Paging Puma....Puma....
I'd like to hear from Rhino I believe his name was! I still have a saved story somewhere, he told about his buddy G+13 dropping fuel tanks on Vietnamese boaters during the war :D
Interesting fact: At moderate to high angles of attack, aileron reversal occurs unless the turn is coordinated with rudder. At low angles of attack, this does not happen.
Also, the aircraft became *more* sensitive to pitch the faster it went. 1 inch of stick movement equaled about 6 G's at 'high Q'.
Rino is in our squad. He has been out awhile but doing well. We may see him back soon.
Mig21 is the better plane
Rolling an F-4 with high AOA was purely rudder-based. Using aileron would result in a departure--big time.
Mig21 is the better plane
There's nothing showing up on my IPAD. What's in the picture?
I sent out the bat signal.
- oldman
Paging Puma....Puma.... :devil
:salute
That's funny. What a hoot that must have been.
Ed flew a tour in 105s then came back for a second one in F-4s. Wrote a book about each (WHEN THUNDER ROLLED and PALACE COBRA, respectively). Also helped Christina Olds with her book about Robin, her dad.
Ed in Vietnam.
(https://heritageflightgeardisplays.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/165709_1499769306605_1605356483_1029856_1227763_n.jpg)
To hear guys tell it he was a fighter pilot's fighter pilot.
Any way, thanks for sharing. Good stuff. :salute
Hey ya Morf! Yer still using a pager?! Didn't they stop using those back in the 20th century? :rofl :salute
Ya I'm just that old.......... :o Atleast I didnt say Paging Mike Hunt,that sound special over a PA..... :rofl :rofl :rofl
Hope all's well with you and yours!
:salute
That's pretty cool! He got to fly two of the work horses of their time, and in the same war.
Always glad to share the good times! :salute
Quite possibly. Flew my last Rhino flight in 87.
The F-4 was undoubtedly the best fighter-bomber of its generation. The Mig-21 might have been a better point interceptor, but Soviet doctrine and substandard weapons let it down. In my opinion the best interceptor and air superiority fighter of that generation was the Mirage III. Amazing aircraft, even today.
https://youtu.be/MQU1f_bgPFE?t=11
I doubt it ever fought an F-4 in anything other than training, but against the Mig-21 and other types the Mirage III made many Israeli aces in the 60s and 70s.
(http://www.fighterpilotuniversity.com/files/3213/0618/3272/FUIIIYuvalLapid.jpg)
I count 13 Egyptian kills on that one.
Was it ever flight tested against the F-4, F-106, Mig-21, or other similar wing configuration?The IAF considered the Mirage as the better fighter. The F4s did very well in A2A against mig 21s flown by Syrians, Egyptians and Russians, with gun kills taking a very significant fraction of the kills (about half iirc).
Last F4 kill in the IAF was in 1982 over Lebanon. It managed to steal a kill from under the noses of F15s that were supposed to be escorting it - the pilot spotted lower migs and broke formation without alerting the F15s in order to beat them to the enemy.
Puma, was the pK of the Sparrow, and even Aim9, greatly affected by the ROE during LBJ and pre Nixon and Linebacker2/etc? I also read recently that the F4U had some of the first NCTR capabilities of the USAF, and could detect the Mig21s IFF and other leaking signals and determine if it was an enemy aircraft or not - long before the whole counting of turbine blades and other Star Trek like NCTR stuff. One of the military dailies I read recently did this article - http://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/what-made-the-f-4-phantom-ii-the-deadliest-fighter-to-fly-over-vietnam
I read all of Mark Berents books a few times growing up, and as much other F4 Phantom stuff I could find, I can't believe that this week is the first time I've ever heard about the no-ailerons deal with high AoA and using just rudder to roll. How frequently would you be in such a high AoA position and do this, and at what point could you begin to use the aileron again?
Did you ever use the "pistol" centerline gun pod, even with the E model? Just would like to know how much more accurate the internal gun was to that thing.
Regarding the Mig21 vs F4 deal, much of what I've read, even from xSoviet pilots who supposedly flew vs the Phantom in the 21, was that in the vertical and E fighting at certain altitudes, the F4 had a pretty large advantage vs the Mig21, so it wasn't all Mig21 all the time, both had advantages and disadvantages IMO. Also the F4 had another set of eyes and another brain on board, that's a huge plus. The Mig21 also was pretty limited compared to the F4 in terms of range, payload, a2g capability, radar, and many other things. The Mig21 was and still is a great fighter for its cost and purpose though, some of the newer ones that have been upgraded by the Israelis are still pretty potent little fighters, with the newer Archer missiles and HMS, better radar, systems, etc.
Puma = one thing about the F106 I always wanted to ask, is how to you decide which side of the front cockpit to look out of, with the strut being right through 12 oclock in your front view? Is it dominant eye, or are there avionics or a HUD set up for one side or the other being optimal?
When you say "hard wing jet", what does that actually mean?Without the leading edge slats of the E model.
Puma, thanks for the answer, great stuff.
Question about the Aim4 Falcon missile since you brought up the heaters - was it really THAT bad? I read that Robin Olds got so P/O'd at them that he flipped out, had the techs rewire his entire wing for Sidewinders instead, all without orders, and then even against orders, and procured Aim9s on his own, since the Aim4 on one flight he had went 0 for 8, with 2/3 of them not guiding or just going dumb. Did they improve post Vietnam? I know that the 106 had that Genie nuclear bomber formation buster, but did you have the Aim4 nuclear warhead missile as well, with that "small" .25kt warhead? Heh, small, 250 tons of explosives in an A2A missile. What kind of range would the ...not really a blast pattern, but I guess the shockwave/firestorm/whatever that an a2a nuke would have? Not the range of the missile so much, but the range of its warhead.
How did the F106 fly compared to the F4 in your opinion, did you ever do dissimilar air combat training vs the F15 in the F4 as well? The deep 6 surprise attacks aside, how did the 106 fare vs the F15 in a VID pass then fight sort of engagement, what were your best options to try and beat the F15 in something like that?
The USN and USMC flew the Kfir (F-21A) as aggressors. There must be some data available on how they compared to Navy and Marine fighters in the 1980s.The Kfir was made with A2G in mind. The more powerful american engine was largely offset by the increase in total weight in comparison to the Mirage IIIc. My guess is that turning permormance suffered. By all accounts it was less pleasant to fly, but had much better A2G capabilities.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/DN-ST-85-08601.jpg)
Have you talked with a pilot who had flown both the Mirage and the F-4? It would be interesting to hear that perspective. I flew both the F-4 and the F-106. Curious about the Mirage comparison in relation to the Six and the Rhino. :salute
I think the F-4 would take the Mirage overall. If I had to chose one or the other I would pick the F-4 any day.
Yeah I guess the EJ sorta counts.The IAF considered the Mirage III the better fighter of the two. The F4 was clearly the better attack plane.
F-4 never got the upgrades it could have had.
Mirage one trick pony meaning one bat turn them it's out of energy. Phantom would eat it alive.
Even the Kfir with more thrust would be in trouble. Deltas are notoriously bad for E retention.
An interesting discussion. :salute
The F-4 is also a delta. Clipped delta with a conventional tail. Same with the Mig-21 for that matter. Most jet fighters are deltas in one configuration or another. The Israelis test flew a captured Mig-21 against its Mirages and found the Mirage superior to the Mig-21 in high speed agility and equal at low speed. Given that the Mig-21 is generally considered more agile than the F-4 I cannot agree with you on the 'one trick pony' characterization. I'm still trying to find some info on how the three Kfir's the USN and USMC leased from Israel performed as aggressors. No luck so far. :salute
Found more Swiss Mirage IIIS pron though from when they were still in service back in the early 2000s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1PYiDIIZ1U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1PYiDIIZ1U
The J-35 would most likely been a tough opponent to the Phantom (and mig-21), Armed with the same missiles as the Phantom and 2x 30 mm cannons. J-35 was also both fast and a very good turner.
The IAF considered the Mirage III the better fighter of the two. The F4 was clearly the better attack plane.
Yiftah Spector was a very colorful and controvertial pilot that flew both and got plenty of kills in both. He was a squadron commander of both. Eventually he also flew F16s and participated in the attack on the Iraqi nuclear plant (a total blunder on his side, but that is just another crazy story of his many).
Some of his exploits are described in this thread, which is in Hebrew and WAY too long for me to translate for you. Scroll down for images from his gun cam of many kills of mig21s in both mirages ans phantoms. The yellow certificates are the official kills confirmations.
https://www.fresh.co.il/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=584112#post4468571
Vraciu, the IAF did operate a modernized Phantoms called "Kurnas 2000" (Hebrew for Sledghamer). It got completely new avionics and a special radar capable of creating images of the ground from very large distances in order to recognize components of the target before attacking. It was still considered an inferior fighter to the other F's, but an excellent attack plane with abilities that F16s and F15s still lacked (no F15E at that time). Kfir was already out of the service by that time. The last two squadrons operated these and closed down around the year 2000.
Simply untrue.
Completely true. The F-4 is a tailed delta with cropped delta wings.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/deltawings.JPG)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/McDONNELL_DOUGLAS_F-4_PHANTOM_II.png)
Yes it is a delta.
F-15 also a cropped delta. F-16 also a cropped delta.
It is a delta.
According to NASA these aircraft have cropped delta wings.
F-15
(https://history.nasa.gov/SP-468/p338b.jpg)
F-16
(https://history.nasa.gov/SP-468/p341.jpg)
The "delta" wing class of aircraft are defined by a triangular shaped wing, with the trailing edge being perpendicular, or near perpendicular to the fuselage. Within the class are slight variants.
Carry on.
Yes they are deltas. You may deny it all you want, but I'm going to take NASA's (and everyone else) word over yours.
Yes they are deltas. You may deny it all you want, but I'm going to take NASA's (and everyone else) word over yours.
The "delta" wing class of aircraft are defined by a triangular shaped wing, with the trailing edge being perpendicular, or near perpendicular to the fuselage. Within the class are slight variants.
Carry on.
Who? David Copperfield?
When the "crowd" are aerodynamicists at NASA I'll go with them rather than some guy on the internet.
The South Koreans operate one of the largest existing F4 fleets, an entire wing of them still, 70+ are still flying in the ROG air force.
Puma - what kind of blast radius or effective range did those Genie nuclear warheads have? How far would 1.5kilo tons of kaboom kill a target like a bomber or even a fighter?
Puma alluded to how important the gun was in those days, that due to the limitations of systems, ROE, the missiles of the time - even the "good" ones - that having a good gun was critical. The Mirage/Kfir/Nesher/etc all had a great gun, the gun cam vids of the IAF blowing up Migs shows that it clearly was very effective. 30mms from an accurate reliable cannon = all kinds of bad news for the opposing Migs of the day.
The Kfir is a good little fighter, but every dog has its day - good and bad. The Daggers that Argentina flew, which is pretty much an early Kfir, got smoked by Harrier fighters, to the tune of 9 to 0 (plus 2 more from AAA/SAMs). The cannon there played zero role in how things worked out, the Aim9L was just too good of a weapon by then, plus the Brits were good pilots as well, as were the Argentines (The Dagger wing badly damaged 6 Royal Navy ships).
The F-4 is not retired as far as I know. It still serves with several modern air forces in secondary roles. Japan, Turkey, Greece at least. Probably more. But you're right a modernized F-4 would be an awesome multi-role fighter-bomber! Imagine the power of the radar you could put in that big nose these days! :x Increased ord carriage and new engines. Would be a poor man's F-15E. Upgraded Kfir is like a poor man's F-16. I wouldn't call it a one trick pony though. Not even the old Mirage III from the 60s. It was a competent attacker as well (why it was later developed into a dedicated ground attack aircraft like the original Kfir).
Pakistani Mirage IIIE and Argentinian Dagger (Israeli made bootleg Mirage III/5) in ground attack configurations:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/PakistanMirageIII112ROSEdroppingBL-.jpg)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/MIII5.jpg)
See Rule #4
The USAF flew and retired its last F-4s at Holloman AFB, NM on 21 December 2016.
NASA itself states clearly: "In fact, the wings of some modern fighter aircraft defy classification as simple delta.... "
And to address your little edit there: NASA defines the F-15's wing as a "modified cropped delta" and the F-16's as a "cropped delta". You're the only person using the word "simplea" in this discussion, which I find very appropriate. :D
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-468/ch11-6.htm
Only some guy who has been at this intimately for half a century.
Ok, I'll bite. In what capacity? What fighters have you flown?
More on topic... I had a civilian sim instructor at Laughlin AFB back in 1995 who went by "Stimpy", and who had the distinction of spinning an F-4 in the break turn, coming up initial. He punched out. Some of the other instructors would give him grief over it and he was a bit touchy about the subject so I never got the full story.
More on topic... I had a civilian sim instructor at Laughlin AFB back in 1995 who went by "Stimpy", and who had the distinction of spinning an F-4 in the break turn, coming up initial. He punched out. Some of the other instructors would give him grief over it and he was a bit touchy about the subject so I never got the full story.
A delta is a triangle.
Eagl, did the conformals on the E have any affect on handling characteristics other than drag?
I like the F-5 as well, maybe not an uber fighter but a really good looking plane. The sleek lines and the delta wing makes the proportions just right.
