Power is nothing without control and a main gain from the higher weight of the US-fighters from that time-scale was the rising support by hydraulic systems. Just that at hand allowed an ordinary pilot to fly his fighter at higher speeds and make use of the gains from that.

Did the Hellcat have hydraulically boosted controls?

The loader-technology was another main advantage.

“Loader technology”? What’s that?

From 1943 the Zero was technological outclassed and gave the US-pilots the real option to force their tactics on the Japanese.

What tactics were forced and where did Zero technology fit into that statement?

Did I mention the one-sided radar support.

Not yet…but in a discussion of maneuvering abilities, I’m sure you eventually will. Along with fuel fraction…we can’t forget that little jewel.

Why? The F6F was no match for the Zero in low speed turning. It was superior in many other categories (especially: it could take some bullets without becoming a flaming wreckage), and later in the war, most pilots of the Zero were mostly inexperienced novices.

The Hellcat wasn’t that superior, but the pilots flying it were.

In these discussions, context is everything…and in the the context of Sens’ argument, the Wildcat is the better example. The Hellcat was specifically designed to successfully engage the Zero with improved turn capability, better T/W, and a better climb….and it did this very well.

Your retreat into bringing up pilot abilities makes me laugh. In these discussions where you and the others rely on arcane minutia of engine details and the number of threads on a screw, it’s about time that the real bottom line is exposed. The initial successes of the Zero had far less to do with its maneuvering capabilities than it did with the reluctance of its adversaries to respect those abilities. Once these adversaries accepted the fact that no fighter of any air force was going to be able to match the aerodynamics of the Zero, then that aircraft was dead meat, regardless of who was flying it.

A AJT/LIFT have to be capable to replicate those two pretty nicely.

Here’s my opinion on this…an opinion based on assignments as a T-37 instructor pilot in UPT, a F-104 RTU instructor pilot, and operational instructor pilot experience in the F-4, F-104, and A-10.

A “LIFT” trainer does not have to “replicate” a F-22 or F-35. That isn’t its mission…anymore than did the F-86, AT-33, or AT-38 have to replicate F-4s, A-7s, etc.

For the F-22, the trainer has to be able to perform basic A2A maneuvers…the idea is that when the student gets to his F-22 training squadron, he has demonstrated some familiarity with tactical formations, and BFM and ACM. The F-22 instructor doesn’t have to teach what a Yo-Yo is…he only has to teach how to do it in a F-22.

For the F-35, the trainer needs a basic A2G capability and reasonably modern navigation avionics. The student will learn the basics of A2G deliveries and tactical navigation.

That’s the upside. The downside for the student is that he is going to have to demonstrate an ability to maneuver in three dimensions and think while doing so…and also show that he can hurl his pink little body at the ground and do so without killing himself or anyone else who happens to be around.

A few points need to be brought out here.

1. There are already “primary jet trainer” aircraft in the US fleet… the USN/USMC have their T-45 Goshawks, and the USAF has replaced its T-37s with the T-6 (calling it a “jet-like trainer”), so the need is for the next step between those two and the fighters. T-45 also fills this for the USN/USMC, just the USAF needs something.

2. The USAF/USMC/USN have all said that they are not asking for a “trainer” version of either F-22 or F-35, so the new trainer needs to prepare new pilots to fly “all-up combat aircraft”, so something simple just won’t do… it needs to be a true LIFT aircraft.

There seems to be two topics under discussion…one, a replacement for the T-38 in USAF pilot training…and two, an aircraft that would provide initial training in fighter fundamentals.

The two are not the same.

Program goals in pilot training have little to do with flying fighters other than those students who have qualified for the T-38 track have demonstrated the skills for flying high performance fighters and bombers. The actual training syllabus does not train fighter skills other than basic formation and navigation.

USAF pilot training is as much about elimination as it is training. As the student makes his way through the program, he is faced with ever increasing demands on his ability to complete a difficult and time-compressed syllabus. Back in the day, the T-41 (Cessna 172) was used to weed out those who lacked any ability to be a pilot. The T-37 further reduced the class by eliminating those who could not adapt to a jet environment. Finally, the T-38 completed the elimination process by filtering out those who could not keep up with high performance flying. While the T-41 and the T-37 have been retired, the process today remains the same.

“LIFT” presumably means “Lead In Fighter Training”…a program that has been around since the early 70s in the USAF. The idea was to take some of the load off the F-4 and A-7 (and later, the F-15, F-16, A-10, and F-22) training by taking students through a program where they would learn fighter fundamentals such as basic air-to-air and air-to-ground attack and low level navigation. Right now, for this purpose, the USAF uses T-38s in a 10 week course following pilot training graduation.

So…take your pick! Do you want to discuss a T-38 replacement for pilot training? Or do you want to discuss a T-38 replacement that will provide initial fighter skills training for all of the USAF fighters?

Straight from Hawk to F-22?

Kidding right?

Why not?

And if not, what is your suggestion?

Some actual flight experience in service evaluation of the MiG-29 reposted for clarification of several points about the Fulcrum versus Eagle/Viper scenarios.

Source? GAF exchange pilot?

the you tube video has F-15 pilots that killed the MiG-29s saying the MiG-29 is more agile than the F-15 if you want diagram specifics well i have no F-15 or MiG-29 manuals, but the people that flew F-15s are telling you already 16 deg/s STR

That TV show is entertaining but it isn’t intel. If that is all you have, then you need to dig a little harder.

But, in any case, these arguments pertaining to air-to-air “superiority that focus only on performance values are extremely misleading…as any conflict from WW1 to the present has shown. What determines a kill is the skill of the pilot in the cockpit…not the type of aircraft that cockpit is in.

we are talking almost 45 years of difference in technology…

Nope…what we are talking about…or at least you are talking about…is a bunch of nationalistic hoopla combined with some serious overtones of post-Cold War angst.