Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
We moved to Marietta GA in 1967 as my dad got hired by Lockheed to work on the C-5. He quit after a month. Anyway, saw lots of C-5's after the maiden flight and always thought they sounded like a giant vacuum cleaner and appeared to float more than fly. The size of the thing made it seem unreal.The F4s had an unmistakable sound, too.
But for all the military aircraft I've heard in my lifetime, nothing compares to the sound of a C-5 winding up before letting off the brakes.
Agreed.We moved to Marietta GA in 1967 as my dad got hired by Lockheed to work on the C-5. He quit after a month. Anyway, saw lots of C-5's after the maiden flight and always thought they sounded like a giant vacuum cleaner and appeared to float more than fly. The size of the thing made it seem unreal.
I would expect that if the F-110/F-4 hadn't been adopted, then we'd have built more F-105's for bombing and F-106's as fighters. Perhaps we might have taken some of the lessons of the Dassault Mirage series, especially from the later IAI variants, the Nesher and Kfir?
I would imagine that the F-102 would stick around longer too in the training role and perhaps as an F-5 equivalent role?
Didn't the USAF hate the F-5 and F-104 and retire both of them rather quickly from combat capable use? I always thought it strange the F-5 was used to simulate the MiG21 but otherwise not good enough to take on a MiG21 role in the USAF.What lessons would they be? Bear in mind the US already had the F-5 and F-104 available.
Strong dislike maybe? HA! Thanks-The US didn't "hate" the F-5, the F-5 was designed as a low-cost export day fighter and the USAF at the time didn't see an immediate need for it.
The F-104 was designed based on what the USAF wanted at the time. As requirements changed it was decided (probably within the USAF and Lockheed) that the F-104 could be used as a low altitude nuclear bomber. Many foreign operators did use the F-104 in the intercept role, the Italians flew their 104s until the early 80s IIRC.Didn't the USAF hate the F-5 and F-104 and retire both of them rather quickly from combat capable use? I always thought it strange the F-5 was used to simulate the MiG21 but otherwise not good enough to take on a MiG21 role in the USAF.
From what I've read the F-106 was more than capable as an air to air fighter but the decision was to keep it as a dedicated interceptor. That seems to whittle down the inventory available quite a bit.
Makes me sad that the F-20 went nowhere. Such a beautiful aircraft. Ah, well, such is politics.The F-5 was not hated. My father in law flew it and thought it was a great aircraft but it seems into the 60s the USAF felt "bigger is better."
We moved to Marietta GA in 1967 as my dad got hired by Lockheed to work on the C-5. He quit after a month. Anyway, saw lots of C-5's after the maiden flight and always thought they sounded like a giant vacuum cleaner and appeared to float more than fly. The size of the thing made it seem unreal.
Makes me sad that the F-20 went nowhere. Such a beautiful aircraft. Ah, well, such is politics.
And then some - The F-104 was officially retired from AMI service in 2004.the Italians flew their 104s until the early 80s IIRC.
indeed, which is why I still contend that other than a totally new platform (maybe akin to a single seat F-111), a development of the F-101 should still be considered. Twin engined, long range, able to be armed with guns and missiles, I actually think it would have found favour over the F-106 had the F-4 notbeen an option. Perhaps the J79 powered F-101D version thereof:it seems into the 60s the USAF felt "bigger is better."
Now that you mention it - that's correct! I remember the retirement ceremonies.And then some - The F-104 was officially retired from AMI service in 2004.
Kinda' screams "Outta' my way!"