Author Topic: Top 10 All Time Fighters (Read 3002 times)

Mini D · « **Reply #60 on:** April 30, 2005, 03:57:51 PM »

Yep... they added it back in with the E model or somewhere around then. This was from hard lessons learned in Vietnam.

Rino · « **Reply #61 on:** April 30, 2005, 04:11:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
Yep... they added it back in with the E model or somewhere around then. This was from hard lessons learned in Vietnam.

Yep, from 1967 on they had internal guns, of course the pods
were available much earlier. Most of the trouble with the early
AIM-7s were caused by the rediculous ROE imposed, ie visually
identifying enemy aircraft and designating enemy airfields and
port cities safe zones.

Not sure why you'd take an A-4 over an F-4 though. The
Skyhawk is a sweet little attack bird, but had alot of trouble
surviving in a high threat enviroment..the Yom Kippur war being
a classic example.

Elfie · « **Reply #62 on:** April 30, 2005, 04:20:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rino
The F-4E I worked on most certainly did have a cannon. Real
fast one too.

I worked on F-4E's also. (Seymour Johnson AFB) That cannon fires 6000 rpm, so yeah, its REAL fast

Cobra412 · « **Reply #63 on:** April 30, 2005, 04:35:42 PM »

I'm curious but please tell me in what world would a Chief Test Pilot even think of disclosing anything more than "Yep they are about the same"?

I'd really like to hear the answer to this.

I'm also curious as to just who here even works on or around the F/A-22 and has the clue just how capable it is?

I'm also curious how exactly can you compare any modern fighter aircraft without having intimate knowledge of the aircraft your trying to compare? You can forget about the world wide web database you all refer to because they mean little to nothing.

Mini D · « **Reply #64 on:** April 30, 2005, 05:01:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rino
Yep, from 1967 on they had internal guns, of course the pods
were available much earlier. Most of the trouble with the early
AIM-7s were caused by the rediculous ROE imposed, ie visually
identifying enemy aircraft and designating enemy airfields and
port cities safe zones.

Actually, they were placed back into new builds in 1967. How much of those made it to Vietnam?

ROE was not the only problem with missiles. There was way too high of a percentage of missiles not firing at all, but simply dropping from the aircraft.

Quote

Not sure why you'd take an A-4 over an F-4 though. The Skyhawk is a sweet little attack bird, but had alot of trouble
surviving in a high threat enviroment..the Yom Kippur war being
a classic example.

Every plane has trouble surviving a high threat environment. Given that, I'd take small and agile any day over the F4. If I look at the vietnam war, I see the F4 as a bit of a primaidonna. It gets the praise, but the real work was done by the likes of the A6,A7, A4, B-52, A-1 and virtually every other fighter. It was supposed to do the work of all those planes, but it didn't do any specific task better than a role aircraft. It's forte was versatillity. The only thing I think it excelled in during vietnam was wild-weasel opperations. In everything else it was serviceable.

That's just my oppinion of the plane. It basically gets the curse of the 70's thrown on it. It wasn't bad when compared to the new planes being offered during that time. It wasn't until after 75 that the Air Force and Navy started to realize what they needed when it came to jet fighters.

NUKE · « **Reply #65 on:** April 30, 2005, 05:16:11 PM »

Actually, the F-4 doesn't get much praise. The F-4's failures were one reason that the F-15 was designed.

NUKE · « **Reply #66 on:** April 30, 2005, 05:19:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elyeh
The Aircraft were rated as follows

1. Kill Ratio
2. Fear Factor
3. Innovation
4. Sevice lenght
5. Production ratings (Ease of production, Engine preformance,
Armament, Aerodynamics, Cost)

So, the F-22 should be last in 1, 2, 4, and 5. Why is it on the list?

Elfie · « **Reply #67 on:** April 30, 2005, 05:41:57 PM »

I've seen this particular History channel show before. I don't believe the P-51 was necessarily the best fighter from WWII let alone the best of all time.

I think the F4U Corsair should be on that list somewhere.

agent 009 · « **Reply #68 on:** April 30, 2005, 09:18:58 PM »

Yep Mustang Spit & Camel get all the glory cause they were US & Brit planes. Par for the course.

bunch · « **Reply #69 on:** May 01, 2005, 02:19:04 AM »

You cant expect a plane that goes to war & loses to be given much respect.

Staga · « **Reply #70 on:** May 01, 2005, 06:32:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
Rumor and enuendo gshcolz. You do realize that even the quote you posted (without source reference BTW) gives credit to the F-22 as being a supercruise fighter then goes on to say how technically, the eurofighter appears to be one too.

And... the F-22 flew a year or two before the Eurofighter 2000.

"Draken" could "supercruise" too and it's 40 years old type....

WMLute · « **Reply #71 on:** May 01, 2005, 09:17:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Cobra412
I'm also curious as to just who here even works on or around the F/A-22 and has the clue just how capable it is?

on said program, they said two f22's took on 6 and then 8 f15's and won. I could have sworn they then said two f22's took on 16 f15's, but I might not have heard correctly. THAT seems a bit hard to believe. Showed some incredible footage of the f22 doing a barrel roll WHILE shooting off a missle.

Quote

Originally posted by Nuke
So, the F-22 should be last in 1, 2, 4, and 5. Why is it on the list?

they had it maxed on on #'s 2 and 3. TWO planes that can down eight (16??) F15's have a reasonably HUGE fear factor. This one guy, kept saying the F22 was too much. It was too fast, too maneuverable, too stealthy etc, etc... He was advocating producing more Falcon's and Eagles. Personally I feel that during a war, you can't be TOO much anything that's positive.

(trying to imagine a flight of 8 F22's dowing 64 F15's or comperable fighter and being blown away)

Tumor · « **Reply #72 on:** May 01, 2005, 09:41:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Staga
"Draken" could "supercruise" too and it's 40 years old type....

And it's STILL cool as hell to look at!!

Mime · « **Reply #73 on:** May 01, 2005, 10:07:19 AM »

10 Me 109E-4
9 Me 109F-4
8 Me 109T
7 Me 109 G-2
6 Fw 190A-2
5 Fw 190A-4
4 Fw 190A-5
3 Me 109G6
2 Me 109G-10
1 Fw 190A-8

Mini D · « **Reply #74 on:** May 01, 2005, 10:48:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Staga
"Draken" could "supercruise" too and it's 40 years old type....

So could several other planes in the strictest sense of the word. None were designed for it and none can supercruise at the same speed/efficiency as the F-22. It's not that it "can achieve supercruise", it was built to fly there. Not the drakken (worked with them in Denmark for a bit... hideous looking plane

), the F-101, the F-111F, the F-14B or virtually any of the other planes being mentioned here can do that. The EF-2000 might be the only exception, but as gscholz so astutely pointed out, that's never really been published, only guessed.