neither - YMJ - I'm a Canadian hornet driver. And your point about
energy is absolutely
true- It's fairly easy to bleed down to zero knots pointing the nose
and most of
our guys try to stay away from that - the hornet is still a decent
vertical fighter -
I haven't been all that impressed with the Eagles vertical capability,
can't speak
for the tomcat as I'm sure I'll never get a chance to fight one. Your
comments about
hornet bleed rate and energy addition are also true, one of the hugest
shortcomings.
As for the anchoring comment, I agree - I'd rather have the extra mach
and altitude
to put on an AMRAAM shot than unlimited alpha anyday - that's where the
eagle shines
and I imagine the tomcat as well. I'd have to say that the jet I have
been most impressed
with are the newer block bigmouth Vipers for manoeuverablity- truly eye
watering t/w.
John Carrier wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
i have less than 300 hrs in the hornet, and my comments about beating
the eagle
in bfm are from my experience only. on my squadron the eagle is
generally regarded
as a poor turning platform and i tend to agree. you need to remember
sustained turn
performance is but one measure of fighter capability.

The F-18, with the latest software, can point its nose with alacrity. Of
course, the energy state is zip-point-xxxx. A turkey or eagle attempting to
grovel in such a fight will lose, and rather quickly. OTOH, by taking the
fight vertical and ever-aft, the higher energy fighters can slowly gain the
advantage. It's a fight that takes patience and skill.

Anchor-out engagements tend to create targets for the unseen bogey. The
Bug's greatest vulnerability exists in the disengagement. There's not much
it can outrun ... so you'd better hope you're the last man standing.

Did you get your wings at NQI or NMM?

R / John