Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Elyeh on April 29, 2005, 10:42:42 PM
-
Rated by the Military channel
10. FA 22 Raptor
9 FA2 Harrier
8 Sopwith Camel
7 ME 262
6 SpitFire
5 Mig 15
4 F86 Saber
3 F4 Phanthom
2 F15C Eagle
And #1 All time Fighter.......
P-51D Mustang
-
Incomplete list without Finnish Brewster :)
-
Sugar Ray robinson.
-
BS
Both the Camel & Cassius Clay could take the f22 easy
-
D 7 could smoke a Camel.
-
Not really fair to compare 1917 & 1918 aircraft. How would the Fokker do against a Snipe, Dolphin, SVA 3, Siemens-Schuckert D IV or Phoenix D III?
-
Udet mentioned the Camel could make a sharper right hand turn. Richthofen test flew a D-7. didn't some fly in 17? besides, weren't there upgraded Camels? that flew in 18?
-
Originally posted by bunch
Not really fair to compare 1917 & 1918 aircraft. How would the Fokker do against a Snipe, Dolphin, SVA 3, Siemens-Schuckert D IV or Phoenix D III?
Well considering the USA (not a typo) nearly mass produced Fokker DVII after the war I think it rated just fine aginst the best late 1918 planes.
-
It may well have done well against the snipe & Dolphin. Which dolphin? Richthofen got one as I recall. wasn't a good plane.
-
Rated how?
-
wasn't maneuverable. Not considered a design success. just what I read.
-
Cassius Clay was a *****. Muhammad Ali would have kicked his ass.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Cassius Clay was a *****. Muhammad Ali would have kicked his ass.
LMAO I think you will get a few small ones with this bait. Maybe try somthing diffrent.
-
My momma slept with Clay after he got shot down behind the lines in DR-1 by a (get this!) beagle sitting on a doghouse.
I didn't believe Momma at first, but then she showed me the pictures in the paper... the dog kicked his ass.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Well considering the USA (not a typo) nearly mass produced Fokker DVII after the war I think it rated just fine aginst the best late 1918 planes.
Why ? didn't the US had the blueprint of some Nieuport for example ?
-
Straffo, America's only combat aircraft made in America was the DH.4, built under license with Liberty engines in 'em.. about 3,300 of 'em delivered by the time the armistice was signed.
Our first squadrons in France flew Neuiports.. till the DH.4's arrived.
-
1 Spitfire
2 p51Mustang
3 Bf 109
4 Fw190
5 Hurricane
6 Zero
7 F16
8 Harrier
9 Mig
10 Me 262
I like the roar of a piston engine so the jets get relegated!
-
Albatross D3 - cause of Bloody April in 1916.....
-
you sure the USAAC didnt want the d7 because it was war booty (cheap)...this wasnt the 1950's airforce
-
Se5a, LA5, 109, Fokker E.I, 190, Hurricane should be there.
how the fug did the Mig-15 make the list?
If phantom is there, why no Mig-21?
-
No Mig 15,No Yak 3/9 and what about Lagg 5 & Lagg 7 :confused:
-
Originally posted by scott123
No Mig 15,No Yak 3/9 and what about Lagg 5 & Lagg 7 :confused:
Suprising that no Russian fighters made the list. Especially the latest from Sukhoi which are far superior to any Teen series US fighters.
...-Gixer
-
1) Bf109: from the beginning to the bitter end.
2) Spitfire: same reason w/109 but less manufactured
3) MiG-21: this is a classic. +11000 manufactured and still in active use in 33 countries.
There's Gold, Silver and Bronze; rest are worthless.
-
Originally posted by bunch
you sure the USAAC didnt want the d7 because it was war booty (cheap)...this wasnt the 1950's airforce
Nope, they were thinking of setting up production in the USA with US engines, not of taking old german ones. The plane was that good nd was a viable fighter well into the 1920s.
-
Originally posted by Furball
Se5a, LA5, 109, Fokker E.I, 190, Hurricane should be there.
how the fug did the Mig-15 make the list?
If phantom is there, why no Mig-21?
Because the list is a retarded historch cannel gimmick? Same answer to GS.. :)
-
(Paints X in the wall...)
I agree with Grün.... History Channel is made for masses and not for average simmer who knows the differences between 109F and G or P-51A and B.
Nice and entertaining channel but that's all.
-
That top ten is pretty good, I would probably agree with most although how did the F22 make the Top Ten? It's not even been tried and tested yet? Incidently, one of the F22 chief test pilots got to fly the Eurofighter and he described both aircraft as evenly matched; he couldn't seperate them at all.
Also surprised to see the Sea Harrier FA2. Probably because of all the ACM dogfights it used to do against other nations. It would often beat even the best fighters, including the F15, F16 and F18. The Military Channel may have included Sea Harrier FRS.1 stats too?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Straffo, America's only combat aircraft made in America was the DH.4, built under license with Liberty engines in 'em.. about 3,300 of 'em delivered by the time the armistice was signed.
Our first squadrons in France flew Neuiports.. till the DH.4's arrived.
I knew it was Nieuport but I thought they were build in the US.
-
The F-22 is revolutionary with it's ability to supercruise. Combat experience or not, that makes the list.
I don't agree with the Camel being on the list... I don't recall it being anything near dominating in WWI. It was, however, manufacturable. I see it's presence on par with putting a Soviet T-34 on the list of best tanks. It deserves to be there, but it's manufacturability was it's greatest asset. It seems there were other WWI aircraft that were far better.
The F-4 is another oddity on the list. The only thing remarkable about it was that it was used by all branches of the U.S. millitary. It did everything OK, but nothing great. It's weapons system was innadequate given the poor reliability of the missiles in high temperature/hummidity environments at the time and the fact that it didn't have a canon. Hell... I'd rank the A-4 skyraider above the F-4.
I do think the F-15C should be ranked 1st though. Maybe it could slip to #2 if someone were to actually shoot one down.
-
Im retiring from the board.
when mini and gh can speak for me its time to go.
(dont know about the F22 though, so complex that it might be an abolute failure in war conditions, whew..guess I get to stay.)
-
Alot of mystery writings on the Eurofighter. There's a pretty decent article here (http://www.ausairpower.net/typhoon.html).
In terms of where to position the Typhoon in the current menagerie of fighter aircraft, it can be best described as an F/A-18C sized fighter with BVR systems and agility performance better than older F-15 models, similar to growth F-15 models with same generation systems and engines, but inferior to the F-15 in useful operating radius. The Typhoon is not a stealth aircraft, despite various assertions to this effect, nor is it a genuine supercruiser like the F-22. Its design incorporates none of the features seen in very low observable types, nor does the EJ200 incorporate the unique design features of the F119 and F120 powerplants.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I don't agree with the Camel being on the list... I don't recall it being anything near dominating in WWI. It was, however, manufacturable. I see it's presence on par with putting a Soviet T-34 on the list of best tanks. It deserves to be there, but it's manufacturability was it's greatest asset. It seems there were other WWI aircraft that were far better.
Sopwith Camel shot down more aircraft air to air than any other fighter in the first world war. Was among, if not the most agile (apparently on the Sopwith Pup and Tripe were more maneuverable) it took the Camel less time to roll 270 degrees to the right than it took german fighters 90 degrees to the left. It was very much a dominant aircraft in the air.
Along with the Se5A and the Spad, it ended the 'Bloody April' period and the dominance of the Albatros mid war and was unchallenged until the arrival of the D.7, by which time the Snipes were coming in.
There were not any aircraft that were 'far' better than the Camel.
-
Point any aircraft down and it can do that gscholz. And... last I recall the concorde was not a fighter. But, feel free to keep interjecting to say nothing really relevant to anything.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Alot of mystery writings on the Eurofighter. There's a pretty decent article here (http://www.ausairpower.net/typhoon.html).
That article was written in 2000, lotta water under the bridge since then.
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Alot of mystery writings on the Eurofighter. There's a pretty decent article here (http://www.ausairpower.net/typhoon.html).
It's a pretty decent article, but 5 years old now and I noticed a few inaccuracies. Regarding EJ200 have a look at http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/engines.html quite an interesting read.
When did the F22 fly?
I think the F-4 is deserving to be included. The fact that it's still in service with many countries proves how adaptable and successful the aircraft is.
-
Actually, you know what... this is silly. I did not mean to leave the eurochips out of the picture by implying that the F-22 was the ONLY supercruise capable fighter. There are other supercruise fighters out there that are much less capable in every other aspect and should be on the list simply because eurochips have nothing better to offer.
-
Originally posted by Replicant
It's a pretty decent article, but 5 years old now and I noticed a few inaccuracies. Regarding EJ200 have a look at http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/engines.html quite an interesting read.
I'll look at it some other time. I did like the Aussy article because it seemed to be about as unbiased as it got and really addressed the major points of all the aircraft. I'm not big on getting information from fan clubs.When did the F22 fly?
The YF-22 flew September of 1990. The first production plane flew September of 1997.I think the F-4 is deserving to be included. The fact that it's still in service with many countries proves how adaptable and successful the aircraft is.
What was it successful at?
-
Why the very article you quoted says that the Eurofighter just might be.
-
MiniD, no need to get your knickers in a twist. You stated earlier that "The F-22 is revolutionary with it's ability to supercruise. Combat experience or not, that makes the list. " That implied to some people that the ability to supercruise made the list. Anyway, it is silly, as I already mentioned a F22 chief test pilot has flown both and couldn't seperate them. He said they were both equal.
You mentioned that the F-22 flew 1 - 2 years before the Eurofighter? http://www.edwards.af.mil/articles98/docs_html/splash/apr98/cover/first.htm states "On Sept. 7, 1997, the first Lockheed-Boeing F-22 was flown for the first time, taking to the skies over Marietta and north Georgia" whilst Eurofighter flew on 27 March 1994 and prototype flying on 8 August 1986 (http://www.eurofighter.com).
-
Originally posted by Elyeh
Rated by the Military channel
10. FA 22 Raptor
9 FA2 Harrier
8 Sopwith Camel
7 ME 262
6 SpitFire
5 Mig 15
4 F86 Saber
3 F4 Phanthom
2 F15C Eagle
And #1 All time Fighter.......
P-51D Mustang
2 each from McDonnell/Douglas and North Amercian Aviation..
lets see.. McDonnell/Douglas merged with Boeing, and NAA went to Rockwell and then to Boeing..
So 4 of the top 10 fighters of all time are Boeings, and half of the total list is American.. 3 brits, a Kraut and a Rooski fighter based on a Kurt Tank design.
What.. Airbus ain't even on the list??
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
What.. Airbus ain't even on the list??
Well technically.. BAe has 20% in airbus, so kind of?
-
Hmmm... used ta have an old sim lying around.. EF2000 I think it was.
I think I'll load it back up into this antique computer; It was a notable sim only in that we got to blow up mosta Norway.
;)
-
Hey Hang, I never had that game, but I had F22 by DID which was enjoyable! Have fun! :)
-
I gave up all these channels "Top" lists
They should just call tyem for what they are.
"the Top XX favorite (whatever the show is about) of the people who made the show.
the absolute worst "Top" list I've seen was on Comedy central top 100 standup comedians.
How the F does Cris Rock rate ahead of tried and true vets like Don Rickles, Eddie Murphy, Bill Cosby, Johnathin winters. And Robin Williams, let alone make the top 10?
Funny guy. but he isnt even in the same league as any of those others I mentioned.
-
Wow... it's like a massive frenzy here. I don't even know where to start.
Replicant,
You're wrong with your dates, unless you're thinking that there is only one Eurofighter and that's what they first flew. It's similar to saying that technically, the F-22 is an F-15 and it first flew in 74. The Eurofighter 2000 is what is being touted as having supercruise ability. It's PROTOTYPE first flew in 1994, 4 years after the F-22 PROTOTYPE flew. The F-22 first rolled off of the assembly liine in 1997, one year BEFORE assembly of the Eurofighter being discussed was even started. Dang man... get it straight.
Gsholz,
Play the technicalities game all you want. It doesn't dispell the fact that you haven't made a single point in this thread other than to try to nitpick because you really don't have anything else to add. The EF2000 sucks ass. You know it, the people that made the list know it and the rest of the world knows it. Time to get on with life.
-
The French Rafale can take on the F22 and the Eurfighter. At the same time.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Replicant,
You're wrong with your dates, unless you're thinking that there is only one Eurofighter and that's what they first flew. It's similar to saying that technically, the F-22 is an F-15 and it first flew in 74. The Eurofighter 2000 is what is being touted as having supercruise ability. It's PROTOTYPE first flew in 1994, 4 years after the F-22 PROTOTYPE flew. The F-22 first rolled off of the assembly liine in 1997, one year BEFORE assembly of the Eurofighter being discussed was even started. Dang man... get it straight.
No, the Eurofighter prototype flew in 1986 (flew at Farnborough airshow) and the development aircraft (still being flown) flew in 1994. Let's say I work with EF so I think I know (we have pictures of 'First Flight, Manching, 27 March 1994' around the office).
-
Sigh.
From here (http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/aveuro.html):
The insistence of the British and Spanish on a multirole capability was important to the machine's survival. The fall of the Soviet Union greatly changed the nature of the challenge faced by European nations from a hostile Communist monolith to the east, to unpredictable brushfire conflicts that could spring up almost anywhere. A multirole Eurofighter fit the new challenges well.
* In the end, after a great deal of frustration and bitter feelings, Germany stayed in the group. The fighter was redefined somewhat to decrease costs in principle, with some high-budget elements made optional, but the general belief was that the whole squabble had led to a more expensive aircraft and the "savings" were merely political smoke-and-mirrors.
The redefined aircraft was redesignated the "Eurofighter EF2000" as a means of glossing over the fact that the original plan envisioned that it would already be in production by 1992. The delays were painful to the Italians, who desperately needed a replacement for their Starfighters, and as an interim solution they leased 24 Tornado F.3 interceptors from the Panavia group.
The dust settled and work on the prototypes went ahead. The first prototype Eurofighter, designated "DA1", finally flew on 27 March 1994. That prototype was built by DASA, wore Luftwaffe markings, and was flown by German pilot Peter Weger from an airfield at Manching, Germany. There were no doubt some who questioned the justice of letting the Germans have the honor of the first flight, all the more so because the German government continued to short-change the program, not committing to proper funding until 1995, and continuing to waffle for two more years after that.
You are thinking that the Eurofighter was a single project. That simply is not the case. The 86 flight was a plane that is not related to the 2000 other than concept. The 94 flight was of the FIRST EF2000 PROTOTYPE. This is 4 years after the FIRST F-22 PROTOTYPE flew. Production of the EF2000 STARTED IN 1998. This is 1 year after th THE FIRST PRODUCTION F-22 ROLLED OFF OF THE PRODUCTION LINE.
Dammit man.
-
Nuh uh......mines bigger
-
CBG X 1000 (http://web.archive.org/web/20010417135744/www.geocities.com/thak98/nerd.wav)
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Sigh.
From here (http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/aveuro.html):
You are thinking that the Eurofighter was a single project. That simply is not the case. The 86 flight was a plane that is not related to the 2000 other than concept. The 94 flight was of the FIRST EF2000 PROTOTYPE. This is 4 years after the FIRST F-22 PROTOTYPE flew. Production of the EF2000 STARTED IN 1998. This is 1 year after th THE FIRST PRODUCTION F-22 ROLLED OFF OF THE PRODUCTION LINE.
Dammit man.
Sigh... from the same website "The first true F-22 prototype, more imaginatively designated the "Raptor", was rolled out at the Lockheed Martin plant at Marietta, Georgia, on 9 April 1997. There were numerous problems with the prototype, including software problems and fuel leaks, and first flight was delayed to 7 September 1997. The second prototype first flew on 29 June 1998. By late 2001, there were eight F-22s flying. " http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf22.html
Dammit girl! That's funny as hell!
-
That was the first production plane off of the production line replicant. The YF-22 flew in 1990. Surely you know this... right?
Maybe you should stop by Boeing's site (http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/f22.html) and see for yourself? The fact that they had to make changes to the production line is neither here nor there. I'm sure this is the same with the first EF2000's that rolled off the line after production started in 1998 and why any new fighter takes 5-10 years to make it from production to active duty squadron status.
-
Fokker EI, II & III ruled the skies only for that period of time in which there was no competition. The Airco/deHavilland DH-2 was the 1st dominant fighter plane. The Fokker was mort like the 1st air to air gun platform
-
Wait a minute, you quoted a website and you're not happy now it says F-22 prototype flew in 1997?
Have a look at http://www.eurofighter.com as well. The Development Aircraft are still flying, they're simply testing different components. They are still called 'Eurofighter'! The Eurofighter was based on the EAP. In any case, I will ask at work on Tuesday and confirm first flight of Eurofighter!
-
Actually, you're misquoting the website.
"the first TRUE prototype".
read it a bit more and see exactly what they're saying replicant. Stop being ignorant. The first production aircraft had obvious issues. It took 4 years to iron out those PRODUCTION ISSUES.
I quoted one of many that explain the first prototype EF2000 flew in 1994 with production starting in 1998. You find me one more that calls the 1997 Raptor a "prototype"... even with the caveat.
-
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)
-
based on categories 1 & 3 the P-61 should be way up the list
-
Originally posted by Mini D
The F-22 is revolutionary with it's ability to supercruise. Combat experience or not, that makes the list.
