eagle look like a tape from Red Flag for authenticity)

[Jim Yanik]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in
:

>
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
>> (Chris Range) wrote in message
> >...
>> > I have an utterly stupid question. What is the difference between
>> > these two fighters? From a distance, they look exactly the same.
>>



Just looking at the rear of each plane,the F-15 has it's tailpipes inboard
of the rudders,while the F-14 has the rudders right over the tailpipes.

The F-15 has a clipped delta wing,while the F-14 has swingwings.

F-14 is a carrier-based interceptor,while the F-15 is a fixed runway air
superiority fighter(-E version also ground attack)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Blinky the Shark" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have no dog in this fight, but didn't
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091278/
>
> feature the F-15?
>

No, the F-16 was featured in that piece of crap.


>
> IIRC there was even a sequel (which probably sucked <g>).
>

I didn't see it, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.

[Yeff]

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 16:06:31 GMT, Thomas J. Paladino Jr. wrote:

> "Yeff" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 4 Jul 2004 18:40:06 -0700, Chris Range wrote:
>>
>>> What is the difference between
>>> these two fighters?
>>
>> The F-15 has a better Hollywood agent...
>>
>
> You're thinking of the F-14.

Read what I meant, not what I typed! <g>

-Jeff B. (who fat-fingered the five)
yeff at erols dot com

[Yeff]

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 02:19:45 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Blinky the Shark" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I have no dog in this fight, but didn't
>>
>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091278/
>>
>> feature the F-15?
>>
>
> No, the F-16 was featured in that piece of crap.
>
>
>>
>> IIRC there was even a sequel (which probably sucked <g>).
>>
>
> I didn't see it, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.

The "Iron Eagle" series achieved the physical impossibility of both sucking
and blowing at the same time.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[Blinky the Shark]

Yeff wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 02:19:45 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>> "Blinky the Shark" > wrote in message
>> ...

>>> I have no dog in this fight, but didn't

>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091278/

>>> feature the F-15?

>> No, the F-16 was featured in that piece of crap.

>>> IIRC there was even a sequel (which probably sucked <g>).

>> I didn't see it, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.

> The "Iron Eagle" series achieved the physical impossibility of both sucking
> and blowing at the same time.

Doesn't that make it a turbine engine?

--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
New June 23:
Linux In 20 Steps: (at Blinkynet) http://snipurl.com/7amq

[robert arndt]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: (robert arndt)
>
> >
> (Chris Range) wrote in message
> >...
> >> I have an utterly stupid question. What is the difference between
> >> these two fighters? From a distance, they look exactly the same.
> >
> >
> >Well, in rather simplistic terms the F-15 Eagle is a terrestrial-based
> >(land dependent) USAF premiere air superiority fighter that was later
> >adapted into a limited strike aircraft in the E-model. A further
> >paint-scraped version was used for a series of world speed and height
> >records before losing them to the Su-27 Flanker.
> >The F-14, OTOH, is a naval carrier-based fleet defense interceptor
> >with swing-wings, a backseat RIO, and a nasty ultra long-range
> >Maverick missile for knocking out (back a couple decades ago)
> >predicted enemy "Bear" long-range Soviet bombers.
>
> Teuton, congratulations, you have set a new low for yourself. Mavs are air to
> ground.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

See thread apology/correction. It would be nice if you actually
bothered to read all the posts in the thread before commenting.
Somebody already corrected the slight mistake(which just about
everyone makes here at RAM from time to time)and I thanked him for it.
Everything else I said about the F-14 and F-15 was right on the money.

Rob

[B2431]

>From: Scott Ferrin
>Date: 7/5/2004 7:46 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 5 Jul 2004 23:21:46 GMT, Blinky the Shark >
>wrote:
>
>>Brett wrote:
>>
>>> "Blinky the Shark" > wrote:
>>>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>>> > "Yeff" > wrote in message
>>>> > ...
>>
>>>> >> The F-15 has a better Hollywood agent...
>>
>>>> > Hmmm..., I recall the F-14 being featured in a major Hollywood
>>> production,
>>>> > not so the F-15.
>>
>>>> I have no dog in this fight, but didn't
>>
>>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091278/
>>
>>>> feature the F-15?
>>
>>> F-16's
>>
>>Oh. Well, awright, then. :)
>
>
>Iron Eagle <shudder> F-16s
>Air Force One F-15s
>Top Gun F-14s
>Independence Day F-18s
>Behind Enemy Lines F-18E (and a missile evasion sequence that makes
>Iron Eagle look like a tape from Red Flag for authenticity)

Another piece of trash had a passenger compartment and a WSO position in an
F117. I don't recall the name, but an Army man played WSO.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)
>Date: 7/6/2004 12:44 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(B2431) wrote in message
>...
>> >From: (robert arndt)
>>
>> >
>> (Chris Range) wrote in message
>> >...
>> >> I have an utterly stupid question. What is the difference between
>> >> these two fighters? From a distance, they look exactly the same.
>> >
>> >
>> >Well, in rather simplistic terms the F-15 Eagle is a terrestrial-based
>> >(land dependent) USAF premiere air superiority fighter that was later
>> >adapted into a limited strike aircraft in the E-model. A further
>> >paint-scraped version was used for a series of world speed and height
>> >records before losing them to the Su-27 Flanker.
>> >The F-14, OTOH, is a naval carrier-based fleet defense interceptor
>> >with swing-wings, a backseat RIO, and a nasty ultra long-range
>> >Maverick missile for knocking out (back a couple decades ago)
>> >predicted enemy "Bear" long-range Soviet bombers.
>>
>> Teuton, congratulations, you have set a new low for yourself. Mavs are air
>to
>> ground.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>See thread apology/correction. It would be nice if you actually
>bothered to read all the posts in the thread before commenting.
>Somebody already corrected the slight mistake(which just about
>everyone makes here at RAM from time to time)and I thanked him for it.
>Everything else I said about the F-14 and F-15 was right on the money.
>
>Rob

You actually told the truth and I missed it?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Blinky the Shark]

B2431 wrote:
>>From: Scott Ferrin
>>Date: 7/5/2004 7:46 PM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >

>>On 5 Jul 2004 23:21:46 GMT, Blinky the Shark >
>>wrote:

>>>Brett wrote:

>>>> "Blinky the Shark" > wrote:
>>>>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>>>>> > "Yeff" > wrote in message
>>>>> > ...

>>>>> >> The F-15 has a better Hollywood agent...

>>>>> > Hmmm..., I recall the F-14 being featured in a major Hollywood
>>>> production,
>>>>> > not so the F-15.

>>>>> I have no dog in this fight, but didn't

>>>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091278/

>>>>> feature the F-15?

>>>> F-16's

>>>Oh. Well, awright, then. :)

>>Iron Eagle <shudder> F-16s
>>Air Force One F-15s
>>Top Gun F-14s
>>Independence Day F-18s
>>Behind Enemy Lines F-18E (and a missile evasion sequence that makes
>>Iron Eagle look like a tape from Red Flag for authenticity)

> Another piece of trash had a passenger compartment and a WSO position in an
> F117. I don't recall the name, but an Army man played WSO.

Interceptors?

"Lt. Sean Lambert (Olivier Gruner) and his team of mercenaries (Glenn Plummer,
William Zabka) are deployed to investigate the crash of a squadron of F117's in
Mexico. Sean, his team, and a couple scientists sent by the Air Force go to
investigate the crash of the F117 to find a alien spacecraft instead. They must
track and destroy an alien that defies physics."

--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
New June 23:
Linux In 20 Steps: (at Blinkynet) http://snipurl.com/7amq

[Rob van Riel]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message et>...
> "Blinky the Shark" > wrote in message
> ...
> > IIRC there was even a sequel (which probably sucked <g>).
> >
>
> I didn't see it, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.

It did, in fact, all of the sequels did. That didn't stop me from
watching (parts of) them on the idiot box on occasion. I their
defence, they did show footage of some interesting aircraft, like
Rutan's Ares. I still want to know what they had to force feed those
Phantoms though to get them to pretend to be Migs :-)

Rob

[Ragnar]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: Scott Ferrin
> >Date: 7/5/2004 7:46 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >On 5 Jul 2004 23:21:46 GMT, Blinky the Shark >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Brett wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Blinky the Shark" > wrote:
> >>>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> >>
> >>>> > "Yeff" > wrote in message
> >>>> > ...
> >>
> >>>> >> The F-15 has a better Hollywood agent...
> >>
> >>>> > Hmmm..., I recall the F-14 being featured in a major Hollywood
> >>> production,
> >>>> > not so the F-15.
> >>
> >>>> I have no dog in this fight, but didn't
> >>
> >>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091278/
> >>
> >>>> feature the F-15?
> >>
> >>> F-16's
> >>
> >>Oh. Well, awright, then. :)
> >
> >
> >Iron Eagle <shudder> F-16s
> >Air Force One F-15s
> >Top Gun F-14s
> >Independence Day F-18s
> >Behind Enemy Lines F-18E (and a missile evasion sequence that makes
> >Iron Eagle look like a tape from Red Flag for authenticity)
>
> Another piece of trash had a passenger compartment and a WSO position in
an
> F117. I don't recall the name, but an Army man played WSO.

That was "Executive Decision", with Kurt Russell and Steven Seagal. IMHO,
the best movie Steven Seagal ever made - in the highlight of the whole
movie, he got sucked out of the F-117 at 30,000 feet with no parachute :)

The next hour or so of the movie is forgetable.

[Ron]

>> > IIRC there was even a sequel (which probably sucked <g>).
>> >
>>
>> I didn't see it, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.
>
>It did, in fact, all of the sequels did. That didn't stop me from
>watching (parts of) them on the idiot box on occasion. I their
>defence, they did show footage of some interesting aircraft, like
>Rutan's Ares. I still want to know what they had to force feed those
>Phantoms though to get them to pretend to be Migs :-)
>
>Rob

There were several sequels, and they managed to get worse each time. I think
after Iron eagle 2, they all went straight to video.


Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

[Zamboni]

"Blinky the Shark" > wrote in message
...
>
> >>Iron Eagle <shudder> F-16s
> >>Air Force One F-15s
> >>Top Gun F-14s
> >>Independence Day F-18s
> >>Behind Enemy Lines F-18E (and a missile evasion sequence that makes
> >>Iron Eagle look like a tape from Red Flag for authenticity)
>
> > Another piece of trash had a passenger compartment and a WSO position in
an
> > F117. I don't recall the name, but an Army man played WSO.
>
> Interceptors?
>
> "Lt. Sean Lambert (Olivier Gruner) and his team of mercenaries (Glenn
Plummer,
> William Zabka) are deployed to investigate the crash of a squadron of
F117's in
> Mexico. Sean, his team, and a couple scientists sent by the Air Force go
to
> investigate the crash of the F117 to find a alien spacecraft instead. They
must
> track and destroy an alien that defies physics."
>
"Interceptor" had a pair of F-117s being dropped from the back of a C-5,
followed by a dogfight (one F-117 was hijacked, see...).
--
Zamboni

[Ad absurdum per aspera]

> It did, in fact, all of the sequels did.

The original may make more sense if you think of it as opera --
specifically, a heavy metal rock opera by Ronnie James Dio -- rather
than as a literalist airplane movie. I never saw any of the sequels.


[i]
> I still want to know what they had to force feed those
> Phantoms though to get them to pretend to be Migs

Reminds me of something I saw about five minutes of on cable, killing
time while waiting for somebody. Capsule summary:

Two F-16 pilots out of Alaska are in some sort of intramural contest
to exceed 9 g by as much as they could bear. They stray over Russian
airspace and get intercepted by a couple of those Mig-Donnell products
(painted up as if for an attack role in the desert somewhere).
Missiles and ejection seats start flying around. The remaining F-16
guy and the still-functioning Phantomovich disengage and figure out
what to tell their respective higher-ups.

Complications presumably ensue, but I didn't get to see enough to
figure out what I was watching.

Why filmmakers would think one of the most distinctive looking jets in
the air could be palmed off as anything else (well, maybe a MiG-23
from some angles on dollar beer night), I have no idea. There's a
lot of things I don't know and many of them are in Hollywood...

--Joe

[B2431]

>From: "Ragnar"
>Date: 7/6/2004 3:25 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: Scott Ferrin
>> >Date: 7/5/2004 7:46 PM Central Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >On 5 Jul 2004 23:21:46 GMT, Blinky the Shark >
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>Brett wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> "Blinky the Shark" > wrote:
>> >>>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> > "Yeff" > wrote in message
>> >>>> > ...
>> >>
>> >>>> >> The F-15 has a better Hollywood agent...
>> >>
>> >>>> > Hmmm..., I recall the F-14 being featured in a major Hollywood
>> >>> production,
>> >>>> > not so the F-15.
>> >>
>> >>>> I have no dog in this fight, but didn't
>> >>
>> >>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091278/
>> >>
>> >>>> feature the F-15?
>> >>
>> >>> F-16's
>> >>
>> >>Oh. Well, awright, then. :)
>> >
>> >
>> >Iron Eagle <shudder> F-16s
>> >Air Force One F-15s
>> >Top Gun F-14s
>> >Independence Day F-18s
>> >Behind Enemy Lines F-18E (and a missile evasion sequence that makes
>> >Iron Eagle look like a tape from Red Flag for authenticity)
>>
>> Another piece of trash had a passenger compartment and a WSO position in
>an
>> F117. I don't recall the name, but an Army man played WSO.
>
>That was "Executive Decision", with Kurt Russell and Steven Seagal. IMHO,
>the best movie Steven Seagal ever made - in the highlight of the whole
>movie, he got sucked out of the F-117 at 30,000 feet with no parachute :)
>
>The next hour or so of the movie is forgetable.

The one I was thinking of involved leaving the F-117 in plain sight at an
unsecured airstrip for a day or two while they went to rescue some guy being
held by the bad guys. It was horrible to the point of being amusing.

Dan, U.S.Air Force, retired

[Johnny Bravo]

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 17:25:44 +0900, "Ragnar" >
wrote:

>> Another piece of trash had a passenger compartment and a WSO position in
>an
>> F117. I don't recall the name, but an Army man played WSO.
>
>That was "Executive Decision", with Kurt Russell and Steven Seagal. IMHO,
>the best movie Steven Seagal ever made - in the highlight of the whole
>movie, he got sucked out of the F-117 at 30,000 feet with no parachute :)
>
>The next hour or so of the movie is forgetable.

Can't forget to mention that this happens very early in the movie so
you don't even have to wait long for the good part before you change
the channel and watch something worthwhile. :)

--
"We will always remember. We will always be proud.
We will always be prepared, so we may always be free."

