# Your favorite post-war aircraft



## JCS (Jan 2, 2005)

What are your favorites? You dont have to put a top 5 or anything, put as many as you like...

Heres mine:

Vought F-8 Crusader
Mikoyan Gurevich MiG 15
Mikoyan Gurevich MiG 21
Republic F-105 Thunderchief
McDonnell Douglas A-4 Skyhawk
Tupolev Tu-95 Bear
Rockwell OV-10 Bronco
Dassault Mirage 2000
McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 3, 2005)

HMMMMMmmmmmmmm ......... Not a single WWII aircraft.......


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2005)

There's loads of post-war aircraft I love but my favourite, without a doubt, is the F.6 Lightning - 1947 design - Mach 2.3 - 60,000 feet ceiling. 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)

SR-71 Blackbird
F-86D Sabre
TSR2
Avro Vulcan
MiG-15

8)


----------



## evangilder (Jan 4, 2005)

B-58 Hustler
XB-70
F-86 Sabre
F-100 Super Sabre
F-111F
Panavia Tornado
Dornier Alpha Jet
Saab Grippen


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)

Oooooo I forgot - add the B-52 and B-36 to my list too 8)


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2005)

Did I just see the Panavia 'Piece of crap ' Tornado in evans list?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)




----------



## evangilder (Jan 4, 2005)

Yep. I liked it. BTW, it won the high altitude bomb competition at Red Flag a couple of years in a row in the mid 80s.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)

Theres nothing wrong with the Tornado as far as I can see.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 4, 2005)

It was a decent multi-role aircraft for its time. Plus I like the swing-wing.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 5, 2005)

It was never a decent aircraft. You know the first Tornados delivered to the RAF were put straight into mothball because they had so many faults with them, it would mean complete reworking (which would cost too much) to put them right? You know the RAD-ALT used to bounce off the under-carriage? You know the Gulf War they needed Buccaneers to laser pinpoint their targets because the "First pass-first strike" piece of dog wank Tornado couldn't do it?


----------



## evangilder (Jan 5, 2005)

Gee, did I touch a nerve??? It actually was a very capable airplane that performed well during the gulf war. When using the Paveway system, you always need 2 aircraft, one to paint the target with the laser, and one to drop the munitions. It was the same for the F-111. 

_During the 1991 Gulf War, military planners made the elimination of Iraq’s air defenses a top priority. At the start of OPERATION DESERT STORM (called OPERATION GRANBY by the British), Royal Air Force (RAF) Tornado GR1 aircraft attacked Iraqi air bases at low-level with Hunting JP233 anti-runway weapons and suppressed enemy air defenses. Afterward, GR1 aircrews flew medium-level missions using 1,000 lb bombs. At the end of the conflict, they used Paveway II laser-guided bombs (LGB) against other strategic targets. Flying more than 1,500 operational sorties, mostly at night, RAF GR1 aircrews played an important role in forcing the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and the RAF lost six GR1s in combat.

Development of the Tornado began in 1968, when the United Kingdom, West Germany, and Italy initiated a collaborative project to produce a low-level, supersonic aircraft. Panavia Aircraft, a new tri-national company established in Germany, built the variable sweep wing aircraft, and the first prototype flew on August 14, 1974. Operational deliveries began in July 1980.

Tornados could carry a wide range of weapons, including the Air-Launched Anti-Radar Missile (ALARM) for the Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) and the Paveway II and III laser-guided bombs (LGB). The RAF also modified a number of Tornados to carry the Sea Eagle anti-shipping missile. This variant became the GR1B._

Source: USAF museum


----------



## plan_D (Jan 5, 2005)

The Tornado was supposed to be "First pass-first strike" that, it never did. Your sources can't tell you what the British government doesn't want anyone to know. Stockpiles of Tornados used for spares because it was built shit and wouldn't work. 

Again, the RAD-ALT bouncing off the undercarriage. The cost, for one empty Tornado three fully laden F-15s can be bought. And they are better aircraft. 
Tornado crews are told never to take off dry, they always need re-heat (afterburner) to be on the safe side. In air-to-air NATO exercises the RAF is getting beaten by BELGIUM these days because of these Tornados. 

Tornados are expensive pieces of junk. No wonder the Italians and Germans gave up on them.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 5, 2005)

Obviously I am not privvy to what is transpiring in the British government about the Tornado. 

A lot of American airplanes take off with afterburners. We had a really long runway at Lakenheath and normal sorties for F-111s and later F-15s did not need afterburners to take off, but they always did. Better to have more than enough power during takeoff. It is indeed safer.

Personally, if I were to have to fly into combat, the Tornado would not be my first choice. But I still like the lines and look. We used to call the F-111 the "Sky Pig", but I still like it.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 5, 2005)

A F-15 can take off dry though. More thrust than weight it can just climb and climb without losing speed. The Tornado on the other hand can't take off dry, if it did that big ugly tail would drag it down.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 19, 2005)

I technically include helicopters as heavier than air, and call them airplanes. If I can include a helicopter my list goes:

1. AH64D Apache Longbow (Please note that this one has a behind cover 
targeting sight).
2. B-36 Peacemaker- "They maketh a desert and they call it Peace".
3. F-117 Nighthawk- Love the groovy geometric pattern.
4. F-111- One of the greatest modern fighter-bombers for Australia in 
terms of range and capabilities.
5. AC-130 Spectre- 'It's raining lead pain, enemies'.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 19, 2005)

The Aussies are flying the F-111G if I am not mistaken. I know there are alot of the old birds from my old base being used for parts for the Australian AF. It sure was sad to see the planes I watched for 3 years sitting in mothballs and various states of disassembly at Davis Monthan.


----------



## MikeMan (Jan 25, 2005)

evangilder said:


> The Aussies are flying the F-111G if I am not mistaken. I know there are alot of the old birds from my old base being used for parts for the Australian AF. It sure was sad to see the planes I watched for 3 years sitting in mothballs and various states of disassembly at Davis Monthan.



Nope, F-111D's.

Some ex-USAF F-111G's were sold as parts planes IIRC.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 26, 2005)

Wow! F-111Ds. The Gs were just basically converted FB-111s, and if memory serves correctly, they were used mainly in training modes by the USAF. But I guess depending on the role, the D would be a better choice.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2005)

well my all time favourite post WWII aircraft would be the vulcan.........

and i happen to like the tornado, very good looking...........


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 29, 2005)

For me it has to be either the Harrier, Vulcan, Canberra or the Stratofortess


----------



## Viper (Jan 29, 2005)

Ill take an F-14 anyday over anything and take on anything with it
but post war id say the supersonic valkarie, superhornet F-18, F-15 and the new F-35, the A-10 warthog.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 30, 2005)

Here are some shots from my collection of the Valkyrie


----------



## Viper (Jan 30, 2005)

it was one hell of a plane, i had a hard time finding pic of it though


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 30, 2005)

Christ! You'd go from Halifax to San Diego in about ten minutes! 

Well not really, but it'd sure be fast! 8)


----------



## Viper (Jan 30, 2005)

ya, shame it was decommosioned


----------



## evangilder (Jan 30, 2005)

One of my earliest childhood memories is of my dad taking me to see it land for the very lat time at Wright Patterson. I was just shy of three years old, but I still remember seeing that big bird land. There were cars parked up and down the street by the runway to see it. Anyway, here are the specs:

SPECIFICATIONS 
Span: 105 ft. 
Length: 185 ft. 10 in. without boom; 192 ft. 2 in. with boom 
Height: 30 ft. 9 in. 
Weight: 534,700 lbs. loaded 
Armament: None 
Engines: Six General Electric YJ-93s of 30,000 lbs. thrust each with afterburner. 
PERFORMANCE 
Maximum speed: 2,056 mph. (Mach 3.1) at 73,000 ft. 
Cruising speed: 2,000 mph. (Mach 3.0) at 72,000 ft. 
Range: 4,288 miles 
Service Ceiling: 77,350 ft. 

Source: USAF Museum


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

I love the XB-70...great looking plane and phenomenal performance.


----------



## trackend (Jan 30, 2005)

my choice fellas 
TSR2
Lightning
Harrier
B52
Blackbird
A10

707 Cause it was the first jet I flew in (big leap forward)
747 Transport revolutionary plane


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

Ah the A-10...great plane 8)


----------



## trackend (Jan 30, 2005)

nasty little beast


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

Where did you get that TSR2 pic? Ive been looking for a flying TSR2 pic for AGES! Im stealing that one for myself


----------



## trackend (Jan 30, 2005)

Duxford web site
http://duxford.iwm.org.uk/


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 30, 2005)

They've got one there


----------



## trackend (Jan 30, 2005)

yup quite a machine in its day


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

Or it would have been if the project wasnt cancelled...damn government...


----------



## trackend (Jan 30, 2005)

well it all came out of our taxes and in those days we had other priorities


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 30, 2005)

A truly awesome machine! So advanced for it's day, in fact, that I would imagine the sheer cost of trying to mass produce it for the air force would all but bankrupt the country. Too bad, really.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 31, 2005)

I doubt it would have bankrupt the country, I bet it wasn't even as expensive as the Tornado. Now, THAT'S an expensive pile of junk. At least the TSR.2 was good.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 3, 2005)

wouldn't kick it out of bed............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 4, 2005)

You sick person  Does it "Light your afterburners" then? :


----------



## HealzDevo (Feb 16, 2005)

My favourite post-war aircraft include:

AH-64D Apache Longbow- Yes a helicopter, top of the list.
B-36 Peacemaker- Awesome power for a bomber around the end of WW2.
Spitfire- The later 1950s re-engineering of this famous aircraft.
P-51 Mustang- The aircraft that really helped take the war to the German 
heart-land.
B-52 Awesome adaptability in terms of roles.
B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber- Useful for early missions in taking enemy radar 
installations and air defenses out relatively 
safely, so that more 'normal' aircraft can carry 
out their missions safely.
F-117 Nighthawk Stealth Fighter- Useful for same reasons as B-2.
ACH-47 Chinook- Armed gunship version of famous transport helicopter.
Mig-25 Fulcrum- Awesome adaptable Soviet front-line fighter.
Foxbat- A fast Mach 3 recon aircraft.
SR-71 Blackbird- A fast recon aircraft that is only just being retired.
U-2- A large single engined plane- largest single-engined plane ever built.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 16, 2005)

That should really be F-51, if it's post-war. I've never known CH-47s to have seperate designations for gunship, although I imagine the US might have. 
In the RAF, they just knock a few windows out and put rotary cannons through them. And then fit a big ass machine gun to the rear ramp, which my dad was on when ever flying in the Chinook in the Falklands.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 16, 2005)

Nice choices HD...


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 7, 2005)

The A designates an Attack, therefore the designation for the Apache Longbow is AH-64D. Now because the Chinooks have been modified for an attack role they have the A appended in the US speak to denote this, therefore the correct designation for the Chinook Helicopter Gunship is ACH-47 Chinook. It's a US designation, look in the schematics thread somewhere to find the illustration I posted of it. The British design you are talking about wouldn't have a separate designation. Just adding a few guns on the side doesn't make an ACH-47 Chinook. These helicopters carry a large amount of attack stores, including mortars, missiles, plus the ordinary guns. They are quite different from an ordinary CH-47 Chinook used to airlift troops and supplies, even if the CH-47 Chinook in question has some added guns. By the way you are right, it should be F-51 for the Mustang. Hope this answers your querry about the gunship Chinook.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 9, 2005)

*GOTTA GO WITH THE F-86 AND THE "RHINO" F-4 - WORLD'S LARGEST DISTRIBUTORS OF USED MIG PARTS!*


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)




----------



## evangilder (Apr 9, 2005)

Well said!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 9, 2005)




----------



## BombTaxi (May 13, 2005)

I love the Phantom too. It just looks like an attitude problem with wings attached!  When I play Strike Fighters Gold, I always go for the Rhino (usually the RN version). Its the ultimate MiG-killing tool!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2005)

Love the RN version, which I feel is one of the best F-4s made with the Spey engines, although the Israelis did lots of "hodrodding" to the Phantom as well!

Hey, I gotta show off today, attached is a clip of one of my finest hours, my first F-4 ride. We went out for 1.5 hours, I got to fly most of the FCF profile, went Mach 1.3 (about 1000 mph) and just had a blast! We did rolls, loops, clover leaves, and rudder rolls, where you could roll this aircraft by using the rudder alone!

That night my buddies "soaked" me down got me very drunk and made me "howl at the moon" like Chuck Yeager did in "he Right Stuff."

I've held a pilots license for over 10 years now and I would have to say this was my "crown moment!"


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2005)

I envy you  Id like to fly any plane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> I envy you  Id like to fly any plane.



CC - If you ever found youself in Colorado, I'll be honored to take you up. I fly about 2x a week (not in F-4s anymore)


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2005)

Well, lets give it about 5 or 6 years, when im about 21 and in a stable job/relationship and ill be right over to America. The prospect of a VIP tour around the museum evan volunteers at and also flying lessons is mighty tempting!


----------



## evangilder (May 13, 2005)

That'd be a hoot, FBJ! I got to take 2 check rides in F-111s when I was at Lakenheath and that was fun! I wish I had been able to take pictures. But photos were verboten on the flightline in those days.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2005)

evangilder said:


> That'd be a hoot, FBJ! I got to take 2 check rides in F-111s when I was at Lakenheath and that was fun! I wish I had been able to take pictures. But photos were verboten on the flightline in those days.



Thanks Evan! My father-in-law (you always hear me talk about him) said the F-111 was one of the fastest aircraft he ever flew. He felt that if it was made of titanium, it probably could of gone Mach 3!


----------



## evangilder (May 13, 2005)

The F-111F model was very fast. To give you an idea, sometimes they came back with peeling paint. You know what _that_ means!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2005)

Yep, Pops got scolded a few times from the squadron's maintenance officer for eroding several radomes. Flew so fast and got them so hot they just about fell off the aircraft!


----------



## evangilder (May 13, 2005)

Sometimes we had gusy come back frm TFR missions that had tree branches sticking out of the intakes. No shit! One hell of a plane, if you could get it off the ground without an IFE.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Sometimes we had gusy come back frm TFR missions that had tree branches sticking out of the intakes. No s**t! One hell of a plane, if you could get it off the ground without an IFE.



I guess that's why it was sometimes known as the "WONDER LEMON"


----------



## evangilder (May 13, 2005)

Yep, when we went to Red Flag, once all the planes left, you could tell where the 111s had been. They were like Harleys, leaving puddles everywhere! They suffered alot from hot brakes at Lakenheath. Between that and compressor stalls, it was always interesting. 

Flashback: I was driving along the runway loop road one afternoon during normal flight ops. As I drove along, I heard one of the 111s taking off, then heard that familiar pop,pop,pop of the compressor stall. I looked over to see the F-111 at about 10 feet, _inverted!!!_  I thought "Holy SHIT!". To my amazement, the pilot had the presence of mind to push forward on the stick instead of yanking back, rolled it right again, and brought down to catch the last barrier. Best bit of flying I ever saw. But I bet that pilot needed to change his shorts!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2005)

I BET! What Squadron were you with. I think my brother-in-law was there in the early 90s


----------



## evangilder (May 13, 2005)

I was actually a comm guy, 1979 Communications Squadron. Although I think it is now the 48th Comm. I worked in the security sensors in the TAB-Vs, WSA and Victor Alert. We also did the ATC radios and SAT-COMM gear, Base PA and Wideband stuff. One of the guys that I rented a house with in Hockwold was with the 495th TFS "Green section".


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2005)

I found out, he was at Upper Heyford with the 55th FS.

Sounds like you had an interesting AF stint!


----------



## evangilder (May 13, 2005)

Yep, it was. My last year was doing basically combat comm, working on have-quicks. That was interesting and quite an education. The first three years were actually kind of fun. There were 111s at Heyford as well. I think they had the F-111E models up there.


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2005)

Amazing story, evan. There's a lot of amazing stuff that happens in the military than no civie ever hears of. Some of the stories I've heard about the Lightning when my dad was with 11 Sqd. are awesome, scary and outrageous.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2005)

Oh, gotta say, the Lightning (BAe) is another jet I would love to fly!


----------



## evangilder (May 13, 2005)

It's funny, you see so many things and experience things that you don't think are that interesting, yet when you tell people about them, they actually do find it interesting. My wife said I should write a book with my anecdotes. Who knows, maybe someday I will. Some of the things I saw and did have to remain in my memory for now. I know that I can't write about some of it due to OpSec, so unless I see something else written about those times, I will just keep it with the funny/fascinating bits.


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2005)

My dad could do the same. 

Lightnings being scrambled with screwdrivers in their engine, one landing on his trim alone after losing all flight controls, one only trained on F.3s flying an F.6 and having to eject over Cyprus, one losing his under-carriage and ditching it in "The Wash" (loads of aircraft have been ditched in this one place, it's like an aircraft graveyard), one coming home with it's jet pipe burst and landing while on fire...there's many more but one I really like is one of a Lightning being scrambled to intercept a foreign plane in the middle of the night. It couldn't see it but hit something while he was flying, he turned around and went home, next day they found the whole under-side scratched and scraped to shit...and nearby where he flew a Cessna 150 had crashed! They figured they were drug smugglers 'cos they'd turned off their RADAR ID.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2005)

On the other side of the coin:

My wife recalls when her dad wore a flight suit all day and thought those were the only clothes he had. They were stationed at Minot North Dakota and my father-in-law way flying B-52s at the time. She also remembers being left in the base exchange with an ice cream cone and a dollar because the "horn blew."


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 13, 2005)

Good reading guys. Thanks.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2005)

Yeah some great stories 8)


----------



## evangilder (May 13, 2005)

Yep, everyone has stories. Some frightening, some funny and some just crazy. Speaking of the horn blew, I was walking into the PX at Lakenheath one morning as the alert siren went off. As I reached for the door, out came an alert pilot in an obvious rush. We didn't see each other and he bowled me over. I was picking myself off the sidewalk as he turned around while running and said "Sorry!". It was pretty funny, then and now, a light little airman (I was all of about 130 pounds at the time) getting literally bowled over by a pilot that was about 6 feet tall and 180 pounds. I didn't stand a chance! I got up, brushed myself off and went about my business.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2005)

Haha  Just one thing though: Its a pavement over here, not a sidewalk


----------



## evangilder (May 13, 2005)

But I was at an American PX, so it was a sidewalk!


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 13, 2005)




----------



## Medvedya (May 13, 2005)

Those bases are strange places - one moment you're in the English countryside, two steps past the perimetre gate and you're on the set of Sergeant Bilko!

American cars, those special school buses painted green instead of yellow, filled with airmen trying very, very, hard to look like Val Kilmer in Top Gun!


----------



## superunknown (May 25, 2005)

Not in any order,

AC-130 Spectre (because it kills everything it sees!)
F-15E Strike Eagle (because its just so damn good)
A-10 Thunderbolt II (because it is THE best ground support aircraft ever)
F-4 Phantom (because it was the best multirole aircraft for so long)
Chinook (If it wasn't for the chinook, nothing would get done)


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2005)

Mmmmm...A-10 Thunderbolt...Excuse me whilst I go to the lavatory...


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 25, 2005)

Don't forget to wipe.


----------



## Pisis (Jul 4, 2005)

My favorite post-war aircraft are those from the Israeli Independence War - Avia S-199 Sakin (Czechoslovak built Bf 109G/K), Spitfires, G.55's... cause they still have the touch of warbirds. 

Also KAW planes are worthy eye-candies: P-51's, Sabres, MiG-15...

As to the jet-planes - MiG-17, MiG-29, Su-27, F-111D, F-4, TSR.2, 

My favorite civil transportesrs: Lockheed L-1049G Super Constellation, Dakota.


----------



## vanir (Aug 12, 2005)

Post war aircraft:

hmm...
Su-7 goddamned fast fighter for its day, less useful as a ground attack due to a hopeless range but would dropkick supersabres like they were going out of fashion in its original form as a fighter. Capable of some Mach 1.6 in 1955 and evolved into the excellent Su-17 ground attack variant.

MiG-21 absolutely annhiliates starfighters and dassaults of the day

MiG-25 Foxbat. What can one say, a reconnaissance-bomber Ye-155R prototype was reputedly clocked by US intelligence doing Mach 3.2 between two Soviet ground stations. It was later suggested after examination of Belyenko's Foxbat in Japan the aircraft was probably made immediately unairworthy by the inherently dangerous effort. It should be noted the only evidence I have seen of these claims is anecdotal at best.
The MiG-25RB derivative however is documented as capable of doing its top speed of Mach 2.82 with a full bomb load (Jane's Information Group), delivering them in precision strikes. A development of the interceptor variant, the MiG-25PD gained its improved engines.
Airframe limit is Mach 2.82 due to construction materiels, however as can be encountered among certain high performance Soviet aircraft, it is possible these engines may be overdriven by anything up to 40% max.aug.thrust although this would hardly be standard operation unless in the midst of a US cruise missile strike, which is one of the scenarios the Foxbat was specifically designed to combat (and to reach 80,000ft Mach 3.2 cruise Blackbirds with its missiles). The Foxbat was probably one of the key reasons the XB and YB-70 Valkyries were cancelled, restarted as a transport-reconnaissance concept then cancelled again. If the Blackbird _could_ be reached, the circa. 75,000ft Mach 3 cruise Valkyrie was no sweat.
Only problem is the Foxbat would be a one shot-single use deal when used like that.
ICBM's and greater range AAM developments changed everything anyway (but AAMs at long range are still very vulnerable to ECM, interceptors much less so).

Unfortunately the Foxbat is designed for high altitude operation and cannot withstand the stresses of low altitude combat performance.
The MiG-25MP variant however, was designed specifically to alter this engineering restriction, but became renamed the MiG-31. It was known as the SuperMiG during the 80's and the mystery surrounding its development inspired the movie "Firefox," shortly before it was finally publicised to the west. We know it as the two-seat Foxhound and it has to be one of the finest performance pieces of the 20th century, combining better overall performance than an Eagle with the weapons system of a Tomcat.

Here's a Foxbat:






Here's a picture from the cockpit at about 80,000 feet:





And here's a Foxhound:


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 12, 2005)

I guess my favorite post war aircraft would have to be the AC-47 "Spooky" It was a great aircraft used in Vietnam.

Although it didnt have speed, it was a great gunship able too give heavy fire power to attack Vietnamese held areas. It also had that cool smokescreen effect so that Anti Aircraft guns had a hard time locating it.

And talk about the Fire Power! Having 20mm miniguns on both sides along with these special flash bombs they would use.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2005)

The Foxbat was fast but was not very maneuvarable.

My favorite post war aircraft are:

F-86 Sabre
F-4 Phantom
F-14 Tomcat
Skyraider
UH-1 Huey
AH-1 Cobra
UH-60L Blackhawk
A-10 Warthog
AC-130 Spectre

Hey P-38 if you like the 47 why not the AC-130. Same concept but much more fire power. Puff the Magic Dragon....


----------



## plan_D (Aug 12, 2005)

Favourite post-war aircraft; the English Electric Lightning. From a 1947 design it was the greatest interceptor of the Cold War and served until 1989 in the RAF.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 12, 2005)

The MiG-17 is probably my favourite.


----------



## vanir (Aug 12, 2005)

> The Foxbat was fast but was not very maneuvarable.


Yeah they designed the Foxhound to fix that. The Foxbat's construction didn't translate well to performance down where the air is thick, it's not even supersonic at sea level.
At high altitudes it is very manoeuvrable indeed, with an airframe limit of 4.5g supersonic. US fighters have high subsonic g-limits in preference and concentrate on transonic performance at medium altitudes, with supersonic dash.

The MiG-25MP/MiG-31 Foxhound however has a much tougher airframe for dramatically increased low altitude performance and manages a comfortable Mach 1.4 on the deck and a high altitude performance of Mach 2.82 which is limited only by airframe restrictions. It is listed as an engineering guideline for safety reasons rather than an actual speed top-out.

Back when the US had cancelled the YF-12A Mach 3.2 interceptor programme due to ridiculous costs and gone with the F-15 as the Air Force front line of defence (which was ridiculously expensive anyway), it could not be understood how the Soviets had managed to develope such performance in a mass produced interceptor.
It was assumed the Russians had developed some kind of new technology unavailable to the US and they resigned themselves as being unable to match the performance of the Foxbat, concentrating their engineering doctrine instead on high, mid-altitude transonic performance in the hope the Foxbat's performance was orientated solely to high altitude operations. The gamble paid off.

When the US technicians finally examined Belyenko's Foxbat in Japan in the 70's they were actually quite disappointed and realised the F-15 in fact superceded it at most combat altitudes.
But Belyenko had warned them of a new Foxhound variant which was far more likely to justify their earlier fears.

The MiG-25MP or MiG-31 Foxhound has astonishing performance from near space altitudes to sea level and the second generation MiG-31M subvariant, state of the art avionics and weapons systems.
Its development has been domestically outshone by the world class performance and very public mishaps of the Sukhoi Flanker programmes, an airframe which itself holds no less than 27 world records, including rate of climb (which used to be the Foxbat's territory).

On the battlefield however, a MiG-31M is easily one of the most dangerous aircraft you can come across today at any altitude and under any conditions. In 1990 it was probably the most powerful aircraft in service in the world.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2005)

vanir said:


> > The Foxbat was fast but was not very maneuvarable.
> 
> 
> Back when the US had cancelled the YF-12A Mach 3.2 interceptor programme due to ridiculous costs and gone with the F-15 as the Air Force front line of defence (which was ridiculously expensive anyway), it could not be understood how the Soviets had managed to develope such performance in a mass produced interceptor.



They YF-12 was canceled because there simply wasn't a threat for it to intercept. It was impractical but did assist in the development of the Phoenix missile system. The F-15 was developed under a whole different military doctrine nearly a decade later. The USAF didn't go with the F-15 in lieu of the YF-12, that's plain nonsense!!!  

The F-15 will turn out to be one of the most cost effective weapons platforms when it is finally retired. 25 years of great service, an airframe that could take (and will continue to take) numerous modifications, numerous missions undertaken, successfully completed with close to a 100 to zero kill ratio. I don't know what you would consider expensive, but with a record like that and a good 10 years worth of service left (which gives it 35 years of service), the F-15 gave and will continue to give more than a "bang for its buck."



vanir said:


> On the battlefield however, a MiG-31M is easily one of the most dangerous aircraft you can come across today at any altitude and under any conditions. In 1990 it was probably the most powerful aircraft in service in the world.
> 
> We know it as the two-seat Foxhound and it has to be one of the finest performance pieces of the 20th century, combining better overall performance than an Eagle with the weapons system of a Tomcat.



NOW THAT'S A JOKE! Are you sure you don't mean the SU-27???? The Mig-31 has a big powerful radar that could still be jammed, flies real fast and carries BIG missiles. BIG DEAL! Other than that it's a pig! It's still built out of steel, it cannot maneuver out of it's own way, has a 600 hour engine, drinks fuel like a whale, has a turning radius comparible to an SR-71 and is (was) a logistical nightmare. There was no big secret during it's development. Why do you think the Russians and other former USSR nations have gotten rid of their MiG-31s? It's a brick with wings! I think just about any modern western fighter (F-15, F-16, Tornado, F-18 ) if deployed properly, will feast on the Mig-31 without mercy! 8) 

I could see this stated when comparing an SU-27, but the MiG-31 IS NOT Russia's finest!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2005)

vanir said:


> The Foxbat was probably one of the key reasons the XB and YB-70 Valkyries were cancelled.



You got it Backwards - The Mig-25 was developed to counter the XB-70. That was mentioned several times in the book "MIG PILOT." The XB-70 was cancelled because of Soviet SAM development (1964, the program ended several years later when an F-104 collided with one of the prototypes east of Edwards AFB, California). The USAF changed it's stategic strike doctrine and developed low-level tactics and eventually coupled that with Stealth technology.......


----------



## trackend (Aug 13, 2005)

TSR2


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2005)

trackend said:


> TRS2



OK Track, you made your point!


----------



## trackend (Aug 13, 2005)

Enough said FBJ ok I got the letters the wrong way round


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2005)

There ya go!


----------



## vanir (Aug 13, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> vanir said:
> 
> 
> > The Foxbat was probably one of the key reasons the XB and YB-70 Valkyries were cancelled.
> ...


Several versions of why the Foxbat was initially designed exist. I like the one adopted by Jane's Information Group, which I've always found to be among the most reliable technical sources available anywhere, in some cases I trust them more than I do official military release information.


> Design started 1959 as Ye-155P supersonic high-altitude interceptor to counter all potential threats, from cruise missiles to A-11 (SR-71A reconnaissance aircraft) under US development; programme launched officially February 1962.
> 
> (Russian air forces): MiG-25RB (Mikoyan Type 02B; `Foxbat-B'): Single-seat high-altitude reconnaissance-bomber, derived from Ye-155R-1 prototype; *production began* as MiG-25R (Type 02), for reconnaissance only, in *1969*; bombing capability added to redesignated RB in 1970; able to fly long distances at cruising speed of Mach 2.35, maximum speed of Mach 2.83 with full bomb load.



Here is one provided by an independant author for an aviation publication:


> The MiG-25 high altitude, high speed interceptor was initially developed to counter the Mach 3 XB-70 Valkyrie bomber under development in the US in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
> Although the XB-70 as a bomber was cancelled in 1961, work on the new high speed interceptor and reconnaissance platform continued.
> *Initial ‘Foxbat’ production was of the MiG-25P interceptor*. Service entry was in *1973.*


The inconsistency I've highlighted is to show the somewhat questionable credibility in the source.

And one from the aviation.ru website on the MiG-25:


> The MiG-25 was originally designed to counter the A-11, not the B-70 as we all believed.



According to the best sources I can find:

The MiG-25 was designed in 1959.
Design of the XB70 also began in 1959.
The CIA Blackbird (A11) was designed in 1957.

You do the math.

Point two:
The Valkyrie project was cancelled in 1961. The official debate was the shooting down of a U2 in 1960 by a SAM diminishing the viability of high altitude high Mach overflights of enemy territory. However through the backchannels of military expediture the CIA was continued funding for a fleet of 12 high speed high altitude reconnaissance aircraft to directly overfly the USSR that same year, the Blackbirds.

It should be noted that during this period of the Cold War in particular, military technologies were institutionally shrouded in the utmost secrecy and elaborate misinformation.

The reluctance towards the Valkyrie programme might more likely be attributed to a Mach 3 dash rather than cruise inital capability, for which the proposal was completely redesigned and tendered again but required the development of all new technologies, including construction methods.
It was given clearance as a technological development testbed.

First flight was in 1964. Later, a transport/reconnaissance use was proposed for the defunct design.
Around this time Foxbats had flown at Mach 3.2 and 112,000 feet and were about to enter front line production, known to the US as a "reconnaissance-interceptor of unknown technology" (the US was unaware of the specific details such as individual variants).
The CIA Blackbird A11/12 had flown Mach 3.3 cruise at an uspecified altitude (on its very first flight with both J58 engines in 1963 the A11 did Mach 3.2). A YF-12A interceptor/bomber variant to counter the Foxbat was proposed and funded.

The Valkyrie was already earmarked for the cancellation of funding when NASA took up the contract for further development testing, just prior to the 1966 fatality. It was finally backlogged and cancelled for the last time in 1969 as an unsuccessful, if revolutionary design.

If the project had continued it would have been only as a transport/reconnaissance vehicle, as its strategic capabilities were obviously clearly outclassed by the Foxbat and YF-12A designs. It was a bit expensive for such a secondary role and its development value had been all but superceded.


I also found more information about Foxbats doing better than Mach 3 speeds at the same aviation.ru MiG 25 website.


> The MiG-25 that was clocked at Mach 3.2 by the Israelis achieved this speed while running from an intercepting F-4 (which can barely manage Mach 2 on a good day--before running out of fuel). Upon landing, both engines in the MiG had to be replaced.
> Mach 2.83 is a theoretical stability limit on the airframe (which has been safely exceeded on numerous occasions by test pilots). At speeds greater than Mach 2.6 however, throttle control must be precise to keep the engines from overspeeding.


And more about the Foxbat's interception performance.


> The F-16 can just barely squeak past Mach 2.0 with a pair of wingtip sidewinders. The F-14 can only manage Mach 1.81. And the mighty Eagle is only good for Mach 1.78 (Mach 2.5 clean). The Foxbat can outclimb all of these fighters by a healthy margin, and has a mauch better supersonic endurance than the best Western fighter (F-22 notwithstanding).


----------



## evangilder (Aug 13, 2005)

vanir said:


> Design started 1959 as Ye-155P supersonic high-altitude interceptor to counter all potential threats, from cruise missiles to A-11 (SR-71A reconnaissance aircraft) under US development; programme launched officially February 1962.
> 
> (Russian air forces): MiG-25RB (Mikoyan Type 02B; `Foxbat-B'): Single-seat high-altitude reconnaissance-bomber, derived from Ye-155R-1 prototype; *production began* as MiG-25R (Type 02), for reconnaissance only, in *1969*; bombing capability added to redesignated RB in 1970; able to fly long distances at cruising speed of Mach 2.35, maximum speed of Mach 2.83 with full bomb load.



Here is one provided by an independant author for an aviation publication:


> The MiG-25 high altitude, high speed interceptor was initially developed to counter the Mach 3 XB-70 Valkyrie bomber under development in the US in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
> Although the XB-70 as a bomber was cancelled in 1961, work on the new high speed interceptor and reconnaissance platform continued.
> *Initial ‘Foxbat’ production was of the MiG-25P interceptor*. Service entry was in *1973.*


The inconsistency I've highlighted is to show the somewhat questionable credibility in the source.
[/quote]

How is that inconsistent? You are reading bits and scanning the rest. Read the WHOLE quoted section and you will see the verbage not only describes different versions, but different terminologies.

The first quote states that the 25R was derived from the prototype and _production_ began in 1969. This means when they first started building the airplane.

The second quote that you showed 25P, but look at the statement above that. It clearly states that there was a recon and an interceptor version. Then it states that _service entry_ was in 1973. Makes sense to me, there is a big difference between when production begins and service entry.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Favourite post-war aircraft; the English Electric Lightning. From a 1947 design it was the greatest interceptor of the Cold War and served until 1989 in the RAF.



While I agree that it is a great interceptor and one of the best ever built. I dont see how you can say it was better than a Tomcat. The F-14 could take out multiple targets before a Lightning even got off the ground.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2005)

vanir said:


> If the project had continued it would have been only as a transport/reconnaissance vehicle, as its strategic capabilities were obviously clearly outclassed by the Foxbat and YF-12A designs. It was a bit expensive for such a secondary role and its development value had been all but superceded.



There was never any intensions to use the XB-70 as a transport. Lockheed started on a SST and TRADED most of that technology to Boeing for "S" duct technology used on the B727 and later on the Lockheed L1011. Boeing cancelled their SST program as government support dwindled. I know this for a fact cause I worked at Lockheed with people who worked on the YF-12A and were involved in this technology swap..... 




vanir said:


> I also found more information about Foxbats doing better than Mach 3 speeds at the same aviation.ru MiG 25 website.
> 
> 
> > The MiG-25 that was clocked at Mach 3.2 by the Israelis achieved this speed while running from an intercepting F-4 (which can barely manage Mach 2 on a good day--before running out of fuel). Upon landing, both engines in the MiG had to be replaced.
> ...



Again these points are pointless - the Foxbat has been beaten in battle on numerous occasions and only ONE MiG-25 kill has ever been confirmed aganist a western fighter - A Mig-25 shot down an F-18 over Serbia, the F-18 pilot survived....

Your numbers on the Foxbat must have come from a sales brosure. Even if the Mig-25 is flown at Mach 2.8, it has to be able to maneuver, it will slow down. Hang those lumbering "Aphid" missles on the machine and it turns into a brick

2 Mig-25s were shot down by F-15s during the Gulf War, the Isrealis destroyed another 3 or 4, all with the F-15. Bottom line, the MiG-25 and the MiG-31 are both bricks and will probably corrode themself to destruction while sitting on the ground because they are built pooly and are a nightmare to maintain....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2005)

Very well put FBJ.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 13, 2005)

Are you kidding me, Adler? The Lightning could far out-climb the F-14 from standstill. In fact, the Lightning is the fastest interceptor from stand-still to airborne! Even the F-15 with greater thrust:weight ratio cannot climb as quickly from standstill! It only gains the advantage after the first few hundred feet but by then the Lightning is already up in the air.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Very well put FBJ.



Thanks Adler!

Another point - In the last years of the USSR the VVS actually removed the MiG-25 from frontal aviation interceptor squadrons and replaced them with MiG-23s and MiG-29s - why? Cause they cost too much money to maintain and operate and the Soviets figured out the aircraft was a pig! The MiG-31 was an attempt to give life to a dated design, but again it just wound up in a swine pen! The Chinese allegedly bought 24 of them with the plan of building 700 under license - this was supposed to start around 1999. This never materialized, I wonder why?!?  

Although the MiG-31 carries a cannon, it could only maneuver at 5.5 Gs. What do you think an F-16 could do to it?!?

The last MiG-31s are expected to retire by 2010, if not sooner.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2005)

Okay and the F-14 would be hitting targets while the Lightnign was still trying to get into range.


----------



## vanir (Aug 13, 2005)

Sorry FlyboyJ but you're post was far more ridiculous than mine, which had quite a bit of background to it.


> They YF-12 was canceled because there simply wasn't a threat for it to intercept. It was impractical but did assist in the development of the Phoenix missile system. The F-15 was developed under a whole different military doctrine nearly a decade later. The USAF didn't go with the F-15 in lieu of the YF-12, that's plain nonsense!!!


The YF-12A was cancelled because of mission complexity and overall cost. As described by an A12 CIA pilot who was carried over to the SR71 programme in his book, Blackbird (to paraphrase), "...the problem with the YF-12 interceptor was that every Blackbird mission required the support of a NASA ground station identical to that used in its space launches. In all respects flying the Blackbird is far more like a space mission than flying an aircraft."
But you're right about the missile system, the AIM-47 SARH and advanced radar package comprised the Pheonix weapon system, the 90 mile range missiles available initially in nuclear tipped and conventional warheads. These were further developed to the AIM-54 ARH when the entire package was salvaged by the Tomcat in an attempt to recover development costs.


> The F-15 will turn out to be one of the most cost effective weapons platforms when it is finally retired.


But not when it was intially developed. It was the single most expensive front line fighter of its day.


> NOW THAT'S A JOKE! Are you sure you don't mean the SU-27???? The Mig-31 has a big powerful radar that could still be jammed, flies real fast and carries BIG missiles. BIG DEAL! Other than that it's a pig! It's still built out of steel, it cannot maneuver out of it's own way, has a 600 hour engine, drinks fuel like a whale, has a turning radius comparible to an SR-71 and is (was) a logistical nightmare. There was no big secret during it's development. Why do you think the Russians and other former USSR nations have gotten rid of their MiG-31s? It's a brick with wings! I think just about any modern western fighter (F-15, F-16, Tornado, F-18 ) if deployed properly, will feast on the Mig-31 without mercy!


I think it's fun dispelling comic book misconceptions.

The airframe of the MiG 31 is 50% high temp. nickle steel, 16% titanium and 33% indeterminent light alloys. Radome and wing spars are composite.
The construction is inherently stronger than the F-15's alloy and titanium ribbed, composite construction and aluminium honeycomb sections, which is designed for high transonic performance and excellent manoeuvrability as a dogfighter (something which had been continually stressed by F-4 pilots during Vietnam). The Strike Eagle involved a reinforcing of the overall structure to sustain high g's under heavy subsonic loading.

The high-supersonic g rating of the Foxhound is 5g's. The SR-71 is 1.5g's. The SR-71 is limited to a 45 degree turn rate at high supersonic speeds, a restriction the entire MiG 25 series does not have.
All MiG 25s (including the MP Foxhound or MiG 31), were designed for high manoeuvrability and overall rigidity at high Mach speeds. Put simply the best way to achieve this is with a good old fashioned solid construction.
What they can't do is a sudden wing over, split-s and immelman at transonic speeds (Mach 0.85 to 1.2), quite like honeycomb/composite structure US fighters can. What it can do is manoeuvre far more erratically at high supersonic speeds (Mach 2.3 and up), than any other fighter in the world and it has a fully loaded combat radius of over 700km on internal fuel, at that speed (1200km otherwise). Since they don't tow a refuelling tanker behind them into combat, they obviously don't guzzle juice too badly.

Bench testing of the Aviadvigatel D-30F-6 four stage augumention engines has surpassed several hundred thousand flying hours without breakdown (source: Jane's Information Group), as compared to the 1,000hr engine life of the MiG-25PD Tumansky engines. To my knowledge, a D-30F-6 engine has yet to fail under any conditions.
The rated maximum cruise of Mach 2.83 at 67,500 feet is geared for minimum augumented fuel consumption which provides the 34,170lbs st. the engine is nominally rated to this speed at. However these engines are designed to be oversped to 41,843lbs st. rated total maximum thrust, whereas the Tumanksys although sharing this inherent overspeed feature due to application, were not and this was the cause of the earlier Foxbat's infamous unreliability.

The avionics and full ECM package of the MiG 31 contains an electronically scanned phase array "Flash Dance" radar (digital multimode pulse doppler with lookdown shootdown equivalent), with a 200km search range, the ability to track 10 targets at 120km and engage up to four, simultaneously. This radar is so sophisticated it is able to track targets below and immediately behind the aircraft for a limited over the shoulder weapons fire capability and totally outclasses all other combat radar systems in service at the time of its inception.
Its primary weapon system is comparable to the Pheonix and although in early R-33 variants SARH (roughly equivalent to the original Pheonix AIM-47 missiles), later generation R-77, R-27 and R-33 variants are available in ARH configuration (roughly equivalent to Pheonix AIM-54 if this model has become available and AIM-120 AMRAAM class missiles, although the R-77 early production models have a bad rep).
As usual with Soviet later generation aircraft a full IR search/track system is fitted standard, a retractable sensor in this case.

"Other nations," former Soviet territories or otherwise haven't gotten rid of their MiG-31's, nobody else had any (edit to add: you reminded me in another post, China recieved a small number of early build MiG-25MP/MiG31's, quite right and my error of memory), the Russian Federation have kept their relatively few number in service (less than 200 were ever made). In fact the former "White Russia," ie. the Ukraine has kept its original MiG-25PD/PDS and RB Foxbats in service alongside the excellent Tu-22M medium bomber, MiG-23 Floggers and early Fulcrum A's. The problem however being that the limited Tumansky engine life of the earlier Foxbats and subsequent maintainence costs meant they were flown so infrequently that, believe it or not when the Ukraine became independant, nobody actually knew how to fly them! The Ukraine, India and China however all presently keep perfectly combat ready Foxbats, with India earmarked for Foxhound import (edit to add: as at around 2000).

Russia has been promoting the export of the early MiG-31 "Foxhound A" (the MiG-25MP), since the inception of the improved MiG-31M which is now the standard front line variant. More than 160 "first generation" Foxhound A's were delivered and an ASAT (anti-satellite), version has been created in the hope to increase the attractability of this inherently expensive aircraft in the wake of inexpensive Sukhoi and Fulcrum popularity.
I understand the MiG-31M is also being offered for export in its existing configuration, which is a move that mirrors the intial production of the Foxbats in the 70's, as they are designed to be employed only in small numbers with a much larger force of (detuned in the case of foreign exports) counter-air fighters.

The F-15 enjoys similar infrastructure restrictions, requiring elaborate, expensive and specialised ground support and maintainence schedules, and a large, well surfaced runway with a good takeoff run. Look I love aircraft and the F-15 is a goddamn awesome one, but reality is reality.
Vipers are therefore used in front line airfields and a strategy of inexpensive multirole, quick turnaround and easily manufactured numbers (with high parts commonality), is employed to take greatest advantage of these inherent operational "logistics."
Put simply, the US military infrastructure is the wealthiest in the world, and if it had Mikoyan instead of McDonnell Douglas it'd be using Foxhounds just like it uses F-15s and in those numbers. It'd be replacing Foxbat early variants for Foxhound later ones just as if they were F-15A's being superceded by F-15C's and equipping Flankers and Platypii as if they were Strike Eagles. The F-15 hasn't been _the_ cutting edge front line fighter because it's just well...so universally amazing a real philosophers stone, it is because the US is _rich_. There is no other reason.
And when you are _rich_ you can afford to lay out untold billions in strategic "role to model outlay" and wait 35 years for it to come good on its investment financially. The Soviet Union tried it with the Flanker, Fulcrum and Foxhound team and broke their economy, now you can buy a new Su-27 cheaper than you'll get an F-15C with 3500 flying hours, you'll probably get an export Foxhound cheaper than you'll get a used Strike Eagle (you've been selling these to the Bin Ladens by the way, you naughty Americans). And Fulcrums are the European and Asiatic export competitor for Vipers.

The 1991 MiG-31M is did not fail to be the most advanced frontline fighter in the world at that time (to be superceded by the F/A-22), because it was incapable. It did because Russia is _poor_. Put it in similar numbers to the F-15C all over Frontal Aviation and I suspect the universal threat evaluation of this aircraft would more than have impacted any uneducated assumptions of its mediocrity.

Like all the final series of production aircraft in the former USSR, the Foxhound, Fulcrum and Flanker series are tremendously underrated even by many fighter enthusiasts which are not closely familiar with the these models. This holds true for the excellent Su-34 anti-armour attack aircraft in the Warthog class to the high performing Tu-160 strategic bomber (which is a lot like a Concorde...with nukes), and the Tu-22M maritime-recon and medium bomber in the B1-B class (only much better performing).
The last of the Soviet fighters are dirt cheap because the CIS is broke, not because evenly matched for type and number they aren't perfectly capable of dominating a modern battlefield. The former Soviet Union desintegrated its economy building them to compete with the best US design prototypes, not failing to. Relatively few celebrated democratic nations are buying them because of existing support infrastructure and politics, not because US fighters are inherently better.

Seriously FlyboyJ, I'm surprised at your apparent ignorance in this matter.

As for the reasons behind the F-15's initial development it will require another elaborate post unto itself. If you're unsatisfied with my assertion that it was directly conceived to combat the Foxbat in lieu of the overpriced and unrealistic YF-12A proposal, I'll get around to it presently.


----------



## vanir (Aug 13, 2005)

> There was never any intensions to use the XB-70 as a transport. Lockheed started on a SST and TRADED most of that technology to Boeing for "S" duct technology used on the B727 and later on the Lockheed L1011. Boeing cancelled their SST program as government support dwindled. I know this for a fact cause I worked at Lockheed with people who worked on the YF-12A and were involved in this technology swap....


I'm unclear as to what you're saying there. The XB70 was never proposed as a transport/renonnaissance in an attempt to resurrect the programme, Lockheed started on an SST...
By all means clear things up from the inside view, I welcome your personal experience in this area and am always ready to learn credible and well presented facts.

Look it appears painfully clear you've been starting on my posts since the first which gave any show of background on the MiG. I'm not sayiing all background is acurrate, for all I know tomorrow morning, first thing people who were there are going to release that a swedish carpet cleaner in fact designed the MiG Foxbat whilst watering his daisies (very english sounding, that). But my comments arrive out of genuine research and a long time of enjoying looking up these aircraft.
Perhaps I should've posted, "ooh you are so big, flyboyJ, ooh you are so potent," but frankly I'm not at this forum for such a reason.
You don't like the Foxbats and Foxhounds, fair enough, but you're giving appraisals that kind of sound like they're alluding to being based on personal experience flying these aircraft, which I seriously doubt. If such is indeed not the case, we'll just have to go with individual impressions and the best accurate information we can find.

You're entitled to your opinion but your appraisals of the technical specifications of Foxbats and Foxhounds is rough and incomplete and inaccurate on a wide variety of details, according to credible specifications published.


> Again these points are pointless - the Foxbat has been beaten in battle on numerous occasions and only ONE MiG-25 kill has ever been confirmed aganist a western fighter - A Mig-25 shot down an F-18 over Serbia, the F-18 pilot survived....


This sounds more like "I don't like your posts" to me. Pointless how? The two or three occasions where MiG Foxbats have ever been in battle (Syria, Saudi and initially, Iraq), were short lived, they were in very small numbers, were early variants (150hr engine life R15-B300 Tumanskys), pilots therefore had low familiarity, accompanying aircraft had been detuned (export MiG 23 variants, MiG 21 radar and weapons fitted), and they were hopelessly outnumbered. Using them for your "well considered appraisal" is far more pointless.


> Your numbers on the Foxbat must have come from a sales brosure. Even if the Mig-25 is flown at Mach 2.8, it has to be able to maneuver, it will slow down. Hang those lumbering "Aphid" missles on the machine and it turns into a brick


The MiG Foxbat has a supersonic g rating of 4.5g's. Aphids were excellent missiles of the 1960 and 70's. As were Sparrows and Sidewinders. I'm not big on the R-40's myself but apparently they're fairly comparable to the Sparrows of the day but with a better range spread and a nice, big warhead. R-73's are apparently as good as later Sidewinders. R-23's are as good as later Sparrows with their proximity fuse and a slightly heavier yeild.

The MiG 25 has throttle problems with overspeeding over Mach 2.6, this is inherent to the design of its turbojets. The airframe is rated to Mach 2.82 _with a full load of four underwing bombs_, a performance which it has demonstrated. It is also anecdotally exampled to have flown at speeds exceeding Mach 3 on numerous occasions, however in each case the engines were destroyed (these speeds were as a result of engine overspeed or "runaway rpm"), which the Foxbat was prone to without precise throttle control at high Mach speeds.

Its cruise speed is Mach 2.35, higher speeds may be considered a dash ability, designed to be used in strategic interception applications as a potentially one shot use. More anecdotal evidence has it Soviet pilots had to be specially cleared to use the Foxbat over Mach 2.3.
The Foxhound by comparison, with its redesigned bypass tubojets (aviadvigatel turbofans), has no problems with a Mach 2.83 cruise speed at 67,500 feet and is markedly more reliable under overspeeding conditions (designed specifically for up to 40% overspeeding or more than 41,000lbs of aug. thrust per engine).


----------



## vanir (Aug 13, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Very well put FBJ.
> ...


The "soviets figured out the aircraft was just a pig" is not mentioned in any credible source I've ever read. This kind of appraisal appears markedly counter to any credible Soviet or technically knowledgable appraisal of the Foxbat/Foxhound series with which I'm familiar.
It was ridiculously unrealistic to maintain in its initial interceptor form, the Foxbat A due to a 150hr engine life. Even the 1000hr engine life of the improved Tumanskys and the difficulties of operating such a high performance aircraft in front line service meant that Foxbats were so little flown that only a very small amount of pilots had the model familiarity to be cleared to fly them.
There were many reasons the MiG 25 was pulled from service, primarily the design was a Cold War inteception strategy which had limited use in other roles, it was a very expensive and very compromising counter-air fighter if that's what you were going to use it for. A MiG 23 or Fulcrum is infinitely better for this purpose, the Flankers an infinitely better technology.

None of this holds true for the Foxhound except the expense. The Soviet Union economically collapsed just as they'd begun delivery and less than 200 were delivered (figures have varied). This does not impact on the effectiveness nor capabilities of the aircraft itself.
By your appraisals the Foxhound is one of the most underrated combat aircraft in history. A pig or a brick it is most definitely not, very expensive and complicated, yes. It does what it was designed to do superbly, reliably and with a good role variability. It terms of performance specification alone it is the most powerful combat aircraft ever constructed. In terms of comparison, of course it isn't. It's just one of them and a 1990 technology at that. About en par with a late build Strike Eagle, F14D or a C/D Hornet, a little more specialised, real nasty if it gets in the air with them but it needs things like Flankers for counter-air support. Can't be helped, that's the strategic use.

"Pig, brick, would get feasted on by F15/16/14/etc." is just ignorant comic book patriotism. You're the one who sounds like a brochure, the hard-sell kind with a heavy dose of redneck.

Ultimately the Foxhound project has been pulled (decided by the turn of the century), due to low build numbers, poor national economics and the overshadowing effect of the Flanker and Fulcrum export market. Nobody's scared about strategic interception anymore, things like cheap and/or high tech multirole and deep penetration tactical is the current strategy, stressing high transonic performance, ubiquitous aircraft operation, quick turnaround and high survivability. The MiG is a Cold War relic, there's no doubt about that. But seriously, don't go around saying it's an incapable performer, it just isn't so. It's an awesome aircraft, just out of place and with no financial support (or need).

As an airframe/technology combination the Foxhound is 10 yrs, not 40yrs old.
The tiny number the Chinese bought, the only people outside the Russian Federation who operated them, were early build Foxhound A models, the MiG-25MP (MiG-31), a completely different animal to the MiG-31M which has an improved airframe. Around 160 were built. Without the Russian financial troubles it has been speculated (anecdotal), nobody outside their own air forces would have been given any but they have all been offered for export, under quite a bit of sales promotion since about 2000.

You don't like these MiGs at all. I appreciate them. You like the XB70, I think it was a high school science project.
I don't think we're really going to get along on any of this.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2005)

And what sources do you have? Everything that I think we have read is stating how the Mig-25 and 31 were nothign more than fast straight fliers. They would be outturned.

As for you post about the F-15 being so expensive. All new fighters are like that. Over time the F-15 paid for its self.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 14, 2005)

vanir said:


> "Pig, brick, would get feasted on by F15/16/14/etc." is just ignorant comic book patriotism. You're the one who sounds like a brochure, the hard-sell kind with a heavy dose of redneck.



I DON'T APPRECIATE THE NAME CALLING, I WAS BORN ON THE EAST COAST OF THE US - FAR FROM BEING A REDNECK! I'VE BEEN IN THE AVIATION INDUSTRY FOR 28 YEARS AND ACTUALLY FLY AIRCRAFT. I FIND BY YOUR INTERNET SURFING OF SNIPPETS TO HOLD YOUR ARGUMENTS TOGETHER ACTUALLY SHOWS YOUR LACK OF AVIATION KNOWLEDGE, IN MY CIRCLES YOU'RE KNOWN AS A "WANNA-BE." ACTUALLY YOU DO IT SO WELL YOU ACTUALLY CONTRADICT AND ARGUE WITH YOURSELF BY YOUR MILES OF "CUT AND PASTE" COMMENTS AND STATISTICS THAT USUALLY GO NOWHERE! BOTTOM LINE THOUGH, IF YOU CAN'T CARRY ON A PROPER DUOLOGUE WITHOUT INSULTS DIRECTED AT ME, I SUGGEST YOU PULL YOUR AUSSIE HEAD OUT OF YOUR PET ROOS' POUCH AND POST ELSEWHERE! 

I'm only responding to your more ridiculous comments....



vanir said:


> "The MiG 25 has throttle problems with overspeeding over Mach 2.6, this is inherent to the design of its turbojets. The airframe is rated to Mach 2.82 with a full load of four underwing bombs, a performance which it has demonstrated. It is also anecdotally exampled to have flown at speeds exceeding Mach 3 on numerous occasions, however in each case the engines were destroyed (these speeds were as a result of engine overspeed or "runaway rpm"), which the Foxbat was prone to without precise throttle control at high Mach speeds.



If you knew ANYTHING about turbine engines, this situation has NOTHING to do with the "throttles," In fact on TURBINE engine aircraft the correct term is "POWER LEVERS." "Throttles" are a term used for reciprocating engines....
The engines over speed because there is little boundary control at the front of the air intake on the MiG-25/ 31. The air going in will eventually go supersonic. The engines on these aircraft have bleed air valves that prevent the compressors from stalling when this happens but lack the means to prevent over speed. Maybe you could be more precise if you didn't cut and paste that one....



vanir said:


> The airframe of the MiG 31 is 50% high temp. nickle steel, 16% titanium and 33% indeterminent light alloys.



YES AND WHEN YOU PUT THESE ALLOYS TOGETHER THEY *CORRODE*, LIKE MOST MIG-29S AND 31S ARE DOING AS WE SPEAK! IF YOU KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT AIRCRAFT THIS MAKE THEM AN AIRFRAME MAINTENANCE NIGHTMARE!!!



vanir said:


> All MiG 25s (including the MP Foxhound or MiG 31), were designed for high manoeuvrability and overall rigidity at high Mach speeds.



What a Joke! Victor Belenko himself said the exact opposite in his book MIG PILOT. You even posted that these aircraft have a 5G rating. A modern fighter aircraft with a max 5G rating is toast! The 30 year old L-29 I fly can pull 9 Gs for Christs sake!!!!! 



vanir said:


> As an airframe/technology combination the Foxhound is 10 yrs, not 40yrs old.



You're wrong! MiG-31M development started in 1983 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-31



vanir said:


> The tiny number the Chinese bought, the only people outside the Russian Federation who operated them, were early build Foxhound A models, the MiG-25MP (MiG-31), a completely different animal to the MiG-31M which has an improved airframe. Around 160 were built. Without the Russian financial troubles it has been speculated (anecdotal), nobody outside their own air forces would have been given any but they have all been offered for export, under quite a bit of sales promotion since about 2000.



No - The Chinese figured out the MiG-31 wasn't what it was cranked up to be



vanir said:


> You don't like these MiGs at all. I appreciate them. You like the XB70, I think it was a high school science project.
> I don't think we're really going to get along on any of this.



No - I love Mig aircraft! - I'VE ASSEMBLED AND MAINTAINED MIG-15s, 17s, 21S AND L-29s and 39S WHILE I LIVED IN CALIFORNIA - LOOK UP MOJAVE WHEN YOU DO YOUR INTERNET SURFING. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A MIG LET ALONE WORKED OR FLOWN ON ONE?!? I've flown Mig-15s, L-29 39s and probably got more experience around these aircraft than you could ever wish to dream about! 

I never said anything about the XB-70 except the MiG-25 was built to counter it, and the one thing I could agree with you, yes, it was a science project. 

Much of my experience with these aircraft are *HANDS ON* and talking to the *Ex-Soviet pilots who now reside here in the states who are contracted by the owners to test fly them after they are assembled and licensed.* Most of my opinions and information are reflections of what these guys have told me while they trained me to work on their former country's aircraft - and the ones I met who flew the MiG-25 and 31 said *IT WAS A PIG! *

I think you might want to consider reading some of the information you post before you "cut and paste it" into a conglomeration of gibberish, half truths and wrong information. Again, you're entitled to your opinions and cut and paste beliefs, *but don't call anyone on this forum names when you can't get them to agree with you......*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2005)

Very well said FBJ! And yes vanir you need to back off with the insults. We have had eneogh problems with this kind of stuff and dont need it anymore.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 14, 2005)

Adler, the F-14 would still be on the ground warming up it's avionics while the Lightning was up in the air in less than two minutes from the alarm bell. Once it's up in the air it's up to 50,000 feet in little over a minute and shooting at almost Mach 1 towards it's target. Need it go any faster, it can reach Mach 2.3! 

In three minutes the Lightning can be in the air at optimum speed and altitude (45,000 feet and Mach 0.87) from alarm bell. That time includes the time it takes for men to get the pilot in and roll the Lightning on to the runway. 

In three minutes a F-14 would only just be off the runway since it's spent most of that time warming up.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2005)

On all US Carriers there were 2 Tomcats at the ready to launch at all times. Systems up and running and ready to go. The Tomcat could hit targets before the Lightning was in range. The Tomcat could fly to Mach 2.5. 

Sorry but the Tomcat was a better overall interceptor than the Lightning was.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 14, 2005)

The only reason the Tomcat would *ever* be able to get up before the Lightning was because of the catapult on ships. You put them both on a ground strip, the Lightning would show it up.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2005)

And when is a Tomcat going to see combat from a ground strip. About 90 percent of the time never. Sorry plan_D but this really is an argument that you can not win. The F-14 was made with newer technologies. Who cares if the Lightning can climb faster. The Tomcat could hit the targets while the Lightning is still climbing up after it. The Tomcat was better than the Lightning.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 14, 2005)

The F-14 would have to be stationed on a carrier to get anywhere near the intercept capablities of a Lightning. The Lightning could defeat the F-14 to the target off a ground strip, and the F-14 could off a carrier. 

The F-14 would have to warm up, you cannot sit a plane there with it's engine on constantly. The only advantage in pure intercept duties the F-14 has is that it can carry maverick missiles. By the time the F-14 is ready, the Lightning is already miles up and miles beyond. Being able to get off the ground and get high quickly is a _vital_ part of an interceptor. 

I will concede from a carrier a F-14 would be up quicker than the Lightning but from the ground, no way. It would be so far behind the minor range deficiency of the Lightning's weapons would mean little. 

And my comment on the Lightning being the best interceptor of the Cold War still stands. The F-14 didn't come to service until 20 or so years after the Lightning, the Cold War was over.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2005)

What the cold war was over before the Tomcat entered service. Please plan_D you know better than that. The Tomcat entered service around 1972. The cold war did not end until 1990. So how did the Tomcat enter after the cold war ended. 

Lets see the Tomcat can track up to 24 targets simultaneously with its advanced weapons control system and attack six with Phoenix AIM-54A missiles while continuing to scan the airspace. Can the Lightning do this. ummm NO.

The Tomcats AWG-9 is a pulse-Doppler, multi-mode radar with a designed capability to track 24 targets at the same time while simultaneously devising and executing fire control solutions for 6 targets. Designed in the 1960's and one of the oldest air-to-air radar systems, the AWG-9 is still the most powerful and new software will increase its capabilities for the 21st century. Can the Lightnign compare to that. umm No.

Info taken from: 
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-14-unit.htm
http://www.nawcad.navy.mil/nawcad/rsrch_eng/dfcs/index.html
http://www.topedge.com/panels/aircraft/specials/tomcat/tomcat.htm


----------



## plan_D (Aug 14, 2005)

The Cold War was practically over in the 1980s. The fall of the Berlin Wall was merely a symbol of the end. 

The Lightning could climb to 50,000 feet in one minute, 60, 000 feet in just over a minute. It could be at 40,000 feet and Mach 0.87 in under a minute and in the direction of it's opponent. It has a RADAR scope of 120 degrees, more than the most, if not all, fighter aircraft. It could release it's Red Top at any direction, it didn't need to face it's opponent to destroy it. 

The only reason the F-14 could be considered superior is the Phoenix missiles. Off a ground strip, the Lightning would be able to track and destroy it's target before the F-14 could. 

The F-14 *is* the better aircraft overall but off a ground strip, the Lightning was a superior interceptor to anything.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2005)

Who cares about this damn ground strip, jeezus christ. Just admit that the F-14 was a better intereceptor. Damn plan_D I like you and all but you are fricken more stubborn than my wife sometimes. You can come up with anythign to argue with a brick wall if you had to! 

Anyways peace out, I am out on vacation for a couple of weeks, see ya in a couple of weeks. 8)


----------



## plan_D (Aug 14, 2005)

Well, you'd need aircraft carriers all over your coast for the F-14 to be able to intercept like the Lightning did.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 14, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Very well said FBJ! And yes vanir you need to back off with the insults. We have had eneogh problems with this kind of stuff and dont need it anymore.



THANKS!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 14, 2005)

At the risk of getting the sh*t beat out of me by Adler (in the imaginary sense of course  ), I agree with PD about the Lightning's effectiveness as an interceptor. As he's indicated, the fact that it didn't have the range of an F-14 doesn't really play into this, because it was designed to defend the British Isles. A job that it was particularly good at. It's systems were simplistic when compared to the Tomcat's, but it got to it's destination _damn_ fast, which was the whole idea, and it could certainly deal with the threats it was designed to. Just me own opinion.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 15, 2005)

You are right NS it was a great interceptor. I will never deny that. I just would not go as far as calling the Lightning the best Intercepter ever built. The F-14 could fly just as fast, infact with the F-14D it could fly even faster. It could not climb as fast as the Lightning but I would go as far to say that the F-14D with is 2 engines rated at 32000lb thrust each may have been able to. But at the same time the F-14 did not need to get as high the Lighting. It could shoot down whatever it needed to with its AIM-54 Pheonixes, 6 at a time and coudl technically track up to 24 targets. All of this without the Tomcat even having to see its enemy. 

I repeat myself I never said the Lightning was not a great intercepter and not one of the best, but the Tomcat was of different class and was better.

Oh and NS I could never beat the shit out of you. I love you man!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 15, 2005)

Awww, thanks buddy! 
And I actually do agree with every word you say about the F-14, especially the D model. It's just that for it's intended role, to defend the United Kingdom from Soviet bombers, the Lightning excelled. It was a superb interceptor. It could accelerate and climb like a rocket.


BTW, shouldn't you be on vacation already? Why are you still here?


----------



## plan_D (Aug 15, 2005)

My original statement that the Lightning was the best interceptor of the Cold War (not of all time) still stands for the sole reason that it had to defend countries from land bases and could out-climb anything. It's initial climb rate is even higher than that a F-15 which has more thrust to weight ratio! 

From a carrier, where the F-14 operates from, it could reach it's intended target and be within range of the Phoenix missiles probably the same time. From a land base, which most interceptions operate from, the Lightning would be up, in range and ready before the F-14 was even off the ground (a slight exaggeration). And the Lightning didn't need to see it's target either, it could fire outside of it's visual range.


----------



## vanir (Aug 16, 2005)

I just wanted to complete my series of posts regarding my assertions of the MiG 25 and F 15. Being the third time I feel I've been dismissively treated and countered at every turn when posting perfectly well reseached and as far as any credible sources attest, perfectly accurate information and personal appraisals, I'm not really interested in the forum any longer after only a short stay. I have other aviation forums where I dunno, the management and membership is just nicer, the atmosphere is far less competitive for every breath of even footing and just plain more intelligent, productive and accurate in a fair and reasoning manner.
In short, you're wack. In the academic sense.

As if I hadn't already displayed an extensive research of the Foxbats/Foxhounds...
To recorrect you FlyboyJ, deliveries of the Foxhound-A began in 1983. First Foxhound-B, MiG-31M pre-production development prototype was built in 1985 and was lost in 1991. 6 more were built from 1992.
Why are your responses consistently and offensively dismissive as opposed to simply posting clarifying facts from which your draw your impressions? Or perhaps you don't. And perhaps you just don't like environments of common learning.

Air doesn't enter Foxbat inlets supersonically to cause overspeeding. You can tell when entry air has gone supersonic, because on any engine other than a scramjet it causes immediate flamout, not overspeeding. You've obviously tried to apply Blackbird operational principles to MiGs.
Runaway engine rpm in the Foxbat was caused primarily lack of an air bypass in the single shaft Tumansky turbojets and a largely steel construction.
Due to the "bypass compression" facility of its J58 powerplants, Blackbirds had rather outboard engine mountings and this gave rise to the rather unique initial problem of engine inlets being outside the shockwave and splitter effect of a big cylindrical nose and thus readily subject to the entry of supersonic air at increasing mach speeds. Supersonically induced flameout was a problem which plagued the series. An ingenious system of retractable inlet cones was devised to control airspeed entering the compressor and in part serves to control engine performance at varying speeds and altitudes. Essentially, when one of the variable cone-geometry systems failed, Blackbird crews had an immediate flamout and unrecoverable loss of control was usually the result.
With inlets close to the airframe and set at a good angle, exposure to supersonic air entry is minimised, with the aircraft's nose acting to control shockwave position in relation to the inlets, however supersonic air entry is a constant concern in engineering high mach vehicles.

Throttle is an engineering term which describes the operation of any valve which controls fuel delivery to an engine (whether gaseous like air or liquid like aviation fuels). In effect the Blackbirds air inlet design acted as a secondary throttle control. The pilot's engine management control lever is used to control compressor and turbine rpm by means of an engine management system. Moving that could be termed as "manual throttle control."

Controlling the effects of engine overspeed at high mach with any kind of turbojet comes through controlling air bypass at the compressor. As operational temperatures increase, pressures between the compressor and the turbine try to get out of engineering specifications. The burny part gets so hot it starts to burn air without needing increased fuel flow to do so, and it no longer wants to stay where it was designed to be anymore, but tries to move to the front of the engine and use the compressor as another exhaust turbine. It's like shoving the throttle open much wider than it's supposed to go. You get turbine/compressor overspeeding. As you can imagine, extreme cases burn out the engines.
This is a rough description, but it'll do. Bypass turbojets such as the Aviadvigatel solve the problem by introducing cooling ducts just ahead of the turbines. The earlier Tumanskys sprayed water-methanol onto the compressor vanes.

Foxbat pilots with non-bypass Tumanskys experienced the tendancy towards "runaway rpm" at speeds exceeding 2.6 mach and according to my research were instructed to use very precise throttle control at those speeds. That is, they had to be very gradual and very gentle with the engine management control (throttle lever, engine rpm lever, turbine and compressor speed control lever or whatever you or a pilot feels like calling the manual throttle control), in order to keep turbine/combustion temperatures and pressures within specification. Mess about with a simplistic engine management at those speeds and you're just opening the door for temperatures and pressures to do something dramatic.
The reconnaissance-bomber and late interceptor BD series Tumanskys were never designed to go faster than 2.83 mach, they were merely designed to take a heavier load there. Primarily the Tumaskys had been designed to sustain 2.35 mach and dash to around 2.8 when needed. Later Aviadvigatels were designed to sustain 2.83 mach cruise.

The Blackbird dealt with bypass to reduce compressor overspeeding and took it to the next level, again with an ingenious inlet and engine casing design. It's variable geometry cone system also controlled a series of air bleed hatches in the outer casing and bypass doors directly to the afterburner; which were located ahead of the compressor. Combined with the J58's turbojet engine, it all gave rise to the technical specification of the J58 application as "high bypass air bleed turbojet engine" sometimes referred to as a "turbo-ramjet." Roughly speaking it functioned like an afterburning turbojet at low speeds, and a ramjet at higher ones, with air entry and compression controlled by the variable inlet cones, air bleed hatches and bypass doors to the afterburner, which virtually seals of its turbojet from the air stream. 80% of thrust is supplied by bypass air in J58 engines at 3.2 mach.

The two shaft Aviadvigatel engines of the Foxhound dealt with the issue by combining a turbojet bypass ratio of some .54 and a proportionately high functioning aspect and pressure ratios that was designed specifically to allow the overspeeding of normal turbojet operation by up to 140% with complete safety. This is adequate for a sustained cruising ability of 2.83 mach and simply translates "runaway rpm" into increased thrust or more controlled overspeeding. Put simply, the burny bit is contained where it's supposed to be, the compressor vanes are better heat tempered just in case, but it still tends to start burning air (best as I can figure based on my research). However, at speeds less than 3 mach turbofan engines are still more efficient than ramjet operation. As mentioned, these engines have sustained several hundred thousand flying hours of operational bench testing without incident (please research the nature of aircraft engine bench testing to give an idea of the particularly heavy stringency of this process).

The single and only reason cited by aviation reference sources as to the Foxhound-B not entering production was a lack of funding related to the economic collapse of the Soviet Union. No mention at any credible aviation site or reference source I can find suggests in any way this aircraft or the Foxhound-A is anything other than an excellently performing warplane. No experienced combat pilot with which I have spoken that has any familiarity with Foxbat/Foxhound warplanes has ever suggested they are anything but a genuine threat to front line US fighters and a perfectly capable, if highly specialised warplane.

The advertised g' ratings of air-superiority warplanes is quite subsonic in nature according to any research I've managed and is designed to reflect a combat aerobatic capability of those types. I in no way intended to suggest the MiG strategic interceptors could out manoeuvre air superiority fighters at dogfighting speeds and typical air combat altitudes. No supersonic g' rating is given for air superiority fighters, they do not dogfight at high mach nor attempt complicated aerobatics. The g' ratings given for MiG strategic interceptors is at high mach speeds, an appropriate comparison and the only one available would be the Blackbird series, which is most definitely not describable as a manoeuvrable warbird. It is the only other jet powered craft however geared to sustain high mach speeds over distances exceeding 500km, speeds which are roughly comparable and an aircraft which was investigated for strategic interception duties. The Foxbat/Foxhound series is more than 3 times its manoeuvrabilty at any high mach speeds.

It is unclear as to the manoeuvrability of composite/honeycomb warplanes at high mach and altitudes exceeding 40,000 feet (I've asked a pilot of these aircraft and am still waiting to hear back on this, but I've no intentions of returning to this forum). It is unlikely an Eagle will be pulling +9/-3 g's at Mach 2.5 and that height. My guestimate is half that would be lucky, composite skinning was postulated for the original MiG-25 but found inadequate for high mach operation, however these are not the conditions under which an F-15 is designed to combat aerobatically, this is the realm of BVR in standard US tactical doctrine.
My point was, at the extreme conditions for which these MiGs were designed they are quite manoeuvrable indeed, it is a lack of objectivity, deriving from an inaccurate generalisation which would claim they are totally hopeless warplanes. Theirs is outside the performance envelope the Eagle or any composite/honeycomb warplanes were designed to dominate, if you can maintain that envelope under air combat conditions they are themselves a more dominant warplane. With a roughly equivalent avionics/weapons technology it is a matter of tit for tat, not complete failure as you suggest.

Consider the intended application of strategic interception, specifically the Foxhound on the battlefield, with its phase array and "flight director" facility to shepherd dedicated counter-air fighters like the Flogger, Fulcrum or Flanker (a job taken up by the Su-30 variant in squadron service). It is not like the US air combat doctrine which stresses individuality and intiative over GCI and data linking. The Foxhounds hover up high over home territory, the Floggers/Fulcrums counter-air at combat altitudes with F-16s and F-15s. If the Eagles try to gain altitude and high mach for boom and zoom or BVR, the Foxhounds descend at much higher speeds, select individual targets and rely on solid construction and some 80,000lbs of thrust to evade and escape with a far greater rate of regaining altitude and a limited over the shoulder fire capability. The Eagles would be crazy to try following.
I've already considered the application by comparison, of US doctrine. Foxhounds come down from up high and Eagles select individual targets and engage at altitudes and speeds where their engineering specifications dominate the strategic interceptors, well outside their element. The Foxhounds would be crazy to come down and fight an Eagle.
It's not that one military is so much better than another, it's that either equipment reflect a different military doctrine, which in turn reflects different politics and domestic sociology.
This whole "the Foxhound is a pig" thing smacks firstly of ignorance, or otherwise mindless patriotism and little else. You have not flown a Foxbat and a Foxhound nor an F-15, your appraisal is not based on clear and well researched specific famliarity, at best you base your comments on limited hearsay and you are just not speaking authoritively.

You have displayed no significant knowledge whatsoever in any reasonable or detailed sense of these particular aircraft, especially in relation to their development backgrounds, detailed technological analysis and any objective appraisal of their capabilities, and I suspect your second rate aeronautics career has left you with a bit of a chip no subject-specific interested academic really wants to deal with. You're just not prepared to admit all it takes is research for person A to know more about something than person B, a failing I do not have. And I'm entirely too matured to bother with banging my head against anything so ridiculous and childish among other adults. Enjoy. I have no intentions of returning to these forums, being the second time desperately dismissive arguments have been put forth without so much as the slightest example of genuine research and based upon a sense of authority which simply does not exist. The problem is compounded by the formal support of site moderation to such ridiculous posts. I cannot think of any reason I should therefore find any interest here.

My own, final post to finish an earlier thought, for the benefit of browsers to the thread:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was the F-15 designed directly to counter the MiG-25 threat?
Two main points are:
First MiG-25 flight 1964.
FX programmed which resulted in the F-15 called for in 1965.
An additional point:
YF-12A and SR-71 programmes contracted 1962 after successful A12 trials. A12 and YF-12A programmes earmarked for cancellation by mid-1968, in 1966.

So far I've been able to come up with the original FX programme specifications of stressing high transonic and air combat (dogfighting) performance, twin engines with high thrust excess and an internal gun. High ferry range to deploy in Europe. Speed requirements to be in the Mach 2.5 class, Mach 3 was deemed too complicated and unrealistic for a front line fighter. It was specified the design must be able to overcome all potential current Soviet threats under typical air combat conditions. As at 1965. Gaining detailed information has proved difficult.

The YF-12 extension of the A-12 programme, in 1963 set its world straightline speed record of 2,070 mph (Mach 3.134) and altitude record of 80,258 feet. However it was already clear this aircraft was entirely too expensive and complicated to put into front line service as an interceptor. The YF-12 programme was therefore officially shut down by the Air Force by 1968 although it was taken up by NASA for technology development in 1969 (who maintained the prototypes until 1979).

Two specialised Ye-266 Foxbat variants set official world absolute speed and altitude records of an average Mach 2.806 over 1000km and 118,898 feet in 1967.

Development of the F-15 design began in 1967. I've no doubts the MiG-19 and MiG-21 being encountered at that time played more than a small role in its design considerations. I find it a little ignorant to think the MiG-25, so public at that time, didn't. However my assertion was, based on the claims of an ex-A12/SR-71 pilot's book which struck a logical chord, the F-15 was designed specifically to counter the MiG-25 outside of the realm of its performance envelope as part of a different air combat strategy to matching like for like.

First flight of the F-15 was in 1972.

In 1973 Israelis monitored an Egyptian MiG-25 Foxbat-B reputedly doing Mach 3.2 between two ground stations, whilst evading an F-4 interceptor, the news reaching US intelligence. The high speed was caused by its engines experiencing "runaway rpm" overspeeding and upon landing they had to be replaced. The canopy had blistered during the flight.
That year US Air Force Secretary Robert C. Seamans deemed the Mig-25 as, "Probably the best interceptor in production in the world today."
The same year the F-15 entered production.

In 1976 the SR71 (originally proposed by Kelly Johnson as a reconnaissance-bomber), broke the world absolute speed record doing Mach 3.204 over 1000km, snatching this back from the Russians in a rather public fashion.
The F-15 had entered combat service. US Air Force official release was that it had been designed to replace the F-4 Phantom II.


Before having posted all this I've waited to hear back from a combat pilot with over ten years experience flying various F-15 models, including 1 air-to-air kill (he now flies airliners). I figured he may have had some inside track from the briefing rooms and officers messes of operational Eagle squadron bases with the USAF. Here's what he had to say:

"Yes, the F-15 was built to counter the Mig-25. Intel blew its capabilities wayyy up and scared everyone.
The foxfire radar was supposed to be jam proof and the aircraft was supposed to be able to outmanuever anything we had.
The USAF/DOD had a blank check to develop the best air-to-air fighter possible to counter the threat. The F-15 was the result."
Link to the thread is here:
http://www.aviationforum.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5429
At the very least this suggests some popular hearsay on the matter among experienced F-15 squadron pilots.

I'll leave it for individual browsers to draw their own conclusions and invite detailed research of what can only be described as perhaps the most fascinating era of warplane development, responsible for many of the air combat and strategic technologies in the world today.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 16, 2005)

Well thanks for dropping by anyway, vanir. Been good to have ya, even if only for a short time. Good luck in the other forums, eh? See ya.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 16, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Well thanks for dropping by anyway, vanir. Been good to have ya, even if only for a short time. Good luck in the other forums, eh? See ya.



Agree - attach a yoke to your armchair and don't forget to renew your Prozac prescription. :fist:


----------



## evangilder (Aug 16, 2005)

After reading the first couple of paragraphs with your personal attacks on Joe, I didn't bother reading further. Look, if you wish to have a friendly debate, you are welcome to stick around. However, if you wish to add personal attacks and name-calling, feel free to find another sandbox to play in.

YOU are the only person that has a problem getting along with flyboyj, who has been posting here for quite awhile. Perhaps that should tell you something.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 16, 2005)

Naaaaah, hey. He's obviously far too knowledgeable for our little bunch. He'll be a lot happier wherever he's off to. Good luck, vanir.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 16, 2005)

evangilder said:


> After reading the first couple of paragraphs with your personal attacks on Joe, I didn't bother reading further. Look, if you wish to have a friendly debate, you are welcome to stick around. However, if you wish to add personal attacks and name-calling, feel free to find another sandbox to play in.
> 
> YOU are the only person that has a problem getting along with flyboyj, who has been posting here for quite awhile. Perhaps that should tell you something.



Thanks Eric!



vanir said:


> I suspect your second rate aeronautics career has left you with a bit of a chip no subject-specific interested academic really wants to deal with. You're just not prepared to admit all it takes is research for person A to know more about something than person B, a failing I do not have. And I'm entirely too matured to bother with banging my head against anything so ridiculous and childish among other adults.



Bravo! From the most effective "cut and paste" aviation expert I've ever seen! =D> At least this time you probably proof read what you posted so you don't begin to contradict yourself!

From a person who stated a MiG-15 could go supersonic  I bet he never set foot inside an airliner! Maybe we could meet in Mexico City!  

Second rate aeronautics career?!? - Talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?!? I bet the only thing this chump ever flew was a kite - and that was under adult supervision!

I wonder what gas station he works at!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 30, 2005)

If you can not take the heat, get out of the kitchen.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 30, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> If you can not take the heat, get out of the kitchen.



In his case he couldn't take the "mig"


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 31, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> If you can not take the heat, get out of the kitchen.



Or just turn the air con on. Either way works


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2005)

How about the Arrow!


----------



## evangilder (Aug 31, 2005)

Damn, that looks COLD!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2005)

Naw, it's just Ontario


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 31, 2005)

Alberta and Manitoba are worse. A _lot_ worse.

The ol' Arrow never had much of a chance. Too expensive for a backwoods country like Canada in the 50's and early 60's. So we bought used Voodoos from the USAF instead.  

Ah well.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 31, 2005)

F-106... 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Alberta and Manitoba are worse. A _lot_ worse.
> 
> The ol' Arrow never had much of a chance. Too expensive for a backwoods country like Canada in the 50's and early 60's. So we bought used Voodoos from the USAF instead.
> 
> Ah well.



I saw a painting of one camouflaged intercepting a "Bear" Bomber - the title was "What If."  

Nice photo CC - that's known as a "Skin Shot."


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 31, 2005)

What the hell happened? Is that a target drone? That looks like a missile trail. I doubt the Delta is making that smoke.

(Am I observant or what?  )


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 31, 2005)

I dont know what's happening..Thats one reason I posted it, in the hope you guys would know.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2005)

It looks like a droned F-106, probably out of Tyndall AFB. It looks like it took a hit right up the tail pipe!


----------



## Wildcat (Aug 31, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I SUGGEST YOU PULL YOUR AUSSIE HEAD OUT OF YOUR PET ROOS' POUCH AND POST ELSEWHERE!



 That cracked me up J


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2005)

Wildcat said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > I SUGGEST YOU PULL YOUR AUSSIE HEAD OUT OF YOUR PET ROOS' POUCH AND POST ELSEWHERE!
> ...



No offense to you of course!


----------



## evangilder (Aug 31, 2005)

Nice shot, CC. Yep, that looks like a drone taking a good hit. Scratch one bandit.


----------



## Archangel (Aug 31, 2005)

F-14a Tomcat




Eurofighter Typhoon

ok,.. i know its asked for the aircraft.. but i just cant choose 

but if i was allowed to fly a plane.. ill be a F-14, with a carrier take-off


----------



## evangilder (Aug 31, 2005)

I've seen that F-14 shot before, but it's still a great shot! The other one is too.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 31, 2005)

They're both cool shots. Those guys had better watch it. Those gulls are comin' to poop on their plane.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 31, 2005)

Yep, cool pics 8)


----------



## Archangel (Sep 1, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> They're both cool shots. Those guys had better watch it. Those gulls are comin' to poop on their plane.



i think i'll get rid of the poop when its at mach 2  (and otherwise.. youll have some "nice " stripes on your plane ^^


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 1, 2005)

Dont F-14's only do Mach 1.8?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 1, 2005)

Nope they could reach between 2.2 and 2.5 depending on the version. The F-18 Hornet can only reach about 1.8, well the earlier versions that is. I dont know about the F-18E.


----------



## Dac (Sep 21, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Nope they could reach between 2.2 and 2.5 depending on the version. The F-18 Hornet can only reach about 1.8, well the earlier versions that is. I dont know about the F-18E.


Is the F-18E supersonic? I read that its engines are non-afterburning.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 21, 2005)

The F-22's engines are non-afterburning too, but it's supersonic. The same probably holds true for the Super Hornet. I'll have to look that up when I get home just to be sure. It would only seem to make sense since it's still a multi-role strike fighter.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 21, 2005)

The F414-GE-400 engines of the F-18E and F's are afterburning after all, but according to at least one source the Super Hornet can't exceed mach 1.0 in level flight below 10,000 feet in full burner! Even with no stores! It would seem that it's been encountering various teething problems.

"_An F/A-18E/F in maximum afterburner thrust cannot exceed Mach 1.0 in level flight below 10,000 feet even when it is in the clean configuration (no external stores)._ "

From:
http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/f14f18/f14f18_2.asp


----------



## evangilder (Sep 21, 2005)

Hmmm...I would have thought it better than that. So much for the "super" part.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 22, 2005)

I thought the F-22 was after-burning, however it can reach Mach 1 without putting them on - it's called "supercruise".


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 22, 2005)

Actually, I think you're right. My bad.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 22, 2005)

Yeap that is correct it can afterburn but it supercruises also. Great airplane.


----------



## Dac (Sep 22, 2005)

Pretty expensive though. At $63 billion for the F-22 program and last I heard they were building only 300 of them, that works out to over $200 million per aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 23, 2005)

Yes the F-22 is a very expensive program but it is a marvelous jet.


----------



## F4D (Sep 24, 2005)

Post War to Nam? Is that what you are asking for JCS?

Where to start?...
F-86E and the Dog ship too
MiG-17 and 19
F-100
F-102 and F-106
B-36
B-47
B-58
C-133
Mirage III (Anyone else here old enough to remember watching the '67 Six Day War on TV? I remember seeing a Mirage III spinning down in flames and impacting on a valley floor. I don't think the the pilot made it out. It sent chills down my spine.)  
Saab 29
A-6
A-1
F2H
F4D Skyray  
F4D Phantom II
and on and on and on...


----------



## F4D (Sep 24, 2005)

Vanir left? Really? Well I guess he showed this site a thing or two! 
Like what an ass he was...is?
I just read his exchange with you FBJ.  

He lost me with the "MiG-21 absolutely annhiliates starfighters and dassaults of the day" thing. 

Didn't the early MiG-21 have a problem with flame out while pulling g's?
Something about the loss of fuel feed?

Anyway... I won't miss him.  

FlyBoy your a class act man.

I have a Question for Plan D.

If the F-14 took off in mile high Denver at the same time the Lightning took off at sea level...JUST KIDDING  

JUST KIDDING!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

F4D said:


> Post War to Nam? Is that what you are asking for JCS?
> 
> Where to start?...
> F-86E and the Dog ship too
> ...



I always took it, it was about any post war aircraft up to today.

Mine favorites are the F-14, Mig-29, UH-1H, UH-60L, AH-1W, F-16, and the A-10.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 24, 2005)

F4D said:


> Vanir left? Really? Well I guess he showed this site a thing or two!
> Like what an ass he was...is?
> I just read his exchange with you FBJ.
> 
> ...



Thank you F4D! I really don't like to exchange like that but when you get a "wanna be" that is so incomprehensibly stupid, I just can't help to speak up!

And to answer your question about the MiG-21 flaming out, I heard the same story. It seems when you load the aircraft up, the fuel control looses efficiency. I've been around a later model MiG-21 BIS and the Russian test pilot we hired to fly it said the MiG-21 had some little "quirks" that could make it a very dangerous aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

I think most earlier Migs did have quirks like that. Atleast that is what I have read.


----------



## F4D (Sep 24, 2005)

Cool!


----------



## F4D (Sep 24, 2005)

Cool!


----------



## Glider (Sep 24, 2005)

Not for the first time I may be bucking the trend but I have always thought that the MiG21 was better than the Starfighter. 
There is no doubting that the F104 is fast and climbed well but those small wings and high wing loading must have done its maneuverability no good at all. 
I don't have any first hand experience with these but have read a fair bit on the MiG 21 and a bit on the F104. I admit also to have never reading anything about flaming out problems on the MiG 21. I am not saying that it didn't happen, but that isn't a unique problem in jets of that era.
Nearly all the articles that I have read praise the handling of the MiG21 and I find it hard to believe that it could be that bad considering the number of countries that bought it. India comes to mind here as its one of the few countries at that time that politically could have purchased anything from any country.
As for ease of handling, the F104 was no walk in the park and the accident rates in Europe were pretty high. I think its fair to say that all the early Mach 2 fighters were hot ships with the risks that went with it.

What sorts the reality from the theory is actual combat. As far as I am aware the only time the two met in Air to Air combat was in the 1971 Indian / Pakistani conflict. Both air-forces are well trained and were equipped with planes of similar potency. 
The planes met in combat four times, not a lot I admit but facts are facts and the F104 lost on every occasion. The Pakistani pilots were experienced and senior pilots so it wasn't down to a lack of quality. It should also be noted that some of the Pakistani Pilots had flown the MiG 21 when acting as instructors in foreign air-forces so they certainly knew what they were up against . On this theme, Pakistan had been offered the MiG 21 before the war (albeit the early MiG21f) but decided to go for the Mirage instead. I don't know if they flew MiG 21's as part of the evaluation, but its fair to assume that they would have been given detailed briefings as a minimum by Russia as part of the offer.
Post conflict the Pakistani Air-force admitted that the MiG 21 had proved that it could easily out manoeuvre the F104. Also that the F104 was no faster at low altitude there being a couple of situations where the 104 was behind the MiG 21 but couldn't catch it. In September 1970 the US Government offered the Pakistani Air-force a package of supplies including additional F104's but this was turned down as the decision had been taken to phase out the F104 in favour of the Mirage.

As ever any comments welcome.

As an aside, my favourite early Mach 2 fighter would be the SAAB Draken. One of the best planes that never sold.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 24, 2005)

Glider said:


> Not for the first time I may be bucking the trend but I have always thought that the MiG21 was better than the Starfighter.
> There is no doubting that the F104 is fast and climbed well but those small wings and high wing loading must have done its maneuverability no good at all.
> I don't have any first hand experience with these but have read a fair bit on the MiG 21 and a bit on the F104. I admit also to have never reading anything about flaming out problems on the MiG 21. I am not saying that it didn't happen, but that isn't a unique problem in jets of that era.
> Nearly all the articles that I have read praise the handling of the MiG21 and I find it hard to believe that it could be that bad considering the number of countries that bought it. India comes to mind here as its one of the few countries at that time that politically could have purchased anything from any country.
> ...



As much as I like the F-104, I have to agree!


----------



## Glider (Sep 25, 2005)

Just been checking some of my records. I was impressed by one Flt Lt Maqsood Amir who managed to shoot down a Mig 21 after suckering the pilot into a low speed dogfight in an F86. 
Some achievement.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 25, 2005)

Nice! 8) He took him out with the .50's?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

I might be wrong here but wasn't most of the air to air kills in Korea by guns?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 25, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I might be wrong here but wasn't most of the air to air kills in Korea by guns?



Correct, F-86s carried no missles



Glider said:


> Just been checking some of my records. I was impressed by one Flt Lt Maqsood Amir who managed to shoot down a Mig 21 after suckering the pilot into a low speed dogfight in an F86.
> Some achievement.



During the 71' war, Pakistan used the Saber well aganist many of the IAF fighters.


----------



## Glider (Sep 25, 2005)

Agreed, but I bet he never thought that he would get a Mig 21.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 25, 2005)

All comes down to piloting skills. Even a couple Phillipine pilots managed to down a couple of Zeros with P-26s! With the right conditions and circumstances, it can happen.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 25, 2005)

Glider said:


> Agreed, but I bet he never thought that he would get a Mig 21.



Neither did the guy in the Mig-21!


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 25, 2005)

Glider said:


> Just been checking some of my records. I was impressed by one Flt Lt Maqsood Amir who managed to shoot down a Mig 21 after suckering the pilot into a low speed dogfight in an F86.
> Some achievement.



That is pretty amazing that he did get a Mig-21 with an F-86!



FLYBOYJ said:


> Neither did the guy in the Mig-21!



I'm sure he didn't!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

evangilder said:


> All comes down to piloting skills. Even a couple Phillipine pilots managed to down a couple of Zeros with P-26s! With the right conditions and circumstances, it can happen.



Agreed 100% with you there. Sometimes man can out perform the machine. Just sometimes.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 25, 2005)

Yep, and sometimes if the pilot of the superior aircraft does not look at the inferior plane as a threat, well, he's hitting the silk.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

Agreed. Underestimating your opponant has done more than eneogh of its share of pilots in.


----------



## F4D (Sep 25, 2005)

Interesting.

India has officially claimed that in the 1972 war its MiG-21 had only 3 encounters with the F-104 and claimed 4 kills. With a total claim of nine F-104 Kills for the whole war, and that the total number of MiG-21 kills were 6 out of a total of 18 Air to Air kills and that of the 6 MiG's
lost only 1 was in Air to Air combat with the enemy but 1 shot down by another MiG-21 with the rest lost to ground fire. 

Official PAF records show 3 F-104 losses total, one to ground fire.
In the IAF accounts it was stated that the first two fights each claimed one Starfighter both of them on Ground Attack Runs when shot down, the first at 100 feet above the Ocean surface

The last encounter took place at less than 1600 feet down to 150 ft and that these two kills were aircraft on loan from Jordan,possibly flown by Jordanian pilots who fired a sidewinder
in a head on panic attack.

The US provided only 12 F- 104 A's and Jordan loaned 10 F-104 A's still in desert camouflage during the war. By that time the IAF had built 100+ MiG's plus the ones provided by the USSR.
Five full MiG-21 Squadrons in the West and Three in the East. While the PAF had 1 F-104 squadron in total it being located in the West.


----------



## F4D (Sep 25, 2005)

Interesting.

India has officially claimed that in the 1972 war its MiG-21 had only 3 encounters with the F-104 and claimed 4 kills. With a total claim of nine F-104 Kills for the whole war, and that the total number of MiG-21 kills were 6 out of a total of 18 Air to Air kills and that of the 6 MiG's
lost only 1 was in Air to Air combat with the enemy but 1 shot down by another MiG-21 with the rest lost to ground fire. 

Official PAF records show 3 F-104 losses total, one to ground fire.
In the IAF accounts it was stated that the first two fights each claimed one Starfighter both of them on Ground Attack Runs when shot down, the first at 100 feet above the Ocean surface

The last encounter took place at less than 1600 feet down to 150 ft and that these two kills were aircraft on loan from Jordan,possibly flown by Jordanian pilots who fired a sidewinder
in a head on panic attack.

The US provided only 12 F- 104 A's and Jordan loaned 10 F-104 A's still in desert camouflage during the war. By that time the IAF had built 100+ MiG's plus the ones provided by the USSR.
Five full MiG-21 Squadrons in the West and Three in the East. While the PAF had 1 F-104 squadron in total it being located in the West.


----------



## Glider (Sep 25, 2005)

Claims and counter claims are always a confusing area. 
PAF claimed two Mig 21's in air to air combat. The one shot down be the F86 where they captured the pilot so there is little doubt about that one. The other by an F6 flown by Flt Lt Aamer on the 14th December which was confirmed by other members of the flight, which could be less certain.

The PAF went to some trouble to confirm their claims setting up a crash location effort to compare claims to actuals. One independent observer was Chuck Yaeger, who's personal Beech U8 was shot up by Indian fighters at Chaklala Airport. I bet he was pleased.

The friendly fire incident between the Mig 21 matches my records as does the Indians claiming 4 F104 kills but I have a damaged in the fourth missing incident which could easily be a problem at my end. 

I have three F104's being shot down on the 17th Dec by Mig 21's of the 29th Squadron in two incidents. In the first an F104 of two attacking Uttarlai airfield was shot down. In the second two F104's covering an attack by Sabres on Indian positions near Naya Chor were both shot down. 
On the 12th Dec I have a combat near the port of Sikka resulting in the destruction of an F104, the pilot being captured.
The fourth incident that I have is another F104 being damaged in the Guijrat area again on the 12th December. Can I ask how this ties in with your records? 
Please do not feel as if I am doubting your details, mine have been put together over the years mainly from articles that have been published and that isn't the best source of data.

Whatever the differences in our records there is little doubt that it was a one way street between the F104 and the Mig 21. What hasn't been discused is the difference between Mig 21 and Mirage which also came into conflict. That will take me time to sort out.


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 26, 2005)

I personally like the SR-71, Harrier, Eurofighter and F-22.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 7, 2005)

As always, which is never going to change, the English Electric Lightning. 

And FB, didn't the Australian F-86s have AIM-9s? Now, I can't remember where I read this but I did read the British fitted Sabre's with Aden 30mm and Rolls Royce Avon engines as well as the fittings for AIM-9 'Sidewinders' for the Australian Sabres.


----------



## Glider (Oct 7, 2005)

Your right Plan D the Aussie Sabres had the Aden, Avon and Sidewinders and must have been the best Sabre around by some margin. 

I admit that I thought that the Taiwan Sabres had the Sidewinder as well


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2005)

And mine changes regularly but this is my list as before: Mine favorites are the F-14, Mig-29, UH-1H, UH-60L, AH-1W, F-16, and the A-10.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> And FB, didn't the Australian F-86s have AIM-9s? Now, I can't remember where I read this but I did read the British fitted Sabre's with Aden 30mm and Rolls Royce Avon engines as well as the fittings for AIM-9 'Sidewinders' for the Australian Sabres.



Not during the Korean War, but they did later.



Glider said:


> Your right Plan D the Aussie Sabres had the Aden, Avon and Sidewinders and must have been the best Sabre around by some margin.
> 
> I admit that I thought that the Taiwan Sabres had the Sidewinder as well



Correct on all points - I think Taiwan stared receiving their Sidewinders around 1954 and I've heard stories of engagements between Chinese Migs and the Tiawan Sidwinder Sabres - I even remember reading somewhere that US pilots might of participated in these clashes, flying the Taiwan Sabres....


----------



## plan_D (Oct 8, 2005)

I bet those Aussie Sabres were mean.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 8, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I bet those Aussie Sabres were mean.



All those Korean War Stories about the MiG-15's cannons being able to knock down a sabre with one hit - could you imagine a MiG-15 getting hit by a 30mm Aden!


----------



## plan_D (Oct 8, 2005)

I imagine it'd involve a big bang. I'd have love to seen a Lightning using those Adens in action. But unfortunately they never did. My dad saw them using them on live fire exercises but that's it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 8, 2005)

That must have been a site. I am sure a 30mm Aden would completly disintegrate a Mig-15 back then.


----------



## Glider (Oct 8, 2005)

The Aden was and still is a powerful weapon. I believe that some Hunters for the overseas market had a switch so that only 2 instead of 4 Adens would fire. It was recognised that 4 Adens would turn most targets into something akin to Window.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 8, 2005)

That would definitely do some damage!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 9, 2005)

Yeap vaporize it.


----------



## mosquitoman (Oct 17, 2005)

Nothing bad about that
Favourite at the moment is the Canberra


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 27, 2005)

in order f101b voodoo probably outclimb lightning
vulcan
f 105
f 86 mk 6 best sabre ever
f 104


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 27, 2005)

F-101 outclimb Lightning? Id like to see that...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2005)

McDonnell F-101B Voodoo Close Window 

Fighter/Reconnaissance

KNOWN OPERATORS: 
United States of America
Canada
China 


BASIC INFORMATION: 
Designation: F-101B Voodoo 
Manufacturer: McDonnell 
Country: United States 
Service Date: 1957
Type: Fighter/Reconnaissance 
Crew: 2 
DIMENSIONS: 
Length: 20.54 m (67 ft 4.75 in) 
Wingspan: 12.09 m (39 ft 8 in)
Height: 5.49 m (18 ft)
Weight (Empty): 13,141 kg (28,970 lbs)
Weight (Loaded): 23,768 kg (52,400 lbs) 
PERFORMANCE STATISTICS: 
Powerplant: 2 x Pratt Whitney delivering 6,749 kg (14,880 lbs) Afterburning thrust J57-P-55 turbojet engines.
Max Speed: 1,965 kph (1,221 mph)
Max Range: 2,494 km (1,550 miles)
Service Ceiling: 16,705 m (54,800 ft)
*Rate of Climb: 11,133 m (36,500 ft) per minute *


British Elelctric Lightning
Dimensions 
Length 55 ft 3 in 16.84 m 
Wingspan 34 ft 10 in 10.62 m 
Height 19 ft 7 in 5.97 m 
Wing area 474.5 ft² 44.1 m² 
Weights 
Empty 28,000 lb 12,700 kg 
Loaded 41,700 lb 18,900 kg 
Maximum takeoff lb kg 
Powerplant 
Engines 2 × Rolls-Royce Avon 301R turbojet engines with afterburners 
Thrust 2 × 16,360 lbf 2 × 72.8 kN 
Performance 
Maximum speed Mach 2.27 
1,500 kt 2,780 km/h 
Combat range 400 miles 640 km 
Ferry range 1,560 miles 2,500 km 
Service ceiling 60,000+ ft 18,000+ m 
*Rate of climb 50,000 ft/min m/min *
Wing loading lb/ft² kg/m² 
Thrust/weight 0.63 lbf/lb 6.2 N/kg


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 27, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> F-101 out climb Lightning? Id like to see that...


initial climb rates for both aircraft are very similar both approx 50000ft/min
if not in favour of the voodoo plus the fact once the lightning used all that fuel in the climb it wouldn't be able to go very far for an intercept the lightning had no legs


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 27, 2005)

Exactly, its an interceptor, it doesnt need to go far...


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 27, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Exactly, its an interceptor, it doesnt need to go far...


both aircraft wer supposed to intercept nuke carrying bears etc with nuke weapons the further the better


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 27, 2005)

A Lightning would be off the ground within a couple of mins from cold, I doubt the F-101 can match that, couple that to its superior climb rate and the fact that Britian isnt really that big, and you relaise that you dont really need the range, although it is useful...

I dont really have the knowledge of either plane to take this much further, where pD when you need him?


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 27, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> A Lightning would be off the ground within a couple of mins from cold, I doubt the F-101 can match that, couple that to its superior climb rate and the fact that Britian isnt really that big, and you relaise that you dont really need the range, although it is useful...
> 
> I dont really have the knowledge of either plane to take this much further, where pD when you need him?


i worked atc for 12years at fighter bases and the 101 was from the sound of the scramble to fl350 in 5 was the norm pretty miuch standard for nato


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 28, 2005)

i dont know if you guys will accept this a reliable source but 1972 janes states for the lightning Mk55
time to operational height and speed of mach .9 (clean condition) 2 min 30 sec 
but a further interesting fact is that it can attain mach 1 @ any altitude without burners 
pilots used to say the 101 was the only a/c to do this but i can't verify this


----------



## evangilder (Oct 29, 2005)

I was looking into a couple of books as well and it looks like the first time the Lightining broke Mach 1 was on August 11, 1954. And he did that without the use of afterburners. The sources I have show the pilot as Roland Beaumont. 
_Fighter: The world's finest combat aircraft- 1914 to the present day_ Jim Winchester


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

Of the too aircraft I like the Lightnign better.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 29, 2005)

Me too


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2005)

"Beau" Beaumont was a hell of a pilot - got this from a site about test pilots...

Roland Beaumont was born on 10th August 1920. Educated at Eastbourne College he joined the Royal Air Force on the outbreak of the Second World War. He was sent to France where he flew a Hawker Hurricane and in 1940 took part in the Battle of Britain. 

"In 1942 Beaumont began testing the Hawker Typhoon and in 1944 he achieved national fame in the fight against the V1 Flying Bomb. Beaumont downed more than 30 of them. Most were shot down but on several occasions he upset their flightpath by flying alongside at 450mph and tipping them over with the wing of his Hawker Tempest. 

Beaumont began testing Britain's first jet aircraft, the Gloster Meteor, in 1944. However, he crashed while flying a Hawker Tempest over France in October 1944 and spent the rest of the war in a German prison camp.

After leaving the Royal Air Force in 1947, Beaumont joined English Electric and helped develop the Canberra jet bomber. Beaumont became the first British aviator to reach the speed of sound when he flew the P86 in California in 1948.

In May 1949 Beaumont, flying a Canberra jet bomber, completed the first ever one-day double crossing of the Atlantic. Five years later he became the first man to fly the supersonic English Electric P1 Lightning. Roland Beaumont died on 19th November 2001."


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 29, 2005)

Nice information Joe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

Yeap interesting.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2005)

Thanks! I saw a photo of him at the USAF Test Pilot school at Edwards AFB...


----------



## evangilder (Oct 29, 2005)

Good stuff, Joe. 8)


----------



## plan_D (Oct 29, 2005)

It was the P.1A it super-cruised but was not something the operational Lightnings could achieve. The P.1A was not yet called the Lightning, this was given to the P.1B, and the super-cruise was achieved with Siddeley Sapphire engines. It did achieve so on August 11th 1954, it's first flight was August 4th of the same year. 

The P.1B first flew on April 4th 1957 with Avon turbojets with a crude after-burning system. The P.1B first exceeded Mach 2 on 25th November 1958 while under the name Lightning. 

My father worked on 11 Sqdn. at RAF Binbrook in the early 70s, pbfoot, and he scrambled Lightnings on many occasions. He says achieving a scramble from bell to take off under two minutes was easy. 

Time to operational altitude (40,000 feet), speed (Mach 0.87) and direction was two minutes. The Lightning T.55 was the old T.5 trainer from RAF service sold to Saudi Arabia. 

It had a combat radius of 400 miles, more than enough for interception duties on the frontline. It achieved 50,000 feet in one minute, and could achieve a greater thrust to weight ratio at some point during it's climb. 

The F-101 couldn't achieve super-cruise, in fact, the F-101 was an escort fighter and was never expected to be fast. It only achieved Mach 1.87 ...


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 30, 2005)

what i'm trying to say from bells klaxon siren or buzzer 5 minutes from the alert to altitude which is probably about 35000 ft out the barn doors and to best operating altitude for type of a/c ....as for the barrier without burners that i gleaned from conversations with the crews ....the 101's were never used as an escort fighter that i'm aware of but either intercepter or recce.... the number of climb rate is most often stated as initial climb rate which peters out as you climb the 101 initial climb rate was 49780/fpm


----------



## plan_D (Oct 30, 2005)

From the bell to altitude, the Lightning would achieve it's operational rate in about four minutes. This would be from bell to 44,000 feet, direction and Mach 0.87 (cruise). 

While I do not know of the operational usage of the F-101. I do know it was designed as a long range escort fighter. It was required to escort the B-36 and while the XF-88 project was almost cancelled, the Korean war showed the B-29 urgently needed an escort as it was lacking. The USAF told McDonald Douglas to quickly produce the escort fighter. The F-101A and F-101C were used in the 81st Tactical Fighter Wing. The F-101B was the interceptor variant of the F-101 and was, in U.S service, with the 60th Fighter Interceptor Squadron when first introduced. 

Canada received 66 F-101s, which were a mixture of the F (trainer) and B (interceptor) variant. From your point, as a Canadian, all F-101s were interceptors. 

I won't comment on the climb rate of the F-101 as I have yet to read a crediable source on the subject. On the internet sources range from 17,000 feet per minute to 60,000 feet per minute. 

You'll have to provide more than "war stories" as proof that the F-101 can super-cruise, sorry.

:edit: The trainer was the TF-101B in U.S service. The F-101F was the modified F-101B for Canadian use. The TF-101F was the TF-101B modified for Canadian service. The Canadians designated the F-101F the CF-101B and the TF-101F was the CF-101F.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 30, 2005)

My father worked on 11 Sqdn. at RAF Binbrook in the early 70s, pbfoot, and he scrambled Lightnings on many occasions. He says achieving a scramble from bell to take off under two minutes was easy. 

not to ne a smart ass but are your war stories any different then mine my phone rang in sync with the buzzer with 416 and 409 sqns with 410 and 425 thrown in occasionaly with a seasoning of 106s from the us


----------



## plan_D (Oct 30, 2005)

Your "war stories" state that the F-101 can super-cruise. Such a claim would be documented and I've never seen it. The time from bell to altitude can be made with a little usage of intelligence when combining documented evidence and my father's numbers stated. 

It is recorded that from brakes off to operational the F.6 Lightning could achieve 44,000 feet and Mach 0.87 as well as the right direct in just over two minutes. 

My father says they could have the Lightnings off the ground in under two minutes. Which is easily believable to anyone that is willing to be reasonable. A remarkably simple calculation would predict that the Lightning would be at it's operational direction, height and altitude from bell in around four minutes. 

The story of the F-101 being capable of super-cruise would certainly be available to me from either the internet or this book I have *The encyclopedia of World Air Power* by Bill Gunston. There's no mention of super-cruise in the F-101 information, while the Lightning has a shorter mention in the book yet it mentions the P.1A prototype achieved supercruise on August 11th 1954.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 30, 2005)

I've heard repeatedly the first full production aircraft to supercruise is the F-22. While it's possible some aircraft could in certain circumstanses it certainly was not consistent.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

That is also what I have heard. I think the F-22 was the first.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 30, 2005)

the lightning was able to maintain super cruise at any without reheat according to my janes of 72 but according to my research i've been looking around a bit and found the 101 was able to maintain mach 1 witout burners but cannot determine if he needed burners to get mach got that info from www.f16.net is it true the lightning leaked like a sieve fuel wise while on ground


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

Well if that is true about the 101 and the Lightning then I have learned something today!


----------



## Glider (Oct 30, 2005)

An observation but we might have a difference of view as to what Supercruise is. I am confident that the Lightning was the first aircraft to go supersonic without using the afterburner. That could well be different from a cruise speed that can be kept up for a length of time. Two Avon's on full dry power will use a fair amount of juice and the Lightning didn't carry that much to start with.
Supercruise would imply to me that the aircraft can maintain this for a decent period and I would expect that to be only achieved by a more modern aircraft such as the F15/F16 or failing that the F22. 
I admit to knowing little about the F101 but I would be surprised if it could go supersonic without the afterburner. Its power to weight ratio is nothing special, good yes but not out of the ordinary. In addition it carried a lot of fuel and a fair amount of equipment and I don't believe that technology existed at that time to carry the weight to that level of performance. 
Also on a pratical/Political level if the USAF had such a special performance why did they to purchase the F4 which was a Naval aircraft. They would have just developed the F101. 

PB I was at Fairford this year and there was a bit of a stir when they had to clear part of the display, because the Rafael had developed a serious fuel leak causing some embarrassment to the French people on site.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

Very good point there glider.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 30, 2005)

the f 4 was more multi role intercepter air superiority recce .... the 101 never flew as intended long range escort had no external weapons capability that i'm aware just wasn't as mission capable as f4


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

The thing I will always remember the F4 the most is the Wild Weasel role.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 30, 2005)

After the F4 was being deployed by the USAF, the F101 was swicthed to the recon role, where it had some level of success.

Of course once there were enough F4's available, then they took over that duty as well.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 30, 2005)

The P.1A prototype of the Lightning achieved Mach 1 without after-burner but the production Lightnings could not. They were much heavier than the P.1A and P.1B prototypes. I must add that the P.1A did not have Rolls Royce Avon engines, it achieved Mach 1 without afterburners with Siddeley Sapphire engines. 

The F-101 (Mach 1.87) was much slower than the F.6 Lightning (Mach 2.3), and while I do not know the cruise speed of the F-101, I do know the Lightning cruised at Mach 0.87.

The F-22 is the first production aircraft to achieve super-cruise, just like the F-15 was the first production aircraft to achieve a greater thrust:weight ratio throughout it's flight. 

No, pbfoot, Lightnings did not leak while on the ground. Any leak, on any aircraft, is dangerous. I do not know how Canadian or U.S forces work, and honestly I don't know how British forces work deep down these days, but I've asked my dad about leaks on all the aircraft he's worked on and it's always the same answer; "If it's leaking it's not flying, and if it's leaking on the ground it's priority for maintenance," And he knows what he's talking about. 

The F-101A carried four M-39 20mm revolver cannon as standard, this could be supplemented by three Falcon air-to-air missiles in internal bays. The F-101B carried three AIM-4D Falcons internally and two AIR-2A Genie air-to-air missiles under the fuselage. 

While the F-101 seems decent enough as an early type aircraft which evolved into a good enough interceptor, it wasn't as good as the Lightning.

--------------

I have just read that the Lightning did see action albeit only against groud forces. In a border clash between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, Saudi F.53 Lightnings flew ground strike missions "...these ending the situation without any help from the Saudi Army..."

Attached picture is a F.53 Lightning being shown off before being shipped to Saudi Arabia. Note the over-wing rocket pods and under-wing bomb racks.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 31, 2005)

More addition to Lightning information; a stripped down T.5 Lightning beat a F-15 to 30,000 feet. I'll be sure to look into this more when I have time to get the full story. 

A F.6 Lightning shot down a Harrier! The only aircraft kill given to a Lightning was a Harrier with no pilot. The pilot had ejected due to mechanical troubles but the Harrier kept flying. Instead of risking the Harrier flying into built up zones a Lightning was ordered to shoot it down, which it did.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 31, 2005)

Nice info pD!


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 31, 2005)

its just preference the one oh one was a treat to watch take off at night with that huge flame coming out and watching it go vertical in the clear skies that i know are missing in the UK the ops procedures are pretty much the same as Europe except we have much less congested airspace with less noise restrictions i would think getting clearance from atc to go vertical to higher altitudes in Europe would be much harder because of the heavier traffic I believe a fairer match with the lightning would be a 104 which overall might prove superior to the lightning


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 31, 2005)

httphttp://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/historical/voodoolst_e.asp
57 secs sounds tough to beat and please note my list was of my preferences and in 2nd place was the vulcan which i don't believe was as good as the 52 .I actually fell out of boat because of a vulcan who was doing lo level work low level in the uk probably means 200agl this was about 25ft and it came up fast from behind with a gaf f4 in trail


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 1, 2005)

Voodoo Magic at its best.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 1, 2005)

The Lightning was never actually intended to go Mach 2, the development of the F-104 up to Mach 2 was what kept English Electric on the Mach 2 target. As an interceptor, the F-104 was also inferior to the Lightning. As a general fighter, it probably was better especially for the large expanses of Canada and the U.S.A. 

The Vulcan was a more capable fast acting tactical nuclear bomber. The B-52 was/is a superior all-round bomber which is capable of doing anything asked of a heavy. The Vulcan used the same ignition procedure as the Lightning; AVPIN to light it's engines instantly.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 1, 2005)

yes it was vital if a nuclear stike was found to be coming towards england in the form of a missile or bomber that vulcans could get in the air quickly loaded up with some form of nuclear weapon to throw back at russia instantly, they had to get up in the air quickly because the V bomber bases would be the first target............


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 1, 2005)

pbfoot said:


> 57 secs sounds tough
> sorry i guess my wording was poor those were scramble times for the voodoo which i got from our mnd website
> i actually saw the last flight of the vulcan north america goose bay I believe the ac was declared unflyable afterward due cracking of the spar and is now a gate guardian in the goose


----------



## plan_D (Nov 1, 2005)

Fifty-seven seconds from when to when? If it's from buzz to operational altitude it's a downright lie.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 1, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Fifty-seven seconds from when to when? If it's from buzz to operational altitude it's a downright lie.


i hate to call my government a liar but i got that info off
www.airforce.forces.gc.ca 
go to history then historical aircraft then voodoo
and i don't exactly trust everything i read i assuming that time is til rotation add another 1.5 minuted til altitude i included the link first time round but upon trying as pasted realized it didn't work
by the way i pride myself on being a straight shooter and if i error am not to proud to own up or laugh at my error all the things i post i endeavor to verify and back up with appropriate links or source or have the source available upon request


----------



## plan_D (Nov 2, 2005)

_"This remarkable shot of a CF-101 Voodoo doing an afterburner take-off was taken from a second Aircraft by Capt W. "Turbo" Tarling. One of the Voodoo's primary roles was as an interceptor in the Northern NORAD Region. During an alert scramble the prescribed time limit to get airborne was 5 minutes; in July 1962 a record was set at CFB Bagotville, Quebec at 1 minute, 30 seconds though the target turned out to be a friendly B-52. This record was broken at Chatham in August 1963 with a time of 57 seconds!"_

That's from call to take-off, which is much more believable. And it's a record, a sign of a good call Q crew. However, as stated, the average was five minutes. Time from call to altitude in a Lightning on average was between one and two minutes. It must be remembered that the record there was set in 1963 - what of the 70s and 80s when the Lightning was still serving? Remember, the F.6 Lightning was faster than the previous marks. 

The Lightning was a superior interceptor.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 2, 2005)

From the bell to altitude, the Lightning would achieve it's operational rate in about four minutes. This would be from bell to 44,000 feet, direction and Mach 0.87 (cruise). 
Time from call to altitude in a Lightning on average was between one and two minutes 
which quote should i believe  
i've worked many a scramble and i have my doubts about 57 secs but not the fact about from start to altitude in 5min
the lightning was probably a pretty decent short ranged intercepter with many inovations like the 2 engines piled on top of each other and unusual drop tank configuration mine is apreference :

ill leave you with a pilots comment ref on 104vs lightning
"Any day you wanna go do some ACM, or just race… Bring your pug nosed Lighting, if you can get it running, and I’ll bring the Zipper. Fights On!"

just question do you happen to know how many man hours of labour per flying hour for lightning in the later stages the 101 was up to about 55


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 2, 2005)

I dont think you can "drop" tanks that are on the top of wings.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 2, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> I dont think you can "drop" tanks that are on the top of wings.



They "depart," but drop in the end!!!


----------



## plan_D (Nov 2, 2005)

I meant time from call to take-off in between one and two minutes, my apology. And time from take-off to operational height, direction and altitude would be around two minutes. Which makes call to operational status four minutes, which is superior to both the F-101 and F-104. 

The website you provided states call to take-off being five minutes, not call to altitude. Which would mean call to altitude, if climb rate was as quick as Lightning (which it's not) would be around seven minutes. The F-101 was actually slower plus had a slower climb rate thus making the call to altitude time of a F-101 over seven minutes, probably over eight minutes. 

That pilot hasn't a clue about the Lightning, quite obviously. I bet, if he exists, he's never even seen a Lightning fly nor does he have a clue about the mechanics of a Lightning. "...if you can get it running..." just shows his complete ignorance, my father has told me out of a squadron of fourteen, at most only two would be grounded at any one time and even those would be for basic overhaul or extensive maintenance. The Lightning would start first time, everytime and much quicker than anything else. 

Sure, the Lightning was maintenance intensive but the RAF had the engineers capable of keeping Lightning squadrons at near 100% operational rate all year round. 

I do not know the flight:maintenance hour ratio, that's something that was done in records. And since my father only worked in records after the Lightnings departure from service he wouldn't know. He only recorded his hours, and his maintence, he had no need to fiddle around with numbers. He just kept the things flying. 

Although, I do know the South African T.5 that is privately owned has around a 1:75 (flight:maintenance) ratio. Quite amazing for an aircraft over forty years old and was maintenance intensive in the first place. 

The Lightning's over-wing tanks were of no innovation, they were out of desperation. And they weren't drop tanks. The Lightning could not detach the tanks, they were merely ferry tanks and had to be detach by the engineers. And they didn't last long anyway because they just had air-to-air refueling anyway. 

Some innovations of the Lightning were, stacked engines, mechanical ABS brakes, full tailplane movement, fuel cooling, 120 degree RADAR plus a few others, I'm sure.

You may like the F-101 or the F-104 better, but the fact remains, the Lightning was a superior interceptor.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 2, 2005)

i guess the ultimate answer would be to find exchange pilots who flew both and there are a few ....... :mind you going straight up and not much further kinda sounds like me 263 and the innovative stacked engines has found their way into many other a/c the 104 outlasted the lightning operationally by a decade and the 104 still holds many records you can check the records if you go to www.fai.org i can't seem to locate the lightning in any time to climb records but the 104 is evident in certain speed and time to climb records even the 101 is in their but can't find lightning as a matter of fact the record climb to 15k meters is approx 1m10s maybe english electric forgot to file


----------



## plan_D (Nov 2, 2005)

The Lightning didn't fly straight up on interception, that was just to show off at airshows. The record of the Lightning was set on a standard interception, not a vertical climb to show off for the cameras. The Lightning could reach 400 miles from it's airfield, perfectly enough for first line interception duties. 

And I would like to point out right now, the F-101 had a maximum ceiling of 38,900 feet (source: Boeing.com). How do you expect it to intecept a Tu-95 flying at 50,000 feet? The Tu-95 had a ceiling of 57,000 feet. The Lightning had a recorded ceiling of 60,000 feet, however that is only because the altimeter only went that high. It was not needed to go any higher. 

The F-104 is a little more realistic. Yet, the F-104A had an initial climb of 33,000 feet per minute and a maximum climb rate of 40,000 feet per minute. (source: USAF Museum) And the F-104C was pratically the same as the F-104A with ceiling (58,000 feet) and climb. 

So, you first state that an interceptor which cannot fly high enough to catch the Tu-95 is an equal of a Lightning. And then you state that an aircraft with an initial rate of climb 20,000 feet slower than the Lightning is better. As well as a 2000 feet deficiency in ceiling. 

Maybe English Electric didn't want to show the U.S up with an interceptor that everyone knew was superior. And I never said the stacked engines weren't an innovation, I said the over-wing ferry tanks weren't.

And I can't forget, the Lightning served from 1960 to 1989, it only left service because of government cut-backs. English Electric had offered to improve the Lightning to keep it up to modern times (lighter airframe, better engine, lengthened frame, increased fuel tank, reinforced wings etc. etc. ) but all proposals were turned down because of the Tornado project. Money and politics kept the Lightning from serving to this day, not it's deficieny in capability.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 2, 2005)

Reading more on the F-104:

The F-104 first flew on March 4, 1954 and was cleared to fly operationally in January 1958. It had no AI (Airborne Interception) radar and the ejection seat fired downwards! Three months after it's introduction, it was grounded due to the high rate of accidents. In July, it was again cleared to fly. 

In 1959 all F-104As were transferred to the National Guard, and removed from front-line duty. Lockheed then developed the F-104C which was sent to TAC, where it stayed until 1965. 

It's existance only continued when Germany, among others, chose the F-104 for development as it provided a good base for improvement. Thus, the F-104G was born. But, the accident rate again increased in the hands of new users, at one point reaching one F-104 every ten days being lost. 

The F-104 served in U.S front-line service for just about two decades. It served with other air forces for about two decades also. The F-104 on a whole served in primary air forces from 1958 - 1970. The Lightning served in the RAF from 1960 - 1989. 

The ceiling of the F-104 varies, the USAF museum states 58,000 feet for the F-104C. Another site states 50,000 feet for the CF-104. While the *Encyclopedia of World Air Power* puts the F-104C at 55,000 feet. 

Take your pick, I'm sure you'll choose the highest ...but it's still less than the Lightning. Enjoy.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 2, 2005)

hey admit it the lightning was mediocre interceptor top five for sure but had serious limitations you keep stating 50k/min climb that would put it as the best climbing a/c of all time but it doesn't even show in official records i quite sure if the uk had record breaking aircraft the world would know about it such as in the FAI records( the meteor is still in them) they would've enhanced the opportunity to sell a/c world wide the lightning was the UKs last chance to build an indigenous fighter the Harrier withstanding and I'm sure your aware they've all been joint projects afterwords


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 2, 2005)

used to call the 104 german lawn darts but lots of that has to do with thier mission low level strike basically one way missions we canadians had the highest attriton with about 110 lost out of 220+/- i've seen film from gun camera of one hitting an apc but they were considered like sports cars by the pilots the ejector seat was changed quickly in newer models either that or invert and eject . one guy at low level rolled 90" and ejected sideways ... unsucessful but the pilot was fast just the same


----------



## plan_D (Nov 2, 2005)

Just look on the internet for the Lightning's climb rate, it will record as 50,000 feet per minute initial across the entire internet. Including all the books on the Lightning. 

I have proven across our "discussion" that the Lightning was superior to any aircraft you have mentioned. You have never even seen a Lightning, let alone seen one fly. 

To be frank, for you to think the Lightning is a mediocre interceptor just shows everyone on here that you're ignorant on the subject. To continue to argue your point when proven wrong just shows everyone you're an ignorant moron. 

And the reason the Lightning was never sold to anyone was because the U.K refused to let English Electric do so. They only sold them to the Saudis when they had the Tornado in the pipe-line. And were sure the Lightning's day had been done, as it were the Lightning continued front-line service for years later. 

Even to this day, while a modern aircraft has to sit and warm up, the Lightning can be up and away. Calling a plane with a ceiling of 60,000 feet, a speed of Mach 2.3, a climb of 50,000 feet per minute and a front-line service life of 29 years mediocre ...just makes you look like an idiot.

The Lightning's main limitation was range. This was not a problem for a point-defence interceptor which formed the front-line of defence while the rest of the NATO air forces were still warming up to get into the air. 

I'll admit the Lightning as mediocre when you prove it was. But you're not going to. Not only because it's impossible to prove so because the Lightning was amazing, but also because you don't have a clue and you come here to tell me that the F-101 was an equal of the Lightning during interception when it had an initial climb of some 20,000 feet inferior and couldn't even reach the heights the Tu-95! 

Don't believe the ability of the Lightning all you want ...it's your own problem, not mine. And for those that know their aircraft ...will know the beauty hidden deep in the Lightning, while personally I love the brutish mean look of the Lightning some find it ugly ...well, the beauty of a Lightning to you...is truly within...


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 2, 2005)

I hate to admit it, but after comparing the Lightning with the F106, hes right.
Its probably the best interceptor of the 50's and 60's.

I have to do more research on the fire control and AA missles to see how that rates.

But the F15 and F4 were superior, if only because they were (and are) multirole and far more versatile.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 2, 2005)

Not as interceptors though, that's the whole point of my current discussion. The Lightning was an interceptor, and in that role it was superior to the F-4 and all those before it. 

It's hard to call for the F-15, while the Lightning has a superior acceleration and initial climb rate, the F-15 would gain an advantage at higher heights while the Lightning was still climbing. Although, a T-bird Lightning did beat an F-15 to 30,000 feet and the Lightning doesn't need to warm up like the F-15. 

Note, in the other thread, I did say the F-15 was the best fighter of all time. I have no illusions of the Lightning being the ultimate fighter, but I do say it's the ultimate interceptor of it's day and somewhat beyond it's day. It was just that good! Just like this picture...


----------



## plan_D (Nov 2, 2005)

The Lightning was armed with two 30mm Aden cannon and two BAe Firestreak or Red Top missiles. An English Electric development that was turned down by the British government would have fitted AIM-9s to the Lightning, but this never happened so on to the Red Top. 

_"The Red Top, originally known as the de Havilland Firestreak Mk.IV, entered service in 1964 as a complement to and partial replacement for earlier marks of the Firestreak. Unlike it's predecessor, the new missile can engage targets from any direction, and both the launch aircraft and it's target may be travelling at speeds up to Mach 2. The Red Top, which carries a larger warhead than the Firestreak and uses semiconductors in place of valves, was designed for use against low-level manoeuvering targets rather than high-level bombers, and may be fired without having to aim the launch aicraft in the exact direction of its objective. The position of the target to be engaged may be supplied by the interceptor's fire-control radar (Ferranti Airpass) or by the pilot. 
The Red Top remains in service and will continue to do so as long as the Lightning is retained in service. Hawker Siddeley Dynamics (now BAe), which absorbed de Havilland, designed the QC434 SRAAM (Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile) to succeed Red Top, but this programme was reduced to the status of a technology demonstration project in January 1974, and the Royal Air Force has since ordered the AIM-9L Sidewinder as it's short-range air-to-air missile for the 1980s."_

From Bill Gunston's *Encyclopedia of World Air Power* - 1981. 

Cruise speed: Mach 3 at 40,000 feet. 
Range: 7 miles
Warhead: 68-lb


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 3, 2005)

Syscom3 


> I hate to admit it, but after comparing the Lightning with the F106, hes right.


 you seem to like the Warthog alot so 
I happend upon this clip really good footage of an A-10 thunderbolt straffing a target in Kosovo SYS3 I think you will like this
http://www.danshistory.com/a10strafe.avi


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 3, 2005)

i've seen the lightning fly but my point is the lightning had an initial climb rate of 50k/min  but if it could maintain that climb rate for 1 min it would hold the record with www.fai.org it doesn't and as for your info on 101s climb rate i found this link which indicates 49000+ http://www.marchfield.org/f101b.htm you seem to be using a single source try to upgrade from the golden book of airplanes and daddys info what was daddys trade? ( cook refuelleR )i'm familar with gunston good info as for being a moron well been called worse by better I'm sorry you think i kicked your puppy but i didn't start the personal attacks the only expieriance i've had with the RAF was the 3 years in goose bay watching Vukcans Victors Jags harriers tristars Hawks Nimrods c130 along with a host of other a'/c from nato .goose was the best to see a/c operate because we had such amassive terminal area 87dme to fl60 almost the whole of england and our reason for being was lo level training and with that much airspace it was fun to observe a/c and the pilots from over the pond actually use all the potential of there a/c


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2005)

Uh oh - I'm taking cover!


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 3, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Uh oh - I'm taking cover!


Me too  , where is that nuclear bunker now


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 3, 2005)

Let the games begin


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2005)

Begin? They have already begun!


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 3, 2005)

maybe i'll ask my dad about aircraft he was a licenced aircraft engineer(fitter rigger) in 1936 and he still manages to go flying once or twice a week not as pilot but passenger he went up in a stearman and tiger moth in past month


----------



## plan_D (Nov 3, 2005)

You found one f*ckin' link that states the F-101 at 49,000 feet try the whole f*cking internet! They're all different!

And p*ss ant, fag boy, my father isn't the source for 50k a minute, the whole freakin' world is. Look it up for yourself, you p*ss ant. The only experience you've had with the RAF was f*ck all, you tit. No real member of any armed service would downgrade the actions of another. I'd love to watch my dad bitch slap your tiny little ass all over the biggest room on the f*ckin' planet. 

You want to know his trade, f*ck wit? Aircraft electrician for 24 years, aircraft trained on? Lightning, Chinook, Nimrod, Puma, Tecano, Dominie, Chipmunk, Jet Stream, Jet Provost, Wessex, Sea King and Whirlwind. 

Oi, tit boy, before you start havin' a go at the f*ckin' Lightning learn some facts. Your pussy ass little smelly c*nt wouldn't know a Lightning if it fired a Red Top up your fag arse ...no shut the f*ck up about the Lightnign before I actually get annoyed and you show everyone on here how much of a little pussy ass fag you are. 

Who the f*ck do you think you are insulting my dad? A veteran of Northern Ireland, Falklands and the Gulf. He's seen more combat than you WISH you had, you fag f*ck face. I knew you were an asshole ...but I kept stumped for such a long time to give you a chance...but oh my f*ckin' god. You're just un-f*cking-believable.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 3, 2005)

Feel the love! Anybody else feel the love? 

Nah, didn't think so. 


Boys, I know we're all a little steamed right now but can we can the personal sh*t please? I'm beggin' ya! Please? [-o<


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 4, 2005)

that was compulsive argument i think pissant is one word


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 4, 2005)

pbfoot said:


> that was compulsive argument


Well whatever it was, knock it off.


----------



## trackend (Nov 4, 2005)

I just got back from the shops and read PB's post.
Its not very nice to talk about a guys dad like that PB 
The bells are ringing, the lights are flashing and the barriers are down but obviously there was no train coming. 
Think next time PB before you start deriding a guys parents, many on here have time serving or served dads or have been around in the forces themselves.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2005)

Sorry, NS, but I'm not going to tell some arsehole have a go at my dad because the arsehole in question has been proven wrong. 

If anyone believes that 50,000 feet per minute is a number my dad made up, just type in "F.6 Lightning climb rate" into Google and note all those sites that say 50,000 feet per minute for the Lightning. There's a lot of them, in fact all those dedicated to the English Electric Lightning say 50,000 feet per minute. 

And I have just read an interesting article on the Lightning's speed and ceiling. While it has always been known that the Lightning could reach 60,000 + feet as it's ceiling, the real ceiling was a secret. Now the exact ceiling has still not been released but pilots have been allowed to talk:

_"The Lightning’s performance is excellent not just by 1950s or 1960s standards but compared with modern operational fighters. Its initial rate of climb is 50,000 ft per minute (15 km/min). The Mirage IIIE climbed initially at 30,000 ft/min (9 km/min); the F-4 Phantom managed 32,000 ft/min (10 km/min); the MiG-21 could only manage 36,090 ft/min (11 km/min); the initial rate of the F-16A is 40,000 ft/min (12 km/min), and the Tornado F-3 43,000 ft/min (13 km/min).


The official ceiling was a secret amongst the general public and low security RAF documents simply stated 60,000+ ft (18,000 m) referring to the altitude, although it was well known within the RAF to be capable of much greater heights. Recently the actual operating ceiling has been made public by Brian Carroll, a former RAF Lightning pilot and ex-Lightning Chief Examiner, who reports taking an F-53 Lightning up to 87,300 feet (26,600 m) at which level "Earth curvature was visible and the sky was quite dark". In 1984, during a major NATO exercise, Flt Lt Mike Hale intercepted an American U-2 at a height which they had previously considered safe from interception. Records show that Hale climbed to 88,000 ft (26,800 m) in his F3 Lightning. Hale also participated in time-to-height and acceleration trials against F-104 Starfighters from Aalborg. He reports that the Lightnings won all races easily, with the exception of the low level supersonic acceleration, which was a dead-heat.

Carroll reports in a side-by-side comparison that the F-15C Eagle is "almost as good, and climb speed was rapidly achieved. Take-off roll is between 2,000 3,000 feet [600 and 900 m], depending upon military or maximum afterburner-powered take-off. The Lightning was quicker off the ground, reaching 50 feet [15 m] height in a horizontal distance of 1,630 feet [500 m]".

In British Airways trials, Concorde was offered as a target to NATO fighters including F-15s, F-16s, F-14s, Mirages, F-104s - but only the Lightning managed to overtake Concorde on a stern intercept. During these trials Concorde was at 57,000 ft and travelling at Mach 2.2"_

So, who thinks the Lightning was mediocre? Put your hand up.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2005)

plan_D said:


> In British Airways trials, Concorde was offered as a target to NATO fighters including F-15s, F-16s, F-14s, Mirages, F-104s - but only the Lightning managed to overtake Concorde on a stern intercept. During these trials Concorde was at 57,000 ft and travelling at Mach 2.2"[/i]


In 1980 (I think) there were congressional hearings on the poor state of US armed forces after the botched Iran Hostage raid. Kelly Johnson testified and sited this fact as an argument to build the B-1.....


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 4, 2005)

Nice info pD.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 4, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Sorry, NS, but I'm not going to tell some arsehole have a go at my dad because the arsehole in question has been proven wrong.


My message was directed at pbfoot as well. I know if it was _my_ dad he'd slammed like that, he'd be thankful he wasn't within easy reach of me. I understand your response D, but lets all just let it drop from here, 'k everyone? Excellent. 


Good info, by the way.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2005)

Notice that the Concorde was going Mach 2.2 at 57,000 feet, ever think the RAF didn't tell anyone the truth about the ability of the Lightning? Mach 2.3 is the official speed of the Lightning - something tells me it was faster than that.


----------



## trackend (Nov 4, 2005)

Ive always considered the E.E. Lighting one of the best interceptors and by all accounts there was a few tears shed at flight training school when the last one was paid off. 
Everyone loved to stick on the AB's and point it skywards one instructor on the box said it was a big Spitfire with a rocket up its arse.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 4, 2005)

Great info pD! 8)


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 4, 2005)

Did the Lightning have air to air refueling capability?

And its like a Spitfire with a rocket up its ass? hehehehehe..... I hope the pilots didnt wear pink flight suits...... heheheheheh


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 4, 2005)

Nice info pD, will we ever find out the try capabilities of this great aircraft, I hope it happens sooner rather than later but then wouldn't we all.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 4, 2005)

read the post's i did not deride his dad but did question the use of of his father as a source all idid was state i preferred the 101 and said the
only ones really qualified to compare the two were exchange pilots of which there are a quite few about but I don't have access to them the main dispute is the climb rate which is for the most part indicated as *initial* if the a/c could maintain this climb rate it would hold the worlds record for jet powered a/c it doesn't the record being held by some russian a/c which achieved 15000 metres in 1min 10sec +/- now why would this info be held secret by the brits i think the warsaw pact had radar and other means sensitive enough to figure this out plus the fact if this a/c was all omnipotent why wasn't it sold abroad more widely
anything i wasn't able to prove was indicated as second hand info he initiated the the insults called me a liar which i'm not then a moron which i may be I've done my time in the military and hold the supplementary trades in esteem if i want to know how to work on a merlin or allison or pw i'll ask my father but not for info on the other characteristics because that info would not a reliable source


----------



## evangilder (Nov 4, 2005)

I did read the posts


pbfoot said:


> you seem to be using a single source try to upgrade from the golden book of airplanes and daddys info what was daddys trade? ( cook refuelleR )



That most certainly is what everyone is talking about. Once again, keep the personal crap out of it, guys.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 4, 2005)

I read the post as well, and you were taunting him pb. Granted, he called you a moron. That's why I wanted both of you to stop. You're gonna stop now, right?

I suggest we continue on with the intended discussion before another one gets locked.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 4, 2005)

i publicly apologize for an unintended slur against your dad it was not intended as a slam


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2005)

I believe the pilot in question, Lee, called the Lightning "...a Spitfire with a kick up the arse..." but I may be wrong because I haven't heard/read the quote in a long time. However, I know who you mean although the name does elude me, he flew the Spitfire during the war. 

I have already stated that the British government disallowed English Electric selling the Lightning abroad. There was a great uproar in EE when they found out a British diplomat had been warning the German government away from the Lightning. 

If a government wants to keep it's aircraft a secret, or the potentials a secret, then they're not going to enter it into competitions to just try and look big. The SR-71s true capability is not known to anyone who didn't work closely with the project, odds are we won't ever know or at least not for a long time. 

As said, the Lightning was always recorded as 60,000 + feet ceiling, and it was confirmed by my father who only calibrated the altimeter to 60,000 feet. However, recent interviews and disclosed evidence has shown the Lightning to fly up to at least 88,000 feet. 

The F-101 couldn't even reach the alitude of the Tu-95, how can it be comparable to an aircraft that intercepted a Concorde travelling at Mach 2.2 at 57,000 feet, and flying away! The only aircraft on the intercept that did so on the stern intercept...was the Lightning which actually flew past the Concorde. 

The comparisons made by Britain and the U.S between the F-104 and the Lightning proved the Lightning to be far superior except in low-level super-sonic acceleration which was "...a dead heat...". The F-104 was superior to the F-101 and the Lightning was superior to the F-104. You haven't disproved anything, you've merely stated that the Lightning isn't in the record books...but you have failed to realise that the British government didn't want anyone to know the ability of the Lightning. Never realised that surprise is the best weapon in war? 

You have nothing to back up your argument for the F-101 being anywhere near as capable as the Lightning. In fact, that's laughable. The only thing you produce is a sketchy climb rate that is different throughout all sources on the internet. 

Just read my above post ...do you think a F-101 could do that? Certainly not, it could only go 38,000 feet. 

And for syscom, does this answer your question? (the picture)


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 4, 2005)

absolutely no comment and its not because a I'm cowed by your "knowledge" 
beside fact in the 80's as i participated in a launch( scramble) of 101 's from 416 sqn against the cord as it had strayed well off course entering the CADIZ "coastal air defense zone" the talk afterwords was about the difficulty of not being able to approach from the stern but that it could be "cured with a Genie"


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2005)

First off, the Concorde that your squadron apparently intercepted was not at 57,000 feet and travelling at Mach 2.2. The F-101 can't fly that high, and can't fly that fast. 

Secondly, the Genie is an unguided air-to-air missile with a six mile range. How could the Genie solve any deficiency in the F-101s performance as an interceptor? The fact of the matter is, if this interception did happen, the Concorde was ordered to slow down and 'wait' for the fighters. Because if it was a true threat, the Concorde could have opened throttle, pulled up and left the CF-101s for standing. And the Genie wouldn't have been able to do anything about it because...it was unguided! The guided version (AIR-2B) was abandoned in 1963. 

The CF-101B was also equipped with the AIM-4D semi-guided missile with a range of ten miles. However, it's burn-out speed was Mach 2 ...that's too slow to handle the speed of a Concorde, which can fly faster than Mach 2. Add that to the fact at stern intercept the missile would have to be flying faster than Mach 2 to reach it's target before the fuel ran out ...the AIM-4D...ain't goin' to do shit. 

So, we have a plane with a maximum speed of Mach 1.87 and ceiling of 38,000 feet and armed with four AIR-2A 'Genie' missiles (cruise speed Mach 3, unguided, 6 mile range) internally and two AIM-4D 'Falcon' missiles (burn-out Mach 2, semi-guided, 10 mile range) intercepting an aircraft capable of speeds above Mach 2, and flying at around 57,000 feet. Please tell me, how the hell is the F-101 goin' to catch it to destroy it? Even more to the point ...how the hell is it goin' to do it from stern intercept?


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 4, 2005)

it was a nuke the ceiling is 54000ft


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2005)

54,000 feet is the ceiling of the F-104, not the F-101. The 'Genie' was a nuclear tipped missile, with an explosive radius of 1000 metres. It would still need to catch up to the target and be in visual range, plus have a decent enough position. Either you, or the entire Canadian aerial command, were/are living in a dream world.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 4, 2005)

I vote for the latter. The CF-101 should have been fitted with the more conventional Sparrow/Sidewinder package, but never was.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 4, 2005)

The USAF museum website lists the F101B as having a ceiling of 52,000 ft.
The F104C is listed as having a ceiling of 58,000 ft.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2005)

Bill Gunston's *Encyclopedia of World Air Power* lists the F-104C at 55,000 feet. While the sources for the F-101B across the internet vary greatly, I believe Boeing.com list it as 38,000 feet.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 4, 2005)

Huh??


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2005)

F-101B ceilings range from 38,900 feet ( http://www.answers.com/topic/f-101-voodoo ), 52,100 feet ( http://www.museumofaviation.org/aircraftCollection/fighters/06-f101f.htm ), 54,800 feet ( http://www.marchfield.org/f101b.htm ) to 58,400 feet ( http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f101_9.html )... 

take your pick.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 4, 2005)

Here you go, straight from the site of the manufacture...


In Operation Firewall on Dec. 12, 1957, an F-101A fighter-bomber set a world speed record of 1,207 mph. In Operation Sun Run in 1957, an RF-101 raced from Los Angeles to New York and back to Los Angeles in a record time of 6 hours, 46 minutes. 

The last Voodoo retired in 1986. 


First flight: Sept. 29, 1954 
Wingspan: 39 feet 8 inches 
Length: 67 feet 5 inches 
Height: 18 feet 
Weight: 48,120 pounds 
Speed: Max. 1,009 mph 
Ceiling: 38,900 ft 
Power plant: Two 15,000-pound-thrust Pratt Whitney J57-P-13 axial-flow turbojets. 
Accommodation: One crew 
Armament: Four 20 mm cannons, low-altitude bombing systems, 1,620-pound bomb or 3,721-pound nuclear bomb 


http://www.mdc.com/history/mdc/voodoo.htm


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2005)

I have a Gunston book that states the -104 with a service ceiling of 58,000 feet clean. Considering he combined all models, I assume this is for the Italian "S" model...


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2005)

38,900 feet it is then, thank you, les. And that's probably true, FBJ. But I must say, all this pussy footing around with the F-101 figures is making me laugh. After all, even at 54,000 feet it couldn't intercept a Bear flying at 57,000 feet. 

And the Lightning is still recorded as going up to 88,000 feet ...and that's probably not even absolute ceiling.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 4, 2005)

Ur quite welcome...


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 4, 2005)

I think the F101 ceiling is low because its listing the prototype mid 50's model which was under powered.

I seriously doubt the USAF would have accepted a fighter in the 50's that had a ceiling of less than 50,000 ft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> I think the F101 ceiling is low because its listing the prototype mid 50's model which was under powered.
> 
> I seriously doubt the USAF would have accepted a fighter in the 50's that had a ceiling of less than 50,000 ft.



The service ceiling for the TU-20 is 44,000 feet. That means that's the max altitude it could fly and sustain flight with a given payload. If North America or Europe would of been attacked in the late 50s or early 60s, I doubt TU-20s would of been flying that high....


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2005)

The F-101 was never intended to be a high-level interceptor though. For the kind of missions it was intended for high-level wasn't really needed. Especially since the F-101 was actually a stop-gap until better aircraft came along.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 4, 2005)

Nonskimmer's picky point for the evening: 

The Voodoo was never built under licence in Canada, contrary to some web sources. The CF-101's were all purchased from the US.


Thank you very much.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2005)

I have the Tu-20s operational ceiling being 41,000 feet, FBJ. However, for the purpose of this discussion, we must add the M-4/201 to the target for intercept which had an operational ceiling of 56,000 feet. 

Did anyone say the CF-101 was produced in Canada, NS? If I did, I must apologise. After all, it does say in my Gunston book that they were all purchased.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 4, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Did anyone say the CF-101 was produced in Canada, NS? If I did, I must apologise. After all, it does say in my Gunston book that they were all purchased.


No, sorry. It was that site that Les posted the link to. I've seen it stated on another site too somewhere. False! 

Didn't mean to interrupt the discussion fellas. Just being my usual smart-ass self.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> I think the F101 ceiling is low because its listing the prototype mid 50's model which was under powered.



If you want to consider the XF-88 as the Voodoo prototype, it was powered by J-34s. The real-live F-101 was powered by J-57s with the C model carrying J-57-P-55s. I have several books showing a service Ceiling for the F-101C and CF-101B at 52,000 and 51,000 respectively...


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2005)

Okay, it's fine. I must reinforce that with;

_"Following service with ADC (later ADCOM) 66 of these aircraft [TF-101Bs and F-101Bs) were transferred to the Royal Canadian Air Force, which shares with ADC defence responsibility within the NORAD command. When modified for Canadian use they were designated F-101F and TF-101F respectively, but were redesignated in RCAF as CF-101B and CF-101F. They were exchanged subsequently for 66 similar aircraft with more advanced electronics."_


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 4, 2005)

i really don't think the americans would produce an aircraft not capable of intercepting a 1940s ju 86 and really hope i don't get busted for filing erroneous flight plans and all those years we tricked norad . worse yet the crew duped us no wonder we questioned the ancestry of pilots


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 4, 2005)

say what?


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2005)

Even with an operational altitude of 50,000 - 55,000 feet, the CF-101B still could not intercept a Bison flying at combat height (56,000 feet) nor could it stern intercept a Concorde at 57,000 feet. Fact of the matter is, no NATO interceptor could except the Lightning.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 4, 2005)

We understand that. We are trying to resolve the issue of why there are two ceilings listed for the F101.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> We understand that. We are trying to resolve the issue of why there are two ceilings listed for the F101.



Engines, loading, service ceiling vs. operational ceiling....


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 5, 2005)

i'm thinking its just a typo


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2005)

pbfoot said:


> i'm thinking its just a typo



No, I think the people who put these statistics together sometimes don't realize the difference between things like service ceiling, absolute ceiling, max speed at sea level and max indicated airspeed....


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 6, 2005)

No, I think the people who put these statistics together sometimes don't realize the difference between things like service ceiling, absolute ceiling, max speed at sea level and max indicated airspeed....[/quote]
i 've filed flight plans for fl410


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> pbfoot said:
> 
> 
> > i'm thinking its just a typo
> ...



That I can believe. They see the words cieling and take it like the bible.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2005)

pbfoot said:


> i 've filed flight plans for fl410



 - did you ask them if they were going to Mars?!?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

LOL


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 10, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> pbfoot said:
> 
> 
> > i 've filed flight plans for fl410
> ...


certainly! with aircrew you can't be to sure


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 10, 2005)

pbfoot said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > pbfoot said:
> ...


 I was flying a T-34 from Point Mugu NAS back to Edwards AFB. The T-34 is an old recip trainer. The controller from Mugu approach probably thought I was in a T-38 and cleared me to FL 30. I told him I'd be lucky to make 10,000 feet (the plane is over 40 years old and had over 10,000 hours on it). He laughed and gave me vectors at 6,000 feet, he said that he should of noticed something when my ground speed never exceeded 125 knots!


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 10, 2005)

had a guy transit the zone in comox vancouver island asked altitude stated 6ft it was hovercraft


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 10, 2005)

pbfoot said:


> had a guy transit the zone in comox vancouver island asked altitude stated 6ft it was hovercraft


  Oh that's great!!


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 11, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> pbfoot said:
> 
> 
> > had a guy transit the zone in comox vancouver island asked altitude stated 6ft it was hovercraft
> ...


That is a good one pbfoot


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

When the tower guys are on there game they can be a life savor. Ill tell you that. We did a routine IFR training flight yesterday. The weather was so bad that the fog never cleared up even at ground level. We did a Coptor Approach and the tower brought us down to the Runway. We could not even see the ground until we were about 20ft over the runway. It was crazy. Lots of fun though.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 11, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> When the tower guys are on there game they can be a life savor. Ill tell you that. We did a routine IFR training flight yesterday. The weather was so bad that the fog never cleared up even at ground level. We did a Coptor Approach and the tower brought us down to the Runway. We could not even see the ground until we were about 20ft over the runway. It was crazy. Lots of fun though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

Twas good training though. Got the leans in the clouds. Felt like we were upside down but we were wings level.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 20, 2005)

nice option with your beast is that a rwy is optional


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

That is true, but you have to still be able to see where the ground is in order to land. You dont want to hit wires or land in water or something. Very dangerous bad weather is.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 20, 2005)

well I'd hate to fly in europe to congested and the vis always sucks its not often a controller would say the weather was cavok or cavu (ceiling and visability unlimited)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Absolutely not true. Except for the winter time, the vis is really not that bad. Like I said I fly over here almost every day and it is not that bad. Now between late November and the end of February yeah it sucks then but only really in our area. Once you get out of Bavaria (really on the Franken region of Bavaria) it is not bad at all any time of the year including winter.


----------



## amiro (Mar 15, 2008)

Glider said:


> Just been checking some of my records. I was impressed by one Flt Lt Maqsood Amir who managed to shoot down a Mig 21 after suckering the pilot into a low speed dogfight in an F86.
> Some achievement.



Thats my dad! 8)


----------



## Juha (Mar 16, 2008)

My post-war favorites, I'm not claiming that they were the best, especially F-101B had its problems.

F-86
F2H-3
F11F
F-101B
F-105
F-106
Lightning Mk 2A and 6
Canberra
Vulcan
MiG-19S

Juha


----------



## broke91hatch (Mar 17, 2008)

HealzDevo said:


> My favourite post-war aircraft include:
> 
> AH-64D Apache Longbow- Yes a helicopter, top of the list.
> B-36 Peacemaker- Awesome power for a bomber around the end of WW2.
> ...



Correct me if im wrong, but isn't the Fulcrum the Mig-29 and the Mig-25 is the Foxbat?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Mar 17, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


>



My father-in-law used to fly 767's and 747-400's internationally; he said the weirdest thing was landing a 747-400 at SFO on the ILS in zero visibility on autopilot. He said he didn't even know the aircraft was on the ground until the wheels touched down.


----------



## joy17782 (Mar 22, 2008)

i like the starfighter the thud f_105 and the f_4 god do i like the f 4 she was a mean looking sob !!!!


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 23, 2008)

I have always liked the F9F. She combined the best of WWII technologies into a straight wing design. Beauty.


----------



## Luis Miguel Almeida (Mar 26, 2008)

My post-war favorites planes list, and I'm not claiming that they were the best. 

F-84
F-86
F-4 Phantom II
Fiat G91
F-16
Eurofigther
Panavia Tornado
F-14


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 26, 2008)

Fiat G91... beauty


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 26, 2008)

I think it should be a rule that any FAVORITES thread must include pics. Just a text listing is a letdown and is not educational for those not in the know. Pics would allow a passing of the baton to those who aspire. What say the rest of the forum?


----------



## evangilder (Mar 26, 2008)

I like it. Here is the old 48th TFW Wing King's bird, "Miss Liberty" back when Col. Sam Westbrook was our commander. This was from my film days.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 27, 2008)

Aardvark! Love the FB designation showing through with the AIM-9. Man she was a pretty bird.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 27, 2008)

Not an FB, actually. It's an F-111F. I think only Mountain Home had FBs. Or it might have been the base in NY whose name eludes me at the moment. The airplane is showing the loadout for the Libya raid.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 27, 2008)

Did not mean it literally. I knew the FBs were SAC only and that they did not likely carry anything other than bombs/missiles for their mission. However, very, very sweet. The picture does bring out the Fighter/Bomber designation well. You don't see that oftenI always thought the -111 got a bad rap for early design issues. The ATX was an awesome program.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 27, 2008)

By the way, gotta be one of the biggest tires on the main gear of any "fighter" post Korea.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 27, 2008)

evangilder said:


> Not an FB, actually. It's an F-111F. I think only Mountain Home had FBs. Or it might have been the base in NY whose name eludes me at the moment. The airplane is showing the loadout for the Libya raid.


We used to get the 111's transiting out of Pease AFB in Mass nit sure if they are what you talking about


----------



## ToughOmbre (Mar 27, 2008)

The F-86 is an all-time favorite. I'm not a big Korean War guy but I love how the Sabres performed. And there's real beauty in their design. 

TO


----------



## Luis Miguel Almeida (Mar 27, 2008)

hi Matt308!!
I agree with the posting off pics, so i will try to find something to post for all to see!


----------



## Luis Miguel Almeida (Mar 27, 2008)

Here is some pics of Portuguese Fiat G91!


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 27, 2008)

F-86 and Fiat G91 are beautiful. Just lose the wing tanks. Spoils their lines.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Mar 27, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> F-86 and Fiat G91 are beautiful. Just lose the wing tanks. Spoils their lines.



Agree 100% Matt.

TO


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 27, 2008)

Yep. Like a woman wearing a parka.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 27, 2008)

By the way TO, surely your pics of the F-86 showing the stars and bars orthagonal to the fuselage is improper right? I know that's not USAF doctrine, who effed that up?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Mar 27, 2008)

evangilder said:


> Not an FB, actually. It's an F-111F. I think only Mountain Home had FBs. Or it might have been the base in NY whose name eludes me at the moment. The airplane is showing the loadout for the Libya raid.



For those who care, a select few of the ex-SAC FB's (those with low hours) were re-worked into G's, and handed over to (what was at that time) TAC; I don't know if any G's are still flying in US colours (probably not), but I think a few of them ended up in Aussie hands after the US retired them.

Once again, here's a good SA&SM article on what the Aussie's call "The Pig":

Air Space Magazine | Military Aviation | The Plane With No Name


----------



## ToughOmbre (Mar 27, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> By the way TO, surely your pics of the F-86 showing the stars and bars orthagonal to the fuselage is improper right? I know that's not USAF doctrine, who effed that up?



Matt, I think the markings are correct. Seen lots of photos of period Sabres and restorations and they all look the same.

TO


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 27, 2008)

Really!! I gotta look in the Midcrow technical dept. I never noticed before and perhaps the doctrine I saw was post Korea. Hmmm


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 27, 2008)

Well I'll be damned. I thought that the insignia was in alignment with the wing chord post WWII. Looks like that wasn't adopted until around the introductions of the Century Fighters.

Thanks TO. How many times I looked at those aircraft and built those models... you learn something new everyday.


----------



## A4K (Mar 28, 2008)

Ya's'll all jump on me with reasons to put it down, but my favourite post war aircraft is the McDonnell Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, especially in it's F,G, and K (RNZAF) variants.
Of course thre are bigger, better, faster, etc aircraft, but to be blunt it's a bloody beautiful aircraft, and served us well in NZ from 1970 to 2001.

I remember while still in the RNZAF some visiting Aussie F-18 pilots lamenting the sale of the RAN A-4Gs (we bought 6 of them), saying they were sweeter to fly and more reliable than their replacements.

Fire at will with facts and figures, but I'll still always love that plane!


----------



## plan_D (Mar 28, 2008)

Nothing wrong with the A-4; certainly was a capable aircraft in the right hands.


----------



## Messy1 (Mar 28, 2008)

I have would have to go with the following for a short list
1)A-10 Thunderbolt-I love how a basically low tech plane can still kick A$$!
2)F-14 Tomcat 
3)SR-71 Blackbird
4)F-86 Sabre


----------



## Messy1 (Mar 28, 2008)

A4K,
Nothing wrong with the A4. I thought about putting that down myself. Nothing wrong with a plane with a 30-40 year plus career. Also the Blue Angels flew it for a number of years too!


----------



## B-17engineer (Mar 28, 2008)

Ahhhh I like the

Tu-95 "Bear"
F-15
B-52
and
MiG 21


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 28, 2008)

The noise the a/bs to me its the F 101 Voodoo


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 29, 2008)

I love the A4K. There was an A4 driver lurking around the forum a while ago and he schooled me of the Scooter alright. Look at the thrust to weight ration of the later models. Pretty dang impressive really.

And the CF-101, Great aircraft. There is one (F-101D) on a stand down the road at Ft. Lewis. That was a big aircraft. Much bigger than I ever thought until I actually saw it.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Mar 29, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> I love the A4K. There was an A4 driver lurking around the forum a while ago and he schooled me of the Scooter alright. Look at the thrust to weight ration of the later models. Pretty dang impressive really.
> 
> And the CF-101, Great aircraft. There is one (F-101D) on a stand down the road at Ft. Lewis. That was a big aircraft. Much bigger than I ever thought until I actually saw it.



Yeah, it's about the size and weight of an F-15 with about 1/2 the thrust; took it a while to get up to Mach.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 29, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> Yeah, it's about the size and weight of an F-15 with about 1/2 the thrust; took it a while to get up to Mach.


You used mach to bug out after using the Genies


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 29, 2008)

Genies... buggin' out might be a good idea.


----------



## rochie (Mar 30, 2008)

i always liked these two the vampire and the hunter


----------



## A4K (Mar 31, 2008)

They're both great aircraft, Rochie! If I was to list other post war types I love, the Vamp would be near the top of the list. 
And Pb, great pic of the Voodoo! I didn't realise she was so big either!


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 31, 2008)

Negative on the Vampire. But I do love the Hunter.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Mar 31, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Genies... buggin' out might be a good idea.



The supposed mission profile for launcing a Genie "in anger" was called an "over-the-shoulder toss"; at a pre-determined point, the 101 driver would pull his plane up into an Immelman and, at a certain point (approximately 30 degrees into the vertical turn), the weapons system would arm, release fire the weapon. The theory was that the aircraft (101 or 106) would be heading in the other direction at a safe altitude when the 1.5 kT detonated (hopefully in the middle of a Soviet bomber formation).


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 31, 2008)

Wow. Sounds like the flight ops of the dreaded nuclear A-5 "Vigi". (i.e., looks good on paper)


----------



## olbrat (Apr 2, 2008)

As I'm sure it is with a lot of this group, it's hard to list just a few.

I have a slight affinity for some of the earlier post-war aircraft. Putting all performance and reliability issues aside I would say:

F86 Sabre
F7F Tigercat
F89 Scorpion
F9F Panther
DeHavilland Vampire
F8 Crusader
Vulcan
Hawker Hunter
B58 Hustler


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 2, 2008)

Crusader and Scorpion!


----------



## Ramirezzz (Apr 10, 2008)

Tu - 128 any time - that's a helluva of an interceptor - clumsy and BIIIG


----------



## parsifal (Apr 10, 2008)

Hi everyone

Havent read all the posts, so am sorry if I have repeated any ealier nominations

I have three absolute favourites

1)


----------



## parsifal (Apr 10, 2008)

I have a few not all of them will be well liked

1) F-14 Tomcat. Pure enginering and electronics marvel. I was young and eager when they first hit the scene. They put the fear of god into people like Gaddafi, and were just a cool aircraft. Lots of attitude, and lots of ability

2) F-111E. In the 80s they were updated to carry Harpoon, and had the electronics updated. I was in the RAN at the time, and they were a formidable weapon system. They allowed the RAAF to undertake considerable force projection into the whole of the SEAC region, knowing that there was nothing in the regional inventories of our "friends" that could even hope to stop them. Primary role of the Aardvarks was maritme strike, but they were still very cool at just about anything

3) C130J A massive improvement over the "H"s. Just a very cool medium transport. I will put the "J" up against any European or Asian trasport any day, completely confident in the abilities of this aircraft

4) Sea harrier (or for you Americans the AV-8) Being a Falklands era servicemen, with friends who served, I just could not let this great aircraft side. There are bigger, more capable aircraft allover the place, but as the argies found to their cost these little airplanes had what it takes to be a legend


----------



## SoD Stitch (Apr 10, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I have a few not all of them will be well liked
> 
> 2) F-111E. In the 80s they were updated to carry Harpoon, and had the electronics updated. I was in the RAN at the time, and they were a formidable weapon system. They allowed the RAAF to undertake considerable force projection into the whole of the SEAC region, knowing that there was nothing in the regional inventories of our "friends" that could even hope to stop them. Primary role of the Aardvarks was maritme strike, but they were still very cool at just about anything



You guys had E's? I thought you just had a bunch of older C's and a few newly-acquired ex-USAF G's.


----------



## smg (Apr 10, 2008)

for me it has to be the p-47,p-51, and the spitfire bout thats just me
o yea and the mig 15,17,21,and f-14


----------



## parsifal (Apr 10, 2008)

oops, sorry, slip of the pen, you are right, they are nominally of the F11C standard. However, the electronics fit, and weapons systems have been so extensively modified and updated that it is hardly enlightening to refer to them as "C". The fleet is actually a mix of "A"s, "c"s and "G"s as attritional losses are replaced. The F-111s are still flying, with debate raging about whether to retire them or not. The replacements being touted, the super hornets, are a backward step in my opinion, mostly because of range, but also because of a questionable performance envelope


----------



## parsifal (Apr 10, 2008)

Oh want to add three further aircraft that always wanted to fly, but never got the chance

1) Skyhawk A4 G or E. Just a flying truck really, could cart up to 10000 lbs of bombs, on an airframe you could just about park on your dresser. For the little money it cost per airframe, I thought it was, pound for pound the most efficient combat system around

2) Grumman S2G. Could stay airborne for 14 hours, andfor its time was a good sub hunter. The Australians developed a new sonabouy, I believe, which made it somewhat more effective at detection. Anyway, they gave the fleet better advance warning of incoming threats than has ever been enjoyed since their retirement. 

3) Westland Wessex Helos. I thought they were the ants pants. have flown in them many times. Reliable and capable. They were being converted to SAR when I was around them, but personally I thought they were better than the Sea Kings that replaced them esp in terms of reliability


----------



## olbrat (Apr 18, 2008)

I watched the movie "Bridges at Toko Ri" last night. I love to watch the F9F Panthers. Their line are very aesthetically pleasing. Have any of our members flown this aircraft?


----------



## buzzard (Apr 29, 2008)

I'm gonna stick to the '50s-60s jets...

F-86 Sabre...Saw the USAF Heritage Flight Sabre put on a beautiful display at the NSIAS a couple years ago. Fantastic low-level knife-edge passes!

FJ-4B Fury
F-8 Crusader 
Saab J35 Draken...So futuristic, and proof that a small country can design and build top of the line combat AC.
F4D Skyray
F-104 Starfighter...'nuthin like a Zipper comin' in near the speed of sound right on the deck and going into a zoom climb....Gone! ('70s airshows at CFB Greenwood, NS)
Avro Vulcan...I remember watching a Red Flag (cream and brown camo) Vulcan in a very high-bank turn at Greenwood...it looked like the big wing tip was draggin! Amazing to see such a big bomber yanking and banking like a fighter...
F-106 Delta Dart...My favorite of the Century Series.
CF-101B Voodoo...Loved the big double boom when they hit the 'burners..BooBOOM!
SR-71 Blackbird...Duh!

Does anybody else here miss the '70s airshows? So many cool planes back then. Here in Nova Scotia we'd get'em from all over the 'States and Europe (visitors from Goose Bay)


----------



## HealzDevo (May 1, 2008)

Ok my list:
1. B-36 Peacemaker just because it is big enough to look cool.
2. B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber.
3. F-117 Stealth Fighter.
4. MiG-25 Fulcrum.
5. General Electrics Lightning.
6. C-5 Galaxy.
7. Condor and Cossack.
8. (If Allowed my all time favourite AH-64D Apache Longbow).


----------



## Emon_Essex (Sep 17, 2008)

F8F Bearcat
F-86 Sabre
MiG-15
AV8B Harrier


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 17, 2008)

Ahhhhhh B-52 and Su-35


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 19, 2009)

Just way too many beautiful planes back in 20 century...
My favs:
F-86 (the one with big radome)
F-4 -8
F-14
Mirage III
Viggen
Mig-17, 21, 29, 31
Su-25 27
A-6 -10
Harrier


----------



## BombTaxi (Jan 19, 2009)

My favourites, for sentimental and aesthetic reasons as much than anything else...

Lightning
Javelin
Phantom
Canberra
Jaguar
Tornado
Buccaneer
Intruder
Tiger
Sabre (All versions)


----------



## Waynos (Jan 20, 2009)

Hmm a list of favourites, here goes for pretty much the same reasons as bomb taxi

Typhoon
F-86
Hunter
TSR 2
Vulcan
Mirage 2000 and 4000
Lightning
BAe 146


----------



## Venganza (Jan 21, 2009)

My top 5:

Tu-95 Bear
B-36 Peacemaker
P2V Neptune
Avro Shackleton
A-1 Skyraider

Yes, I do like the late piston-engined planes. No jets, although the Tu-95 is a turboprop.

Venganza


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 21, 2009)

Awright, here's my $0.02:

F-104 _Starfighter_
XB-70 _Valkyrie_
SAAB JA-35 _Draken_
F-105D _Thunderchief_
SR-71 _Blackbird_
AC-130U _Spectre_


----------

