The Greatest Fighter Jet of All Time.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by MrCreak

Looks like it's possibly a conflation of two separate stories.

Errrr, not until someone identifies the pilots. Martin Caidin wrote a lot of stuff like that as well. Again, show me who the pilots were and I would totally believe this story.

EDIT

I went back and read that report - from the USAF. It talks about a Nellis but names no squadron, pilots or any other information to truly validate this. And that was reading pages 158 - 161.

My guess for the ambiguity of the people and places is because of this totally illegal installation. Even in the USAF of the late 1970s, you just didn't "bolt on" non approved equipment without engineering approval.

Still, great find on that report, it does make this more believable.

[MrCreak]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

I went back and read that report - from the USAF. It talks about a Nellis but names no squadron, pilots or any other information to truly validate this. And that was reading pages 158 - 161.
My guess for the ambiguity of the people and places is because of this totally illegal installation. Even in the USAF of the late 1970s, you just didn't "bolt on" non approved equipment without engineering approval.
Still, great find on that report, it does make this more believable.

Digging a bit further (Thornborough also mentions essentially the same story in Modern Air Combat) it was during the AIMVAL/ ACEVAL tests and the "Red" side was actually the Aggressors.
Unfortunately I can't find any AIMVAL/ ACEVAL reports (other than documents referencing those reports) on the net.
But I'll keep looking, should make for interesting reading if I ever find them

[plan_D]

If the U.S. have re-designated it to F-22, again, it's only to please the pilots - who prefer to think they're solely fighter pilots. Probably the same people who wanted it the F-117.

[Condora]

I liked reading Roy Braybrook's articles - don't know if he's still alive, and writing -, he had a refreshing way of describing things, that always reminded me of Asimov.
He had been and aeronautical ingeneer before retiring to write, and much of what he talked about had either been witnessed by him or first-hand info.

On simple "radio shack style" solutions, I remember him talking about the early AAM to give an example:
the british were developing a missile - don't remember the name -, and to keep it stable, included gyros, and a lot of expensive and heavy tech so that control surfaces could correct the problem. It was a nightmare to to put it all to work properly, and they never managed to get rid of some problems.

He said the americans had used a simple solution: small holes and the air pressure differences would actuate on stabilizing surfaces.

The british missile, I forget the name, the american was named Sidewinder.

[MrCreak]

Originally Posted by Condora

I liked reading Roy Braybrook's articles

Seconded, his article was always the first thing I read when I got my copy of Air International.

don't know if he's still alive, and writing

I think he is (he was listed as a member of The Hawker Association in 2008 ), one of my "regrets" is that I missed meeting him by about fifteen minutes at the last Redhill HeliTech I went to (that was the one I got free tickets and the offer of trade stand space for! )

On simple "radio shack style" solutions, I remember him talking about the early AAM to give an example:
the british were developing a missile - don't remember the name -, and to keep it stable, included gyros, and a lot of expensive and heavy tech so that control surfaces could correct the problem. It was a nightmare to to put it all to work properly, and they never managed to get rid of some problems.

I liked his story about the fictional missile missile they cooked up and logged for fun.
And then put noses further out of joint when a visiting American said that the 'winder had closer miss distances than their "project" - the reply was "Oh , we thought everybody measured miss distances in inches..."

[Condora]

Originally Posted by MrCreak

I liked his story about the fictional missile missile they cooked up and logged for fun.
And then put noses further out of joint when a visiting American said that the 'winder had closer miss distances than their "project" - the reply was "Oh , we thought everybody measured miss distances in inches..."

I seem to have missed that one. Air International didn't send many copies here, so either because some numbers failed or were all sold, I missed quite a few.

Hope someday they decide to publish his articles, even from a... how did he describe himself? "Old-aged drinking womanizer"?

[Condora]

I like amusing WW II stuff:

there's the radio-guided bombing the germans had. They had a beacon the bomber would follow, until it reached a point that was intercepted by another radio beacon. They would then be on the spot to bomb, even if they could not see it.
Some brit scientist just made a fake second signal, so that the bombs would be dropped in empty fields.

[Corebare]

Why is the F-8 Crusader on this list, but the F-16 is not?
Are they going strickly by war record performances or ability?
If they are going by design, armament, performance, stealthiness, in my humble opinion, the best jet fighters of the modern era 1 through 10 are:

1. F-22 Raptor
2. F-15 Strike Eagle
3. F-18 Super Hornet
4. Mig 29 Fulcrum
5. EE Lightning
6. EF - 2000
7. Harrier
8. F-14 Tomcat
9. MIG 21
10. F-4 Phantom

(If we're going by war parformance; F-15, Phantom, F-86, Mig 17, the Crusader and the Harrier should top the list.)
Where's the list for WWII aircraft?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Corebare

(If we're going by war parformance; F-15, Phantom, F-86, Mig 17, the Crusader and the Harrier should top the list.)
Where's the list for WWII aircraft?

"War Performance?" Don't you mean Combat Record?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The list is generally flawed. The Harrier is not a fighter and therefore in my opinion should not be in the list. The Arrow should not be in the list either. What did it do to be considered the best? Nothing...