Best Fighter For It's Time

"John Carrier" wrote:

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).

The voice of experience is hard to disagree with. My impression had
always been that the Eagle was considerably more agile, but the AIM-54
and TWS ability to engage multiple targets simultaneously made the Tom
a very dangerous airplane. I'd have to look at the performance charts
and find some Ps corners to compare. Regardless of outcome, I'll stand
by the original challenge regarding the Tom having distinct
superiority over the Eagle.

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.

You've said a mouthful there. If you can't have full reheat available
in every engagement you're distinctly handicapped.

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.\

My first encounter with a Tom while in a Phantom (an exercise in the
Med against America around '77) was to be intercepted during a low
(very) altitude attack on the boat. The -14 got vectored against me
from the left front quadrant--I picked him up visually at 10 o'clock
with about 150 degree heading crossing angle. Because I was (as usual)
very fast, I told the WSO--"no sweat, he's going to overshoot big
time" --followed immediately by an absolutely amazed, "holy ****, did
you see that" as the Tom did an incredible bat-turn into firing
parameters.

And regarding F-15s--I was often quite successful against Eagles when
working 2-v-2 in the lowly AT-38, provided the ROE was VID and the
Eagles were driven by relatively inexperienced guys. With a high-time
wingman and operating in fluid attack, we could run out of film taking
high angle gun shots.

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.

Kill ratio for the F-8 is the highest, but the numbers involved reduce
the stat to irrelevance. Not enough kills to be statistically
significant. Still, had there been enough of them and had the war been
one of air superiority, it sure would have been nice to have a whole
herd of F-8s.

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

John Carrier wrote:

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).

I think the Navy is more concerned about getting rid of the F-14,
than extending their service life. The F-14 was bought as a
fleet defense fighter and that mission is not a major concern of
the Navy.

The carrier battle group has become the gun boat of the Twenty
First Century and the F-18 and F-35 are seen as better
multimission fighters.

David

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:32:22 +0100, John Halliwell wrote:
In article , phil hunt
writes
Me 262. First operational jet fighter.

The Meteor went operational 8 days before the Me 262, the Me 262 may
have been the first jet fighter to fly,

Ther He 280 flew before the Me 262.

but it wasn't the first
operational.

I stand corrected.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

Subject: Best Fighter For It's Time
From: "ArVa"
Date: 7/24/03 12:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:


"Ed Rasimus" a écrit dans le message de
.. .
"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


I first thought that the plane you are about to fly for the *last* time was
the most important, as a career's achievement and the last opportunity to be
part of a rather special community. But reading your answer and Ernest
Hemingway's statement I guess both of you are right. I didn't pay attention
enough to the emotional factor.
As for me, I never had nor will have the opportunity to fly a fighter and I
don't own a horse so it just leaves me with the women (which is not so bad),
but if I do remember the first one, the last in date is the one I prefer...
:-)

Regards,
ArVa



To me it is the B-26 Martin Marauder. One in particular, " Willie the Wolf,
King Nine Jig. He had a stout heart of steel.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArVa" wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" a écrit dans le message de

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.

I first thought that the plane you are about to fly for the *last* time was
the most important, as a career's achievement and the last opportunity to be
part of a rather special community. But reading your answer and Ernest
Hemingway's statement I guess both of you are right. I didn't pay attention
enough to the emotional factor.

Well, you didn't ask, but the reason I had the Hemingway quote handy,
is that I'm using it in my current project which is the story of my
F-4 combat tour during Linebacker I/II. Here's the follow up (in my
words) to the quote:

"Poppa was right on. I'd lost my cherry to the Thunderchief long
before I got my Phantom assignment. I'd wanted to fly the Thud from
the first day I'd seen one and I'd been fortunate to have been able to
meet the girl of my dreams, woo her and take her to bed in the vicious
days of Rolling Thunder. I'd lost my heart, my soul, my virginity to
an airplane with one seat, one engine and a gun. I'd been alone in bad
guy land in what was absolutely the best airplane in the world and I'd
been brought home safely more than one hundred times. How could one
not love her?

Now I was headed to F-4 school. I'd spent the last five years sparring
with Phantom drivers, sometimes seriously, sometimes jokingly about
the deficiencies of their airplane and the superiority of mine. There
were some deep-rooted issues regarding the views of the airplanes. On
the one hand, there was the simple issue of assignment out of pilot
training. I'd been fortunate enough to have the skills, the desire
and, most importantly, the healthy dose of luck required to gain an
assignment to a single seat fighter. The numbers told the story. There
were eight undergraduate pilot training bases pumping out USAF pilots
in a class every six weeks all year around. That meant about 325 new
second lieutenants joining the force every month and a half of which
nine would get to fly the F-105. The Phantom community was restricted
at that time to experienced pilots in the front seat and new graduate
pilots in the rear cockpit. In my graduating class there had been one
hundred and forty guys sent to back-seat pilot duties in the F-4. It
wasn't difficult to feel a bit superior. Nine guys got laid by a queen
of the prom and 140 got sloppy seconds with a fat, smoky,
double-breasted ex-Navy airplane that didn't even have a gun."




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

In article , "Charles Talleyrand"
wrote:

My question is this: Which fighter had the clearest advantage over it's
the other fighters of it's time frame?

Tested but not fielded, I'll vote for the YF-12.
Just the test results changed the whole Soviet approach to attacking CONUS.
Not to mention the first look-down shoot-down doppler radar.
Shooting down a target flying at (IIRC) 1500 feet while ownship cruise at
70,000. Part of this was the missile of course, but no fighter a/c lives
in isolation without it's weapons.

Range, speed, altitude and weapons were clearly superior to anything else
flying at the time.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Harry Andreas wrote:
In article , "Charles Talleyrand"
wrote:


My question is this: Which fighter had the clearest advantage over it's
the other fighters of it's time frame?


Tested but not fielded, I'll vote for the YF-12.

How about the F-101!? Fielded and tested...
Asbjorn

Asbjörn wrote:

How about the F-101!? Fielded and tested...
Asbjorn

Name one thing that the F-101 could do signifiicantly better than
other aircraft of the period--except for suddenly departing from
controlled flight at the most inopportune moments.


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

"David Lentz" wrote in message


I think the Navy is more concerned about getting rid of the F-14,
than extending their service life. The F-14 was bought as a
fleet defense fighter and that mission is not a major concern of
the Navy.

And yet, even as it fades out of service, the F-14 is often touted as the
air wing's premiere strike asset.

The carrier battle group has become the gun boat of the Twenty
First Century and the F-18 and F-35 are seen as better
multimission fighters.

Which is a real pity. The Navy could probably have achieved almost
everything it got in the Super Hornet with a modernized F-14 (Tomcat-21, for
example) for far less effort.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Ed Rasimus wrote:
Asbjörn wrote:

How about the F-101!? Fielded and tested...
Asbjorn

Name one thing that the F-101 could do signifiicantly better than
other aircraft of the period--except for suddenly departing from
controlled flight at the most inopportune moments.

Watching them as a kid around ADC bases, they *seemed* to
be able to outclimb the dueces and even the sixes (never saw
an F-104 fly until after the Voodoo's were sent off to Canada).
FWIW, they were definitely impressive (huge!) looking whether
on the ground or in the air and the roll rate was amazingly fast
for its size (wings level to 90-deg. angle-of-bank in the blink of
an eye). And a much sleeker, nicer looking twin-engined jet compared
to its younger, more capable F-4 brethren. Of course, no matter how
fast it could roll, the -101 turn radius was Boeing 727-like as the
-101 just seemed to continue flying straight regardless of
angle-of-bank 'till it reached the next county.

BTW, the -105 was equally as impressive due to its huge size, and
their long-legged gear hanging down and high angle-of-attack landing
approaches. Seemed the -101 and -105 flew the 360-deg. overhead
approaches at .9+ mach!

My vote for "best fighter for its time":
WW1-- Fokker D VII,
WW2 -- P-51D
Korea -- F-86A
Vietnam -- F-4E
Post 'Nam-to-Present -- F-15E

-Mike Marron