These are all triangles Vraciu.
(http://www.formsbirds.com/formimg/triangles-calculation-worksheets/17270/calculate-the-area-and-perimeter-of-various-triangles-rotated-triangles-a-l1.png)
A delta wing is a triangle but not necessarily a right triangle. The trailing edge can have some sweep and the tips can be clipped. An ogival delta can even have a curved leading edge which means it isn't even a triangle at all (like the concorde).
Vraciu you're beating a really small drum here. Once again, where exactly is your claimed half-century of expertise in this area that makes you so certain that the only possible planform that can conceivably be called a delta wing is a right triangle with pointy wingtips?
Oh, and all the aviation articles I can find about the F15 suggests it is a modified cropped delta shape with a leading-edge sweepback angle of 45°. Does that sound about right eagl?
Just as an aside, the drag characteristics, of any given wing shape, has nothing to do with it being a "delta" configuration, or not. The definition of the "delta" design has never included any statement as to its flight characteristics.
Carry on.
I've seen it referred to as "trapezoidal" also.
My mistake, the article was talking about the X-15, not F-15.
Every book I can put my hands on defines "delta" wing as a shape with no mention of flight characteristics. I am talking about the definition.
Not true. Pure delta wings are notorious for high drag particularly at lower speeds. This is why they're not used.
The conformal tanks increased pitch authority so we could get a couple more degrees AOA if we wanted it. High drag up at that high AOA made it of limited usefulness except maybe when forced into in a knife fight with a superior performing fighter, in which case the extra pitch authority could be used to try to get a first-shot advantage. That could force the other plane to defend instead of pressing its offensive advantage. That could permit a first shot and a separation attempt in some circumstances. However, if the shot missed or the other pilot didn't flinch, it would leave the F-15E very slow and vulnerable.
The flight control stability rules also had to be modified slightly from the F-15C/D since the CFTs and nav/targeting pods made the F-15E slightly more prone to spins. The modifications made the plane a touch less agile in some areas, but you could still fool the stability system to get it to flip-flop around. Again, this was of limited utility due to lower thrust/weight and extra drag compared to other fighters but could sometimes be useful in a last-ditch scenario or if flying against clearly inferior opponent.
Also, the CFTs and other added airframe weight increased pitch momentum and inertia. So while pitch authority was greater, pitch rate and response was slightly slower sometimes. Again, there were ways to exploit this and make the plane do some unexpected things, but the tactical usefulness of this is limited.
Oh, and all the aviation articles I can find about the F15 suggests it is a modified cropped delta shape with a leading-edge sweepback angle of 45°. Does that sound about right eagl?
Not true. Pure delta wings are notorious for high drag particularly at lower speeds. This is why they're not used.
"not used" = false. Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen all use a delta wing plus canard.
Yes. And the flight characteristics do indeed support the broad general characterization of the wing planform shape as a modified cropped delta.
Every book I can put my hands on defines "delta" wing as a shape with no mention of flight characteristics. I am talking about the definition.
They have low drag in cruise. They have high drag in maneuver and when slow.
My aero engineering class at the USAF academy, and later on courses during fighter pilot training, all contained specific behavioral characteristics that were generally common or similar among pretty much all delta wing designs. The term "delta" wing was applied to any wing ROUGHLY triangular in shape, although a great number of variations such as cranked arrow, ogive delta, clipped delta, etc. were accepted and considered as "delta wings" in general because their performance characteristics were so similar.
Specifically noteworthy were descriptions of how in all of the delta shape variations, the lift generation would SMOOTHLY transition from traditional "airfoil" lift/drag profiles to a profile driven by strong vortices generated from the wing root as AOA increased. While this significantly increased drag, it also dramatically flattened the lift curve, nearly eliminating traditional stalling behavior. While the drag increase could be partially mitigated by features such as a drooped leading edge, combining a delta wing with a traditional horizontal stabilator or canards (lifting, fixed, or free-floating) provides a huge increase in performance and maneuverability. Still, even with a tail or canard, all "delta" style wings (modified, cranked, clipped, whatever) will feature a flat lift curve due to the vortices generated at the wing root.
This is a direct contrast to "swept" wings, which have completely different characteristics at high AOA such as a tendency to tip stall and a much more abrupt "stall" drop-off in lift as AOA is increased.
As for the utterly ignorant statement that a delta wing isn't useful because it has too much drag, take a good look at the B-58 hustler... That's one FAST airplane created with low drag in mind, very well designed for its purpose, and proof positive that a delta wing is sometimes the best (or only) way to achieve performance requirements. That's just as true today as it was 50 years ago.
