mkellytx

So well said Home Fries! You captured the essence of what I loved best about my aircrew time on the BUFF; professionalism, coordination and trust. Watching two navs, two pilots and an EWO work together to get 400,000 lbs of air frame, fuel and fuel and bombs to the target was a thing of beauty. You started reacting to the intonation in peoples voices...God I miss it.

Yes, well aware. Wrote mid thought without fully explaining. Recently completed reading Marshall Michael's book "Clashes" which is all about the air to air engagements during the Vietnam War (I read his other book, "The 11 Days of Christmas" sitting in the gunners seat of a B-52H while we flew from Edwards to the Eglin ranges to shoot a missile). When I read F-4 vs. Mig-21 my mind just went there... As a practical matter plenty of F-4E's (or their upgrades) are still in service with allied countries, so the earlier, out of service make some sense to do first (less classification problems). The E model would be great, but personally I'd appreciate it better after flying the more limited Phantoms first.

Well thought through and definitely the way to go if the aim is to capture the entirety of the Phantom's service life. Now if there were to be a Vietnam map C's and D's are the way to go as they did the bulk of the Mig killing and non-Thud bomb dropping prior to Linebacker. The added bonus is that they weren't too different from the B, so it shouldn't be that difficult to include them as a bundle.

Streakeagle, Ratios alone don't tell the whole story. They were quite good early in Rolling Thunder when the pilots were still fighter pilots and the NVNAF was terribly inexperience. After a couple of years the opposition got better, as did their GCI network and the no involuntary second tour policy resulted in plenty of pilots who flew fighters. Ratios became quite bad late in Rolling Thunder, USAF leadership refused to be honest with themselves and admit poor policy and still enforced rigid tactics (fluid four anyone?). Linebacker started bad and never really got better for USAF. The Navy to their credit (pains this former blue suiter to say) looked at the half time score and realized the part of their team that scored well was the old second string Crusaders. Out of that bit of humble pie came Top Gun and the return to the true and righteous path of ACM. After the initial clashes with the Navy during Linebacker (24-4) the NVNAF left the Navy alone and targeted USAF packages. Moral of the story, a better airplane operated by pilots who have no business in fighter cockpits using bad tactics will have bad results. Addendum, the fighter with more carefree handling characteristics will have a larger number of its pilot population more capable of exploiting its strengths then one with superior performance, but that has nasty handling qualities in that superior area will have fewer pilots able to do so (unless well trained). Many F-4 pilots were scared of pushing the edge because of the nasty departure behavior at high AOA, some even departed the airplanes in dogfights. In light of that and back on topic, a pair of well flown F-5's should be difficult to defeat and a talented Mig driver should be able to exploit its advantages one V one.

Never in almost 6 years working around the jet did I hear any of the aircrew or maintainers ever call the B-1 Lancer, with the exception of referring to aircraft 86-0140 which was the last aircraft produced and had the nose art of "Last Lancer", those of us who flew and maintained the bird called it the Bone. Surprisingly, much of the avionics and capabilities aren't classified, which isn't to say they are public domain. Mostly what would be needed to model the aircraft is either FOUO, Boeing Proprietary or export controlled. Most of the old Nuclear systems are long gone and updated/replaced with conventional only ones. Not sure how much fun it would be to fly since most of the offensive stuff is done from the back, pilots there aren't shooters. The offensive WSO might be pretty fun with Sniper and a SAR radar. The defensive WSO might be quite exciting, but that's the stuff that's definitely not public domain. FWIW I was part of the team that integrated Sniper pod onto the Bone, even got to play with a live pod in the Systems Integration Lab. I would love to have a fully functional Bone, but commercially it probably can't fly, even if the access issues were resolved. Cheers SKOT

That would be fun, an early swept wing bomber with no stab aug... JATO needed for heavy weight TO's and bicycle landing gear. I have around 70 hours in the BUFF (.5 stick time) so it was always fun watching the TPS students coming out of fighters attempt to fly the airplane... Later in life the -47 went to a low level profile with a lob toss delivery. Who wants to do an Immelman in a B-47?:pilotfly:

They're only feelings if coming from a layman. Anyone who's computed a shock wave for supersonic aero can answer at a glance which shape generates a stronger and hence higher drag shock. Now, while it's been 20 years since I did my supersonic aero, IRRC there were tables at the back of the text book for computing shocks coming off of standard shapes. Of course it's been 20 years, so I don't even know if I still have that book, but both missile bodies are almost axisymmetric, so as a good first order approximation some one could do computations by hand to get an estimate that would determine if the Cd of the R550 should be double that of the AIM-9M. Edit: Shortly after posting this I realized there's an easier way to make this comparison that is much less math intensive. When USAF modified the AIM-9 from the B to E model they went from the large radius dome to a small dome plus cone nose shape, they were rebuilt B models. The proportional increase in range should also give a good first order estimate of Cd for the two. Addition: Alright, took a look at the AIM-9B range charts in the 1F-5E-34-1-1 and for a straight and level 1G target at 10K with both aircraft at 0.8M the max range is just over 6,000 ft. If the target is pulling a constant 5G with both aircraft at 0.8M that drops to about 5,000 ft. If the launch aircraft is at 0.95M and the target at 0.8M then the 1G case is just over 8,000 ft and the 5G case is just over 6,000 ft. The motor for the B is a MK-17 putting 4,000 lb thrust for 2.1 sec.

The Mig-17 vs F-105D match up is a very good one, a classic radius vs rate fight. Also, the Thud was more capable than many give it credit. Consider, USAF shot down 135 Mig's in seven and a half years, during the 18 months between 29 Jun 1966 and 19 Dec 1967 the Thuds shot down 27 Mig-17's and shared a kill with a Phantom crew. The Phantom box score during the same 18 months was 21 Mig-17's and 21 Mig-21's, and the -21's rarely targeted the F-105D's, they preferred to go after the Weasels. Also, the -105's had more Mig encounters (151) than any other USAF model (Jon Lake's F-105 THUNDERCHIEF MIG KILLERS OF THE VIETNAM WAR). Technically the F-105 was subsonic with bombs and tanks, but that was a paper Technical Order limitation. The tanks carried a 600 KCAS limit and depending on how many and what type of bombs the limit was between 600-675 KCAS. The SL speed of sound is 660 knots. I've read plenty of memoirs of Thud pilots who punched the tanks, kept the bombs and accelerated out past 700 KCAS to leave the Mig's behind. Typical Rolling Thunder strike packages in the mid '66 to end of Rolling Thunder consisted of 16 F-105D split into 4 flights of 4, 4 F-105F Weasels (or 2 F's and 2 D's), and 4 F-4C/D's. Typically the Mig-21's would do a hit and run on the Weasels and the Phantoms would engage. Then with the escorts drawn away the -17's hit the D's. Again, typically one of the 4 flights of D's was the designated escort, they would have Aim-9's and would jettison all bombs and tanks. The remaining 3 flights would likely punch the tanks (especially if empty), light the burners and press on to the target. The deciding factor of any -17 vs Thud match up is who sticks to their strengths, if the Thud keeps the speed above 500 knots and altitude below 15,000 they are superior in every measure of performance to the Mig. One of the main reasons both the Phantoms and Thuds didn't shoot down more Mig's was they were using bad tactics that only treated the flight lead as the primary shooter. Freed of that constraint in DCS, the match up is very balanced. Cheers

Thanks Neil. Full disclosure, I spent ten years in USAF. In that time I had a vice wing commander who was a EWO in wave one for Baghdad in '91 and flew with two other Bears (EWO's) who in retirement were flight test engineers. Ever since I've been quite fascinated by any Wild Weasel or F-105 biography/memoirs and have read them. So, all this to say I'd love to fly a Thud or Weasel. Now, just a hint as to what I spend my limited free time playing with.. Care to guess what that is?

Depends on what you mean by a horizontal fight, but I think what you mean by horizontal fight is really a slow speed fight of both Mig's, in which case you would be correct. That said, both Phantoms and Thuds were clearly superior in fights against both aircraft below 15K and above 500 kn. A look at the -21 Bis's EM diagram gives 12 dps sustained and 13 instantaneous at .9 M and 5K. I don't have -17's EM diagram, but do have the -15's and it has the A/C bumping into it's max Q at SL around .9 M, the -17 is a little faster but it gets across the general idea. Both Migs have their best turn rates between .5-.6 M, Phantoms and Thuds are best around .9 M. Have Doughnut, Project Red Baron and Aces and Aerial Victories - Air Force Historical Studies all say that. Moral of the story, fight low, fight fast, speed is life. Arguably the most effective (more kills per attempt that any other weapon) AA weapon during Rolling Thunder 1965-68 was the gun, as you've referenced by your comments on the Aim-9B and Aim-7E. Heat seakers plus an internal gun beats the dead weight/drag of 4 Sparrows, a gun pod and a WSO ;) Now the 1972 Linebacker/Linebacker II Sidewinders and Sparrows were much better, but by then the only Thuds left were Weasels, which had no business doing AA. Not really, the 105 was typical for a 1950's Tactical Air Command fighter. It was expected to carry out all missions a tactical fighter would carry out, nuclear delivery, conventional air to ground and air to air just like the F-84, F-86 and F-100. The lone standout was the F-104 which didn't last very long in USAF. Now, one might argue the existence of the bomb bay is sure proof it's a bomber. But, with full fuel and an internal store it is still a 7.33 G aircraft and can sustain 6.5 G in that configuration; get to 60% fuel and it sustains the aircraft limit; get rid of the store at 60% fuel it sustains 8 G and has an aircraft limit of 8.67 G. That's pretty impressive performance for a bomber. The expectation is the fighter defends itself from Mig's alone and unafraid to deliver its can of instant sunshine. TAC in the late 50's early 60's put a lot of emphasis on SIOP. That mindset helped to atrophy core fighter pilot skills. But, the really bad tactics were rigid formations and the mindset that all of the wing men existed to support the lead's shot are the ones most harmful (the Phantom community had the same problem BTW). By better tactics they should have taken a page from the F-8 community and gone loose deuce adopting the engaged and supporting model where everybody's a shooter. Robin Olds did exactly that and the boys at Ubon kicked butt. Also, it's important to remember that the Mig's often avoided the fighter escort, hid in the clutter and jumped the Thuds. During Rolling Thunder the Phantoms had no solution, by Linebacker the appointed Air to Air F-4 units had Combat Tree which made that tactic harder to pull off. But typically a strike package of 4 flights of 4 F-105's one flight was the designated Mig flight and would jettison and keep the Mig's occupied until the Phantoms arrive or the rest of the flights got their bombs on target. The point is what was tactically sound really depended on the situation. A perfect illustration of this is Leo K. Thorsness, Google the mission he earned his Medal of Honor. Or the bomb shortage early in Rolling Thunder, or a fragged mission to strafe helicopters in RP6, or going back to CAP for a downed wingman... The ability to engage or disengage at will is generally considered a good thing. You need to modify your pilot comment, because this gets to the heart of my personnel comment. Every FIGHTER pilot wants to be an ace, not every pilot who flies fighters, there's a big difference here because fighter pilots should be aggressive and the pilots who flew fighters needed to survive. The rotation policy during Rolling Thunder was asinine, rather than rotate units, they rotated people. Compounding things they did the 100 missions or one year thing. Even worse they had a policy of no involuntary second tours, so take a bomber or transport pilot and put him through the RTU at Nellis and you have a fighter pilot, not. Many of the Thud pilots had no business being in a fighter cockpit, they simply didn't have the skills. The guys who grew up in fighters were the ones who killed Mig's, even in the Thud which did officially get 27.5 to the Phantom's 59 during Rolling Thunder. So, your sentiment is understandable, if poorly worded since maneuverability by itself is a terribly imprecise word. Example, which is more maneuverable the fighter that sustains 18 dps at .5 M or the one that sustains it at .9 M? This is the rate vs radius argument and it's pretty challenging, but the fighter with more energy has more options, so I'd favor the .9 M guy. All aerial combat is challenging, period. Even seemly benign things like flight testing a utility plane in a combat zone can get really sporting pretty quickly (been there, done that, have the tee shirt). Now to keep this on topic, all of this richness and complexity are reasons a Vietnam theater would be thoroughly engrossing. Also, this period was hugely influential for developing modern ACM techniques and would be educational. Finally, it needs the Phantom, Thud and Crusader; all left their mark

Just got it, can't wait to fly it.

That unfortunately is the conventional wisdom about the Thud. That said, if it weren't for the bad ROE, poor tactics and bad personnel policy (no involuntary second tours); they would have shot down more Migs than the 27.5 officially credited. Reading Have Doughnut report and F-105 Thunderchief Mig Killers of the Vietnam War was eye opening and changed my mind. With out the bombs it was a surprisingly good aircraft down low and fast. Per 1F-105-1, a clean Thud at sea level with 60% fuel (includes a bomb bay tank) could sustain a 7.3 G turn at 17 degrees per second. The bay tank limits G to 7.33, a clean Thud, no tank at 60% fuel sustains 18 dps at 8 G and can do 19-20 dps at the 8.67 G aircraft limit. With 4 Aim-9B, a BB tank at 60% fuel sustain is 7 G for 16 dps and instantaneous is 7.33 for 17 dps. Just for reference, an F-4E with two Sparrows, two Sidewinder and 50% fuel is a 7.5 G bird with 14 dps sustained and 17.5 dps instantaneous. During Rolling Thunder (65-68) the Phantoms were C's and D's which were about 2,000 pounds lighter and could do slightly better. All that to say the F-105 in a DCS Vietnam map would be an awesome add! Cheers

Absolutely yes!!! Barney (C-17) was the last jet I was aircrew on before driving desks. Would love to fly it on the deck at 380 KCAS, or do combat descents which require looking up through the eyebrow windows to see the runway. BTW, don't call them non-combat, there's a special unit that gets shot at plenty :smilewink: