It is as biased as the war kills claims it says are biased.
It is wrong on the Mig-21 and F-106 as they were two of the most maneuveralbe aircraft of their generations.
The F-8 pilots which, if I remember correctly, never lost to a Mig-17 in a gunfight, were told not to get into a turning fight with a Mig-21 as it could turn inside an F-8, and a Mig-17 could turn inside Mig-21;
The U.S. planes had better engines to gain speed quickly.
While the U.S. A-4 and A-7 could out turn a Mig-21, even with its lessor engine a Mig-21 could engage or disengage from those subsonic aircraft as it wished.
Even the F-105 with a wing loading of 93lbs/ft could defeat the Mig-17 due to its superior engine.
The Mig-21 suffered from low acceleration in its original engine, and the F-106 pilots, due to its delta were told be aware that delta would kill speed and not let speed drop too low.
Both could turn inside an F-15 but the 15s thrust could allow it to disengage more easily.
Given higher thrust of later engines both the Mig-21 and F-106, although the Mig would always suffer from lack of range, both aircraft at minimum would be on a level playing field with a possible advantage over any aircraft pre F-22 in a gun fight .
The later Mig, Sukhoi. McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics aircraft were really just gen. 3 with better engines.
The U.S. could have put better radar into almost any aircraft, as was seriously considered with the Six, close to decade before the F-15 entered service, they just did not because with R. Strange McNamara in Washington the Pentagon was the equivalent of a chicken running around with its head cut-off.
Sign In
