i was under the impression they only ever fired 2 in anger
It’s simple: there was a software glitch in our computer systems that would throw out the plane doing the cobra manuver. How the Russians found this out is another story that will probably be traced back to the “mole” that Casey refered to many times over. It seems that our software package would automaticly disregard the target thinking it was something else. I’m sure it’s been corrected many times over, but we first found out about it at the Wright Patterson Air Show in Dayton Ohio.
gary
If you go back and watch the initial film footage of the F117’s taking off for Iraq, you’ll notice F4G’s returning from the first SAM supression mission
gary
wrong!
One of my very best friends was a major player on that design team all the way from Northrup to the Douglas F18. The very first F17 was a single engine plane. The Navy wanted a twin engines version of the plane, but Northrup refused to build it. My source? Denny Browning who at the time lived in Torrance CA, and worked for Northrup. I heard first hand about all the Airforce crap they had to go thru, and all the Navy crap as well. The Airforce nitpicked the design to death, the Navy was just lost in space. As for the contract issues that’s a well documented item. You better go read up on the copyrights that Northrup had on the F17 and then look at the litegations that were in court to see if the Navy was or was not going to get the F18. At one time they were not because Douglas couldn’t build the wings and avionics. In the end Northrup supplied most everything but the fuselage. It’s all a matter of public record. Later on there was at least one (if not more) law suits field by Northrup for copyright infringement, and they won. (once again a matter of public record) The last one was for $43,000,000. Most all the copyright stuff has been in the newpapers many times over, and has came up in Congress several times. It was a complete Northrup design from the get go.
gary
I personally think the F15 was a better plane from an engineering standpoint (structual mostly). Yet both planes are (or were fantastic), but now considered obsolete. One of the planes was really a point to point intercepter, and pretty good at the job (best I don’t know). Where as the other was designed as a pure air superority fighter, and has an enviable track record (actually both do). Then you add the F16 to the mix. Still in the end the F15 was the real performer here. Can any of the others go to 100,000 feet in four minutes or less with a roll out?
gary
100,000 ft?
Yep…
Though it was specially stripped down for the purpose (including being stripped of paint), in 1975, “Streak Eagle”, one of the early production aircraft, reached 98,425 feet in 3 minutes 27.8 seconds from brake release on take-off.
I’ve seen an operational bird go vertical on take-off - truly impressive.
that is correct. At onetime (may still for what I know) an F15 labled “Streak Eagle” set the time to climb record for zero to 98,000 feet in less than four minutes. FSM did a write up on that plane about twenty years ago. I might add that an F15 is faster to 100,000 feet than the Apollo Moon Rocket.
gary
that particular plane was stripped of its guns, and of course was clean (in everyway). Weighed in at about 2,000 lb. less that a combat F15. I doubt the 2,000 lb. made all that much of a difference by the way.
gary
I thought that a picture don’t lie. If the twin engine plane picture was NOT the YF-17 Cobra, what is it? Wish that you will get a single engine F-17 picture from your Browning friend.
Sheesh… Who dug up this old p*ssin’ contest???
Ahh… Never mind… Found 'im…
F-14 vs F-18 is an arguement about as meaningful as F-86 vs. P-51… Two aircraft from two different generations of fighters that are (usually) on the same side…
Neither the Hornet nor Tomcat have props, so they’re both rather boring…
If a fighter doesn’t have props, it sucks…
And blows…
[:D]
Browning was involved with the F17 project from day one and went to work for Douglas right after they got the contract for the F18, and later retired from Boeing. He was one of the guys who helped design and procure all the various forgings used in the plane (mostly in the landing gear area). If he told me the plane had a hole in the side of it I’d take his word on it as I’ve known him for 43 years and have yet to ever see him wrong. I knew about the money issues before the F18 was even being considered, and as well the Carter thing to boot. What that picture is I don’t know and really don’t care, but I know it was a single engined plane as an F17.
gary
I’d rather have a Spad myself or better yet an Albatross with a fancey paint job
gary
Gary,
My understanding is that Northrop submitted two designs for the LWF/ACF program. One was twin engined (Project 600) and this was the one selected for what was to become the YF-17. The other (Project 610) was to be a single-engined version of the same aircraft - however I believe that this did not proceed beyond the design stage and as far as I am aware, no actual aircraft were built.
Both designs were derived from Northrop’s privately funded Project 530, a twin-engined high performance “international fighter” derivative of the F-5 family. The International Fighter concept was later continued in the F-20.
So the YF-17 was always going to be twin-engined. In fact, Air Force preference was for a twin-engined design but GD provided statistical models regarding peformance/payload/range/survivability for the F-16 which were sufficient to satisfy the evaluation team.
[#ditto]
I agree with Phil. That’s what my info tells me.
If you’re going to compare Iranian fighter pilots to the Israeli’s or Saudi’s - please! the IIAF hasn’t had any U.S. based training since 1979 when the friendly Iranian government was overthrown. The Koreans and JASDF who also fly the Eagle haven’t , (that I know of flown in combat yet).
So, the F-14 also has a zero combat loss record, the Iranians don’t count.
Also, nothing looks cooler than a VF-84 or VF-111 in late 1970 early 1980 paint schemes.
I think the F-18 is better, although I like both of them. Besides the Blue Angels never used F-14’s not that I know of anyway[%-)] That would be a really cool paint job on the 14 though.
Chris
Well my opinion in all this, for strke capabilities, the lovely Pigs (F-111’s)!!! The RAAF is replacing them with F/A-18F’s from 2010 as there was nothing else on the market that could come close, apart from the B-1. The F-15E’s were looked at but rejected as the airframe was too out of date, and the JSF was supposed to satisfy all the RAAF’s needs. Now that the JSF is running really late, and maybe cancelled and we are not allowed to buy the F-22, the F-18’s will be with us for a long time yet!! [:P]
this maybe an old discussion, OK, but we have always to think that there are a few of new model builders here who are simply asking for some specific informations.
So let’s see what we got here: First of all we have to consider what we would like to hear and what the truth is. If somebody says he likes the F-14 (like me) it is obvious that he will be upset if someone says the Tomcat is no longer the best fighter around.Specially if he dislikes the F-18.
But the fact is the F-14 was designed in the 70’s and most of it’s technology was quite a few years old. Sure the aircraft was remanufacturerd they added a new cockpit, new engines and new avionics. This way you can keep an aircraft up to date for quite a while, but after 30 years any aircraft will be no longer first rate, no matter what efforts you make and that is a fact if you like it or not.
I live in Austria and last year we had to retire our entire fighter force which was made up from Saab Draken. Sure the Draken was once a top notch fighter and with the help of some new electronics and a lot of money they were able to keep them flying for a while but we are talking about “working aircraft” not about some old preserved warbirds which are maintained by some enthusiasts, those Draken were simply outdatet! So no matter how much you like an aircraft, if it becomes to old there will be the time when it is no longer economical feasible to keep them operational.
The Tomcat was designed and built for the purpose to deal with large Soviet Bomber forces, trying to knock out a carrier force. For this matter the F-14 carried Phoenix missiles and a radar system which was able to deal with multiple targets at extreme range. The reason for this extreme range was simply because those bombers would try everything to release their own missiles from as far out as possible, just to make sure not to get in the range of the carrier’s escort ships and their anti aircraft missiles. So to be able to counter this threat the F-14 had to be able to scramble from their carrier and get as close as possible in the shortest time to those opposing bombers. Thus the F-14 had to have a great range and a very high top speed. Today this threat is no longer, at least Russia would no longer be able (much less interested) to strike with such a lot of bombers.
As a matter if fact the F-18 can carry the much more advanced AMRAAM which has almost the same range as the Phoenix and which is supposedly much more accurate. And most of all, the Hornet is of a much more modern design, as a fact it is a entire new generation, so by using this airframe the Navy will be able to maintain its objective many years from today on, while the Tomcat would have been almost impossible to keep in flying condition at halfway economical costs for a few more years and this for a mission which does not exist any longer.
One thing I really would be interested in is the fact that somebody brought up the story that the F-17 was originally a single engined aircraft. Are there any more informations like pictures or drawings available about this?
Keep on modeling
René
www.usns.biz