If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Duh? Here's where those qualifications come into play. While the F-14
with its programmed wing-sweep and well-BVR weapons had some advantages over the F-15, when you get to close engagements, the Eagle is considerably more agile than the Tom. Well, not actually. The F-15 has sufficiently superior T/W to the F-14A that through careful energy management and skill, the F-15 will win the engagement ... but in terms of instantaneous turn, pitch rate, etc, it's not quite the equal of the Tom. Put the F110 engines in (F-14B/D) and it's quite different. T/W is almost equal and the F-14 has an advantage throughout much of the envelope. I think the F-15 weapon's system is superior in most environments ... obviously so when AMRAAM is in the mix (personally I think those individuals that denied the F-14 the AMRAAM ought to face charges). My opportunities to engage the Eagle in the Turkey were somewhat limited, but when gas was not an issue (ie: I had a tanker and the use of A/B) I had little difficulty in gaining a pipper-on guns position. OTOH, while in a Phantom, I found myself quite helpless. I think the only thing I could do where I might have had no disadvantage was to depart the jet. The single seat A-4 (as configured for adversary work) often frustrated the "superior" F-15.\ To return to the topic, I'd cast a vote for the F-8. Best air superiority fighter in the US arsenal for its era (mid-50's competing with century series, etc). Best kill ratio in real world combat (Vietnam). Best ramp strike rate ... oh well. R / John |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:54:14 -0400, Charles Talleyrand wrote:
This thread isn't about 'best'. It's about 'very clearly superior for it's time'. You can argue the F-20 was better or worse than the F-16, but it was not very clearly superior. To use a naval example, I'm looking for Dreadnoughts and not Queen Elizabeths. Revolutionary designs and not just good planes. How about these: Fokker Eindecker. First fighter, can't get more revolutionary than that! Bf 109. First monoplane fighter with retractable undercarriage and fully enclosed cockpit. Me 262. First operational jet fighter. Not sure what was the first supersonic jet fighter to successfully use AAMs. Probably one of the MiG-21 or Phantom. Harrier. First VSTOL fighter. F-22. First stealth air superiority aircraft. ????. First unmanned fighter. ????. First weapon that makes combat aircraft obsolete. -- Phil "All alternate timelines need airships" -- Steve Glover |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message ... "Dudley Henriques" wrote in message . net... What Guy said is considered in the fighter community to be the right answer. The reality of this oft asked question is that no single aircraft can be found supreme throughout it's performance envelope when compared directly to the entire performance envelope of another aircraft. This has been proven out again and again in our modern comparison performance or delta Ps performance testing. The answer is ALWAYS where in the envelope and/or mission parameters is the comparison taking place? This is true, but perhaps besides the point. Suppose you're an air minister. The Fokker Eindekker has just come out. Do you want some? YES Suppose you're a pilot. You can fly either a Fokker Eindekker or it's competitor. Which would you pick? Can you think of some equally dominating airplane? Hi Charles; First off, Please know that I'm not trying to rain on your parade here; just trying to be helpful!! :-)) You can indeed ask your initial question exactly as you did. It's fine! I'm only offering you some additional insight, just in case you ever get into this issue with anyone from the flight test community as you are now with me. The subject invariably digresses into a 1v1 scenario, which, from your post above, is about where you are going with this now. It's no biggie really, but consider the following; In placing the Eindekker in competition with an unknown adversary as you have here by the general context of your questions to me, you are getting away from your initial context, which is again fine, but in these discussions, you must always be aware that in the context you have placed the issue, only a general answer that deals directly with design can exist in reality. Individual aircraft can be discussed for their design advances, and even in a design context per time period, but you can't start pairing individual airplanes against each other unless you are also in consideration of the parameters I have mentioned. Take your Eindekker for example, and the questions you have asked me in this post. Eindekker or no Eindekker, the result of the scenario you have described would be ENTIRELY dependent on the factors I have already mentioned. If you placed two comparison aircraft on the ground together, you could easily state the design advantages of the Eindekker for it's period and be totally correct. But put the Eindekker in the hands of a novice pilot against a highly skilled adversary in an aircraft without the design advantages of the Eindekker, and the design advantages could easily be nullified....and even in a specific scenario, where the Eindekker pilot hasn't the experience in type to take full advantage of the aircraft's design advantage......easily reversed into a negative for the Eindekker. The important point in all this is that in fighter comparison, the data isn't really explored in the format you're using. I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, and you most certainly can make a case for a particular aircraft as a stand out in it's time. The Eindekker is a good example of that. I'm only telling you that we in the community take the format you are trying to nail down as moot when it comes to a discussion of fighters in the real world. I'm also aware that what I'm telling you isn't necessarily tied to the format you're discussing here. I'm only passing it on to you as general information that you