[simpits-chat] Phabulous Phantoms....
John P. Miguez
Sat, 2 Aug 2003 16:37:30 -0500
You are correct on the romantic notion of using guns. When I was flying, we
loved noting better than sneaking up on some unsuspecting bastard, close in
tight then key the mike and announce, "Guns, guns, guns." It was funny to
watch the guy go inverted to try and see who had killed him.
You mention the North Vietnamese tactics. My sister's father-in-law was a
WWII ace who flew with the famed Flying Tigers in China. He said that
because the Zero was so much more maneuverable than the P-40, they would get
high and look for Zeros below. They would then dive down through the
formation, each pilot picking out a victim, shooting him down then running.
He still managed to get shot down twice.
:) Always check your six
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Woodul" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [simpits-chat] Phabulous Phantoms....
> 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
> ever get in close for a gun shot. I still think that the "classic" case
> 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,
> 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
> direction of GCI types on the ground with radar and launching a missile
> fleeing, worked and shot down a lot of our guys. It worked, seems
> but shit, in war thier are no rules and if we had those advantages we
> have used them.
> Gene just wanted to see if he could tease the crowd with that ditty, and
> 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
> available to a Rhino guy.
> You are indeed lucky for having flown this beast, and as I said, at least
> 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!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John P. Miguez" <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.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
> > :)
> > Trying to compare the Phantom to the Viper is comparing apples and
> > They are two different generations of aircraft and both have good and
> > points.
> > Chris mentioned that "real fighter pilots" use guns. Speaking from
> > experience, "real fighter pilots" will use the eastist weapon available
> > then go home to celebrate or just thank God that they are alive. It is
> > tough to hit another airplane, who doesn't want to be hit, with guns.
> > in WWII 80% of the planes shot down by another fighter, didn't see the
> > until it was too late. A gun shot has to be close, very close (inside
> > yards) and if he is jinking, good luck.
> > Chris is correct in his statement that Vietnam guys wanted guns on the
> > 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
> > 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
> > flew. It is very hard to fly, watch the radar and look for bandits at
> > 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.
> > 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
> > before it goes down.
> > Air-to-air..... give me the F-15 or F-16. They accelerate faster and
> > tighter. Now the Phantom... she was one fine airplane, a true war
> > I am happy and proud to have flown her.
> > _______________________________________________
> > simpits-chat mailing list
> > email@example.com
> > http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-chat
> simpits-chat mailing list