Re: [CombatAircraft] Flight Magazine F16/F18 feature
- Ben and Max
Great ideas and a good report from each of you.
Commentary included in text following.
Great commentary on the B58s 20mm, and such a beautiful
aircraft, one is tempted to try and imagine how that
aircraft might perform with today's technology, and
contemporary propulsion systems. Be reminded that a lightly
loaded B58 could out climb an F4B !
I sure wish that I had been able to see the B58 when it was in service, I
have never even seen one as a gate guard and I like to think I have seen the
elephant, the YB71 when it was at the climatic lab at Eglin. The B58 was in
service when I was a kid but I was never near where they were unfortunately.
I tend to agree with folks about the rear facing cannon or some other rear
facing defensive weapon it is needed. Perhaps not on a fighter type of
aircraft but on a bomber the have their uses I am sure.
Although we have "all aspect" missiles these days, I still
wonder why a rearward firing gun is not incorporated in
advanced air superiority fighters like the F22 is supposed
Perhaps the new sidewinder (AIM 9X) is supposed to take the place of such an
item and fulfill that role. I saw an awesome movie short on this missile a
while back. Truly awesome and a bit unbelievable in it's capability. I
understand that it may have a problem with wingmen becoming targets any info
I'll cut it short there, as these threads are best handled
in shorter segments.
>of the rearward traveling 20mm shell from the Vulcan
> cannon and you can imagineWhy not it worked for Clint Eastwood in Firefox.
> what the impact would be! I think it's a bit of
> disinformation on the part of
> the USAF because they don't want to know how effective
> this defensive
> armament was and because they're still mesmerized by
> missiles and don't really like
> Today if I were designing a deep strike aircraft I would
> put a cannon stinger
> in it's tail but also dispensers for "aerial-mines" to be
> dropped into the
> path of any rearward attacking interceptor!
> Happy Landing!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Half Assed Astronaut" <max_g_cunningham@...>
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [CombatAircraft] Flight Magazine F16/F18 feature
> --- Benscan@... wrote:
> > Hey Max,
> > TF-30s are no problem. And even the Navy aircrews who fly
> > the earlier TF-30
> > engined Tomcats say that improvements have made them very
> > reliable.
> Thanks for the reply Ben,
> I hope that I've been around here and contributed enough at
> this stage to establish myself as a fairly serious student
> on this topic. Albeit a lousy speller, and typist.
> Having said that, I'd like to add, and taking just a
> little expeception to your depiction of TF-30 engine users
> as, and taking the liberty to paraphrase, (all living
> happily ever after).
> Even the most ardent F14 advocates, and I include myself,
> but from Admiral Guilchrist on down, start as thier
> departure point in thier pro-F14 arugments by saying
> the F14 airframe & TF30 engine combination was one of the
> most distasterous in modern military aviation, bar none.
> Consider that the effort and expendature on fixing the
> TF30, particuarly for the F14, over the many years, adds
> upto far more than it would have cost to re-equip the fleet
> with an adapation of the F100 core engine, in the form of
> the 401, wich was successfully tested.
> Add to that, the losses in actual airframes, and
> furthermore the very real, ultimate costs, and sacrifice,
> in human suffing and misery, for the families of F14
> pilots, and RIOs, who never came home,,.
> Moreover, I strongly believe that ultimately, it was the
> TF30 and that reputation that ultimately killed the F14,
> and all of it's future development potential and
> incarnations, period.
> Great commentary on the B58s 20mm, and such a beutifull
> aircraft, one is tempted to try and imagine how that
> aircraft might perform with todays technology, and
> contemporay propultion systems. Be reminded that a lightly
> loaded B58 could out climb an F4B !
> Although we have "all aspect" missles these days, I still
> wonder why a rearward firing gun is not incorporated in
> advanced air superority fighters like the F22 is supposed
> to be.
> I'll cut it short there, as these threads are best handled
> in shorter segments.
> of the reaward travelling 20mm shell from the Vulcan
> > cannon and you can imagine
> > what the impact would be! I think it's a bit of
> > disinformation on the part of
> > the USAF because they don't want to know how effective
> > this defensive
> > armament was and because they're still mesmorized by
> > missiles and don't really like
> > cannons.
> > Today if I were designing a deep strike aircraft I would
> > put a cannon stinger
> > in it's tail but also despensers for "aerial-mines" to be
> > dropped into the
> > path of any reaward attacking interceptor!
> > Happy Landing!
> > Ben
> > In a message dated 5/26/03 1:22:29 PM Eastern Daylight
> > Time,
> > max_g_cunningham@... writes:
> > > That's a good point about the 111, weapons stores on
> > the
> > > wings, I had forgotten that fact.
> > >
> > > Another issue with the engines was they wern't really
> > > designed for the fighter application, they were made
> > to
> > > run flat out in a bomber, but continous variation in
> > > throttle, and RPM as experienced in ACM, caused
> > premature
> > > failures.
> > >
> > > Though years of rettro fits, the navy re-engineered
> > those
> > > engines extensively but in the end it was putting good
> > > money after bad, and that didn't help the F14s
> > reputation,
> > > particularly going up against the Boieng-McDonnel
> > > consortium, in what became the super hornet.
> > >
> > > The podding idea is very clever, the only drawback
> > with
> > > podding gus though is, vibration and it's affect on
> > > accuracy.
> > >
> > > I've often wondered with the obsesion in ACM being
> > getting
> > > on an apponents tail, why not carry a rearward firing
> > > weapon ?
> > >
> > > Come to think of it, the B58 you mentioned, had a
> > rear
> > > firing vulcan 20mm. I did read somewhere that it
> > wasn't
> > > considered very effective, I think, because the
> > > aircraft's forward velocity, subtracts from the muzzle
> > > velocity of the weapon.
> > >
> > >
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.484 / Virus Database: 282 - Release Date: 5/27/2003
- Hi MC and Everyone,
I was a BIG fan of the F-20 Tigershark. I really should have gone into production. It was a grea balance between cost, reliability, performance, capability and survivability. Small, agile, easy to fly and relatively simply to maintain, It would have been a great fighter for mass-production but the USAF brass hats didn't want anything that might interfere with the F-16 so the Tigershark got the ax.
Gen Yeagers a great pilot and a hell of a man but it'wouldn't be any fun if we all agreed, hey? I'll always perk up and listen when he speaks but there's also others with just as outstanding aviation careers as his. He's a great believer in training and experience ahead of equipment. I'm guardely the same. I think that in the end it's training and experience of the pilots that makes the real difference BUT only up to a point. Many good pilots and aircrews were lost at the beginning of WW2 trying to do battle in antiquated aircraft against markedly superior ones.
In a message dated 6/25/03 9:18:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, max_g_cunningham@... writes:
Interesting point, the A4 was highly manuverable, a real
handfull for an advisary in a 1v1 visual enviroment. It was
also affordable to aquire and maintain, even until
recently, and even for a small country like N.Z.
However it's sub sonic, wich isn't considered usefull
enough these days, with limited range payload, and the
airframes were getting old.
I still believe the F20 Tigershark was the best complete
value package, within the context of the western Hi-lo
I'm not particuarly a big fan of Ret Gen. Charles Yeager,
although one would classify as a grade A fool, to dispute
his experience, skill, and flying background, as one of
the greatest authorities of the era.
I do agree with him, and his assesment of the F20, even
taking into considertion he was a paid consultant.
More over I believe that the F20 epitomised and embodied
the Boyd doctine, and his original aspirations with the