560, i’d say that is pretty darn nippy. It’s the F-16’s roll rate, isnt it?
Actually it’s the role rate for the F4D Skyray according to one ex pilot 🙂
I was curious as to how that would hold up to today’s modern fighters.
I wonder if out there somewhere is a mathematical formula for ranking fighters in this area. One that combines all the above mentioned factors.
I guess there are too many variables. lol
Anyway thanks for the information. 🙂
Thats why I passed on the investment
Too much downside.
The only appeal I saw was that they said they could buy the airframe dirt cheap. I think it was under $1 million each and with the upgrades have $8 to $10 million invested in each aircraft. Then sell them for $15 million each.
I had in the back of my mind a project to rebuild/upgrade the F-4 at one time and it never took off (pardon the pun) because of lack of interest.
But hey, if it weren’t for the dreamers of this world we would all be walking where ever we went. Dreamers gave us cars, flight and even the wheel.
Can you imagine? Far in the past some dreamer saying,” You know I think we can rebuild this sled! Maybe put a horse to pulling it and I don’t know . . . call me crazy but something to get it off the ground.” lol
Interesting Timing . . .
I recently (Aug-09) attended an investment seminar hosted by two men who want to rebuild the F-104 Starfighter. One man from Germany the other Italian, because I cant recall their names for the purposes of this discussion I will call them GG for “German Gentleman” and IG for “Italian Gentleman.” Both claimed to have been F-104 pilots and both claimed to be well connected with the governments of their respective nations.
The presentation opened with a video of the F-104 in use by the German and Italian Air Forces.
GG then presented a history of the F-104 that was very honest. He didn’t sugar coat the high initial accident rate and highlighted the lower loss rate once the maintenance issues were addressed and the low loss rate of Danish Starfighters.
IG then spoke of the plan to buy F-104 airframes and make the following modifications to them.
1) replace the engine with the type used in the F-16A. Providing roughly the same power with better fuel economy. Thus extending range.
2) Fitting a French Radar from the Mirage F-1
3) Blisters fore and aft, port and starboard for a RWR
4) Adding both a new IFF package and INS
5) Carrying 8 AAM’s 4 Sparrow class missile under the wings and 4 IR sidewinder class missiles, one each on a side ailing and two on a double rail under the belly.
6) adding a flair/chaff dispenser package
7) Adding an onboard ECM package to the wing tip tanks.
There was more but I cant remember the details and a model showing the final version.
The idea was that with the rising costs of modern aircraft that some nations would not be able to afford them. They spoke of how new modern fighters cost something like $60 million dollars to buy. They think they can sell these for a third of that cost.
They opened the floor to questions.
Most people ask the usual questions about money and return on investment but a few had hard hitting questions.
One ask what would happen if the US banned the sale of the engine. GG’s answer was that if that happened he was sure he could get another engine from Russia or China. That he had two others in mind that would work just as well.
(The MiG- 29’s engine maybe?)
Someone ask about the F-104’s performance in the Pakistan / India wars.
GG said that the failure in that war was more due to poor mission planning and bad luck than performance of the aircraft.
He pointed out that in WW-2 the USN discarded the Buffalo fighter because it had failings.
That Finland bought them and how in the war with Russia some Finnish Ace (sorry I cant even begin to pronounce his name) shot down 80 some odd Russian aircraft mostly in a Buffalo. He fought against Russian aircraft of US, British and Russian design and never had his aircraft holed by a bullet.
I ask what market they had in mine and was not surprised when he mentioned Argentina, but was totally shocked by the mention on Libya!
I passed on this opportunity.
My two cents . . .
Well . . . I need to get my first post in somewhere and this seems as likely a spot as any, so here I go.
There have always been cost overruns. It’s just that today they are magnified by the enormous costs of the product times the number of orders placed. Part of it of course is low balling the bid in order to secure the contract. But looking back its not always the case.
I remember reading in what I think was, “Thunderbolt: The operation History of the P-47″, that it ran into cost overruns and took longer to work the “bugs” out that originally thought.
This at a time when the state of the art of aircraft construction had pretty much stabilized at that point, and I don’t think you can call the P-47, a plane I dearly love to this day, as “cutting edge” even then.
So here we are today with costs so high that nations find it extremely difficult to buy the aircraft in the numbers it requires.
Another example is that of the F-16 Falcon. Originally built for an Air Force requirement for a “cheap but effective” dog fighter to complement the more costly F-15 Eagle. Why? Because the F-15 became to costly to buy in the numbers required and partly because the Pentagon wanted to send a message to the aviation industry that costs had to be cut.
But the Pentagon then continued to press the F-16 into roles it wasn’t originally intended. The weight went up and so did the cost to where the agile dog fighter F-16A grew into the more powerful and more capable version we see today and disappeared from USAF inventory.
Now we stand here with the JSF and all the rest and nobody can afford to buy them in large numbers, and because we cant buy them in large numbers we demand more from them.
More bang for our buck as it were.
That in turn means the company building and developing them cant afford to spend as much in the process and make a profit as it would like.
It’s a vicious cycle but not a new one.
That’s my view on it anyway.:)