JSF is such a huge leap forward in capability.
Yeah, but every time I see a picture of one, I'm reminded of these.
/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/IX7PMJ5MGJGETI3G6NGXUDBILI.jpg)
Talking of McCain have recently been reading about the fire on USS Forrestal (actual history though not conspiracy stuff 😉). Amazing that the yanks could get basic stuff like damage control and firefighting so badly wrong after all their experiences in the Pacific. And it was made very much worse by the explosion of very old and obsolete bombs, but they’d been given these due to the huge amounts of ordnance they were getting through on bombing raids..
Hence the nickname.
Didn’t they also call it the tent peg?
Didn’t they also call it the tent peg?
I believe so. Something to do with it being long, thin and straight, and driving into the ground quite well.
Bearing in mind it held all sorts of speed records back in the day it's interesting comparing the thrust from it's engine to the F35's powerplant. It's also an eye-opener looking at the wing area of each.
Having realised how sad that all sounds, I'll get my coat...
Didn’t they also call it the tent peg?
I believe so. Something to do with it being long, thin and straight, and driving into the ground quite well.
So nothing to do with the ejector seat firing downwards and driving the pilot into the ground then.
Are you referring to the F104? That thing looks like it shouldn’t even get airborne!
Unless you’ve actually been close enough to touch one, you cannot believe just how thin the wings are! They don’t have a normal aerofoil shape, they’re a stretched diamond section, and the leading and trailing edges are, quite literally, a knife edge.
The one I had a chance to walk round at Bruntingthorpe has plastic covers along the wings to prevent people slicing themselves open if they walked into the wings without paying attention. It didn’t have an engine, but plans are afoot to preserve the airframe, because the alloy used corrodes very easily, obtain an engine and do fast runs down the runway on open days, like they do with the three Lightnings they have there.
I remember watching a Luftwaffe display of two F-104’s at the RIAT at Fairford one very wet and cloudy weekend. They were doing fast passes at about 100’ with one aircraft upside down above the other as a mirror-image, which in those conditions was terrifying to watch, with their history!
So nothing to do with the ejector seat firing downwards and driving the pilot into the ground then.
Not by the G model which the Luftwaffe bought, and which had a conventional seat, no.
I imagine the lack of wing area made it ride quite well at 100ft.
And the vibration……I was very ill in a Dakota
Had a thirty-minute flight in one once, at an air display at Wroughton airfield where the Science Museum has an extension. Fantastic flight, loved it to bit, and watching the wingtips waving gently up and down was a never to be forgotten sight.
The airplane he always hated fighting against was the Buccaneer, he maintains to this day that they defy the normal rules of physics that apply to everyone else.
Incredible aircraft, I was at Farnborough with my dad once, I guess I was probably about eight or nine, so maybe’62-63? Anyway it was a damp day with low cloud, and the Navy did a low flypast with three groups of planes, first was three Supermarine Scimitars, followed by three Sea Vixens, then three Buccaneers; they were a bit behind the Sea Vixens, and were motoring, with grey compression clouds forming around them, then the third one came in behind, I’d watched the first two go by, and wasn’t expecting the third one, as I turned my head all I could see was a large fuzzy grey blob, with the plane’s nose poking out, it’s wingtips, the top of the tail and the airbrake cone sticking out the back, making a sort of humming, whistling sound. Until it had just passed, then there was this almost bang and a tremendous roar, I’d never heard a noise like it! It made quite an impression... 😁
I remember a little cartoon in the programme, it showed a Buccaneer with a submarine conning tower and periscope bolted to the top. 🤣
I’ve spent hours hunting for the footage I saw on the BBC news once of Buccaneers taking part in a Red Flag competition in the Nevada Desert, shot from an American gun-camera. All you could see was the desert floor with scrub, then first one, then the other Buccaneer would pop up into view, then disappear again, reappearing again a bit closer, banking at a level close enough to the ground the wingtips were raising vortices, and the exhaust was lifting a dust trail. All you could hear was the hyper-excited chatter of the crews on the gun-cameras about these jets coming in at zero feet. I can still remember it pretty clearly, and there are online references to it, but nobody can find it, sadly.
☹️
Especially with John McCain around. This is one of the many Skyhawks he destroyed.
Just reading the linked Wiki article would have proved that to be completely bogus! He was actually sat in an A4 Skyhawk that was hit by the missile! He was lucky to escape as he was strapped in ready to take off, managed to get out of his cockpit, slide down the nose and off the jet. The pilot next to him wasn’t so lucky.
The culprit was an F4 Phantom parked opposite.
Proves that it’s alway best to check these things by actually reading about it; I hadn’t read about the accident before, I only had some very vague recollection of a carrier fire.
@creakingdoor - I didn’t know that the car storage was taking over the whole site! That means the car and bike testing has finished there as well
I visited Bruntingthorpe on quite a few occasions to deliver cars, on one trip I found myself with nearly two hours to kill before being picked up because another member of my team had some sort of problem, so it was spent happily wandering around all the aircraft parked there, and the Lightning hangar, taking photos and getting to sit in the cockpit of a small jet that was being worked on. And being paid as well. Happy day, that was! 😁
The Super Guppy is really something close up!
@countzero
I think the simple economics of what is planned mean that most of the site will be non-aviation, but I'm not sure about the testing. It's all a bit up in the air I think, but there is hope that the Lightning preservation group will be able to relocate to another area that hasn't been purchased. Where they'll do the fast taxis though is another matter as there'll be thousands of Datsuns parked along all hard stuff. There's hope of relocating the LPG to another airfield but that's not really viable for the VC10, the Victor or the Guppy.
I did read on another forum (pprune) that maybe the Victor could fly out, bearing in mind relatively recent history! 😅
Agree about the Super Guppy, remarkable machine. All cables and winches, and huuuuge inside, with a tiny cockpit. The guys restoring it were fighting a losing battle against the elements, and were telling me about some kind of special paint that it needed that was a zillion £ per tin, so funding was also a big issue. As has been shown with the Vulcan for instance, restoring and keeping old aircraft running is a quick route to financial destitution!
Btw, all this talk of John McCain and I thought it was referring to the Die Hard potty-mouth! Is it just me?
Btw, all this talk of John McCain and I thought it was referring to the Die Hard potty-mouth! Is it just me?
You're getting your chips and toothpaste mixed up
He was actually sat in an A4 Skyhawk that was hit by the missile!
That's what he claims, but if you try to check with actual witnesses, you'll find they're all either dead or have been institutionalized. Convenient, don't you think?
All the best pilots liked the F104 because it was so fast but even the great Chuck Yeager almost came to grief in one. Mind you it was modified with rocket thrusters so it could get to the edge of space but when he got there despite attitide thrusters installed in the nose to compensate for the lack of aerodynamic force on the normal flight surfaces he still lost control and had to eject. His parachute caught fire and the molten nylon dripping down burnt his head quite badly but he walked away.
When the CIA wanted a spy plane in a hurry to fly over the Soviet Union Kelly Johnson's Lockheed Skunkworks took the F104 which Johnson had designed then stretched the fuselage and stuck a pair of glider wings to it and the U2 was born. Once you know that and compare pictures of the planes its quite obvious.
More on the F-104G: apparently the F-84 the Germans had before it had a worse accident record.
There's lots of reasons why the Luftwaffe had so many accidents with the F104. Not least it was the biggest single operator, (I think it had nearly 1000 planes, which was something like 30% of the total ever made) second, the pilots of the Luftwaffe at the time, were pretty inexperienced. The Luftwaffe had been disbanded from '45-56, so most of the pilots flying the 104 had little institutional experience of these sorts of really fast really complex jets just 10-15 years after they'd reformed. Thirdly, the weather and external issues (bird strikes, etc, they trained in sunny California, and then had to fly in rainy miserable norther Europe) played a big part, but still most were pilot errors. and Lastly it was designed (a lot like the Lightning) as a clear weather day interceptor, but the Germans had to use it for pretty much everything, including very low level bombing.
I imagine the lack of wing area made it ride quite well at 100ft.
One of things that made it hard to fly was it's threshold speed which was something mad like 200kts. My dad stationed at Gutersloh in Germany remembers a really bad day when there was a NATO exercise there, and as happened so many times flying was scrubbed as the weather turned bad. Well, some of the Italians were playing the "Red" air-force had taken off already (in not too bad weather) and were now having to recover back to Gutersloh in pretty skanky low cloud. I think at least 3 Italian 104's were lost either pilots ejecting as they were running out of fuel trying to land in pretty appalling conditions and I think one crashed. These were not bad pilots either, I think the Italians used some of their more experienced pilots given the German experience. My Dad also said that all the F104 pilots he knew were the smallest guys...The Lightning's cockpit was "a bit snug" but the 104 cockpit was apparently teeny.
Hmmm, there's a big difference between "best fighter ever" and "coolest fighter ever".
*pedant mode on*
I think people are confusing 'best' for 'cool'. A fighter needs massive thrust, huge amounts, and a good wing to be in with a chance of qualifying for the former. Other factors will be its actual turn rate, weapon systems etc.
