[simpits-chat] Phabulous Phantoms....

[Chris Woodul]

Hi John,

Good points indeed, and in fact, you having flown it are in a much better
position to call this one than I. : )
I do agree about the apples and oranges thing too.
And, I of course would take an AIM-120 shot if possible long before I could
ever get in close for a gun shot. I still think that the "classic" case for
a dogfight is at least more "romantic" when its a close and personal
dogfight in the oblique, as this to me involves much more skill than, hoping
to god the missile tracks to a target.
War is not romantic ( mostly not)  but for the pure theory of opinionated
aurgument, I just think that a real gunfight makes for better pilots.....I
mean, the tactics that the North Vietnamese ( and sometimes Russian pilots
flying for NVN) sneaking in from a safe zone at the speed of heat, under the
direction of GCI types on the ground with radar and launching a missile and
fleeing, worked and shot down a lot of our guys. It worked, seems cowardly,
but shit, in war thier are no rules and if we had those advantages we would
have used them.
Gene just wanted to see if he could tease the crowd with that ditty, and of
course he did. ( must have loved it as an F-15 Eagle guy)
The F-4 could probably take WAY more than the F-16 as far as battle damage
was concerned, so I do agree with that too.--- not to mention all that smash
available to a Rhino guy.
You are indeed lucky for having flown this beast, and as I said, at least as
the owner of an F-4E cockpit ( and the E having a gun in the nose) I am a
big fan of the Phabulous Phantom!

Cheers

Chris

----- Original Message -----
From: "John P. Miguez" <jmiguez@bellsouth.net>
To: <simpits-chat@simpits.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: [simpits-chat] Phabulous Phantoms....


> I know this thread has finished, but I was out of town and have to
respond.
> :)
>
> Trying to compare the Phantom to the Viper is comparing apples and
oranges.
> They are two different generations of aircraft and both have good and bad
> points.
>
> Chris mentioned that "real fighter pilots" use guns.  Speaking from
> experience, "real fighter pilots" will use the eastist weapon available
and
> then go home to celebrate or just thank God that they are alive.  It is
damn
> tough to hit another airplane, who doesn't want to be hit, with guns.
Even
> in WWII 80% of the planes shot down by another fighter, didn't see the guy
> until it was too late.  A gun shot has to be close, very close (inside 200
> yards) and if he is jinking, good luck.
>
> Chris is correct in his statement that Vietnam guys wanted guns on the
F-4.
> Those old AIM 9s and 7s did suck.  It is my understanding that the newer
> ones are much better.
>
> The GIB was valuable.  When I was flying for the Air National Guard I got
to
> play with F15s.  The old Phantom with experienced pilots held their own
> against the F-15.  The difference was the WSO.  He could see while the
pilot
> flew.  It is very hard to fly, watch the radar and look for bandits at the
> same time.  Any fighter (even the old smoky F-4) is hard to see at 2-3
> miles.  BTW- We went in to the first stage of AB entering combat.  It
> cleared up the smoke.
>
> I never got to fly the F-16.  I did get a back seat ride in the F-15.  If
I
> knew I was going into a bombing run with a lot of AA  shooting at me, I
> would want the F-4.  Stable platform and it can take a F-16's weight in
hits
> before it goes down.
>
> Air-to-air..... give me the F-15 or F-16.  They accelerate faster and turn
> tighter.   Now the Phantom... she was one fine airplane, a true war
machine.
> I am happy and proud to have flown her.
>
> _______________________________________________
> simpits-chat mailing list
> simpits-chat@simpits.org
> http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-chat