Author Topic: Best Fighter of all Time (Read 2683 times)

Tumor · « **Reply #45 on:** October 26, 2003, 02:13:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Replicant
I originally said 'but subsonic it would own a F18 or F16 or F15', .....

But thats like sayin a Bunny could kill a Bear "if it had a gun". Just aint gonna happen.

Gixer · « **Reply #46 on:** October 26, 2003, 03:24:48 AM »

Ah, then I'd definetly vote for the Spitfire Mk1

As not only was it an excellent aircraft for it's time. But also the only fighter in history to halt the imminent invasion of a nation.

...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~

Quote
Originally posted by Godzilla
I guess I should have said : What is the best performing or most dominating fighter of all time in actual combat. That's sort of what I was meaning to say. During actual use in war or conflicts and not limited to jets.....off all time

I was watching the History channel last night and they showed an Isreali F-15 flying with one wing completley blown off, all the way from the wing root. Nothing was left of the wing. The plane flew home and landed normally ( but fast at 200 something knots)

The pilot said that if he had been able to look out and see that he was missing a whole wing, he would have bailed.

Tumor · « **Reply #47 on:** October 26, 2003, 03:31:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gixer
Ah, then I'd definetly vote for the Spitfire Mk1

As not only was it an excellent aircraft for it's time. But also the only fighter in history to halt the imminent invasion of a nation.

...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~

~~Bah... Hitler's idiocy did more to halt an invasion of the U.K. than anything else.~~

artik · « **Reply #48 on:** October 26, 2003, 06:10:25 AM »

Quote

Spit 1 excellent aircraft for it's time

Just few things when you compare it to 109E-4 of this time
Clib raito, Speed, Service selling - 109 much berrer
high alt perfomances better - 109 better
firepower - 2x20mm via 8x505 109 mnuch better
Neg G - spit can't
Propelr has just 2(! not implementer in AH) postions. Can't be used at full power at high seeds - energy fight. When the 109 has moderm steady RPM system.

And I can continue..........

what is better? Turn ratio is better....

so???? Is Spit 1 best for its period?

I really do not know how RAF succesed in BoB with this planes

Replicant · « **Reply #49 on:** October 26, 2003, 06:34:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gixer
Ah, then I'd definetly vote for the Spitfire Mk1

As not only was it an excellent aircraft for it's time. But also the only fighter in history to halt the imminent invasion of a nation.

...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~

The Spitfire Mk.I was superior to the Hawker Hurricane Mk.I but during the Battle of Britain, the Hurricane was faster to rearm, quicker to refuel (allowing more sorties) and along with greater numbers the Hurricane got more kills than the Spitfire Mk.I

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #50 on:** October 26, 2003, 01:52:07 PM »

From "Phantom in Combat" by Walter J. Boyne (Who know a heck of lot more about the subject than we do)

Boroda disclaimer (shame on you GScholz for needing this):

These are all imperilaist american lies!!!!

Quote:

"Curiously the F4 best fighting altitude against the low wing loaded mig17 and mig19 is below 15K. Analysis of the opposing types reveals that at such altitudes thje f4s energy manouverability and weapons systems combine to give the best result. The f4 has more excess pwer, better instantaneous and sustained manuveeabilty, better fuel economy 9because afterburner is used less), and more firing opportunities for the sparrow and sidewinder."

And we know MiG19 is even more manuverable than MiG 21....

Furball · « **Reply #51 on:** October 26, 2003, 02:02:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by artik
Just few things when you compare it to 109E-4 of this time
Clib raito, Speed, Service selling - 109 much berrer
high alt perfomances better - 109 better
firepower - 2x20mm via 8x505 109 mnuch better
Neg G - spit can't
Propelr has just 2(! not implementer in AH) postions. Can't be used at full power at high seeds - energy fight. When the 109 has moderm steady RPM system.

And I can continue..........

what is better? Turn ratio is better.... so???? Is Spit 1 best for its period?

I really do not know how RAF succesed in BoB with this planes

Quote

Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough
June 1940
Spitfire IA K.9791 with Rotol constant speed propeller
Me 109E-3 Werk-Nr 1304

Comparitive trials between the Me 109E-3 and "Rotol" Spitfire IA

1. The trial commenced with the two aircraft taking off together, with the Spitfire slightly behind and using +6 1/4 lb boost and 3,000 rpm.

2. When fully airborne, the pilot of the Spitfire reduced his revolutions to 2,650 rpm and was then able to overtake and outclimb the Me 109. At 4,000 ft, the Spitfire pilot was 1,000 feet above the Me 109, from which position he was able to get on its tail, and remain there within effective range despite all efforts of the pilot of the Me 109 to shake him off.

3. The Spitfire then allowed the Me 109 to get on to his tail and attempted to shake him off this he found quite easy owing to the superior manoeuvrability of his aircraft, particularly in the looping plane and at low speeds between 100 and 140 mph. By executing a steep turn just above stalling speed, he ultimately got back into a position on the tail of the Me 109.

4. Another effective form of evasion with the Spitfire was found to be a steep, climbing spiral at 120 mph, using +6 1/4 boost and 2,650 rpm; in this manoeuvre, the Spitfire gained rapidly on the ME 109, eventually allowing the pilot to execute a half roll, on to the tail of his opponent.

5. Comparitive speed trials were then carried out, and the Spitfire proved to be considerably the faster of the two, both in acceleration and straight and level flight, without having to make use of the emergency +12 boost. During diving trials, the Spitfire pilot found that, by engageing fully coarse pitch and using -2lbs boost, his aircraft was superior to the Me 109.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit1.html

E4 was really that much better was it?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #52 on:** October 26, 2003, 02:07:08 PM »

Ahh yes testing a factory fresh spitfire against a crash landed repaired Bf109... I belive this the plane that crashed in france and is the one that gives the low 348mph top speed for the 109e....

straffo · « **Reply #53 on:** October 26, 2003, 02:19:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Yes the Sopwith Camel was excellent and surely is a contender for the "best" title. However it must be said that every single fighter in the history of aviation owes it very existence to this plane:

The Fokker EI Eindecker. This was the first real fighter and was the reason the term "fighter" was coined in the first place (all previous combat aircraft were called "scouts"). The Eindecker entered service in 1915 and enjoyed complete air domination for over a year. During this time known as the "Fokker Scourge" the allied airmen called themselves "Fokker Fodder".

Seems to be a German aviation trait to start out with superior planes only to lose that superiority when it really counts (1916-1917 and 1943).

bahhhh ... SPAD XIII rules

manticor · « **Reply #54 on:** October 26, 2003, 04:03:05 PM »

o yeah check this out!!!!!

http://surclaro.com/games/flanker.html

Gixer · « **Reply #55 on:** October 26, 2003, 05:06:42 PM »

Agree totally Hurri was a great aircraft but it was the Spitfire that capture eveyones attention at the time and boost to the nations moral.

...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~

Quote
Originally posted by Replicant
The Spitfire Mk.I was superior to the Hawker Hurricane Mk.I but during the Battle of Britain, the Hurricane was faster to rearm, quicker to refuel (allowing more sorties) and along with greater numbers the Hurricane got more kills than the Spitfire Mk.I

Gixer · « **Reply #56 on:** October 26, 2003, 05:15:36 PM »

So the defence of the UK can be thanked primarily to the mistakes that Hitler made during the battle. And not to the skill and bravery of the pilots who flew. And nation as a whole that stood up against it?

What total rubbish.

(Shame there is always someone to take threads off topic)

...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~

Quote
Originally posted by Tumor
Bah... Hitler's idiocy did more to halt an invasion of the U.K. than anything else.

Rino · « **Reply #57 on:** October 26, 2003, 05:29:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MrCoffee
Quite to the contrary, my opinion is that the mig-21 should have gotten the edge more often in combat during that era. It was an era where electronics were just starting to make a difference in airiel warfare. Air to air missiles were new (and somewhat still unreliable) however the notion of dogfighting had grown old. The intercept tactics used by west & east were vastly different in implementation. Still during this era, many intercepts often factored down to a visual id of the bogey before a fight. In that situation the mig-21 should have faired very well against the phantom. Pull out the dagger and get in close but instead the mig-21 pilots were usually out flown. I dont think mig-21 pilots were trained to dogfight either. From what I've read they made bad decisions which often lead to their deaths. My opinion, its a tought fight for a phantom if a mig gets close and doesnt let go.

As for best fighter of all time, would say the Spitfire, F-15.

However I also like the SR-71 and Mig-25 cas they go mach3 at the edge near space.

Most of the advantages possessed by the Mig-21 had alot more to do with GCA intercept radar and US ROE than intrinsic
superiority.

One thing alot of folks seem to be forgetting is that the Migs
have no legs. In fact two 21s were lost when F4s forced them
out to sea and they were forced to ditch.

Starting with the E model Phantom, the guns were vastly
superior to the Mig weapon fit. The missiles were hampered
by the restrictive rules of engagement, for example visual
comformation was required before firing...kinda takes away
the BVR advantage of the Sparrow.

Push comes to shove though, the F4-Mig21 fight alot like
the 109-51 fight. One is short ranged, small and designed for
the fighter role, the other is a big monster that isn't.

Rino

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #58 on:** October 27, 2003, 12:12:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by artik
Just few things when you compare it to 109E-4 of this time
Clib raito, Speed, Service selling - 109 much berrer
high alt perfomances better - 109 better
firepower - 2x20mm via 8x505 109 mnuch better
Neg G - spit can't
Propelr has just 2(! not implementer in AH) postions. Can't be used at full power at high seeds - energy fight. When the 109 has moderm steady RPM system.

And I can continue..........

what is better? Turn ratio is better.... so???? Is Spit 1 best for its period?

I really do not know how RAF succesed in BoB with this planes

And yet the Spitfire Mk I was the dominate fighter out of the two. Must either mean the Spitfire was the better airplane or the Brits were the better pilots. Of course, Galland probably meant to say bf109 instead of Spitfire when Goering asked him what things he wanted.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #59 on:** October 27, 2003, 01:56:43 AM »

Ak-Ak do you understand the context of that quote? Anyway for your education it was Galland's smartass response to Gorings earlier order that the Bf109s stick close to the bombers, close as in low and slow flying in the bomber formations thus negating the Bf109s natural advantages of speed and climb over the Spitfires. With that stupid order in mind it makes perfect sense that Galland asked for Spits as they turned better and he knew it would piss goring off, which was the intent and was effective. Galland was arguing for a free attack style of escorct like that which was used so succesfully by the allies in 1944 allowing the escort fighters to free hunt around and ahed of the bombers.