The R-3S/K-13 had the very same low probability of kill that the AIM-9B had…no surprise in that it was a Soviet copy of that missile.

Dear Member,

Didn’t the Soviet copy of the AIM-9B have a serious fuzing problem that saved a many USN/USMC/USAF pilots life over North Vietnam???

Jack E. Hammond

.

The Grumman Tiger was a lovely looking jet, but had no systems. It didn’t remain long in service and is best remembered for being the star of the “Blue Angels” TV series!

Dear Batman,

I was always a Grumman Tiger fan, till I read a book by a USN A-4 driver that took his advance training on the Tiger in Texas. Basically the first versions of the Tiger were flop, and the follow on solved all the problems but two: payload and range. The last being an extreme problem. They even installed fuel cells in the chin-frontal area of the two air intakes that could carry hardly any fuel at all, but ever drop counted.

The F-8s main failing was in the fighter-bomber role. While it looked good according to one of those pilots I know who flew on during the Vietnam War, with those two under-wing pylons that could be fitted, there was a problem with an accurate release of weapons from those pylons. Also, the one item that “ALL” F-8 pilots were glad to see deleted was that underbelly 2.75 inch rocket launcher that also operated as a speed brake.
Totally worthless.

There was also a third minor problem. The F-8 was not an easy aircraft to fly, especially to land, be it on land or a carrier.

Finally, in the US Smithsonian museum AIR&SPACE there was an article that spouted the charms and good things that the F-104 was capable of. The next issue had a letter to the editor from the USAF defence attache assigned to Pakistan when they went to war again in 1971(?) and Pakistan had that one squadron of F-104s and India had gotten a small unit of Mig-21 operational. He told them that a some F-104s (acting as top cover) met some Mig-21s on what is best can be described as an even engagement and that the F-104 pilots while well trained got the bad end of the stick. And it was the aircraft’s fault and not the pilot’s. The former defence attache signed his name: Chuck Yeager.

Jack E. Hammond

Note> Btw, in the old days before Key Publications bought Air Enthusiasts and Air International, both AE and then AI always tried to cover the Pakistani-India rematches from the air warfare stand point in an unbiased way. The art work was great!!! Unfortunately, how ever they would cover or report those wars — ie they would have one issue to the Pakistani AF side and the next issue to the Indian AF reports — sh*t from both sides would hit the fan. Solomon the Wise could have not made those two countries air forces and citizens happy. India especially was ticked off to the max against what was then AE for publishing in their very first issue in 1971 the article “Thirty Seconds Over Sargodha” in which Pakistan claimed an F-86 pilot (one pilot on one mission) shot down four Indian Hunters in less than 30 seconds in the 1965 rematch between India and Pakistan. I mean Indians were mad about that article and stayed mad for a long time. AE would have been better off having an article on the 1857 period of unpleasantness in northern Raj-India (as they like to say in some of the Southern US states about our Civil War). Ain’t going to catch me categorizing that warfare with a noun or two. Made that mistake about a decade ago. No way again. I was told by someone in India that they were making plans for 2007 and they were going to have an Indian Army parade to that conflict and had to cancel it because various Indian military families, groups and even clans were getting ready to re-enact that conflict, only with real blood. Serious!

.

Personally, I think it is a game changer, before Eurofighter wheeled out the Sea Typhoon at Aero India, the last we heard about Sea Typhoon was that it simply was not possible due to the canards blocking the pilots view in landings. Now Eurofighter are claiming that vectored thrust will not only solve this problem but that the Sea Typhoon can launch with full fuel load, and an impressive weapon load and bring back the weapons. If all true then it changes STOBAR from being a poor choice due to the need to launch fighters with minimal fuel, without any drop tanks and top them off using tankers, to a pretty decent choice.

Folks,

I hate to add another message to this thread, but on a forum where a lot of old USN pilots are (ie it is an off shoot of one of the oldest aviation forums in history that mainly dealt with aircraft safety on the old Compuserve before the internet connections became popular) they can not understand why the Sea Typhoons canards would be a problem with a carrier landing with wire arrestment. They have looked and looked at photos, drawings and videos and they just don’t see the problem. One statement by one retired USN pilot who went from the 1950s – the Vietnam War on a bunch of cruises – to retirement in the late 1970s concerning visual during a “trap landing” is this: You present a fine list of requirements for a carrier based airplane. Add that we want nose tow for cat launches like Bruce says. Pilots landing on a carrier don’t look at an LSO they scan between the angle of attack indicator, landing centerline, and optical glide slope indicator (lens or mirror). Canards obstruct nothing of interest. The reason we don’t use canards on airplanes (we do on missiles) is they cause dynamic stability problems.

Can anyone point to a comment by the RN or Eurofighter about the canards or explain in more detail the problems with the canards on the Sea Typhoon?

Jack E. Hammond

NOTE> Point of Trivia, the person “Bruce” he refers to is a USN pilot and was an exchange pilot on the old Ark Royal flying the AEW version of the Gannett(sp?).

.

Folks,

If anyone is interested in the history of the DEI Do-24s, there is an excellent book by a Tom Womack titled “The Dutch Naval Air Force Against Japan.” The Dutch Do-24s by the facts given was a better aircraft than the Catalinas. The problem was spare parts once German over ran Holland and the Japanese attacked. The most interesting item about the Do-24s that Japanese found out the hard way was its dorsal turret. That turret mounted a “high velocity” 20mm cannon. One of the major roles of the Do-24s besides reconn was hunting down Japanese flying boats. The Do-24s and the Japanese flying boats engaged combat like the sailing ships of old. And the Do-24 with that one 20mm cannon if it could get abeam usually won.

Again, it is a great read. Sad. But a great read.

Jack E. Hammond

.

For post 3156. Chicago Midwest X, and I doubt it had anything to do with the Hengist .

BTW these requests really should be posted as a separate question and not in Wot plane.

Cheers
John

Dear John,

I meant the comment about the Hengist in jest. Sorry I did not make it clear when I posted my message. And I have no problem posting it in a separate msg, only why? I though that was the whole idea of WOT thead. I must have missed something in the translation.

Jack E. Hammond

.