I think that the F-5 would have been far better, Chris. It had agility as well
as looking cool (very important, of course :-))
Chris
> On 31 May 15, at 23:56, Chris Trask <christrask@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>> I don’t think that the engine was the only factor in its gaining that name,
>> Chris.
>> Although it was designed as a high-speed interceptor, the Germans and
>> Italians (and
>> perhaps other nations) used it for ground attack, nuclear strike in the case
>> of the
>> the latter, with the F104S (I think). But the machine had tiny wings, as
>> you have
>> pointed out, and wasn’t great on the recovery from dive attacks; so if you
>> pulled
>> too hard or were slow, I understand that the anti-stall measures would
>> ensure that
>> you didn’t pull out of the dive. We in the RAF heard that there were
>> several
>> aircraft that hit the ground 12 o’clock from the centre of the dive target.
>>
>
> I can see it being used as an interceptor or a one-way nuclear strike,
> but not for ground support. The various F-5 derivatives probably had similar
> problems when used for ground support.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|