If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
max altitude and Mach 1 | Boomer | Military Aviation | 22 | June 1st 04 08:04 PM |
Proposals for air breathing hypersonic craft. I | Robert Clark | Military Aviation | 2 | May 26th 04 06:42 PM |
Car engine FAA certified for airplane use | Cy Galley | Home Built | 10 | February 6th 04 03:03 PM |
#1 Jet of World War II | Christopher | Military Aviation | 203 | September 1st 03 03:04 AM |
Corky's engine choice | Corky Scott | Home Built | 39 | August 8th 03 04:29 AM |