dark light

alfakilo

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 391 through 405 (of 472 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: To MiG-21 Operators…… #2416113
    alfakilo
    Participant

    Just at hand in short notice:The scan is from Walter J. Boyne.

    That means little. Boyne is a talented aviation writer, but he is not a former fighter pilot. Please don’t confuse having flown in a fighter to being an experienced fighter pilot. That comment in that quote about “better instantaneous and sustained maneuverability” needs explaining. What exactly is he trying to talk about? Turn rate? Radius? Roll rate?

    I hope not turn rate…are you really going to believe that a F-4 has a better instantaneous turn rate than a MiG-17 or 19?

    Show me a late model MiG-21 maneuver diagram…not some recollection of some former pilot. We’re comparing relative performance here, not memories.

    in reply to: To MiG-21 Operators…… #2416657
    alfakilo
    Participant

    A comparision of the F-4s and the last series of MiG-21s showed, that the F-4 had still the faster inst….

    What does that mean?

    Turn rate?

    If so, please provide a maneuvering diagram to show how the “F-4” had a higher instantaneous turn rate than a late model MiG-21.

    in reply to: Navy F-4's, why no internal gun #2405882
    alfakilo
    Participant

    Did you use the air-ram powered M61 pod or the electric? If you used both how did they compare?

    Good question…and one that I’ve had rumbling around in my head ever since we started this discussion.

    What powered these things? My old fart memory said both electric and hydraulic…but no recollection of ram air.

    So I dug through some old manuals and found the answer for the F-4E…I don’t have any specific data on the pods…and Googling this requires some care as what is written may be misleading.

    All of these guns required an external power source to rotate the gun.

    The F-4E internal gun was hydraulically powered…that means hydraulic power rotated the gun. The system itself is electrically actuated (fired).

    The SUU-16 and 23 pods also required a power source to rotate the gun. The SUU-16 was driven by a ram air turbine (RAT) but I have to admit that I haven’t found any reference that exactly says what that meant…did the RAT mechanically power the gun or did it power an electrical generator that then powered the gun? The SUU-23 removed the RAT and is said to use “self-power”…and again, I’m not sure what that exactly means.

    RATs can provide both electrical and hydraulic power, either individually or combined.

    I don’t remember which pod I used in the F-4C…maybe given the year (1972), the SUU-23…and so I can’t answer your question about any personal preference. As for their performance, I don’t know why they wouldn’t be essentially the same…prone to the same mounting issues, same amount of ammo, same firing rate, etc.

    in reply to: Navy F-4's, why no internal gun #2407966
    alfakilo
    Participant

    I thought a gatling type gun has not much recoil due to multiple barrels, at least in comparison with a single barrel gun of the same caliber. Not the case?

    Thanx for the rest of the post, very informative. 😀

    I’m no expert on gun mechanics, but I don’t think so…the rotating barrel system produces a higher firing rate but each round produces an individual recoil as if it were a single barreled gun.

    One of the common myths about the A-10 is that the recoil of its gun can slow the jet down enough to make it stall. Complete baloney, but it makes an interesting story.

    in reply to: Navy F-4's, why no internal gun #2408189
    alfakilo
    Participant

    BEAUTIFUL, hi rez gun pod pic in action- 1,832 × 1,512 pixels, file size: 2.27 MB

    Source&info

    For USAF F-4 pilots, we all got practice firing the M-61 in initial training and annual weapons qualification. For those of us who went through initial in the F-4C in Arizona, we used the gun pod. Later, after converting to the F-4E, we had the internal nose gun.

    The external pod was inherently less accurate than the nose gun…you can imagine the recoil of something that powerful…the mounting system just wasn’t as rock steady as the nose gun (in the picture, you can see that it is attached to the centerline pylon just like a bomb). Added to that was the way the pod was sighted in when being mounted…and the mounting was only temporary, the pod only being loaded when the training requirements called for it…it wasn’t a permanent load.

    The pod was sighted in this way (simplified). The pod was mounted but not tightened all the way down. A technician would put a small telescope into the breech of the gun to allow him to look through the barrel…that way he could see what the gun was pointed at. He would then align the scope on the sighting target and then tighten the pod down.

    The problem was that the sighting target was a black cross painted on the back of the nose gear strut (since the nose gear was directly in front of the gun). The technician adjusted the mounting of the pod until the scope pointed right at the center of the cross.

    This produced a relatively accurate aiming reference but not one as good as used with the nose gun. The gear cross was too close to the pod and any errors made in adjustment were magnified over the actual firing distance (2000′ minimum for ground attack).

    At our base in Arizona, we trained both F-4 and F-104 pilots. I flew the F-4C there as a student and the F-104 as an instructor…generally speaking, whenever we had competitions among ourselves, the F-104 tended to win strafe because of the better mounting system of its internal gun. Later, when I flew the F-4E, I found my strafe scores improved over those that I had in the C model.

    But nothing beat the A-10!! I was only an average bomber but was very competitive in strafe…typical F-4 scores (given in % of hits vs rounds fired) were less than 50%. Hog scores often were above 50%…I thought that if I didn’t shoot 75% or better, I was having a bad day.

    You might wonder how we calculated “hits”. Two basic ways. The old fashioned way was to fire at a target and then have someone go out and count the holes! The better and more modern way was to use a device that detected the sound of the ‘bullets’ as they passed overhead. This ‘acoustiscoring device’ was installed below the target and protected by a dirt berm. Its detection distance was limited to the size of the scoring area on the target (we often used old aircraft drag chutes that were painted bright orange for better visibility). It could detect each rounds as it passed and transmitted that count to the range ground controller who would then radio the results to the pilot…that allowed us to correct our aiming for the next pass. We were given 100 rounds and allowed three passes to fire those rounds out.

    I would make the first pass a “sighter” pass where I would aim as carefully as possible, correcting for wind. Then I would fire a very short burst. The result would tell me how well the gun was sighted in and how well I had corrected for the wind. The next pass I would fire a longer burst to verify my correction. If that was a good correction, then on my last pass, I would get to work! I’d do two things…get the best possible aim and then delay my firing until the last possible moment. Our minimum range was 2000′ and some of us got real good at knowing right where that was!!

    The winning shooting technique was to open fire with the gunsight exactly on the wind corrected aiming point. While the gun was firing, we made every effort to keep aiming at that point…so that when we stopped firing we were still pointed at the aiming reference…pilots who didn’t do well in strafe often let their aim move while the gun was firing and got lower scores as a result.

    Back when I was doing a lot of work with flight sims, I teamed up with a very talented guy who programmed add-ons to existing sims…together, we made an add-on to the sim Strike Fighters that allowed the player to fly a bombing mission on a USAF style bombing range. I helped with the technical advice and he did the actual art work and programming. Here are a few screenshots that show the range and a strafing run in a F-4.

    http://webpages.charter.net/alfakilo/r1.jpg
    http://webpages.charter.net/alfakilo/r3.jpg
    http://webpages.charter.net/alfakilo/r2.jpg
    http://webpages.charter.net/alfakilo/r5.jpg

    in reply to: Navy F-4's, why no internal gun #2410315
    alfakilo
    Participant

    All models before the E including the J could carry SUU-23 gatling gun in a pod mounted on the centeline station and on the outer wing stations if the need arise.

    Are you saying the E could not?

    Top-Gun was used to train the pilots to utilise the capabilities of their AAM-weaponary, which payed much more off than procure F-4s with an internal gun.

    I have no idea what that means.

    The installation of the internal gun were full of troubles for the F-4Es at first..

    I must have forgotten that…what is your source?

    in reply to: Navy F-4's, why no internal gun #2410729
    alfakilo
    Participant

    andy, there are quite a few
    http://www.simhq.com/_air/acc_library.html

    The article most relevant to this discussion is the “boom and zoom” article. Folks should remember that I wrote these for the air combat flight sim community, but the concepts are taken from real life and work just as well in sim flying as they do in reality.

