FEATHERDUSTER: Phantoms And Starfighters Dogfight With F-86 Sabres To Prepare For Vietnam, 1965

[@nickmitsialis]

Sounds very similar to a book I read called 'Clashes' by Marshal Michel, a F4 pilot who flew during 'Linebacker' (I think); I was shocked by several things Michel brought up: That US Missiles performed so poorly (heck, it even generated a joke: "That's why they're not called 'Hittles') That the USAF brass decided that every pilot in the USAF would 'get his turn' in a fighter cockpit, before experienced tac pilots could do another tour (that means, even if the pilots flew, tankers, transports or heavy bombers, they were expected to be able to perform in a Fighter in a combat situation) And lastly USAF brass decided around 1968 that 'air combat maneuvers' were "too dangerous" to teach, so they 'de=emphasized' learning dogfighting.

[@dragonsword7370]

That fighter rotation period with all navy pilots sounds very similar to pre-w22 and early 1942. Pilots had to fly both torpedo bombers and fighters before the war started. As a way to keep all pilots affiliated with other planes in the inventory. Problem IS that it didn't help fighter pilots have more hours and training in their fighter platform. Which could have been the difference between life and death in some circumstances. A practice that I believe wasn't kept up as much after WW2.

[@nickmitsialis]

@@dragonsword7370 Indeed! The other 'problem' Naval Aviators had was that the USN had a limited pool of 'talent' so, unlike the USAF and their "100 missions and done", the Navy often had their aviators do several tours flying over North Vietnam.

[@lqr824]

@@dragonsword7370 Greg's Airplanes looked into the war's aces from every nation, and it turns out basically ALL the top aces were pilots before the war. In contrast, being a college boy, say, had nothing to do with it. In other words combat success is nothing more than flight hours. It doesn't even have to be combat hours, just flight hours.

[@nelsonzambrano5788]

You can see how that environment made Robin Olds a 100% outcast...

[@nickmitsialis]

@@nelsonzambrano5788 Yup! Old Robin didn't give hoot who he was talking to, and his tendency to not 'moderate' his message was probably why he was sent to the Airforce Academy instead of to a 'advanced training/predeployment' kind of command. Some folks said that's why he was not allowed to fly in Korea, as well.

[@wmffmw]

I flew F4E, I had bigger engines and a 20mm cannon. Gave me an advantage over F4C. I also got advanced training and was taught to be aggressive and think outside the box. I also grew up with Test Pilots. My father was an Aerospace Engineer.

[@JohnnyWishbone85]

If you don't mind my asking, what advanced training was that, and why were you selected for it?

[@JohnHugo]

Having been in the USAF and Air National Guard, I can definitely say Never underestimate a Guard pilot! Most are already former USAF, Navy or Marine pilots and already have experience in fighters. In the Guard they don’t PCS like active duty units, so these pilots are flying with each other for years at the same unit. There teamwork is very difficult to beat! The Guard is not just “Weekend Warriors!” At my unit 80% of the personnel were full time and 20% weekenders. These pilots fly and train a lot! The majority of the aircraft maintainers are also full timers and know their aircraft well!

[@fredkitmakerb9479]

Right said. I remember in the late seventies when some Air Guard F-100 pilots killed several F-15s at Red Flag.

[@kevinmello9149]

Sounds very much like the lessons learned by P-40 and Wildcat fighters going against the Zero in WW2 Pacific theater. Don't try to maneuver with them, zoom and boom and fly to your aircrafts strengths. Excellent video, Feather Duster isn't something you read about often

[@robertgiggie6366]

People truly do not appreciate the starfighter nearly enough.

[@SoloRenegade]

because there isn't much toe appreciate

[@petesheppard1709]

This is an AWESOME video; a great discussion of the issues pilots struggled with. For me, this video ranks with the book 'Thud Ridge' as a balanced discussion of the combat over N. Vietnam. In the book (released during the war), Col. Jack Broughton was scathing in his criticism of the peacetime mentality that infected upper command during the first phase of the war. This video does much the same. THANK YOU! My expectations and hopes for your channel increase! One quibble; the F-86H had 20mm cannon. One way to confirm is to count the gun ports on the nose. The -H has four, compared to the six of the earlier, .50 cal armed models. EDIT: According to another comment, early F-86H Sabres apparently had .50s.

[@peterlovett5841]

If you haven't already read it may I suggest "Fighter Pilot" by Robin Olds (actually it is by his daughter based on notes by her father). When you read of the inanities he had to deal with in SE Asia it is a wonder he was able to achieve what he did.

[@ReviveHF]

Another crucial feature F-86 had was the cockpit design, it granted great visibility and great ergonomics, which aided better dogfighting capabilities.

[@briancooper2112]

And a great pilot at the controls.

[@danwilliams5867]

The F86 was designed to dogfight, not to use high tech, sidewinders, to get air to air kill.

[@Lhenry-pf5zn]

@@danwilliams5867 Gunfighter.

[@gotanon9659]

​@@danwilliams5867 Reality would prove you wrong buddy especially in the later life of the sabres carried sidewinders.

[@danwilliams5867]

@@gotanon9659 correct but high tech does not replace skill or planes ability. Its why the F16 was made and is still relevent 50 years later

[@archiedoesgames1222]

You need more subscribers you deserve them your content is unrivalled

[@jb6027]

5:06 Whilst the first batch of 112 F-86H-1s had 6 x .50 cam machine guns, all the later F-86Hs starting with the -5 models were armed with 4 x20mm cannons. The cannon armament is apparent in many of the photos.

[@alantoon5708]

You are correct, sir. The F-86H was in active units for just a short time before being sent to the ANG. The Guard pretty much phased them out during 1970...

[@jwenting]

You forgot to mention that forcing a strike aircraft to jettison its bomb/missile load and run for safety is (and was) almost as good as a hard kill. It achieves the mission of protecting the target of the strike from that strike. It also helps to demoralise the attacking force, both the pilots who're forced to flee with their tails between their legs, and the people back at base who see their efforts go to waste as another aircraft returns without a positive result from its mission. As many F-105s, A-4, A-6s, and A-7s going in without or with minimal air support would simply flee when just seeing approaching MiGs, rather than trying to force their way through (especially nearer the end of the war when the ROEs were becoming insane for the Americans due to micro management out of Washington) this had a serious influence on both US and North Vietnamese morale.

[@gotanon9659]

Except that strike aircraft generally attack in groups and migs would only affects part of the strike group

[@jwenting]

@@gotanon9659 and attack in swarms, disrupting the entire strike. Causing the entire strike group to drop their stores and scatter. Which is what happened a lot in Vietnam.

[@jwaustinmunguy]

Two observations: picture of an F-4 from below and behind with condensation behind the wings has mistakenly painted German Luftwaffe markings under left wing. Picture of Sabre at night firing tracers has Royal Canadian Air Force rounded painted on the extended dive brake. Note the presence of (gasp) snow on the ground. The leading edge slats would be on a Sabre Mark 6, I believe

[@chickenfishhybrid44]

I assume this was a tactic employed from the beginning. Interesting theory but it didn't seem to stop the attacks for literally years.

[@brianrmc1963]

I can’t believed how “dialed in” you are in all your videos, and this is no exception. You must put in an enormous amount of time doing research. I flew legacy F/A-18s in VMFA-323. It was cool to see our F-4s in your video. Even though the Hornet is arguably one of best 4th Generation slow-speed fighters, we trained not to turn at the merge; Speed is Life!

[@JFDA5458]

Just curious, do the Navy and Marines discourage pilots from engaging in turning dogfights?

[@brianrmc1963]

@@JFDA5458 I can only speak for my own experience, and I got out in 1996. We trained evenly in all aspects of aerial combat, from forward-quarter gunnery to beyond-visual-range missile kills, but the reality is is that if you have to turn more than 90° things have gone wrong.

[@someguy872]

I'm glad that you really focus on sharing stuff about air to air combat in the Vietnam war and stuff in the cold war. one of the best channels for information about that.

[@tomshaw2635]

Amen. I began F-4 training in1975. Our instructors were somewhat bitter at having flown fighting wing & had their buddies blow up. It took the Navy to break through the doctrine. The Top Gun movie is a fantasy but the Naval Fighter Weapons School was a break through. Don't get me started about the SAC fiasco over Hanoi in '72.

[@danpatterson8009]

I try to see this in context. The period 1945-1960 saw tremendous changes in aircraft capabilities, weapons, and strategic goals. There may have been a mindset that many of the principles of the WWII days were no longer relevant in the "jet age", and intercepting bombers carrying nukes was considered a higher priority than mixing it up with fighters. Vietnam will always be the avatar of what happens when you use weapons systems in roles for which they were not intended, and a lesson in the value of the ability of both aircraft and leadership to change directions.

[@ceddavis]

"...when you use weapons systems in roles for which they were not intended," Ultimately, that happens more often than not. Adaptability is usually the deciding factor since you are rarely in the exact scenario envisioned. When I was on active duty, a maxim was, "You go to war with the Army you have."

[@astircalix4126]

Following the decommissioning of the Gloster Meteor MK IV (armed with four 20mm Hispano Suiza cannons) we flew the F86 F Sabre armed with Browning .50-cal. (12.7mm). It was a big step for the Argentine Air Force despite its lack of 20. mm cannons. The F-86 Sabre was considered by Argentine pilots a top-notch fighter jet which paved the way for the new generations of Mirage III C, Dagger M V, and Douglas Skyhawk A 4 B and C fighter pilots. Nice video !

[@plixplux]

The Vietnam War truly was one of the most f-ed up wars ever in so many ways. Excellent video, thanks!

[@petesheppard1709]

Peacetime rules in combat are always bloody. Throw in micromanagement from halfway around the world, and there are problems indeed.

[@BlackMasterRoshi]

@@petesheppard1709 throw in the fact that it's another country's civil war and you've got a recipe for disaster.

[@petesheppard1709]

@@BlackMasterRoshi Not really. American involvement came as North Vietnam launched a covert invasion into the South. 'Civil war' was Communist propaganda.

[@natowaveenjoyer9862]

The Vietnam War was based.

[@johntrottier1162]

Very well done video. It shows clearly how the internal divisions in the Air Force of the 50's and 60's cost a lot of planes and pilots over N.Vietnam. The Air Force leadership was living in it's own little world, and pilots' ideas, comments and especially criticisms were not welcome. The Navy at least listened, and created Top Gun as solution. The Air Force only started teaching ACM after the Vietnam war.

[@jimginn4021]

Exactly. The USAF apparently ignored this test, and it showed on their kill ratios, maintaining about a 2:1 against NVN. While the Navy took the bombing halt period of 68-72 to change everything with the creation of Topgun. The Navy’s kill ratio went way up when the USA went back ‘up north’ in 72-73. As you mentioned, only after the war did the USAF begin air combat maneuvering training.

[@johnbrewer1893]

i attended Top Gun in 1978..afetr a tour in VN in 69’…I was stunned by how much i didnt know back then….i assumed because i was a college grad, naval aviation I cd engage and beat any mig i could find…luckily, I nvr had the chance…we learned to fight OUR fight and not their’s 19:32 …….there were things my F4 cd do btr than the Mig, and there were things they cd do btr than me…don’t fight their fight, fight your’s..if its adraw, leave and come back later

[@notapound]

Thanks so much for the comment. Always incredible to hear from aviators, particularly those with your direct knowledge. To your point on the Phantom, I believe that the Navy conducted a study after Rolling Thunder in which they flew it against everything they could get their hands on in the US inventory. Their conclusion was that the F-4 was the best fighter in the world by some margin, IF pilots were taught how to employ it effectively. 'Leave and come back later' is excellent advice in so many situations in life!!

[@edwardpate6128]

It would have been interesting if they had included the Navy F-8 Crusader in this. I think it would have been very enlightening. It had a very good record against the MiG -17.

[@proteusnz99]

Agreed, while the F-8 didn’t get many pure gun kills, it’s pilots were trained in how to manoeuvre to get into positions where the guns could be used (unfortunately the g-forces tended to distort the ammo feeds so sometimes the guns wouldn’t work at the critical moments). The F-105 was a nuclear strike bomber, it’s best defence was to run away very fast, though the cannon could ruin the day of anything in front of it. It’s replacement the F-111 was even more of a bomber. Another interesting item is experienced pilots flying F-4s against new pilots flying the new F-15, experience often won even flying a less capable aircraft. ‘Clashes’ is good reading, as is ‘All the missiles will work’

[@sergioleone3583]

You're rapidly become one of my favorite aviation video producers. Subscription earned, and looking forward to many more. Keep up the great analysis paired with interesting subjects and visuals!

[@michaeldenesyk3195]

The F-86H had 4 x 20mm, not Cal. 50

[@paulhart9102]

So true !

[@dennissmith6373]

I thought it's fire power was 6 .50 cal. Pretty sure.

[@dennissmith6373]

6 .50 caliber - - the F-8 had 4 20mm. The last gunfighter.

[@aslamstudio558]

Im sure there were different versions of the Sabre

[@wilsonpickett3881]

Fixed: Four M-39 20mm cannon (Blocks 5 and 10, last 360 aircraft built) or six .50-cal. machine guns (Block 1, 113 aircraft built)

[@Kiwiherm]

Love your content! So much to learn about an often neglected chaotic era of military aviation

[@jjhantsch8647]

If the lesson learned from Feather Duster had been universally applied, the air war would have been much less costly.

[@Easy-Eight]

*The F-86H had 4 20mm cannons and NOT 6 .50 MG.* Other than that, this video was excellent and I liked it a lot.

[@earlthepearl3922]

Very well done, sir! Very comprehensive as well as very thought provoking.

[@kevinvilmont6061]

The aircraft art is fantastic.

[@oldgamesinvestigator7852]

It never made sense to me why the USAF didn't use the F-100 for air-to-air combat more often. It was an actually decent dogfighter, where as the Phantom and the Starfighter were essentially flying bricks with engines and wings strapped on.

[@Marss13z]

I built all these planes as models. This was fascinating. Thank you.

[@whos1st]

Thank you for the work done on this channel. Your vids are outstanding.

[@wirebrushofenlightenment1545]

The MiG pilots really did have balls of steel. They were always up for the fight, however much the odds were stacked against them. Not often recorded, but the Phantom II had woefully poor cockpit sightlines.

[@marktuffield6519]

Fascinating as ever and such wonderful use of archive footage and photographs, you put professional documentary makers to shame.

[@sergioleone3583]

He truly does. The combination of his well presented and interesting analysis and observations with excellent visuals make for top videos. I'm stoked I found him when I saw his Starfire video and followed it up with the F-89 vid. GREAT subject matter and intriguing and well reasoned discussion.

[@christophermoeller5429]

This is the best video summary and analysis of Feather Duster I have seen. You included more interesting comments and context than I can mention here, such as some F-4 units in Vietnam not carrying the gun pod to discourage their pilots from getting close enough to the MiGs for it to be effective, and that the ANG F-86H pilots were almost certainly better / more aggressive than VPAF MiG pilots. But I wish you had spent a little bit of time previewing how the comparative test results predicted real combat results over North Vietnam - they didn't. Per Feather Duster, the F-104 had the most advantages and options against the subsonic fighter, while the F-105 had the least, by a wide margin. But after the 4 Apr 65 F-105 shoot downs you start with, VPAF MiG-17s brought down 3x more F-105s, the last of these on 5 Jan 68. USAF F-105 pilots are officially credited with 27.5 MiG-17 kills (almost all with the gun). So a 9:1 kill:loss ratio in the favor of big, easily seen, un-maneuverable F-105 and its pilots. Meanwhile, 9x F-104s were lost in combat in Vietnam - 8x to SAMs and AAA and 1x to a MiG-19 - with no (0x) air-to-air kills credited to USAF F-104 pilots. These are the official USAF numbers, and the VPAF (credibly) claim a few more F-105 kills than the USAF acknowledges, but the overall result is materially the same. The discussion of the combat results is in no way to suggest the F-105 was better for air-to-air than the F-104, or that the F-105 had greater or equal dogfight capability to the MiG-17. It absolutely was not and did not. The point is that actual combat is very complicated, and much more dependent on the situational-awareness of the participants than any simple summary performance statistics of their equipment. I think the difference between test results and combat results is worth exploring and discussing in more detail and I hope you will address it in future videos.

[@larryjenkinson5525]

🇦🇺 Brilliant informative video made even better by having the F86 in the cast!

[@hooperturner]

I thoroughly enjoy your videos and just want to thank you for the time, effort and research you put in them. Keep them coming please!!

[@gabrielabate6020]

Another EXCELLENT video!! Very informative!! Keep them coming!!

[@bertg.6056]

An excellent video, thanks ! Feather Duster is certainly not well known by any means.

[@donparker1823]

I didn't know any of this. Excellent presentation!

[@colinsmith8584]

Hell Ya! I found it interesting and useful! Great Content. You should have a lot more than 7K with content like this one.

[@GrimReaper-wz9me]

Excellent! Thank you very much for educating me on a programme that I have never heard of. And I must add that it is close to factually flawless, and a pleasure to watch. Cheers!🇨🇦🍺 SUBSCRIBED!

[@Paughco]

Great video! Thank you for posting!

[@edwardpate6128]

Shows what an amazing aircraft the F-86 was. Imagine if we had followed the development path that MiG had used and increased the wing sweep and added a larger afterburning engine. That might have been the MiG killer in Vietnam.

[@Lhenry-pf5zn]

You did, called the F-100.

[@VELOC113]

​@@Lhenry-pf5znthat's not entirely true considering that the aircraft was designed for supersonic flight it had become much heavier. Had it gone the same way as the mig-15 into the mig-17 where the fuselage was altered minimally only to fit a longer and more powerful engine and to increase wing sweep then who know what could have been for the saber, because the F-100 was from the ground up a different airplane so it's not fair to say the F-100 was an evolution of the f-86 in the same way a mig-17 is to a mig 15.

[@bryanwheeler1608]

CAC Avon Sabre was halfway there, they fitted the bigger afterburning engine, but didn't change the wing sweep. Even just that, took the CAC aircraft into similar performance levels to such things as Hawker Hunters.

[@juansabalua7375]

Great video!! Thanks a lot!!!

[@underworldgameshd69]

I’m happy to see that the F-100 was mentioned, people seem to forget it exists sometimes.

[@Leptospirosi]

Extremely interesting video about little known testing in the USAF

[@RubiconOfDeath]

Great video and awesome information as always. Keep it up. 👍

[@martindice5424]

Very interesting. Great video. 👍

[@andywells397]

Facinating insight, very commendable

[@majorbloodnok6659]

Thank you, that was very interesting.

[@jsladenumuno]

@4:54 you have a chart with wing loading and thrust to weight ratio with F-4C mentioned twice; I believe the leftmost mention is actually the F100

[@gerhardris]

Excellent video. Thanks.

[@raymondyee2008]

Interesting; so before the Navy had A-4s to simulate MIG-17s in “Top Gun” the Air Force had F-86s to challenge the F-4s and F-104s (provided the lessons from the Vietnam War got quickly passed on). Just goes to show that even when obsolete the Sabre was a deadly opponent not to take lightly.

[@FirstDagger]

The part about the F-104 was interesting and mirrors somewhat my experiences in games.

[@DominicFlynn]

The F-105 design Sacrificed everything for speed, range, and bomb load. You can't say, F-105 "fighter" without making me laugh. It was like an F-4 but without the radar

[@nivlacyevips]

It does have that letter F in the front though…and a gun. Thuds did have air to air kills in Vietnam as well. I think of it as the jet version of the P-47. Obviously the role it took on in Nam made it a sitting duck.

[@MrKentaroMotoPI]

The F-105 and the A-5 were designed to be nuclear bomb tossers. The A-5 was appropriately designated, the F-105 was not.

[@LupusAries]

@@nivlacyevips No, the P-47 is a very capable fighter if flown right and was then adapted to be a fighter bomber because it was ridiculously durable. A properly flown P-47 can dominate everything, 109s, 190s, Spitfires, P38s..... As long as it's got altitude advantage and is over 3,000m (~9,000-10,000 ft). If you're in a 109 K-4 or G-10 and are at 8,000+ m, you don't want to meet a P-47. It is also surprisingly maneuverable, but only on instaneously, not sustainedly. The Thud was a fighter in name only, that was pressed into the Fighter role. Like the F-111 it should have carried the A or Attacker prefix, because that's what it is, a light bomber. It was designed to bomb targets and had even an internal bomb bay.

[@briancooper2112]

It was designed for a 1 way nuclear delivery.

[@tholmes2169]

@@briancooper2112This is true. The F105 had one purpose and unfortunately during Vietnam it was made into a multi role aircraft.

[@richardcosse2493]

The RF-4C Phantom ,FJ-201, shown at 5:20 is now on static display at the "Regional Military Museum" in Houma, La.

[@peterlovett5841]

An interesting analogue to this story is that a squadron of CAC Sabres was based at Ubon in Thailand in 1962 for the defence of that country under SEATO. In 1965 the USAF also based aircraft there and the RAAF engaged in exercises where they mimicked the MiG 17 tactics on USAF aircraft. There is a story, which may be apocryphal, that a newly arrived USAF colonel bragged to his pilots that he would demonstrate his abilities to dog fight against the RAAF aircraft. Within a turn or two the Sabre was on the American aircraft's tail and it was a much chagrined colonel who had to face his pilots on landing. Regarding the comments from the F4 community about ACM training it was very notable that the WW2 experience of Col. Robin Olds stood him in excellent form for his combat missions over North Vietnam and his 4 kills that he achieved there.

[@georgesheffield1580]

Thanks that was the incident i was trying to bring up .

[@pauljohnson1325]

good video. the video explains why the U.S lost so many planes. during the Vietnam war

[@truthboomertruthbomber5125]

The number 1 reason is that the person doing the micromanaging never had any intention of winning that war. Iirc, the Air Force planners initial assessment said the air campaign would take only a few weeks by which time there would be nothing left worthy of bombing.

[@icewaterslim7260]

Sure would've been interesting to see how an upgraded J79 powered F11F-1F Super Tiger might do in a turning fight with a Mig 17.

[@johnd2058]

2:41 New Yorker here, we have one of those on display (like a shelf model, lofted in flight) outside of Westchester Airport.

[@RobertWilliams-us4kw]

Another fantastic video that went a long way in explaining the USAF TAC's nievety and overconfidence in their own percieved doctrine vs reality. It's also refreshing to see the North Vietnamese given due credit for their skills for what they had on hand. I feel somewhat vindicated by the demonstration of the F-86H's performance against the then state-of-the-art F-4D, F-104 and F-105's (as well as your highlighting the inherent flaw with the F-100 of yaw control, which cost a lot of pilots their lives.). For as an Australian, I've always wondered how Thai-based RAAF's CAC CA-27 Sabre Mk 32's with their Avon 26 engine, Aim-9B Sidewinder's and 30mm Aden cannons would have faired against the likes of North Vietnanese MiG-17's, MiG-19's & MiG-21's. For as much as the CA-27 Sabre was being deemed as obsolete by the RAAF, your program makes me seriously think again as to what is 'percieved obsolescence vs perception. On top of this again, one wonders how the likes of the North American proposed 'Sabre 45', itself an advancement on the legacy F-86, may have faired, what with it's 45-degree sweep-wing, it's unspecified 40.0kN (9,000 Ib) dry thrust/ 53.3kN (12,000-Ib) with afterburn engine, leading edge slats and trailing edge flaps and all-moving tail plane would go against North Vietnam's MiG-17, MiG-19 & MiG-21....

