Unofficial Aviation Buff Thread

Dejan Corovic

Celestial
This is a thread for aviation buffs to post curious things about aviation.

Here is today's curiosity, Navy's pilot lands on aircraft carrier without blinking:

 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
This'll get the juices flowing ......

4242.jpg


 

Dejan Corovic

Celestial
F-106 Delta Dart - Aeroplane that was faster, more maneuverable, and certainly more fuel-efficient than its successor Phantom F-4. Pilots fought among themselves to fly F-106 and it served for 20 years.

 
Last edited:

Dejan Corovic

Celestial
It was long time overdue to add some interesting videos I watched lately.

This one is the most unusual. A total rookie F-14 Navy pilot shoots Air Force F-14 with real missile, on an ordinary training exercise. He got his instruction from carrier, but it was meant as a joke, that he unfortunately took for real. He was grounded forever and never flew again, but the most unbelievable thing is that he stayed in military and at one point was proposed for promotion to admiral. Can you imagine this guy becoming a commander of a whole ship?

 

AD1184

Celestial
I have only just seen this thread.
F-106 Delta Dart - Aeroplane that was faster, more maneuverable, and certainly more fuel-efficient than its successor Phantom F-4. Pilots fought among themselves to fly F-106 and it served for 20 years.


I like the F-106, but it is hardly comparable with the Phantom. The F-106 and F-4 were designed to fulfil different missions. Or rather, the F-106 was designed to fulfil only one mission, and the F-4 was designed to fulfil many, including a similar mission to the F-106. The F-106 was a pure interceptor, designed to engage Soviet bombers at high altitude as they entered US territory, during the strategic bomber era. After the nuclear powers moved into the missile era, the F-106 was left without its original mission.

The loss rate of the F-4 in air-to-air encounters against the Mig-21 in Vietnam is due largely to the fact that the North Vietnamese had the luxury of picking their fights, and using hit-and-run tactics with ground-controlled intercept. If the conditions were not to their favour, then the Migs would stay on the ground. Very few Phantom losses were in actual dogfights, and I believe that the Phantom and Mig-21 dogfight performance, particularly at low altitude, where most air-to-air engagements took place, was comparable, and the Mig did not completely outclass the Phantom. The primary mission of the F-4 in Vietnam was ground attack, and not fighter patrols. The Phantom began in USAF service in the conflict by escorting F-105s on strike missions, before taking over the F-105's role altogether. During Operation Bolo in 1967, a flight of F-4s lured North Vietnamese Mig-21s into air combat by making themselves appear to the air defence network as if they were less-capable F-105s. When the Mig-21s rose to meet them, the Phantoms shot down 7 Mig-21s without a loss. The Phantoms could have destroyed every one of the North Vietnamese Migs, if the rules of engagement did not forbid them from attacking aircraft on the ground.

The F-4 was carrier capable, being developed originally as a naval fighter-bomber and all-weather interceptor, had two crew, a bubble canopy, and could carry much more, and a much larger variety of, ordnance, as well as excelling in the ground attack role, which the F-106 was not even capable of performing. The F-4 was probably the greatest all-rounder of its era.
 
Last edited:

Dejan Corovic

Celestial
I have only just seen this thread.

I like the F-106, but it is hardly comparable with the Phantom. The F-106 and F-4 were designed to fulfil different missions. Or rather, the F-106 was designed to fulfil only one mission, and the F-4 was designed to fulfil many, including a similar mission to the F-106. The F-106 was a pure interceptor, designed to engage Soviet bombers at high altitude as they entered US territory, during the strategic bomber era. After the nuclear powers moved into the missile era, the F-106 was left without its original mission.

The loss rate of the F-4 in air-to-air encounters against the Mig-21 in Vietnam is due largely to the fact that the North Vietnamese had the luxury of picking their fights, and using hit-and-run tactics with ground-controlled intercept. If the conditions were not to their favour, then the Migs would stay on the ground. Very few Phantom losses were in actual dogfights, and I believe that the Phantom and Mig-21 dogfight performance, particularly at low altitude, where most air-to-air engagements took place, was comparable, and the Mig did not completely outclass the Phantom. The primary mission of the F-4 in Vietnam was ground attack, and not fighter patrols. The Phantom began in USAF service in the conflict by escorting F-105s on strike missions, before taking over the F-105's role altogether. During Operation Bolo in 1967, a flight of F-4s lured North Vietnamese Mig-21s into air combat by making themselves appear to the air defence network as if they were less-capable F-105s. When the Mig-21s rose to meet them, the Phantoms shot down 7 Mig-21s without a loss. The Phantoms could have destroyed every one of the North Vietnamese Migs, if the rules of engagement did not forbid them from attacking aircraft on the ground.

The F-4 was carrier capable, being developed originally as a naval fighter-bomber and all-weather interceptor, had two crew, a bubble canopy, and could carry much more, and a much larger variety of, ordnance, as well as excelling in the ground attack role, which the F-106 was not even capable of performing. The F-4 was probably the greatest all-rounder of its era.

Mig-21 wasn't a dog-fighter, it was designed as interceptor, same as F-104 Star-Fighter. Because Mig-21 & F-104 both had small wings with so called high wing loading, they can only turn slowly in a very large circles. So both of them were used in slash-and-dash one pass attacks. If there was a pure dog fight between F-4 and Mig 21, F-4 would win simply because it had larger wings and lower wing loading.

But there were other factors, F-4 had much better acceleration so it was better then Mig-21 in vertical, which was frequently used by F-4 to come on Mig-21 from above.

After US left Vietnam, many of F-5 planes were left. Few of these were taken to CCCP for evaluation. Then, back in CCCP, there were dogfights arranged between F-5 and Mig-21. During these dogfights Russians discovered that F-5 was constantly winning although it had weaker engines ( lower thrust-to-weight ratio ). Reason was much better manoeuvrability of F-5 at low speeds because it had better designed wing. I forgot the name, but there was a sharply slanted wing, right next to the front root of the wing that is used for crating vertices. All modern jets now have that. Up to that point Soviet designers only considered thrust-to-weight ratio as most important for winning. So Russians learned from that and that's why they made Mig-29 to be so manoeuvrable. So few of these F-5s that Russians acquired had a huge influence on Russian aircraft design philosophy.
 
Last edited:

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
I like the F-106

Then you might like this book. Bruce Gordon has been on a few podcasts and isn't hard to find. Engaging, if you'll pardon the expression. He has one story in there that is beyond belief, but somehow I do believe him.

upload_2022-3-20_5-39-11.jpeg
 
Top