Post amazingly cool pictures of aircraft (Volume 2)
Discussion
The Spitfire actually was used. In particular, due to the Indonesian Crisis of the early/mid 1960s it was thought that RAF Lightning pilots might encounter Indonesian Mustangs - so they used this Spitfire to allow Lightning pilots develop tactics to deal with a 1940s vintage piston engined fighter.
Eric Mc said:
The Spitfire actually was used. In particular, due to the Indonesian Crisis of the early/mid 1960s it was thought that RAF Lightning pilots might encounter Indonesian Mustangs - so they used this Spitfire to allow Lightning pilots develop tactics to deal with a 1940s vintage piston engined fighter.
Lightning v Spitfire? Blimey.
What was the tactic? Fly past on full reheat and frighten the Spit to death?
At least the F14s in 'The Final Countdown' could swing their wings forward to play with the Harvards (and even then apparently one of them almost stalled and crashed - you see it in the movie too).
Ayahuasca said:
What was the tactic? Fly past on full reheat and frighten the Spit to death?
Use the vertical to make slashing attacks.Ayahuasca said:
At least the F14s in 'The Final Countdown' could swing their wings forward to play with the Harvards (and even then apparently one of them almost stalled and crashed - you see it in the movie too).
Which is pure Hollywood fiction. You fight your aircraft where it performs best not where the enemy performs best. Ergo you don't slow down and try to use the horizontal with a better turning adversary because you'll get clobbered!Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Saturday 13th May 19:48
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Ayahuasca said:
What was the tactic? Fly past on full reheat and frighten the Spit to death?
Use the vertical to make slashing attacks.I watched dogfights on discovery (or similar) last week. The part that I saw was F-4J ( Cunningham/Driscoll ) v MiG-17, and it looked like the F4 really struggled.
Would Lightning v Spitfire be harder or easier ?
Lightning had a much lower wing loading than did F4, as well as a far better specific excess power.
Additionally the early Lightnings were gun equipped unlike the early F4s which were all missile (and the early AIM 9 Sidewinder and AIM 7 Sparrow were not particularly effective or reliable).
Having said that I would imagine that what the Lightning would have to do is slash upwards against the Spitfire from below. It wouldn't be easy I shouldn't think hence the Central Fighter School practice against the Spitfire.
Additionally the early Lightnings were gun equipped unlike the early F4s which were all missile (and the early AIM 9 Sidewinder and AIM 7 Sparrow were not particularly effective or reliable).
Having said that I would imagine that what the Lightning would have to do is slash upwards against the Spitfire from below. It wouldn't be easy I shouldn't think hence the Central Fighter School practice against the Spitfire.
Then you wait and fight again another day,
No fast jet will commit nose low at low altitude, that's a good way of getting dead PDQ.
Having said that, forcing the prop to stay at low altitude puts him at risk of ground fire and curtails his range. Ergo you have limited his options.
No fast jet will commit nose low at low altitude, that's a good way of getting dead PDQ.
Having said that, forcing the prop to stay at low altitude puts him at risk of ground fire and curtails his range. Ergo you have limited his options.
Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Saturday 13th May 22:55
No weapons system is perfect and no weapons system is ideal for every situation.
We are talking about the early/mid 1960s ( half a century ago) in respect of the picture shown above when air to air missiles were less capable than they are today.
For example, the Phantom was designed as an all missile fighter and first flew in 1958. When it was used in anger for the first time it was found that the missiles (Sidewinders and Sparrows) were not as effective as had been expected and Phantoms were retrofitted with cannon packs. Later Phantoms had a gun installed as part of the design.
We are talking about the early/mid 1960s ( half a century ago) in respect of the picture shown above when air to air missiles were less capable than they are today.
For example, the Phantom was designed as an all missile fighter and first flew in 1958. When it was used in anger for the first time it was found that the missiles (Sidewinders and Sparrows) were not as effective as had been expected and Phantoms were retrofitted with cannon packs. Later Phantoms had a gun installed as part of the design.
Eric Mc said:
No weapons system is perfect and no weapons system is ideal for every situation.
We are talking about the early/mid 1960s ( half a century ago) in respect of the picture shown above when air to air missiles were less capable than they are today.
For example, the Phantom was designed as an all missile fighter and first flew in 1958. When it was used in anger for the first time it was found that the missiles (Sidewinders and Sparrows) were not as effective as had been expected and Phantoms were retrofitted with cannon packs. Later Phantoms had a gun installed as part of the design.
Some Lightnings were built without guns as well of course. We are talking about the early/mid 1960s ( half a century ago) in respect of the picture shown above when air to air missiles were less capable than they are today.
For example, the Phantom was designed as an all missile fighter and first flew in 1958. When it was used in anger for the first time it was found that the missiles (Sidewinders and Sparrows) were not as effective as had been expected and Phantoms were retrofitted with cannon packs. Later Phantoms had a gun installed as part of the design.
Would a 1960s heat seeking missile work against a piston engine aircraft?
Dr Jekyll said:
Would a 1960s heat seeking missile work against a piston engine aircraft?
The AIM-9's did in 1957. 
Whilst others weren't quite there yet...
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-...Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff