A Complete History of U.S. Combat Aircraft Fly-Off Competitions: Winners, Losers, and What Might Have Been Hardcover – June 10, 2016

This book details the history of post-WWII fly-off competitions, and clearly is written by an aircraft enthusiast for other enthusiasts. Brief (and sometimes not so brief) development and operational histories of the competition-winning aircraft are also provided. The production quality is excellent, the historical photos are interesting, and the “what if” illustrations are very well done – all in all, a visual feast. It is impossible to read this beautiful book without learning some interesting aviation history. It would be a solid 5-star effort, except…..- The author does not let implausibility get in the way of a good story. He claims (p. 111) that the “F8U-3 reached Mach 2.92 by its 13th flight at the end of June.” But risking serious airframe/canopy/engine damage by doing a stunt so early in the test program would have been crazy and so probably didn’t happen. The widely-reported-elsewhere max speed in test of M2.34 is much more plausible and also not too shabby. And on the very next page, he says “By August 1958, the flight envelope had increased to Mach 2.2…”, which seems to contradict the M2.92-in-June story. Unfortunately, this episode raises at least the possibility that some of the other good stories related in the book might also be unreliable.- The info in the aircraft data/performance tables located at the end of each chapter seems to be shot through with errors, some trivial/careless and some substantive. One example (p. 170): the “service ceiling” of the F-16C and F/A-18E/F are given as 50,000 ft (13,472 m) and 50,000 ft (15,240 m) respectively. Since 50,000 feet is 15,240 m and is not 13,472 m, at least one of the F-16 numbers must be wrong. Another example: in that same table, the “combat radius” of the F-16C is given as 550 km, and for the A/F-18E/F, 2,360 km (!!!). The E/F number is ridiculous; unlike the F-16, all members of the F/A-18 family are notoriously draggy aircraft that have struggled with range problems since day one. There is simply no way the E/F combat radius can be a factor of 4 better than the F-16C. Also note that in the E/F data table, twice the stated “combat radius” (4,720 km, 2 x 2360) is considerably larger than the claimed “maximum range” (4,152 km) – a clear indication that something about the E/F range numbers is terribly wrong. Another obvious red flag that was missed.- The author’s understanding of aircraft design is shallow, or if not shallow, at least is not obvious in this book. Some discussion of the trade-offs motivating the various aircraft configuration choices and the impact of those choices on the fly-off outcome would have been very interesting, but don’t expect to find much of that.- The author is clearly a great fan of both the military and the aircraft builders; the villains in this book are almost always in Congress and the bureaucracy. He seems not to realize that fools, knaves, and careerists exist everywhere, including in the military and among defense contractors. I know they are everywhere, because I have seen them myself. The author’s pro-military/contractor bias is pervasive; rarely do they get any criticism. As an example, in the context of F-35 program delays, one would never guess from the innocuous “Meanwhile, the Pentagon is striving to adhere to the IOC goals…” (p.213) that the IOC dates for the three F-35 versions have slipped by about 7, 8, and 9 years (!!). The F-35 may well turn into a terrific weapon system, but its development program has been a terrible mess.- Some readers may find the historically-oriented passages discussing U.S. military strategy and the use of U.S. airpower to be inaccurate, annoyingly simplistic, and a bit out of place in a book about aircraft fly-off competitions.So, for the reasons listed above (and others), I can’t give this book 5 stars. If it wasn’t so beautiful and such a delightful jog down memory lane (at least for this aged aircraft enthusiast), I would have to rate this book lower than a 4. But its obvious strengths overpower its many weaknesses, so 4 stars it is.

This was a particularly tough review to write. My rating wavered between two and three stars in various sections of the book and mostly an overall disappointment in how the development of the "losing aircraft" was covered. I was pretty much at the point of recommending it "as a good introductory book, but consider it carefully if you have a library covering USN and USAF aircraft from post WWII."A few things won me over to the "I like it" rating.1. Read the foot notes - there is a bunch of good stuff in there. I think an interview with John Atwood by the author in 1997 tells the reader this book has been well researched and a long-term labor of love by Mr. Simonsen.2. The chapters after the YA-9/A-10.3. Coverage of the "what-ifs" for the F-16/F-18 in particular.One item that I particularly liked (although not a reason to buy the book.) was the picture of the ANG KC-97 tanking the YF-16/YF-17 prototypes. Although the airplanes are no longer the same as those that tanked 5 decades ago, it's a great picture and speaks volumes about our current procurement.There are a few errors and typo's interspersed throughout the book, but overall, I don't think they're worth lowering the rating.I think the best way to say how satisfied I am with the book is to say that I will look favorably at and probably buy future books by Mr. Simonsen.Recommended for readers interested in aviation history, USAF history and US procurement politics.

This book describes several fly-off completions in which aircraft manufacturers developed competitive prototypes and the United States Military selected winners and losers. It is a truly fascinating topic. Judging from the other reviews, I was anticipating a tremendous immersion into the world of aircraft design, the procurement process and the nuances of global aviation development. Unfortunately, this book fails to deliver.Much of the work is a recitation of timelines and events. Unfortunately, there is precious little analysis. The author does seem to have a good grasp of the subject matter. When he discusses the nuances of design, he brings some remarkable insights. But he then descends back into meaningless dates and locations of test flights.The book's biggest weakness is simply poor writing and editing. Many sentences are poorly constructed or ambiguous. The organization is also somewhat unclear.The author's use of endnotes merits particular critique. He mixes substantive nuggets of information with citations to other works. That practice forces the reader to lookup every endnote, because there are just enough interesting substantive comments to keep the reader looking back to avoid missing something good. The better approach is to include all substantive comments in the text itself and use endnotes strictly for citation. In addition, there are many nonsensical "ibid" endnotes that cannot possibly refer to the prior citation, and several of the endnotes in the opening chapter nearly duplicate text that appears shortly later. Converting them to footnotes would go a long way to improving this work's flow, but they should have been much more limited. Overall. the endnotes are distracting and further contribute to the cluttered organization.Finally, the author uses an interesting technique to composite photographs and computer models of aircraft with real photographic backgrounds. The images can be interesting, but there are probably too many of them. Some of them also seem a touch too fanciful.I genuinely enjoy the author's analysis, and the subject matter. Unfortunately, the presentation undermines that interesting content.

What a beautifull book.Well research.Super pictures.A different companion to my 500 aviation books.It is like puttng the old magazines of Wings and Air Power with a n updated version 2016.The pictures are priceless.A must for any aviation fan after WW2 aviation.Gary

Really well illustrated. A very nice addition to my library.

An excellent work. Interesting and thoughtfully full of "what ifs."

tres bon ouvrage,avec des photos de synthese,tres réalistes,je le lis par petits morceaux!et il n'est pas trop cher,à recommander,bonne lecture

Very interesting background to the individual competitions. If you want to know why your favorite lost or won ....... here is the answer.