Lucky13
Forum Mascot
What about Regalskeppet Wasa in Stockholm, she's from 1628 which make her 381 years young!
Yes, I know that she did sink on her maiden voyage.....
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I have to agree, if longevity was the only rule of thumb to judge military hardware, then the best ship in the world would be the HMS Victory (251 years old).
What about Regalskeppet Wasa in Stockholm, she's from 1628 which make her 381 years young!
Yes, I know that she did sink on her maiden voyage.....
I dunno on that one. I think once there is more water over your bridge than under your keel, you kinda lose the arguement about being an effective warship
What ya mean losing the argument of being a effective warship? Look at how efficient she was on her maiden voyage, she sank!
Ask any enemy, if that isn't the most efficient of all ships, those that do that....
You should visit her in Stockholm in her muesum, well worth it....8)
Try to think here fellas, none of the crates on this list is missiles only, or am I wrong?
I wonder how well the Lightning would've done in Vietnam, it had guns missiles and a performance like no other.
Not well IMO - remember, political leaders placed "rules of engagement" requirements on fighters and sometimes they would have to have a visual on their target. The Lightning was fast as hell but was not maneuverable and aircraft like the MiG-17 would have had a field day with her had she got into a turning fight. In the vertical the Lightning would have had the advantage and I also think one on one against the MiG-21 would have done well. Another negative was her range; I don't think the Lightning had long legs.I wonder how well the Lightning would've done in Vietnam, it had guns missiles and a performance like no other.
Not well IMO - remember, political leaders placed "rules of engagement" requirements on fighters and sometimes they would have to have a visual on their target. The Lightning was fast as hell but was not maneuverable and aircraft like the MiG-17 would have had a field day with her had she got into a turning fight. In the vertical the Lightning would have had the advantage and I also think one on one against the MiG-21 would have done well. Another negative was her range; I don't think the Lightning had long legs.
It's funny Joe - I went through the same checklist you just presented. The reason I concluded it would have done well was that the Lightning pilot would also figure out that turning was not the best place to use its' performance attributes - but like the F-4 it owned the vertical and accleration and had the choice of guns or missles at all times.
What I don't know however was whether the Lightning had refueling capability - if not it simply would not have been a good fit - even from Ubon or Takhli.
Virtually most of the 105s and F-4s had to hook up to get home from Route Pack 6
Eh, I don't thing Beau made that statement at the time of the Vietnam War. I know the F-5 could turn circles around the Ligntning as well as the MiG-17, 19 and probably 21.I have to agree with Bill, the Lightning does seem like the ideal choice for the USAF during the Vietnam war as an escort and air superiority fighter.
As for the Lightning's turn performance, it was the best turn fighter of 1960's jets according to Roland Beamont the chief test pilot of the a/c, being able to outturn the Mirage I.
No F-5As, check out their turning performance at about 450 knots, They ate the Lightning for lunch!The F-5 Tiger ? It's got a wing loading of somewhere between 500 to 600 kg/m^2, and the climb rate is lower than that of the Lightning.
In climb performance and radar capability, aside from that it couldn't turn and wasn't designed to do so. And it's combat range? About 800 miles.I think the fact that the Lightning has been compared to the F-15 says it all really.
No F-5As, check out their turning performance at about 450 knots, They ate the Lightning for lunch!
In climb performance and radar capability, aside from that it couldn't turn and wasn't designed to do so. And it's combat range? About 800 miles.
Soren, I saw that on Wiki, - do the math on the Lightning and the F-5 at about 450 knots - speeds at which the F-5 and MiG-17 excelled. The F-5E had an even tighter radius than the A (I got it backwards). Beau may of had that opinion but the exact opposite occured during NATO exersizes. Even our own "Plan D" spoke of the Lightning getting wooped by F-5s as his dad worked on them.Hmm.. well wing loading is far from all there is to turn performance, available thrust is just as important, and the lightning as plenty of that. I suspect that the Lightning will simply power itself through turns that a/c with a lighter wing-loading can't even perform.
It couldn't turn ? I beg to differ!
"The late Roland Beamont (Lightning development-programme chief test pilot), after flying most of the 2nd Generation Century series US fighters of that era, made it clear that in his opinion, nothing at that time had the inherent stability and control and docile handling characteristics of the P1 series prototypes and Lightning derivatives throughout the full flight envelope. Its turn performance and buffet boundaries were well in advance of anything known to him, the Mirage 1 included. This remained so right up until the next generation of fighter/interceptors was developed worldwide, with underbelly intakes and straked leading edges, or canards.
"