Old airframe, new engine

An A3 (all 3 dead) NFO of my acquaintance called the Crusader the
"Ensign Eater." Sounds like a REALLY steep learning curve...

Mark

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:05:49 GMT, "R" wrote:


For me the winner would be the F-8. You never forget your first love.
Whether it was climbing out of Key West after a Cuban MIG, doing a vertical
pass on a Bear, or flying under the power lines in southern California
trying to sneak up on Yuma it was great aircraft.


Recalling the VFR days of the 60's did you ever fly the VFR High
Performance West departure out of NKX? Or the essentially same
SCAMP-1?

NKX was certainly a thrilling place to be a controller in those days.
Was amazed at how well pilots and controllers managed to mix the Atlas
entries with Mission Bay entries, avoiding MYF and radar traffic.



***********************************************
ACC USN ret.
NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NIR
67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85
&
74-77

Co-founder of newsgroup - RAMN
Anti-spam measures in action.
For e-mail response delete "nospam"

***********************************************

Only did it a couple times. By the time I got there, 1971, the scamp was
NOT encouraged.

R / John

"Jim Strand" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:05:49 GMT, "R" wrote:


For me the winner would be the F-8. You never forget your first love.
Whether it was climbing out of Key West after a Cuban MIG, doing a
vertical
pass on a Bear, or flying under the power lines in southern California
trying to sneak up on Yuma it was great aircraft.


Recalling the VFR days of the 60's did you ever fly the VFR High
Performance West departure out of NKX? Or the essentially same
SCAMP-1?

NKX was certainly a thrilling place to be a controller in those days.
Was amazed at how well pilots and controllers managed to mix the Atlas
entries with Mission Bay entries, avoiding MYF and radar traffic.



***********************************************
ACC USN ret.
NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NIR
67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85
&
74-77

Co-founder of newsgroup - RAMN
Anti-spam measures in action.
For e-mail response delete "nospam"

***********************************************

In article ,
(Jim Strand) wrote:

You are able to select any tactical jet airframe from the past. We'll
assume all engines would fit properly. What bird would you like to
fly again if it had modern engines and avionics as well?

Well, I'm not a pilot - but a Blackburn Buccaneer with the engines out of
the F/A-22 would surely have serious entertainment value.

---
John Dallman

I seriously think that would frighten a few people.. good choice
but IMHO there are lots of Brit a/c that have scared the Americans so much that
the US corporate machine has had to pull all sorts of nasty tricks to get them
axed.

(R4tm4ster) wrote in message ...
I seriously think that would frighten a few people.. good choice
but IMHO there are lots of Brit a/c that have scared the Americans so much that the US corporate machine has had to pull all sorts of nasty tricks to get them
axed.

Your own Duncan Sandys did a proper job - he didn't need any help from
the USA.
Hawker, Saunders-Roe and English Electric all had good designs until
Sandys axed them with his infamous White Paper. The EE P6 turned out
fairly well but years too late. I would like to see a list of the
types you're thinking of, though.
Walt BJ

In article ,
(R4tm4ster) wrote:

IMHO there are lots of Brit a/c that have scared the Americans so
much that the US corporate machine has had to pull all sorts of nasty
tricks to get them axed.

Which ones are you thinking of? A couple of times we've produced something
that the USA had no reasonable match for, but then they've bought them, if
they had a mission for them. I'm thinking of Cambera and Harrier, of
course. One pre-Sandys, the other post- and justified by an initial
mission that missiles didn't look good for. And sadly, the Sandys cuts
were pretty much inevitable. We couldn't afford to buy so many planes.
"Missiles will do the job" was basically spin-doctoring, rather than the
actual reason.

I don't think we're produced any jet fighters that were all-round better.
The Lightning could outperform US fighters on some fronts, but the Phantom
was probably a better all-round aircraft. The Buccaneer couldn't carry as
much as the F-111, nor go so fast, although it could manage some
combinations better and it was carrier-compatible. But then, the F-111 was
so politically messed up the comparisons are invidious.

---
John Dallman

John Dallman wrote:
In article ,
(R4tm4ster) wrote:

IMHO there are lots of Brit a/c that have scared the Americans so
much that the US corporate machine has had to pull all sorts of nasty
tricks to get them axed.

Which ones are you thinking of? A couple of times we've produced
something that the USA had no reasonable match for, but then they've
bought them, if they had a mission for them.

I imagine he's thinking mainly about TSR.2. Nothing else comes to mind
immediately.

I don't think we're produced any jet fighters that were all-round
better. The Lightning could outperform US fighters on some fronts,
but the Phantom was probably a better all-round aircraft.

Not in the same class, though. Compare with the F-104 instead; it's not
clear-cut which is better, I'd say.

The British never built a plane in the same clas as the F-4.

The Buccaneer couldn't carry as much as the F-111, nor go so fast,
although it could manage some combinations better and it was
carrier-compatible.

Again, is this the fair comparison? The Buc is probably a closer equivalent
in role and missions (including carrier compatibility) to the A-6, against
which it matches up pretty well. The two are only about a year or two apart
in terms of entry into service; the F-111 came five or six years later.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

In article t,
lid (Thomas Schoene) wrote:

I don't think we're produced any jet fighters that were all-round
better. The Lightning could outperform US fighters on some fronts,
but the Phantom was probably a better all-round aircraft.

Not in the same class, though. Compare with the F-104 instead; it's not
clear-cut which is better, I'd say.

Yup, that's pretty fair. Incidentally, an explanation I picked up recently
of why the RAF stuck with the old Red Top missiles on the Lightning to the
end of its life: the capability was about the same as AIM-9, and
integrating Sidewinders would have been pretty simple. Apparently the RAF
reckoned there was little point in trading to a newer missile with a
smaller warhead. When you only have two missiles, the bigger bang is
worthwhile.

Was the F-104 as much of a maintenance nightmare?

The Buccaneer couldn't carry as much as the F-111, nor go so fast,
although it could manage some combinations better and it was
carrier-compatible.

Again, is this the fair comparison? The Buc is probably a closer
equivalent in role and missions (including carrier compatibility)
to the A-6, against which it matches up pretty well. The two are
only about a year or two apart in terms of entry into service; the
F-111 came five or six years later.

Yup. The Buc didn't have anything as sophisticated as the DIANE, but what
it had was more reliable. Top speed was just about the same, but the Buc
had about twice the range: I bet that was because of the streamlining and
the internal weapons bay. Hadn't realised the A-6 was that old a design.


---
John Dallman