Re: Ever Wish We'd Built The YF-23??
- From: Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAMLESS@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:57:07 GMT
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:15:24 -0700 (PDT), CCBlack
<ccblack120@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
CCBlack
The F8U-3 had superb handling characteristics. The F-4 flew like a
truck. What does that prove ? Obviously the Navy wanted - two pilots
- two engines.
Ed Rasimus wrote:
Dunno what your truck flies like, but the Phantom was quite agile for
the period in question. The F-8 (and presumably the upgraded F8U-3)
had notorious sensitivity coming aboard the boat. Most guys who flew
the Crusader take great pride in having mastered it. Certainly agile
in close-in fighting, but no prize winner on approach.
Well Ed ... you said in your own book ' Palace Cobra ' :
" The F-4 had adverse yaw issues "
During F-4 training ... " with the inevitable stick guarding by the
instructors, left a distinct impression that the F-4 was not a very
agile airplane "
Context is everything. Yes, the hard-wing F-4 exhibited adverse yaw,
but that is simply a flight characteristic. It doesn't mean "flies
like a truck." And, my point regarding the instructor timidity was
that many of them had flown a combat tour as a back-seater and then
upgraded to instructors at the RTU. That left them with limited skills
regarding recovery from excursions they might encounter by a pilot
aggressively exploring the aircraft envelope.
I flew the hard-wing for six years after that brief training and found
it a rewarding airplane if flown with knowledge of its capabilities.
For the period in question, it was a very capable example.
" We could deliver the iron at a long distance. What we didn't have
was turn rate and turn radius. If we tried to out-turn the MiG, it
didn't matter whether it was a -17,a -19, or a -21, we would lose "
You must then continue reading. The point being made is that the
similar vs similar training, 1-v-1, which the USAF allowed as air/air
prep was simply to tail-chase around the arena and see who could pull
the most G the longest. In a dissimilar engagement, with a lightly
wing-loaded aircraft like the MiG, the answer was out-of-plane
maneuver; employment of the egg--cut-off angles and lead pursuit plus
understanding of radial G.
Explore the control issues of the MiGs--the -17 was notorious at
high-Q and the -21 was practically impossible to see out of in the
forward quadrant, and you will conclude that turn rate/radius isn't
everything in "agility".
Your right the Crusader was a handful around the boat. In fact it had
the highest landing accident rate ( then and now ) of any U.S. Navy
jet fighter.
However ... the F-8 was the " MiG Master " in Vietnam as well.
Pttuuuiiii! F-105s killed four times as many MiGs as your "MiG Master"
and Phantoms killed 15 times as many. And, the "gunfighter" hardly
ever got a gun-kill.
I wonder ... in a " what if " situation ... how the -3 Super Crusader
would have done in Vietnam. With the same engine as the F-105 and
-106 ... but without the wing loading of the Thud ... and without the
high drag of a delta wing in a turn as the F-106.
But, the day-to-day requirement was an airplane that could handle the
full range of tactical missions, not just WVR air/air. And, J-75s were
in woefully short supply.
Ed Rasimus
Chris
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
.
- References:
- Ever Wish We'd Built The YF-23??
- From: T . L . Davis
- Re: Ever Wish We'd Built The YF-23??
- From: Eunometic
- Re: Ever Wish We'd Built The YF-23??
- From: CCBlack
- Re: Ever Wish We'd Built The YF-23??
- From: Ed Rasimus
- Re: Ever Wish We'd Built The YF-23??
- From: CCBlack
- Ever Wish We'd Built The YF-23??
- Prev by Date: Re: Best fighter to never see combat 1950-1990
- Next by Date: Re: Chinese Xian H-8 Stealth Bomber
- Previous by thread: Re: Ever Wish We'd Built The YF-23??
- Next by thread: Re: Ever Wish We'd Built The YF-23??
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