I don't agree with the Camel being on the list... I don't recall it being anything near dominating in WWI. It was, however, manufacturable. I see it's presence on par with putting a Soviet T-34 on the list of best tanks. It deserves to be there, but it's manufacturability was it's greatest asset. It seems there were other WWI aircraft that were far better.
The F-4 is another oddity on the list. The only thing remarkable about it was that it was used by all branches of the U.S. millitary. It did everything OK, but nothing great. It's weapons system was innadequate given the poor reliability of the missiles in high temperature/hummidity environments at the time and the fact that it didn't have a canon. Hell... I'd rank the A-4 skyraider above the F-4.
I do think the F-15C should be ranked 1st though. Maybe it could slip to #2 if someone were to actually shoot one down.
The F-4E I worked on most certainly did have a cannon. Real
fast one too.
-
The Raptor has a bigger winkie than the Eurofighter.
-
Yep... they added it back in with the E model or somewhere around then. This was from hard lessons learned in Vietnam.
-
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.
-
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 :D
-
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.
-
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. 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.
-
Actually, the F-4 doesn't get much praise. The F-4's failures were one reason that the F-15 was designed.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Yep Mustang Spit & Camel get all the glory cause they were US & Brit planes. Par for the course.
-
You cant expect a plane that goes to war & loses to be given much respect.
-
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.... :rolleyes:
-
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.
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)
-
Originally posted by Staga
"Draken" could "supercruise" too and it's 40 years old type.... :rolleyes:
And it's STILL cool as hell to look at!! :D
-
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
-
Originally posted by Staga
"Draken" could "supercruise" too and it's 40 years old type.... :rolleyes:
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.
-
Based on K/D ratios and proven combat performance (as opposed to speculation) I think the list would be a mite different... the 109, F6F and F4U would prolly pop up somewhere on the list, the pony would drop to the bottom.
As a moot point it would be interesting to see how a pair of F-22's would fare against a pair of Eurofruits or even better; a pair of Froggy operated Ralphies. Then just to validate the ralphie results, give it a try with non-stinky competent euro pilots in it.
Oh, well; all idle speculation till the next war...
-
Originally posted by Mini D
The F-4 is another oddity on the list. The only thing remarkable about it was that it was used by all branches of the U.S. millitary. It did everything OK, but nothing great. It's weapons system was innadequate given the poor reliability of the missiles in high temperature/hummidity environments at the time and the fact that it didn't have a canon. Hell... I'd rank the A-4 skyraider above the F-4.
just OK????
The F4 was a beast at minmum. In 'Nam the F4 was used by the first ace of the war and tangled with the best of the north quite well. It saw service for quite a long time with it's last varient the "weasle" F4G iirc.
Lots of kills in this plane and lots of different roles this air craft performed. To say it was just OK was an understatment. I hardly think we'd use an "OK" air craft for almost 40 years.
I don't agree with the 22 being on their either. Although it may be in production it is still under development and is NOT a combat proven air craft.
The list is pretty dumb...they might as well through the F5 on their. It's probably got more "simulated" kills than any of them.
-
Originally posted by Mime
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
There's one thing that is marjoly flawed with your list. The country that owned them LOST the war!
-
Originally posted by Mini D
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. 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.
Ahh, now it becomes clear. The F-4 was not designed to
supplant any of the aircraft you mentioned. The Phantom was
the jet age equivalent of the P-47. It was big, fast, was a great
bomb truck and could take an enormous amount of punishment.
-
No one mentioned the F-14?
It was fast,pretty manueverable, carried quite a few missiles, and was in Top Gun.
Coming up on the last year of the F-14..the last few squadrons(all here at NAS Oceana) are beginning their transition to that sorry POS the "Super" Hornet..by the end of next year it will be no more.
Tomcat!
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Based on K/D ratios and proven combat performance (as opposed to speculation) I think the list would be a mite different... the 109, F6F and F4U would prolly pop up somewhere on the list, the pony would drop to the bottom.
As a moot point it would be interesting to see how a pair of F-22's would fare against a pair of Eurofruits or even better; a pair of Froggy operated Ralphies. Then just to validate the ralphie results, give it a try with non-stinky competent euro pilots in it.
Oh, well; all idle speculation till the next war...
i'd wager the next war will not pit F-22s against Corsairs. I believe the P-61 has the best kill ratio for WW2 fighters
-
F-15's Kick Ass, and the F-4 makes itself useful. (http://www.innomi.com/Archer_Video.mpg)
-
Originally posted by Rino
Ahh, now it becomes clear. The F-4 was not designed to
supplant any of the aircraft you mentioned. The Phantom was
the jet age equivalent of the P-47. It was big, fast, was a great
bomb truck and could take an enormous amount of punishment.
But what distinguished it as a fighter?
It excelled in wild-weasel opperations for one very specific reason: the key component to wild-weasel is getting the enemy to turn on their radars and shoot at you. The F4 was very good at getting shot at.
And... it was "intended" to replace those planes. It was simply discovered quite quickly that wasn't going to happen. Just like the F-16 was supposed to kick out the likes of the A-10... or the F/A-18 is supposed to kick out everything the navy has. Hell... the F4 was supposed to kick every other fighter out of every branch of the military. Hehehe... we could even take the discussion to the next level with the F-111 and what it was supposed to do.
-
WMLute the information released to the public is correct. The Raptors in that engagement hammered the F-15s. They didn't even know where the F/A-22s were until they were locked and dead. There are other things to consider but I can't really talk about them.
I can imagine what your saying at that is the whole point of developing the Raptor. Also about those rolling weapon releases they are extremely impressive. I've seen a few more videos of the weapons release testing being done. Needless to say they make the F-15s weapons releases look like childs play.
-
Originally posted by bunch
I believe the P-61 has the best kill ratio for WW2 fighters
I believe the Brewster model 239, the export model of the F2A-1, has the best kill ratio and also highest scoring single airframe.
-
I just won 5€ !
I was pretty sure there was at least one finn to speak of the Brewster :D
-
Originally posted by straffo
I just won 5€ !
I was pretty sure there was at least one finn to speak of the Brewster :D
Whisper to Straffo: “Ok, I did my part. Now pay”:p
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
As a moot point it would be interesting to see how a pair of F-22's would fare against a pair of Eurofruits or even better; a pair of Froggy operated Ralphies. Then just to validate the ralphie results, give it a try with non-stinky competent euro pilots in it.
Oh, well; all idle speculation till the next war...
oh my...
-
What?? I can't troll either?
;)
-
What ? my skin is now pretty thick I didn't even notice your post :D
-
...and ta think I wuz thinking about you when I originally posted it. :D
-
Tap tap tap ... hmm sorry it's just my trollmeter which is broke :D
-
I would assume by looking at the list, that the term "greatest fighter" means dedicated air superiority rather than multi-role fighter-bombers. Even with such a restriction, how can anyone look at the complete historical record of the F-4 from first flight to the present and say it is not one of the greatest air superiority fighters of all time? If you include its multirole capabilities, I wouldn't even hesitate to call it the greatest combat aircraft of all time. How can the F-4 be considered a failure or even average? No aircraft is perfect and later aircraft tend to be designed to overcome the limitations of earlier aircraft, but how can an aircraft that successfully provided air superiority more than any other type from 1962 to 1980 not be worthy to be on this list?
From the year the F-4 first flew, it set a ton of climb and speed records. It was forced on the USAF because it outperformed all of the latest USAF aircraft (F-105, F-104, and F-106). What was it good at? There were no other aircraft that had the balance of speed, load, range, and electronics. I would compare it to the P-38L: big, heavy, powerful. Not the fastest, but very fast. Not the best at maneuverability, but very maneuverable. Climb rate? Almost 2nd to none. Payload and range? Top notch.
As originally produced (F-4B and F-4C), it had three main drawbacks: no gun, poor visibility from the cockpit, and poor stability at high AOAs. The gunpod and F-4E addressed the gun issue. The slats added to the F-4E and F-4S addressed the high AOA issues. Visibility from the cockpit was never really addressed, though it should be noted that its contemporaries generally had the same or worse visibility limitations.
Early versions of the Sparrow and Sidewinder were notoriously unreliable, but Soviet Atolls were even worse. By 1968, The USAF's AIM-7E solved most of the Sparrow's problems except for maneuverabilty and minimum range and the USN's AIM-9D made the Sidewinder into a decent dogfight missile. By 1972, the AIM-7E2 version of the Sparrow was in use by the USAF (reflected in their Sparrow kills) and the AIM-9G/H version of the Sidewinder was in use by the USN (just a step away from being an AIM-9L, a big factor in 1972 Navy kills overlooked by those promoting the benefits of Top Gun).
From 1962 to 1972, there were no operational fighters with a better radar/missile combination. The F-4 dominated air to air combat arena until the arrival of the teen series fighters. Did the F-4 have trouble with MiG-17s? Only because US tactics in Vietnam set up the US forces to be repeatedly ambushed while carrying heavy bomb loads over the same daily routes. A guns only MiG-17 was no better against an F-4 than a Spitfire MkI against a P-51D. The MiG-21 had comparable performance to the F-4. It was a little slower, but it could turn a little better. But it lacked range and payload. In fact, most MiG-21s were built without guns and could carry only 2 (later 4) Atoll missiles. By 1972, the MiG-21s were up-engined and being fitted with gunpods, which finally made them a credible threat to the F-4. The Mirage was largely comparable to the MiG-21, but with a better gun and better avionics. The Israelis preferred the Mirage to the F-4 in air combat because they preferred using guns in turning dogfights. But they still used the F-4 to great advantage with its Sparrow missile capability and even tried to use it to shoot down MiG-25s, something the Mirage could never even consider trying. The BAC Lightning had performance similar to if not better than the F-15. It could even supercruise (long before the F-22 and Eurofighters :p). But it achieved that performance by carrying little fuel, avionics, and weapons. The Lightning was pretty much useless in combat compared to the "inferior" F-4. So what aircraft from its generation were so much better fighters that the F-4 doesn't deserved to be called the greatest of its generation and given its continued influence to this day, the greatest ever built?
If you look at the specs of an F/A-18E, you will find that its dimenstions, weight, and performance are all very close to the F-4 with the exception of a bubble canopy and more maneuverability.
5,057 F-4s were not built because it was the cheapest fighter available nor was it because of deceitful marketing. It was by far the best value from 1962 to 1980.
Israel did have trouble in 1973 using F-4Es in dogfights against later up-engined MiG-21s (nearly on par with F-16 turning ability), but that is no different than Bf109s trying to turn fight Spitfires: Use the wrong tactics, get bad results. But Israel has kept and upgraded the F-4 because it is to this day one of the best all-round planes. German F-4Fs are electronically the equal of F/A-18s.
The MiG-21 was also great. It belongs on any all-time greatest fighter list, but ranking it against the F-4: The air to air kill ratio was always in favor of the F-4 even when inferior tactics and training were used by the F-4 pilots. The MiG-21 was never really capable of anything more than short range, clear-weather interceptor/dogfighter (ala Spitfire). Matched head-to-head with all other factors being even, 1 on 1 or 4 on 4, the F-4 would win almost every time. Throw in long range with AWACS control and/or night/adverse weather and the MiG-21 would be out of the fight.
The Soviets respected the F-4 so much that they tried to equal it. Of course they ended up building two major versions, one for air superiority (MiG-23) and one for ground attack (MiG-27). By the time they fielded these types, the F-14 and F-15 had come.
When Egypt finally made peace with Israel and got the right to buy US aircraft, they not only bought F-16s, but made sure to get a decent supply of the aircraft that they respected the most from their previous air battles: F-4Es.
What was the F-4 ever good at? Really :rolleyes: Pretty much everything. Besides the previously discussed air superiority, it took an expensive dedicated type like the A-6 or F-111 to bomb any better. In fact, with smart weapons, the F-4 is generally the equal of any other strike aircraft to this day. The A-10 is of course a much better ground attack aircraft, but that is all it really does since it is too slow to do much of anything else. The F-4 was never good at flying slow over ground troops. Any improvement in ground attack the F-16 has over the F-4 comes from modern electronics not any inherent advantages of the design, which are easily retrofitted to the F-4 and have been by the Germans and the Israelis. There is no better Wild Weasel. Its ceiling, speed, range, and payload made the F-4 a great recon aircraft as well.
So the only real limitations of the F-4 regardless of the mission were no bubble canopy and low speed maneuverability, while it tends to equal or exceed other aircraft in all other areas. Since when is small size with turning ability the mark of a great fighter? I always thought speed, climb, payload, range were the true measures and the reason why US types like the F6F, F4U, P-38, P-47, and P-51 were far superior to the Spitfire and Zero. Throw in large numbers of aircraft with co-ordinated tactics and turning ability is almost neutralized as any advantage at all.
-
Wow... I've not read such an excuse and caveat laden post before in my life. Smart bombs? LOL!
By the time issues with the F4 were ironed out, it was useless. Blame tactics, strategy, missiles or whatever you want. The F4 did not do anything very well. It was owned by the Mig17.
The plane was built in such numbers because it was a standard airframe used by all branches of the service and the military was standing steadfast with it's decision to go with it.
The F4 served to epitimize beauracracy in the 60's and 70's. While that may be an accomplishment, it's not something that should be getting it on the list.
-
Great read, Streak, and excellent points.. I tend to agree; the Phantom was a remarkable and competent tool in combat.. in the hands of a skilled aircrew it was a match for anything combat capable in the early 70's, and untill the arrival of the Tomcat and Eagle it was America's best ever warbird.
And included, just cause it's a great gawdamned read..
10 May 1972
This was a bad day for the Vietnamese Peoples Air Force, losing eleven aircraft. Navy fighters destroyed eight MiGs, six by VF-96 in USS Constellation (CVA64). Three of the MiG-17s were downed by one VF-96 crew, LT. Randy "Duke" Cunningham and his RIO, LT(JG) Willie Driscoll, flying a Phantom F-4J, ShowTime 100. Combined with two earlier kills on 19 January and 8 May, the victories would make Cunningham and Driscoll the first American aces of the Vietnam War and the first to make all their kills with missiles.
They were participating in a strike against the Hai Dong railyards, on flak suppression, when a score of enemy fighters challenged them.
Cunningham's Phantom carried two AIM-7E Sparrow long-range missiles, eight AIM-9J Sidewinder short-range missiles, and twelve "Rockeye" cluster bombs. After dropping their bombs on some warehouses, Showtime 100 loitered to cover the A-7 fighter-bombers still engaged. Responding to a call for help, Cunningham took his F-4J into a group of MiG-17s ("Frescoes"), two of which promptly jumped them. Heeding a "break" warning from Grant in Showtime 113, Cunningham broke sharply and the lead pursuing MiG-17 overshot him. He instantly reversed his turn, putting the MiG dead ahead; he loosed a Sidewinder and it destroyed the MiG.
Showtime 100 and his wingman Grant climbed to 15,000. Looking belwo, Cunningham saw a scene "straight oout of The Patrol." One flaming MiG was plunging dwon, eight more circled defensively, while three Phantoms went after the MiGs within the wheel. These were at an extreme disadvantage, due to their low energy state.
VF-96 Exec, Cdr Dwight Timm hasd three MiGs on his tail, one being very close, in Timm's blind spot. Seeing the danger to the XO, in Showtime 112, Duke called for him to "break," to clear the Phantom's hotter J-79 engines from the Sidewinder's heat seeker, thus permitting a clear lock on the bandit. But Timm thought the warning was about the other two, distant MiGs, and didn't heed Duke's first call.
After more maneuvering, Cunningham re-engaged the MiG-17 still threatening his XO. He called again for him to break, adding, "If you don't break NOW you are going to die." The XO finally accelerated and broke hard right. The MiG couldn't follow Showtime 112's high speed turn, leaving "Duke" clear to fire.
Calling "Fox Two," Cunningham fired his second Sidewinder while the MiG still inside the minimum firing range. But the high speed of the Fresco worked against it, as the Sidewinder had time to arm and track to its target. It homed into the tail pipe of the MiG-17 and exploded. Seconds later, Cunningham and Driscoll, finding themselves alone in a sky full of bandits, disengaged and headed for the Constellation.
The Third MiG
As they approached the coast at 10,000 feet, Cunningham spotted another MiG-17 heading straight for them. He told Driscoll to watch how close they could pass the MiG's nose, so he could not double back as easily to their six o’clock. While this tactic worked against A-4s back in training at Miramar, it turned out to be a near-fatal mistake here. ... A-4s didn’t have guns in the nose.
The MiG's nose lit up like a Roman candle! Cannon shells shot past their F-4. Duke pulled up vertically to throw off his aim. As he came out of the six-G pull-up, he looked around below for the MiG. MiGs generally avoided climbing contests. They turned horizontally, or just ran away. He looked back over his ejection seat and was shocked. There was the MiG barely 100 yards away! He began to feel numb and his stomach knotted, as both jets roared 8,000 feet straight up.
In an effort to out-climb the MiG, Cunningham went to afterburners, which put him above the enemy aircraft. As he started to pull over the top, the MiG began shooting. This was Cunningham's second near-fatal mistake; he had given his opponent a predictable flight path, and he had taken advantage of it. Duke rolled off to the other side, and the MiG closed in behind.
Not wanting to admit he was getting beaten, he called to Willie, "That S.O.B. is really lucky! All right, we’ll get this guy now!" With the MiG at his four o’clock, he nosed down to pick up speed and energy. Cunningham watched until the MiG pilot likewise committed his nose down. "Gotcha!" he thought, as he pulled up into the MiG, rolled over the top, got behind it. While too close to fire a missile, the maneuver placed Duke in an advantageous position.
He pulled down, holding top rudder, to press for a shot, and the MiG pulled up into him, shooting! He thought, "Maybe this guy isn’t just lucky after all!" The Communist pilot used the same maneuver Duke had just tried, pulling up into him, and forcing an overshoot. The two jets were in a classic rolling scissors. As his nose committed, Duke pulled up into his opponent again.
As they slowed to 200 knots, the MiG's superior maneuverability at low speed would gave him more advantage. A good fighter pilot, like Kenny Rogers' poker player, "knows when to hold, and knows when to fold." This was the MiG's game; it was time to go. When the MiG raised his nose for the next climb, Cunningham lit his afterburners and, at 600 knots airspeed, quickly got two miles away from the MiG, out of his ATOL missile range.
But maybe Duke wasn't such a good poker player, because he went back for more. Cunningham nosed up 60 degrees, the MiG stayed right with him. Just as before, they went into another vertical rolling scissors.
As the advantage swung back and forth, Driscoll called, "Hey, Duke, how ya doin' up there? This guy really knows what he’s doin’. Maybe we ought to call it a day."
This enraged Duke; some "goomer" had not only stood off his attacks but had gained an advantage twice! Not what he wanted to tell his squadron mates back on the Constellation.
"Hang on, Willie. We’re gonna get this guy!"
"Go get him, Duke. I’m right behind you!"
Driscoll strained to keep sight of the MiG, as Duke pitched back towards him for the third time.
Once again, he met the MiG-17 head-on, this time with an offset so he couldn’t fire his guns. As he pulled up vertically he could again see his determined adversary a few yards away. Still gambling, Cunningham tried one more thing. He yanked the throttles back to idle and popped the speed brakes, in a desperate attempt to drop behind the MiG. But, in doing so, he had thrown away the Phantom's advantage, its superior climbing ability. And if he stalled out ...
The MiG shot out in front of Cunningham for the first time, the Phantom’s nose was 60 degrees above the horizon with airspeed down to 150 knots. He had to go to full burner to hold his position. The surprised enemy pilot attempted to roll up on his back above him. Using only rudder to avoid stalling the F-4, he rolled to the MiG’s blind side. He tried to reverse his roll, but as his wings banked sharply, he briefly stalled the aircraft and his nose fell through. Behind the MiG, but still too close for a shot. "This is no place to be with a MiG-17," he thought, "at 150 knots... this slow, he can take it right away from you."
Now the MiG tried to disengage; he pitched over the top and started straight down. Cunningham pulled hard over, followed, and maneuvered to obtain a firing position. With the distracting heat of the ground, Cunningham wasn't sure that a Sidewinder would home in on the MiG, but he called "Fox Two," and squeezed one off. The missile came off the rail and flew right at the MiG. He saw little flashes off the MiG, and thought he had missed. As he started to fire his last Sidewinder, there was an abrupt burst of flame. Black smoke erupted from the Fresco. It didn’t seem to go out of control; the fighter just kept slanting down, smashing into the ground at about 45 degrees angle.
Colonel Toon
The pilot was mis-identified as North Vietnam’s leading ace, "Colonel Toon," allegedly with 13 aerial victories.
Exactly whom "Duke" shot down on his final kill of the day, the one that made him an ace, has been the subject of conjecture. Early on, sources claimed the pilot was the top Vietnamese ace known as "Col. Tomb" in the media. Later research has shed more light on the subject; in fact, "Col. Tomb" did not exist. He was most likely a flight leader or squadron commander of the 923rd Regiment.
Whoever the Vietnamese pilot was, the historic dogfight made "Duke" Cunningham the first US ace of the Vietnam conflict.
-
10 May 1972
This was a bad day for the Vietnamese Peoples Air Force, losing eleven aircraft. Navy fighters destroyed eight MiGs, six by VF-96 in USS Constellation (CVA64). Three of the MiG-17s were downed by one VF-96 crew, LT. Randy "Duke" Cunningham and his RIO, LT(JG) Willie Driscoll, flying a Phantom F-4J, ShowTime 100. Combined with two earlier kills on 19 January and 8 May, the victories would make Cunningham and Driscoll the first American aces of the Vietnam War and the first to make all their kills with missiles.
When did the F4 enter service again? Early enough for them to be up to a J model before someone got 5 kills with one. I've seen the word "dominance" used before. Just never in this type of scenario.
-
Most of the stuff 'designed by committie' turns out pretty weak initially.. the 'ol Phantom when it was re-worked based on real combat exposure it turned out to be a competent airplane.
How the bird came to be an 'all service' airplane sucked... but by the time it was refined for the role it had to play it was a competent combat aircraft capable of 'head to head' dogfighting or (for the day) 'stand off' air to air operations with anything else in the air at the time.
My brother tells me (USS Hanconck, CV19, '68,69) that the pilots prefrerred to old F-8 Crusaders (last gunfighter) to the Phantoms for the pure Air to Air role.. Kinda like the way the Tomcat pilots really don't like the new Hornets in ATA roles. Won't be the first time the Navy's porked the biscuit by yanking a better plane for an inferior one.
-
Originally posted by Xjazz
I believe the Brewster model 239, the export model of the F2A-1, has the best kill ratio and also highest scoring single airframe.
As far as I've been able to find, the P-61 sustained no combat loses in any theater during the second world war, so that should make for quite a nice kill ratio, no?
-
The F4 was a decent plane... don't get me wrong. But we're talking about the best 10 fighters. I just don't see how it belongs there.
-
I remember the Cunningham story .. btw didn't the F4 had lot of trouble with the Mig21MF ?
-
Yep.. the Mig21's were there.. 1966 on. 200 or so; they were the real contenders against the F4's. The majority of the air to air kills scored by the North were with Mig21's.
The MiG-21 was a very small, maneuverable aircraft that had a good record in combat against US pilots in Vietnam. But it was no world beater.
When Vietnam begain the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy were operating equipment and tactics devised for the Cold War. US pilots were clearly regarded to have superior technology and training. The technology part was generally true. The MiG-21 was superior to most of the Century Series Fighters employed by the USAF early in the war, but the MiG-19 and subsonic MiG-17 were not. None were better than the F-4 Phantom, or the short legged Navy F-8 Crusader in air to air combat.
What the MiG-21 along with the other Russian fighters had going for them is that it was small. That meant that all things being equal, the MiG would sight its targets first, and once spotted US pilots often assumed that it was farther away than it was, which led to tactical mistakes. Also, unlikely as it seems the MiG-21 looks very much like the F-4 from many angles, which made mixups possible. As there were more Phantoms in the sky at any one time than the MiG-21, it was often left alone until very late in the game.
But the real issues were tactical. In 1965 it was assumed that the air to air missile would prove dominant, so cannon were left off the Phantom fighters under the assumption they would be unnecessary. That assumption proved false, and the cannon was returned in the later F-4E variant of the Phantom. Also US pilots practiced aerial combat maneuvering (ACM) against other Americans, who were often in the same aircraft. If two adversaries are in the same aircraft pure pilot skill and early aircraft recognition willl usually determine the winner. But different aircraft have different flight characteristics. One may have the advantage of speed and climb, versus turn rate, and these advantages may reverse at different speeds and altitudes. Pilots fight as they are trained.
The average North Vietnamese pilot enjoyed a few distinct advantages over his American opponents. First MiG pilots were instructed to engage in combat only when they enjoyed a favorable position. Most US aircraft, including the fighters, were being used as bombers. Dropping your bombs early to engage an enemy was regarded as failure by the Americans, and a victory for North Vietnam. US aircraft were there to attack ground targets, and did not break off from difficult fights.
Second, there were so few North Vietnamese fighters that for most US pilots, an actual dogfight was very rare, which meant their peacetime training against similar aircraft prevailed That meant that North Vietnamese pilots who survived their early flights had extensive experience fighting US fighters, and thus their tactics were refined to a high level. But US pilots were trained to fight other Americans, and that gave them some bad habits that had to be unlearned. They were often surprised by the performance of their adversaries. They often misjudged distance and aircraft type.
This was addressed by the Ault Report prepared by the Navy which led directly to the Top Gun program that re-introduced dissimilar aircraft ACM training to the fleet. Before the introduction of Top Gun, Navy fighters killed 1.1 Vietnamese aircraft for each US fighter lost due to all causes. After Top Gun pilots filled the fleet, the kill ratio jumped to 13-1, which is above the Korean War ration of 10-1. The US Air Force learned similar lessons, and formed its Aggressor Squadrons to teach dissimilar ACM at such exercises as Red Flag. The combat effectiveness of US units leaped once such training was initiated.
The MiG-21 is a small, maneuverable daylight fighter that can be a deadly adversary in skilled hands. Particularly when it gets to fight on its terms. But the speed and climb rate of the F-4 Phantom gave it a distinct advantage when using the vertical, and its superior avionics multiplied those advantages when clouds filled the sky. Noders should also remember that North Vietnam's top pilot, Colonel Tomb, flew the older, subsonic MiG-17.
It is always hoped that your fighter pilots will shoot down far more aircraft than they lose. But air to air combat is not the point of an air campaign. One can enjoy a favorable kill ratio and still lose the air war. Victory goes to he who goes where he wants, does what he wants and keeps his enemy from doing the same.
kermitov has contributed an anecdote he heard from an American pilot who served in Vietnam. Because the MiG-21 was considered the toughest adversary, they were highly sought after. North Vietnam used to use them as bait, and once engage throw some MiG-17's into the party. The 17's would cover the faster MiG-21's escape, and their dissimilar characteristics would present problems for pilots whose mind was focused on the '21.
Not sure I quite agree with all of that.. but it's good enuff to point up the diffrences between the combat capabilty of the relative airframes and the way they were used.
-
The F-4 was a pretty good plane and was produced up to 1985. It was the front-line fighter of more countries in the world than any other fighter, iic.
When it entered service in 1961, it was one of the best fighters in the world.
-
Originally posted by bunch
As far as I've been able to find, the P-61 sustained no combat loses in any theater during the second world war, so that should make for quite a nice kill ratio, no?
Do you have any links to the P-61 records? I can't find any good site. TY
-
The F-8 Crusader could have make F-4 Phantom's life a bit easier as an escort fighter.
Why did USN not deploy F-8s as an escort for F-4s loaded with bombs (lol)?
-
The F-8 was a 50's design, almost no avionics, single engine, no missiles initally. They were retro-fitted for sidewinders during the vietnam war, never carried the Sparrow. Deployed only on Essex Class carriers, (WWII holdovers like Hancock & Intrepid) there just wern't enuff of 'em available to 'escort' the F-4 'Bomb Truck' missions in a way you suggest beyon the occasional "Alpha Strike".
The last Fighter designed with only guns in mind, the pilots that flew 'em were absoluetly in love with it, and considered it a better fighter than the F-4 in any dogfight. The pilots called 'em the "Mig Masters".. rightfully so; the higest K/D ratio of any fighter in Vietnam was in fact the F-8 Crusader. Intended as a fleet defence weapon, it did mighty well 'feet dry' up in the north.
(http://www.cloudnet.com/~djohnson/mutha.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Wow... I've not read such an excuse and caveat laden post before in my life. Smart bombs? LOL!
By the time issues with the F4 were ironed out, it was useless. Blame tactics, strategy, missiles or whatever you want. The F4 did not do anything very well. It was owned by the Mig17.
The plane was built in such numbers because it was a standard airframe used by all branches of the service and the military was standing steadfast with it's decision to go with it.
The F4 served to epitimize beauracracy in the 60's and 70's. While that may be an accomplishment, it's not something that should be getting it on the list.
How do you define "owned" ? The only things the MiG-17 had over the F-4 were turning ability and guns. History says the MiG-17 got spanked by everything from the A-1 Skyraider to the F-105 Thunderchief. The F-4 did not lose to the MiG-17 very often. Generally, only when the F-4 pilots had no SA and the MiG-17s got free shots. Once again, I would compare such a matchup to the Spitfire MkI and latewar US aircraft.
What did the F-4 not do well? You keep saying "everything". For the purposes of this discussion we are talking air superiority and if you want, lets limit the discussion to its "horrific" air-to-air performance in Vietnam. How did it fail? List the kills the F-4 got, list the F-4s killed (don't even modify the numbers for the F-4s that were defenseless and/or surprised when shot down). Compare the F-4s record to the F-86s record (and I don't mean the often misquoted 14:1 ratio). Even without guns, using worthless AIM-9Bs and AIM-7Ds, and being flown by pilots with no ACM experience, the F-4 came out on top. The MiGs only left the ground when they had the advantage and still got their butts spanked most of the time. So please cite some facts that demonstrate everything the F-4 couldn't do and how it was owned by any other aircraft prior to the F-14/F-15 series.
It was built in great numbers because it worked better than anything else they had available. As soon as better became available, the F-4s were replaced. Up until the F-4, the USN changed frontline types every 2 years and only bought at most a few hundred of any one type. The USAF had done little better. The USAF did get the F-4 forced on them by politics, but once they got a hold of it, they loved it. This is the same military that bought the F-14 and F-15. They could and did build anything they wanted. They built the F-4.
If the F-4 was so bad, what other plane was so good... everything is on a relative scale. You can't compare F-4s to F-14s and F-15s. Anything earlier was inferior overall. Name some of those superior fighters. A-4s and A-6s don't count as fighters. Check out the actual performance of F-8's and you might find out why the F-4 was better: it's all about Ps (SEP). The F-4 had plenty to spare, the F-8 didn't. The F-4's turning ability wasn't that much worse because the F-8's conventional swept wing's lift advantage was canceled out by high wing loading and low thrust to weight ratio. The F-8's were loved by their crews and called "the gunfighters", but they got their kills with AIM-9s and got their butts kicked in turn fights with MiG-17s just like Navy F-4s.
Your insistence on the inferiority and uselessness of an aircraft that the Israelis fly to this day astounds me. The Israelis aren't stupid and don't keep equipment that doesn't do the job well. Sure they took anything they could get their hands on, but once they found out something got their people killed, they got rid of it and got something better. They did not get rid of the F-4 and only took it away from air superiority roles when something better was available.
-
Originally posted by Xjazz
Do you have any links to the P-61 records? I can't find any good site. TY
It is tough to find, which is why I can't say authoratively about no combat losses. I can say it about the ETO, though. I did as thorough a search as i could on info from PTO P-61 units & found no info of any lost in combat....just to contradict myself about P-61 being the best fighter of WW2 , a P-61 (ex, of course) pilot i know says the Mosquito was better
-
streakeagle, you have a habit of starting your posts with excuses. You ever notice that? And I didn't say "horrific"... that's how you're chosing to interpret things.
The F4 had a spell when the U.S. wasn't looking so hot in the jet department. But it was a low point overall. Ranking a plane that struggled in it's day and didn't "come into it's own" until a war was ending in the top 10 is a stretch at best.
-
The isrealies kicked butt with the phantom against exaclty the same planes.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
streakeagle, you have a habit of starting your posts with excuses. You ever notice that? And I didn't say "horrific"... that's how you're chosing to interpret things.
The F4 had a spell when the U.S. wasn't looking so hot in the jet department. But it was a low point overall. Ranking a plane that struggled in it's day and didn't "come into it's own" until a war was ending in the top 10 is a stretch at best.
You have a habit of saying it didn't do well without quoting any data to back it up. The F-4 did not do bad early in the war, but it certainly got better when given better weapons and better trained pilots. What plane wouldn't? There was nothing wrong with the F-4Bs, F-4Cs, and F-4Ds of the 1965-1968 part of the Vietnam air war. In fact, many of the kills scored in the 1972 time frame were by F-4Bs and F-4Ds. There was not another aircraft in the world that could have done better in that time frame. Another big difference between those two time frames were the Vietnamese flying habits. In the early war, they rarely flew and only in small numbers. When Robin Olds tricked them into coming up and fighting head-on with Operation Bolo, the F-4s did just fine. In 1972, the Vietnamese swarmed into the air in much larger numbers than ever seen before (amazing how going 3 years with no losses allows an air force to build up). All the early war US losses prove is that inferior numbers of inferior equipment can achieve victories using the right tactics, especially when the opposing forces ignore reality and continue using the wrong tactics.
What fighters do you say belong in the top 10 and why do they belong there? I would say any fighter that remained the best available in the world for a over a decade and is not only still flying on active duty 40 years later, but still capable of killing any other aircraft in service today (dont' even try to tell me that F-4F ICE's with AMRAAM and Sidewinders are not a threat to anyone) deserves to be on that list. Name 10 other fighters that were better in their respective eras and I'll shut up about the F-4.
The F-4 always had the ability to outrun, outclimb, outdive, outrange, and outgun any oppposing fighter it faced in combat. The only thing it couldn't do was turn tighter. What aircraft would any pilot have asked for more than the F-4 if faced with the task of controlling the skies 24 hours a day/7 days a week from 1962 to 1973? No MiGs of any kind ever controlled skies occupied by F-4s. Name an aircraft and cite some data that proves it was all-around superior to the F-4 in air combat. I don't think you can. Nor do I think you can name 10 aircraft from 1903 to the present that were so much better that the F-4 couldn't make the top 10 air superiority fighters of all time.
-
(http://www.computerbuchversand.de/spaceships/bilder/modelle/id4_4.jpg)
5 decades as the best air superiority fighter. Do we put it on the list?
;)
-
Originally posted by streakeagle
You have a habit of saying it didn't do well without quoting any data to back it up. T
LOL! That's pretty damn funny. "Data that it did bad" LOL!.
What fighters do you say belong in the top 10 and why do they belong there? I would say any fighter that remained the best available in the world for a over a decade and is not only still flying on active duty 40 years later, but still capable of killing any other aircraft in service today (dont' even try to tell me that F-4F ICE's with AMRAAM and Sidewinders are not a threat to anyone) deserves to be on that list. Name 10 other fighters that were better in their respective eras and I'll shut up about the F-4.
Me-262
F-86
F-16
F-15
F-14
Mig-15
Mig-21
And those are just jets. The F4 isn't beating out any of them on the list. Hell, it only really beats out 3 of the planes for longevity. Oh... wait... you're going to say that because the F4 is still being used in some third world countries that it's still flying. Effective U.S. service was until about 1989. Some guard units kept recce planes going, but the F-4 could do absolutely nothing better than the 16 and 15. Hell.. didn't Germany dump F4s before they got rid of their last F104 squadron?
The F-4 always had the ability to outrun, outclimb, outdive, outrange, and outgun any oppposing fighter it faced in combat.
LOL! You're the king of the caveat. It's a good thing it only faced a small third world nation in combat. And... it didn't really do that spectacular there.
-
There is no point in arguing with someone that believes the MiG-21 was a better air superiority fighter than an F-4. The MiG-21 never once denied opposing forces flying F-4s the use of their airspace whether it was over North Vietnam, Egypt, or Syria. YOu knock the F-4 for its problems with its weapons and then cite the MiG-21 as being better. The best MiG-21s ever did was harass F-4s with hit-and-run tactics and their range kept them from doing little else. You must have some criteria for picking the planes on your list. What criteria did use? Speed? Range? Maneuverability? Weapons? Combat history? Longevity? Production numbers? Based on you selection of the MiG-21 while denying the F-4, I would say you just picked what you liked.
But this tells me everything about your knowledge of F-4 history and capability, or tells me you are just a TROLL:
Hell.. didn't Germany dump F4s before they got rid of their last F104 squadron
Germany has been flying F-4Fs upgraded to F-4F ICE standard in addition to the MiG-29s they got from East Germany. They have APG-65 radars (same as F/A-18 Hornets) and carry the same weapons as the mighty F-15: AMRAAMs, Sidewinders, and 20mm Vulcans. They have as good a chance at winning in a 4 vs 4 fight as any other aircraft flying.
-
just a bit of personal info bout the F-4 Phantom.
I've never had the pleasure of working on them but I do work with alot of guys that "pull buckets" IE worked the ejection seats.
They were rather dangerous if you lost respect for them. In there time in service the F-4 ejection seat killed over 68 mait. troops. It was the Martin Baker MK12 IIRC.
There was once a step in the TO that said "tapp drogue gun (explosive charge that shot a slugg out to deploy the seat drogue chute) with a small hammer to ensure it isn't primed to fire"
after reading a book about the first Veitnam Ace (called fox fire or something like that) I had a new respect for the phantom.
-
LOL! you pick one on the list to defend the f4 against. OK... you win... you love the F4 too much for it not to be on the list.
Hell... it doesn't matter that there are numerous planes with a more storied history... you go with the F4 because it didn't do all that bad in Vietnam later in the war... and didn't do much else other than that.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
LOL! you pick one on the list to defend the f4 against. OK... you win... you love the F4 too much for it not to be on the list.
Hell... it doesn't matter that there are numerous planes with a more storied history... you go with the F4 because it didn't do all that bad in Vietnam later in the war... and didn't do much else other than that.
Mini D, you are grasping at straws. The F-4 was and is one of the best fighters that the US has ever produced.
I might add that streakeagle has been more than civil, while you come across as an arse.
-
One of the best ever produced... Yah.. OK.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
One of the best ever produced... Yah.. OK.
Yes, one of the best the US has ever produced.
-
mini I'm defending the F-4 based on previous comments in the thread. It didn't just do well in veitnam it did well up to 30 years later.
The F-4 is still flown today.
Tell me another fighter as produced as it (economically comparable of course).....with a good combat record.....as versitile.....that was in service more than 40+ years.
again....the first ace of veitnam flew an F-4
-
The F4 was like the 75 Trans Am. You could call it the best car of 75, but it's still a piece of crap.
-
Top 10 All Time?
F-22
F-15
F-4
F-100
F-86
P-80
P-51
P-38
P-26
P-12
-
Originally posted by Mini D
The F4 was like the 75 Trans Am. You could call it the best car of 75, but it's still a piece of crap.
wouldnt that still make it the best car. Kinda says somthing if you can take a robust peice of crap and turn it in to a superior fighter huh.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Top 10 All Time?
F-22
F-15
F-4
F-100
F-86
P-80
P-51
P-38
P-26
P-12
After readin that, I have to F-F-F-F Freakin P-P-P-P-P Pee.
-
I know for a fact Germany was flying F-4s still around 96 or 97. Side by side with their MiG-29s. Must not be too chitty of an aircraft after all.
I also know for a fact atleast one US base was still using the F-4 as their frontline attack aircraft up until December of 1990.
Mini D so your stating that the ME 262 was an overall better airframe than the F-4s? Your also stating it doesn't matter about how they were used?
Employ any weapon incorrectly and it will fail miserably. It doesn't matter if it's an F-4 or an F/A-22.
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
I know for a fact Germany was flying F-4s still around 96 or 97. Side by side with their MiG-29s. Must not be too chitty of an aircraft after all.
I also know for a fact atleast one US base was still using the F-4 as their frontline attack aircraft up until December of 1990.
Mini D so your stating that the ME 262 was an overall better airframe than the F-4s? Your also stating it doesn't matter about how they were used?
Employ any weapon incorrectly and it will fail miserably. It doesn't matter if it's an F-4 or an F/A-22.
It's almost usless to argue with some of these people. They have an "AH MINDSET" when it comes to tactics. They still think that lone figeters take off from bases and engage enemy fighters in one on one ACM fights were pilot and airframe is the major determing factor in the fight.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
The F4 was like the 75 Trans Am. You could call it the best car of 75, but it's still a piece of crap.
In what way is the F-4 a piece of crap?
-
All my posts in this thread have been deleted? WTF?
-
quick.. get a mirror... is your image fading?
-
Sort of... I've become invisible to teenage girls.
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
I know for a fact Germany was flying F-4s still around 96 or 97. Side by side with their MiG-29s. Must not be too chitty of an aircraft after all.
How long before that did they get rid of the 104s? You mistake reluctance to have to commit to buying new planes with the effectiveness of the current ones.
I also know for a fact atleast one US base was still using the F-4 as their frontline attack aircraft up until December of 1990.
No U.S. base used any aircraft as their front line attack aircraft. Unless I'm mistaken, there's never been an attack (with fighters) launched from a base in the United States. I assume you're talking about March AFB, btw. My wife worked there and we were supposed to get the jets at Mt Home until the Air Force got a dose of "what the **** were we thinking?"
Tell me if anyone has deployed F-4s in a combat roll since the late 80's. The only units I know of were guard reconnaisance units that ran the recce planes up until the mid 90's. It's easier to use old antequated planes for that as opposed to reducing the good fighters to that role.
Mini D so your stating that the ME 262 was an overall better airframe than the F-4s? Your also stating it doesn't matter about how they were used?
Now, where did you get that? Is this discussion about what airframes are better than F4s? If so, the list is MUCH higher than 10. The 262 wouldn't be on it, but virtually every modern fighter would.
The presence of a jet on the battlefields in WW2 definately merrits its consideration. Hell, that plane ushered in the whole jet era.
Employ any weapon incorrectly and it will fail miserably. It doesn't matter if it's an F-4 or an F/A-22.
You don't have to tell me that. You need to tell this to someone insisting that stats should be shown to support my argument. I bring up service record and someone uses the "use it effectively" argument until they bring up service record and say "see... this shows the plane was better." They're stats.. you can manipulate them to say whatever you want.
I'm looking at certain things that people don't seem to be too up to date on. "80% of the kills occured without the pilot knowing they'd even been fired upon". "Mig-21s were smaller and had the advantage of seeing the enemy first". Size and SA asside, the F-4 kicked out a clould of black smoke that gave it away well above that of the reflection/size impacts. That was the case even into the 90's (watched the recce planes fly low level quite a bit). The F4 is an example of sticking with inneficience out of fear of change. It exemplified all that was wrong with the 70s.
It's almost usless to argue with some of these people. They have an "AH MINDSET" when it comes to tactics. They still think that lone figeters take off from bases and engage enemy fighters in one on one ACM fights were pilot and airframe is the major determing factor in the fight.
Translation: It's almost useless to attack someone's OPPINION. You never seem to prove them wrong while insisting you are right.
I don't mind using "this was because of bad tactics", unless you turn around and argue a different stat where the tactics were better. Really, that belongs in an argument of 10 best and worst tactics.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
The F-22 is revolutionary with it's ability to supercruise. Combat experience or not, that makes the list.
So, the F-22 makes your list because it's "revolutionary"? Hardly any have been pruduced, not even in service, no combat record and your ready to place it in the top ten of all time, while bashing the F-4 as a piece of crap?
-
Who cares when they got rid of the 104. They were still using the F-4 as one of their primary weapons platforms. If they weren't they would have left the F-4 at home and only brought the MiG-29s to Redflag. You don't bring a weapons platform to a simulated war if you don't plan on using it that role if war ever arises.
And no I'm not talking about March. Seymour Johnson used the F-4 as their primary attack aircraft up until December of 1990 when they switched over to the F-15E. Try not reading into things so much. I'm very aware that no US base has launched fighter/attack aircraft from home to strike targets abroad. The last base to do such a mission was RAF Lakenheath. F-111s launched from there to attack Libya. RAF Lakenheath also launched from home station to attack targets in Kosovo.
F-4s also flew tons of missions during the Gulf War and they weren't just recce missions. They were being used right from the start in the Wild Weasel role. If it hadn't been for the F-15E coming online when it did. Even more F-4s would have been participating in the Gulf War. Seymour Johnson was ready to deploy it's F-4s when all of their E models started showing up. They sent them off to war within a few months of receiving them. If the timing had been slightly off then F-4s would have been carrying out alot of the attack roles that the F-15Es did during the war.
-
Mini you can have an excelent weapon system and poor tactics and what are you left with? A poor weapon.
Now you can employ a poor weapon with good tactics and you have a sound weapons system.
The F4 was a proven combat air craft. I still challenge you to name any other of it's caliber that was produced it like numbers and employed for as long as the F4 was. 40+ years
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
Who cares when they got rid of the 104. They were still using the F-4 as one of their primary weapons platforms. If they weren't they would have left the F-4 at home and only brought the MiG-29s to Redflag. You don't bring a weapons platform to a simulated war if you don't plan on using it that role if war ever arises.
It highlights how unlikely it is for a socialistic country to give up any weapons. "They still have them" doesn't mean squat for performance. It means they didn't want to sell the purchase of new planes to the public.And no I'm not talking about March. Seymour Johnson used the F-4 as their primary attack aircraft up until December of 1990 when they switched over to the F-15E. Try not reading into things so much. I'm very aware that no US base has launched fighter/attack aircraft from home to strike targets abroad. The last base to do such a mission was RAF Lakenheath. F-111s launched from there to attack Libya. RAF Lakenheath also launched from home station to attack targets in Kosovo.
They had them there until the 15's showed up. A few units had to wait to get rid of their F4s before the strike eagle showed. Those were attack units. Those that were on air defense had switched to 15s 5-7 years prior. Hard to imagine why that would have been.F-4s also flew tons of missions during the Gulf War and they weren't just recce missions. They were being used right from the start in the Wild Weasel role. If it hadn't been for the F-15E coming online when it did. Even more F-4s would have been participating in the Gulf War. Seymour Johnson was ready to deploy it's F-4s when all of their E models started showing up. They sent them off to war within a few months of receiving them. If the timing had been slightly off then F-4s would have been carrying out alot of the attack roles that the F-15Es did during the war.
I've already given the F4 credit in the wild weasel role. It is a very good aircraft at getting shot at. You'll notice that nothing you've brought up says anything about air superiority... right?
Jack of all trades, master of none. Some think that means something, but I don't think it means enough.
I provided my list gunslinger. The F4 reflected a philosophy, not a leap in technology. 1 plane to do it all. That it didn't lead in any specific area is not a concern to most, but I don't agree that it makes it even into the top 10 when it comes to fighters. Air to Air is implicit.
I still don't know why you keep going to the tactics debate and pretend it doesn't come off as an excuse. Tactics matter in reviewing aircraft performance. Especially when the same tactics are being used by every aircraft in the theater.
The F4 became a contender when the weapons were finally "fixed". Those same weapons on any other fighter of the era would have been just as effective. The question is... what distinguished the aircraft outside of the weapons?
So, the F-22 makes your list because it's "revolutionary"? Hardly any have been pruduced, not even in service, no combat record and your ready to place it in the top ten of all time, while bashing the F-4 as a piece of crap?
Yes.
-
I provided my list gunslinger. The F4 reflected a philosophy, not a leap in technology. 1 plane to do it all. That it didn't lead in any specific area is not a concern to most, but I don't agree that it makes it even into the top 10 when it comes to fighters. Air to Air is implicit.
so you are saying it was a poor air to air fighter????? You got stats to back that up?
-
I assume you're talking about March AFB
I can actually add something I know to this thread. March was a MAC base in the 90's (a SAC base in the 50-70's) The only fighter sqds' based there have been California ANG.
Now George AFB (gone) was a fighter base in So. Cal.
-
What ever happened to F-105? 105 is the Air Force's equivalent to F-4 but how come there's NONE serving todeay?
(http://www.ares.cz/obrazy/svoboda/Thunderchief%20F%20105.jpg)
-
A jet Desigined as a tactical nuclear bomber.. on the 10 best fighters list?? LOL.. not hardly likely... till yah look at it's war record.
27 mig kills, & more combat sorties than any other plane that served in vietnam.
The more yah look at it, the Thud out F-4'ed the F-4 before there was an F-4.
Arrrrgh!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I can actually add something I know to this thread. March was a MAC base in the 90's (a SAC base in the 50-70's) The only fighter sqds' based there have been California ANG.
Now George AFB (gone) was a fighter base in So. Cal.
George was the main Wild Weasel base, flying F-4Gs and Es.
As an aside to Mini-D, the F-4G was a more capable SEAD than
the F-16 that replaced. Oh yeah, Gs also served very successfully
in the Gulf in 91....not that Mini-D gonna let that influence his
prejudices.
The germans must still be using the Phantoms because I read
a few months ago that they were replacing the E models at Luke
with F models for their training.
-
Originally posted by Rino
George was the main Wild Weasel base, flying F-4Gs and Es.
As an aside to Mini-D, the F-4G was a more capable SEAD than
the F-16 that replaced. Oh yeah, Gs also served very successfully
in the Gulf in 91....not that Mini-D gonna let that influence his
prejudices.
The germans must still be using the Phantoms because I read
a few months ago that they were replacing the E models at Luke
with F models for their training.
are they replacing the original engine with somthing from F-18/15/ and 16?
if i remember, the original F-4 engine suck lots of juice and produce that infamous smoke trails!
-
Originally posted by 1K3
are they replacing the original engine with somthing from F-18/15/ and 16?
if i remember, the original F-4 engine suck lots of juice and produce that infamous smoke trails!
alot of the old timers in the shop that used to work them say they went to a "smokeless" engine in the 70s.
In adition we have them fly iin and out of here every now and then from mojavi. They are in the process of conveting them into target drones. On take off one of the engines on the F4 failed and the pilot just powered up the other one and kept goin.
-
One of my favourite oldies, theres just something that say"I'm gonna kick sand in your face" about em....
(http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/buccaneer/full/mh_xv342stmawgan76.jpg)
(http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/buccaneer/full/kem02216.jpg)
-
The show was so full of glaring errors it was absurd.
The idiot with the gerry curl who was supposed to be some sort of history expert was a total loss.
The clown from Jane's. or maybe formerly from Jane's was just as freaking stupid.
Goering did not see P-51's of any sort over Berlin in March of 1943. And not in March of 1944 either. The U.S. fighters over Berlin in 1944, the first U.S. fighters over Berlin period, were P-38's, not P-51's. That's just the biggest of many errors that sticks out like a sore thumb at a carpenter's convention.
The retired Air Force pilot was the only guy on the show who did not have his entire head up his arse. But I'm not sure he was a great choice either.
I watched it because my computer was down and I couldn't fly. It's still down. Thank God there's an air show here locally, and a couple of night races on.
-
Originally posted by Mime
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
WHAT?
No 109K on your list. You are obviously biased against the Luftwaffe aircraft!
-
Originally posted by bunch
As far as I've been able to find, the P-61 sustained no combat loses in any theater during the second world war, so that should make for quite a nice kill ratio, no?
Best K/D ratio of WWII fighters was the F6F. I do not know if that discounts night or multi-creweed planes or not.