HOME | DD

BlacktailFA In reply to xenoorb [2015-04-05 08:06:49 +0000 UTC]

I've thought about writing books, but creating presentations for the internet are enough of a handful as it is.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

xenoorb In reply to BlacktailFA [2015-04-05 08:11:39 +0000 UTC]

True. I'd like to write nonfiction but it takes a lot of time for research. And also it can be expensive financially. I have had some good ideas for books but don't have the financial resources to carry the research out.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BlacktailFA In reply to S7alker117 [2015-04-05 08:14:23 +0000 UTC]

There's a very good reason the F-4s were using Falcons. They were USAF F-4s, and the Falcon was a USAF missile. The Sidewinder was a competing US Navy project. 

True story;
In the late 1950s, the USAF asked one of their top flight instructors to evaluate the Falcon. He asked them exactly *how* it homed-in on the target, and they said it went after the hottest part of the target's IR signature, which was it's engine. He essentially facepalmed, and told them that the exhaust plume behind the engine was MUCH hotter, and that in 9 out of every 10 launches, the Falcon would fail to bring-down the target. The USAF's Falcon development team refused to speak to him again after that discussion, and continued to claim a pK Ratio of over 90%.

Less than 10 years later during the Vietnam War, the USAF re-armed most of their fighters with Sidewinders, because the Falcon had failed to hit enemy aircraft in 9 out of every 10 launches --- precisely as predicted.

Want to take a guess as to who that flight instructor was?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

S7alker117 In reply to BlacktailFA [2015-04-05 11:19:11 +0000 UTC]

Good old Robin Olds?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlacktailFA In reply to S7alker117 [2015-04-06 06:06:58 +0000 UTC]

Major (later Colonel) John Boyd --- the guy who rescued the F-15 from otherwise certain disaster, and founder of the Lightweight Fighter Mafia (note their full name) who set in motion the efforts to develop the A-10 and F-16.  XD

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

S7alker117 In reply to BlacktailFA [2015-04-06 20:21:09 +0000 UTC]

Well, that was my second choice, but Olds wasn't that bad of shot, I hope. I do know that he despised the Falcon greatly, even talking openly about when his squadron fired a load of those missiles and not even one hit the target. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BlacktailFA In reply to zeraful [2015-04-05 08:05:58 +0000 UTC]

Actually, 0:2, though many F-102s were lost to accidents. 

All of the "Century Series" fighters (the F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, F-105, F-106, and F-111) had high attrition rates. I don't know how many F-101s or F-106s were lost in accidents, but the '104, '105, and the '111 were deathtraps (especially the F-104, of which almost half were lost!).

The F-100 was the closest thing to a "safe" aircraft in that series to fly, but only in relative terms. For one thing, they had a tendency to fishtail out of control and crash at very low speeds and altitudes, a scenario that came to be known as a "Sabre Dance", which always resulted in an explosive crash --- and as the F-100 lacked a "zero-zero" ejection seat (which works even at the lowest speeds altitudes), the pilot was always killed.

Oh, and another thing; the gaps in that sequence are because several never went into service, and the F-110 was a short-lived designation for the USAF's F-4 Phantom IIs.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

zeraful In reply to BlacktailFA [2015-04-05 11:20:11 +0000 UTC]

"fishtail out of control and crash at very low speeds and altitudes"

It's a wonder any can even clear the airstrip.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlacktailFA In reply to zeraful [2015-04-07 23:18:03 +0000 UTC]

They did it better than *some* aircraft. An F-100 can take off from only 6000ft of runway without afterburner assistance (about 1000ft farther than most modern fighters), but the F-84 Thunderjet and F-84F Thunderstreak both required 10000ft (about 2 miles, or 4km!) of runway to take off.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0