[Richard Stewart]

B2431 wrote:
> The one I was thinking of involved leaving the F-117 in plain sight at an
> unsecured airstrip for a day or two while they went to rescue some guy
> being held by the bad guys. It was horrible to the point of being amusing.
>
> Dan, U.S.Air Force, retired

Philadelphia Experiment 2?

Cheers,
Richard

[Mary Shafer]

On 4 Jul 2004 18:40:06 -0700, (Chris Range)
wrote:

> I have an utterly stupid question. What is the difference between
> these two fighters? From a distance, they look exactly the same.

That's easy. The F-15 is a good-looking airplane and the F-14 isn't.

OK, that's not going to help you. Let's see:

The F-15 has a pointier nose than the F-14 does.
The F-15 has a longer, thinner forebody.
The F-15 wing is pretty much all in front of the verticals.
The F-14 wing sweeps and looks thicker at the root.
The F-14 fuselage is fatter.
The F-14 inlets aren't as exposed.
The F-15 engines are right next to each other on the centerline.
The F-14 engines are a lot further apart.
The F-14 aft fuselage is wider.
The F-14 canopy is slanted at the sill and it's more bubble-like
The F-15 canopy is level and more teardrop-like. It can be a lot
shorter for the single-seat versions (A and C models).
The F-15 wing has a lot more area.

But they do look a lot alike at a glance until you glance at a lot of
them. The F-14 looks huskier, as least to me.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Alan Dicey]

Scott Ferrin wrote:

> Iron Eagle <shudder> F-16s
> Air Force One F-15s
> Top Gun F-14s
> Independence Day F-18s
> Behind Enemy Lines F-18E (and a missile evasion sequence that makes
> Iron Eagle look like a tape from Red Flag for authenticity)

Nobody's mentioned Flight Of The Intruder (A-6 of course) yet? Why
could that be?

Top Gun has some nice A-4's in it too.

Not to mention F-5's as "MiG's".

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Alan Dicey" > wrote in message
...
>
> Nobody's mentioned Flight Of The Intruder (A-6 of course) yet? Why
> could that be?
>

Perhaps because it's not a fighter.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Alan Dicey > wrote:

> Scott Ferrin wrote:
>
> > Iron Eagle <shudder> F-16s
> > Air Force One F-15s
> > Top Gun F-14s
> > Independence Day F-18s
> > Behind Enemy Lines F-18E (and a missile evasion sequence that makes
> > Iron Eagle look like a tape from Red Flag for authenticity)
>
> Nobody's mentioned Flight Of The Intruder (A-6 of course) yet? Why
> could that be?

It's not a fighter.

> Top Gun has some nice A-4's in it too.

Nor this.

> Not to mention F-5's as "MiG's".

[matheson31]

Hey, the star of Air Force One is an MC-130E Combat Talon I from the 8th
Special Operations Squadron. The aircraft are now assigned to the 919th
Special Operations Wing, Duke Field, FL. It was real and flew the
formation shots with the 747. That was a Fulton recovery dummy on the cable
dressed as Harrison Ford.

The Ego jets only taxied, their flying scenes were all CGI.

--
Les Matheson
F-4C(WW)/D/E/G(WW), AC-130A, MC-130E WSO/EWO (ret)

"Alan Dicey" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Ferrin wrote:
>
> > Iron Eagle <shudder> F-16s
> > Air Force One F-15s
> > Top Gun F-14s
> > Independence Day F-18s
> > Behind Enemy Lines F-18E (and a missile evasion sequence that makes
> > Iron Eagle look like a tape from Red Flag for authenticity)
>
> Nobody's mentioned Flight Of The Intruder (A-6 of course) yet? Why
> could that be?
>
> Top Gun has some nice A-4's in it too.
>
> Not to mention F-5's as "MiG's".


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.716 / Virus Database: 472 - Release Date: 7/5/2004

[Krztalizer]

Hey, what? No one has mentioned those fabulous mud-movin' Panthers in "Bridges
at Toko Ri"?

G

[John A. Weeks III]

In article >, Krztalizer
> wrote:

> Hey, what? No one has mentioned those fabulous mud-movin' Panthers in
> "Bridges at Toko Ri"?

Or the F-8's in "Thirteen Days".

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

[Mike Marron]

> "John A. Weeks III" > wrote:

>Or the F-8's in "Thirteen Days".

Speaking of which, F-4's in "The Great Santini" (although in the book
version the Santini flew F-8's).

[Alan Dicey]

Ooops, I edited the subject line like a good boy and then ignored it in
my post. The original source for this subthread was Yeff's "the F-15
has a better Hollywood agent", the only mention of "fighters" was my own.

I submit that the only movie to feature an Intruder deserves an
honorable mention at least, even if it was somewhat tepid.

