![]() Of course, none of these other aircraft met the Navy's operational requirement for a fighter, so it's a moot discussion. The Tomcat was eclipsed in the ACM category by new fighters that sported newer tech (DFCS, relaxed static stability, better engines). True, the Soviets would develop excellent dogfighters in the MiG-29 and Su-27, but by the time those aircraft were operational we had the F-14A+/B, the F-15C, F/A-18C, etc. The Tomcat was based entirely on Tech from the 1960s, yet it was much more capable in ACM than ANY of it's expected competitors. However, they were not nearly as good as the American 4th generation fighter. I don't think it accurate to characterize the MiG-21 and MiG-23 as bad in a turning battle (MiG-25 and MiG-31 - yes, not particularly agile). The MiG-17 proved to have a better STR and did much better in a one-circle fight (just like the Super Fox that Captain Dalan is referencing), but in the flat scissors it had trouble sticking with the Tomcat.Īlso, you hit another good point. It was more a reflection of the Tomcat's superior high AOA performance and ITR. The pilot was very capable and knew the aircraft well. The MiG-17 was flown by a very experienced US pilot, the MiG-17 and MiG-21 were both part of "Operation Constant Peg" and both aircraft were acquired in the late 1960s. ![]() Maybe MiG17 pilot didn't know ACM., or just the pure thrust from F-14 is much better and probably made the difference. Well, they were preping those guys to fight MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25 and MiG-31 which are not particularly good at sustained turning.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |