Hi Joe,
Source for the Canberra stuff was general scuttlebutt from Vietnam. No specific information. I rode motorcycle trials in Arizona for 20 years with a friend who was aircrew in a B-57 and he had some tales and mission talk, but nothing I could confirm personally as I have not ridden in a B-57 ... just his word on it. I believed him and still do, because he didn't have any tales of herosim. They were all tales of normal missions and trying to get accurate hits. He was aircrew, but not the pilot, so his concern for the bombing accuracy was his job. They took a flak hit once, according to Frank, and the B-57 handled it well. They didn't catch fire but DID start losing primary hydraulic pressure when they were on final approach. The popular tales he and a couple of buddies he used to bring along on rides told were that most of the B-57s that got lost were due to AAA flak, SAMs, or being surprised from behind while still heavily loaded. Once they were light, most former B-57 people were pretty sure the B-57 would out maneuver almost anything they saw attacking, IF they saw it in time to avoid the initial burst or the initial missile.
But, hey, perhaps loving their combat mount is nothing new
. And just because they thought it was that way doesn't make it a fact. It just happens to be the only personal information I have ever heard on the Martin B-57 Canberra. If you get the impresion they liked the B-57, you're right. Some guys didn't because they hated the first 300 feet of climb after takeoff. In fact, the main gripe about it seemed to me to be the ejection seat. More than one former B-57 crew lamented in the bar after riding that you had to get from ground level to 300 feet in hieght AGL on takeoff before you could successfully eject if there was a big problem. So ... if you lost a vacuum cleaner on takeoff, you were going to ride it in if you couldn't stay airborne with one hair dryer running. The real issue was that if you tried to jettison all the load, it would take too long or the ordnance would come down on friendlies (your own base). If the B-57 was light, no problem. But light B-57s weren't very good at bombing anything. Pretty much the same today for bomb trucks. They have GREAT power reserves when light, but arent light very often when departing on a combat mission.
The museum's B-25J literally jumps into the air on takeoff, but we aren't carrying a bombload, either. We have an aluminum step ladder (to get up to the engines) and a wood box with likely engine spares and some tools in the bomb bay, and it doesn't mass much. So ... I'm not surprised it feels spritely on initial acceleration.
I can give some first-hand information on WWII warbirds in modern-day operations and maintenance (admittedly not as much as you can), but have zero first-hand 1970s combat aircraft information except for UH-1 Huey helicopters. To this day I still don't like riding in a Huey. If it is a twin-engine Bell 212, fine. The original single-engine UH-1? I'll pass unless they can tell me specifically how that airframe was modified to cure mast bumping. Even then, I'd pass unless it was a dire situation. Nothing wrong with the airframe or engine. But the original system for tilting the rotor was flawed if abrupt aft-stick maneuvers were flown. That isn't normal in peacetime, but if you are ingressing way down low over jungle, abrupt pullups are required on a much more frequent basis. I'll pass on it, as I said.
So, wing loading says that a loaded B-57 should slightly turn better than a MiG-15, and a light B-57 really SHOULD. That doesn't translate into WILL turn better in real life, but I have never heard it wouldn't from any of the 5 - 6 former B-57 aircrew I used to hang with. If anyone knows of B-57 combat evaluation reports that are available ... hopefully online, I'd love to read them all.
Personally, I think that if anyone SAW a MiG-15 in Vietnam, they were simply mistaken. I'd surmise it was a MiG-17.
This makes me want to see the maneuvering envelope for a MiG-15 / 17 (which we could probably find somewhere) and the one for the B-57 (good luck finding that one!). I'm thinking that the MiG could turn, at best corner speed, at some 8 g or so and the B-57 was probably limited to maybe 5- 6 g, but the best corner speed of the B-57 probably means that at the best corner speed for the B-57, the MiG can't turn hard enough to follow with stalling. To know that, we'd need the "g-available" graph for both planes.
We MIGHT find it for the MiG-15/17 but I have serious dounts about for the B-57 because it wasn't a fighter ... it was an attack-bomber. We're much more likely to find something like angle of dive and lowest altitude for successful pullout charts than we to find g-available charts.
Any books on it that stand out? I've never run across one but, I have also never really searched for one either.
Hi Joe,
Regarding your quote from Berke, I believe he is missing the entire point, failing to SEE that he is missing it, and failing miserably in even trying to asses whether or not he even MIGHT be wrong.
I have ZERO doubt that the initial firing pass in a fight with the F-35 versus anything else will take place differently from "getting on the 6" and firing either a missile OR a gun. That will most likely never happen, and I don't want to claim it would, ever. I'll concede the F-35 is a great ambush predator ... no problemo.
But the F-35 carries only 2 AAMs. If, say two F-35s meet with, say, 4 less-stealthy but still capable foes, such as maybe Su-37s, they may well remain undetected through the initial firing pass. Once the F-35s fire their FIRST missile or gun, the stealth is out the window and everyone knows where everyone else is, or at LEAST has a good idea of it. Missiles don't come from out of nowhere ... somebody shot it at you.
Every other Russian foe flying a capable aircraft that is still in the air after the first pass has all his weapons, is mad as hell, and is faster and more maneuverable than the F-35 is. He also probably has more fuel to play with. So the F-35 can't run away because the enemy will close from behind rapidly and have a good view of any heat plume the F-35s are producing. No matter how I consider it, I see the F-35 getting in some good first licks and then being in a real problem situation. Once the enemies are in Mark 1 eyeball range, all the stealth in the world won't help a bit. At that point, if you can't dogfight, can't out turn, and can't outrun the opposition ... and also can't outlast them on fuel aboard at the time, you are up the proverbial creek without a paddle. You're gonna' be more unhappy than a vegetarian at a B-B-Q.
Since we arern't producing more F-35s than the enemy has fighters, we cannot afford a more or less 1 : 1 loss rate.
If we aren't in a an all-out war and are engaged in normal "hot zone" action, the ROE sill state we can't use BVR capability. We'll HAVE to close and identify, and get within eyeball range before we shoot. And that's right where the F-35 does NOT want to be.
I could be mistaken here, but we are NOT usually the ones with the superior numbers in most fights. Usually the enemy is more numerous. He has more missiles and more friends about. Once the 2 AMMs are expended, how will the F-35 survive the aftermath of the fight if there are healthy enemies about and in a less than happy state of mind, and if they know where the F-35s are or approximately so?
I have an open mind here and will galdly listen if there is a plan for this situation that will work most of the time. I just haven't been able to come up with one myself, other than to be flying something else other than the F-35, or to have something else escorting the F-35 to cover the withdrawl once empty of AAMs.
Perhaps this isn't a good place to dicsuss it. If not, I can come back in and just erase this. No real issue, just wondering what happens when you get within visual range and are out of missiles and stealth doesn't really help. That's when you need a good airframe to live. Outside of within visual range, I like the F-35 just fine, and am looking for a reason to like it overall, including within visual range.