From the comfort of my armchair, I have always had a sneaking feeling
that the use of "the right tool for the job" (ground attack, including
at night or in bad weather) should have paid dividends over hanging
bombs off of the previous generation of fighters, which seems to have
been the way the majority of tactical bombing was done (correct me if
I'm wrong). There are posters here who did it for real; what is your
assessment of the A-6? Was it better at delivering the ordnance than,
say, an F-4 or F-105? Defining better (roughly) in terms of factors
such as bomb weight delivered on target, accuracy of delivery, and
chances of completing the mission in one piece?

[Richard Stewart]

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 01:45:16 GMT, Mike Marron >
wrote:

>> "John A. Weeks III" > wrote:
>
>>Or the F-8's in "Thirteen Days".
>
>Speaking of which, F-4's in "The Great Santini" (although in the book
>version the Santini flew F-8's).

F-86 in "Blast From The Past"

[Jeff Crowell]

Alan Dicey wrote:
> Nobody's mentioned Flight Of The Intruder (A-6 of course) yet? Why
> could that be?

Best thing about FOTI is that one stunning low pass by the Spad...
speaking of which, there's going to be one flying here in the Boise
area this weekend. I am in serious lust.


> Top Gun has some nice A-4's in it too.

Always good for an old Scooter jock to see.



Jeff

[James Lane]

In article >, Alan
Dicey > wrote:

> Scott Ferrin wrote:
>
> > Iron Eagle <shudder> F-16s
> > Air Force One F-15s
> > Top Gun F-14s
> > Independence Day F-18s
> > Behind Enemy Lines F-18E (and a missile evasion sequence that makes
> > Iron Eagle look like a tape from Red Flag for authenticity)

How about "Jet Pilot" with John Wayne? Yeager did the stunt flying in
the F-86. T-33As double for Russian Yaks. Great stuff!

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0050562/trivia

- James

[Allen Epps]

In article >, James Lane
> wrote:

> In article >, Alan
> Dicey > wrote:
>
> > Scott Ferrin wrote:
> >
> > > Iron Eagle <shudder> F-16s
> > > Air Force One F-15s
> > > Top Gun F-14s
> > > Independence Day F-18s
> > > Behind Enemy Lines F-18E (and a missile evasion sequence that makes
> > > Iron Eagle look like a tape from Red Flag for authenticity)
>
> How about "Jet Pilot" with John Wayne? Yeager did the stunt flying in
> the F-86. T-33As double for Russian Yaks. Great stuff!
>
> http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0050562/trivia
>
> - James

And a cameo by an F-89 IIRC.
Pugs

[Allen Epps]

In article >, Allen Epps
> wrote:

> In article >, James Lane
> > wrote:
>
> > In article >, Alan
> > Dicey > wrote:
> >
> > > Scott Ferrin wrote:
> > >
> > > > Iron Eagle <shudder> F-16s
> > > > Air Force One F-15s
> > > > Top Gun F-14s
> > > > Independence Day F-18s
> > > > Behind Enemy Lines F-18E (and a missile evasion sequence that makes
> > > > Iron Eagle look like a tape from Red Flag for authenticity)
> >
> > How about "Jet Pilot" with John Wayne? Yeager did the stunt flying in
> > the F-86. T-33As double for Russian Yaks. Great stuff!
> >
> > http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0050562/trivia
> >
> > - James
>
> And a cameo by an F-89 IIRC.
> Pugs

And to correct my own post... What I meant to say was an F-94

Pugs

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:50:59 +0100, Alan Dicey
> wrote:

> From the comfort of my armchair, I have always had a sneaking feeling
>that the use of "the right tool for the job" (ground attack, including
>at night or in bad weather) should have paid dividends over hanging
>bombs off of the previous generation of fighters, which seems to have
>been the way the majority of tactical bombing was done (correct me if
>I'm wrong). There are posters here who did it for real; what is your
>assessment of the A-6? Was it better at delivering the ordnance than,
>say, an F-4 or F-105? Defining better (roughly) in terms of factors
>such as bomb weight delivered on target, accuracy of delivery, and
>chances of completing the mission in one piece?

I'll be happy to accept your invitation to correct you if you're
wrong. And I'll admit at the start that these terms will be in
consonance with your "roughly" parameter.

First, let's be sure to define the period. Your blanket "the majority
of tactical bombing" by hanging iron on the previous generation of
fighters certainly wouldn't fit B-25s and B-26s or A-20s or Stukas. It
really doesn't even fit the Century Series of US jets which were
multi-role aircraft designed from the start to deliver nukes, iron and
fight air/air.

Since you've specifically mentioned A-6, F-4 and F-105, it needs to be
noted that the F-105 was a mid-'50s design while the A-6 was coming on
board in first iteration at about the time that the -105 was leaving
the business in SEA. The F-105 was (except for the limited number of
T-Stick II conversions) designed as a "system" bomber for nukes but
delivered conventional bombs strictly by manual dive-bomb, i.e.
calculate dive angle, delivery airspeed, altitude above the ground,
wind drift and weapon ballistics to determine a sight depression, then
make all the parameters come together from a totally random position
in space while the entire population of SE Asia is shooting at you.

