Caesar

Well, since you asked, here's my thoughts. Understand that my original thought on the matter still stands: the aircrew decides the victor, and any pilot/aircrew of any aircraft on this list can be beaten by the pilot/aircrew of another aircraft on this list. First, we need a baseline. Consider that the F-4 platform was what the next generation of American fighters wound up replacing, and that it was the platform that coexisted with (and indeed went up against) many of the other fighters on this list, and we can use the F-4E as the baseline "5" fighter. 5 is dead average, and given that, we might not see a 10. Let's take a look at the aircraft: MiG-21Bis The MiG-21 is an agile aircraft with better pitch and slow-speed performance than the F-4E, but at the same time does not fare as well at higher speeds, and cannot sustain as high a turn rate as the F-4, based upon some of the released charts that I don't trust very much. It also cannot sustain its energy at slow speeds particularly well compared to the F-4, but it can pitch very well, meaning it can get position with its nose better with an instantaneous energy sacrifice for position. Herein lies the problem: if the F-4 is performing a sustained turning fight, and the MiG-21Bis tries to do the same, the F-4 is going to win. If the MiG-21 goes for an angles fight, or does initial positioning to get himself above the F-4, or manages to get the F-4 slow, he has better pulling authority, and can get nose on while the F-4 runs into its lift limits. If he tries to fight the F-4 in the vertical, he will be unable to sustain the fight due to lower thrust to weight (as against an F-14 or F-15). I would then rate the MiG-21Bis a "5" - it can't stay in a sustained fight with an F-4, but its aerodynamic qualities and slow speed capabilities make the fight a bit of a toss-up between the two. MiG-23MLD As I understand it, the MiG-23MLD had several innovations and control modifications to make the aircraft more maneuverable at higher angles of attack. Nevertheless, those summed up to be a dog-toothed wing and avionics changes, while the wing proper, horizontal tail and fuselage remained largely unchanged. The aircraft may be less prone to departure, but it isn't going to be significantly better in basic maneuverability (i.e. max lift, sustained turning, etc). As such, considering most models of the MiG-23 are supposed to be comparable to the F-4, and declassified reports say the same, I'd consider the MiG-23MLD to be a "5" aircraft as well. Perhaps it won't depart once it hits 15 units AoA, but the design changes are not significant enough to put the bird into a new class of fighter. Mirage IIIC The Mirage IIIC is another aircraft that has similar sustained turning to the F-4 at high speeds, but surprisingly worse at slower speeds. On the other hand, like the MiG-21, the Mirage IIIC can out-pitch the F-4 at slower speeds, and so could feasibly win if the pilot works the angles right. Still a bit of a toss-up, so I'd give it a 5. Mirage F1C The Mirage F1C is not an aircraft I know very much about, but based on its loaded weight compared to its static engine thrust and wing size, it has both worse thrust to weight and worse wing loading compared to the F-4E at combat weight. What this tells me is that its vertical performance will be worse and its sustained turning performance will likely be lower, but I don't know enough about its pitch and lift limits to know if, like the MiG-21, it could out fight the F-4 with angles. As such, I can't give any confidence in any rating and would just default to 5. F-15A The F-15A is unique as the only fighter in this list to have a better than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio at combat weight. It has significantly better aerodynamics than the F-4E, a lifting body fuselage and large wing, which work together to give the F-15 lower wing loading once it enters a turn. It can sustain higher "g" than an F-4 at any altitude or airspeed, out accelerate most of the fighters on this list (dependent on starting altitude/airspeed), and out pitch a good number as well at lower airspeeds. The raw power of the engines allows the aircraft to enter into a loop at very slow speeds (~100KIAS) based on test data. I'd give the F-15A an 8. F/A-18A The F/A-18A is one of the only aircraft on this list with a fly-by-wire control system and is renowned for its slow speed handling. The aircraft also has good sustained turning at higher speeds and significantly better pitch authority at slower speeds than the F-4E. I'd probably give the F/A-18 an 8 or 9. F-14A The F-14A is another fighter with a lifting body fuselage, but also features wing-length flaps and slats and the variable-geometry wing. Its aerodynamics are excellent, and even with a loadout 2000 pounds above combat weight (over 36,000 pounds more than a MiG-21Bis with only a gun and 50% fuel), will out-sustain turn and out-pitch either the Bis or the F-4E, and will do so some 120 knots slower, meaning it