Burt Rutan

ost (Ditch) wrote:

Certainly the F-104 was an aeronautical marvel. It was an incredible
achievement. But give me an F-22 (or for that matter, an F-15, or -16)
and I'll promise to mort the Zipper long before the merge--even before
he knows there is going to be a merge.

This reminds me of my good friend who was flying F-15's at the time out of
Eglin. He was thinking of applying for an exchange tour with the Italians to
fly F-104s, which we both agree is about one of the coolest things built.
I was encouraging him to go for it but then he brought up a good point...he
goes "John, I would kill to fly a -104, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to
take one into combat these days!"


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

Last things first, I guess I'm "nothing," but I got a lot of hours.

Then, your friend characterizes what we used to refer to as an "Ego
Driver"--someone filled with the hubris of flying a pretty good
airplane who erroneously considers it superior to everything else.

If he had checked more closely (maybe he did, but I doubt it,) he
would have found out that the Italians produced and flew the "S" model
which had added AIM-7 capability to an already excellent interceptor
with great gun and all-aspect AIM-9. A pretty good airplane and, like
most, one which needs to be flown in its own best corner of the
P-sub-s charts. It wouldn't have been a bad airplane at all to take
into combat, and it would have been even more formidable if he went
with those Italian pilots who typically had a couple of thousand hours
in type and who had flown with each other for a decade.

Conversely, I determined, somewhat late in my career, that the
challenge of air combat was one that made it worthwhile in almost any
type of reasonable equipment. I guess that left me leaning a bit
toward mercenaryism.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

Ed Rasimus wrote:
(Ditch) wrote:

This reminds me of my good friend who was flying F-15's at the time out of
Eglin. He was thinking of applying for an exchange tour with the Italians to
fly F-104s, which we both agree is about one of the coolest things built.
I was encouraging him to go for it but then he brought up a good point...he
goes "John, I would kill to fly a -104, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to
take one into combat these days!"

-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

Last things first, I guess I'm "nothing," but I got a lot of hours.

Then, your friend characterizes what we used to refer to as an "Ego
Driver"--someone filled with the hubris of flying a pretty good
airplane who erroneously considers it superior to everything else.

Kinda' like those punks (of both sexes) who buy SUV's so they can
bully other drivers and look down on them in city traffic. Take away
their Ford Excursions, Escapades and Hummers and they're nothings.

If he had checked more closely (maybe he did, but I doubt it,) he
would have found out that the Italians produced and flew the "S" model
which had added AIM-7 capability to an already excellent interceptor
with great gun and all-aspect AIM-9. A pretty good airplane and, like
most, one which needs to be flown in its own best corner of the
P-sub-s charts. It wouldn't have been a bad airplane at all to take
into combat, and it would have been even more formidable if he went
with those Italian pilots who typically had a couple of thousand hours
in type and who had flown with each other for a decade.

Conversely, I determined, somewhat late in my career, that the
challenge of air combat was one that made it worthwhile in almost any
type of reasonable equipment. I guess that left me leaning a bit
toward mercenaryism.

Speaking of which, as you know the Brits have always been scrappy
special ops warriors. You wouldn't hear me telling the British Special
Air Services (SAS) mercenarys who trained in *trikes* at Boscombe
Down (RAF test pilot school) that "You are nothing until you have
flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North American."

-Mike Marron

Then, your friend characterizes what we used to refer to as an "Ego
Driver"--someone filled with the hubris of flying a pretty good
airplane who erroneously considers it superior to everything else.

Actually, he has anything but an ego. The most laid back pilot I know. That is
one of the reasons he left the Eagle community...he couldn't stand most of who
he worked with.

If he had checked more closely (maybe he did, but I doubt it,) he
would have found out that the Italians produced and flew the "S" model
which had added AIM-7 capability to an already excellent interceptor
with great gun and all-aspect AIM-9. A pretty good airplane and, like
most, one which needs to be flown in its own best corner of the
P-sub-s charts. It wouldn't have been a bad airplane at all to take
into combat, and it would have been even more formidable if he went
with those Italian pilots who typically had a couple of thousand hours
in type and who had flown with each other for a decade.


He researched the hell out of it. He liked the fact that in the Eagle he pretty
much saw anything before they saw him. He used to really enjoy plinking Vipers
before they even had a clue they were about to get shot because they didn't
even know the Eagles were there.


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

Ed Rasimus wrote:
If that leads you to the conclusion that Burt Rutan is packed with an
inordinate quantity of bovine excrement, it would be a reasonable
deduction.

But a lot *less* than Jim Bede !



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In article , Ed Rasimus
wrote:

"Ed Majden" wrote:

I watched a very interesting interview with aircraft designer, Burt
Rutan on CBC-TV a few days ago. He claimed that the large aircraft
manufacturers aren't being very innovative today. As a test pilot at
Edwards he stated that some of the aircraft he tested in the past out
perform today's modern fighters. The F-104 was one of the examples. He
didn't have anything good to say about the JSF or the F-22 for that matter.
He stated that modern manufactures aren't the innovative risk takers of the
past thus holding back aircraft design technology.
Any comments on this?

There's a tendency of most of us to live in the past. We were all
tougher than our predecessors and no one since has had the challenges
that we faced. Balderdash!

Certainly the F-104 was an aeronautical marvel. It was an incredible
achievement. But give me an F-22 (or for that matter, an F-15, or -16)
and I'll promise to mort the Zipper long before the merge--even before
he knows there is going to be a merge.

The way we control the air now is light-years beyond what was done
with the -104. Sure, it was fast, climbed incredibly, was a thrill to
fly---but the point is that the whole purpose is to "rove the alotted
area, find the enemy and kill him. Anything else is rubbish."

The Baron said it and it has only become more true over the years. If
you rove the alotted area in supercruise, the area is larger. If you
do it with stealth, you are infinitely more survivable. If you have
the benefit of data fusion and passive sensors, you don't need the Mk
1/Mod 0 eyeball. If you've got launch and leave, long range weapons,
you don't have to get all sweaty.


As you know well Ed, people have a tendency to fixate on one aspect
of performance or design. The trouble is, a combat aircraft is a package
deal. Airframe, engines and electronics and weapons all integrated
into a whole. As you've mentioned above, the performance of the
whole is what's important. That's why it's so hard (and expensive)
to upgrade an aircraft with, say, a new radar or EW system.
The effect on the whole has to be evaluated, not just how it fits in the
airframe and affects the W&B.

The trouble with aircraft like the zipper and the lawndart is that
(IMHO) they lack airframe room for the capable avionics systems
that really distinguish the force multiplier aircraft.

Take a gander into the packed airframe of an F-16 and how small
the compartments are. I've never had the opportunity to do the
same with an F-104, but I'll bet it's the same. The F-15 OTOH,
while packed it much larger and has room for more functions.

ciao

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 20:48:02 GMT, "Ed Majden"
wrote:

As a test pilot at
Edwards he stated that some of the aircraft he tested in the past out
perform today's modern fighters. The F-104 was one of the examples.

At the eurofighter website
http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.ne...tech.html#eval
there is a model for comparative evaluation of the Eurofighter and 8
current fighters using 13 factors:

Twin Seat
Thrust to Weight
Twin Engines
Air to Ground Combat
Stealth
Air to Air Combat
Range
Agility
Electronic Warfare
STOL capability
CostMaintanence
Weapon selection
Supercruise

My guess is anyone making a statement favoring the F 104 would give
high weight to only three factors: Air Combat, Agility, and Thrust.
When applied to the Eurofighter model, the F 22 beats the rest,
including the Eurofighter, F15, F16, F18,

plane rating
Typhoon-89%
F22 - 100%
JSF - 70%
Rafale- 83%
Su35 - 80%
F15 - 73%
Gripen- 71%
F16 - 63%
F18 - 68%

Adjusting for advances in avionics and engine technology AND
eliminating differences resulting from today's tendency to want
multi-purpose platforms with the result that unfortunate compromises
are necessary--would the basic Starfighter platform result in a
superior weapon?

I cannot believe it would succeed based on its lack of agility
resulting from its extreme wingloading. Using John Boyd's criteria
for an effective fighter, the flying prostitute would not even come
close.

John Bailey
http://home.rochester.rr.com/jbxroads/mailto.html