RF-4 vs RA-5C

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 03:03:48 GMT, "Bill Silvey"
wrote:

Yes, that's it. -47.

Would it have? The 'cat...well, right, F111B. I stand corrected. Welp, as
I said, WAG :-)

Don't forget the YF-12A. Twelve launches, twelve good hits.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Turn to kill, not to engage." LCDR Willie Driscoll, USN

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 03:03:48 GMT, "Bill Silvey"
wrote:

Yes, that's it. -47.

Would it have? The 'cat...well, right, F111B. I stand corrected.
Welp, as I said, WAG :-)

Don't forget the YF-12A. Twelve launches, twelve good hits.

Mary

Well, the '14 got 6 of 6 on a single test firing (well, 5 of 5 - one of the
test drones failed in flight and was considered a "no test")...

But by the same token I can't think of a single Air to Air Phoenix kill in
combat.

Can anyone?

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

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.

Of course, I might be totally confused, or the report may have been a
legend. Can anyone confirm this?

Rob

Greg Hennessy commenting on the BFM abilities of the
Vigilante...opined thusly:

Given its wing area I wouldnt be surprised. A J58 engine'd version with
bubble canopy and a flat belly could well have been a contender.

Respectfully...are you making your statement simply because the RA-5
had a huge wing area?

Based upon that, would you surmise the MiG-31 with huge motors is a
good BFM platform? I would not.

Juvat

Ralph Savelsberg wrote in message ...
Bill Silvey wrote:
North American Rockwell proposed a derivative of the Vigilante,
with a third engine inserted between (and slightly above) the
two already installed, fed by two dorsal intakes. I have an artist's
impression of the thing (in Planes of Fame 19) in USAF markings
and armed with 6 Phoenix-like missiles (no less) under the fuselage.
If built it would have been quite a beast.


I've found an artist's impression on the following page:
http://www.vectorsite.net/ava5.html
(close to the bottom)
It seems like it's a rather extensive redesign.
Apparently two versions were proposed: one in the late `sixties
involving a rocket engine in place of the Vigilante's weapons' /camera
bay and the one I referred to and which is pictured in the above
mentioned page,
fitted with three J-79 engines.

I find this really interesting since a fella I knew in college who
grew up down on the Gulf Coast was telling me once about a military
aircraft that crashed somewhere in the North Florida brush swamps
once. Said that the people who saw it going down talked about it
having three afterburning engines in the configuration shown in that
photo. It's been a long time since I've seen the guy, let alone heard
the story, so I don't know what the timeframe was, but could be that
the three-J79'd airframe at least made it to flying test stage.

Jeb Hoge wrote:

Ralph Savelsberg wrote in message
...

Bill Silvey wrote:
North American Rockwell proposed a derivative of the Vigilante,
with a third engine inserted between (and slightly above) the
two already installed, fed by two dorsal intakes. I have an artist's
impression of the thing (in Planes of Fame 19) in USAF markings
and armed with 6 Phoenix-like missiles (no less) under the fuselage.
If built it would have been quite a beast.


I've found an artist's impression on the following page:
http://www.vectorsite.net/ava5.html
(close to the bottom)
It seems like it's a rather extensive redesign.
Apparently two versions were proposed: one in the late `sixties
involving a rocket engine in place of the Vigilante's weapons' /camera
bay and the one I referred to and which is pictured in the above
mentioned page,
fitted with three J-79 engines.


I find this really interesting since a fella I knew in college who
grew up down on the Gulf Coast was telling me once about a military
aircraft that crashed somewhere in the North Florida brush swamps
once. Said that the people who saw it going down talked about it
having three afterburning engines in the configuration shown in that
photo. It's been a long time since I've seen the guy, let alone heard
the story, so I don't know what the timeframe was, but could be that
the three-J79'd airframe at least made it to flying test stage.

That's the first time I read anything about that. As far as I know, it
really never progressed beyond a proposal, some design work and perhaps
wind-tunnel tests.





with a third engine inserted between (and slightly above)
the two already installed, fed by two dorsal intakes. I have
an artist's impression of the thing (in Planes of Fame 19) in
USAF markings and armed with 6 Phoenix-like missiles (no
less) under the fuselage. If built it would have been quite a
beast.


I've found an artist's impression on the following page:
http://www.vectorsite.net/ava5.html


(close to the bottom) It seems like it's a rather extensive
redesign. Apparently two versions were proposed: one in the late
`sixties involving a rocket engine in place of the Vigilante's
weapons' /camera bay and the one I referred to and which is
pictured in the above mentioned page, fitted with three J-79
engines.


I find this really interesting since a fella I knew in college who grew
up down on the Gulf Coast was telling me once about a military aircraft
that crashed somewhere in the North Florida brush swamps once.
Said that the people who saw it going down talked about it having
three afterburning engines in the configuration shown in that photo.
It's been a long time since I've seen the guy, let alone heard the
story, so I don't know what the timeframe was, but could be that the
three-J79'd airframe at least made it to flying test stage.

That's the first time I read anything about that. As far as I know, it
never progressed beyond a proposal, some design work and perhaps
wind-tunnel tests. I've never heard about any flying hardware having
been built.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

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