will both out-rate and out-radius either aircraft. If the Tomcat crew drops the "big boys" (wing-length flaps and slats to "landing" configuration), the aircraft gains massive pitch authority and exceptional sustained slow-speed flying capability. This also provides an advantage against the MiG-21, which can fly at 70KIAS, nose up, flaps down - the F-14A will do the same at 60KIAS, and when a Red Eagle driver flying a MiG-21 tried this against an F-14A, since it had always worked in the past, he was quite surprised to hear the gun call when the F-14 driver did the same. Given these performance differentials, I'd give the F-14A an 8. F-8C The Crusader is one of those aircraft for which there was inter-platform rivalry. Generally, the F-8 drivers could beat the F-4 aircrews in a dogfight, but this was largely because the F-8 still carried four guns and short-range missiles, meaning its crews still had to train to dogfight, while the F-4's largely focused on interception and long-range shooting (a point brought up by several pilots from the Vietnam era with experience in both jets). When F-8 pilots got into F-4's, they had little trouble defeating the F-8 by using the F-4's better power and the vertical plane; keeping the energy up, they could run their old mount out of smack and shoot it down. That said, the F-8's good insantaneous turning capability and slightly, but not significantly worse sustained turning capability still makes the F-8 a competitor against the F-4. I'd rate it a 5. F-100C Going back to the century-series, this is one of the aircraft I'd rate lower than the F-4 due to its slow-speed instability and poor thrust to weight ratio. While the F-4 may have been somewhat unforgiving at slow speed, it was an improvement over the F-100C (Sabre Dance, anyone?). The F-100C's its wing loading is comparable to the F-4's, but its poor performance at slow speeds and higher angles of attack, poor sustained turning and vertical performance by comparison puts the F-100C below the Phantom. I'd give it a 3. Lightning The English Electric Lightning is another aircraft I don't know much about. I know it was developed as an interceptor, could sustain speeds above Mach 1 without afterburner, had exceptional climb and acceleration characteristics due to a very low thrust-to-drag ratio, and comparable thrust-to-weight and wing loading to the F-4. As such, I can't really rate it with any confidence, so given what I know I'd put it at 6 to 7. Tornado ADV The ADV was designed as an interceptor rather than a dogfighter, and even the Ministry of Defence has stated the type is not significantly superior to the Phantom in air defense. It's wing loading is significantly worse than the F-4's at combat weight though its acceleration is superior and possibly its vertical performance. I'd give the ADV something in the vicinity of 5. Saab Viggen I don't know too much about the Viggen, so can't assess it particularly well. It has comparable wing loading and thrust to weight, but uses a delta wing and canards. Based on the other deltas, it will likely out turn an F-4 instantaneously and based on its thrust to weight and wing loading, will probably sustain its turn about as well as an F-4, if not slightly better. I'd give it a 7, but with low confidence. Saab Draken This is one of those aircraft that has very low wing loading, a fair thrust to weight ratio, and ridiculous pitch authority. Given that its wing loading is akin to a MiG-17, but it has better thrust to weight, I'd estimate it could out-turn some of the Teen-series aircraft, like the MiG-17. It also probably can't fight as well in the vertical, but its instantaneous turning, sustained turning and slow-speed would make the draken a powerful foe. I'd rate it a 8. Kfir C7 The Kfir C7 was based on the Mirage 5, which itself was based on the Mirage III, but with some modifications, including the small canards for improved slow-speed and higher angle-of-attack performance. It has similar wing loading and comparable thrust-to-weight at combat weight, but given that the IIIC has similar turning capabilities with worse thrust to weight and without the aerodynamic advances put into the Kfir compared to the F-4, I'd estimate the Kfir C7 is going to be a better instantaneous and sustained turner, and with similar vertical capabilities. I'd put the Kfir C7 around 7. Other aircraft for consideration would be the F-16, which I'd probably rate a 10, since it seems as though every pilot I've spoken to about their platform ALWAYS rates an F-16 as a difficult opponent. An F-14B/D with the powerful GE engines and F-15C with the -229's I'd probably give a 9. MiG-29 and Su-27 probably a 9. MiG-17 a 5 or 4, since, although it may be a UFO in the ThirdWire world, pilots flying the F-4 found that exploiting the vertical plane would give them a massive advantage, and at high speeds, the -17 couldn't turn with them either. So long as the F-4 driver didn't try to get into a slower speed turning fight, he always had an advantage.

Mig-21BIS 0-10 Mig-23 MLD 0-10 Mirage IIIC 0-10 Mirage F1C 0-10 F-15A 0-10 F-18A 0-10 F-14A 0-10 F-4E 0-10 F-8C 0-10 F-100C 0-10 Lightning 0-10 Tornado ADV 0-10 SAAB DRAKEN 0-10 SAAB VIGGEN 0-10 Kfir C-7 0-10 Because it's the pilot/aircrew who decides a dogfight, not the airframe. And if you're looking for fighter pilot opinions, I've found they're all going to be different, especially compared to their airframe. The folks I've spoken to mostly have time in the F-8, F-4, F-5, A-4, and F-14 (some F/A-18). Whatever airframe you're flying, that's the best one, and inter-service, and inter-platform rivalries will always show through. An F-14 pilot isn't going to rate an F-15 very high, nor is an F-15 pilot going to do the same for an F-14. It'd be like asking an English archer his opinion of French heavy cavalry and vice-versa. Then, someone will inevitably pull up "the charts". Regardless that many (not all) of these are protected under ITAR and by distribution statements (or whatever a given country's equivalent is), they'll get posted, and yea-verily, we have the holy grail here. But then you compare them to ACMI/TACTS data, or what a pilot tells you, and that airplane that's not supposed to be flying there, or pulling that many "g", or have that much alpha loaded up is doing so. Why is he sustaining 6.6g at that altitude and airspeed, he's only supposed to have 5.9! How come he's rolling that fast, he can't do that! But this aircraft has better thrust to weight, so it has better acceleration. Oh wait, it doesn't, because that one has a smaller drag profile and a better thrust to drag ratio, so it actually accelerates better at this altitude, but not that one. Well, the CHARTS say this aircraft and that one are generally comparable, but then a pilot with experience in both will say "comparable aircraft a is always going to wax comparable aircraft b at any altitude or airspeed, even with a mediocre crew" - but...but the CHARTS! Then we have to consider that air combat is a three-dimensional environment with aircraft maneuvering relative to each other across all possible planes of motion. Perhaps an F-4E can't sustain its turn very well compared to a MiG-17F, but now the Phantom aircrew takes the fight into the vertical, and the MiG-17F can't fight in the vertical as well as an F-4E. Or maybe, the F-4E driver works on disengaging, and the fight gets fast; well now the MiG driver is in trouble in a turn since he doesn't have hydraulically boosted controls and can maybe sustain about 3.5g compared to the F-4E's 6 or whatever, and now suddenly the F-4E is the better turner. What happens when, say, you hit the merge, start turning into each other, but a cloud obscures your view? Say you're flying a MiG-29 against an F-5E. Your Fulcrum should have better sustained and instantaneous turning as well as better vertical performance, but you lose that tiny little F-5E, which can burn energy and pitch its nose like a bastard. He sacrifices energy for position, knowing you can't see to your six o'clock, excepting 6-high. You don't know where he went, and so you're no longer effectively maneuvering against him. You have an idea where he went, maybe, and so you wrench the aircraft in to a harsh 9g turn, letting off a bit to look up against the sky, and, whoops, he's not there. You get the call "tracking guns on the MiG-29 in a right-hand turn, angels 15" - you lost sight, you couldn't see out the back, and if the fight were real, you'd have a lot of 20mm holes in your jet regardless of the fact that it's supposed to be the better performer. That's not just some BS I came up with, that's based on a number of fights I've been told about with a variety of aircraft, including the MiG-29. And then you get into some more examples. A pair of F-4D aircrews with mounted centerline cannons beating a pair of experienced F-15C drivers up at 33k feet where the F-4D should get smoked every time. A pair of F-14A aircrews defeating a pair of F-16 pilots because the fight got so slow and the F-14's dropped their landing flaps to out-pitch the Vipers. MiG-29G pilots getting beat up on by F-4F aircrews because they were too reliant on GCI and can't see out the back of the jet (lose sight, lose fight!). How many times have aggressor A-4, F-5, Kfir, etc. crews bagged F-14's, F-15's, F-16's and F/A-18's in simulated dogfights? It all comes down to the aircrew, training, tactics, techniques and procedures, and sometimes blind, stupid luck. Each airplane you have listed there can be flown brilliantly or like a brick, it all depends on the AIRCREW.

Best of luck, Falcon!

Thank you for your service, Sir, and enjoy your retirement!

Very nice, Dave!

The dumping of thousands of E.T. The Extraterrestrial game cartridges for the Atari VCS/2600 in New Mexico was rumored for a long time. The game's programmer, Howard Scott Warshaw (also known for the games Yar's Revenge and Raiders of the Lost Ark), knew about the rumors, but even he wasn't entirely certain that they were real given Atari's financial situation at the time (would the executives really blow all that money to contract out the trucks, then cover the games in concrete in the New Mexico desert when the company was bleeding millions of dollars a day?) As it turns out, they apparently did: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/26/307178240/e-t-s-home-is-found-trove-of-atari-games-unearthed-at-landfill As both a classic gamer and a historian, this is an interesting find. I can't say I'm surprised given the hi-jinks that would happen at Atari in the 1970's-80's (in the documentary "Once Upon Atari," former employees and programmers were quite open about the shenanigans that went on at the company at the time, from bocce lemons in the halls to whips to Marijuana Review Boards during corporate meetings), but what is most interesting to me is that this is one of those rare instances where an historic rumor or legend is apparently true. Although only a few decades old, rather than centuries or millennia, it is always exciting to me when an excavation like this happens, and an event that at one point could at best be described as legend and at worst pure fiction is proven to have happened. That being said, I don't plan to celebrate by buying a copy of E.T. for my Atari.

<S>

Just taking a look at some of the preliminary pictures, there appears to be more than just E.T. carts there; the distinctive double-wide boxes of Star Raiders which fit the keypad controller can be spotted, as well as Centipede boxes. Some destroyed joysticks and other controllers are littered about; catalogs, and advertisements as well. Wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of Pac-Man carts were in there, too! E.T. may have made up the majority of the dump, but based on the other stuff found so far, it looks like Atari might have done a general warehouse clearing to ditch not only excess E.T. carts, but also other stuff that wasn't selling during the crash in 1983.

UK, If I had to guess, I'd agree with Gunrunner's assessment - rather than store massive quantities of the product which had no chance of selling after the resounding flop, it may have been decided that it would be easier/cheaper to make a single large haul and put them underground, rather than hold them for years.

Cougar, Nice vids. I normally fly with the blackout/redout on Normal rather than hard; I figure a fighter pilot should have better "g" resistance than about 4. With Normal, you'll still black out at higher "g", it just takes longer. You're right about the TW F-14, it's max internal fuel is 14,000 pounds for some reason (the F-14 has always had 16,200lbs max internal fuel capacity), and its empty mass is slightly lower than the TMF F-14A (74) or (82). I figure its poor roll rate is modeled on the pre-Block 90 aircraft. The F-14 was never a fast roller, but it could achieve rates in the 270*/sec region with ROLL SAS off, and OT&E identified roll rate issues that were addressed starting with Block 90 in 1975. For terrains, just check out the download section; there's plenty there for you to experiment with.

Close, Dave. It was within the first few weeks of college in 2004 that I was a lurker, trying to find F-14 mods for flight sims, since the last I remembered was Fleet Defender. I think it was 2005 when I actually joined. A lot has happened, certainly. Got my degree, commissioned, lived at Vandy, Thule, Rome and now the Springs...I can't believe it's already been over three years since I left the arctic! Actually spent Christmas out here with a fellow Archie and his family, since I arrived in mid-December. Time absolutely flies.

Welcome back!

JSF, I did a skin pack called "The Gulls" which covers F-14's from between 1974 and ~1978. While the bureau numbers are from each squadron's first cruise, some of the skins would still be valid from an appearance standpoint into 1978. These were the squadrons: VF-1 Wolf Pack 1974-1978 VF-2 Bounty Hunters 1974-1978 VF-14 Tophatters 1974-1978 VF-32 Swordsmen 1974-1978 VF-41 Black Aces 1976-1978 VF-84 Jolly Rogers 1976-1980 VF-114 Aardvarks 1976-1979 VF-213 Black Lions 1976-1979 I've also completed VF-24, but the G**DAMNED NOSE STRIPES on VF-211 are still giving me problems. If you want to use any of those, feel free.

Dave, I'm sorry for your loss. May he rest in peace.

Felics Natalis Tibei!

DB, even I wouldn't argue with the second statement. Those Turkey's are OLD, have been cannibalized into each other, and you can even see on open-source websites that they've got parts in 'em never meant to be flown with operationally (I recall one with a red-walled tire - used for ground testing purposes!) They might see an F-15 first, but they're flying with E-model Sparrows, so they couldn't shoot first. Against the -22, even the latest variants of the F-15 and F-16 got murdered during Red Flag exercises at long range because they couldn't detect it, so good luck with an AWG-9. It may be more powerful (10kW peak, 7kW average), but it hasn't seen the updates that the APG-63 and 70 have (or the F-14D's APG-71, for that matter), and even those radars had a tough time with the -22. Add to that that the IRIAF Turkeys are running antiquated TF-30's, and it's doubtful they'd last close-in either (unless they had their own version of a Hoser, Snort, Turk, Frosty, Hawk, Bush, etc.)! With respect to the first question, most folks have already replied, but I'll add to this the following: when in the 1980's? Early 80's there was the whole "don't shoot until you get shot at" rule, but by the late 1980's, as what happened with Sidra II (F-14's v MiG-23's), if a contact was maneuvering in a "hostile" way, you could shoot at them. In those circumstances, the AIM-7M armed F-15 wouldn't have to wait to shoot!

I'd say check the SF2 DACT thread, page 18 and onward. Should give you some ideas.

Turkey's an excellent dogfighter! Just gotta fly it some!

OK, this seems to be a problem with WinXP. Having both a TCS and VDI on the same mesh doesn't jive well with that operating system. Don't know if it's the version of DirectX or what, but you aren't the only one with this issue. I think we need to make an XP-friendly version of the jet which only has the VDI and no TCS. The radar might be having the same issue.

Tomcat18, are you running WinXP, by chance?

All the best!

Suddenly, the epitaph on Hoser's gravestone makes a lot more sense. Though still alive, he had his gravestone made for him several years ago. Two unique things I recall about it: 1. He has pissed on his own grave 2. The last lines of the epitaph are: "And I never landed gear up!" There is enough space under this line to etch the words "...ALMOST!" should something happen in the future I knew Hoser and Snort were friends for a long time, and they'd throw friendly jabs at each other every now and again, but I had never read about Snort's wheel-up landing until now. I finally get the epitaph.

A Tomcat driver who became the gunnery training lead back in the early 1980's used to show students a picture of his pipper dead center on an opponent's fuselage during a dissimilar engagement. He would ask the student body: "What's wrong with this shot?" No student would answer, so after a few seconds he would respond: "THE PIPPER'S NOT ON HIS F****** HEAD!" He'd then show another frame from a few seconds later with his pipper square on the cockpit. The point was that if you shot someone down and they lived, they'd learn from their mistake, come back, and possibly put some bullets through YOUR dome; better to kill the enemy pilot than let him learn your tactics and tell his friends. This was reiterated by one of my own instructors back when I was in ROTC, surprisingly enough. It is the preferred gun solution to have for some pilots and it also is not illegal. Like it has been said here above, if the pilot is still in his/her jet, you absolutely can put a stream of bullets through the cockpit and you aren't breaking LOAC or other international rules of war.

Falcon, Glad to hear your operation went well! Keep your spirits high; you got this.

Many thanks, Erik!