Come to think of it the F-4 was the first of the jet "heavy fighters" wasn't it. The first member of an exclusive club that includes the F-14, F-15, F-22, Tornado, Mig-25/31, Su-15 and Su-27 (+variants). All other planes in that size category are bombers or perform other missions than air superiority.Yes, heavy and beast come to mind. Pretty much anything that could physically be strapped under the jet could be flown out and dropped on someone's head. One of my favorites was the GBU-10 2,000 lb bomb. Delivered using the Pave Spike system carried on the F-4. A very accurate and powerful weapon.
After looking at various options including rear-firing missiles and twin 30mm cannons, the General Electric T171 (first designation of the M61 Vulcan cannon) 20mm rotary cannon was selected in early 1954. The tail gun of the B-58 boasted many firsts for an aircraft defensive gun including the first fully automatic defensive gun fire control system for a production aircraft, the first aircraft gun unit to use a 3-axis inertially-stabilized platform to increase the gun's accuracy, the first aircraft gun to use a self-contained environmental control unit for the gun and ammunition storage, first aircraft gun to use a solid state analog fire control computer for fire control and the first to use a hinged turret arrangement for maintenance work.
I guess the Mirage 2000 doesn't count either. :rolleyes: As "pure" a delta wing you can get.
For the purposes of this discussion IRT drag "Delta" = Mirage III, Mirage 2000, Mirage 4000, F-102, F-106, etc., not F-4, F-16, F-15, MiG-21, etc.
Gman, while on active duty I met a Colonel who flew the Hustler. He said it would do high Mach (upwards of Mach 2 as I recall) all day long at low altitude. He also mentioned that if it lost an engine at high Mach, the resulting yaw would be catastrophic. When everything was working correctly, it was a joy to fly, according to him.
For the purposes of this discussion IRT drag "Delta" = Mirage III, Mirage 2000, Mirage 4000, F-102, F-106, etc., not F-4, F-16, F-15, MiG-21, etc.
Not true. Pure delta wings are notorious for high drag particularly at lower speeds. This is why they're not used.
Greek Mirage 2000 owning a Turkish F-16C. The "pure" delta-winged Mirage can certainly hang with a Viper.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hLsWKrEAhM
That's just two delta-winged aircraft fighting each other. Tailless delta vs cropped delta.
<snip>
Does that make any sense or are we talking in circles still?
I remember reading that during mock dogfights that pilots could easily tell the F-14's energy state just by looking at the position of the wings. So savvy F-14 pilots would manually change the position of the wings instead of setting it to "auto". Guess it maneuvered decently in delta configuration too (large part of lift was produced by the body of the aircraft iirc).
There is a great book on one of the last F-14 squadrons called "Black Aces High". Details their combat actions during the 99 Serbian air war.
So when your F-106 blew past the F-14s, and they kept on going straight, was the fight over? Considered a draw?
Ever wonder why the Tomcat came into the break with wings swept back?? :evil:Tactical speed up initial, faster roll rate in the break,.......?
I bet Mace knows...
Having read all this, I still have concerns about a Delta style wings performance when taking off from a treadmill. Can it be done or will excessive drag combined with the treadmill speed negate the vortices lift benefits?
Ever wonder why the Tomcat came into the break with wings swept back?? :evil:
I bet Mace knows...
Because it looks cooler. :aok
You sir are correct!! It was the only reason :rock
If you were going to do anything in the Turkey, you had better have looked cool doing it!!!!
Skuzzy,
It's semantics at this point, but the broad approach I was taught dealt with wing design almost like a series of families or categories of wing shapes. Straight unswept without taper would in general behave like *this*, swept would behave like *this*, add taper to the chord and *this* happens, thin the airfoil out towards the tip to address *this* performance drawback which results in *this* other thing... A "delta" wing was merely a roughly triangular shape that would have basic characteristics that were similar and predictable to all "delta" shapes. So you could either pick a generic planform based on the performance characteristics you wanted when you were designing a plane, or if you had an existing design you were trying to test or characterize, you could predict various performance and behavior modes just by looking at the shape and airfoil, and make some assumptions as you started collecting hard data to refine the predictive models, come up with stability augmentation laws, or whatever.
I can look at the planform of any opponent's fighter, and just from looking at the planform view make a good guess as to how I want to fight it, what its good at, and what it sucks at. Without anyone telling me, I can look at a mirage 2000 and know it has one awesome bat-turn that would be deadly at the merge, and it can probably cruise very fast and efficiently with a fairly heavy loadout. But in a sustained turn I can probably out rate it unless I get way too slow as well. The mig-21 has great low speed handling so don't try to win a flat scissors against one, because he can roll faster than I can at low speeds and he can probably get some good AOA to point the nose even when slow, but he'll be bleeding speed fast if he keeps pulling.
Just look at the differences between a spitfire with elliptical wingtips and a cropped-tip spitty. The elliptical planform has very low drag and good handling up to the stall, but the stall almost immediately makes the ailerons useless because of where the flow separation begins on that kind of wing. Crop the tips and you get a completely different (and predictable) set of behaviors in various flight regimes. Adding winglets is another way you can have a very wide variety of wingtip shapes, but they all do things like change the lift distribution across the span and increase loading on the outboard wing, in addition to reducing wingtip vortice drag. The exact shape doesn't matter when considering what ought to happen, you get certain performance changes almost no matter what the actual winglet looks like. The shape DOES matter when you need to know how much things have changed, but only in terms of how much each aero characteristic is changed by the presence or absence of the wingtip device.
And that's because wing shapes can be understood in terms of very broadly defined categories, and you can make a good guess as to how it'll fly in general. Knowing this, you can even predict what happens when the general shape is modified in some way. Like putting swept and cropped wingtips on an F-15 for the area that has the ailerons, you get some behaviors of a delta wing but the wing will have some of the airflow characteristics of a swept wing over just the ailerons and wingtips. They started with a delta wing shape, and modified it to achieve certain behaviors.
Does that make any sense or are we talking in circles still?
Beautiful Phantom video.
https://theaviationist.com/2017/01/25/this-video-will-literally-bring-you-to-the-paradise-of-phantoms/
In 1965 were any of you F4 drivers the ones who would take off from Kelley AFB with your after burners. From all of the boys at Winston Elementary School 3rd grade, we salute you. We lived for your takeoffs to rattle the windows and rumble the floors while we were in class. The B52's were the warmup show. :lol
This was very informative. Are there any flight characteristics based on how high on the fuselage the wings are placed? IE: F-4's are low wing, F-16's are mid wing, and F-15's are high wings.
Indeed, but Vraciu insists that the "pure" delta can't turn worth a damn.
:rofl Go out on a training sortie and completely screw it up by the numbers and it'll get worked out in the debrief. Coming into the pattern and up initial, ya dang well better look good because EVERYONE on base will be watching and critiquing it. Screw that up and look anything other than "way cool" and you'll hear about it for a month. :salute
(http://i906.photobucket.com/albums/ac270/puma44/F-106s/7A7CE08A-6803-4E32-8E05-3A6D643E702F_zpsec4ucyjg.jpg) (http://s906.photobucket.com/user/puma44/media/F-106s/7A7CE08A-6803-4E32-8E05-3A6D643E702F_zpsec4ucyjg.jpg.html)
After mastering the Lightning and Tornado, the RAF’s Ian Black volunteered to fly France’s hottest fighter, the superb Mirage 2000. Black explains what is was like to fly the ultimate Mirage, and how it fared in dogfights against the most formidable fighters of the 1980s. Ian flew the Mirage 2000 from 1993-97.
Is it easy to fly?
“Yes and no. It’s easy to fly once you get the hang of it but the delta wing takes a unique approach to flying – it’s not like a conventional wing. It generates huge amounts of lift but also an enormous amount of drag – great for a ‘Bat Turn’ but you always end low on energy afterwards.
Sustained turn rates (at low/medium and high altitudes)
“Sustained turn was still good, especially at low level where you had sufficient energy to maintain speed.”
Try reading his words here. I'll adjust the font size to help you out:
“Sustained turn was still good (NOT OUTSTANDING), especially at low level where you had sufficient energy to maintain speed.”
Good write-up Eagl! :aok I'd just like to add that there is also a biological limit to how long high-G turns can be sustained. At some point the pilot will have to ease off on the Gs or nature will do it for him.
Unless Vraciu or someone else wants to continue this digression I'd like to end with a superb video I found. These aerial shots are some of the best I've ever seen. Simply stunning!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m15Jd1A5OPU
Excellent point PR3D4TOR. Great video! Thanks!
It appears this dead horse has been beaten to a pulp.
As Eagl said, his best fight against the other guy's worst fight. It is usually the first one to make a mistake that loses the fight, no matter how cosmic a ride he's flying.
"Hamburger is still hamburger, no matter what you wrap it in". :salute
It's great reading these kinds of posts from resident experts (like eagl and puma44) that know what they are talking about and very funny reading posts from people that think they are.
I would have to agree with Ack-Ack. Im not saying that you dont know anything, im sure you know a lot of stuff, but your arguments are basically "Deltas bleed a lot of E when they turn so no Delta wing aircraft can turn very well" and this have been disproved but you are still fighting your fight, without backing it up with anything.
That makes it a bit hard to take your opinions seriously.
See Rule #12
Good lord, it's Duke. Dude!
- oldman
See Rule #12
Still lurking the boards OM :) Don't have the system specs anymore to run AH like I want it to, but keeping up on the changes. Due for an upgrade soon when I can get CINCHOUSE to agree to the budget proposal :bolt:
I'd like to hear from Rhino I believe his name was! I still have a saved story somewhere, he told about his buddy G+13 dropping fuel tanks on Vietnamese boaters during the war :D
Did not know that about the E. I knew the slats, which I believe were a later-run mod, made the airplane turn better but that's good info right there. I didn't fly it just picked the brains of a lot of guys who did. Any errors in translation are mine, not theirs.
Most of the guys I knew flew Bs and Js with a few C and D drivers thrown in. I think one of the Marines I knew flew the S but it was on its way out. Knew a few of the Weasel guys (including one F driver from the GAF) but the mission was different so I never got much of the scoop on the G (converted E).
Did you ever run into Ed Rasimus? Cool dude. Good writer.
Any way, thanks for shedding some light on that machine. Great stuff.
I suspect the Israeli's much better training, proficiency, and well maintained aircraft had a lot to do with it. It would be interesting to see a nose to nose comparison with equally trained and proficient pilots, and maintained aircraft.
On an exercise deployment to Cairo West Air Base in the F-4, I had opportunity to fly a combined four ship low level and dry ground attack with the Egyptian Wing Commander. I graciously and stubbornly agreed to him leading the four ship. Low level was normally flown at 480 knots in the F-4. As we followed in a tactical formation the airspeed was anywhere from 250 to 540 knots. There was never a stabilized airspeed during the 200+ mile low level, not to mention altitude deviations. There was a whole list of others less glaring debriefable items but, you get the picture. We also had opportunity to examine the Egyptian Rhinos. They were in horrible condition, sand blasted from being in the elements, didn't have engine inlet and exhaust covers installed while parked, etc.
Later, at home, a tasker came to send to crews to Cairo West to ferry two Egyptian F-4s to Hill AFB, Utah for PDM. A couple of our younger crews jumped on the opportunity for all that XC time. They're first stop out of Cairo was Torrejon, Spain. Both jets landed with multiple red X write ups (groundable maintenance issues) and were stuck there for two weeks waiting for parts to arrive. They finally arrive at Hill nearly a month later. PDM personnel told our guys they hated seeing Egyptian F-4s show up because of the incredibly poor maintenance or lack there of. Apparently, it was typical for the Egyptian jets to have upwards of 2,000 pounds of sand in the bottom of the engine bays.
Months later, another tasker came down to ferry two more F-4s from Cairo to Hill. Our same two crews jumped on the opportunity. They had the same first stop at Torrejon, multiple red Xs, and were stuck there for a full months because of the severity of maintenance issues. When our guys finally got home, we asked what that did for a whole month in Torrejon. They just grinned.
Payload capacity was the one characteristic where the F-4 truly shined brighter than all others. As a bomb truck it has few rivals.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/e2/e1/ab/e2e1ab427f0c02f0b13a32b4ea151cf9.jpg)
In the same boat. My F-4 era computer was on the cutting edge in its day. Now, it has to load shed a lot of bells and whistles to break even. But, it can still get one good "bat turn" in once in while.
Back to F-4 flight characteristics, then there was the time we deployed eight F-4s to Cairo West from Moody AFB one hot August night. High cruise altitude with all the stuff the mx guys could hang on the external racks, behind two KC-10s, air refueling through the tops of towering cumulus.........12.6 hours logged that night/day/early evening........... :O
....11 ARs before we landed.
Wow! That sounds like a marathon for sure. Most of the ARs
mid atlantic by any chance?
Btw Puma, one of my strongest memories of the 106 was watching a
pair "attack" us during an ORE at Moody. These guys obviously came from
Tyndall, so their idea of mud movng was to come down the runway heading
from S-N at 15 feet in burner.
Was the F4 phantom the only plane to serve both in the Navy and the USAF?
