They pretty much are ALL hard not to love...but we each still have our favorites... I love the lines of an F 100, along with the F 86 and just like the P 51, North American sure knew how to build a good looking fighter....
I grew up around F4s.... Love them, they looked badasssed from day one, but never thought they were as good looking as an F100.
And as brought up, the F 106 was also another wonderful and good looking plane....
Good reason it was called the Golden Age of Military Aviation, kind of like Aviations "Muscle Car" era....defintely a wonderful time to be in the Air Force....
and no intention of leaving out the great birds the US Navy employed either....
side note for Pete E.... might be the time I lived in England, but the Lightning was THE fighter plane for the RAF during those times... and a good looking bird on its own. I always considered it another favorite...definitely the "Spitfire" of the 1960s Cold War period.
I tell ya, growing up on Air Force bases in the 50s and 60s wasn't a dull or boring childhood, that's for darn sure... I know Digital Dan can attest to that...he was an AF Brat also...
Being a late 40s and 50s Air Force Brat, I saw a lot of airplanes. I guess the only military plane that I rode in was a C119 and it was a noisy betch. Got to see the T6, F80, T33, F86, F84, F89C7D, F100, F101, F102, and many more. It was a boyhood dream. My youngest son retired after 22yrs as a U2 crewchief. I'm wearing my Dragon Lady ball cap as I type. I have in my possession one of the forward side windscreens and an American flag that was in his plane that set an altitude, payload record. I know the English Electric Lightening is a nice plane, but in reality it would run out of gas trying to attain the altitude of the U2.
Was rummaging around in hill country NW of Chu Lai one day and got the chitt shot out of my chopper. Headed home squealing like a little girl and the B-Team took over on the recon mission. FAC was on station and picked up a couple of F4s from MAG 13, full ord/fuel, they barely had time to get the gear up before they were on station. FAC marked the target (bunker complex) and lead rolled in on the first run.
Later on the Lt. said he just had the pipper on the target when the master caution illuminated to announce the obvious. Total hydraulic system failure. Emergency procedure? Eject!
Couple of things happened pretty quick. One helluva blast at ground zero, right in the middle of the bunker complex. 2 chutes opened and the airstrike turned into a rescue mission, a successful one at that. They never took the first round of fire while grabbing the crew. Crazy Yankee Running Dogs, hey?
The Air Cav and Marine Corps bonded that night at their O'Club. Epic night...we drank the place dry.
Dan
PS: It was the the second and last time I know of that a F4 actually hit the target. A6s never missed. F100s couldn't hit a barn if they were inside. A1Es rocked. A4s were an area fire weapon.
I am..........disturbed.
Concerning the difference between man and the jackass: some observers hold that there isn't any. But this wrongs the jackass. -Twain
X'ceptin' the F-4 was an Interceptor (now that ought to piss of the F-4 drivers! ). The F-100 is very cool, but I have to go with the MiG Master, aka the F-8.
JorgeI, you're right; it was designed as an interceptor to stop the "Red Horde" coming over the horizon....BUT once the Navy and the Air Farce figured out how to take advantage of the F-4's strong points (two J-79's in burner) and the various Migs' weak points, it was no contest in SE Asia or over the Sinai.
I've fought Mig 17's, 21's and 23's (which were the threat when I was on active duty) in the F-4 and IF you know what you're doing they are easily defeated.
It's sorta like a gunfight; you fight with what you have at the time and the Phantoom was it for many years!
Later, even in the F-14A with the "crummy engines" all that series Migs were considered "grapes" and no contest.
NRA Life,Endowment,Patron or Benefactor since '72.
I love 'em all. Have seen an F-86 and a MiG-15 fly, the F-14, 15, 16 and 18, the Harrier, a pair of Ukrainian MiG-29s, and many attack aircraft. They all make me warm and fuzzy. But, to pick one, it would have to be the Tomcat. In an F-16 demo, it'll fly a box center stage with a snap roll on each side, the corners looking like a billiard ball of the cushion. Saw an F-14A fly the same box, with the same snap roll, in the same airspace, but the back end slid like a sprint car on dirt. What a machine!