    Here’s a link to the part of that article that talks about tactical formation flying:

    http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_027a.html

    in reply to: Navy F-4's, why no internal gun #2411965
    alfakilo
    Participant

    None and I did not claim such a thing for all to see. I never made it into a cockpit of a fighter alone, except for photo purposes or instructed by a friendly pilot.
    Sens is my real name.
    Now it is your turn. 😉

    Go to SimHQ.com…they have an extensive air combat library. Look for wrote most of the articles. You might even read one or two…you might learn something.

    in reply to: Navy F-4's, why no internal gun #2413276
    alfakilo
    Participant

    @alfakilo: What is your reflection on Shaw’s work ?

    An excellent book. The best reference for air combat on the civilian market that I know of. The only problem that I see…and this is not a criticism at all of the book…is that it is very technical, written in a way that assumes a good basic understanding of air combat concepts, and because of that it may well be misunderstood by those who do not have that understanding.

    Whenever I find myself in discussions like this, I usually haul out his book just to make sure my memories haven’t gone off course in the years that have gone by. Shaw is a talented and smart guy and has done air combat fans a huge service by publishing this book.

    in reply to: Navy F-4's, why no internal gun #2413278
    alfakilo
    Participant

    The problem about that is, that no present nor former pilot speaks about that in such general way without a first hand example. You go into a mission in a given formation and all that is briefed before.

    How many missions have you gone into, Sens?

    LOL!!

    in reply to: Navy F-4's, why no internal gun #2413752
    alfakilo
    Participant

    [QUOTE=Sens;1552968]You did not even explain that./quote]

    See post #26.

    Who was the one to sell the readers, that the USAF has changed to “fluid-four” tactics after the Vietnam War?! 😎

    See post #27.

    in reply to: Navy F-4's, why no internal gun #2413753
    alfakilo
    Participant

    So basically the difference was the tilt towards the wingman being a defender or attacker? That’s kind of interesting, although the terms sound generally identical. If you have the time maybe you could clarify some things. So you’d more use something like a pincer in the DA, but in the LD something with a trailer like a lead-around? How would a 2v1 bracket fit into this?

    It is a bit confusing! I always begin by noting that the definitions are academic and may not fit into real world situations.

    The main difference between DA and LD is in the freedom of the free fighter (FF) to engage the bandit. LD gives the FF more latitude than does DA. It is not an accident that the USAF tends to look at things the DA way and the USN tends to prefer LD. In my career, I thought that the USN tended to be far more operational than the USAF…less hidebound by regulations…but that may be a gross over-generalization on my part.

    Also…in an academic setting, it is typically assumed that the engaged fighter…EF…(the one on the attack or under attack) is the flight lead and therefore the more experienced pilot. The lesser experienced pilot is typically assumed to be the FF. Of course, it does not have to be this way…the situation may well begin with the wingman being the EF. The assigning of roles (EF and FF) is laid out in what is known as the Engaged Fighter and Free Fighter Contract… a set of rules and procedures governing who can do what and when.

    Another note of clarification…some years ago, the USAF changed the term FF to Supporting Fighter (SF) because the muckedy-mucks thought that the word “free” implied a lack of discipline and control. I’ll stick with FF because some texts still use that term…for example, Shaw’s book which is commonly used as the “bible” on air combat matters.

    In DA, the job of the FF is to watch out for additional bandits and to be in position to support the leader…that could include being ready to assume the EF role. The EF has to give up that role to the FF…the FF cannot take it from him.

    In LD, the job of the FF is quite different…he maneuvers to attain a position of attack and when he is in position, he can reverse the roles with the EF by radioing the EF to break off his position and let the FF into the fight. The EF is assumed to honor this direction.

    All of which sets the stage for the basic distintion between DA and LD. In DA, the EF maneuvers to attack the bandit in the most aggressive way possible…this may result in the EF losing his offensive advantage if the attack is unsuccessful. In LD, the EF is much less aggressive and some think his true purpose is to be aggressive just enough to keep the bandit predictable while the FF maneuvers for the actual kill position. We used to refer to this as the EF “herding” the bandit around while the FF maneuvered for the kill.

    All of this sounds nice in theory but may be difficult to set up and achieve in actual practice when the other guys don’t know what you are doing. Bandits have a bad habit of not being predictable!

    As for the pincer, that situation is more difficult to generalize about. For a short range pince, where the EF and FF are in visual contact with each other and the bandit, the LD or DA method would be as determined by the flight lead and would probably be the method used by that organization…in other words, DA for the USAF and LD for the USN. For each, the flight would split…no lead arounds or trailers. For longer range pincers and those that are BVR, then I think the distinction becomes somewhat moot. At that point, the two fighters are more or less singles who happen to be in radio contact. Hard to generalize…the flight lead is going to set the ROE. The EF and FF will deconflict using altitude or position relative to the bandit while they essentially run individual intercepts…the final roles will be set when a visual is achieved on the bandit. A that time, if the FF (the wingman) has the visual he could take the EF role (LD) or request the EF role (DA) and the EF would swap roles and remain visual on the bandit while trying to get a visual on the new EF.

    One last note…I’m telling all of this as I remember it from many moons ago. If things have changed…and they may have…maybe someone who is more current on today’s methods can correct me.

    in reply to: Navy F-4's, why no internal gun #2414735
    alfakilo
    Participant

    Discussions of fighter formations and tactics has always been mostly academic. Pages have been written describing what to do in a given situation…for example an offensive 2vs1…the discussion is complete with diagrams of who goes where, etc.

    The problem with this is that real life is seldom a neat 2v1.

    Too often, it’s more a situation of your known number vs an unknown number. It isn’t very likely that a two ship is going to find a single bandit to practice their fancy footwork on.

    While the academic discussions do provide a foundation of whatever concept is being described, reality is typically far different.

    Take what we used to call “many v many”, “group gropes”, or better still, “furballs. This is where a relatively large formation of friendlies takes on another relatively large number of adversaries. In a training environment, this can be scripted right up to the point of contact…and then all heck breaks loose.

    Probably the best experience I’ve had with a situation like this was at TOPGUN where some USAF aircraft supplemented the TOPGUN instructor formation in the end-of-course many v many excercise known informally as ” the battle of San Clemente Island”…back in the day when we flew out of Miramar. A point on the island was designated as the “carrier…the TOPGUN students had to defend the carrier against the attacks of the instructor group. Their goal was to prevent any bandit from overflying the designated spot.

    These furballs were just that…furballs. Everyone tended to engage at once and the fight broke up into bits and pieces of 1v1s, 1v2s, etc. Often we were offensive and defensive at the same time…there were basically two kinds of pilots…those who lit their hair on fire and went directly into the middle of the fight (they usually got killed pretty quickly…and the “hawkers”, pilots who shirted the edge of the fight looking for an unwary victim (they would often get their kill but at the expense of having the fun of lighting one’s hair on fire.

    Too often, the academic principles of LD, DA, and F2 tended to break down amidst all the activity…it took a great deal of discipline to maintain formation integrity simply because the neat little examples in the book had ceased to exist in the swirl of airplanes everywhere.

    But it was great fun. You can take that to the bank!!

    in reply to: Navy F-4's, why no internal gun #2414812
    alfakilo
    Participant

    With the rise of expertise even the fluid four did allow the loose deuce style of the USN-flyers.

    Once again, Sens, you show your shallow understanding of the subject…typical of someone whose only contact with a subject has been through reading a book.

    You should have said that Fluid Four could be flown effectively using Double Attack concepts. The reason you blew it is that you don’t understand the basic differences in how the free fighter, in this case, element (USAF) or section (USN), operates. I explained this in an earlier post in response to a poster’s question. You might read that…or look it up in whatever book you are reading.

    in reply to: Navy F-4's, why no internal gun #2414821
    alfakilo
    Participant

    In any case, after the war nobody adopted the Kette as his primary formation.

    Yep, the three ship hasn’t had much support except for its use as the fallback in case a four ship lost somebody.

    Oddly enough, in Europe in the 80s, I thought the three ship flown with the lead in front and the element in line behind wasn’t a bad idea. The lead could maneuver easily and it wasn’t all that hard to herd the formation around both on and off target.

Viewing 15 posts - 391 through 405 (of 472 total)