PDA

View Full Version : A-4 vs mig 17



TheGozr
02-05-2004, 08:14 PM
I'm wondering about that claim that the A-7 was the only U.S. Navy plane that could turn inside a Mig-17. Where did the A-4 stack up?


Everybody always talks about the F-4, because it was the world's #1 supplier of Mig parts. But in turning contests between the A-7 and the A-4, I bet you have to put a few qualifiers on it, to get the A-7 to come out the winner.

From Mr-Bear

-GOZR
"TheMotorheads" All for One and One for All (http://www.french.themotorhead.com/themotorhead_fighters/)

TheGozr
02-05-2004, 08:14 PM
I'm wondering about that claim that the A-7 was the only U.S. Navy plane that could turn inside a Mig-17. Where did the A-4 stack up?


Everybody always talks about the F-4, because it was the world's #1 supplier of Mig parts. But in turning contests between the A-7 and the A-4, I bet you have to put a few qualifiers on it, to get the A-7 to come out the winner.

From Mr-Bear

-GOZR
"TheMotorheads" All for One and One for All (http://www.french.themotorhead.com/themotorhead_fighters/)

RaiderSix
02-05-2004, 11:31 PM
My dad flew the A-7 back in the late sixties and early seventies. I know he never turned with any Migs, but I feel pretty certain that he would call the A-4 a better turner (he also trained in A-4's). He was in VA-46 Clansmen aboard the Kennedy and was bound for Vietnam, but with the Forrestal catching fire, they ended up replacing their patrol in the Mediterranean.

WhiskeyRiver
02-05-2004, 11:53 PM
Are you sure you don't mean the F-8 Crusader? The F-8 and the A-7 look very similar. By all accounts, including a former F-8 pilot I know, it was an excellent dogfighter.

I do know the A-1 Skyraider could out turn a Mig-17 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

SkyChimp
02-06-2004, 05:47 PM
A Navy A-7 got a probable, or a damaged, on a MiG-17 in Vietnam.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

horseback
02-06-2004, 08:54 PM
I once asked a former Scooter driver about why they didn't go air to air with the MiGs, and he said that they weren't trained to go air to air, they didn't get any Sidewinders, and half the time, their cannon weren't loaded. So if MiGs showed up, the A-4s were supposed to scream for the fighters and run like hell.

Besides, he said if any of the attack guys HAD nailed a MiG the VF squadrons on his carrier would have gone into a massive sulk. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

WhiskeyRiver
02-07-2004, 01:35 AM
Remember the #1 rule of War in the Air- "Fighter pilots make headlines. Bomber pilots make History"

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

Platypus_1.JaVA
02-07-2004, 06:54 AM
Uhhh... Lock-on forums?

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again.

<a href="http://www.1java.org">
<img border="0" src="1java.JPG" width="425" height="68">
</a>

Bill_Lester
02-07-2004, 07:50 AM
"Back in the day" of the ASW carriers, the air wings would usually (always?) have a detachment of A-4's wired for AIM-9's. Thus they had something a bit more potent than a Tracker or Seasprite in case a Bear or Badger appeared overhead.

"It seemed as though the only way a Thunderbolt could be shot down was if its pilot were asleep in its comfortable cockpit." Grumman test pilot Corky Meyer

J30Vader
02-07-2004, 08:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
A Navy A-7 got a probable, or a damaged, on a MiG-17 in Vietnam.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An A-1 killed a MiG-17 as well.

Showtime_100
02-07-2004, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A Navy A-7 got a probable, or a damaged, on a MiG-17 in Vietnam.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've never heard any such thing. Try and provide some sort of source and I might believe it.

A USN A-4 bagged a MiG-17 with Zuni rockets. However, this ended up teeing off some of the other pilots because they were wondering if he was saving air-ground ordnance and not doing his job.

Oh, and an A-7 can't turn with a MiG-17.

VAIO Digital Studio‚ô RZ46G Desktop PCV-RZ46G
Pentium 4 3.20 GHz with HT Technology
1GB RAM & 200GB HDD
ATI Radeon 9800 XT 256 AGP

Zyzbot
02-07-2004, 02:00 PM
Here is what I found so far:

1May67 VA-76 A-4C T. Swartz Zuni Rocket MiG-17

10May72 VA-147 A-7B Gorjanec 20mm MiG-17 (Damaged)



http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/cat_index_17.shtml

Showtime_100
02-07-2004, 03:47 PM
Thanks for the link. I see the A-7B claim. I'd love to read up more on the account though. There is so much action on that date, 10 May 72, that I guess you never hear about the A-7 claim. It's not even mentioned in "One Day In A Long War" which deals specifically with 10 May 1972.

VAIO Digital Studio‚ô RZ46G Desktop PCV-RZ46G
Pentium 4 3.20 GHz with HT Technology
1GB RAM & 200GB HDD
ATI Radeon 9800 XT 256 AGP

SkyChimp
02-07-2004, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Showtime_100:

Oh,
and an A-7 can't turn with a MiG-17.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why?

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

02-07-2004, 09:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bill_Lester:
"Back in the day" of the ASW carriers, the air wings would usually (always?) have a detachment of A-4's wired for AIM-9's. Thus they had something a bit more potent than a Tracker or Seasprite in case a Bear or Badger appeared overhead.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Fleet Air Arm used to put AIM-9's on Buccanneers as a backup defense, too.

SkyChimp
02-07-2004, 09:27 PM
With the AIM-9X, you could fly a log and win dogfights. It's the most manueverable dogfight missile in the world at this time with the greatest off-boresight target aquisition capability.

http://www.raytheon.com/products/aim9_x/ref_docs/v2885a.wmv

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Showtime_100
02-08-2004, 12:44 AM
Simply, the A-7 will dissipate speed in a sustained high-G turn and can't regain it like the MiG-17 and thus be able to keep G up. Luckily the MiG-17 has very short legs when it uses its burner...only a couple minutes. That's not to say an A-7 couldn't win, even F-4s fought victoriously against MiG-17s and the MiG-17 did have a few unfavorable traits.

I suspect you are of a different opinion and I'd like to ask you why you think it can turn inside of a MiG-17? I'm always interested in learning more on this period of air-combat.

VAIO Digital Studio‚ô RZ46G Desktop PCV-RZ46G
Pentium 4 3.20 GHz with HT Technology
1GB RAM & 200GB HDD
ATI Radeon 9800 XT 256 AGP

WhiskeyRiver
02-08-2004, 01:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
With the AIM-9X, you could fly a log and win dogfights. It's the most manueverable dogfight missile in the world at this time with the greatest off-boresight target aquisition capability.

http://www.raytheon.com/products/aim9_x/ref_docs/v2885a.wmv

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chimp, my vote goes to the Python4. I doesn't lose mmaneuverability once the motor burns out. I think the -9X's seeker head is better though. Oh and of course Raytheon is going to sya it's the best. Does GM put on their website "Although the Cavalier is inferior in almost every way to foreign made small cars we still think you should buy one because we made muscle cars once"?

Don't get me wrong. I think the AIM-9X is a superb missile.It's certainly head and shoulders above the Archer and ASRAAM.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

Bill_Lester
02-08-2004, 04:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Showtime_100:
...even F-4s fought victoriously against MiG-17s and the MiG-17 did have a few unfavorable traits.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Even F-4s?"

EVEN F-4s?!

Surely your choice of wording was in error, or perhaps in jest. Because everyone knows the Phabulous Phantom was and remains the world's largest distributor of MiG parts. Even with the absurd rules of engagement imposed on aircrews during the Vietnam War, the FRESCO was no match for the Phantom in anything but the most favorable of circumstances for the 17. Heck, the bomb-carrying F-105's accounted for something like 20-25 confirmed kills over the MiG-17.

"It seemed as though the only way a Thunderbolt could be shot down was if its pilot were asleep in its comfortable cockpit." Grumman test pilot Corky Meyer

[This message was edited by Bill_Lester on Sun February 08 2004 at 06:42 AM.]

Showtime_100
02-08-2004, 10:28 AM
Nope, no misswording and it was not in jest. The F-4 cannot turn with a MiG-17 but it does have strengths to which the MiG-17 cannot compete. Hellcats and Corsairs killed plenty of Zekes too which evidences that it's not just the tighter turning aircraft that is guaranteed a win.

VAIO Digital Studio‚ô RZ46G Desktop PCV-RZ46G
Pentium 4 3.20 GHz with HT Technology
1GB RAM & 200GB HDD
ATI Radeon 9800 XT 256 AGP

Bill_Lester
02-08-2004, 10:40 AM
At no point in your previous post did you say anything about the turning radius of the F-4 vs. the MiG-17. If you had, there would not have been any confusion of your intent.

"It seemed as though the only way a Thunderbolt could be shot down was if its pilot were asleep in its comfortable cockpit." Grumman test pilot Corky Meyer

Bremspropeller
02-08-2004, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
With the AIM-9X, you could fly a log and win dogfights. It's the most manueverable dogfight missile in the world at this time with the greatest off-boresight target aquisition capability.

http://www.raytheon.com/products/aim9_x/ref_docs/v2885a.wmv

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Wrong, so is the european IRIS-T. AIM-9X next best thing availiable to the IRIS-T.

Guess you haven't heard of it yet http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

Bremspropeller
02-08-2004, 12:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bill_Lester:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Showtime_100:
...even F-4s fought victoriously against MiG-17s and the MiG-17 did have a few unfavorable traits.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Even F-4s?"

__EVEN__ F-4s?!

Surely your choice of wording was in error, or perhaps in jest. Because everyone knows the Phabulous Phantom was and remains the world's largest distributor of MiG parts. Even with the absurd rules of engagement imposed on aircrews during the Vietnam War, the FRESCO was no match for the Phantom in anything but the most favorable of circumstances for the 17. Heck, the bomb-carrying F-105's accounted for something like 20-25 confirmed kills over the MiG-17.

"It seemed as though the only way a Thunderbolt could be shot down was if its pilot were asleep in its comfortable cockpit." Grumman test pilot Corky Meyer

[This message was edited by Bill_Lester on Sun February 08 2004 at 06:42 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


LoL how many F-105s got shot down by MiG-17s ?

I've read that 50% of the USAF's F-105 inventory got lost in the skies of northern Vietnam.
USAF crews bere better trained, but that was all the victories were about.

"Duke" Cunningham's "three in a day" were not such impressive at all - this guy had a damn good amount of luck.



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

Zyzbot
02-08-2004, 01:02 PM
__"
LoL how many F-105s got shot down by MiG-17s ?

I've read that 50% of the USAF's F-105 inventory got lost in the skies of northern Vietnam.
USAF crews bere better trained, but that was all the victories were about.

"Duke" Cunningham's "three in a day" were not such impressive at all - this guy had a damn good amount of luck.



[/QUOTE]


F-105 aircraft were bombers not fighters. Even so...F-105's shot down more Mig 17s than Mig 17's shot down F-105's.

As for Cunningham...A certain amount of luck is always involved in air combat...but he made some of his own that day.

Bill_Lester
02-08-2004, 01:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
LoL how many F-105s got shot down by MiG-17s ?

I've read that 50% of the USAF's F-105 inventory got lost in the skies of northern Vietnam. USAF crews bere better trained, but that was all the victories were about.

"Duke" Cunningham's "three in a day" were not such impressive at all - this guy had a damn good amount of luck.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently you haven't read enough about Vietnam. The VAST majority of losses, regardless of a/c type, were to AAA and SAMs. About the best the MiG-17 could do against the Thuderchief was to force early ejection of the bombs before target. Whereupon a world of hurt was unleashed on the FRESCO pilots.

I won't even comment on your observations of Randy Cunningham's victories...

"It seemed as though the only way a Thunderbolt could be shot down was if its pilot were asleep in its comfortable cockpit." Grumman test pilot Corky Meyer

[This message was edited by Bill_Lester on Sun February 08 2004 at 12:57 PM.]

Zyzbot
02-08-2004, 01:06 PM
A quick search found:

32 Mig 17's shot down by F-105

23 F-105's shot down by Mig 17.

SkyChimp
02-08-2004, 01:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

LoL how many F-105s got shot down by MiG-17s ?

I've read that 50% of the USAF's F-105 inventory got lost in the skies of northern Vietnam.
USAF crews bere better trained, but that was all the victories were about.


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All lost to MiGs? I suppose you never heard of AAA?

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
02-08-2004, 01:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

Wrong, so is the european IRIS-T. AIM-9X next best thing availiable to the IRIS-T.

Guess you haven't heard of it yet http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I've heard of it. I subscribe to Janes, too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

The IRIS-T doesn't have anything on the AIM-9X. In fact, this newest European missile is just now catching up to the capabilities of the AIM-9X.

The IRIS-T promises to be everything the AIM-9X already is. 90 degree off boresight capability, vector thrust, IR seeker, capability to engage aircraft to the rear of the lauching aircraft...etc...

Should be a great addition to the Eurofighter. Especially since some countries' models no longer have a gun.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
02-08-2004, 01:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Showtime_100:
Simply, the A-7 will dissipate speed in a sustained high-G turn and can't regain it like the MiG-17 and thus be able to keep G up... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I agree the A-7 would have difficulty "turning with" the MiG-17.

A-7 had a thrust to weight ratio of 1:1.72
Wing loading was 68.89 lbs/sq ft.
This is at a typticl weight of about 26,000 lbs.

MiG-17 had a thrust to weight ratio of 1:1.74 (with after-burner).
Wing loading was much better at 40.94 lbs/sq ft.

And you are also correct, the A-7 could certainly win again an MiG-17. Even the A-1 could win against a MiG-17 under the right circumstances.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Bill_Lester
02-08-2004, 01:57 PM
Postscript

My handiest reference, Rene J. Francillon's Vietnam: The War in the Air, has the USAF losing a total of 62 fixed wing a/c to MiGs in SE Asia from 1965-73. Twenty-three were F-105's. There is no breakdown of which MiG's acheived the kills.

"It seemed as though the only way a Thunderbolt could be shot down was if its pilot were asleep in its comfortable cockpit." Grumman test pilot Corky Meyer

[This message was edited by Bill_Lester on Sun February 08 2004 at 01:07 PM.]

Bremspropeller
02-08-2004, 02:50 PM
Hmm, as we can read above, 23 Thunderchiefs were lost to Frescos..

Pretty good for an a/c that could only "force the 105 to drop it's bombs before target" -&gt; success for the MiGs anyway (emerg. release means to come back another day..)

I know that AAA and SAM were possibly much more dangerous than the MiG (at least after the Topgun training).


And as for Cunningham: sure, any "ace" had his (her) lucky missions, but he was made a "hero" for nothing but having had luck. The way he describes his famous mission (10th may 1972) makes me raise my eyebrows - he really danced with the trouble - not too good for any fighter-pilot at all.


I think that Steve Ritchie might be the "better" ace to tell about http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

Bill_Lester
02-08-2004, 03:11 PM
Well this looks like another chapter in the bash US aircraft saga... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

As noted above, 32 MiGs confirmed by the 105.
A huge, heavy, small-winged bomber! How does that show anything remotely supportive of the FRESCO as more than an also-ran?

"It seemed as though the only way a Thunderbolt could be shot down was if its pilot were asleep in its comfortable cockpit." Grumman test pilot Corky Meyer

[This message was edited by Bill_Lester on Sun February 08 2004 at 02:24 PM.]

Zyzbot
02-08-2004, 03:22 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bill_Lester:
_Postscript_

My handiest reference, Rene J. Francillon's Vietnam: The War in the Air, has the USAF losing a total of 62 fixed wing a/c to MiGs in SE Asia from 1965-73. Twenty-three were F-105's. There is no breakdown of which MiG's acheived the kills.


____________________________________________
This link has a breakdown of kills, claims, and "friendly fire" by aircraft types.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/cat_index_17.shtml

Showtime_100
02-08-2004, 04:40 PM
I'm actually new here having just bought Forgotten Battles on Thurs and having just found this msg board the other day though I signed up over at the LOMAC forum a while back. (Though I'm a bit dissapointed in LOMAC.)

Mr. Lester, I'm sorry I didn't word things clearly enough for you but the whole topic is what can turn inside a MiG-17. And the my sentence following what you quoted actually touches directly upon that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hmm, as we can read above, 23 Thunderchiefs were lost to Frescos.. -Brems<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, not bad at all for seven years of war where you get to dictate the engagement. Again, though the MiG-17 may be more maneuverable than most US aircraft, that isn't always the determining factor to victory. What's amazing is that the MiGs were able to set up the time, place and situation for air combat against heavily laden aircraft toting bombs and yet still lost so many aircraft. And though MiGs were typically up against more aircraft in gross, most were bombers and fighter vs fighter many times was similar (especially during the early years of Rolling Thunder.)
I'm not sure what your point or relevence to this conversation your Cunningham comment has. I'll strongly disagree, but then I know more on the subject than you.

VAIO Digital Studio‚ô RZ46G Desktop PCV-RZ46G
Pentium 4 3.20 GHz with HT Technology
1GB RAM & 200GB HDD
ATI Radeon 9800 XT 256 AGP

Bill_Lester
02-08-2004, 05:05 PM
One can only hope your "personal" knowledge of the subject is greater than your use of the English language.

"It seemed as though the only way a Thunderbolt could be shot down was if its pilot were asleep in its comfortable cockpit." Grumman test pilot Corky Meyer

Showtime_100
02-08-2004, 08:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>At no point in your previous post did you say anything about the turning radius of the F-4 vs. the MiG-17. If you had, there would not have been any confusion of your intent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>One can only hope your "personal" knowledge of the subject is greater than your use of the English language. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dude, what is your problem? You are wrong. I didn't want to really get into this but you keep riding this subject. If you can follow the thread, it would be clear. Snippets from the thread:
Me: "Oh, and an A-7 can't turn with a MiG-17."
Respondent: "Why?"
Me: Simply, the A-7 will dissipate speed in a sustained high-G turn and can't regain it like the MiG-17 and thus be able to keep G up. Luckily the MiG-17 has very short legs when it uses its burner...only a couple minutes. That's not to say an A-7 couldn't win, even F-4s fought victoriously against MiG-17s and the MiG-17 did have a few unfavorable traits. I suspect you are of a different opinion and I'd like to ask you why you think it can turn inside of a MiG-17? I'm always interested in learning more on this period of air-combat."
Some Idiot: "Surely your choice of wording was in error, or perhaps in jest."

Why are you riding me? I was very clear. Do you find it necessary to find any small battle and be incessant about it? I'm actually a huge F-4 phan and there was no disrespect in what I said. In fact, until recently, I've actually been a long time member of the F-4 Phantom II Society/Smoketrails. Yes, even the F-4 Phantom was victorious over the MiG-17...even the F-8 Crusader and F-105 were victorious over the MiG-17. Is this statement going to send you ballistic too?

Do you know where the term "largets supplier of MiG spare parts" even came from? Bob Hope on a USO tour.

VAIO Digital Studio‚ô RZ46G Desktop PCV-RZ46G
Pentium 4 3.20 GHz with HT Technology
1GB RAM & 200GB HDD
ATI Radeon 9800 XT 256 AGP

SkyChimp
02-08-2004, 09:21 PM
What the F-4 lacked in its ability to turn with the MiG-17, it made up for in its ability to significantly out-climb and out-speed it. In the event that the MiG was fortunate enough to survive a missile attack, it would find itself in the unenviable position of fighting a plane that was very much faster and had a huge climb-rate advantage - assuming it was a gun-armed version of the F-4.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Bremspropeller
02-09-2004, 06:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bill_Lester:
One can only hope your "personal" knowledge of the subject is greater than your use of the English language.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Before insulting others about their english-abilities, try to speak their native language better than them speaking english...



@ Sky Chimp: Yes, the Phantom always had the B&Z advantage, but thinking of IR-guided SAMs, I'd rather not engage the A/Bs in order to run...



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

Zayets
02-09-2004, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
With the AIM-9X, you could fly a log and win dogfights. It's the most manueverable dogfight missile in the world at this time with the greatest off-boresight target aquisition capability.

http://www.raytheon.com/products/aim9_x/ref_docs/v2885a.wmv

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, I suggest you to visit frugals,lomac,sfp1 forums to find out what's the most maneuvrable missile in the world. AIM9x is a great CAC missile ,but not the mos maneuvrable one in the world.Check your sources. Visit also acig.org if you want confirmations as well.

Zayets out
http://server5.uploadit.org/files/Zayets-iar80pic.jpg

Bill_Lester
02-09-2004, 10:51 AM
Showtime,

You weren't clear. You may believe that you were, but that's not how it read. Words and syntax mean things. Wisely chose them. The same can be said for insults like "Some idiot." Words like that are easy to use over the Internet. I sincerely doubt you'd have the stones to do so face-to-face.



Bremspropeller,

My comment on English was not aimed at you. It was intended for Showtime_100, who is almost certainly American. If you believed otherwise, I extend my apologies.

"It seemed as though the only way a Thunderbolt could be shot down was if its pilot were asleep in its comfortable cockpit." Grumman test pilot Corky Meyer

ZG77_Nagual
02-09-2004, 11:09 AM
super crusader (http://www.cloudnet.com/~djohnson/superf8.htm)

Highest kill ratio

F8 kills (http://www.cloudnet.com/~djohnson/migmstrs.html)

This is the beast that lost out to the phantom. Read a few accounts and you'll see which one the pilots liked best! In fact - I read one account of pilot who preferred the f104 to the phantom. the phantom was not particularly a dog-fighter - no doubt however it was pretty good for strapping things onto the bottom of. The Navy wanted two motors.

Everyone should remember that the Vietnam era was rife with propoganda.

We should also be talking about the mig19 and 21.

Bremspropeller
02-09-2004, 11:45 AM
I forgive you Bill http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


BTW: totally forgot about the Crusader...IMHO the coolest US fighter by that time. Second is the Skyhawk tho' it's no fighter, but one Scooter got a MiG with a ZUNI http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

Showtime_100
02-09-2004, 11:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You weren't clear. You may believe that you were, but that's not how it read. Words and syntax mean things. Wisely chose them. The same can be said for insults like "Some idiot." Words like that are easy to use over the Internet. I sincerely doubt you'd have the stones to do so face-to-face. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure I would. Show me your face and I'll call you an idiot and up the anty with "******." No one else is getting his panties in a wad over my wording nor is anyone else even complaining that he misunderstood. And big whoop if *you* didn't understand, are you the Grammar Police? It wasn't written for you anyway.

