Cliques have rules. MA is pretty tolerant; look at the number of private rooms in Prune.

IMHO MA gains from its openness (within limits)

Mel,

I take your point, but I've just been looking back through the thread and apart from post 9, which basically said that MiG pilots acquitted themselves well, and a couple of remarks rubbishing others' posts, he didn't actually contribute anything to the "discussion". It was more about stereo typing Vietnamese and what you're saying is wrong, but you can believe what you want. I think he was starting to behave quite badly (haven't we all occasionally?) and to dominate the thread in such a way that there was no aviation discussion about the subject.

Worth a ban? Not for me to say, but someone obviously thought so and the mods must have agreed. Perhaps too close to trolling from someone already banned.

Pontius Nav,

I see your point too. In the main I don't care much who posts here as long as they are reasonable about it and don't try to pretend to be something they clearly are not. Sometimes the exit door is for people that simply won't listen and try to wind folks up.

But as I said, it's not for me to say.

Courtney

Stop being so damned reasonable Courtney! ;-)

I understand that Mr Noritake rubbed folks up the wrong way and may not have been viewed as adding to the discussion, but unlike a lot of folks he stated his case with a great deal of humour and brushed off personal jibes with a certain aplomb that I found endearing as well as highly entertaining. He certainly wasn't being offensive, IMHO.

Anyway, merry Christmas.

Banned...???


How precious!

Sorry, Mel. I'll add it to my NY resolution list!:ok:

Sorry to see him go in some ways.
I know nothing much at all about flying F4s, F5s or MiG 21s ( mainly only being involved over some years in specifying, hanging on and/or exploiting recce kit on all three of these aircraft species around the world).
There will always be opposing points of view and I echoed his sentiments regarding too readily "writing off" the other side's aircraft and capabilities.

I remember reading a U.K. assessment of the Me 109 from the late 1930's, in which it was described as " that inferior product". ( I will not engage in the:8 Me /Bf canard)

Nothing changes.

Happy Christmas and best wishes to all.

Shame he's been banned. The thread had potential.

If you're going to opine then it helps to back up statements. That way we'd all be entertained and perhaps learn something.

This may make you laugh or groan, or both.

MiG-21: People?s fighter or plane dangerous? | Russia & India Report

The YouTube video earlier showing various simulations illustrated one drawbacks the Mig 21- the canopy arch blocking forward vision and one post-mission analysis suggested that in a successful interception of 4x4 F105 that the Mig pilot had seen 3 of the formations.

I can't imagine, having never sat in one, that the visibility was fabulous from a F-4, seems to have a significant amount of iron mongery to get in the way. That being said, in the Sea Jet, Harrier and Super a Hornet there was a canopy bow and I never once wished it wasn't there...one would have to be quite clever to sneak up in someone using nothing but a canopy bow for cover!

Can't help but agree with you there m8, although I suspect he did qualify as a troll, despite his amusing way of dealing with folk. And he all but admitted his previous (banned) persona which probably qualified him for another ban.

Merry Xmas, peace and goodwill to all.

Vitesse,

Thank you for your link; I really enjoyed reading the article. There was a lot of scuttlebutt after Cope India 04 and, I think, a lot of misunderstanding. It very much suited the press and the IAF to highlight the stats such as 9:1 kill ratio in their favour and a 90% "success" rate. What they didn't tell you was the nature of the set up for the exercise.

It was nothing much to do with the lack of AESA radar in the F-15, it was a lot more to do with the fact that 15s were given no BVR weapons capability and the engagements were largely in the order of 6v18. That's what they signed up to.

Now, I have to say that they also underestimated the IAF capability (it wasn't only MiG21) and the IAF's tactics were both good and adaptive. But the outcomes have to be viewed with the criteria in mind.

Courtney

Orca, IIRC, the Mig retained a very thick bullet proof glass windshield as protection from the B52 tail gun. This didn't help with the visibility.

Orca,

The vis from the F4 was much better than from many ac of that generation. The view from the RCP of the F4B was poor but later models were improved, slightly. Remember that if the opponent flew a constant aspect attack they may remain behind the canopy bow until impact. Another good reason for not flying in straight lines!
I see that after a dodgey start you eventually flew a real jet!

I don't disagree with your point about geometry Dominator, having briefed countless times to keep the intercept on collision to avoid tracking in the canopy - I just think it's a bit much blaming 'No Joy' on the bow. You can move your head or the jet's nose and I personally think that atmospherics and background are far more significant.

The funny thing about all this is that we have very few data points for actual jet vs jet combat and, as done to death by others, it's never a straight answer.

The Sea Harrier for example wasn't miles better than the Mirage, Dagger and A-4...but a combination of jet, aircrew, fuel, fighter control, tactics, 9-Lima and primary role saw the only data point go in the Sea Harrier's favour. Did the world rush out to buy them...errr, no....and rightly so.

Hi Courtney,

I've read some opinions which differ slightly from the article and I think there was a return match? I liked some of the quotes in the piece.

Well the Mig 21 clearly wins the longevity prize; there's even a few on the air display circuit in the US.

OK BUT:

At last report, a fair number of Iranian Phantoms are still in service in the attack and antiship role, kept flying by the clandestine acquisition of spares, as well as considerable local ingenuity in the reverse-engineering and manufacture of such spares. It is said to have around 65 flyable F-4E Phantom II aircraft mainly based at 3rd Hamedan, 6th Bushehr and 9th Bandar Abbas tactical fighter bases, with a few aging F-4D aircraft based in Chahbahar 10th AB.


The Hellenic Air Force operates 12 RF-4Es and 34 F-4Es. The Hellenic Air Force participated at the Malta International Airshow with an F-4E PI 2000 Phantom II from Andravida Air Force Base in Greece. This will be the second time Greece participates at the air show, having sent another Phantom II in 2005. The air show took place over the weekend of Sept. 27-28.

Turkey is one of the largest F-4 Phantom operators in the world and has used its aircraft in bombing raids against Kurdish forces along the Iraqi border. All of turkey’s aircraft were heavily upgraded by Israel which has greatly enhanced the aircraft’s capabilities. Turkey continues to use the RF-4 as its main reconnaissance aircraft and it was in this role that one of its planes was shot down by Syria in June 2012, almost bringing the two countries into conflict. As recent as April 2014, a Turkish RF-4 Phantom was involved in an altercation with Greek fighter aircraft when it was conducting operations over the Aegean Sea. Turkey continues to purchase newer and more modern fighter designs but the F-4 phantom will continue to be an important part of its air force for at least the next decade.

http://www.byronhartshorn.com

The Collins Foundation currently has an F-4D available for air shows.

McDonnell F-4D Phantom II - The Collings Foundation

Japan (RF-4E Kai / RF-4EJ Kai / F-4EJ Kai / F-4EJ), South Korea (F-4E) and the USAF (QF-4E / QRF-4C) can also be added to the F-4 current users list as well, although the USAF only uses them as manned/un-manned drones. So, the MiG-21 clearly HASN'T won the longevity prize yet... Oh, and the civilian F-4D owned and operated by the, Collings Foundation, will hopefully be joined by one of the early pre-production models this year, operated by another civilian outfit.

-RP

My friend Skip Holm who flew F-105's and F-4's in Vietnam and subsequently flew Mig-21's in the USAF 'quiet' program told me that if we knew how good the Mig-21 really was we would have been a lot more scared...He said it was outstanding to fly and certainly capable of outmanoeuvring the types flown by the USAF/USN there....Skip did the test flying as well on the F-117...

I suspect if F-4 crews had been a lot more scared the ROE and tatics would have changed to alow AIM-7s to be fired BVR at the MiGs.

"Flew mig 21s in USAF quiet program..." One of (probably) his former steeds now for sale on tradeaplane. Regularly displayed until 4 yrs ago And it can be yours for $69,000!! Syndicate anyone? Whichever was best, doesn't this bring home who won the Cold War...How many Russians can afford their own F4 as a plaything?

It's nothing to do with whether or not you can afford* an F-4 as a 'plaything', it's if the US Gov will allow you to have an F-4 as a 'plaything'...
If memory serves me correctly, it took an act of congress to get permission for the Collings Foundation to own and operate theirs, and the USAF apparently fought it all the way!

-RP

* Money probably will be a significant factor, but not the most significant factor!

The Phantom II currently being restored to flying condition as referenced by Rhino power.

MCDONNELL F4H-1 PHANTOM II BUNO | Wings & Rotors Air Museum

the last few posts bring a question to mind,
given a healthy airshow scene in say forty years time, what would the most modern "vintage" airframe flying?


I'm guessing almost nothing flying today would fall into private hands.


FISH




P.S, happy new year everyone.

Thats the one, TEEJ, thanks for posting the vid, I haven't seen that before! :)

-RP

Agreed, RP. Nice one, TEEEJ.

"Almost nothing flying today would fall into private hands.."

Would you have predicted forty years ago an Avro Vulcan nuclear bomber operated by a band of enthusiasts? There are scores of high performance jets in private hands; dozens of MiGs including at least one MiG29 on the display circuit, numerous Hunters, A4s and a Harrier plus of course the F4 mentioned above. Until recently you could have a joyride in a Lightning or Buccaneer. By contrast a typhoon or F18, for instance, is no harder to maintain or fly than the aforementioned. Is it really so unlikely?

Thats a good point actually shot one the newer aircraft are easier to look after than the lighting anyway happy Christmas and all that

In many ways an F-18 is much easier to maintain than a Phantom and was designed to be so. There are a few areas that might catch a civilian owner out such as the computer systems which will be unsupportable once the Hornet leaves military service since no civilian aircraft use them and its not just a metal aircraft either so spare parts would be horrendously expensive unless the USN was nice to you and gave you a huge stack of them since they would have no further use for them.

As for the USAF's attitude what the @&$)? Wouldnt you want a Phantom in private hands that can be displayed at base air shows with somebody other than the USAF paying the upkeep and fuel? Free publicity. I hope the USN takes a better attitude to their former F-4A once she is flying again.

In the ancient past I spent about 1000 non-combat hours displacing valuable fuel in the back of F-4C and F-4E/G airplanes.

I don't think any sane F-4 pilot would try to get into a low speed turning contest with a Mig-21, he would try to use the double ugly's power advantage to gain the vertical while encouraging his Mig-21 adversary to bleed off his energy by turning hard with his draggy delta wing.

My main thought is this: If you mission is to defend your air base from attacks by F-105s while under GCI control then the Mig-21 is well suited to that mission.

If you want to project airpower and operate with minimal outside assistance then the F-4, especially the F-4E and later models would be far better choices.

History shows in a direct encounter the F-4 will usually destroy the Mig-21 in combat.

Jim, when the Vulcan sucked an F4E into a turning fight it was game over unless the F4 bugged out and reattacked with Sparrow.

I just know I'm going to regret asking, but how exactly was it "game over"? Would the Vulcan run the F4 down? It had no means to dispatch the F4.

No, run it out of fuel if the F4 tried to hang in and had to use burner. Rolling out, opening range and returning for a high speed pass was the solution.

Same with a Lightning, once you were on the wall of death the loser was the one who ran out of fuel first.

I think because of the high drag the Mig-21 experiences in a tight turn he'd better get a shot off quickly, especially against a slat-wing F-4.

Because the slat-wing F-4's have pretty much the same turn radius as a Mig-21, and since the F-4 has a power advantage the Phantom is going to be able to maintain the turn longer.

And of course the Mig-21 is in a fuel emergency state shortly after wheels in the well he'd better stay close to his base.

Having said that, our hypothetical F-4 pilot probably refused to get into a level turning contest in the first place.

No problem, RP & CM. Glad that you enjoyed the F4H-1 video.

Porch Monkey wrote,

;)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Az7MUwQCYAAD2UD.jpg

That is gold!:ok:

cap com picture!


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android