The F104 is a contender for the latter category but lacks one of the essential ingredients to qualify for the former: decent wings. Same as the lightning.
The Buccaneer and Harrier had trick nozzles/wing blown lift, but those won't help you in a turning fight, which disqualified them from the list. They might have interesting slow speed antics, but they would be sitting ducks against many better and more powerful platforms.
The Jaguar lacked any thrust or wing, was an advanced trainer converted to light bomber, so can't be considered in the "best" and IMHO the "cool" category too.
The venerable Tornado F3, optimised for low level bombing, had neither the wings nor sufficient thrust at altitude to qualify for entry into the "best" category, but arguably does for the "cool" category.
Typhoon has the thrust and agility to qualify.
Ground attack types, such as the SU-25 aren't fighters and need to be included in other "best ever" contests.
*pedant mode off*
Anyway aren't they all lovely machines?! 🤣
and Lastly it was designed (a lot like the Lightning) as a clear weather day interceptor,
Oh come on. Not sure about the 104 but the Lightnings sole purpose in life was to intercept Soviet bombers..24/7 whatever the weather - which more often than not was crap. What good would that have been if its operations were limited due to weather....unless we had a pact with the Soviets that they wouldn't attack us during inclement weather. It was a full bore all weather interceptor. In that role it was a great aircraft...in any other role it was not so good.
The F104 was designed as an air to air fighter based on a spec that came from pilots out of the Korean War where their aircraft were out manoeuvred by the much faster Soviet Migs, so what they craved the most at that point was more speed. Unfortunately Lockheed over delivered on the Speed bit and under delivered on all the other attributes...just a poorly designed aircraft designed for an earlier theatre of combat. So not a great fighter whichever way you look at it. Just like the Tornado...great aircraft for what it was originally designed for - probably the best in the world...not so good at the roles it eventually found itself having to perform. Spoke to a GR1 pilot who was in Gulf war 1. With joint operations in the Gulf with US F16's the missions were high altitude bombing. Unfortunately since the Tornado was designed for low level bombing it could't get above 26k feet in the heat of the desert when fully loaded with external stores, whereas the F16's were up at 30k feet. Severely hampered the joint missions.
Agree with you Wobbliscott 👌🏼
And that is the problem with a lot of multi-role aircraft; jack of all trades... Every multi-role plane is a compromise that impacts its ability to do something else.
I would previously have voted for the A-10 (because it is freaking awesome at what it does) but the definition above counts it out (because what it does is close air support and tank killing). Maybe the F-16 then...
Oh come on
Aye fair enough, I should have said something along the lines of "It was pretty limited in it's role, just like a lot of Gen2 fighters that didn't have great technology to fly in anything other than clear weather, like the Lightning".
One of the v limiting factors of the Lightnings was the IA-23 which was a pretty bloody rubbish radar. it's range was something like 3 miles, (I think red top missles doubled that) and I think outside of a 40degs cone, it wouldn't see anything so in anything other than gin clear skies, and right up behind what you want to shoot down, it had trouble locking onto it. (I'm pretty sure my dad wasn't alone in thinking that the best thing about both firestreak and redtop was that they made the lightning nicer to fly ie, better handling and aerodynamics) This was true of pretty much a lot of this sort of technology back in the 60s and 70s. On paper/in theory it was great, in practice a lot of it was just rubbish that didn't work very well
I spent a load of time with the pilots that flew these jets in my younger years, and there's endless stories about how bits of kit wouldn't work as advertised.
And that is the problem with a lot of multi-role aircraft; jack of all trades…
I disagree....
The F15/16/18 whilst being multi role make great fighters due to their inherent design and the US tradition of huge engines. They also make great attack jets too. But remember the US have a separate, dedicated, bomber capability.
The Jag and Tornado were never considered to be multi role...they were types re-purposed to a completely different role to which they were originally designed (Trainer/Bomber repectively.
Harrier and Buccaneer all had foundations in the low level attack role; a role that has almost polar opposite requirements to those that that make a capable fighter.
Typhoon was an interceptor in concept, and was designed with high agility and had some decent engines. It only became multi role for semi-political/commercial reasons and that was a painful process but I believe it's now highly capable.
You can design multi role, but it needs to be done at the drawing board, not years down the line to save a few quid.
The Jag and Tornado were never considered to be multi role
What?! The Jaguar you could make a case for just "hoped for" cross-purpose. (The French wanted a two seat trainer, we wanted a strike/ground attack aircraft). But the Tornado? It's early prototypes were literally called the Panavia MRCA, Multi Role Combat Aircraft...or Mother Reilly's Cardboard Aircraft, depending on how generous you were being.
....and it was a bomber with multiple Ground attack mission roles.
The F3 (ADV) was spawned off the bomber project, but you couldn't honestly argue it was multi-role at inception.
It's like saying your estate car is an offroader. Sure it can go off road, but....
Ironically F3 had a credible role in its final years in a role not dissimilar to it's original one, but its days were numbered.
MRCA was good/hopeful marketing I guess...
the Germans had to use it for pretty much everything, including very low level bombing.
The Germans bought it for very low level strike; the G model was the first production fighter with an inertial navigation system.
….and it was a low level bomber.
Could've had just as capable an aircraft quicker by sticking more capable avionics in a Buccaneer. Further useless fact of the day: the Buccaneer had better attack speed and radius than the Tornado...
but you couldn’t honestly argue it was multi-role at inception. MRCA was good/hopeful marketing I guess
Hmmm, It was always designed with a ADV, IDS and ECR roles in mind, right from the get go. How achievable that was is arguable. Agreed.
The F3 (ADV) was spawned off the bomber project
No, Here's the F2 prototype alongside the GR1, They were designed to use most of the same bits, it's just that the "bomber" version was also the basis for the ECR, the maritime strike and IDS versions so it got made first, but the F2/3 was developed at the same time using the same design but not "from" the "bomber"
IDS ECR Would be compatible with its design concept, yes, hence the MRCA title. ADV concept was a means of selling more jets, not as a specific drawing-board role.
The F2 (->F3) was ordered from an existing GR order to keep the numbers up. It was basically an afterthought.
It certainly never had any pretence of being a fighter; it was considered an Interceptor. For that reason, it might be in the "cool jet" list, but has no place in a "best fighter" list.
It certainly never had any pretence of being a fighter; it was considered an Interceptor.
Tiring isn't it?! 🤣
But this is a best Fighter Jet thread, yes??! 🤣🤣
Perhaps we need the mods to vet the suggestions? #justsaying
Oh c'mon, "best fighter " threads were made for pedantic idiots...it's pretty much baked in. 🙂
Lol! I'll try to get off my high horse!
Like a moth to a flame: but its soooooo bright 🔥
Oh c’mon,
“best fighter ”STW threads were made for pedantic idiots…it’s pretty much baked in
FTFY.
Back on topic, has anyone mentioned the mighty F-8?
Variable incidence wing,
Capable of flying with the wings folded,
Engine intake that was a major hazard to ground crews,
Appalling accident rate (Wikipedia suggests 1200 built, 1100 accidents…)
What’s not to like?
I was hoping to see someone mention the Mosquito fitted with jets, but it turns out they never actually built it.
Childhood false memories are a bummer. 🙂
That would be the meteor almost..
50s British jets ruled. Love the lightening
Though the su27 is a beauty
Meteor had an awful accident rate... ISTR in the 50s the RAF lost about 300 in one year alone...
Lots of accidents practicing engine failures. Not sure how many were actual engine failures.
Lots of the early generation jets had nasty handling characteristics that sadly caught out their pilots.
If it's the best fighter, it has to be the F22. The F15 was designed to be THE best fighter in the world - it was so good the Russians created 2 new fighters (The Su27 and Mig 29) to beat it. The F22 was designed to be, in every measurable way, a better F15. And in every measure except range - It is - power, speed, maneuverability, awareness, stealth. Everyone is still designing and building aircraft to beat it despite the fact that the oldest F22 is 20+ year old.
Back on topic, has anyone mentioned the mighty F-8?
Or the Super Crusader III, the aeroplane that actually looked like a ****ing shark...
It certainly never had any pretence of being a fighter; it was considered an Interceptor. For that reason, it might be in the “cool jet” list, but has no place in a “best fighter” list.
Genuine question though - isn't that just a hangover of the original design? Cold War era, the whole idea was to get out and shoot down the big bomby things - the enemy was the bomber not other fighters so they evolved as interceptors. ??
All the stuff in the 80's was designed in the 70's with that old way of thinking.
Although this thread has taken a different turn than I had intended, it’s still great. That said, I always loved the shape and look of the F-18, and this is something confirmed to me in the most unlikely of places. You may have seen this when it happened, but take a look at this rather haunting crash of a CF-18 at a Canadian air show. (Importantly, no one is injured.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0HDIxzSMp-0
Arguists wanna argue this isn't the most perfect photo ever taken of a multi-role warplane botherin the sheep in Wales?
https://www.instagram.com/leighton_owen_photography/
