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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Rob van Riel wrote: Ralph Savelsberg wrote in message ... However, the speed advantage was offset by the G-limitation of the airframe. It was limited to something like 3Gs, which meant that it was vulnerable to SAMs. Phantoms were often able to outmanoeuvre an approaching SAM, but for a less agile aircraft like the Vigilante, this would have been much more difficult. I'm not too sure about this. I seem to remember reading about an unauthorised "dogfight" between an A-5 and an F-4 (as I recall, the A-5 was intercepted by F-4s during an exercise, and rather than playing dead, decided to pretend it had a gun and went after his attacker). The F-4 was not pleased with the things the A-5 did to him... If this is true, the agility of the A-5 would be better than you imply here. My knowledge about it is decidedly second hand. As I wrote, that was part of an exchange between some naval officers in a letter somebody posted to ramn a few weeks ago. It stated that the Vigilante airframe was stressed for 3Gs. It did have a reputation of being not very sturdy. I'm fairly certain quite a few airframes were write-offs because of being over stressed during landings. Of course, I might be totally confused, or the report may have been a legend. Can anyone confirm this? Rob It could very well be that it did happen, though, the way you describe it, the Phantom crew allowed themselves to be surprised. That doesn't tell you anything about the agility of the Vigilante, perhaps with the exception that this Phantom crew underestimated it. Regards, Ralph Savelsberg |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|