"Choose" has two o's.

VAIO Digital Studio‚ô RZ46G Desktop PCV-RZ46G
Pentium 4 3.20 GHz with HT Technology
1GB RAM & 200GB HDD
ATI Radeon 9800 XT 256 AGP

ZG77_Nagual
02-09-2004, 12:20 PM
Just for an 'outsiders' perspective.

Mr. Lester - it is your tone that appears to be dictating the rules of engagement here. Your the one first to get personal and it just looks silly.

Nothing is more absurd than starting a fist-fight over the internet - except maybe sex over the internet..

jung0l
02-09-2004, 01:52 PM
Alright, first off, the F-105 was not a bomber, but a penetration fighter-bomber(yes theres a difference) with limited nuclear capability. according to Col Jack Broughton, USAF, none of the Soviet Pact ac (MiG-17,-19,-21) could handle it on the deck, low level, where it was designed to perform. And of course we already know F-4's could outpower these ac up high. But the main thing to keep in mind about the Vietnam air war was that u had a severly restricted top notch air force using machines for tasks they were not optimized for against a third rate air force learning to use aircraft that if properly handled could have caused much more significent losses than we had.

Col Broughton stated in his books "Thud Ridge" and "Going Downtown"(excellant air combat reading, especially "Thud Ridge"), that USAF strike packages were so routine using the same routes at the same time everyday that it was a wonder that the MiG-21's didn't devise a foolproof pattern to stop them. By taking away the flexibility of the 105's and using them like WW2 bomber formations, they were made exceptionally vulnerable. He even stated that if he had been North Vietnamese air commander, he would enjoyed setting up these formations for such a high attrition rate, they would have probably called off Rolling Thunder.

He also made clear that had Soviet pilots been flying those same aircraft, in 1967 with the US tactics at the time, they would have handed our butts to us. The right MiG-21 pilots would have occupied the Phantoms, leaving the -17's and -19's to tear up the Thuds.....

I'm just saying...we can't go along aways saying we're untouchable as far as military equipment goes just because we beat up third world countries. Our advantages in training and experience has a lot more to do with these victories. I love F-4's too, but they were not designed as Air Superiority Fighters, so occasionally a 17 could get the best of one in a bad sitution, since they were definately considered one of the most maneuverable fighters in those skies. But oddly enough, Broughton said that the F104's and F-106's with M61's would have given any Mig flying there all it could handle and then some, but the USAF rather stick the F-4's. Just my 2 cents.

P.S. I highly recommend those two books for anybody interested in the Vietnam Air War. "Thud Ridge" was written directly from his personal tape recordings in his cockpit DURING the battles, and "Going Downtown" pretty much covers his entire fighter pilot experience from P-47's at the very end of WW2, through F-84's in Korea, to leading the Thunderbirds in the 50's, and his impressions of every Airforce bird he flew along to way, as well recounting his Vietnam experience from different perpective. Good reading.


oh and couldn't tell ya if A-7 could outturn 17....could the F-8 Crusader?

J30Vader
02-09-2004, 04:03 PM
Also: Fast Movers, On Yankee Station, and Alpha Strike Vietnam. The last has the stories of The Migs shot down by attack aircraft.

DaBallz
02-09-2004, 04:07 PM
If the A-4 were used as a fighter I would think it is
a nearly perfect match for a Mig-17.
That's with the same guns and missles of course.
The Vought Crusader was the best of it's era
and should have been phased out in the 80's
not the 60's.

As to the turning of a F-104 or F-106.
Both turned a lot better than you can imagine.
The F-106 had a reputation at the Red Flag
school, at 600knots it could out turn
anything except an F-102, and could out run most
of them easily.

the F-104 got a bad rap for it's tendency to
go into unrecoverable spins when spiraling.
"Inertial coupling" was blamed. But it was
really caused by the wake/shock waves from the wing
getting into the way of the horizontal stabilizer.
When that happened the tail tried to pass the nose.....
F-104's could turn like blazes at high speeds
and had tremendous power to weight to allow
good sustained turns.
Add to that it was small and hard to see.
Great potential wasted in Vietnam, Mig-21s would
have been run ragged by F-104s. As it was
no F-104 and Mig-21 engagement happend.

da...

Showtime_100
02-09-2004, 04:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Fast Movers, On Yankee Station, and Alpha Strike Vietnam. -Vader<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
On Yankee Station is pretty much my favorite in this category. Alpha Stike is very good as well and is written on a more personal level from accounts of differing pilots. As far as individual dogfight stories, I don't think you can go wrong with Drendel's "...And Kill MiGs." And then a good analysis of tactics and equipment would have to fall to "Clashes." The last one though, I can see he's taken things almost verbatim from many of the CHECO reports available. But On Yankee Station has to be my favorite reading.

I'd love to see a Vietnam sim! F-4s, F-8s and MiG-17s!!!!

VAIO Digital Studio‚ô RZ46G Desktop PCV-RZ46G
Pentium 4 3.20 GHz with HT Technology
1GB RAM & 200GB HDD
ATI Radeon 9800 XT 256 AGP

Zyzbot
02-09-2004, 04:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:

F-104's could turn like blazes at high speeds
and had tremendous power to weight to allow
good sustained turns.
Add to that it was small and hard to see.
Great potential wasted in Vietnam, Mig-21s would
have been run ragged by F-104s. As it was
no F-104 and Mig-21 engagement happend.

da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

________________________________________________
Some comments from an F-104 pilot on how to fight with it:


"What always struck me about the aircraft was the way it could accelerate in a zero-G bunt. It seemed like it could jump from 250 to 550 in about 20 seconds. It was certainly fast enough so one had to hold the pitch trim button forward and yet still apply pressure to maintain zero-G for the unloaded accel.

Fighting the bird entailed two tactics; the deep six zoom attack with the AIM-9B and the gun pass followed by a vertical zoom and reattack at 600+. Get a radar lock-on and try for a high angle deflection shot on the planform of the bogey. The instant the gunsight was saturated - could no longer track - quarter roll wings level and zoom vertical again.

It was not uncommon to belly up through 50000 on the reattack. NO ONE could follow us in these maneuvers. Certainly not an F-4. An F-15 could, but they weren't around yet. After the second pass the F-4 was all out of airspeed. The 6 was in the same boat; it lost speed fast when it started pulling G. We could spiral climb away from them and when they paid off split ess back onto their tail. "

Showtime_100
02-09-2004, 04:19 PM
Ahh, a good post snuck in just seconds before I submitted mine. From what I've heard, the F-86D (Sabre Dog) makes a very good MiG-17 substitute and the F-106 a good MiG-21 substitute in regards to performance.

As to reading about comparisons between F-8 and F-4s with MiG 17s and 21s, "Scream Of Eagles" gets into the Have Doughnut program where the military acquired some Egyptian MiGs during the Vietnam War and wrung them out. Or just get that report, which I've never seen and now that I think of it, I should contact the National Archives to see if it's available. I'd surely like that one.

Zyzbot
02-09-2004, 04:32 PM
Didn't the Top Gun program use the A-4 to simulate the Mig-17? I seem to recall seeing a photo of an A-4 that was painted to look like a Mig..sort of had a Mig 17 planform painted on it.

Zyzbot
02-09-2004, 04:38 PM
Ah...here it is:

http://www.jpsmodell.de/dc/shemes/a4e_agg04.jpg

Showtime_100
02-09-2004, 05:05 PM
Yes, they did. As well as F-5 and F-16N and even other Tomcats. I was just recounting what I'd heard as matching the MiG-17 and MiG-21 closest in performance. I wouldn't bet my life on the knowledge as it's not firsthand account. The USN didn't have a lot of F-86s nor 106s when Topgun first began. ;-) The A-4 and F-5 worked very well for mimicking the -17 and -21 though.

;-) = sarcasm in the preceeding sentence. Just in case someone is going to get bent out of shape he didn't understand what I was getting at.

VAIO Digital Studio‚ô RZ46G Desktop PCV-RZ46G
Pentium 4 3.20 GHz with HT Technology
1GB RAM & 200GB HDD
ATI Radeon 9800 XT 256 AGP

SkyChimp
02-09-2004, 08:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zayets:
well, I suggest you to visit frugals,lomac,sfp1 forums to find out what's the most maneuvrable missile in the world. AIM9x is a great CAC missile ,but not the mos maneuvrable one in the world.Check your sources. Visit also acig.org if you want confirmations as well.

Zayets out
http://server5.uploadit.org/files/Zayets-iar80pic.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I certainly won't visit a game website for confirmation as to which missile is most manueverable.

Up until the deployment of the AIM-9X, the Russian R-73 was regarded as one of, it not the most, manueverable ata missile. That has been exceeded by a significant margin by the AIM-9X, according to credible sources such as Janes. AFAIK, the AIM-9X, which is also compatible with the American a HMD systen, has a greater off-boresight capability, and the capability of attacking pursuing aircraft, in addition to its extended burn motor and vector thrust which gives it hypermanueverability. But the full extent of the capabilities of this missile are not necessarily available to the public.

What I do find rather funny are the assertions on boards that folks know the full extent of capabilties of current US missiles, such as the AARAM. Short of being on the design team, I'm not sure anyone outside the services that use them really know.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

horseback
02-09-2004, 09:35 PM
As a long time employee of a major US defense contractor, I can only say that Skychimp is on to something. As they say in New York, "does Macy tell Gimbels?"( or something like that)

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

WhiskeyRiver
02-09-2004, 10:02 PM
Regarding the F-4:
It was conceived as a BARCAP(Barrier Combat Air Patrol) aircraft. It's job was to intercept Soviet land based bombers before they were able to attack the carrier task force. Dogfighting was not in it's resume. Design priorities were high speed, fast climb, big radar, and lots of missiles.

It was only later that the ground attack role was added.

The best Navy dogfighter of the era was the F-8 Crusader. It's only drawback was it's lack of AIM-7 Sparrow capability. It was armed with radar and infrared guided sidewinders though. Crusaders served with the French Navy into the 80's.

BTW, Israeli A-4 Skyhawks dusted Egyptian and Syrian Migs (19's,17's, 21's and 23's IIRC).

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

HarryVoyager
02-09-2004, 11:18 PM
I'm told that the F-105 could even give an F-15 a run for its money when it had to. Apparently there was a funny incident where some Air Force pilots in brand new F-15's ran into a group of National Guard F-105's and decided to have some fun bouncing them.

The engagment must have lasted a whole fifteen seconds, before the Thuds simply dropped to the deck, and disappeared.

That plane could really eat up runway though. I'm told that there was a joke: build a runway big enough, and Republic will build you a jet for it.

Harry Voyager

WhiskeyRiver
02-10-2004, 03:40 AM
You are dead on about the Thud Harry. It's small wing and big power made it extremely fast down on the deck. The low wingloading of the F-15 (except the E) gives it very poor gust response. at high speeds down on the deck it, according to an Eagle driver I met, will make your eyes water. Chasing Thuds down in the weeds is definitely not it's strong point.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

Zyzbot
02-10-2004, 06:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HarryVoyager:
I'm told that the F-105 could even give an F-15 a run for its money when it had to. Apparently there was a funny incident where some Air Force pilots in brand new F-15's ran into a group of National Guard F-105's and decided to have some fun bouncing them.

The engagment must have lasted a whole fifteen seconds, before the Thuds simply dropped to the deck, and disappeared.

That plane could really eat up runway though. I'm told that there was a joke: build a runway big enough, and Republic will build you a jet for it.

Harry Voyager<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Sounds to me more like the F-15's won that one. Running away doesn't complete the mission. I guess it is all in how you look at it.

jeroen_R90S
02-10-2004, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WhiskeyRiver:

{snippetysnap}
The best Navy dogfighter of the era was the F-8 Crusader. It's only drawback was it's lack of AIM-7 Sparrow capability. It was armed with radar and infrared guided sidewinders though. Crusaders served with the French Navy into the 80's.
{snippetysnap}<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In to the 80s? The last French F-8 was retired just before the millennium. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I've seen one at an airshow once, very impressive although, like the Portuges A-7 it stood next to, did not give a display.

Some small background info:
http://frenchnavy.free.fr/aircraft/crusader/crusader.htm

Jeroen

LilHorse
02-10-2004, 10:36 AM
Just a quick question on something mentioned in passing. Weren't there two A2A victories for Skyraiders against MiGs? Or was one of those against another a/c?

Zyzbot
02-10-2004, 12:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
Just a quick question on something mentioned in passing. Weren't there two A2A victories for Skyraiders against MiGs? Or was one of those against another a/c?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes...click on this link and look around at the kills for the vietnam era. You'll find some A-1 kills against migs as well as B-52 tail gunner kills against Migs. There are also some "kills" listed for unmanned drones that caused Migs to crash!

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/cat_index_17.shtml

LilHorse
02-10-2004, 01:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zyzbot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
Just a quick question on something mentioned in passing. Weren't there two A2A victories for Skyraiders against MiGs? Or was one of those against another a/c?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes...click on this link and look around at the kills for the vietnam era. You'll find some A-1 kills against migs as well as B-52 tail gunner kills against Migs. There are also some "kills" listed for unmanned drones that caused Migs to crash!

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/cat_index_17.shtml<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cool! It was three MiG-17 kills for Skyraiders. Hooray! The props get their props!

roachclip
02-10-2004, 01:25 PM
In the '50s the RCAF in Sabre 5s and 6s had lots of fun in Europe bouncing French, British and American a/c.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif