# Which performance aspects of a fighter were most crucial?



## grampi (Feb 19, 2015)

Speed? Climb? Turning radius? Roll rate? Diving ability? Please rank in order and explain why, and add any other performance category you feel was also important...


----------



## pbehn (Feb 19, 2015)

Speed, it gets you in and out of the fight
Armament the more fire power you have the shorter time you need to be on target
Rate of roll apart from a loop all maneuvers start with a roll
Climb/turn rate allows you to get altitude to attack and turn onto the adversary
Dive can get you out or catch an opponent

pilot protection armour and self sealing tanks
maximum altitude
range
visibility


----------



## davebender (Feb 19, 2015)

Max speed is important no matter what the fighter type. So are centerline mounted weapons (i.e. improved accuracy), climb, acceleration and predictable handling (i.e. no unexpected stall). Beyond that it depends on what the aircraft is designed for. 

For instance low stall speed is important for CV based aircraft. Range / endurance is important for bomber escorts. Banked turns are important for combat below 300mph. Roll is relatively more important at higher speeds. Cockpit armor and protected fuel tanks are good features but must be balanced against performance loss caused by weight increase. 

Engine should produce close to max power across altitude band where aircraft is expected to fight. You don't want to climb or dive and find your engine producing less power then expected. This power regulation should be automatic. Fighter pilots should not be adjusting prop pitch, fuel mixture, supercharger setting etc. in the middle of fight.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 19, 2015)

Rarely, if ever in ww2 a slow(ish) fighter was a better choice than a faster one, when there was a choice at all. A slow fighter cannot catch a bomber that is currently a modern one. A fast fighter should be able to dictate whether it will engage in combat, or disengage so it can have another chance minutes after that and/or a sortie after.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2015)

In conjunction with speed you have to throw in acceleration. Speed is great but what good is the speed if the aircraft accelerates like a turtle?


----------



## dedalos (Feb 19, 2015)

1)Power to weight ratio
2)Total drag area
3) Wing loading
4)Diving mach limit
5) adequate structural strength for manouvering


----------



## drgondog (Feb 19, 2015)

Depends ENTIRELY on the Mission. Bomber Interceptor different from Air Superiority different from Close Air Support different from multi Role Fighter Bomber.

The USAF stepped into the multi role Fighter Weapon Systems biz in 1955 and didn't dig out of it until 1975 with the F-16 then F-15.. we are now back into that game with the V-35 and praying that Stealth Technology will not be compromised.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 19, 2015)

Drgondog,
Agree completely! 
Cheers,
Biff


----------



## davebender (Feb 19, 2015)

IMO that's not a proper mission design requirement for WWII era fighter aircraft. It's something you do as an emergency measure when purpose built CAS aircraft aren't available. 

Or in the case of USA it's what fighter aircraft do because B-17 wonder bomber did not live up to bombing accuracy expectations. So you jury rig P-40s and P-47s as dive bombers.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 19, 2015)

davebender said:


> IMO that's not a proper mission design requirement for WWII era fighter aircraft. It's something you do as an emergency measure when purpose built CAS aircraft aren't available.
> 
> Or in the case of USA it's what fighter aircraft do because B-17 wonder bomber did not live up to bombing accuracy expectations. So you jury rig P-40s and P-47s as dive bombers.



I believe the cab rank system was as effective a system of CAS in WWII as anything that is operated today.


quote
Fighter bombers began a new direct support role, operating with the assistance of radio-equipped Forward Air Controllers (FACs). The fighter bombers were on call from "Cab Ranks", orbiting points close to the forward edge of the battle area. From these Cab Ranks, the FACs could very quickly call on air support for any targets of opportunity or threats to the troops in their area. The FACs were both RAF and Army personnel, specially trained to identify targets to the pilots and direct thier fire. Also, and seemingly almost permanently, airborne over the beachheads were the Artillery Spotter aircraft. These light aircraft directed fire from naval vessels off-shore initially, before they began directing artillery fire once the regiments were established on land. The light aircraft of the RAF, Army and US were also were the first to operate as airborne FACs, sometimes directing the fighter bombers themselves.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 19, 2015)

davebender said:


> IMO that's not a proper mission design requirement for WWII era fighter aircraft. It's something you do as an emergency measure when purpose built CAS aircraft aren't available.
> 
> Or in the case of USA it's what fighter aircraft do because B-17 wonder bomber did not live up to bombing accuracy expectations. So you jury rig P-40s and P-47s as dive bombers.


Or P-51 ... except the A-36 was more a fully featured dive-bomb capable CAS/fighter-bomber than jury rigged. (The F4U had the langing gear configured as fast-acting dive breaks too ... another reason it might have been interesting to see with the USAAF )


Edit


tomo pauk said:


> Rarely, if ever in ww2 a slow(ish) fighter was a better choice than a faster one, when there was a choice at all. A slow fighter cannot catch a bomber that is currently a modern one. A fast fighter should be able to dictate whether it will engage in combat, or disengage so it can have another chance minutes after that and/or a sortie after.


Navy fighters seem to be the big exception here, at least to a moderate performance extent. The F4F and especially F6F did well due to better handling characteristics and/or reliability than their contemporary alternatives. (The F2A had serious production and quality control issues -and odd engineering decisions on later models like the massive fuel capacity- and the F4U had poorer low-speed and stall characteristics than the F6F)


----------



## GregP (Feb 19, 2015)

I think speed is overrated by a long shot. You had to be fast enough, to be sure, but you ALWAYS cruised into an unexpected battle at cruise speed. Once you got into the unexpected fight, acceleration, rate of climb, armament, maneuverability, armor, ruggedness, and excess fuel were prime qualities. 

A P-51D could go 437 mph at best altitude (around 17,500 to 22,500 feet or so), but they spent less than 0.5% of their time at or above that speed. They spent the bulk cruising around a bomber stream looking for trouble. If they DID get to high speed, it was in a descending chase that could not descend forever ... the ground gets in the way. Once they were at ground level, ALL the speeds were down in the 350 mph range give or take a bit.

But the ability to turn, climb, shoot stably, and take damage while still getting home, possibly with some damage, were WAY ahead of top speed. Most people in here will acknowledge the Spitfire, P-51, Fw 190, and Bf 109 as great fighters. None of these had the really high top speed. The Ta-152, one of the fastest, doesn't count since they made almost none of them. They were all fast enough to make them deadly opponents, but they had the other qualities in large quantity ... except for the Siptfire when it comes to range. It was mostly a short-range unit, but the missions were too ... as a consequence, so it worked out well.

If I think of the Mitsubishi A6M Zero, it has all the qualities of a great except ruggedness. A few hits could finish one. And it still swept the war in the first year to year and a half. It wasn't until we figured out it's weaknesses that the tide changed. The fighter with the best kill ratio in US service was one of the slowest of the bunch, the F6F Hellcat. But it was fast relative to the competition it was primarily used against, proving speed is relative. The fact that the P-38 was the mount of our two top aces proves that using you aircraft's strengths against you opponent's weaknesses was the best tactic, at least for the U.S.A. in WWII. It wasn't a P-51 in the ETO ... but the P-51 certainly wasn't a P-38 in the PTO, either.

I suspect the guys like Erich Hartmann did EXACTLY the same, used their own strengths against the weaknesses of their usual opponents. Erich didn't always win the day, he was shot down more than a few times, and lived to tell about it. But he largely DID fight HIS game, and I doubt very much if top speed played a big part considering he never mentions it in his many post-war interviews.


----------



## Garyt (Feb 19, 2015)

What I think would be interesting, as GregP started to do is look at sucessful fighters of WW2, and see what sets them apart. Look at unsuccessful ones perhaps as well 

And also look at WHEN these planes were effective, at the competition at that time. For example, the Zero was a successful fighter early war - and it was about average in speed. Later in the war, it was relatively slower compared to it's competition, but it was no longer successful.

And look at other factors as well. The Hellcat was very successful, but it had better numbers and better pilots as well as better radar (not in the plane of course) to give an advance warning as to what and how many were coming.


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 19, 2015)

Greg,

I follow your logic train with regards to things in addition to speed that are important. However, in my opine speed still ranks as numero uno. If you look at the AVG they used altitude exchanged for speed in the bounce (hit and run) with guidance not to turn with Zero's (or whatever they were really fighting). The F6F couldn't turn with a Zero and used speed and firepower to write itself into history. The P-38 did the same. If you ready Hartmann's bio, "The Blond Knight of Germany", he states IIRC he liked to observe, attack from a position of advantage, hit and run (he didn't like turning either). All of these were done with speed, either generated from the powertrain, or from an altitude advantage. The majority of gun footage I've seen is from less than 10 degrees off the tail (non-maneuvering). I'm not discounting the ability to turn, climb (usually a side product of speed), or a decent weapons platform. I think they all combine to make up a great plane, however speed is on the top of the absolute heap. With speed you pick when the fight will start, how long you will be anchored, and when it's over (if you do it right). The Zero was very maneuverable, and in the hands of a well trained aviator a total porcupine. However, the hit and run (done with speed) played well against it's weakness. The Me-262 had speed and then some over all the Allied fighters, and could easily stay away from them (unless it turned, or got caught in or near the pattern). The higher speed can compensate for quite a few shortcomings.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 19, 2015)

Is it any coincidence that all the top performing aircraft were beautiful compared to the poor performing aircraft that were ugly?

I think not...and that is your answer right there. Forget the math, forget the engineering notes, forget the charts and tables.

The crucial performance aspect of a fighter is good looks.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Garyt (Feb 19, 2015)

> If you look at the AVG they used altitude exchanged for speed in the bounce (hit and run) with guidance not to turn with Zero's (or whatever they were really fighting).



Considering the AVG was NOT fighting Zeros, give them advantages in speed, durability, and firepower.


I look at it as there are two aspects of fighting, a turner and a vertical fighter. Not really any plane is all one or the other, they all have abilities in both aspects. But "turners" are often slower, and it's harder for them to make a vertical type play their game unless the vertical one agrees to. But pilots play a big role here, I think one of a pilots best abilities was to make his opponent play the game that best suited the superior pilot's plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 19, 2015)

Top speed in level flight is just one aspect of the 'speed' category, though. Acceleration in a dive and ability to maintain control at high speeds (not to mention structural integrity) are all major factors even if the top level speed is more modest. Dive performance is one of the strengths generally played up on some of the more overweight aircraft too ... so long as their airframes and controls could cope with it. (one of the reasons the P-38's compressibility issues were so problematic was its exceptional dive acceleration)

Dive performance was also one of the areas the P-40 and F4F fared rather well against their contemporaries. (both in acceleration and control)


----------



## GregP (Feb 20, 2015)

I fully agree, Biff, that they had to fast enough, but top speed was not what made the great fighters great. None of the top fighters had the highest speed in the class. But they mostly had enough speed and a generous serving of all the other traits that made combat a winnable proposition.

That is, they were stable in that they didn't snake around in yaw, pitch, or roll. They had good acceleration from cruise to combat speed ... which usually wasn't top speed, but was up in the 320+ mph area. They had good maneuverability, decent protection, decent armament, and were rugged enough to handle the stress of many flights at high power output levels as well as to survivie a few hits from another fighter ... unless it was large cannon hits anyway.

There were no Spitfires that cruised into the Battle area at 420 mph, ambushed Bf 109's and flew home at top speed, too. It didn't happen. You might be able to do that in a jet, but piston engines won't stay together under that type flight plan. They cruised in at 250 mph, accelerated when required for battle, and joined well before hitting top speed ... unless they were high and could dive down on an opponent out of the sun. If they chanced upon this stroke of luck, then yes, they might be attacking at top speed.

But the sun rises from the east and the Germans were east of the incoming bombers. Now I ask you, who was coming from the sun in gthe morning?

As for P-51s, they were escorts and had to stay with the bomber stream. You can't DO that at 400+ mph and it isn't even easy at 270 mph if escorting a 185 mph bomber formation. They cruised in at about 230 - 250 mph with their eyes open and accelerated when combat was imminent.

The Germans tried to get above and dive through the formations firing at targets of opportunity. In that scenario, an escorting P-51 might well apply full pwoer and dive after the German fighter, but if he stayed in the dive too long he would lose the formation and the bombers would be left without escort. So the P-51 could dive a few thousand feet, spray some shots and them use the excess speed to zoom back up to escort height and catch the now distant formation of bombers.

When the escorts left to go chasing first-wave fighters, the second and third-wave Germans cheered on the radio and bored in for target practice. That is according to former WWII pilots who give talks every month at the museum, not according to Greg. I wasn't there, but the guys giving the talks were.

The AVG weren't flying escort and were free to implement their own tactics that were designed for winning agianst superior fighters while flying a P-40. And those tactics worked in a non-ETO environment. They wouldn't work at all in the ETO. They MIGHT have worked in the PTO because when you are over the ocean and encounter enemy fighters, you usualy encountered about 4 - 8 enemy fighters to your own 4 - 8 enemy fighters and you could keep the more or less same size group engaged while the bombers flew on. 

It wouldn't work agianst an enemy with numerical superiority though. A few would stay and fight you and the rest would go after the bombers you were escorting. That's what WE did to THEM. They returned the favor whenever they could.

I don't buy the speed at number one. It has to have enough speed, yes. But top speed was hardly a big factor in a level dogfight. It came into play in a diving fight, but tghe speed wasn't a level top speed ... it was dive speed. If you got down to ground level, it wasn't a diving fight anymore and superior maneuverability OR top speed could be used to run or win in equal shares. It you had the higher speed you could flee or catch someone. If you had a more maneuverable plane you could turn the tables and go aggressive. If you had both, you were probably the winner unless you were outnumbered and they got in a lucky or well-planned ambush shot.

I'd believe whatever you say about modern jet fighter combat, but the guys who were flying the pistons in WWII hardly ever mention speed in their talks, except when they got sacred in a dive and survived to tell about it.

Hey, you might be 100% right about top speed. 

I remain doubtful. I don't think 20 mph made a difference at all in combat unless both planes were at top speed going the same direction and very close to one another. Then it MIGHT matter ... unless the slower guy was just a better pilot. And that puts us back to the pilot factor, not the fighter characteristics factors.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 20, 2015)

Higher top speed can also mean retaining more speed when diving and zooming. (from cruise to near-top speed rather than say a lower top speed plane going from cruise to well above top level speed and risking more loss in energy and loss in ability to zoom back to altitude)

Granted, you can still bleed off lots of speed/energy from maneuvers in any case, but minimizing that loss outside of maneuvering is still a significant variable. (as is just good energy retention of a clean airframe, including retaining energy better ABOVE top speed too, taking longer to slow down when you don't want/need to ... all assuming you can maintain control throughout that -again, the P-38 had the curse of being belessed with great dive acceleration but relatively nasty critical mach behavior with that huge nose-heavy CoG shift; the F-84 was a bit like that too, heavy and clean enough to dive really well if not for the mach limit, though also going into pitch-up instead tucking under )


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 20, 2015)

Large numbers of modifications, carried out on the Spitfire, were done solely for the purpose of increasing its speed.
Cellulose paint was replaced by synthetic, because it was smoother, but remained matt; the aerial mast was (eventually) replaced by a whip aerial; the mounting for the mirror was changed to a more aerodynamic version; engine covers were made tighter-fitting to stop drag; rivets and panel lines were filled and sanded smooth on wing leading edges; tail wheels were made retractable.
Reading Air Ministry files finds almost an obsession with going faster.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 20, 2015)

Pilots may not have talked about it much but speed is vital. Once combat is joined then aircraft will dive climb roll and turn. The plane with the highest speed has the most choice. Pilots mention speed most when they dont have it like those facing the mosquito B29 or for example a 109 in a hurricane. Many US airforce pilots and crew noted that the Me262 was fast and only the fastest AC were suitable for diver patrols.


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 20, 2015)

Greg,

I think it's a bit of "shades of grey". While I did say speed, I should have said energy. The ability to have it, generate it, gain it or lose it. I looked at this as thread / question as a priority list, and with that in mind put speed at the top. If you had to rank attributes numerically where would you put speed, or what would you put for your top three or four?

The extreme example of this would be the Me-262. It couldn't turn or accelerate with a piston fighter, but with that in mind the 262 driver could otherwise dictate the engagements. A lessor example of this would be two opposing fighters with the same top speed. The guy who enters the fight with more speed, especially when at his choosing, has a distinct advantage. He has the choice of a hit and run (with little of no ramification), or turn with the ability to generate higher G (tighter turn) for longer. 

The Me-262 is the WW2 extreme example, while the AVG is a lessor but still good example. Speaking of the AVG how does a P-40 accelerate against it's Japanese contemporaries of the time? I agree there is more than speed to a good or great fighter, but in the WW2 environment if you only had 262's for your AF you would have a distinct advantage in the air to air arena. Again this is only my opine!

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 20, 2015)

GregP said:


> I fully agree, Biff, that they had to fast enough, but top speed was not what made the great fighters great. None of the top fighters had the highest speed in the class. But they mostly had enough speed and a generous serving of all the other traits that made combat a winnable proposition.
> 
> *In the late 1943 through D-Day timeframe the Spit XIV, P-51B, Tempest, F4U-1A and P-47D-16 were the top Allied Fighters - all with speed advantages over all of the Axis fighters. Only the Spit IX was superior in the vertical (vs 109) in that timeframe and that was marginal. Only the Spit was Clearly superior in Turn rate over the 109. Only the Spit XIV was superior in acceleration and firepower (vs every Axis fighter except the 190. Somehow they (Allied fighters and pilots) secured control of the air. Common denominator? Speed to catch, disengage in level flight and dive.*
> 
> ...



Better pilot always the major factor. But you keep stumbling on the above argument. A 30 to 40mph speed advantage in the upper 1/3 of your performance envelope (8-10%) has a DIRECT influence on Excess Power Available which is crucial for climb and acceleration energy available.

BTW the probability of a former LW fighter pilot that can state (with proof) that he participated in multiple successful 'bait and switch' maneuvers to draw an entire squadron after a flight of divers would have to be questioned very thoroughly. Bomber commanders were observant when such events transpired and 8th FC heard about it - and as the saying goes "s--t flows downhill". Even Robin Olds was grilled when one BG got hammered that was responsibility of the 479th - until other observers noted that the group was late, way out of formation and out of range of the 479th to intervene. Blakeslee was 'addressed' once about this for a March 1944 experience in which one of his covering squadrons was drawn away after a pair of FW 190s - and the tactic worked.. but very rare.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 20, 2015)

Garyt said:


> Considering the AVG was NOT fighting Zeros, give them advantages in speed, durability, and firepower.



I don't think it would have mattered much. At 250 mph~ the Zero's maneuverability magic dissipated. The Ki43 was actually more maneuverable than the Zero if under gunned.


----------



## Garyt (Feb 20, 2015)

> The Ki43 was actually more maneuverable than the Zero if under gunned.



That's what I mean - the Ki43 could actually "out zero" a zero, but was even more lacking in areas like armament. At best 2 x 50 caliber, more likely 2 x 7.7 mm in the early war period. Takes a lot of time on target to down a plane with that limited of firepower.

A Zero would have been different. Similar weaknesses, but not as pronounced. And much better firepower for the Zero.

I would think the most prevalnet armament for a P-40 with the AVG would be 4 x .303 and 2 x .50. Still a bit underarmed, but far better than the K-43. I'd think the AVG also ran into Ki-27's a fair amount, which was a step down from the KI-43 in most ways. Turned a bit better, but that was never a problem for a Japanese plane, to turn better than it's opponents.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 20, 2015)

Garyt said:


> That's what I mean - the Ki43 could actually "out zero" a zero, but was even more lacking in areas like armament. At best 2 x 50 caliber, more likely 2 x 7.7 mm in the early war period. Takes a lot of time on target to down a plane with that limited of firepower.
> 
> A Zero would have been different. Similar weaknesses, but not as pronounced. And much better firepower for the Zero.
> 
> I would think the most prevalnet armament for a P-40 with the AVG would be 4 x .303 and 2 x .50. Still a bit underarmed, but far better than the K-43. *I'd think the AVG also ran into Ki-27's a fair amount, which was a step down from the KI-43 in most ways. *Turned a bit better, but that was never a problem for a Japanese plane, to turn better than it's opponents.



I believe the Ki27 was most of their fighter claims.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/avgaces.htm


----------



## pbehn (Feb 20, 2015)

The horizontal speed of an A/C was an indicator of other properties. The spitfire and Me109/Fw190 were adversaries for most of WW2 improvements on both sides were expressed in maximum speed but also indicated improvements in rate of climb and turn. The dive performance is slightly different, however the plane that is the better diver reaches ground level sooner, if your adversary is faster in level flight what have you gained tactically. You have a faster adversary on your tail who is at a higher altitude.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 21, 2015)

Fully Concur, Biif. Energy was near the top, as well as the ability to generate it quickly when surprised.

As you probably expect, I disagree with Bill, at least somewhat. He says the same things he always says and they are at odds with WWII fighter pilots I have spoken with. Yes, they DID have high speed fights, but NO, it wasn't at 420 mph most of the time ... except by the attackers who were diving down from above. If they were climbing up, nowhere NEAR that speed. If they joined the dive and chased the attackers, the bombers were unccovered.

Let's say that Bill and I have talked with a lot of different people and have come away with diverse points of view. Yes, they DID sometimes fight just as he says but, no, it wasn't all that often from the guys I have spoken with. Obviously he spoke with different guys who had different experiences, and I can respect that and say I wish I had been at least a listener.

So, they DID fight very fast some times, but not all the time. Not suprisingly, almost all situational encounters that can be imagined happened at SOME time.

I am not saying and never HAVE said high speed fights didn't happen; they DID. I said they were NOT the rule. A great plane could fight at 280 mph and at 470 mph in a dive. So, also not surprisingly, I think that the ability to fight a medium and high speeds was high on the list.

The Bf 109 was superb at 280 - 310 mph. Above 360 mph it was a handful and not very maneuverable. At 400+ mph, it was no longer much of a fighter, but could ingress or egress quickly at that speed, and hit something by ambush easily. The Spitfire and P-51 could fight pretty well at all those speeds. The Fw 190 was EXCELLENT except for behavior around the stall ... making it the last plane you wanted to be in for a slow-speed dogfight, unless you were very familiar with the steed and could operate safely near the limit.

So, I don't "discount" what Bill says at all; I embrace it as real. I'm sure he heard what he heard from people who were there and DID it. I also heard what I heard from people who were there and did it. Perhaps they were fighting in different theaters or perhaps they had different mission assignments. But I have spoken with guys who flew P-51s, P-47's, P-38's, P-40's ... never spoke with a pilot primarily assigned to P-39's personally. And I KNOW Bill did speak with many, too, growing up in a fighter family ... it was inevitable.

Makes me curious more than anything.

In a later war far, far away in a little country called Viet Nam, we dismissed the MiG-17 as obsolete in the early 1960's. By the late 1960's it had been re-appraised as a very potent dogfighter, despite being more than an entire Mach slower than the F-4. Turns out that in the heat of dogfight combat, they just happened to fight in the same speed envelope ... just subsonic. Speed clearly wasn't everything there, and that comes from former Viet Nam fighter pilots I served with later in the Mid-1970's. We had long discussion about the Soviet fighters and what they could and could not do. The highest-scoring North Vietnamese Ace flew MiG-17's.

I suspect that WWII had a LOT of the same, meaning the situation description you hear depends on who was there and what they were doing at the time against how many enemies in a favorable or unfavorable position and from a good or bad starting point, taking into account the number of enemy planes and the number of friendly planes in the local airspace and, especially, whether or not you were over friendly or hostile territory. There are a lot of forks in the story there that also include fuel state, ammunition state, and your own plane's damage at the time, and I have NO DOUBT that almost every one of the story forks happened on more than a few occasions.


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 21, 2015)

Greg,

From reading your post I think you might have misinterpreted what my point was / is. I said that in a rank order of capabilities I would put speed at the top. The other traits / qualities would be list as well, handling, firepower, etc., but speed would be number 1. 

Just because a fighter has a high top speed doesn't mean it will fight that way, or successfully shoot down enemy aircraft (EA) at a higher speed. It also doesn't mean it's not the number one attribute either. 

If a plane has a high top speed, it's probably fast in the climb and accelerates better than most as well. If I have a plane that is faster than most but handles just so so, I will do hit and run. If my fast plane handles well, I will do hit and turn, then run if unsuccessful. If my fast plane handles better than my opponent, I will hit, turn and stick. 

Should I turn and stick, I have entered the fight at a higher speed, which I can use to my advantage in a turn (pull tighter turn for longer) which allows me to arrive at that sweet spot (called the riding position or control zone), with very little angle off, in range of my weapons (at which point I would "employ" weapons - politically correct way of saying I would nail him). Speed gives me the advantage. Should the fight start not going my way, I would elect to leave using my better thrust to weight and gravity if it's available, to open the distance to a range greater than his weapons capabilities and go home. Or fly a distance away and see if I can re-attack.

As for Mig-17's versus non-gun equipped supersonic fighters there might be another way to interpret those fights. First, speed doesn't do much for destroying other fighters when the ID criteria almost eliminates your long range radar missile, the one with the highest probability of a kill (PK), and forces you to use a short range missile with a low PK. So low in fact that you had to be within just a few thousand feet of your opponent and within 30 degrees of his tail (and if you find yourself there the damn thing has to work which it didn't quite often). It's pretty easy in a subsonic fighter like the Mig-17 to keep an F-4 out of that regime. 

Then there is the problem of not having a gun at all... Followed closely by the fact that the US training had strayed well away from finer points of air to air employment. Hence the invention of Top Gun (made famous in a movie by the same name) and the USAF's Weapons School.

All missiles in those days were dog crap for reliability and capability. Much better today. However, the lesson learned is the gun. Doesn't break often, isn't fooled by chaff or ECM, and doesn't give a hoot what fancy flying the other guy is doing. In range, in plane, in lead and you can nail him. In fact, they even put one on the F22 (albeit after considerable debate).

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 21, 2015)

GregP said:


> Fully Concur, Biif. Energy was near the top, as well as the ability to generate it quickly when surprised.
> 
> *Greg - Energy is directly proportional to velocity and/or height in the case of Potential Energy. Excess Power over Drag is the road to achieve and maintain energy*
> 
> ...




Next time Bud Anderson is around POF, engage him in an unguided discussion regarding his preference for the P-51 and what he considered the primary advantage of the P-51 over what he trained to fight in, the P-39, when compared to the 109 flown by a very good pilot.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 21, 2015)

Folks, with regards to the Vietnam experience, let's not forget the tactical disadvantage our pilots were placed in, especially the -105 drivers, fighting a war dictated by politicians where air strikes were announced in advanced, predictable routes were flown and BVR engagements were prohibited despite the poor performance of air to air missiles (especially the Sparrow). Just a few years earlier, air-to-air combat was considered an obsolete concept by some of the "think tanks" within the Pentagon, a tragic policy that costs the lives of many American airmen, especially during the start of the war.

I look at this in contrast to today's world where there are those today who feel that manned combat aircraft are obsolete and that only combat drones should be developed to do all the fighting.

History does repeat itself!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 21, 2015)

The aircraft that has greater max speed should be able also to cruise faster. Extreme examples might be the members of Bf-109 family - the 109B or -D will be only as fast as the 109E cruises, the 109E will max out at 109F's cruise (if even so). Faster cruising will give enemy less opportunity to jump up to the 'fast cruiser'; for the Spitfire V drivers one of recommendations was to cruise faster in an area where Fw-190 might be expected.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 21, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> ...I look at this in contrast to today's world where there are those today who feel that manned combat aircraft are obsolete and that only combat drones should be developed to do all the fighting.
> 
> History does repeat itself!


It certainly does...

Unmanned drones are not a new technology, either...it was considered in WWI and again in WWII...

To quote King Solomon: "There is nothing new under the sun"


----------



## Glider (Feb 21, 2015)

reading between the lines of the various postings I think the real situation was that there wasn't one overriding factor that was more important than any other. What mattered was having a balance and the skill of the pilot in flying it to its best advantage when compared with its opposition.
Lets take a Spit IX as used in the second half of the war. It was fast, not the fastest in the world but it was pretty good. It was agile but not as agile as a Zero. It had a poor initial dive speed but its never exceed speed was pretty good but not as fast as say a P47. It was very good at altitude and had a good climb but I am sure there were some aircraft that would have the edge. However no opponent in any fighter would consider it an easy opponent as it always had something it could use against the opposition.
This is far from being unique to the Spitfire. The P51 had a definite speed advantage, the P47 a dive advantage, most Japanese and Italian fighters were more agile. The trick was knowing what you had and how best to use it against the opposition and avoid situations where you couldn't use that advantage.

In general if an aircraft was designed to emphasise a particular factor the aircraft tended to be flawed. Italian fighters were until the last series were poorly armed, Japanese tended to be less well protected and or poorly armed. The 109f was often considered to be a step back as initially they lost much needed firepower, there are other examples but I think that is sufficient

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 21, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> despite the poor performance of air to air missiles (especially the Sparrow). !



I saw a discussion programme on this illustrated by an encounter between an F4 and a Mig 17. I cant remember the missile of the F4 but basically the time taken for the F4 to aquire, lock on and shoot was longer than the time for the mig to take evasive action. The F4 repeatedly "went vertical" when the Mig was maneuvering into a shooting position and the mig repeatedly lost the F4 when trying to target the missile. Eventually the Mig broke off for no reason that could be explained and was shot down. As I remember it with the equipment both had it was impossible for either plane to best the other with two experienced pilots on board.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 21, 2015)

pbehn said:


> I saw a discussion programme on this illustrated by an encounter between an F4 and a Mig 17. I cant remember the missile of the F4 but basically the time taken for the F4 to aquire, lock on and shoot was longer than the time for the mig to take evasive action. The F4 repeatedly "went vertical" when the Mig was maneuvering into a shooting position and the mig repeatedly lost the F4 when trying to target the missile. Eventually the Mig broke off for no reason that could be explained and was shot down. As I remember it with the equipment both had it was impossible for either plane to best the other with two experienced pilots on board.


This sounds like the Randy Cunningham MiG-17 dogfight. 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiuAxisJZ-0_


----------



## pbehn (Feb 21, 2015)

I must say that WW2 started off with Bi planes and wooden propellers in front line service and finished with Germany UK and US with Jets in service if not exactly operational. Everything revolved around speed, horizontal speed, speed in a dive speed in climb and in cruise. To argue that speed was not of vital importance is a bit strange considering it was most designers and pilots obsession. Research pushes the maximum speed other properties like climb and dive usually follow close behind, as pointed out earlier the maximum speed of a P39 in level flight came very close to its critical speed in a dive, a serious problem in the design which may not have been known when the plane first flew.

The Hurricane was just to say in the fight in the BoB, it could climb enough to intercept, it was fast and agile enough trouble a Bf109 sometimes but the speed differential was about 30MPH, when the Bf109 was uprated it was impossible to keep the Hurricane in the fight as a front line fighter, especially when the defensive advantages the Hurricane had were transferred to the 109 after 1940.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 21, 2015)

FlyboyJ, I cant say whether it was Randy Cunningham or not but it was a US ace in a different engagement. I distinctly remember the expression "go vertical" which the F4 did 3 times at least. The Mig broke off and just flew straight and level. It was impossible to tell if he was out of fuel, had a malfunction or was just overcome by G forces etc, if he hadn't done it the F4 couldn't get the upper hand with the missiles on board against that particular pilot.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 21, 2015)

It was Cunningham.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 22, 2015)

I'd say, Bill, that if one had a choice between a P-40 and P-51, the choice would be obyious, and please note I didn't ever say anybody would pick a P-40 over a P-51. Where exactly did that come from?

Since I'm an engineer, I'm well aware of the formula for kinetic energy.

Anybody who thinks about it doesn't expect a spec for fighting at medium speed. But you NEVER get the chance to get to maximum speed if you are bounced or if the bombers you are escorting are bounced while you are cruising overhead. 

You get bounced at whatever speed you are going at the time. Your ability to get to maximum speed will be zero unless you roll over and head for the ground immediately. If the guys who bounced you come from above, they are already much faster than you and are no doubt back above you and can probably catch you anyway even if you accelerate with WER power.

I suppose we'll just have to disagree.

And you should get your head back to the bombers since that was the primary mission of the P-51 in the ETO, unless we read completely different histories. What was aked about were the important qualities of a fighter in order.

I never said speed wasn't important, I said it wasn't at the top ... and I don't think it is. If so, then surely a follow-on fighter should be faster than the one before it. That hasn't been the case since the F-15 came out 40+ years ago. I don't think an F-22 can catch an F-15. But it has WAY better avionics and can make moves an F-15 can't.

There were versions of the Bf 109 that, at the right height, were faster than a P-51. I'd still take the P-51, myself. The Spitfire also wasn't the fastest steed in the cloest, but I'd take one if I knew I was in for a fight.

We very probably have the same characteristics in mind for a fighter, but don't have them quite in the same order you do and likely won't. I don't need a re-education every time we talk with one another. We see much the same information with a slight shuffle of what was more important. In the relative world of personal opinion we really aren't all that far apart since we both see to be fans of the same war.

I sort of like it that we have different opinions because it keeps it interesting.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 22, 2015)

Just something to think about here...

My uncle started out with the P-36 and as the war got underway in the Pacific, was assigned briefly to the P-39 and then the P-38 for the duration.

He hated the P-39 with a passion and spoke highly of the P-38. However, his passion was the P-36 and said that had it been armed better, it would have been a deadly adversary to the A6M NOT because of speed but it's ability to hold it's energy in a turn. His thoughts on engaging an adversary were that speed allowed you the luxury of dictating when and where you confronted the enemy but being able to out perform the adversary was #1.

In otherwords, you can be the fastest ride on the block, but that doesn't mean sh!t unless you can take down your opponent...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 22, 2015)

I hadn't heard it quite like that before, Graugeist, but though I believe speed to be important, I'm don't rank it number 1 in flight characteristics. It's nice to near it from another source other than the pilots I have heard speak on their experiences.

Not to change direction, but we have a local fellow here who is building a P-36 for himself. That would be Matt Nightengale. You can bet I'll post pics when it flies!


----------



## GregP (Feb 22, 2015)

Early Viet Nam was a study in how not to use fighters and tactical air correctly. Later they improved, probably through total embarrassment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Feb 22, 2015)

Historically, the one design criteria most emphasized in the development of the aircraft, including fighters, is increasing speed. Biff already mentioned the Me 262, but many other examples exist where speed alone changed the equation, the mono wing quickly made biplanes obsolete, retractable gear did away with fixed gear, swept wing Migs chased the slower F-80/F-84/F9F/F2Hs out of the dogfight. Powerful engines made subsonic fighters obsolete. Biff already explained the Hiccup the Mig-17 caused in Vietnam due to poor missiles, poor tactics, and poor training. Only when the adiabatic heating of the air approached the weakening point of aluminum, around Mach 2, has this pursuit of higher speed slowed down. It did shift to cruise speed where supersonic cruise became important. Energy level has also been mentioned which is a function of altitude (potential energy) and speed (dynamic energy). Speed, however is squared function whereas altitude is linear. Doubling speed quadruples energy, an important factor in combat maneuvering.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 22, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Just something to think about here...
> 
> My uncle started out with the P-36 and as the war got underway in the Pacific, was assigned briefly to the P-39 and then the P-38 for the duration.
> 
> ...



Dave - my point is that the thread was about "Which Performance Attributes Were Most Critical"

My observation about your uncle's comments are twofold. First, after flying the P-38 would he have chosen a 'new P-36' with better armament? Second, would he have liked to fight the A6M with a P-38 absent turbosuperchargers. That version of a P-38 doesn't do well against any front line adversary as the P-322 would not have (and RAF recognized such) done well against anybody. The Difference? Top speed across the entire performance envelope, which in turn drove excess power available over drag for climb and turn performance - given the same wing and gross weight.

I am fully aware that maneuverability is extremely important, but for WWII increase in speed (and Range) was driving US fighter designs. The aircraft that failed to achieve the AAF spec on speed failed to become front line fighters. For the USN, speed was important but Carrier Qual/low speed handling characteristics were equally important - which is why the USN held back on F4U and initially gave them to USMC. The Brits on the other hand, looked at F4F and Martlet, looked at F4U - and said 'no brainer'.

Case in point - when the P-51 was upgraded with the Merlin, the handling characteristics suffered as well as relative turn rate maneuverability comparisons versus the P-40 and P-39. At no time was NAA asked to re-design the P-51B/D wing to restore turn comparison or increase climb via increased wing area. They ultimately achieved both by reducing the weight of the P-51H and reducing the drag while increasing HP - and speed.

The F4F could close on an F4U in less than a full turn - but lost every other attribute for combat usefulness. The A6M was arguably the best fighter in the world in 1942 and brutalized everything we put up against it - because its speed was near equal but had every other maneuver attribute except dive in its favor (possible exception P-36 according to your uncle). When our much faster fighters arrived in PTO, the tables were turned even though the Zero still held most of the maneuverability advantages in a dogfight - if our fighters chose to engage. The Tactics were modified to capitalize on the big advantage - Speed.

To your uncle's example, the P-36C was the last production ship with top speed of 313mph, W/L of 24psf and max climb rate of 3400 fpm. The A6M mod zero-21 of 1941 was about the same overall performance, much heavier firepower, edge to P-36 for dive.. good match. 

Take it to Europe or Russia and see how it does against the 109F which was 80mph faster, But had a greater W/L, same ROC, greater dive speed and greater firepower? P-36, like the P-39, like the P-40 could all out turn the 109F/G - but how did they perform against the front line German (or A6M) until the P-47, P-51 and P-38 arrive in numbers.

My point, which I am sure will elude the other guy in this debate, is that Speed requirement was first or near first on the Specs and RFP's. Top Speed drives the aerodynamics and thus the wing airfoil and fuselage lines as well as Power plant. If Power plant a given (i.e. Allison for in-line until 1942 when Merlin was 'possible, or R-2800 for radial fighters after P-36 and F4F were obsolete). Range drives aerodynamics, weight, fuel load, W/L and AR. Take off and landing drives wing area, flap considerations, empennage sizing - and also increases weight and drag, thereby lowering speed for same power available.

Requiring iterations and design compromises regarding the secondary factors. For USN lading speed and takeoff length was Not secondary - but landing speed over the fantail Did drive empennage and flap and wing area - necessitating compromise of top speed absent those considerations.

But picking big wing, high AR and big fuel load increases drag, lowers climb and turn and lowers top speed. BTW, the F6F was a leap over the F4F but fell short of the F4U except for turn rate.

My only point is that designing a single engine Fighter during WWII focused on the initial attributes of top speed attainable while factoring in the Range/fuel load/AR/GW on one hand and Flap Area, elevator and rudder for low speed mandates on the other.

Neither the AAF nor USN started with Max Turn Rate or even Max Climb rate as those attributes, after optimal fuselage and wing design were conceived, could then be factored in by sacrificing top speed in your conceptual design - or reach an unacceptable Speed capability and start major compromises on Range or Ceiling (both MUCH more important that Rate of Turn and Climb(both of which is driven by Excess Power available, Lift CL, Wing area and Drag).

BTW the P-38 Spec was driven by 1.) Top Speed, and 2.) Rate/time of Climb and 3.) Ceiling which is why only a fat wing, twin turbosupercharged engine configuration would work in 1938. The Fat Wing compromised top speed later on as well as controllability in a dive - both of these learning experiences translated into a better design with the F7F, even though the F7F also had to build Carrier Qual into wing/flap, GW and tail design that the P-38 didn't have to worry about.

Thanks, Dave for the anecdote from your uncle..


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 22, 2015)

You know, Bill, I honestly think he would have dropped the P-38 if he could have gotten back into a P-36.

He honestly felt that there was a great deal of overlooked potential and when people would point out that the P-40 was just a "P-36 with a water-pumper" he'd reply with "Bullsh!t...night and day!"

As far as his P-38 experiences versus IJN/IJA adversaries, he certainly used speed to his advantage, it was a great tool for ambush just as much as it was a great tool for survival when things got a little too "hot". While his rides may have been roughed up on a few occasions, he was never shot down, so he definately knew his (and his opponents) limitations.

Perhaps he was a bit "old school", he did have his start with the USAAC, after all...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 22, 2015)

GregP said:


> I'd say, Bill, that if one had a choice between a P-40 and P-51, the choice would be obyious, and please note I didn't ever say anybody would pick a P-40 over a P-51. Where exactly did that come from?
> 
> *Why obvious Grep? The primary performance difference between a P-51 and the P-40 was speed with the same engine, but the P-40 had a slightly better roll and turn rate. The P-51B with the Merlin gained in Excess Power to increase Speed despite GW increase and also increased climb - but turn and roll remained with the P-40? So which performance attribute do you not like about the P-40?*
> 
> ...



*Actually we are often quite far apart with respect to historical perspectives, flight characteristics, engineering comparisons and debate styles. What I find most objectionable is your repeated failure to bring true engineering/fact based arguments into any discussion, where such approach is required.*


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 22, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> You know, Bill, I honestly think he would have dropped the P-38 if he could have gotten back into a P-36.
> 
> He honestly felt that there was a great deal of overlooked potential and when people would point out that the P-40 was just a "P-36 with a water-pumper" he'd reply with "Bullsh!t...night and day!"
> :



From a few things I have read the P-36 was a delightful airplane to fly. It's controls were supposed to be better co-ordinated than an early Spitfire. But the Early Brewster Buffalo was supposed to be quite nice to fly also. 

Many pilots claimed they were "ruined" as newer versions came out. But the early planes, while nice and responsive to fly, weren't very good warplanes. Unfortunately heavier armament, armor, selfsealing tanks all impacted not only speed and climb but turning ability. Center of gravity may have shifted, not to the point of being unsafe but enough to affect control response. Or in the case the P-40 the longer nose (or weight further from the CG even if in balance) caused a slight delay in control response? 
Beefed up structure to handle the heavier weights also hurt. The P-36 may have had "potential" but even sticking four .50s in the wings (and ditching the fuselage guns) adding armor, adding self-sealing tanks id going to added hundreds of pounds to the P-36
and _may_ cause it's handling to deteriorate.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 22, 2015)

F-22 top speed, Mach 2.25 (estimated)
F-15 top speed, Mach 2.5

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 22, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> You know, Bill, I honestly think he would have dropped the P-38 if he could have gotten back into a P-36.
> 
> He honestly felt that there was a great deal of overlooked potential and when people would point out that the P-40 was just a "P-36 with a water-pumper" he'd reply with "Bullsh!t...night and day!"
> 
> ...



He is right about the P-36 being in the same basic envelope as the A6M - but I doubt that he would be alive if he had the rank and the spare parts to insist on continue fighting with it.

My father and many of his friends and comrades that flew both the P-51B and D remarked that the D was a very slight step back in performance - all basically traceable to extra AN/M2 50's plus 400 more rounds of ammo. When I was old enough to understand the differences I did ask the questions - So, why didn't You as Squadron CO and having the pick of the airframes, including his P-51C-10NT with Malcolm Hood, choose to stay in it instead of taking the new P-51D and every succeeding D model after that? Second question - Do you know of a single fighter pilot that chose to fly the B/C when a D was presented for him, given a choice?

His answer "I liked the visibility and the firepower advantage, and the few fpm in climb or turn didn't offset the B performance advantage", and "no". The unanimous opinion of all the fighter pilots I talked to growing up and all the way through current days is that the P-51D was THE preferable Mustang to go fight with.

Nothing but respect for your uncle. There were also a lot of Finns that did very well with a Buffalo, so who am I to question their preferences?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Feb 22, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> Many pilots claimed they were "ruined" as newer versions came out.



i have heard the same said by german pilots. several favored the 109F and thought the later models were too heavy, etc....

from the franz stigler interview...

Q. Your favourite was the F model, yet the one that was produced the most was the G6… 

FS. Yeah…

Q…But most pilots preferred, like yourself, the F models and the earlier G’s, like the G-2. What was the reason behind that?

FS. The G6 basically had a heavier motor and could fly higher…not more speed, but that’s it…it starts getting heavier every time they put something new in.


----------



## GregP (Feb 22, 2015)

Bill,

Apparently you lack the facility for civil discussion and are again resorting to condescending insults. 

Why not try to discuss like an adult instead of resorting arguing like a child? I reserve the right to state my observations and opinions ... just the same as you do, and I can see that you seemingly must focus on our differences rather than what our observations have in common.

So, in the future please just just leave me alone and I'll reciprocate. Promise.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 22, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> F-22 top speed, Mach 2.25 (estimated)
> F-15 top speed, Mach 2.5



How fast are the missiles carried by the F 22?


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 22, 2015)

Pbehn,

I don't think those speed comparisons are correct (F22vF15). I could be wrong though...

The missile speed is a value of what it can generate PLUS the launch A/C Mach. The higher the launch Mach the faster the missile goes.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 22, 2015)

BiffF15 said:


> Pbehn,
> 
> I don't think those speed comparisons are correct (F22vF15). I could be wrong though...



Got those from Wiki - it seems the F-22's top speed may be classified.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 22, 2015)

GregP said:


> Bill,
> 
> Apparently you lack the facility for civil discussion and are again resorting to condescending insults.
> 
> ...



I blessed you a couple of posts back with the design approach that would be considered by the preliminary design team responding to an RFP - but if you don't like what I posted - well, knock yourself out with the Way They Really Did it after gleaning this knowledge from all the folks that you have 'heard at POF'.

Or, If I missed something in your resume, explain what exactly what you learned at Purdue (?) and how that background was honed in your career?

BTW - the F6F is a derivative or extension of the F4F design for both mission and application and you could on one hand state that top speed wasn't as important as 'xyz' but you would do well to remember that the F6F was considerably faster, but did not improve on turn performance, so what were they differentiating for their airframe design?

You might state that your fav, the P-40Q, is an extension of the P-40 - and it is. But why did they lay a laminar flow wing on it? It didn't improve turn or roll performance but was a significantly Faster fighter than ANY P-40. Why did Curtiss take a Speed driven design approach?

Express your opinion Greg! but why not step out of your mold and lay some facts around the discussion?


----------



## pbehn (Feb 22, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Got those from Wiki - it seems the F-22's top speed may be classified.



I was just making the point that speed is important to break off an engagement by outrunning your opponent, in the jet age you must out run his missiles or break of its Radar/IR homing system.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Feb 24, 2015)

F-22 pilots at Kadena, after mock dogfights with -15's, have told me in effect "the -22 is a little faster at the top than a -15"

It gets there faster too...

In same conversation, pilots were telling me it usually takes at least 3 and usually 4 -15's to take out a -22. 

Comments made during maintenace debriefing.

Full disclosure: I am not a pilot and am only repeating what the pilots told me.


----------



## grampi (Feb 24, 2015)

soulezoo said:


> F-22 pilots at Kadena, after mock dogfights with -15's, have told me in effect "the -22 is a little faster at the top than a -15"
> 
> It gets there faster too...
> 
> ...



I'd like to hear what they'd have to say about the 22 vs a 16...I'm sure the 22 is faster, but the 16 has got to be much more maneuverable...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 24, 2015)

grampi said:


> I'd like to hear what they'd have to say about the 22 vs a 16...I'm sure the 22 is faster, but the 16 has got to be much more maneuverable...



It probably is, but what good is all that maneuvability when you're targeted and killed from an aircraft 40 miles away that was never seen to begin with?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Feb 24, 2015)

grampi said:


> I'd like to hear what they'd have to say about the 22 vs a 16...I'm sure the 22 is faster, but the 16 has got to be much more maneuverable...



Why has the F16 got to be more manoeuvrable?

The F15 and most more modern jets such as the Rafael, Typhoon, Gripen and no doubt some of the modern Russian fighters outmanoeuvre the F16, why not the F22


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 24, 2015)

grampi said:


> I'd like to hear what they'd have to say about the 22 vs a 16...I'm sure the 22 is faster, but the 16 has got to be much more maneuverable...



Grampi,

Not even close! The F22 has a much more advanced fly by wire system that works in conjunction with thrust vectoring along with improved aerodynamic tricks. 

Nothing currently in production can kill it except by fluke. Nothing.

Your tax dollars bought a new standard.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 24, 2015)

Glider said:


> Why has the F16 got to be more manoeuvrable?
> 
> The F15 and most more modern jets such as the Rafael, Typhoon, Gripen and no doubt some of the modern Russian fighters outmanoeuvre the F16, why not the F22



I had a lengthy conversation with a RAF Typhoon wing CO at Davis Monathan AFB in 2010 in conjunction with a 4th FW F-22 Squadron CO that basically said - "we could kill it if we could only see it"


----------



## drgondog (Feb 24, 2015)

Joe - apropos of our conversation earlier - 'my life is infested with twats" or words to that effect

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 25, 2015)

Funny you should say that ...


----------



## Elmas (Feb 25, 2015)

From the words of the first Italian Air Force Pilot that took in his hands Typhoon, then EF-2000, 9th february 1996:

_"Il "Typhoon", pur essendo un velivolo dal notevole spessore operativo, non contiene in sé elementi tali da poterlo considerare altrettanto innovativo. Il contenuto tecnologico di questo velivolo è già presente su altri caccia (addirittura già in servizio) sia che si parli di avionica, software dei comandi di volo o materiali, sia che si considerino prestazioni e qualità di volo. Anzi, per certi aspetti il velivolo è addirittura in ritardo: si pensi alle caratteristiche "stealth" e "supercruise" dell’F22 "Raptor", l’aeroplano con il quale, per forza di cose, si deve paragonare l’EF-2000. "_

]Tiscali Webspace


----------



## grampi (Feb 25, 2015)

BiffF15 said:


> Grampi,
> 
> Not even close! The F22 has a much more advanced fly by wire system that works in conjunction with thrust vectoring along with improved aerodynamic tricks.
> 
> ...



Didn't know about the thrust vectoring...that probably makes a huge difference...


----------



## grampi (Feb 25, 2015)

Glider said:


> no doubt some of the modern Russian fighters outmanoeuvre the F16



I'd have to see that to believe it...


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 25, 2015)

The MiG-29 will probably be a tough opponent for the F-16 to out-maneuver. The Su-27 family should also be there, the variants with 2D thrust vectoring should need the F-22 to out-maneuver.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 25, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> The MiG-29 will probably be a tough opponent for the F-16 to out-maneuver.


If the Gulf War cold be used as a starting point, the MiG-29 has done pretty poorly in combat, mainly because of pilot training IMO. F-15s shot down at least 3 MiG-29s, I believe an F-16 got one, all with no losses


----------



## pbehn (Feb 25, 2015)

Elmas said:


> From the words of the first Italian Air Force Pilot that took in his hands Typhoon, then EF-2000, 9th february 1996:
> 
> _"Il "Typhoon", pur essendo un velivolo dal notevole spessore operativo, non contiene in sé elementi tali da poterlo considerare altrettanto innovativo. Il contenuto tecnologico di questo velivolo è già presente su altri caccia (addirittura già in servizio) sia che si parli di avionica, software dei comandi di volo o materiali, sia che si considerino prestazioni e qualità di volo. Anzi, per certi aspetti il velivolo è addirittura in ritardo: si pensi alle caratteristiche "stealth" e "supercruise" dell’F22 "Raptor", l’aeroplano con il quale, per forza di cose, si deve paragonare l’EF-2000. "_
> 
> ]Tiscali Webspace


google translate

"The" Typhoon ", despite being an aircraft operating from very thick, not in itself contains elements such that it can be considered as innovative. The technological content of this aircraft is already available on other hunting (even already in service) whether we speak of avionics, flight control software or materials, both on this performance and flying qualities. Indeed, in some respects, the aircraft is even overdue: think of the characteristics of "stealth" and "Supercruise" dell'F22 "Raptor" the airplane with which, inevitably, you must compare the EF-2000. "


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 25, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If the Gulf War cold be used as a starting point, the MiG-29 has done pretty poorly in combat, mainly because of pilot training IMO. F-15s shot down at least 3 MiG-29s, I believe an F-16 got one, all with no losses



Today there are many things required to push a certain fighter from 'potentially capable' category into 'successful in war' category. One of them you've noted - pilot training. Then we have radar communications coverage support, availability of good electronics on fighter itself, good radars/electronics/countermeasures, good missiles, maneuverability (increasingly important as fighters are to engage in ever closer ranges, for WVR missises and/or guns), speed, RoC, ratio between enemy and allied fighters in current combat (ie. numerical advantage/disadvantage), doctrine tactics, etc. 
Too many factors decide the outcome of the air combat, and Iraqi AF MiG 29s enjoyed maybe one of those (maneuverability) vs. USAF F-15s. We can also observe the Bekaa Valley air combat, where the Israely AF enjoyed probably all of the listed advantages, while using fighters that were mostly a full generation ahead of what Sysians used; the lopsided kill to losses ratio should not come as a surprise. 
Or, the Falklands air war, where even the Mirages were ill able to harm Harriers, despite the 'paper' advantage.


----------



## Elmas (Feb 25, 2015)

pbehn said:


> google translate
> 
> "The" Typhoon ", ....... "



The " Typhoon ", despite being an aircraft operationally most valid, does not present features that can be considered as innovative (_as was the F 104 when it was introduced in service in the ‘50s. The Pilot was an F 104 G and S driver in 1996. My note)_. The technological content of this aircraft is already available on other fighters (even already in service) whether we speak of avionics, flight control software or materials employed, and both for performance and flying qualities. Indeed, in some respects, this aircraft is overdue: think to the characteristics of "stealth" and "Supercruise" of F22 "Raptor" the airplane with which, inevitably, the EF-2000 must be compared .


----------



## stona (Feb 25, 2015)

I was looking through documents relating to Australian efforts to develop a tropical filter for their Spitfires, relevant to another thread. The solution incidentally was to request drawings from England.
The point relevant to this thread is that the overriding consideration relating to such filters' either indigenous or copied from those in the UK was the effect on the aircraft's speed. Speed, as I think Edgar pointed out earlier, was always the primary consideration when any modifications were muted and for the Air Ministry, RAF and other operators of the Spitfire was consistently the primary performance factor in their calculations which answers the original question posed in the title succinctly.







Cheers

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 25, 2015)

It'll be interesting to see how Sukhoi's PAK FA (T-50) stacks up against the F-22


----------



## pbehn (Feb 25, 2015)

Elmas said:


> The " Typhoon ", despite being an aircraft operationally most valid, does not present features that can be considered as innovative (_as was the F 104 when it was introduced in service in the ‘50s. The Pilot was an F 104 G and S driver in 1996. My note)_. The technological content of this aircraft is already available on other fighters (even already in service) whether we speak of avionics, flight control software or materials employed, and both for performance and flying qualities. Indeed, in some respects, this aircraft is overdue: think to the characteristics of "stealth" and "Supercruise" of F22 "Raptor" the airplane with which, inevitably, the EF-2000 must be compared .



Thanks Elmas despite 3 years in Italy my Italian rarely got past discussing F1 Football food and work.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 25, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> and Iraqi AF MiG 29s enjoyed maybe one of those (maneuverability) vs. USAF F-15s.



Well they weren't able exploit that advantage. There was only one VR dogfight between a MiG-29 and an F-15 and the MiG-29 was destroyed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Feb 25, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> The MiG-29 will probably be a tough opponent for the F-16 to out-maneuver. The Su-27 family should also be there, the variants with 2D thrust vectoring should need the F-22 to out-maneuver.



I guess I don't see how planes (like the Mig 29) that are roughly twice the F-16s size could be more maneuverable...


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 25, 2015)

grampi said:


> I guess I don't see how planes (like the Mig 29) that are roughly twice the F-16s size could be more maneuverable...


 The Mig 29 is 57' long by 37' span, the F-16 is 49 by 32 in the same areas.

Full loaded weight ( not max. take off ) is Mig-29 34,000 lbs. verses 27,000 for the F-16.

By neither measure does the Mig-29 come close to roughly twice the size of a F-16.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 25, 2015)

Actually, the MiG-29 is very agile


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 25, 2015)

The MiG-29 was not twice the size of F-16, that would be the F-15 and Su-27. The MiG-29 was the size of F-18A.



FLYBOYJ said:


> Well they weren't able exploit that advantage. There was only one VR dogfight between a MiG-29 and an F-15 and the MiG-29 was destroyed.



We don't know who have had the position advantage, was there a surprise or not, was the victim aware of the attack or not, state of radars and electronic countermeasures (especially on Iraqi aircraft in general and at that MiG-29 in particular*) both active and passive, missiles used by victor (AIM-7, despite WVR?) and, if fired, by victim, who have had numerical advantage, and indeed the pilot's skill.
The EF-111 maneuvered the Iraqi Mirage F1 to crash against the ground, that would not proove that EF-111 was a better fighter (it was not a fighter anyway).

FWIW: link

*the state of aircraft in Iraq should not be assumed to be as of 100% or working order, like it was the problem with eg. Serbian MiG-29s their pilots took anyway in combat vs. NATO


----------



## dedalos (Feb 25, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If the Gulf War cold be used as a starting point, the MiG-29 has done pretty poorly in combat, mainly because of pilot training IMO. F-15s shot down at least 3 MiG-29s, I believe an F-16 got one, all with no losses



I dont see how the golf wars or the attacks against the serbian cities can prove the superiority of the American fighters over the Mig 29 as far as manouverability is concerned.In all these actions, American fighters had massive numerical superiority, plus AWACS support, plus electronic war support, plus pilots with many many more training flying hours, plus, plus...
I have read that The Typhoon and the Su 35 may outfly the F22 in certain conditions but thas something of little importance. The F22, as a weapon system, has a clear edge


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 25, 2015)

dedalos said:


> I dont see how the golf wars or the attacks against the serbian cities can prove the superiority of the American fighters over the Mig 29 as far as manouverability is concerned.In all these actions, American fighters had massive numerical superiority, plus AWACS support, plus electronic war support, plus pilots with many many more training flying hours, plus, plus...


It's *Gulf War *for your info...

We were discussing a manevering engagement where the rare VR combat was encountered and what transpired as a result of it; nothing was said about comparing the two aircraft directly. If you want some education about MiG 29s vs F-16 in a VR fight, read this...

Luftwaffe MiG-29 experience - positives and negatives

But to further expand your horizions, think about this - if you allowed yourself to be engaged in a close in visual range dogfight in real world combat, about 10 things have already gone very wrong. You use every resource avalible to kill your enemy before they even have a chance.

Bottom line, the MiG-29 seems to be a very good combat aircraft, it's combat record doesn't reflect that for the reasons you already pointed out.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 25, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> The MiG-29 was not twice the size of F-16, that would be the F-15 and Su-27. The MiG-29 was the size of F-18A.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is the one I'm talking about, 19 Jan 1991

_"Rodriguez, call sign "Rico" scored the first two air-air direct hits of his Air Force career in the Gulf War. His first hit occurred when he and his wingman Craig "Mole" Underhill came across two Iraqi MiG-29 "Fulcrums". The two F-15s quickly locked up the MiG-29s, which turned east to avoid them. However, an AWACS then reported two more MiG-29s coming in fast at them from the west a mere 13 miles away. The two F-15s and two MiG-29s charged straight at each other. Underhill quickly fired an AIM-7 at the first MiG. At the same time, the second MiG-29, piloted by Captain Jameel Sayhood, "locked up" Rodriguez, who then quickly executed a dive down to the deck to avoid the radar lock and nearly collided with the AIM-7 Sparrow fired by Rodriguez's wingman which, seconds later, destroys the lead MiG. After seeing his wingman killed, Sayhood decided to bug out briefly. Rodriguez rejoined with Underhill until Sayhood reappeared. Underhill locked him up, though his computer would not let him fire the AIM-7 missile to destroy the MiG because of a glitch in his IFF which told him that the MiG was a friendly aircraft. *Rodriguez and Sayhood then proceeded to merge, whereupon they both turned left and promptly got into a turning fight. As they descended towards the ground, Sayhood attempted to execute a split-s maneuver. However having insufficient altitude (about 600 ft) he crashed into the ground. Rodriguez was credited with a maneuvering kill.*"_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 25, 2015)

Thanks for that and for the link.
Captain Jameel Sayhood (while I'm not trying to take anything from his patriotism, bravery and pilotage) made a mistake - tried to split-S when too close to the ground. 

Here are two quotes from the web site you've provided the link, where Luftwaffe's Oberstleutenant Johann Koeck talks about pros and cons of the MiG-29. The cons were numerous, mostly tied to sub-par combat endurance and capability of electronics:


> At FL200 (20,000 ft) that gives us a radius of 150-nm, and at FL100 (10,000 ft) we have a radius of only 100-nm.
> ...
> Our navigation system is unreliable without TACAN updates and is not very accurate (I’d prefer to call it an estimation system).
> ...
> But even then I would still consider the onboard systems too limited, especially the radar, the radar warning receiver, and the navigation system as well as the lack of fuel.


Pros are maneuverability, HMCS and AA-11:



> "But when all that is said and done, the MiG-29 is a superb fighter for close-in combat, even compared with aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18. This is due to the aircraft’s superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight. Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ I can’t be beaten. Period. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’. We didn’t operate kill removal (forcing ‘killed’ aircraft to leave the fight) since they’d have got no training value, we killed them too quickly. (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn’t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 25, 2015)

Yep - that's directly from the horse's mouth so to speak. If you notice on the GW MiG 29 dogfight, the F-15s had several things go wrong - missles missed, IFF didn't work, continued flight into a "disadvantage" and allowing himself (Rodriguez) to get locked by the MiG-29. Captain Jameel Sayhood actually survived that fight and retired as a General.

Biff - did you ever meet Rodriguez?


----------



## Glider (Feb 25, 2015)

There must be a market for updating the Mig29 with modern radar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 25, 2015)

Glider said:


> There must be a market for updating the Mig29 with modern radar.



Agree - if they could put Martin Bakers in a MiG-19...

Then again, look up MiG-35


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 25, 2015)

dedalos said:


> ...or the attacks against the serbian cities can prove the superiority of the American fighters over the Mig 29 as far as manouverability is concerned.*In all these actions, American fighters had massive numerical superiority*, plus AWACS support, plus electronic war support, plus pilots with many many more training flying hours, plus, plus...


During the *Kosovo* war, there were 16 nations in the NATO coalition. Of these, there were French, Italian, British, Spanish, Canadian, Belgian, Danish, Dutch and Turkish Airforce (and Naval) aircraft participating in addition to elements from the U.S.

The numbers that the U.S. fielded in the skies were not "massive".

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 25, 2015)

Compared with what the Serbians fielded, the numerical strength of the colaition was massive. Then toss in the 'force multipliers', like AWACS, stand-off jammers and ELINT platforms, and no wonder the war ended like it did.

As for the market for new radars for the MiG-29:
Probably countries in Asia, like India and Malaysia, plus once-Soviet countries (those that really might have some money, maybe Khazakstan, Armenia and/or Azerbaijan). The Russians seem to go all-Sukhoi, and I'm pretty sure that Ukraine will want to get rid of MiG-29s as soon as the conflict ends. Other European countries either don't have he money, or interest, or enough MiG-29s to pull a modernization of now a 30 years old aircraft. 
The resolution of fuel problem is every bit as acute, though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 25, 2015)

Another thing that some folks may not realize, is that the U.S. is very aware of the MiG-29's capabilities, since the U.S. purchased 21 MiG-29s from Moldova in '97 and I believe that they are still used at Nellis AFB


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 26, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yep - that's directly from the horse's mouth so to speak. If you notice on the GW MiG 29 dogfight, the F-15s had several things go wrong - missles missed, IFF didn't work, continued flight into a "disadvantage" and allowing himself (Rodriguez) to get locked by the MiG-29. Captain Jameel Sayhood actually survived that fight and retired as a General.
> 
> Biff - did you ever meet Rodriguez?



Flyboy,

Yes I have. I showed up at Eglin AFB in Aug 92 and most of the Mig killers were still there. I know Mole Underhill as well and talked with him about his flying over there.

My Guard unit also went to Laage and fought the Migs in 2000 or so then fought them again at Key West. Some of the funnest flying EVER!

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 26, 2015)

BiffF15 said:


> ...
> My Guard unit also went to Laage and fought the Migs in 2000 or so then fought them again at Key West. Some of the funnest flying EVER!



C'mon, Biff, don't let us hanging - please share what ever you are allowed to


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 26, 2015)

Tomo,

Wilco. Later this morning when I'm sitting in front of a computer!

Cheers,

Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Feb 26, 2015)

tyrodtom said:


> The Mig 29 is 57' long by 37' span, the F-16 is 49 by 32 in the same areas.
> 
> Full loaded weight ( not max. take off ) is Mig-29 34,000 lbs. verses 27,000 for the F-16.
> 
> By neither measure does the Mig-29 come close to roughly twice the size of a F-16.



If you're done with semantics, the point remains...the 16 is considerably smaller and lighter and therefore it should be more maneuverable...


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 26, 2015)

grampi said:


> If you're done with semantics, the point remains...the 16 is considerably smaller and lighter and therefore it should be more maneuverable...



You've gotta be kidding. 
The F-16 is 85% the size of the Mig-29, and 79% the weight, that's not even remotely close to half the size.
Let's face it, you just didn't know.

How's that for semantics ?


----------



## drgondog (Feb 26, 2015)

grampi said:


> If you're done with semantics, the point remains...the 16 is considerably smaller and lighter and therefore it should be more maneuverable...



The Thrust to weight ratio and the wing area and the relative drag of the two fighters will determine manueverabily. Thrust vectoring is also an important feature


----------



## Greyman (Feb 26, 2015)

Neat article on the MiG thing: How To Win In A Dogfight: Stories From A Pilot Who Flew F-16s And MiGs

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Feb 26, 2015)

tyrodtom said:


> You've gotta be kidding.
> The F-16 is 85% the size of the Mig-29, and 79% the weight, that's not even remotely close to half the size.
> Let's face it, you just didn't know.
> 
> How's that for semantics ?



You're so focused on my statement "roughly half" that you're missing the point...the point is the F-16 is considerably smaller than a MIG-29, therefore it should be more maneuverable...


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 26, 2015)

tyrodtom said:


> You've gotta be kidding.
> The F-16 is 85% the size of the Mig-29, and 79% the weight, that's not even remotely close to half the size.
> Let's face it, you just didn't know.
> 
> How's that for semantics ?



We might also toss in the weight-to-thrust ratio.* MiG-29 has 100 kN of trust, dry, or ~163 kN of thrust on afterburners. That gives, on your figure of 34,000 lbs, 320 lbs/kN or 208.5 lbs/kN.
For the F-16C, it is 76.3 kN or 127 kN of thrust; on 27,000 lbs makes 353 lbs/kN or 212.6 lbs/kN. 
The MiG-29 has 409 sq ft wing, the F-16 is at 300 sq ft. Wing loading of MiG-29 will be 83 lbs/sq ft, vs. 90 lbs/sq ft.

F-16 was a maneuverable aircraft, and it have had several things going for it, when compared with MiG-29. However, flatly stating that it was more maneuverable than MiG-29 does not seem to have facts to back that up.

*I know it's 'thrust to weight ratio', the vice-versa eases my math


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 26, 2015)

Greyman said:


> Neat article on the MiG thing: How To Win In A Dogfight: Stories From A Pilot Who Flew F-16s And MiGs



Great article!!!

_"From BVR (beyond visual range), the MiG-29 is totally outclassed by western fighters. Lack of situation awareness and the short range of the AA-10A missile compared to the AMRAAM means the NATO fighter is going to have to be having a really bad day for the Fulcrum pilot to be successful."_

End of story...


----------



## soulezoo (Feb 26, 2015)

Greyman said:


> Neat article on the MiG thing: How To Win In A Dogfight: Stories From A Pilot Who Flew F-16s And MiGs



Thanks for posting. Some of the most informative reading yet. 

He's definitely not a F-35 fan.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 26, 2015)

soulezoo said:


> Thanks for posting. Some of the most informative reading yet.
> 
> He's definitely not a F-35 fan.



I saw that - I think he's still grasping to the 2011 Rand Report. He may feel differenly if he flew one...


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 26, 2015)

My first Mig BFM was with Spanky. Excellent article! More to follow tomorrow.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 27, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> C'mon, Biff, don't let us hanging - please share what ever you are allowed to



Tomo,

We deployed 12 F-15A/B's to Laage AB to fight the Mig-29A/B's that were inherited when the wall came down. The agreed upon plan was for us to fight them in our post merge drag index (half the ordinance and no external stores) with them in the single centerline configuration with less missiles (close to post merger drag index and makes the fuel loads a bit closer / sortie length). 

After day one the Mig's dropped their centerline bags. We were the first Guard unit they had fought, which also meant the first F-15A's. As stated by Spanky their are a few differences between the A and the C, the biggest of which is the handling. The C flies great, and the A just a little better (more on that later). They were used to winning and things didn't go as planned. The A model, with 220's + aft CG driven by a guy with 2000+ hours is an eye opener. Especially when you are used to fighting active duty kids with less than 1k in the jet, half of whose time is earned capping somewhere.

The average Mig driver was "only" getting about 180 flight hours per year versus the standard F15A/C guy who gets about 225-250 unless doing no fly enforcement. The difference is down one layer, and that is how many sorties a guy gets. The Mig flew .5 hour sorties (most of which was BFM / dogfighting), with the majority of that time being the fight (the airspace started at 8k right over the field and that's where they fought). By far the average sortie the Mig guys flew was BFM. The US guy does BFM phase (usually one month long) about once every 6-9 months. End result is the Laage Mig Drivers did a TON of BFM and were very current when we showed up. They were basically NATO's dedicated Red Air.

The Mig-29A/B as made by Mikoyan does not have a jettisonable centerline tank, nor can you shoot the gun with it (shells are ejected versus recycled like US stuff). The Germans eventually modified the centerline so they could fire the gun with it on.

The guys in the squadron were a mix of Former Soviet Union (FSU) and Luftwaffe. The latter being the majority by far. Of the FSU guys I fought only one stood out as being like a western trained guy (he thought several steps ahead and planned his fight accordingly). The rest had a game plan but then just reacted more than anything to what you did. The Luftwaffe guys (and Spanky) were pretty good and really liked the jet for the most part. 

The Mig-29 came with a limited radio set up, basically just a few presets that MX could change (I guess it helped prevent defection?). The avionics were crude by Western standards. I did a half our Mig sim and I was full up by the end (can't do that in a Western product). The biggest detriment to me was the fuel "monitoring" system. They basically had a fuel burned counter and that was it. NOT GOOD. They would take off, fight, and go home and land. No flying up initial, just straight to the perch, drop the gear and get it on the deck since no one was ever really sure how much gas they had left. The pro's by far had to be reliability. The engines had mechanical fuel controls and could run into the 60's (FL600) with no problems, and they had only one hydraulic failure that year. I'm sure there is a bit of great MX as well (their guys had been working F-4's and Tornado's so it was probably modern comparatively) in the mix. 

My first sortie against Mig's had actually taken place about 4-6 months prior while deployed to Iceland. We flew three Eagles cross country (or across the second half of the pond) to Denmark. From there we were planning on launching to fight them in their airspace, land at Laage for a gas and go, fight them again on the way out and recover at Lakenheath (in the UK). The flight lead fell out prior to take off and it ended up being myself and another guy. We did a two v two initially and all systems worked as planned. We fought over an undercast, and they were easy to see due to their smokey engines. We then shifted to separate BFMs and I drew Spanky. My jet was a two bag F-15A and his was a single bagged Mig-29A. We did two set ups and he got offensive on both but it took him to the floor to do so. The two bag set up for the Eagle is a great long range configuration, and doesn't do too bad in the BFM arena but not how you would really fight.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 27, 2015)

During our deployment I fought the Mig's mostly in BFM, but also did ACM (Air Combat Maneuvering or 2 versus 1), and a little bit of DACT (Dissimilar Air Combat Training or 4 v 4 or greater). 

The thing that stands out in my memory about the ACM is the fact that I got 32 miles away from the field during the set up (I was the flight lead). The Mig guy debriefed me that we were WAY to far from base. That was an eye opener. The Mig-29 was basically made as a replacement for the Mig-21 which was a short legged beast as well. The Mig-21 had three position flaps, up, half, down and the panel was a push button type affair (like Chrysler made for some of their cars). The 29 had the same panel, only the middle button wasn't used. Made it easy for the 21 guy to convert over, or Mikoyan was just cheap. 

From the fights themselves I treated the Mig pretty much like hybrid of the Viper and the Hornet. It's thrust to weight was better than ours (like a Viper), and turned about like a Hornet (not as great at high speed, but pretty good at slow) while size wise it seemed closer to a Hornet (I have never looked up the numbers). What Spanky didn't say was the AoA limits in the Mig were programmable, and if you hit them the stick would kick (which results in the plane porposing while you are fighting them) and MX would download that info. Then the squadron commander would call you in to explain your actions (call him the Morale Suppression Officer).

I did quite a few fights, and in the initial couple I learned to respect the AA-11 / Helmet Mounted Sight (HMS). They called shots (but not kills as they had no tape system to review and validate). There are other systems to deal with the Archer, but we didn't use those. It's not the end all be all of WVR fighting, but if you aren't on your game you are going to get schwacked. Like anything weapons related, you learn what you have to do, and executing is the key to survival. It's not impossible to survive, it just takes work.

As with all things flying the pilots also make a difference. I fought both FSU and Luftwaffe guys, and the differences were pretty huge. You could get away with a lot of stuff with the FSU guys that you would never try with an experienced guy. 

The one sortie that stands out from Laage was a BFM I flew with a Luftwaffe guy. We started and met at the End of Runway (EOR). I started and taxied in just a few minutes (much faster than normal) to save his gas (I had much more than he). I was in a clean A model as was he (11,700lbs for me and I think about 7,500 for him IIRC). He was the flight lead and our airspace was SW of the field. We took off to the West, he used Mil power and I did a full Afterburner (AB) take off. As soon as I got on board he turned left and pushed me out to tactical. I left my jet in min burner and outclimbed him a bit and as soon as we were in the airspace he cleared me to do a G warm up maneuver (2 x 180 degree turns in full A/B). He followed without doing the warm up or using AB. We took off at 1155am. He then did the radio drill and started the fight. We were doing high aspect (fight starts nose to nose at the merge), and we were off to the races. He did well and survived, but I got offensive and employed the gun but didn't have enough to call and kill. He then called knock it off (stop the fight) and Bingo (fuel state requires RTB). I did a quick battle damage check as he headed home and he was gone. He put the gear down as he exited the airspace and landed from there.

I checked my gas and I still had almost 5k. Time check 1207. From take off to knock it off was 12 minutes. That point hammered home the point defense fighter that the Mig-29A/B was / is. Just like the Me-109, Spit, and Mig-21, they were not meant to go far from home, and as such carried much less weight which in turn creates much better performance. I then flew around to find another Eagle guy to fight whose Mig left due to fuel as well.

We were there for two weeks and it was some of the best flying I ever did in the Eagle. We fought them again when they came to the states down at Key West. My liver almost didn't survive that TDY. 

End result was a complete familiarization of my enemies primary aircraft. I would not have hesitated to fight them, or go to a merge anytime or any place. I bet Mikoyan was cringing for years since their goods were being used to hone our skills.

We did get several briefs from the FSU guys. The biggest one was what they did on the holidays (entire squadron sat alert). They had been told by their leadership that the most likely time NATO would attack was over the holidays. What the Luftwaffe guys told them, and time showed them, was NATO was a ghost ship during the holidays as the US folks all went back to the states and the rest of free Europe was on holidays. They also really liked the Western health dental care. 

Cheers,
Biff

One very cool thing about their squadron was the mess / o'club ceiling. It was hand carved wood depicting the constellations. Absolutely gorgeous example of beauty from hours of labor. It had been in a pilot training base during WW2 and was lost when the Russians rolled in. They knew where it was when the wall came down, and went and got it. A VERY cool piece of history!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 28, 2015)

AFAIK there were not ex soviet pilot in 1/JG73 in Laage, they were all germans (or NATO exchange) pilots, some were ex DDR pilots


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 28, 2015)

Vincenzo,

I meant FSU trained guys, but you are correct!

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## dedalos (Feb 28, 2015)

Reading the memories of Biff15 and Spanky i can only think what full ,happy pilot lifes, the pilots of the American armed Forces Live!


----------



## pbehn (Feb 28, 2015)

Was there any truth in the rumour that Soviet planes were short legged to prevent pilots doing a runner?


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 28, 2015)

Pbehn,

I doubt it. Too much work goes into designing and building a fighter to limit it that way. All you would need to do is short the fuel load to keep them close.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 28, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Was there any truth in the rumour that Soviet planes were short legged to prevent pilots doing a runner?


They still ended up with numerous defections despite their safeguards against such instances.

"They" being various communist countries.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 1, 2015)

Some Soviet planes were short legged, some were not. Like the Su-24, Tu-28, MiG-31 and Su-27 family, plus the bombers. Short legged aircraft were mostly intended for the Frontal Aviation (MiG-21, Su-7/17, Su-25, MiG-23/27); the V-PVO favored the longer ranges. There were several aircraft that we might call 'medium range', like Su-15 or MiG-25. MiG-29 was intended to replace the MiG-21 and MiG-23, so we know why the short range. The subsequent modifications introduced more fuel, but those were produced in penny packets.

However - the short range of the MiG-21 did not hamper the 'runner', defection was made from Iraq to Israel. 

The Soviets were also behind the curve when it's about turbo-fan engines vs. more fuel hungry turbo-jet engines. The 1st turbo-fan used on Soviet fighter was the modification of the airliner engine, introduced in the 1980s on the MiG-31. West started almost 20 years earlier, and get in the stride 10 years earlier.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Timppa (Mar 1, 2015)

grampi said:


> Speed? Climb? Turning radius? Roll rate? Diving ability? Please rank in order and explain why, and add any other performance category you feel was also important...



Werner Mölders stated three requirements for a modern fighter (to Finnish Air Force representatives in late 1941): Superior speed, good climb rate and good armament. 
Manouverability is a plus, but the if a fighter has these three qualities, good manouverability is not mandatory.

Joe Christy writes:
Immediately following the Battle of Midway in early June, 1942, LeRoy Grumman dispatched General Manager Leon "Jake" Swirbul to Hawaii. Swirbul's assignment was to find what combat pilots thought of the Japanese Zero. It was hoped that experienced fighter pilots could make helpful suggestions as to what performance characteristics were necessary to gain supremacy over the Japanese fighter. Swirlbul talked to many of the aviators who had flown Wildcats from Enterprise, Hornet and the sunken Yorktown, seeking their opinions, observations and criticisms.

Chief among these was Lt/Cdr John S. Thach, the Navy's leading fighter tactician and skipper of Fighting Three. It was "Jimmy" Thach who summed uo the Wildcat pilots' desires in one succint sentence:
"Give us more speed and more climb".


----------

