Can anyone share information about the Mig17 Randy Cunningham shot down. Does anyone know the camouflage scheme and who the pilot really was? Am planning to build my 1/32 Mig17 into either “Col. Tomb’s” plane, or if I cant get enough info, into Van Bay’s Mig17.
I don’t want to open a can of worms but as far I know colnel Tomb was a ficticous pilot, created by the noth vietnamse as propaganda. The kills of col. tomb were in fact made by several pilots, not by one.
So I don’t think that there is a camo scheme for a plane of a pilot that did not excist.
Thanks RemcoGrob. I know that “Col Tomb” did not exist but Randy Cunningham did fight a Mig17 piloted by an exceptionally good pilot even by his own account. From what i read the Mig had to break off the fight because of low fuel and this gave Cunningham the chance to shoot it down. This is the Mig I want information about and who really was the pilot. Maybe someone out there has information on this pilot and the plane? Or maybe it was a “foreign” pilot flying for the Vietnamese (maybe russian or chinese) that is why even the Vietnamese Air Force would not divulge his identity or any info about this encounter…
I did a little research. I found a squadron/signal book called “…and kills Migs” .
It has a several photo’s of aircraft (mig 17 and 21) wich where tought to be col. Tomb’s.
The MiG-17 that R. Cunningham encountered om 10 may 1972 was believed to be col. Tomb’s. According to the photo’s and side view in the book it was camouflaged in dark and light green and had the code 3020 and 7 kills marks. I haven’t got a scanner so, unfortunatly, I can’t show you the picture…
This article goes a long way toward clearing up a number of misunderstandings. For my part, I love the story of that dogfight, and can’t help but appreciate the skills of both the American and Vietnamese pilots.
Thanks for posting the link about the infamous Col. Tomb! Very interesting reading and as in a lot of events that took place in the heat of battle, the details are shrouded in the fog of battle and maybe political maneuvering. Too bad Cunningham self destructed at the end of his political career. Another “tarnished” hero! That last flight that made him an Ace would have been great scene in a movie.
On the Military Channel, there is a feature called “Greatest Air Battles” which has a very nicely done CG rendition of the fight. It is occasionally rebroadcast, and worth a look.
There is a book out,by Randy Cunningham, in it he goes into great depth talking about that fight. I have spent the last hour looking for it, but haveing moved, I am not sure where it is. You might want to check squadron signal, and others who publish war stories. It is an interesting book.
I saw that Greatest Air Battles segment before Cunningham politically imploded. What was interesting was his very candid admission that during the fight he made two bone-headed mistakes, yet got away with them, evidently due to the Phantom’s stunning acceleration on afterburner. To this day I still think of the Phantom as one of THE bad-ass planes ever.
In spite of McNamara’s efforts, and not ever to slight the skill of the pilots who flew it, yes, it absolutely was, and will remain so—just look at the record, aaaallllll of it. In my opinion, it ranks right along side the P-47.
Getting back to Col. Toom, or whoever he was/wasn’t. It might be significant that Cunningham got a good look at him. His description seems to indicate a man of small physical stature, which would fit with an asian. Although I will never be completely free of some antipathy toward the North Vietnamese, I admire their courage and dedication. I would like to think that they did produce some pilots of outstanding ability. Even if Toom is only a fiction, “he” is still a representation of something we all admire.
The ancient Romans had a saying that I like to think of in such cases: “Of the dead, nothing but good should be spoken.”
I read My Sewell’s article with great interest. I cannot dispute the Mig or F-4 items, but he certainly has his facts incorrect on the B-52 attack by the Mig-21 driver. He states, “The B-52s were escorted by 16 F-4s as MiG activity had been warned; four flew at each point of the compass around the big bombers as they lumbered on at 45,000 feet, right at sunset. Just as the bombers prepared to break up for their bomb run, they were spotted by Ton who rolled in to attack at once.” The ARC LIGHT B-52s did NOT fly anywhere near 45K altitude. They flew 30 to 35K with each cell staggered at 2,000 foot intervels. If only one cell was on the bomb run, they were all at the same altitude in a “V” formation. They REMAINED in that V for the entire bomb run. They did NOT “break up” formation. Then he talks about the gunner ejecting when the Atoll missile got close. I don’t think that the G model BUFF was in use yet at that time and if it was, the gunner would be up front and could not get a “visual” on the missile. That means the cell was D models and the gunner in the rear compartment on the D model did not have an ejection seat. He had to blow off the whole rear of the turret and then “step out” of the open hole. This type of factual error tends to cast doubt on the integrity of the entire article.
Why not contact Cookie Sewell with your thoughts? From what I’ve read, he seems like he’d be receptive to some debate.
In any event, he cites Vietnamese sources, which help the discussion quite a bit. I don’t believe his errors (if indeed they are errors) on the details of the bombing raid bring doubt to the rest of the article.
I checked that book I mentioned that had color images of the aircraft. It was a MiG-21 they showed in that, not a -17. Sorry. Let me know if you’d like a scan anyway.
They say memory is the second thing to go. Can’t recall what the first is…