jons@osc.edu (Jon Steinbach ) (04/07/90)
From: jons@osc.edu (Jon Steinbach ) In article <15314@cbnews.ATT.COM> xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) writes: > >question: Is that an F-5 or an F-20 in the background of the Chuck Yeager car >commercial? Never got a good look at it...F-5s seem to be one of the more >common fighters seen in movies/TV. Don't get to see many F-15s. > It is an F-20 Tigershark. Chuck Yeager was a test pilot for the F-20 before the program was scratched. I have seen T-38s and F-4s in movies alot. I think there was an F-105 in "Apocalypse Now", but my memory could be wrong. Jon Steinbach jons@oscsunb.osc.edu
gwh%headcrash.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (04/10/90)
From: gwh%headcrash.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) In article <15318@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >>From: gwh%typhoon.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) >>... Changing the wing sweep in maneuver allows the pilot to trade off drag >>for lift potential, allowing the pilot to choose between speed and turning >>ability. The Tomcat has an automatic system that can control this... > >One negative aspect of automatic variable sweep, pointed out in Shaw's book >on air combat, is that you can tell quite a bit about your opponent's speed >and energy (maneuvering potential) by watching his sweep angle. This is a good clue...until the VG pilot suspects it's being used. There was a short spate of SUCKER-bang kills on top gun instructors a few years back when the trainees figured that the instructors were relying a lot on the wing sweep. The book, Shaw's _Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering_ is excellent, and has been discussed here before. Anyone wanting to know about actual combat air-to-air maneuvering and tactics is reccomended to buy a copy. ******************************************************************************* George William Herbert JOAT For Hire: Anything, Anywhere: My Price UCB Naval Architecture undergrad: Engineering with a Bouyant Attitude :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu <= prefered [also gwh@soda.berk.. and maniac@garnet.berk..] Give me a billion dollars and two years and I'll build you a space station you'll never forget. "Pull up! NO, NOT THAT UP!" CRUNCH
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) (04/10/90)
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) In article <15314@cbnews.ATT.COM> xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) writes: >if they were still using F-5s or if they moved on to other aircraft. I recall >hearing somewhere that the Navy was moving to F-18s for their Aggressor aircraft >but cannot recall where or when I read/heard this. I haven't heard anything about that myself, although it may be true. If not, maybe what you are thinking about are the Blue Angels, who recently changed from F-4's to F-18's. - - - - - - - - - - Steve Creps creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (129.79.1.6) {inuxc,rutgers,uunet!uiucdcs,pur-ee}!iuvax!silver!creps
shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (OFV) (04/10/90)
From: Mary Shafer (OFV) <shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> >From: jons@osc.edu (Jon Steinbach ) >Newsgroups: sci.military >Subject: Re: variable geometry wings >Date: 7 Apr 90 05:13:59 GMT >Organization: Ohio SuperComputer Center, Columbus, OH, USA >From: jons@osc.edu (Jon Steinbach ) >In article <15314@cbnews.ATT.COM> xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) writes: >> >>question: Is that an F-5 or an F-20 in the background of the Chuck Yeager car >>commercial? Never got a good look at it...F-5s seem to be one of the more >>common fighters seen in movies/TV. Don't get to see many F-15s. >> > It is an F-20 Tigershark. Chuck Yeager was a test pilot for the F-20 > before the program was scratched. It's true that Yeager flew the F-20, but he was _not_ a test pilot on the program. The F-20 was supplied for the commercials because Northrop wanted publicity for the program. There was a certain amount of amusement (and a little annoyance) among the Northrop test force members when these commercials came out. You'll notice that Chuck also sold himself to Northrop as a good spokesman for those feel-good-about-Northrop commercials with the B-2. Apparently the company got the restricting order lifted, since we're seeing these again. Another reason that you see a lot of F-5s in ads is that there's a privately owned F-5 that can be hired very reasonably. I know one of the owners and he says that the ads cover most of the operating costs of the plane, which is a real relief to him. > I have seen T-38s and F-4s in movies alot. I think there was an F-105 > in "Apocalypse Now", but my memory could be wrong. The napalm drop was by Philipines Air Force F-5s. I don't remember seeing a Thud (F-105) and the Philipines AF doesn't fly them, so it's unlikely. -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA
fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (04/11/90)
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) > From: "IF INSANITY IS AN ART, CALL ME PICASO" <V059L49Z@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu> > > A-4's are used to simulate MiG-17's. Though > this MiG is old, it is still around in some countries. The Navy has picked > up some F-16's to simulate newer Soviet aircraft. These replaces Israeli- > designed C-2 Kfir aircraft on loan to us from them. I understand these > have been returned now. Some of them may still be flying with Marine pilots. (At least a recently as last July 4.) ------------ "Up the airey mountain, down the rushy glen, we daren't go a-hunting for fear of little men..." ('cause Fish and Game has taken to hiring axe-carrying dwarves)
fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (04/11/90)
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) > From: uwm!carroll1.cc.edu!tkopp@uunet.UU.NET (Tom Kopp) [ in _Top Gun_ ] > In article <15230@cbnews.ATT.COM> nelson_p@apollo.com writes: > > And on another topic, it appeared the filmmakers chose F5 Tigersharks > F-5E Tiger II's to be precise. The 'Tigershark' was the (now abandoned) > F-20 project. The two planes do look very similar, however. > > for the "MIG"s in the final dogfight scene. Any idea why? What > > Actually they used them for "MiG-28s" in the opening and closing sequences, > as well as one of the aggressor aircraft at Top Gun. Why? See Below. > > > MIG would this plane most closely resemble? Since they were getting > > the cooperation of the DoD in this film, would it have made more > > sense to try to use, say, F15's, which somewhat resemble MIG29's? F/A-18 Hornets would look quite a bit more like MiG-29's than do F-15's. The F-5 is roughly the same size as a MiG-21, which is flown by lots of different countries. Above 30,000' or so the MiG-21 has a distinct edge, and below 15,000' or so the F-5 has the edge. The F-5 (and A-4) make pretty good sense as agressor mounts for roughly the same reasons. ------------ "Up the airey mountain, down the rushy glen, we daren't go a-hunting for fear of little men..." ('cause Fish and Game has taken to hiring axe-carrying dwarves)
fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (04/11/90)
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) In article <15409@cbnews.ATT.COM>, creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes: > > > From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) > In article <15314@cbnews.ATT.COM> xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) writes: > >if they were still using F-5s or if they moved on to other aircraft. I recall > >hearing somewhere that the Navy was moving to F-18s for their Aggressor aircraft > >but cannot recall where or when I read/heard this. > > I haven't heard anything about that myself, although it may be true. > If not, maybe what you are thinking about are the Blue Angels, who recently > changed from F-4's to F-18's. The Blue Angels transitioned from F-11F-1 Super Tigers to A-4 Skyhawks to F/A-18 Hornets over a couple of decades. The Thunderbirds (U.S.A.F.) flew F-4's for a while, but left them for less fuel-hungry T-38 Talons and now fly F-16's. (Fighting Falcon is a dumb name...I like Electric Jet a lot better.) ------------ "Up the airey mountain, down the rushy glen, we daren't go a-hunting for fear of little men..." ('cause Fish and Game has taken to hiring axe-carrying dwarves)
jons@osc.edu (Jon Steinbach ) (04/12/90)
From: jons@osc.edu (Jon Steinbach ) In article <15454@cbnews.ATT.COM> fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: > >fuel-hungry T-38 Talons and now fly F-16's. (Fighting Falcon is a dumb >name...I like Electric Jet a lot better.) > When the debate over what name for the F-16 arose the fighter pilots wanted it to be called the Viper, but this was not used because, among other reasons, this name was already used in a TV series "Battlestar Gallactica" for a type of fighter/spaceship. Jon Steinbach jons@oscsunb.osc.edu
geoffm@purplehaze.Central.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) (04/12/90)
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Central.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) In article <15454@cbnews.ATT.COM> fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >The Blue Angels transitioned from F-11F-1 Super Tigers to A-4 Skyhawks to >F/A-18 Hornets over a couple of decades. They flew F-4's for a few years in the late Sixties/early Seventies, between the Tigers and the A-4's. >The Thunderbirds (U.S.A.F.) flew F-4's for a while, but left them for less >fuel-hungry T-38 Talons and now fly F-16's. This was during the same time frame that the Blue Angels had *their* F-4's. Not a lot of variety in those days. Geoff Miller ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Geoff Miller + No clever .sig file today. geoffm@purplehaze.sun.com + ----- ///// ----- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++