The Best Fighter Aircraft of all Time

[artik]

Originally posted by 2bighorn
Speeds in AH are in MPH

Source: http://hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/cptinst2.html

What miles? Navy or Ground?

These are navy miles I think that are 1.853 km and not 1.6

[2bighorn]

Statute miles.
If it would be measured in Nautical miles, we would have speed in "Knots".

If you believe that P51D can do about 810 KmpH in level flight, then yes, it's measured in Knots, otherwise it's in MpH...

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Leave poor Squire alone, he is having his period. They are very touchy around those days, you know.

Always with the sexual comments, Barbi. With your pre-occupation with sex, one can conclude you get none.:D:D:rofl

[GScholz]

... like cats in heat.

[Dessy]

Although the F-15 is definitely up there, I'd contend that the F-16 is the best "of all time".

F-16s accounted for nearly half of all Syrian planes downed in '82 by the Israelis. It's an extremely versatile airframe that's proven very adaptable to technological innovation. In its most advanced form (the F-16I) it has few equals. It's relatively inexpensive. It can be adapted to almost any F/A role.

And I think it's the sexiest aircraft ever produced.

[AmRaaM]

yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Knegel


iam pretty sure that Kozhedub isnt a liar, at least i dont have a hit to believe that, you have??
He fought a long war, like the other WWII-highscoring aces and there wasnt many Russian pilots with so many kills and the Germanīs always was carefully if they had a elitesquad as oponent.
To believe there wasnt a russian pilot who was similar good like the german-, finnish- , japanese- , brit- or US-aces sounds abit like rassisn, there is no reason to think so!
That the majority of the russian pilots dont had a very high skill is maybe right(no wonder if the Aces get concentrated in some squads and cant teach the others), but i think its rubbish to think all was bad and its a insolence to say they did lie.
If the headquater make wrong statement as a part of propaganda, thats one thing, but why the russian pilots should lie, while all other pilots dont?

Iam pretty unsure about the russian countingsystem, but if they would have had the chance to lie, all would have a much higher scoring and if their skill dont would have been remarkable the germans wouldnt have take notice of the guardsquads and the pilots dont would have get into a guardsquad.

I often wonder how the US-boys got their kills confirmed, many of them was done while high alt fights, how they did know if a downgoing plane was a kill or 'only' a damaged escaping enemy?

Greetings, Knegel

No one called anyone a liar, and for you to extrapolate to that  conclusion defies reason.

I have read interviews with former Soviet pilots where they told of returning to base and reporting 6 kills for 4 losses. Their local commander doubles the number of kills and forwards his report. The next guy up the chain of command embelished the report even further. Two weeks later, a General shows up to hand out medals. The pilots line up and are congratulated for their outstanding efforts for the motherland and Stalin.... Which of those pilots are going to stand by the truth and state what actually occurred?

Beyond that, we would likely find that Luftwaffe records show only 2 aircraft lost that day in that area.....

As to how the USAAF confirmed kills: Gun camera film and eyewitnesses. Many kills were disallowed. Post-war records show that the Western Allies and Germany over-claimed by only a small fraction compared to the Soviet Union and Japanese. The actual difference between American claims of Japanese planes vs. actual Japanese losses misses by less than 15%.

My regards,

Widewing

[Rafe35]

Originally posted by Red Tail 444
I dont know what funnier.the thread, or the comments reading....the vulch.great reply....

But the F4U-4 trumps all....sorry fellas

Ah, Red Tail is right, F4U-4 trumps all!

[Knegel]

Originally posted by Widewing
No one called anyone a liar, and for you to extrapolate to that  conclusion defies reason.

I have read interviews with former Soviet pilots where they told of returning to base and reporting 6 kills for 4 losses. Their local commander doubles the number of kills and forwards his report. The next guy up the chain of command embelished the report even further. Two weeks later, a General shows up to hand out medals. The pilots line up and are congratulated for their outstanding efforts for the motherland and Stalin.... Which of those pilots are going to stand by the truth and state what actually occurred?

Beyond that, we would likely find that Luftwaffe records show only 2 aircraft lost that day in that area.....

As to how the USAAF confirmed kills: Gun camera film and eyewitnesses. Many kills were disallowed. Post-war records show that the Western Allies and Germany over-claimed by only a small fraction compared to the Soviet Union and Japanese. The actual difference between American claims of Japanese planes vs. actual Japanese losses misses by less than 15%.

My regards,

Widewing

Hi,

you wrote that Kozhedub himself told that he had more than the counted kills and you wrote that many historians(no name of course) think that he had only the half of the counted kills, than you wanna make us beliefe Kozhedub is a liar. Of course if he realy only had the half of the counted kills, he is a liar, but its not nice to state such thinks without fakts.
I for myself wonder why the russian aces had that few kills, cause they did fight the whole war like the germans.

Greetings, Knegel

[F4UDOA]

RedTail and Rafe,

I don't even think you need the F4U-4. I think the F4U-1 was the best.

You can't compare the BF109G10/K4. Both of those A/C were 1945 and were built in very small numbers with limited amounts of fuel.

1942 and 1943 A/C did not have the performance to stay with the 1944 genre so I think 1944 is the year you would really want to focus on for the #1 Fighter A/C of WW2.

IMHO the contendors should be (Not in order)

P-51D
F4U-1
FW190D9
NIKI-2
SPIT XIV
P-47D-30
F6F-5
LA-7
BF109G-6 (if there is another varient let me know)

And there should be a criteria with a scale of say 1-5.

1. Speed
2. Climb
3. Dive
4. Turn radius
5. Roll
6. Harmonization of controls
7. firepower
8. range
9. durability/ruggedness
10. Visibility

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by F4UDOA

You can't compare the BF109G10/K4. Both of those A/C were 1945 and were built in very small numbers with limited amounts of fuel.
 

G-10 and K-4 production started in August and September 1944. First ones were received in early October by the units, 174 of them fresh from the factory, and first non-combat losses also happened in October (11 in total). First combat losses happened in November, probably on the 2nd Nov big air battle.

About 2600 G-10s and 1700 K-4s were produced until 1945
Total 4300 - as many as all the Spit IXLF produced in years. You may even add the G-6 and G-14 /AS types... those were practically identical in performance as G-10.. and were built in fairly large numbers (well over 1000). They also saw service a lot earlier than those two - from beginning 1944.

The following units used the 109 K-4:

III. / JG 1; II. / JG 2 ; III. / JG 3 ; I. / JG 4 ; III. / JG 4, IV. / JG 4, II. / JG 11,III. / JG 26,Stab / JG 27,I. / JG 27,II. / JG 27,,III. / JG 27,IV. / JG 27,III. / JG 51,II. / JG 52,III. / JG 52,Stab / JG 53,II. / JG 53,III. / JG 53,IV. / JG 53,I. / JG 77,III. / JG 77,I. / NJG 11,II. / KG(J) 6,Stab / KG(J) 27,I. / KG(J) 27,II. / KG(J) 27,JG 101,101. Puma *(Hungarian),150. Gruppo (Italian).

*Not sure about the 101st Puma, there only anecdotal evidence

I also have a detailed breakup of the number of Bf 109s with the LW units in end of January 1945. I couldn`t find it, but I clearly remember that every 4th (25%) Bf 109s with the first line units was a K-4, 314 in total. Further 30% G-10s. So about half of the 109s force was either a K or a G-10... The rest were G-14s. G-6s were almost absent, most of them being in second line reserve units, probably only used for training.

They were not rare, in fact, the K-4 is the only plane from the "ultimate set", with the exception of the La-7, that saw action in really large numbers.

[F4UDOA]

Well let me rephrase my statement.

The 109G10 and 109K4 2000HP vairent did not appear until they were cleared for use with C-3 fuel as per Butch's data in earlier post.

The performance before that was not nearly as impressive.

The entire F4U-4 was built and shipped during WW2. Over 2,000 A/C (including the 4 20Mil M3 versions). There were more F4U-4's built that any other F4U varient. The first of these were built in Oct 1944 although I would consider it a 1945 A/C.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by F4UDOA
Well let me rephrase my statement.

The 109G10 and 109K4 2000HP vairent did not appear until they were cleared for use with C-3 fuel as per Butch's data in earlier post.
The performance before that was not nearly as impressive.

As for when was it cleared, I leave it alone for obvious reasons. I just say I disagree.

Performance was not much worser, in fact, only a bit worser at low altitude, up to around 6000m. W/o the C-3 and 2000 PS, climb was about 23-23,5 m/sec for these versions - no less than 4500 fpm, I wouldn`t call that unimpressive. It`s already better than most, say, 90% of them.

Speed, again w/o C-3, in the worst condition -
G-10 was 562 km/h at SL, 690 km/h at 7500m.
K-4s 593 km/h at SL, 712 km/h at 7500m.
Again, already these specs are better than most.

The only difference with the use of C-3 and 2000 PS was that speed of K-4 increased to 607 km/h (+14 km/h), 715 km/h at 6000m (+20 km/h aprx), climb to 24.5 m/sec (+1-1.5 m/sec) at SL.

G-6/ASM, G-14/ASM are practically equals of G-10 in performance.

Higher boost provided by 1.98ata only improved performance below rated altitude. Performance at altitude about 6000m and over was the same with whatever fuel was used (since boost was the same). Hanlding would be very much the same, as well as armor, weapons, visibility etc.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Knegel
Hi,

and you wrote that many historians(no name of course) think that he had only the half of the counted kills, than you wanna make us beliefe Kozhedub is a liar. Of course if he realy only had the half of the counted kills, he is a liar, but its not nice to state such thinks without fakts.
I for myself wonder why the russian aces had that few kills, cause they did fight the whole war like the germans.

Greetings, Knegel

Knegel dreamed: "you wrote that Kozhedub himself told that he had more than the counted kills "

I never made any such statement. Granted English is not your primary language, but if you wish to converse in English, at least have the minimal comprehension skills required.

Do you wish a list of Historians? Could you verify their conclusions if you had such a list? Or, are you just whining?

Soviet over-claiming was horrendous, and it wasn't confined to the lesser pilots. Virtually every Japanese ace has had their totals reduced, some by more than half. Why? Because the records of enemy losses don't support the claims.

Do your own research.. Prove me incorrect.

My regards,

Widewing

[Pongo]

Lots of enemies have thought. .oh yummy a 109.. I bet not many have ever thought. Oh yummy.. an F15