[@KRGruner]

Great job on this video.

[@Tigershark_3082]

I've read/heard varying sources state both .50 cal machine guns and 20mm M39 revolver cannons as the F-86H's internal guns. Was it the early F-86Hs that had the Brownings, or did all have the M39s (meaning I ended up misreading something somewhere)?

[@ironroad18]

Most late versions of the F-86, L-H had 20mm cannons.

[@Batmack]

F-86Hs originally had 50 cals and 6-3 wings, later "blocks" had 20mm and F-40 wings, will try to get a bit more info later

[@petesheppard1709]

@@Batmack Interesting! I thought all H-model Sabres had 20mm.

[@Tigershark_3082]

​@@BatmackOkay, that makes sense Thanks for the answer!

[@assessor1276]

Very well done.

[@marioacevedo5077]

Great video. Appreciate your scholastic approach. The visibility from the cockpit of the F86 gave it a huge advantage. The channel Showtime112 has interesting videos of Pakistani F104s fighting Indian Mig-19s and Mig-21s. In the late 1960s (when I was in jr high) I met a retired USAF F4 pilot. I asked him if they practiced air-air combat against different fighter types, He answered, Why?

[@mattjacomos2795]

CAC Sabres of the RAAF were co-located at Ubon RTAF base during the Vietnam war. An investigation of this exdperience would add to the discussion of this exercise. The F-104 was designed by Kelly Johnson and Lockheed in response to feedback from USAF Sabre pilots in the Korean conflict and so addresses the threat of the Mig-15 which was apparently lighter and more powerful than the F-86.

[@MrKentaroMotoPI]

It was direct feedback. Kelly toured Korea and asked experienced Sabre pilots what characteristics they wanted for a next-generation fighter. The pilots were perhaps biased by their Yalu River "Terry and the MiGs" fighter-to-fighter theatre of operations. Their response was an aircraft that could fight supersonic in a vertical envelope, not a subsonic horizontal turner. That's exactly what they got. It's important to note that: 1. Whitcomb had not yet discovered area ruling, so the best known way - and still a good way - to minimize transonic drag was to minimize cross sectional area. 2. The transonic wing tunnel had not been invented yet. 3. Air-to-air missiles were at least six years away.

[@CallsignEskimo-l3o]

Col. Robin Olds arranged to have the 79SQN Avon Sabres (which he referred to as TWA, Teeny Weeny Airforce) to conduct DACT with his Squadrons' F-4s in preparation to engaging Mig-17s.

[@daverooneyca]

There are a couple of errors in the chart of f-86 variants. The F-86A had the J47 engine, not the J48. The F-86H had the J73 engine, which was later developed into the famous J79.

[@notapound]

Thanks, appreciate the comment. I corrected these and many other Sabre mistakes I’ve made in the recent deep dive on the A-F. Hog to come later this year.

[@heintmeyer2296]

"this is quite kind to the Mig" Classic.

[@nicks3607]

Great video, thanks.

[@gregorylumpkin2128]

Thank you sir, this video was excellent from perspective as a person who is interested in history, with no combat experience of any kind. But I grew up next to an Air National Guard base where F84s and then F105s were flown and I loved to see military aircraft in general. Just one question: I wonder how the Navy's F8 Crusader would have fared in the analysis that you presented here? They had some success in knocking down Migs and also had the 20mm cannon on board in addition to facilities for missiles. Cheers.

[@tonywilkins9616]

Fascinating video. Subscribed

[@cecilboatwright3555]

NICELY DONE!!

[@glenn4412]

Good job!

[@johnmoore8599]

Excellent presentation. I wonder if the same lessons are applicable today?

[@ThatcrazyZahnguy]

Interesting watch for sure, I remember doing some reading about some similar post vietnam tests in which 104's slapped down some f15's (before tactics had evolved of course). Was featherduster a pure airforce program? I notice a lack of navy planes in that lineup, I know crusaders performed pretty favorably when compared to the 17, even if their low speed handling characteristics weren't quite up on the same level.

[@FirstDagger]

Navy had Top Gun.

[@KB4QAA]

@@FirstDagger Not until 1969.

[@mikestanmore2614]

Well done.

[@basilreid257]

Cool I had no idea this went on war games with the ANG. 👍🏻

[@ChristianThePagan]

It’s ironic that the USAF was suprised by the threat posed by the MiG-17 because they had wildly exaggerated the extent to which the MiG-15 was comprehensively defeated in Korea by the F-86.

[@alantoon5708]

The Ginter book on the F-86H has a section on the Feather Duster trials.

[@K1W1fly]

The Royal Australian Air Force Deployed a squadron of CAC Sabres to Thailand during the Vietnam war specifically to provide "in theatre" dissimilar ACM training for US Forces. As strike packages returned from missions, they regularly had to dual with the Aussies to keep them up to speed. The CAC Sabre was an excellent Dogfighter so the Americans really had to be on their game.

[@godfree2canada]

chart @4:40 two F4C mistake? A4C?

[@notapound]

Great spot!

[@Neutercane]

I like what you said at 18:31, and it makes me wonder if the strike packages had been escorted by F-5's instead of just using them for dissimilar acm training, things may have turned out better in tangles with the MiGs.

[@rodneypayne4827]

Unfortunately the F5A( model used during the period of these tests in the video)didn't have the legs in fuel,very limited radar ranges and limited to only 2 Sidewinders the other pylons being taken up by fuel tanks. Their acceleration wasn't great either, unlike the F104 which had similar range and radar issues but the advantages mentioned in the video.eg. acceleration climb rate high speed

[@ghostrider88jinetedelfanta31]

Vietnam led to the Navy establishing Top Gun using A4's to simulate Mig17's & T38's later F5E's for Mig21's teaching those neglected ACM skills. After the success of the Navy's Top Gun program, the Air Force established the Red Flag exercises which simulate a tactical deployment. There are other Flag exercises that simulate different aspects or locations of combat ⚓ 🛩 🔱. BTW, Topgun was instituted based on the findings of the Ault Report.

[@maximilliancunningham6091]

"we put all these long range missiles on our F-14s and F-15s , and it didn't make any difference"* *Pilot in the Aimval/Aceval exercise.

[@JohnLocke-y9e]

Readers might wonder what formation superseded the hated "fighting wing". I went through F-4 replacement training at George AFB in 1971 and it was still what was taught in the school house. In southeast asia in 1972 fluid four was the formation of choice which was sadly, two sets of fighters both in fighting wing but flying together as a four ship. The change occurred sometime in 1973 with the F4 community adopting line abreast formations with the width varied by altitude-the lower you were the closer you got. Minimum separation down low (100-500 feet was ~4000 feet line abreast. Spacing increased with altitude). Front seaters took forward of the 3-9 line across the formation and flew the aircraft. Backseaters took aft of the 3-9 line always across the formation. Lead WSO would navigate and if it was a strike sortie, spend very little time in the radar. By 1980, the line abreast tactic had been honed to a point where a two-ship of Phantoms in the dirt were a very difficult target to attack. Remember, missiles at the time didn't have good look down capability. The F4 two ship always had an answer to an attacking foe no matter where he came from. I experienced an interesting wrinkle when I reported to the 497th TFS, Taegu AB, ROK. We used the line-abreast formation but had the backseaters run the throttles to maintain line abreast. WSOs also directed the spacing between the two fighters. I never knew where this idea originated but it worked very well and pilots uniformly loved it. They kept their hands on the throttles but could focus on flying and forward lookout without worrying about the formation. I have always wondered if he F-15E community does anything like this?

[@Archie2c]

Love the 104 shiny

[@georgesheffield1580]

Remember the A4 skyhawk was used as a traineragainst the Fast ,modern fights .

[@patrickunderwood5662]

Excellent video, as usual! I must, however, find fault with your aesthetic judgment w.r.t. Sabre vs. Fresco. Obviously the Fresco is one of the most beautiful aircraft ever built. It far outshines its predecessor MiG-15 as well as the Sabre. Believe me; I’m an authority on the subject. 🤪😆

[@johnstorm5127]

There were about 11,846 U.S helicopters that served in the Vietnam War. The U.S records show 5,607 helicopter losses. In total, the United States military lost in Vietnam almost 10,000 aircraft, helicopters and UAVs (3,744 planes, 5,607 helicopters and 578 UAVs ).

[@williamleadbetter9686]

The F-5 Tiger was the better solution not really tried in the add in escort role. It would have been quite effective if it tagged along with the boom & zoom heavier tactical fighters. Clearly tactics needed to change as well

[@alanrainey5022]

I'm wondering if they played against CAC Avon Sabres, whether it would have been more interesting?

[@notapound]

‘The ultimate Sabre’. Planning a video on that one….

[@gort8203]

In that stage of the war the F-105 usually carried 750 lb. bombs rather than 500 lb. bombs. The double sidewinder rack was high drag and was avoided, but I don't think the single missile rack was high drag. However, it was often replaced by a bomb or an ECM pod anyway.

[@Stay_at_home_Astronaut81]

I've always wondered why the USAF didn't deploy some F- 86H's to Vietnam, to deal with the MiG-17's.

[@Easy-Eight]

The F-86H was ANG. Generally, the Guard didn't fight in 'Nam. Congress would have gone NUTS if a call had been made to mobilize National Guard Units. (some infantry units did do a two week annual training in Vietnam, nobody was killed, and it was a general debacle). By the late 1960s the F-4E was on station. It had better J79 engines, a better wing, AIM 9, and a 20mm gun. By 1973 the F-15 was coming on line, after Vietnam the F-16, and the crisis in US fighter jets had passed. The closest a 4th Generation fighter got to Vietnam was some F-14s were flying screening missions over South Vietnam when Hanoi was falling in 1975.

[@sargesacker2599]

@@Easy-Eight A slight correction to your comment, Hanoi is the north’s capital. Saigon is the south’s capital, so the F-14’s we’re covering the evacuation from Saigon.

[@Easy-Eight]

@@sargesacker2599 Yep, you're right. I wrote the wrong city.

[@wlmac]

@@Easy-Eight ANG F-100C units were called up for Vietnam and served along side USAF F-100D units for several years.

[@Easy-Eight]

@@wlmac I googled on how they did that. There were two ways. First, the Army & Air Guard were directed to have Special Reserve Forces (SRFs) formed in the 1960s to augment active duty. Second, there was a limited ANG mobilization after North Korea seized the U.S.S. Pueblo in January 1968. The SRF program and ANG mobilization were terminated before 1970. BTW, the activated F-86Hs were mobilized under the SRF and used to train new F-105 pilots.

[@TheGbeecher]

Restrictive rules of engagement, an almost complete lack of acm training, and fighting a war to stalemate, rather than an all-out win - cost many lives in the air and on the ground 😢

[@Cornography1996]

Hello, Where did you source the footage in this video? I work at an Air Museum in the States and we are currently raising funds to restore an F-86H Sabre that formerly served with the New York ANG. I would love to use some of the footage that you used in this video. Thank you!

[@bthvnyt]

If F-86 had been upgraded with a mere 1'000 lbs more thrust and 4 20MM cannon it would have a serious killer.

[@Archie2c]

Ive also had the theory send in the Sabres as fighter escort for the thuds

[@kevinferrin5695]

Fascinating

[@MaxPalmer-1]

Featherduster was a great trial that demonstrated that small, cheap fighters like the F-86 were still superior in a fight to more modern fighters costing 5X the price. Basically, that "light fighters" (see Wikipedia article) were superior to "heavy fighters" plane for plane, and far superior budget to budget. This was well proven in WWII, but apparently the lesson had to be learned again that adding technology to the heavy fighters (radar and radar guided missiles that had very low probability of kill) did not overcome their heavy fighter faults of less surprise advantage (easy for the enemy to see), less maneuverability (easy to kill), and less fighter planes per budget (wars of attrition are numbers games). The great designers all knew this (Ed Schmued for P-51, F-86, and F-5, Jiro Horikoshi for the Zero, R.J. Mitchell for the Spitfire, and Willy Messerschmidt for the Bf-109). The "Fighter Mafia" knew it too, so what they said was not propaganda, but the simple truth.

[@tomay777a]

Perhaps we should have deployed the F-86H with 20mm cannon to 'Nam to fly CAP for the fighter-bombers. Can you do a video on ACEVAL/AIMVAL?

[@uberbeeg]

Australian ' Avon ' Sabres ( a more powerful Sabre closer to a MiG-19 with 20mm cannons ) based in Udon Thialand performed ' Opfor ' aggressors to USAF pilots.

[@notapound]

Thanks for that! I've been collecting some material on the Avon Sabre for a future video :)

[@uberbeeg]

@@notapound It was unofficial, but tolerated. USAF fighter pilots coming into Udon during the Vietnam war would call out to see if any RAAF pilots doing air capp wanted to dogfight, or that's the idea I get. There was a short old video about it somewhere on KZbin. I'll have a look and see if I can find it.

[@uberbeeg]

@@notapound I found it. It was official after all. Rare interview. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rGSvdnVpoL1gnZI&ab_channel=StevePribish

[@Twirlyhead]

As nobody else has mentioned it: the F86H had 4x 20mm cannon not 6x 50 cal 😇

[@Easy-Eight]

Indeed, the 20mm guns were copies of German 20mm guns and had a higher firing rate than the .50s. The USAF started using the 20mm in modified F-86F aircraft and the results were excellent. A 20mm could kill at three times the range of a .50 cal and two or three strikes from a 20mm would be fatal to a MiG.

[@mustang1912]

The 20mm was primarily Italian aircraft