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." Robert E. Howard
one of the best looking Jet Fighters ever built in my book... even when camo'ed.... North American F 100 Super Sabre...
Video on their service in Vietnam.
The 2 Seater Trainers were the first ones used as the New Wild Weasel Missions...
Even with the Marine Corps around Danang we would occasionally get some F-100's to work. We also got some prop jobs, Corsairs, Skyraiders, etc. They were the easiest to work. The F-4 was a great fighter. Not so good at close air support. The A-4's were better. The ordinace guys got so they could turn around a section of A-4's with snake and nape in one hour. Pretty amazing.
Though not really a jet fighter the F-111 is one of my all time favorite looking jets. For a pure fighter it would be hard to beat the F-14 to me for looks.
Larry *********** "Speed is fine but accuracy is final" - Bill Jordan "We do not exaggerate when we state positively that the remodelled Springfield is the best and most suitable "all 'round" rifle".......Seymour Griffin, GRIFFIN & HOWE, Inc.
The Fighter that was truly superior when it went into squadron service was the Me-262 Swallow. But it was too late to make a difference in the air war over Germany. Fortunately it wasn't introduced a year earlier!
In the present the F-15 is the most successful air superiority Fighter ever. But if you want an air to ground Fighter that could kick butt in air to air, the A-4 Skyhawk series was the best for the buck.
BTW, if anyone nominates the late model F-16's, I won't argue against it.
I've intentionally left out aircraft that have seen no air to air combat out of my choices
X'ceptin' the F-4 was an Interceptor (now that ought to piss of the F-4 drivers! ). The F-100 is very cool, but I have to go with the MiG Master, aka the F-8.
JorgeI, you're right; it was designed as an interceptor to stop the "Red Horde" coming over the horizon....BUT once the Navy and the Air Farce figured out how to take advantage of the F-4's strong points (two J-79's in burner) and the various Migs' weak points, it was no contest in SE Asia or over the Sinai.
I've fought Mig 17's, 21's and 23's (which were the threat when I was on active duty) in the F-4 and IF you know what you're doing they are easily defeated.
It's sorta like a gunfight; you fight with what you have at the time and the Phantoom was it for many years!
Later, even in the F-14A with the "crummy engines" all that series Migs were considered "grapes" and no contest.
Good morning to you sir! Excellent post and spot on with what I believe. The F-4's strong points were of course speed, acceleration, rate of climb & descent but the last thing you wanted to do was get into a turning, low altitude fur ball with the Migs and of course the fact it had no gun (the USAF F-4E did) was a huge disadvantage once you ran out of AIM-9s. As you know the AIM-7 was dogshit with a less than 10% kill rate against fighters. Cheers, j
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
North American F-86 it just had the lines and the look of what a jet fighter should be! A jet version of the P-51 mustang if you will! The Russian MiG-15 was pretty much the same sort of thing, the only reason I mention it was when I was a very young pilot, there as a hanger at the airport I worked at at the time that hand one in it along with a P-51 a P-47 and a Spanish ME-109, that guy had some money! Now its pretty much who has the best boxes and radars, there are a lot of great airplanes to choose just one, its like choosing to just shoot one rifle, we Americans don't do that!
"Any idiot can face a crisis,it's the day-to-day living that wears you out."
Gotta vote for the F-15! I remember being at an airshow at Reese AFB in Lubbock, TX around 1988 or so, when an Eagle driver did a vertical takeoff or climb. Once the jet noise cleared, it was amazing how many car alarms he'd set off!
"Never stand and take a charge...charge them too."
Beautiful aircraft! By my way of thinking, this was the last true gunfighter that saw combat. I've always thought an F-86 made with modern construction techniques, using fly-by-wire and powered by one of the F/A-18s GE-404s would make a perfect personal fighter aircraft!
I know the English Electric Lightening is a nice plane, but in reality it would run out of gas trying to attain the altitude of the U2.
Fuel consumption was always the weak point of the Lightening, but as an Interceptor, rate of climb and speed were seen to be more important. I think my the end of production later Marks could fly for 2 hours without refuelling, depending on how they were being flown of course.
Interestingly, they were one of the first aircraft of its type to be able to "supercruise"...
The quote below is some well cited information from Wiki and covers the trials with the U2.
"Climb
The Lightning possessed a remarkable climb rate. It was famous for its ability to rapidly rotate from take-off to climb almost vertically from the runway, though this did not yield the best time-to-altitude. The Lightning's trademark tail-stand manoeuvre exchanged airspeed for altitude; it could slow to near-stall speeds before commencing level flight. The Lightning’s optimum climb profile required the use of afterburners during takeoff. Immediately after takeoff, the nose would be lowered for rapid acceleration to 430 knots (800 km/h) IAS before initiating a climb, stabilising at 450 knots (830 km/h). This would yield a constant climb rate of approximately 20,000 ft/min (100 m/s).[36][nb 3] Around 13,000 ft (4,000 m) the Lightning would reach Mach 0.87 and maintain this speed until reaching the tropopause, 36,000 ft (11,000 m) on a standard day.[nb 4] If climbing further, pilots would accelerate to supersonic speed at the tropopause before resuming the climb.[16][36] A Lightning flying at optimum climb profile would reach 36,000 ft in under three minutes.[36]
The official ceiling of the Lightning was kept secret; low security RAF documents would often state in excess of 60,000 ft (18,000 m). In September 1962, Fighter Command organised interception trials on Lockheed U-2As at heights of around 60,000–65,000 ft (18,000–20,000 m), which were temporarily based at RAF Upper Heyford to monitor Soviet nuclear tests.[52][53][54] Climb techniques and flight profiles were developed to put the Lightning into a suitable attack position. To avoid risking the U-2, the Lightning was not permitted any closer than 5,000 ft (1,500 m) and could not fly in front of the U-2. For the intercepts, four Lightning F1As conducted eighteen solo sorties. The sorties proved that, under GCI, successful intercepts could be made at up to 65,000 ft. Due to sensitivity, details of these flights were deliberately avoided in the pilot log books.[55]
In 1984, during a NATO exercise, Flt Lt Mike Hale intercepted a U-2 at a height which they had previously been considered safe (thought to be 66,000 feet (20,000 m)). Records show that Hale also climbed to 88,000 ft (27,000 m) in his Lightning F.3 XR749. This was not sustained level flight but a ballistic climb, in which the pilot takes the aircraft to top speed and then puts the aircraft into a climb, exchanging speed for altitude. Hale also participated in time-to-height and acceleration trials against Lockheed F-104 Starfighters from Aalborg. He reports that the Lightnings won all races easily with the exception of the low-level supersonic acceleration, which was a "dead heat".[56] Lightning pilot and Chief Examiner Brian Carroll reported taking a Lightning F.53 up to 87,300 feet (26,600 m) over Saudi Arabia at which level "Earth curvature was visible and the sky was quite dark", noting that control-wise "[it was] on a knife edge".[57]
Brian Carroll compared the Lightning and the F-15C Eagle, having flown both aircraft, stating that: "Acceleration in both was impressive, you have all seen the Lightning leap away once brakes are released, the Eagle was almost as good, and climb speed was rapidly achieved. Takeoff roll is between 2,000 and 3,000 ft [610 and 910 m], depending upon military or maximum afterburner-powered takeoff. The Lightning was quicker off the ground, reaching 50 ft [15 m] height in a horizontal distance of 1,630 ft [500 m]". Chief Test Pilot for the Lightning Roland Beamont, who also flew most of the "Century series" US aircraft, stated his opinion that nothing at that time had the inherent stability, control and docile handling characteristics of the Lightning throughout the full flight envelope. The turn performance and buffet boundaries of the Lightning were well in advance of anything known to him.[58]"
Dug these old B&W pics out for you F-4 fans PhuCat RSVN '69..Resolution isn't great but I took these out of my aircraft on the way to the active.Most impressive ordinance if you look closely.
You better be afraid of a ghost!!
"Woody you were baptized in prop wash"..crossfireoops