Gunther Rall

[GregP]

Must be the LSD in the punch ... all I can add about the F-20 was you ccould probably field 5 F-20's for the price of 3 F-16's, and sometimes more is better. Depends on who you believe. I believe the F-20 was one of the very good ones that didn't make it. Others may see it in a less positive light, and that' OK. Doesn't matter in the end since it didn't get bought and there's really no good argument either way.

I'm still looking for Guenther Rall's victory list without any success, but I have most of the rest of the top 15. If anyone had Heinz Bär's victory list, it would be appreciated, too.

 

[gjs238]

The TSR-2 was replaced initially and finally with types which were far less capable. It was the sort of step back repeated when supersonic passenger flight ended a few years ago. Who'd have thought anyone would ever say "remember when we could cross the Atlantic in 3 hours".

Cheers

Steve

Do kids today believe men walked on the moon?
And that it happened almost 50 years ago?

 

[Milosh]

It will be some work Greg but going thru Tony Wood's claim list should give you a total and what a/c was claimed.

 

[Greyman]

Where the hell is this thread going? This all relates to post number 1 how?

Just wait - we haven't even swung it to the Westland Whirlwind yet ...

 

[GregP]

Hi Milosh,

Thanks for the suggestion. I can do that one easily, and actually have ... but not all of the claims lists actually add up to the "official scores." Tony's file gives me 274 victories and Guenther is creditied with 275 ... I was looking for the "missing" kill ...

Tony's file account for 218 of Heinz Bar's 220. Again, I was looking for the missing 2.

Thanks anyway. Wasn't sure the data existed, but you never know if you don't try.

Oh well, both are pretty damned close to the full list anyway.

Regarding post 17, the F-20 was never marketed as anything but a fighter. It had the fighter-bomber / CAS roles forced upon it when the inital specs weren't ever concerned with them. They were added as an afterthought. Likewise the F-16 wasn't supposed to be a bomber. It was designed and marketed as a fighter. It became a bomb hauler later.

Read Boyd, Ricconi, et al. for more info on it. The Fighter Mafia. Their motto was "not a pound for air to ground."

But, some planes wind up doing things they were never intended for and the F-16 was one. In fact, bombing became it's forte ... but on the F-20 it just added weight not needed and resulted in an overweight "lightweight fighter" or an underweight "heavier hauler." So, no niche ... the Fighter Maffia liked the original F-20 concept, but not the overweight, heavier aircraft it was forced to become.

So 2 of the 3 crashed, 1 in Korea and 1 in Canada. Serial number GI.1002 is on display at the California Science Center in Los Angeles.

 

[BiffF15]

This aircraft (Scorpian) is meant to replace the U-28A, MC-12, and RC-26.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[GregP]

I've seen that one and didn't realize it would replace a PC-12, a Beech 1900 / King Air, and a Merlin!

Kill it. Those planes do their jobs VERY well. You'd have to fly a LOT of Scorpions to carry what the Beech, PC-12 or Merlin would. I can't see it being a replacement at all. 2 places versus MANY MORE places and MUCH less cargo capability. Probably a small bit faster.

Looks like the only advantage it might is being maybe armed, maybe not. It's like replacing a DC-3 with a fast Cessna 150. Somebody was smoking dope, for sure.

 

[BiffF15]

Greg,

It's not how much it can carry, it's how long it can stay on station and what it can do while there. Realize that it (Scorpion) was initially designed to replace ISR aircraft and increase capabilities. I would replace them all with it for a variety of reasons:

1. Jets handle high hot fields much better. The problem parts of the world currently are hot high(Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, Middle East in general.(performance)
2. Jets have MANY less motor parts to go wrong (or jets are more reliable than a turbo prop)(reliability)
3. Weapons equipped planes can kill things, non-weapons equipped planes must call other planes with weapons to do the killing. Those other planes are VERY EXPENSIVE to buy and operate (F-15E, F-16C, A-10ABC, F-22A, F-35A, Typhoon, Mirage, Rafael). (capability)
4. Jets have a larger performance envelope than turbo props, can fly higher, faster, further, and it could be made easily to be air refuelable (SP?) which gives it even more capability. (performance)

Turboprops have a lower up front cost, beyond that it's a losing battle for them.

All based on the Scorpion versus the U-28, MC-12 (not C-12), and RC-26 (have flown the last one operationally).

My opine only.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[drgondog]

I remember a story I was told about Rall, but the specific details elude me. Essentially it goes that he was given a tour of a modern fighter simulator, probably in the late 80's or 90's, and was asked if he would like to try it out. Much to the amazement of the onlookers, whom assumed the old man would be in well over his head, he proceded to dominate the AI oposition.
anyone else hear this tale? Or perhaps shed more light on it?

I heard from Gordy Graham that Rall 'did well' on the F-15 simulator - would have been perhaps early to mid 80's when Graham was out of the AF and a VP at MACDAC. Could have been later but Graham retired from MACDAC in late 80's (IIRC)

 

[drgondog]

Marseille vastly overclaimed; its very difficult to know what is real about his skills.

What is real is that he was a highly respected shooter by Rall and Galland and Steinhof - independent of score actuals.

 

[GregP]

I like your post, Biff, but wouldn't replace any of the aircraft in question with the Scorpion if I were deciding. I still might buy some, but the mission wouldn't be the same as any of the three posted aircraft. It coudn't hardly be since all of the three in question usually have mmissions requiring more than two people. The PC-12 can haul a LOT of cargo, some rather outsized. The Beech is a master of hauling people in comfort and speed into and out of even short fields. The Merlin a feeder liner / executive plane. I don't see the Scorpion doing any of these missions, thopugh it can loiter and get in and out of similar and maybe even shorter fields. If that is the requirement, then these existing planes don't DO that mission now.

It's a bit confusing to me why you'd use a 1 - 2 place jet to replace a turboprop that hauls 6 - 8+. On the surface, they couldn't possibly have the same mission unless the existing planes are being used for missions that are unsuited, but there's nothing else avialable. THEN it might make some sense.

It might help to know the mission statement of the Scoprion. But when you go look up the Scorpion, it's mission statement is quite ambiguous. Seems like it is being touted as being better than an F-16 or F-18 as far as cost goes, but you certianly wouldn't use a PC-12, Beech or Merlin in lieu of an F-16 or F-18. If it is being sold as a trainer, the same can be said. The PC-12, Beech, and Merlin were NEVER marketed as trainers and, if they are being used for that, someone seriously needs to be fired.

I can understand if the Scorpion would be bought to repalce, say, the T-38. But if that's the case, then the PC-12, Beech, and Merlin have nothing whatsover to do with the Scorpion.

So, Biff, what missions are we flying with the three planes stated above that the Scorpion would be better at?

Not to grill you or anyone else, and there is no need to answer if you think the question frivolous. Just trying to relate the Scorpion to anything the PC-12, Beech King Air / 1900, or Searingin Merlin/Metro might be doing today.

To tell you the truth, I didn't think there were all that many Merlins left flying in anything but private service. The last Merlin was built in 1987 and the last Metro was built in 1998. I've seen one in the last 10 years ... but I also haven't been looking for them. But spare parts are surely an issue in commercial service, are they not? Not engines or props, but airframe spares. I didn't think Sewaringen was still in business.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Ive been working on Metros for years, the type certificate is owned by M7 aerospace now. I believe most are flying in Australia now.

 

[GregP]

We have one at Chino, operated by a private owner ... every once in awhile. I've heard the systems are a tough taks for the pilots, but have nothing with which to compare it, never having been in one. Seems like a decent airframe that modern avionics would help a lot, but I haven't ever really looked at the specifics of what it can haul out of where, and with how much margin.

 

[BiffF15]

Greg,

I think what's missing here is exactly what the mission is. ISR is Intel, Surveillance, and Recon. The mission is not to haul a lot of cargo or people, it's to accomplish ISR. The Merlin, King Air, and PC-12 are built to fly two pilot. The military then adds equipment and a technician to run the ISR systems. That's three folks. The F-15E has infinitely more complex systems and mission sets and it's done with 2 crew members. Making the plane easier to fly by making it a jet (Scorpion) with basically centerline thrust, and less moving parts, all make for a safer more reliable piece of equipment. Make the systems operator station marginally easier to run via HOTAS (nice to have not required) and bingo you have cut down a crew of three to two. Cargo in your explanation is actually fuel in mine (turbo props either carry full fuel, or people, not both). Fuel equates to longer time on station, which equates to fewer aircraft required to cover a vulnerability period, which equates to fewer aircraft that have to be bought, which means a smaller logistics / repair chain, which means less expensive to the taxpayer and more bang for the buck for the operator / military.

When you can almost completely remove fighters from this chain, you cut down your expenses dramatically. When a fighter squadron deploys it has a huge footprint in maintainers, pilots, aircraft, logistics, tankers to get them to / from, tankers on station to extend fighter time airborne, deployments pay, family quality of life hits, all factor in. Putting a few of these (Scorpions) in place, with their MUCH smaller footprint saves big cash, but also on quality of life for our ever shrinking but doing more with less military.

The Scorpion would not make a good replacement for the T-38 for several reasons in my opinion. First the Talon is used almost exclusively for guys going to fighters, so the plane that replaces it should be similar in performance and flight characteristics to the follow on assignments (a straight wing non FBW vice a swept wing FBW). The F-16, F-22, and F-35 are all fly by wire, and so should the next trainer. In a non FBW (fly by wire) aircraft, you as the operator have to make sure you don't overstress the aircraft, while the FBW bubba's just pull and Hal (the three flight control computers) fine tunes everything for optimum performance. The trainer replacement will need to be able to pull some G's, more than 5, will need to be able to simulate weapons deliveries that are currently being used, as well as the maneuvers associated with air combat and weapons employment. The T-50 is the closest to off the shelf in my opine that's currently out there, and oh by the way it's basically a detuned F-16.

The reason the mission set of the Scorpion as advertised is ambiguous is PR. They don't want to narrow down the potential buyers with how they market the aircraft. It would do the ISR mission much better, or in addition to the current crop. Much better.

Lastly, you might just have to trust me on this one. I can't go into detail, but having been operational in both fighters and ISR aircraft, I would go with a Scorpion type aircraft hands down.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[BiffF15]

There is a Merlin operator out of Denver running cargo, and I have seen them at the UPS Louisville. There are quite a few running around South America as well, and O'Canada.

One thing I didn't like about the A/C is that you had to get someone to push up on the tail of the aircraft so you could shut the cargo door (it adds to structural rigidity). And that is no joke.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Lucky13]

 

[GregP]

Good explanation, Biff.

I wouldn't think you'd do ISR with the 3 civil planes in hostile territory, but you're also not always in hostile territory, or at least you're not always in an area where you might get shot at.

 

[BiffF15]

Greg,

Generally the only time we get shot at is on departure or arrival.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[bobbysocks]

hartmann was not a deflection shooter nor did he like to dogfight. these are by his own admission. his favorite tactic was to get up very close behind his opponent ( who probably had no idea he was there ) and blast them to smithereens. many times he not only took out his prey but also his own plane ...he was so close that debris coming off of his enemy struck and damaged his plane to the point he had to hit the silk.

 

[GregP]

I was really thinking of being shot at by another aircraft ... as in hostile airspace with hostile fighters flitting about like the "hostile" F-5's in Top Gun.

I think that was probably the only F-5 built By MiG ever, huh? Complete with matching helmet.