It seems like the two services do not like to adopt each other's aircrafts.
That picture is not complete, it's missing a GPU-5! Ok, we didn't use it long
because it tried to kill one of our Es, but we did mount it.
http://weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/HH13%20-%20GPU-5.html (http://weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/HH13%20-%20GPU-5.html)
Basically a 4 barrelled GAU-8A <A-10 gun>. The recoil was so bad it broke
a bunch of hydraulic lines on one of the first birds we mounted it on. It was
also so fat that the poor weapon load crews had to load it by hand because
we didn't have a loader that would fit under the centerline.
I also saw a picture in a book of an A-7 SLUF carrying two on the wings in
addition to the internal 20mm. Yeah right, fire all those guns at once and you'd
go from a Slow Low Ugly Blanker to a Stopped Low Ugly Blanker :rofl
Was the F4 phantom the only plane to serve both in the Navy and the USAF?
It seems like the two services do not like to adopt each other's aircrafts.
The Skyraider also comes to mind.Thanks, I did not know that. Thought it was only Navy. I need to do some more reading on that beast.
Thanks, I did not know that. Thought it was only Navy. I need to do some more reading on that beast.
I really. love this thread, bringing back fond memories.
Was the F4 phantom the only plane to serve both in the Navy and the USAF?
It seems like the two services do not like to adopt each other's aircrafts.
Well our E models still had tailhooks and folding wingtips And as
Puma can attest it took a long time to hand Jack those wheels off
the tarmac. One of my more nervous moments was helping my
hydraulic buddies do a gear retraction test. The Phantom didn't
seem that tall until it started wiggling around the jacks with
the gear up...whew.
We also didn't have the easy mode hyd for raising the tips either
Imagine 4 guys trying to lift about 400 lbs of wing with their
fingertips about 6-8 inches from the fold point.
I really. love this thread, bringing back fond memories.
Here is a 70th squadron bird with the Euro-One and a target tow at Tyndall AFB.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/F-4E_70_TFS_with_tow_target_at_Tyndall_AFB_1986.JPEG)
Marines also flew skyraiders.
http://s906.photobucket.com/user/puma44/media/F-4s/MePhantomandPhtogr.jpg.html
Me on the left taking an Air Force photographer on an "incentive" ride. We put the Rhino through the wringer. He did really well and didn't spill anything on himself or my jet, in spite of looking through his camera for much of the sortie.
http://s906.photobucket.com/user/puma44/media/F-4s/783765C1-7B00-4EE6-9101-62BBBF7EDC11_zpsscjsvihf.jpg.html
During my 83-84 tour with the 36th Tactical Fighter Squadron, aka "The Fantastic Flying Fiends". This was perhaps the most amazing flying environment on the planet. :x
http://s906.photobucket.com/user/puma44/media/F-4s/4A66D42C-3E3F-4DFE-A236-925A7ABFDF37_zpspcmoromz.jpg.html
An opportunity to pet a defector's MIG that had been flown around the various fighter bases in the ROK for examination.
I know they hate to admit it, but technically attached to
Naval Aviation, no? :P
Know what I like best about Marine aviators? They're very
fun to watch because they don't know what airplanes can't
do :rofl
I know they hate to admit it, but technically attached to
Naval Aviation, no? :P
Know what I like best about Marine aviators? They're very
fun to watch because they don't know what airplanes can't
do :rofl
All those pictures I had of F4's from my day? I lent them to a friend who was going home on leave, hundreds of them, cause he wanted to show his friends, and he ended up going AWOL. I never saw him, or them, again.
Heres a picture of when we were parked at the end of the main runway watching Rhinos, tankers, choppers, spy planes, all coming in a day or two after the embassy was over ran in Tehran in Nov. '77. Carter put us on a war footing but we never went.
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/incirlick-1%20copy_zpsneoza9sl.jpg)
All those pictures I had of F4's from my day? I lent them to a friend who was going home on leave, hundreds of them, cause he wanted to show his friends, and he ended up going AWOL. I never saw him, or them, again.
Heres a picture of when we were parked at the end of the main runway watching Rhinos, tankers, choppers, spy planes, all coming in a day or two after the embassy was over ran in Tehran in Nov. '77. Carter put us on a war footing but we never went.
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/incirlick-1%20copy_zpsneoza9sl.jpg)
And 38 years later on the very last day I carried arms to protect others. Got a little old eh?
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/retire-1_zpswfanm3yb.jpg)
I nominate this for TOTM (Thread Of The Month) January 2017
Cool! Is there a prize? 😉