F-5A Freedom Fighter vs F-100 Super Sabre

Cold war, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm - up to and including for example the A-10, F-15, Mirage 200, MiG-29, and F-18.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2362
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post27 Oct 2015, 16:12

I understand your points Basher and they are valid, but lets look at the F-4's main Rival in the early parts of the war, the F-8.

The F-8 was by far a better BFM aircraft than the early F-4s maybe still better even when compared to the F-4E with Slats.
Above 450 knots it was the tightest turning aircraft of the war.
It carried both missiles and guns
It was cheaper to buy and operate and probably also to maintain.
It had a stellar kil\loss ratio in the air which is better than the Phantom's
It was also better than any Mig in a vertical fight

IMO the Navy could have invested on more Crusader's then trying to re-engineer the F-4 (like changing the wings and adding a gun). It would have been cheaper and if the Crusader saw more action then Im sure it would of had more than just 20 kills.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1895
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post27 Oct 2015, 16:32

From what i heard
in term of turn rate F-5 > F-8 > F-4
in terms of acceleration /climb rate F-4 > F-8 > F-5
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4959
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post27 Oct 2015, 16:55

eloise wrote:From what i heard
in term of turn rate F-5 > F-8 > F-4
in terms of acceleration /climb rate F-4 > F-8 > F-5

fair assessment. While the F-105 was touched on earlier, it is also good to note that it had more gun kills than all other U.S. types combined from all the data I was able to find.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2073
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post27 Oct 2015, 17:53

zero-one wrote:I understand your points Basher and they are valid, but lets look at the F-4's main Rival in the early parts of the war, the F-8.

The F-8 was by far a better BFM aircraft than the early F-4s maybe still better even when compared to the F-4E with Slats.
Above 450 knots it was the tightest turning aircraft of the war.
It carried both missiles and guns
It was cheaper to buy and operate and probably also to maintain.
It had a stellar kil\loss ratio in the air which is better than the Phantom's
It was also better than any Mig in a vertical fight

IMO the Navy could have invested on more Crusader's then trying to re-engineer the F-4 (like changing the wings and adding a gun). It would have been cheaper and if the Crusader saw more action then Im sure it would of had more than just 20 kills.






If you look up the XF8U-3 Crusader III - the F-4 II was chosen over that - as I stated in the previous post likely down to Politics - the US AF/Navy got the F-4 - IIRC it was to save forces money by having common airframes (Also see F-111) -also chosen as the better fleet defender against bombers perhaps.

After that the F-8 was on its way out - a few squadrons were deployed in 1972 with updated F-8J (although held away from the action generally)

As I also stated TRAINING: The kill loss / ratio is irrelevant without considering everything - e.g F-8 crews were trained in BFM - new F-4 pilots (especially USAF) for most of the war were not trained in BFM and used poor outdated tactics (see welded wing) - there are exceptions like Robin Olds of course (Korea/WWII vet) that tried to change things (See Bolo)

The F-8 has better Ps and could turn better in places - but to me this doesn't mean it was far better at BFM or better for Nam considering the F-4 overall strengths ( I remember seeing quotes from ex F-8 drivers moving to F-4s on this very subject years back - was not as clear cut as it seems).

Sure the F-8x could beat the F-4x - but the F-4x could play to strengths and beat the F-5x/F-8x and the MiG-17/21x etc - but you had to know how to fly the F-4 to those strengths in BFM. I suppose I'm saying the F-8 was not significantly better than the F-4 or MiG-21 in BFM to make it more useful for combat considering the overall attributes of both.

One F-8 advantage was it was smaller - the F-4 could be seen from 18+ miles away when in mill power due to smokey engines.

According to an F-8E v MiG-21F-13 evaluation (HAVE DOUGHNUT) - both had comparable zoom performance - the MiG-21 has higher sustained G below 16,000 ft over 450 KIAS (F-8E was thrust limited there)
Offline

zhanrae

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2015, 14:23

Unread post28 Oct 2015, 00:00

Oh goodness, the dogfighting question is the one only answered. How about ground attack?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4959
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post28 Oct 2015, 03:19

I supposed we missed that. Let's see... Both list a 7,000lb load. F-100 has a low-altitude bombing system. F-5 gets up to two Mavericks, Hun get two Bullpups, F-5 seems to have a wider variety of rockets available to it. Seems like the Hun only had four hardpoints to the F-5s seven, although two are AAM wing tip stations. So the F-5 can carry a gas tank and two AIM-9s while carrying the same load as the Hun, but the Hun may be able to deliver more accurately.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2073
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post28 Oct 2015, 13:49

The low Altitude/Angle bombing system (LABS) was a crude method of chucking nukes only AFAIK - had a timer in the pit - no different than F-5A for conventional delivery. Later F-100s also got LADD which was for deploying drogue Atomic bombs.

The F-100A had 4 hard points
The F-100C and early D had 6 hardpoints (5000 lbs bombs)
Later F-100D (more optimised for ground attack ) had 7 hardpoints (added centreline point)

F-100C/D/F were used in Nam (almost entirely for Ground attack after F-4 / F-104 showed up)

F-100F is basically a D with 2 seats and half the guns - was used for Wild Weasel I (Carried the AGM-45 Shrike) and later used as FastFACs.

F-100 could use the Bullpup (AGM-12) but this was an early radio controlled missile that seems to have been of little value - fire the thing then the pilot has to manually steer it to the target while following it down into the inevitable AAA (better done by a backseater).



F-5A - max payload figures from 4490lbs to 6200 lbs
F-5E - max payload figures from 7000lbs to 8000lbs

The F-5C & A (C is an A with armour and refuelling probe) used in Nam by USAF then later VNAF used similar dumb bombs/rockets to the F-100 - an advantage the F-5AC had in ground attack is that it was smaller. (note VNAF also got F-5E after US pulled out)

Was unaware the F-5A could carry the AGM-65 (The F-5E definitely could) - the Maverick came in early 70s and far superior to the earlier Bullpup - I don't think any money was wasted wiring F-100s for Maverick (on their way out) - could be wrong.

A range analysis might be useful
Last edited by basher54321 on 28 Oct 2015, 19:02, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4959
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post28 Oct 2015, 17:51

Thanks basher, your info here far outstrips mine.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2073
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post28 Oct 2015, 18:26

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Thanks basher, your info here far outstrips mine.


Sorry - yes 50s-80s fascinating period with many diverse airframes and tech changes - have spent too much time on it.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4959
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post28 Oct 2015, 21:14

If you have anything you can send me I would be grateful. That was a fascinating era of aviation.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2073
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post28 Oct 2015, 23:01

check PM
Offline
User avatar

alfakilo

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 76
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2011, 19:01

Unread post29 Oct 2015, 16:29

These are always interesting discussions!

I think the first thing needed is to define what parameters we are using...altitude, fuel load, configuration.

The post the relevant performance numbers...maneuver diagrams are nifty for this. Using them allows us to see sustained versus instantaneous performance, Ps values that directly impact what happens in a prolonged engagement, etc.

Once we have a comparative set of performance values, then we get to the bottom line.

If we are looking to rate performance, then what we really are determining is how well the pilots of those two aircraft use their numbers to best advantage. After all, airplanes don't best other airplanes...pilots do.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2073
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post29 Oct 2015, 17:03

If only F-8 performance charts were as forthcoming AK - much of what I know is from pilot anecdotes and declassified comparisons.

Did you ever fly BFM or DACT against F-8s?
Offline
User avatar

alfakilo

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 76
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2011, 19:01

Unread post30 Oct 2015, 15:12

basher54321 wrote:If only F-8 performance charts were as forthcoming AK - much of what I know is from pilot anecdotes and declassified comparisons.

Did you ever fly BFM or DACT against F-8s?


Not that I remember. Like you, most of what I recall is old bar talk, and you know how reliable that is.

Nor do I remember studying any F-8 maneuver diagrams. There probably are such things...maybe archived at TOPGUN. It would be neat to see a 5000' chart. If anyone has one, here are some Fishbed C numbers to use for comparison. (5000', clean, burner, half fuel, I think).

Corner Velocity (CV): ~330KIAS. 7 g limit.

Instantaneous turn rate at CV: ~21 degrees/sec.

Ps at CV: > negative 1600. I used to know how to convert that to knots/sec but time has taken its toll! It's a pretty good speed bleed in any case.

Sustained turn rate: ~13 dps at 490KIAS.

Max Q: ~630KIAS.

I flew against it with the Red Eagles, and it was impressive. No matter how many times we were told about how small it was, you had to see it to believe it!
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2073
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post30 Oct 2015, 15:58

Impressive many thanks AK - were you in the F-4 or F-104 against the MiGs?

In both Gail Pecks and Steve Davies books on the Red Eagles the pilots seems to really love flying the MiG-21F13 - even over the F-7Bs they got later due to its handling.

Were you familiar with the term Buck Fever? - pilot know exactly what to do but tries to turn with the MiG regardless - I trust you were better than that anyway :)
PreviousNext

Return to Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests