Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The convair 880 was a passenger plane.
.
And it was obvious we were talking fighters, so I'll limit my comments as such. BTW, the 880 did well, technology got the jump on it however, but it was a decent aircraft, drank too much fuel, was a bit complicated and did not carry a lot of pasengers....You said US aviation industry
The Constant peg drivers flew the Fishbed and Fresco with no big issues...
This thread will also be of interest. Ampng its participants are pilots who flew the Mig 23 in the USA as part of Consant Peg and a russian pilot who trained on it with Iraqi pilots
MiG-23MS - Performance Characteristics?
The long and the short of it was that the BN version was an excellent GA aircraft but no good as a dog fighter but later versions were a lot better. All versions had excellent acceleration and were easy to maintain with quick turn around times.
May I remind everyone that in combat it lost out to the F15 and F16 which is only to be expected but when it entered service it was mainly up against F104, F100, Mirage III and F5A in Nato. Against these aircraft the Mig 23 was a very real threat.
Disagree.
The Flogger was ten years late and when they finally got it to work it was obsolete.
The F-4 phantom first flew in 1958.
And started to go operational 1960.
1967....for a prototype flight very late for a 3rd gen machine.
Possibly, so that's more schedule induced than developmentalThe Soviets may have not needed the Flogger operational in the same time frame as the F-4...
Agree, especially since the MiG-23 was more of an interceptor than dogfighter.But the Egyptians and Vietnamese could have done nicely...
True, but at the same time the F-14 has its developmental roots from the original TFX program, later VFX. Grumman had all kinds of developmental information and data that went back to 1967 at their Calverton LI facility. They (Grumman) knew the F-111B program was in trouble and eventually severed themselves from GD, although they built sub-assemblies for the F-111AAnother 1970s operational swing winger was the F-14 and it could eat any Flogger and flew only 3 years later.
All the jets Glider mentioned are all 1950s so difficult to compare.
The Soviets may have not needed the Flogger operational in the same time frame as the F-4...
But the Egyptians and Vietnamese could have done nicely...
Another 1970s operational swing winger was the F-14 and it could eat any Flogger and flew only 3 years later.
All the jets Glider mentioned are all 1950s so difficult to compare.
That goes for a number of fighters including the F-104The Flogger would depart from controlled flight very easily and had to be flown by the numbers.
As stated, the MiG-23 was more of an interceptor with some air-to-air capability. The MiG-23s that came up against the IAF were decimated (mainly from Syria) not only because of this, but they were up against better trained and better equipped foe who were flying F-15s.Ask the Isrealis if the Flogger is a sitting duck.
Not by much - the Flogger B had different IFF, slightly weaker radar systems and no ECM. Aside from the electronics they were the same as the main Soviet models, the MiG-23MThe Warsaw pact Floggers were not the same as Soviet Floggers...they were downgrades.
As mentioned by FJ not unique in the West either.The Flogger would depart from controlled flight very easily and had to be flown by the numbers.
Against an F15 or F16 it is, no one ever denied that. I suggest you ask the IAF how many they shot down with the Mirage or DaggerAsk the Isrealis if the Flogger is a sitting duck.
Not by much, dont get them mixed up with the ones sent to the Middle EastThe Warsaw pact Floggers were not the same as Soviet Floggers...they were downgrades.
As I said those that did had a small number of F4 and a lot of other types. During the 1970'sA number NATO countries flew the Phantom...not forgetting our own Lightning.