GregP
Major
Does anyone out there have a victory list for Gunter Rall? I have them for Hartmann, Barkhorn, and a few others from the top ten, but can't seem to find one for Herr Rall.
Would appreciate it.
Would appreciate it.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
Marseille vastly overclaimed; its very difficult to know what is real about his skills.
They all did....but I'd take out the "vastly" for both of the gentlemen in question.
Steve
- Thread starter
- #5
GregP
Major
Marseille is number 30 on the German ace list. Hartnamm didn't even fly in combat until Oct 1942 and didn't score until May 1943. He cannot have been a bad shot to score what he scored, despite all self-depricating writings to the contrary. Bad shots don't shoot down much, let alone hundreds.
But, the accounts I read make me agree with you that Marseille was one of the best shots in the Luftwaffe. There are accounts of many good shots on all sides, but rarely so many for one person as for Marsaille.
But, the accounts I read make me agree with you that Marseille was one of the best shots in the Luftwaffe. There are accounts of many good shots on all sides, but rarely so many for one person as for Marsaille.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 853
- Feb 16, 2013
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?
anyone else hear this tale? Or perhaps shed more light on it?
- Thread starter
- #7
GregP
Major
When Chuck Yeager was in his later years as a pilot, he challenged anyone to fight him in the F-20 when Northrop was trying to sell it. No takers.
Probably political, but nobody was allowed to do it. Chances of finding a modern fighter jet OUT of the military were slight to nil, so I'm assuming Lockheed interceded and got it killed or the DOD said no. Maybe not.
Probably political, but nobody was allowed to do it. Chances of finding a modern fighter jet OUT of the military were slight to nil, so I'm assuming Lockheed interceded and got it killed or the DOD said no. Maybe not.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Why do you say Lockheed? When the F-20 was being marketed the F-117 was being developed and the ATB contract was about to be let, the AFT was still in a think tank and the JSF wasn't even a thought. The fighter players of that era was McDonnell Douglas, Northrop, General Dynamics and Grumman. GD and the F-16 program had the most to lose if the F-20 was allowed to be sold abroad.
- Thread starter
- #9
GregP
Major
I said Lockheed insead of General Dynamics, but SHOULD have said Grumman because that's where it ended up. The F-20 was direct competition for the F-16, but you know that. They had a fly-off on paper and it was cheaper to overhaul an existing F-16 than it was to purchase a new F-20, so the F-20 never DID get a fair shake at a flyoff. Chuck was a Northrop consultant at the time.
I'm not saying it would have won, but it was WAY cheaper than a new F-16 and was VERY capable. Seems like we should have taken a really good look at it. From the people I know who were at Northrop at the time, including a vice president, the Air Force was bound and determined NOT to have anythying to do with it regardless of capabilities. Not sure why except they worked over Jack Northrop every time they got a chance to do so.
When David Barnes died at the controls in Korea during a flight demo in Canada from G-LOC, that was the end.
Not my contention, just what I've been told by MANY former Northop employees, including the former head of the F-18 program who still consults with Northrop on occasion.
I like the F-16 and have no axe to grind. but I think the F-20 was as capable if not more so, and it was very probably more reliable. It used commercial avionics that were a snap to replace ... and could align it's guidance in seconds instead of minutes.
So ... it's a good plane that never got a chance, but that's life in the fighter business. It happened to some other good planes, too. This one seems like politics, and that's nothing that hasn't happened before or since, either. Can't get away from it when big money is at stake, can you?
I'm not saying it would have won, but it was WAY cheaper than a new F-16 and was VERY capable. Seems like we should have taken a really good look at it. From the people I know who were at Northrop at the time, including a vice president, the Air Force was bound and determined NOT to have anythying to do with it regardless of capabilities. Not sure why except they worked over Jack Northrop every time they got a chance to do so.
When David Barnes died at the controls in Korea during a flight demo in Canada from G-LOC, that was the end.
Not my contention, just what I've been told by MANY former Northop employees, including the former head of the F-18 program who still consults with Northrop on occasion.
I like the F-16 and have no axe to grind. but I think the F-20 was as capable if not more so, and it was very probably more reliable. It used commercial avionics that were a snap to replace ... and could align it's guidance in seconds instead of minutes.
So ... it's a good plane that never got a chance, but that's life in the fighter business. It happened to some other good planes, too. This one seems like politics, and that's nothing that hasn't happened before or since, either. Can't get away from it when big money is at stake, can you?
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 853
- Feb 16, 2013
Politics killing a good fighter? AHEM!...Avro Arrow...ahem.
sorry, something in my throat
sorry, something in my throat
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The F-20 was a great aircraft. I think the "Fighter Mafia" along with some politics killed the program. What was really sad was Northrop wanted to sell the F-20 abroad and wasn't allowed to do so.
- Thread starter
- #12
GregP
Major
I'm having a beer in memoriam ... maybe 2.
The Arrow cost Canada not only a potentially great airplane but also an aerospace industry drain. It was altogether one of the sorrier incidents in Canadian history ... if you are an aircraft fancier anyway.
At least Northrop is still in busines as part of Noirthrop-Grumman. Not so, Avro Canada.
The Arrow cost Canada not only a potentially great airplane but also an aerospace industry drain. It was altogether one of the sorrier incidents in Canadian history ... if you are an aircraft fancier anyway.
At least Northrop is still in busines as part of Noirthrop-Grumman. Not so, Avro Canada.
Last edited:
Will the Textron AirLand Scorpion befall the same fate?
Textron unveils low-cost Scorpion fighter jet - Textron AirLand
The F-20 is mentioned in the Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Personally from what I seen of the Scorpion, it doesn't come close to matching any front line fighter. It may work for smaller countries with limited budgets, but for 20 mil plus a copy I would go with the Aero 159, between 5 and 7 mil cheaper per aircraft. It doesn't have the legs of the Scorpion (or at least what's being marketed in the brochure) but it's quite a bit faster. This aircraft along with L39s (which could be had for next to nothing), could provide a small country with a cost effective air combat arm with air frame commonality.
L-159 Program | AERO Vodochody AEROSPACE a.s.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Two great aircraft but let's face it guys, their mission became obsolete real fast. people forget the US also had their "superfighter' being developed at the same time and it was soon killed off for similar reasons the Arrow and TSR-2 went away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XF-108_Rapier
drgondog
Major
The F-20 was an excellent performance match to F-16 in air to air role but fell far short with respect to FB/CAS role with respect to total external payload and combat range with any matching payload or matching range without external stores..
I read from an ex F-16 pilot that the F-20 had a corner velocity of 520 knots - if that's the case I have my doubts about its capabilities in a scrap. He echoed your latter point saying in practice the combat load was 1,300 pounds. Ouch.
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
Cheers
Steve
Crimea_River
Marshal
Where the hell is this thread going? This all relates to post number 1 how?