The A-6 was designed for radar delivery and had a huge radar to do
that job. The airplane grew in the role through several generations
and undeniably was excellent at all-wx, night attack. It carried a big
load, delivered it well and had good range/endurance. It also was
surprisingly fast despite lack of reheat.

The F-4 came in a lot of flavors. The C was a manual bomber, the D was
a automatic delivery first-step and the E, when properly tweaked as
they did at Korat (thanks to Dweezil and his cohorts), was a pretty
good system bomber. But, it was doing the ranging and release
calculation off of what was essentially a visual delivery. See the
target to place the pipper. (LORAN and ARN-101 versions did a better
job of all-wx, night, but didn't compare to the A-6.)

The F-111 was designed from the beginning to correct the USAF lack of
an all-wx, night penetrator. It really didn't achieve it's potential
until the F-model.

All four of these aircraft carried substantial loads. All had adequate
range, but only the AF birds came with afterburner, and as far as I
was concerned there is nothing that replaces an extra bunch of go-fast
in your left hand. It means survivability when you need to get out of
Dodge or recover energy after an altitude/energy losing defensive
maneuver.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Smartace11]

>There are posters here who did it for real; what is your
>assessment of the A-6? Was it better at delivering the ordnance than,
>say, an F-4 or F-105? Defining better (roughly) in terms of factors
>such as bomb weight delivered on target, accuracy of delivery, and
>chances of completing the mission in one piece?
>
>

This is more like one of those questions along the lines "Will a (insert name
of a fighter) beat an (insert another fighter) in in (insert an adjective)
combat. The answer is "It depends".

The F-4 with laser guided bombs in the last stage of the VN war was the best
bet in your last two categories if you are talking daytime visual sorties. The
105 could drag a lot of bombs but probably not as good as an F-4E with Dive
Toss. The A-6 was a better night and blind bomber but I am not certain it had
the survivability as the other two in a daytime. There were also planes used
in VN like the F-5, AT-37, A-1, A-7, F-111, A-26, and B-57 to name a few.
Each worked better that anything else in certain circumstances.

The real question might be what plane was/is good at more things than the
others and my answer would be the F-4 though it didn't carry the biggest bomb
load, wasn't the most accurate, but may have been the most survivable thought
that debate might never be settled.

Steve

[B2431]

>From: (Smartace11)

<snip>
>
>The real question might be what plane was/is good at more things than the
>others and my answer would be the F-4 though it didn't carry the biggest bomb
>load, wasn't the most accurate, but may have been the most survivable thought
>that debate might never be settled.
>
>Steve

I used to w**k on F-4Es at Hahn. We tended to refer to them as a jack of all
trades and a master of none.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Smartace11]

>
>I used to w**k on F-4Es at Hahn. We tended to refer to them as a jack of all
>trades and a master of none.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

What I liked about flying it was it yuo didn't like the kind of mission you
flew on one day, just wait until tomorrow because you will be flying a
different one.

[Regnirps]

James Lane wrote:

>How about "Jet Pilot" with John Wayne? Yeager did the stunt flying in
>the F-86. T-33As double for Russian Yaks. Great stuff!

I remember that. Janet Leigh is Russian pilot with twin 40's IIRC.

-- Charlie Springer

[James Lane]

[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

In article >, Regnirps
> wrote:

> James Lane wrote:
>
> >How about "Jet Pilot" with John Wayne? Yeager did the stunt flying in
> >the F-86. T-33As double for Russian Yaks. Great stuff!
>
> I remember that. Janet Leigh is Russian pilot with twin 40's IIRC.

That's it. Janet lends new meaning to the expression "Soviet assets"!

- James

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

B2431 wrote:
>

> I used to w**k on F-4Es at Hahn. We tended to refer to them as a jack of all
> trades and a master of none.

And I used to work on F-4Es at Bitburg, Hahn, and Ramstein.
(many were the same tail numbers!)
There's only been one of those wings ever rate "outstanding"
in all three missions by TAC EVAL/ORI: A/A, A/G, and Strike:
50TFW, Hahn AB, 1978.

That ain't exactly "master of none"...

.... but then I went to Ramshaft, where it all turned to SH*T.

[Smartace11]

>> I used to w**k on F-4Es at Hahn. We tended to refer to them as a jack of
>all
>> trades and a master of none.
>
>And I used to work on F-4Es at Bitburg, Hahn, and Ramstein.
>(many were the same tail numbers!)
>There's only been one of those wings ever rate "outstanding"
>in all three missions by TAC EVAL/ORI: A/A, A/G, and Strike:
>50TFW, Hahn AB, 1978.
>
>That ain't exactly "master of none"...
>
>... but then I went to Ramshaft, where it all turned to SH*T.
>
>

The F-4 was not exactly designed with the maintenance man in mind. Most F-4
Wings in the late 70s were in pretty bad shape because of the strain of keeping
the planes flying. On average in USAFE Maintenance Manhours per Flight Hour
was about the highest in the Air Force except for the F-111. A lot of it had
to do with the condition planes after intense use in SEA, over g'd. corrosion,
lots of deferred maintenance.

Many times it was the nuke missions, a goat rope at best, that would make or
break a wing.

Operating in Europe in poor weather all the time had a lot to do with aircrew
skills as well. I went from something like 60 hours flying time a month in SEA
to barely 15 at Lakenheath in F-4Ds and it made a great difference in my
mission and flying skills.

The Air force changed its scheduling policies during that period as well,
going to tail number scheduling which meant that as an ops guy my probability
of getting to fly when I was scheduled was only 90% and getting to fly on time
to make range times and so on were probably only 80% or less because the plane
I was supposed to fly wasn't ready on time.

All that combined to make the USAFE F-4 wings a difficult place to be for
everyone in the late 70s

[B2431]

>From: Dweezil Dwarftosser
>Date: 7/9/2004 3:43 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>B2431 wrote:
>>
>
>> I used to w**k on F-4Es at Hahn. We tended to refer to them as a jack of
>all
>> trades and a master of none.
>
>And I used to work on F-4Es at Bitburg, Hahn, and Ramstein.
>(many were the same tail numbers!)
>There's only been one of those wings ever rate "outstanding"
>in all three missions by TAC EVAL/ORI: A/A, A/G, and Strike:
>50TFW, Hahn AB, 1978.
>

Yep, just before I got there. I got there in November 1978.

Don't get me wrong, despite not being built right to w**k on them ( best build
to w**k on fighters = 4' 11", two elbows per arm...) I was rather fond of the
F-4E. Even with the seat run all the way down I could not sit up straight if I
let the canopy down.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
James Lane > writes:
> [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
>
> In article >, Regnirps
> > wrote:
>
>> James Lane wrote:
>>
>> >How about "Jet Pilot" with John Wayne? Yeager did the stunt flying in
>> >the F-86. T-33As double for Russian Yaks. Great stuff!
>>
>> I remember that. Janet Leigh is Russian pilot with twin 40's IIRC.
>
> That's it. Janet lends new meaning to the expression "Soviet assets"!

Or, as John Wayne said in the Lingerie Shop scene, "It's all about the
same thing - uplifting the masses."

Or, for substitutes, how 'bout the F-84Fs that stood in for MiG-15s in
"The Hunters" and "The McConnell Story". When you couldn't get the
real thing, they'll do.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[B2431]

>From: (Smartace11)

<snip>
>
>The F-4 was not exactly designed with the maintenance man in mind.

<snip>

Sure it was. To this day there is a sadistic engineering team laughing every
time they remember the good old days when they got together and agreed to make
things rough for maintenance.

My theory is they hung 4 ropes from the ceiling, suspended an engine from each
of 2 ropes, the battery from a third and the CADC from the fourth. They then
built the jet around all of this. The F-4E is the only aircraft I ever w**ked
on that seemed to have been designed on the assumption the battery would never
need to be changed.

Then again there was a picture of a WSO's head in his brain bucket laying on
the ground behind the aircraft minus his body as a result of a LOX converter
going boom.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
> My theory is they hung 4 ropes from the ceiling, suspended an engine from
each
> of 2 ropes, the battery from a third and the CADC from the fourth. They
then
> built the jet around all of this. The F-4E is the only aircraft I ever
w**ked
> on that seemed to have been designed on the assumption the battery would
> never need to be changed.
>

Actually, the F-4 was designed without a battery. The F-4 was a Navy
airplane adopted by the Air Force and the Navy didn't feel the need for a
battery. The USAF wanted the ability to launch without a ground power unit,
so they added the cartridge start capability to the F-4C. The battery was
needed to fire the starter cartridges.

[Bill Shatzer]

Okay, to go completely off the reservation, how 'bout
the F-80 and F-86s in "War of the Worlds"? Not to
mention the neat, but non-fighter, YB-49.

Or, to go to the ridiculous, the F9F Panther crashing
on the carrier flight deck in "Midway" - a movie which
had a disturbing tendancy to morph aircraft in mid-flight -
or mid-crash.


--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

[John R Weiss]

"Alan Dicey" > wrote...
>
> I submit that the only movie to feature an Intruder deserves an
> honorable mention at least, even if it was somewhat tepid.

Unfortunately, "Flight of the Intruder" was a BAD movie made from a decent
book...


> There are posters here who did it for real; what is your
> assessment of the A-6? Was it better at delivering the ordnance than,
> say, an F-4 or F-105? Defining better (roughly) in terms of factors
> such as bomb weight delivered on target, accuracy of delivery, and
> chances of completing the mission in one piece?

As in many things, "better" depends on definitions and circumstances...

I doubt there are any here who flew all 3 of those airplanes significantly;
of
the 3, I only flew the A-6.

For day visual bombing, there were better platforms -- especially the A-7
with a
full-up system. I liked the A-4 better for manual bombing because it was
easier
to maneuver it into position, but the A-6 had a decent visual system
capability
with the TRAM turret. However, for night and foul-weather bombing using
radar,
FLIR, and other sensors, I don't think the A-6 could be beat as a tactical
platform.

The F-4 may have had a similar weight carrying capability, but not at the
same
range. The F-4 and F-105 were faster, and that speed may have made them
more
survivable in some scenarios. However, when low-altitude "stealth" was the
preferred tactic, the A-6 could do it better than either. We practiced it
and
were good at it; the crew concept in the A-6 made it much more effective.
With
the advent of standoff weapons, including LGBs, the A-6's capability to
carry,
self-target, and deliver them was a significant step up in survivability.

[George Ruch]

(Bill Shatzer) wrote:

>Or, to go to the ridiculous, the F9F Panther crashing
>on the carrier flight deck in "Midway" - a movie which
>had a disturbing tendancy to morph aircraft in mid-flight -
>or mid-crash.

Are you sure about that? I could be wrong, but I seem to remember stock
footage an _F6F_ breaking in half on landing. It doesn't seem likely that,
if they were using AT-6s as Zero, etc. lookalikes, they would make that
kind of mistake.

You may be thinking of _Hunt for Red October_, where an F-14 damaged in an
encounter with an ASW Bear tries unsuccessfully to get home, and morphs
into stock footage of a Panther on crashing on landing.

| George Ruch
| "Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?"

[Krztalizer]

>
>>Or, to go to the ridiculous, the F9F Panther crashing
>>on the carrier flight deck in "Midway" - a movie which
>>had a disturbing tendancy to morph aircraft in mid-flight -
>>or mid-crash.
>
>Are you sure about that?

Yep - Chuck Heston eats the round-down in an SBD/F9F. Other aircraft start out
as one type (TBD - To Be Ditched) and strike the water, turning into an F6F,
among other morph-jobs.

> I could be wrong, but I seem to remember stock
>footage an _F6F_ breaking in half on landing.

Chuck's kid, who cracks up after eating deck.

> It doesn't seem likely that,
>if they were using AT-6s as Zero, etc. lookalikes, they would make that
>kind of mistake.

They were also using stock footage from Tora3, which seems a bit much - hey, if
the audience paid to see this footage last year, they are going to love it
again THIS year.

>You may be thinking of _Hunt for Red October_, where an F-14 damaged in an
>encounter with an ASW Bear tries unsuccessfully to get home, and morphs
>into stock footage of a Panther on crashing on landing.

Same footage was used - Chuck's SBD and the Bear-crunch'd Turkey turned into
the same Panther over the stern.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

[George Ruch]

(Krztalizer) wrote:

>>
>>>Or, to go to the ridiculous, the F9F Panther crashing
>>>on the carrier flight deck in "Midway" - a movie which
>>>had a disturbing tendancy to morph aircraft in mid-flight -
>>>or mid-crash.
>>
>>Are you sure about that?
>
>Yep [...]

Never mind - brain fade.

>> It doesn't seem likely that,
>>if they were using AT-6s as Zero, etc. lookalikes, they would make that
>>kind of mistake.
>
>They were also using stock footage from Tora3, which seems a bit much - hey, if
>the audience paid to see this footage last year, they are going to love it
>again THIS year.

As I did, far too many years ago.

>>You may be thinking of _Hunt for Red October_, where an F-14 damaged in an
>>encounter with an ASW Bear tries unsuccessfully to get home, and morphs
>>into stock footage of a Panther on crashing on landing.
>
>Same footage was used - Chuck's SBD and the Bear-crunch'd Turkey turned into
>the same Panther over the stern.

I'll watch for that when it shows up again some late night.

| George Ruch
| "Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?"

[Bill Shatzer]

George Ruch ) writes:
> (Bill Shatzer) wrote:

>>Or, to go to the ridiculous, the F9F Panther crashing
>>on the carrier flight deck in "Midway" - a movie which
>>had a disturbing tendancy to morph aircraft in mid-flight -
>>or mid-crash.

> Are you sure about that? I could be wrong, but I seem to remember stock
> footage an _F6F_ breaking in half on landing. It doesn't seem likely that,
> if they were using AT-6s as Zero, etc. lookalikes, they would make that
> kind of mistake.

Nope, an F9F Panther, sure as s**t. It's the scene where the aircraft
dissolves into a rather impressive fireball. Although, hard as it is
to believe, I've heard that in the actual event, the pilot survived.

There were lots of scenes where aircraft morphed into F6Fs but
none of those were the one I was refering to.

And "Midway", as best I recall didn't use -any- AT-6s made up
to look like Zeroes - except for the scenes they "borrowed" from
"Tora Tora Tora".

The aviation scenes in "Midway" were almost exclusively borrowed
from previous films - "Victory at Sea" was a big contributor.

> You may be thinking of _Hunt for Red October_, where an F-14 damaged in an
> encounter with an ASW Bear tries unsuccessfully to get home, and morphs
> into stock footage of a Panther on crashing on landing.

It's an impressive fireball. I'd not be surprised if it was
used in several productions. If "Red October" borrowed the same
footage for it's dramatic effect, I'd not be unduly surprised.

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"