RockyIf you want an aircraft to use a short runway, lift a big load, fly a long distance, and have the ability to go very fast, especially at low level, then a swing wing is still the best design to do that. Its great for high speed strike aircraft.
A swing wing is not the best design for an air superiority fighter because a jet with a fixed wing that is optimized for a turning fight at typical cornering velocities will weigh less and have a more ideal shape. The swing wing will be better at very low or very high speed, but the fixed wing will always be best for the specific spot in the flight envelope that it is designed to fly at.
The F-14 has to lift a big load of Pheonix missiles off a carrier deck and loiter for a long time at a distance from the carrier, yet go very fast at times. The swing wing was perfect for that, but was never as good as the fixed wing F-15 in the air superiority role.
The F-15E would be better off with a swing wing like the F-111 or Tornado for range, payload, and max speed, but it is cheaper to build more F-15s than reopen the F-111 line, and the F-15E is vastly better for ACM.
RockyAs Golden Dragon pointed out, the F-104 was designed as an interceptor. Fly fast at a bomber target, take a one pass shot at it and head for home.
The roles of dog fighter and bomb truck were tacked on latter and the airframe was never intended in it’s original role to do these jobs.
The F-104 was supposed to be a response to Korean War fighter pilots’ request for a fighter with higher performance than the enemy aircraft. They didn’t like the fact the the MiG-15 they flew against was faster and higher flying than their F-86. The F-104 was indeed intended to duel with enemy fighters. It was regarded as the best dogfighter in the US inventory, although with a fighting style that emphasized superior rate of climb and speed, rather than turning ability.
RockyWhat exactly is the point of this thread?
Was it a good idea to build an air superiority fighter that totally sacraficed turning ability to get the maximum possible speed?
RockyThe Starfighter wasn’t the only airplane where agility wasn’t top of the priority list. The Russian Su-9 and Su-11 come to my mind as well as the F-104.
And the MiG-25 and MiG-31. But the Su-9, Su-11, MiG-25 and MiG-31 were bomber interceptors. They were not ment to mix it up with other fighters as the F-104 was. For an air superiority fighter, the F-104 was a very unusual design. It was a super plane for fighting in the vertical with fast slashing attacks. When you are defending your own airspace, with radar ground control to help, I expect this would have worked very well. But that is a narrow mission, and all manuverability has been sacrificed for that one tactic. It was built for speed without compromise. It might have worked well, but like I said, that design philosophy hasn’t been repeated.
RockyRocky it amazes me how you ignore things just to suit your argument. I never said the F-102 was an air superiority fighter. And its missiles? If case you never realized, the Falcon was actually improved over the years, and the AIM-4D was the version that was so bad over Vietnam. The F-102 later carried the AIM-4E and AIM-4F, both of which were much better. Of course the weapon would obviously never have the ultimate success of the AIM-9. And some missiles are better than none at all. You think the radar-equipped Farmer with its four AA-1’s would have been any better? How about not a chance.
I don’t even know why they put the AA-1 on the MiG-19. The Soviets had much better missile armed intercepters. I think it was just another example of the infatuation with missles that plagued aircraft design at that point in history.
The AIM-4E and F didn’t come along until the MiG-19 had been superceded by later aircraft anyway. In the period I am talking about, prior to 1963, the Falcons on the F-102A sucked against fighter type targets.
RockyRocky,
The F-102, contrary to what you seem to think was actually a fairly good dogfighter, but of course it was lacking the internal gun.
The big wing of the F-102A would have been very good for turning, especially at high altitude, but its weapons sucked, and the canopy gave the pilot an excellent view of the inside of the cockpit. The F-102A was a decent bomber interceptor, but it just wasn’t an air superiority fighter.
So, Soviet MiG’s would likely never have encountered either the F-102 or F-106.
I mentioned the F-102A because it was stationed in Germany. The F-106 probably would have stayed in the US. With its long range and radar, it is concievable that they might have tried to use the F-102A as a fighter escort. A hi-lo mix of a few F-102As with the F-100s would be a good idea, now that I think of it.
The F-100 by contrast wouldn’t likely have entered into much air combat by the time the mid 60’s rolled around, but of course performing close air support, SEAD, and other missions. Now, during the 50’s, the most potent Soviet fighter was the MiG-19, and as has been stated it was a match for the F-100, with the pilot being the deciding factor in a fight between the two. You also have to remember than an F-100 loaded for air-to-air missions is much lighter than one for A/G missions, so the TWR you mentioned is rather moot.
They were still using F-100Ds to escort F-105Ds in the early part of the Vietnam War. The F-100s had problems keeping up with the thuds.
The thrust to weight ratio figure I gave for the F-100 was not for a plane loaded with bombs. The F-100 is so heavy it just seems that way. :p
Goldondragon:
I am sure that the F-100 and the MiG-19 would have been constantly fighting each other. What other fighter would we have sent into enemy airspace to escort our attack aircraft? Like I said, the F-100D was escorting thuds as late as Vietnam.
RockyThe MiG-15 was woefully outclassed by all these aircraft as was the MiG-17.
I’d take a MiG-15 or MiG-17 over an F-100, F-101, or the F-102A. Sure, our planes were faster, but if you are bounced by a MiG, you are not going to be in afterburner, so you are going to be subsonic. At those speeds, the MiGs will turn circles around you and eat you for lunch. The F-101 had a higher cruise speed and good acceleration, which would help, until it pitched up and fell out of the sky. Against a MiG-15 or MiG-17, the best tactic would be high speed slash and run attacks. It would be vital to see the MiGs first, and they were smaller. The F-104 would have been super for this, but it couldn’t help take the fight to the enemy. The range was too short, it cruises subsonically like every other jet, and it can’t turn for $#!*. The F-8 Crusader was, I think, the best fighter of the era. It was built to dogfight, and it was so much better than the F-100. A bigger version with a J-79 would have been even better.
RockyThe speed of the MiG-19 and F-100 is about the same, but the combat thrust/weight ratio is .89 for the MiG-19S vs .62 for the F-100D. The wing loading is 59 lb/ft for the MiG-19S vs 72 lb/ft for the F-100D. Both are substantially in the MiG-19s favor.
Air to air, the MiG-19 looks like it is much better than the F-100. The F-101C was designed to be an escort fighter. It was very powerful, had a bubble canopy, and guns, but it had a very high wing loading, and it would pitch up easily and crash when pulling gs. I’m sure they hung bombs on it because it sucked in ACM. The F-102A was a bomber interceptor. Its combat record is one loss and no wins in Vietnam. Visability out of the cockpit was poor, it had no gun, and its Falcon missiles were very unpopular with USAF pilots against MiGs in Vietnam. The F-104C was our best fighter, but it had been relegated to the Air National Guard by 1962, and not a great number were bought. I’d say the F-105 was the next best USAF fighter at ACM, and it was built to drop bombs!
RockyI know it’s not exactly modern, this comparison is something I’ve always thought was rather interesting.
On paper, the MiG-19 is the faster of the too although not by too much, and it also has a better TWR so it is slightly more agile, although the F-100 was never a slouch and was a fairly good dogfighter until airplanes like the MiG-21 completely outclassed it. The F-100 has a much greater range than the comparatively short-legged MiG-19, and it also has a much wider variety of weapons options with its air-to-ground capabilities being much better than that of the MiG.
In short I think the MiG-19 is probably the better interceptor, although as I mentioned it’s AAM selection wasn’t very good and the AA-1 was certainly not a dogfighting weapon, while the AIM-9’s on the F-100 were relatively decent in a dogfight, especially compared to the AA-1.
So while the Farmer is certainly a better air-to-air performer, I think the F-100 is the more versatile aircraft (interception, close air support, ground attack, Fast-FAC, SEAD, and recce in the RF-100A). It can carry a much wider array of A/G weapons than the MiG.
I’ve always wondered how these two would do against each other, and my opinion has always been the same as yours, excepting I have doubted that the F-100 was good in a dogfight. I think that if NATO went to war against the WARSAW pact in 1962, we would have gotten creamed with F-100s, F-101s and F-102s going up against MiG-17s and MiG-19s. I’ll bet we had better pilots, but those aircraft… ugh.
RockyAnd the F-111 surely qualifies. Intended to be a “one-size-fits-all” aircraft, it was designed for both the Navy and the Air Force, as both a fighter/interceptor and a bomber. It essentially ended up doing neither very well, but it did admittedly evolve into a rather decent ECM/jamming aircraft- the EF-111 Raven. Again, I’m really surprised that the Australians actually purchased some.
The F-111B was a lousy fighter, but the USAF F-111 was an excellent strike aircraft. I have been told by an F-15E pilot, who had formerly flown the F-111F, that the F-111F with the PAVE TACK was a better bomber than the F-15E. Of course the F-15E is vastly better in the air to air role, but that is a secondary role.
I think the F-111C is an excellent choice for Australia. They had no real fighter opposition down there, and the F-111C has great speed, range and payload capability.
RockyI have seen a photo of an EF-105F dropping Mk-82 500 lb bombs from the centerline and carrying Shrikes on the outboard pylons. This photo has been published in many books, and I suspect that was the “F-105G” photo that was seen. I’ve never seen a photo of an F-105G with Mk-82s.
In 1971, South East Asia F-105Gs had ECM equipment mounted in blisters on the side of the fuselage to free up all the pylons for missiles and tanks. Even so, the ECM was rarely turned on, because it interfered with the radar detection equipment. The typical load was as mentioned before: AGM-45 Shrikes on the outer pylons, an AGM-78 Standard ARM under the starboard wing, a tank under the other wing, and another tank on the centerline. They could carry two Standard ARMs, but I usually see pictures of only one being carried.
If you build an early model F-105G in South East Asia from before 1971, without the ECM blisters, then there should be ECM pods on the outer pylons. The F-105G crews didn’t use them much, but all USAF aircraft were ordered to carry them anyway. The F-105G saw the most combat in 1972.
RockyYup, thats a Thud. I also notice that the F-15 has the square wingtips of the early prototypes.
RockyIvory Coast no longer has an air force, thanks to France.
RockyNo air force
Iceland!
RockySpeed limit
The interesting thing about the limit to the SR-71’s top speed is that “heat” is only half the story. Its not that the plane begins to melt above the top speed, but the thermal expansion of its titanium structure means that the parts don’t fit together anymore. Titanium expands more than most metals as it heats up. Thats why the surface of the wing is corrugated. It allows the surface to take the metal expansion. The parts are designed to fit together at the temperatures reached at its high cruising speed. Thats why you see fuel streaming off the wings in air to air photos. At subsonic speeds, the parts aren’t hot enough yet to fit together well, and the jet leaks badly. At Mach 3.17 the parts are all nice and snug. Above that and… don’t go there. I don’t know of any other plane that has its speed limited by thermal expansion.
Sign In