might want to consider when discussing fighter comparison in ANY format . I know you guys like to be as accurate as possible when you get into these things, and the information I'm giving you is simply some of the factors we consider when making up comparison analysis format for 1v1. I hope it's helpful to you. What you have said about the Eindekker, and what Stephen has said about the 262 and the Zeke are pertinent , and perhaps even more pertinent then what I'm telling you for the format you're discussing.......as long as you don't come down to a 1v1 scenario :-)))) Bottom line on this issue as it would be seen in the flight test community is this. As long as you are just considering design advances per se, you can safely discuss an individual airplane as a standout for it's time; but as soon as you take that design advantage and put it into the sky with another airplane, the whole ball game changes to exactly what I have explained about delta comparison fighter analysis. All the best, Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"John Carrier" wrote in message ... snip To return to the topic, I'd cast a vote for the F-8. Best air superiority fighter in the US arsenal for its era (mid-50's competing with century series, etc). Best kill ratio in real world combat (Vietnam). Best ramp strike rate ... oh well. R / John What about the Sea Harrier FRS.1 in the Falklands, with 20+ kills and no Air to Air losses? Operating when outnumbered with about 5 Argentinian combat a/c for every Harrier in service. David |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
It certainly wasn't offering CCIP bombing to the standard already well established by the F-16. If I recall correctly,the F-20 had a CEP of 6 mils in CCIP bombing(I think 8 mils in CCRP,but don't hold me to that),which is pretty comparable to an F-16.. the lack of AIM-7F (and AIM-120) capability meant it was quick to the fight but without credible weapons. The F-20 fired both AIM-7M and AIM-120 during weapons trials,I have a vid showing both. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:57:06 -0700, Lyle wrote:
The F-16XL fixed this by haveing the missles conformal. it could carry 4 Sparrows or Amraams on the underside of the fusulage with very little drag. Would a single seat XL been available in time as an alternative to rolling out the 'C' model I wonder ? The increase in capability over the standard planform makes for an interesting 'what if'. greg -- $ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@' Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em She'll chew you up, ain't no lie |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
I will probably buy your book one day but I have to ask what kind of
evidence did you get to see in order to validate these claims? 1.) What kind of evidence is there? Actually multiple: starting from eyewitness accounts, via comprehensive official records (including gun-camera shots, photographs of the wreckage etc.), down to intel reports (via FOIA inquiries). In over 80% of the cases we were very well able to cross-check the infos. 3.) Does any other nation confirm Iranian claims? Nation: not. Service: yes (several of them). 4.) Does the Iraqi order of battle and other sources really support 300 plus losses over 8 years? In fact, they support a loss of something like 450 aircraft and approx 150 helicopters. Lots of other stuff in reply as well. Thanks so much for clarifying those points. Your book now goes close to the top of my wish list. Fascinating stuff. Any list or account of fighter or helicopter aces? John Dupre' |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"JDupre5762" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
... snip Any list or account of fighter or helicopter aces? One of the problems with research to this topic is that many of the names of those that survived can't be named in public, while most of those that can - are dead. With other words: we named only those we could. But, we interviewed almost 100 pilots from both sides, so there are plenty of narratives in both books (BTW, next year also "Iranian F-14 Units in Combat" will follow - again in Osprey's "Combat Aircraft" series). Tom Cooper Co-Author: Iran-Iraq; War in the Air, 1980-1988 http://www.schifferbooks.com/militar...764316699.html Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"ArVa" wrote:
But since the guy was about to retire and the Mirage was his last plane, maybe he was a little bit biased. I guess (fighter) pilots have a natural tendency to cherish their last bird more than the ones they have previously flown, don't they? Regards, ArVa Well, for most of us, it's the first fighter, not the last that holds the special place. Here's what no less a personage than Ernest Hemingway had to say about love of fighters: "You love a lot of things if you live around them, but there isn't any woman and there isn't any horse, nor any before nor any after, that is as lovely as a great airplane, and men who love them are faithful to them even though they leave them for others. A man has only one virginity to lose in fighters, and if it is a lovely plane he loses it to, there his heart will ever be." - Ernest Hemingway, August 1944. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (ret) ***"When Thunder Rolled: *** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam" *** from Smithsonian Books ISBN: 1588341038 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Logging time on a PCATD | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | December 18th 04 05:25 PM |
FAA Application -- kinds of time | Gary Drescher | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | November 23rd 04 02:33 PM |
Logging approaches | Ron Garrison | Instrument Flight Rules | 109 | March 2nd 04 05:54 PM |
48th Fighter Wing adds JDAM to F-15 arsenal | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 22nd 03 09:18 PM |
Joint Russian-French 5th generation fighter? | lihakirves | Military Aviation | 1 | July 5th 03 01:36 AM |