Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Godzilla on October 25, 2003, 12:09:49 AM
-
What would you say is the best of all time?
I'd say the F-15, with a 104-0 kill to death ratio in air to air combat.
The F-15 being over 30 years old and still being one of the best fighters flying today is pretty impressive as well.
-
If we are talking current fighters in service my vote goes to the SU-27 Flanker.
...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~
"The Su-27 is a big long-range air superiority fighter, comparable to the U.S. F-15 but superior in many respects."
-
Muhammed Ali.......opps guess the subject should have read best jet fighter.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
What would you say is the best of all time?
I'd say the F-15, with a 104-0 kill to death ratio in air to air combat.
So you are saying that no F-15 was shot down in air to air combat. I think i read something about one of Israel's F-15's being shot down by a Mig-21.
:confused:
-
mine would have to go the SU35 thing can fly backwards for a few seconds.
-
In active service? Su27, Mig 29 or JAS 39 Gripen.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
In active service? Su27, Mig 29 or JAS 39 Gripen.
The JAS 39 Gripen is one hell of a nice aircraft! :) Got systems linking to the other a/c too so they know exactly what each others status is.
Eurofighter Typhoon will be in service next year and it will be interesting how it competes on the North Atlantic ACM ranges and Red/Green Flag exercises.
Of course it's often tactics that decide just how good an aircraft is. Take the Tornado F3 - it's a very poor dogfighter but during Red Flag a few years ago it beat F16s, F15s of the USAF. How? They used 'Link 16' so RAF AWACs could supply radar data directly to the Tornado so it didn't need to use its own radar. Therefore it sneaked up on all enemy aircraft undetected, got close enough before flicking radar on and getting missile lock - missile lock would be classed as a victory! There was one story of a Tornado taxi-ing out to the runway, it got the data from the AWAC and got missile lock whilst still on the ground because it knew exactly where to point its radar. Kinda cool!
USAF said the RAF cheated but they use Link 16 now! :) (US developed Link 16 but didn't utilize it like the RAF).
-
RGR Replicant, much depends on tactics and systems. The Gripen is ment to work together with our new "Visby" stealth class corvette in much the same way as the "Link 16" you're talking about, we'll see how it all turns out :)
(http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/img/saab/gripen/gall99/gripen_g53-57.jpg)
(http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/visby/images/Visby_6.jpg)
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
What would you say is the best of all time?
I'd say the F-15, with a 104-0 kill to death ratio in air to air combat.
The F-15 being over 30 years old and still being one of the best fighters flying today is pretty impressive as well.
from all them 56 - IAF of only 2(!) F-15 squadrons
----------
27-Jun-79 F-15 4 MiG-21 Syria
19-Sep-79 F-15 4 MiG-21 Syria
24-Sep-79 F-15 4 MiG-21 Syria
24-Aug-80 F-15 1 MiG-21 Syria
31-Dec-80 F-15 2 MiG-21 Syria
13-Feb-81 F-15 1 MiG-25 Syria
29-Jul-81 F-15 1 MiG-25 Syria
25-May-82 F-15 2 MiG Syria
07-Jun-82 F-15 1 MiG-23 Syria
08-Jun-82 F-15 1 MiG Syria
F-15 2 MiG-21 Syria
F-15 1 MiG-23 Syria
09-Jun-82 F-15 1 MiG Syria
F-15 7 MiG-21 Syria
F-15 4 MiG-23 Syria
10-Jun-82 F-15 5 MiG-21 Syria
F-15 2 MiG-23 Syria
F-15 1 SA342 Syria
11-Jun-82 F-15 4 MiG-21 Syria
F-15 2 MiG-23 Syria
25-Jun-82 F-15 2 MiG-23 Syria
31-Aug-82 F-15 1 MiG-25 Syria
20-Nov-85 F-15D 2 MiG-23 Syria
87-88 F-15 1 MiG-23 Syria
-----------------------
Looses - As I know (and I know exectly) IAF have not loosed any F-15 in aircombat
By the why first kill in F-15 in histroy was done by IAF pilot when USAF hadn't seen us even one combat :D
-
Su-30MKI
Tronsky
-
Tie Fighter!
-
TIE INTERCEPTOR IS WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY COOLER, IMHO.
(http://www.rhino3d.com/gallery/images/interceptor.jpg)
-
According to the sales department, the one we're selling now:cool:
But of all time, for what it did. I would suggest the P51 Mustang because of it's range and capabilities. Goring reputedly said he knew the war was lost when he saw P51's over Berlin. But then again I like the Spitfire, the Battle of Britain and all that and the way it evolved throughout the war getting better and better. I don't think any other fighter ever changed as much as the Spitfire did from Mk 1 to Mk 24. So maybe I'll go for the Spitfire instead. But then again the Fw190........................ .:confused:
-
Everything outside of actual kill ratio is speculation. Which is of course what we do a lot of on these pages.
-
wilbuz funny avatar LOL
-
Hellcat and Thunderbolt because of their impact on their respective theaters of operations. Their achievements did not come from missiles and advanced avionics against vastly inferior opponents.
Shuckins
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I beg to differ.
Somehow I knew you would. ;)
Like they say, the proof is in the pudding.
-
Absolutly consider with GScholz.
There are a lot of different parameters accept of kill/deth raito. Most important is expirience of the pilots.
For exemple in IAF kill/deth ratio of Mirage III vs MiG 21 was very big - something aroun 15 but when MiG-21 was tested by IAF pilots vs IAF pilots - they was very close planes with 1:1 kill deth raito. The same MiG 21 vs F-4E Phantom the kill deth raio in Yom Kipur (Syria, Egypt vs Israel) war was absolutly different then in Vietnam.....
The important is Speed, Acceleration, Climb Raito, Weapons and nowdays Avionic Systems, Radar... and comparison for same pilots
-
There are lots of factors and most of them very difficult to quantify. At least so far as they apply to which is the "best". I guess we oughta define "best". Maybe we just need a good old fashion world war to prove which is the best. ;)
-
If we are talking about comparison with contemporaries, this one deserves some consideration:
An agile, highly maneuverable biplane, the Sopwith Camel accounted for more aerial victories than any other Allied aircraft during World War I. It is credited with destroying 1,294 enemy aircraft.
-
Sopwith Camel (WWI -Credited with destroying 1,294 enemy aircraft which is more than any other wwi type)
and
Spitfire (Spitfire is only allied aircraft to be produced before, during and after the WWII)
Spitfire is also best looking fighter ever IMO :)
LOL holden, just noticed u said camel in post above mine, i was looking for details of the number of kills it had while you posted the message!
-
You know try to figure out what is best plane from this planeset:
the best of nonperked AH planes:
P51D
190D-9
109G10
La7
What is best fighter plane? :lol
Stop kidding yourself the good planes could be different but best - every one will have some weak sides and some strong sides as in this planeset I show:
P51D - very fast - slower then 190 at low alt but climbs better and turns much better then 190, fire power not the best, best views, good contolable plane
190D-9 fastest at atitudes below 10k - worster turner - worst climber, best roller
109g10 fastes above 10k best climber - worstes diver every one outdives it, hard to control for less expirienced pilots, very low roll ratio
La7 - best turn, climber, speed, accelertion - but below 8k after it very week
As you see every one could be bitten at some situations but... all quite close
So what is the best plane?
We can talk what are best planes but..... not the best one
-
thanks - nice to know someone really understed what is really good air force
<------
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes Artik, you have excellent pilots and excellent organisation and support. If you switched equipment with the Syrians you would still win any conflict decisively. :)
-
Spit 14, out turn all of those, outclimb em, and outrun em at most alts and in service before most of em!
-
Originally posted by Furball
Spit 14, out turn all of those, outclimb em, and outrun em at most alts and in service before most of em!
Depends - 109g10 withot gondolas and will 1 20mm gun? ;) after 5 min of Spit 14 wep over and 9 min of 109g10 continue.... At low alt La7 very close to Spit14 but has almost ulimited WEP when Spit 14 loose it after 5 min..... P51D in long dogfight just will force Spit to return without fuel..... Depends
Anyway we can talk this way about 262 (1944) too that not outturns/outruns but outclases them. In WW2 planeset changed very fast and some one could get better for some moment with some perfomances
The point all of them has their weak points and good too. Every one can be bitten someway
-
Seems to be a German aviation trait to start out with superior planes only to lose that superiority when it really counts
Not exectly.... LW planes were the best at the end of the war... but it is impossible to win World War (in our luck) when you do not have enoght resources..... like USSR and USA
Don't forget that USAF didn't find soulution to German Me262 even Meteor III was worster then Me262 and was not opertaional like 262,
German techology was (unfortunatly) best
First really operational Jet fighter Me262(that was also the reason thet at the end of the was prop planes was less developed because the best resources was given to Jets)
They used Me163 - and sucsefull - Allies had nothing close to it.
He162 - was build at the end of the war. But had no luck because of hadn't enoght resoures.
Ar234 - the only one operational Jet bomber... The only plane that could make recognize missions without being intersepted - allies had no such good planes
Jet technology was very sucessfully used in WW2 by Germans First. This technologies outclassed the Allies planes.
German just had no resoures to win..... and that is good
-
Originally posted by Replicant
The JAS 39 Gripen is one hell of a nice aircraft! :) Got systems linking to the other a/c too so they know exactly what each others status is.
Eurofighter Typhoon will be in service next year and it will be interesting how it competes on the North Atlantic ACM ranges and Red/Green Flag exercises.
Of course it's often tactics that decide just how good an aircraft is. Take the Tornado F3 - it's a very poor dogfighter but during Red Flag a few years ago it beat F16s, F15s of the USAF. How? They used 'Link 16' so RAF AWACs could supply radar data directly to the Tornado so it didn't need to use its own radar. Therefore it sneaked up on all enemy aircraft undetected, got close enough before flicking radar on and getting missile lock - missile lock would be classed as a victory! There was one story of a Tornado taxi-ing out to the runway, it got the data from the AWAC and got missile lock whilst still on the ground because it knew exactly where to point its radar. Kinda cool!
USAF said the RAF cheated but they use Link 16 now! :) (US developed Link 16 but didn't utilize it like the RAF).
Thats awesome! So what if we said it was cheating, that's war and just awesome use of resources and creative thinking. It pays off for everyone in the end, as we can all learn from exercises like these.
-
I think the harrier needs a mention too :D
Able to operate from virtually anywhere, Proved its effectiveness with none lost to air to air combat in the falklands. Not best radar or systems but still pretty useful ;)
designed by possibly the best aircraft designer ever - Sydney Camm.
(http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/falklandsphoto_10.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Furball
I think the harrier needs a mention too :D
Able to operate from virtually anywhere, Proved its effectiveness with none lost to air to air combat in the falklands. Not best radar or systems but still pretty useful ;)
designed by possibly the best aircraft designer ever - Sydney Camm.
(http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/falklandsphoto_10.jpg)
Ya, it was awesome during the Falklands War, the Sea Harrier FRS.1 surely proved itself (Sea Harrier had radar, Harrier GR.3 didn't).
But, having worked with them now, I'm sick to death of them! :) Unfortunately the Harrier GR7 doesn't even have cannon, only AIM-9 sidewinders. In mock dogfights on the ACM ranges it still regularly beats F16s, Tornados, F18s, F15s, Mirages etc., but most of their victories are with the simulated 'cannon', which it can no longer carry! (they can't get cannon to work with system software and would cost too much to rectify).
The Sea Harrier can carry cannon still, along with ASRAAM and AMRAAM.
-
The A6M Zero fighter. Without it, the Japanese would not have attacked Pearl Harbor. WWII as we know it wouldn't of happened (as it did).
edited (as it did)
-
No question about it...
(http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/can'ttalk.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Replicant
Ya, it was awesome during the Falklands War, the Sea Harrier FRS.1 surely proved itself (Sea Harrier had radar, Harrier GR.3 didn't).
But, having worked with them now, I'm sick to death of them! :) Unfortunately the Harrier GR7 doesn't even have cannon, only AIM-9 sidewinders. In mock dogfights on the ACM ranges it still regularly beats F16s, Tornados, F18s, F15s, Mirages etc., but most of their victories are with the simulated 'cannon', which it can no longer carry! (they can't get cannon to work with system software and would cost too much to rectify).
The Sea Harrier can carry cannon still, along with ASRAAM and AMRAAM.
But the main problem with Harrier in not weapos, manuverability, Radar etc.... It is subsonic. That means it is not figher plane it is strike plane like in AH Ju87 and Il-2 good but... bombers.
It has no chance in air combat with Fighter planes F-18/16/15 or others.
The A6M Zero fighter. Without it, the Japanese would not have attacked Pearl Harbor. WWII as we know it wouldn't of happened.
:rofl you know - the only one thing Zerro does good is truning - even F4F and P40 in right hands better - they faster, stronger, and better divers. The sucses of Perl Harbor and early IJAF vs USAF was absolutly failture of US Intelegence and good trained Japanies pilots- US pilots didn't know about perfomances of Zerro nothing.... the expireicne of IJAF pilots was much better - that was the reason of first victories but then.... I think you know history
-
Originally posted by artik
But the main problem with Harrier in not weapos, manuverability, Radar etc.... It is subsonic. That means it is not figher plane it is strike plane like in AH Ju87 and Il-2 good but... bombers.
It has no chance in air combat with Fighter planes F-18/16/15 or others.
Yup, BVR it wouldn't have a chance, but subsonic it would own a F18 or F16 or F15.... it has done on the ACM ranges. At least the GR7, with no radar, has much less radar image than others - only RWRs. The radar equipped Sea Harrier was 100% successful against super-sonic Argentine jets.
The Israeli F15s are lesser models of the USAF F15s, I'm certain that the Israeli ones do not have BVR capability and was one of the conditions of its sale to Israel.
-
F-15 without a doubt.
F-4 already had big advantages over the Soviet stuff. When the F-15 came out it stretched the advantage even further. Nothing else in the world even came close until the Su-27, ten years later.
-
Originally posted by Replicant
Yup, BVR it wouldn't have a chance, but subsonic it would own a F18 or F16 or F15.... it has done on the ACM ranges. At least the GR7, with no radar, has much less radar image than others - only RWRs. The radar equipped Sea Harrier was 100% successful against super-sonic Argentine jets.
The Israeli F15s are lesser models of the USAF F15s, I'm certain that the Israeli ones do not have BVR capability and was one of the conditions of its sale to Israel.
Have you tried to kill 262 in Spit V? Hard isn't it? Almost impossible.... to catch. Of course if 262 pilot is not idiot and start turnfigting Spit V :lol . In other side it is not easy for 262 to catch manuverable Spit V.
But witch is suprior? You can talk about missiles, radars and other electronic eqipment but finaly if you can't catch him or disengege of him you'll have to work very hard to survive.
-
Artik,
The strength of the Zero fighter (like the P-51 Mustang later in the war) was its range. Never mind that at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor it had very good all around attributes of speed, climb, and maneuverability as well. Without its range, the Japanese would not have attacked Pearl Harbor.
The Zero was so good at that time, the Japanese short-sightedly didn't have a replacement in the works until way too late.
-
Originally posted by artik
Have you tried to kill 262 in Spit V? Hard isn't it? Almost impossible.... to catch. Of course if 262 pilot is not idiot and start turnfigting Spit V :lol . In other side it is not easy for 262 to catch manuverable Spit V.
But witch is suprior? You can talk about missiles, radars and other electronic eqipment but finaly if you can't catch him or disengege of him you'll have to work very hard to survive.
I originally said 'but subsonic it would own a F18 or F16 or F15', which has been proven on the NATO ACM ranges (the Harriers ability to VIFF made it a very difficult plane to engage at subsonic). That's why it would be stupid for a supersonic jet to engage a manouvrable jet at close range and hence why most modern fighters would be engaging at BVR.
Anyway, i'd sooner have a JAS39 or a Typhoon.
Best combat plane ever, I'd have to go with the Spitfire (although it's not a personal favourite).
-
Originally posted by GScholz
DACT exercises conducted with Luftwaffe Mig-29A's show that these first generation Mig-29's are a match, or even superior, to the F-16's and F-18's currently in service 20 years later. The Su-27 remains untested, however now that the Russians are having friendly exercises with us Norwegians we are bound to learn more about how it matches up to our F-16's.
Good point GScholz, the NATO ACM ranges allow RAF, USAFE, French, Danish, German (inc MiG29), Dutch, Belgian etc, etc, jets to engage each other under different conditions. The MiG29 has managed to engage and survive against many of the more modern counterparts.
The main thing I like about the ACM ranges is that it allows different countries with different aircraft, techniques etc., to engage each other and in doing so allow development for both pilot and aircraft for the future.
-
The Mig-21 entered operational status in the 1950's and when it met with the F-4 over Vietnam it still was superior in almost every aspect of performance. The only advantage the F-4 had was range, radar sophistication and BVR capability
Not exectly - F-4 Phantom was much faster then MiG-21 even later versions. US Sidewinder missiles was better then Russian in that times. It had better climb raito. In late 60s and early 70th it was supritior plane. Why it was not so sucsefull in Vietnam - tactics pilots.... can't say don't know exectly but in 1973 at Middle East it show his supriority on MiG-21s.
By the way it is not about only good IAF pilots. There were one fight in 70s of Soivet pilots flying MiG21 in Egypt and Israeli F-4 and Mirages. The result 5:0 for IAF, for the truth - one of Mirages landed damaged but landed.
This changed by MiG 23 and MiG 25 -- but there were allready F-15
Yes MiG-21 is still used in lot of air forces s but.... because they have no ability to purchashe newer planes.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Not quite true I'm afraid. The Mig-21 entered operational status in the 1950's and when it met with the F-4 over Vietnam it still was superior in almost every aspect of performance. The only advantage the F-4 had was range, radar sophistication and BVR capability. That the Mig-21 is still in service and (with avionics and weapon upgrades) can still present a credible threat to modern fighters speaks volumes. The F-4's BVR, radar and in some degree it's range advantages were equalized by the Mig-23. The Flogger is faster and more maneuverable than the F-4 and matches it's BVR capability and radar (some claim that this was possible because the Soviets salvaged a crashed F-4 and copied its radar).
When the F-15 and F-16 entered service in 1974 and 1978 respectively, they were clearly superior to the Mig-23 and Mig-25. However in 1982, only 4 years after the F-16, both the Mig-29 and the Su-27 became operational with the Soviet air force. DACT exercises conducted with Luftwaffe Mig-29A's show that these first generation Mig-29's are a match, or even superior, to the F-16's and F-18's currently in service 20 years later. The Su-27 remains untested, however now that the Russians are having friendly exercises with us Norwegians we are bound to learn more about how it matches up to our F-16's.
The Mig 21 entered service in 1959, the Phantom first flew in 1958, went into service in 1961. They are pretty much of the same era. The Phantom was never designed to be a fighter, it was an interceptor. The US had the mistaken belief that the fighter era was over and that missles would decide fights. In fact, the F-15 was a direct result of the lack of a fighter during VietNam. Even so, the Phantom was a more capable plane than the Mig-21.... and I include electronics in the deal too, because that's part of any plane's capabilities.
The F-15 had no equal until about 10 years later, and even that's speculation. That's a long time considering todays rapid evolutions. The F-16 was made mostly as a cheap, lessor capable plane than the F-15 and was intended mostly as an export.
-
Uhhm Gscholz your bias against the US fighters is as unbelivqble as it is uninformed.... There is no point in arguing with you because its so bad. Just for example you completely discount out of hand the F15, the most sucessful combat proven air to air combat air superiority fighter of the past 30 years as nothing....
Yet you put so much faith in untested unproven never in air combat unarmed lightly fueled sukhoi airshow birds. Just nutz...
-
Just to point out more of your ridiculous bias Gscholz:
In my opinion no US aircraft since the Korean War has shown any superiority or even equality in air combat over its contemporary adversaries
What a tool!
:rofl
-
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.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Mig-21PF
Initial Climb Rate: 58,000 ft (17,680 m) / min
Service Ceiling: 57,400 ft (17,500 m)
F-4 Phantom II
Initial Climb Rate: 28,000 ft (8,535 m ) / min
Service Ceiling: 58,750 ft (17,905 m)
I have no information on this battle. How many F-4's, Mirages and Mig's were involved, and where did this take place? I know the Soviets flew Mig-25R for Egypt, but I have never heard that they flew Mig-21's in combat.
I do not know what model you compere,
IAF used F-4E Phantom with improved enginies
the inital climb ratio on my resources is: 61,400 feet
(mybe in your rescorces it was taken without AB or one of the first models?)
And MiG-21Bis 1972 (the Yom Kipur War was at 1973):
Max initial rate of climb with two AAMs and 50% fuel 45,275ft/mm
Maybe you compared models from different periods?
I know that when Phantoms were purcashed by IAF in 1970 they were purcashed as air supriority planes with exccelent Strike capabilities
-
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.
-
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~
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.
-
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.
-
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.... :D so???? Is Spit 1 best for its period?
I really do not know how RAF succesed in BoB with this planes
-
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
-
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....
-
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.... :D so???? Is Spit 1 best for its period?
I really do not know how RAF succesed in BoB with this planes
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?
-
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....
-
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:
(http://www.aviation-central.com/1914-1918/images/acg6d-ef.jpg)
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 :)
-
o yeah check this out!!!!!
http://surclaro.com/games/flanker.html
-
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~
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
-
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~
Originally posted by Tumor
Bah... Hitler's idiocy did more to halt an invasion of the U.K. than anything else.
-
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
-
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.... :D 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.
-
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.
-
No question about it, the YF-19 Excalibur is the best fighter of all time. Isamu Dyson out piloted the YF-22 in all tests... That and it is just a SEXY fighter... Now if the US government could make Veritechs that would transform... well ok so its not realistic for the reasoning, but it would still be something awesome to look foreward too.
Ok, I would have to go with the Su35 for Actual Fighters, but I have had something happen in all combat sims where I have gone up against them. The Russian Cobra Manuver where they will pull skyward, then fly backwards and down... Atleast thats what I think they are trying to do, not too sure... anyways I have unleashed missles at these beasts of the sky... and I hit them every damn time because when they try the Cobra Manuver, they present a much bigger target for my missile. I usually use the Sparrow because I like its range and speed.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
No question about it...
(http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/can'ttalk.jpg)
Hey midnight where is that picture from ???? DU u have more in bigger resolution ?????
-
Should have been the CF-105 Arrow.
It was 20 years ahead of eveything else. :(
(http://www.mach3graphics.com/Arrow%20graphics/jpg%20pix/arrow201rollout.jpg)
*sigh*
-
None of the prototypes survived ?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Should have been the CF-105 Arrow.
It was 20 years ahead of eveything else. :(
*sigh*
In what way was it 20 years ahead of everything else?
CF-105 first flight: 1958
F-106 Delta Dart: 1956
F-4 Phantom: 1958
A-5 Vigilante :1958
YF-12: 1962 ( SR-71 1964)
F-111: 1964
-
Originally posted by fffreeze220
Hey midnight where is that picture from ???? DU u have more in bigger resolution ?????
Shamelessly stolen from Bud Anderson's web site.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Should have been the CF-105 Arrow.
It was 20 years ahead of eveything else. :(
*sigh*
Perhaps not ahead of this baby though.... TSR2 Fighter/Attack/Bomber
(http://www.enygmag.freeserve.co.uk/easy1/tsr2001.jpg)
(http://www.skomer.u-net.com/projects/images/tsr2.jpg)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Artik, you're going to keep me up all night on this one :)
Mig-21PF
Max Level Speed at altitude: 1,355 mph (2,175 km/h) at 42,650 ft (13,000 m), Mach 2.05
at sea level: 800 mph (1,275 km/h), Mach 1.05
Initial Climb Rate: 58,000 ft (17,680 m) / min
Service Ceiling: 57,400 ft (17,500 m)
Range typical: 595 nm (1,100 km)
ferry: 970 nm (1,800 km)
g-Limits: -4 / +8.5 (+7.5 sustained)
F-4 Phantom II
Max Level Speed at altitude: 1,430 mph (2,300 km/h) at 36,000 ft (10,975 m), Mach 2.17
at sea level: 905 mph (1,450 km/h), Mach 1.19
Initial Climb Rate: 28,000 ft (8,535 m ) / min
Service Ceiling: 58,750 ft (17,905 m)
Range typical: 1,720 nm (3,185 km)
ferry: 2,000 nm (3,700 km)
g-Limits: +8 (+6 sustained)
As you can see the Phantom is indeed slightly faster, however the Mig is more maneuverable an vastly superior in climb (almost twice the climb rate!).
These numbers are not correct, you show a rate of climb for the F-4 at gross TO weight, and the -21 light.
The maneuverabilty advantage is small to the Mig and only in the middle of the speed envalope, F-4 beats it very fast and very slow.
The F-4 was a multy role fighter the Mig-21 was first designed as a fighter.
Kind of like compairing a full armed P-47 to a light La-7.
Mig was improved over time and like the F-104 it was designed to counter was relagated to a multirole mission.
http://www.starfighters.nl/
The Mig-21 was to fight the F-104 not the F-4
there is your match up!!
-
Originally posted by fffreeze220
None of the prototypes survived ?
There are rumours that one escaped. Although the Arrow has almost attained mythological status up here.
"The CF-105 Avro Arrow was:
1) First a/c designed with digital computers being used for both aerodynamic analysis and designing the structural matrix (and a whole lot more).
2) First a/c design to have major components machined by CNC (computer numeric control); i.e., from electronic data which controlled the machine.
3) First a/c to be developed using an early form of "computational fluid dynamics" with an integrated "lifting body" type of theory rather than the typical (and obsolete) "blade element" theory.
4) First a/c to have marginal stability designed into the pitch axis for better maneuverability, speed and altitude performance.
5) First a/c to have negative stability designed into the yaw axis to save weight and cut drag, also boosting performance.
6) First a/c to fly on an electronic signal from the stick and pedals. i.e., first fly-by-wire a/c.
7) First a/c to fly with fly by wire AND artificial feedback (feel). Not even the first F-16's had this.
8) First a/c designed to be data-link flyable from the ground.
9) First a/c designed with integrated navigation, weapons release, automatic search and track radar, datalink inputs, home-on-jamming, infrared detection, electronic countermeasures and counter-countermeasures operating through a DIGITAL brain.
10) First high wing jet fighter that made the entire upper surface a lifting body. The F-15, F-22, Su-27 etc., MiG-29, MiG 25 and others certainly used that idea.
11) First sophisticated bleed-bypass system for both intake AND engine/exhaust. Everybody uses that now.
12) First by-pass engine design. (all current fighters have by-pass engines).
13) First combination of the last two points with an "ejector" nozzle that used the bypass air to create thrust at the exhaust nozzle while also improving intake flow. The F-106 didn't even have a nozzle, just a pipe.
14) Use of Titanium for significant portions of the aircraft structure and engine.
15) Use of composites (not the first, but they made thoughtful use of them and were researching and engineering new ones).
16) Use of a drooped leading edge and aerodynamic "twist" on the wing.
17) Use of engines at the rear to allow both a lighter structure and significant payload at the centre of gravity. Everybody copied that.
18) Use of a LONG internal weapons bay to allow carriage of specialized, long-range standoff and cruise missiles. (not copied yet really)
19) Integration of ground-mapping radar and the radar altimeter plus flight control system to allow a seriousstrike/reconnaissance role. The first to propose an aircraft be equally adept at those roles while being THE air-superiority fighter at the same time. (Few have even tried to copy that, although the F-15E is an interesting exception.)
20) First missile armed a/c to have a combat weight thrust to weight ratio approaching 1 to 1. Few have been able to copy that.
21) First flying 4,000 psi hydraulic system to allow lighter and smaller components.
22) First oxygen-injection re-light system.
23) First engine to have only two main bearing assemblies on a two-shaft design.
24) First to use a variable stator on a two-shaft engine.
25) First use of a trans-sonic first compressor stage on a turbojet engine.
26) First "hot-streak" type of afterburner ignition.
27) First engine to use only 10 compressor sections in a two-shaft design. (The competition was using 17!!)"
http://www.avroarrow.org/arrowfirsts.asp
"Before giving the green light to Avro, the RCAF sent a top level evaluation team to assess all the countries in the Western alliance to find out if anyone was working on a craft that met their requirements. No one was. The Arrow was to be a twin-engined aircraft with a crew of two, a supersonic interceptor to destroy any enemy threat in the next decade or beyond, and was expected to fulfill a grueling performance specification issued by the RCAF in 1953.
It was a spec that Jim Floyd, Vice President of Engineering at Avro Canada's Malton headquarters and the man responsible for the development of the Arrow, described as "overkill". It called for a manoeuvre capability of at least 2 G at Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet at full weight with all combat missiles aboard. This daunting list of requirements, which can scarcely be exceeded by combat aircraft today, was the reason the Arrow was to be powered by enormous engines especially designed for it, and had to stow all missiles inside for maximum drag reduction.
The Arrow was designed as a delta winged craft without a tail plane, an "inevitable compromise between aerodynamic, structural and aerolastic efficiency," as Floyd put it. The range of the new craft was specified at 200 nautical miles, which included five minutes of combat.at Mach 1.5. Avro, however, considered this too little, and designed the aircraft for ranges of up to a 650 n.m. radius. A subsequent reconnaissance version of the Arrow was planned which would have a range of 2000 n.m.
While Avro's Gas Turbine Division (later to become Orenda Engines) was working on the powerful Iroquois engine that was to be used on the Mark 2 series, test flights went underway using an interim engine, the Pratt and Whitney J75 engine. When test flights began, the craft easily met all guarantees, according to Jack Woodman, the RCAF evaluation pilot assigned to the project. By the third test flight it broke the speed of sound, eventually reaching speeds as high as Mach 1.98.
With the new Iroquois engine, which delivered considerably more power, the Arrow was expected to break world speed records. Indeed, projected versions of the plane were to go as fast as Mach 3. But on the 20th of February, 1959, days before the new Mark 2 series bearing the Iroquois engine was about to be tested, the bad news broke -- the Arrow was to be cancelled."
http://exn.ca/FlightDeck/Aircraft/Milestones/avroarrow.cfm
"Perhaps not ahead of this baby though.... TSR2 Fighter/Attack/Bomber"
My apologies Nexx, I'm unfamiliar with that aircraft. I'll check it out.
-
Interesting debate, good rational discussion most of the time except for Grunherz (On Probation) who managed to descend to the schoolyard level again!:lol
In the modern era, the F15 is up there but it has to be said much of modern air warfare that superiority of one aircraft over another was as much to do with training and E3 as much as the airframe itself. Israel's pilots were so much better than thier Arab neighbours but even they nearly became unstuck when the technology game was upped by the Arabs in the 1973 war. The problem is that in recent years one side had overwhelming superiority over the other. It would be interesting if two comparable sides went to war with modern fighters. India and Pakistan spring to mind, not that I would wish a war between them to settle this argument;)
I still maintain my original opinion, the Spitfire and P51. Both were war winners and if you strictly keep to the notion of Fighters they are 'sans pareil'. The CF105 doesn't count as it never flew as such, but it's Canada's TSR2. Both still raise the hackles in their respective countries.
I think the Malta campaign proves it again for the Spit. At times only a few Spitfires were available to fight off axis raids yet they managed to hold on and outfought hordes of 109's etc. You can hardly say that RAF pilots were that much better than their Luftwaffe counterparts at that time in the middle of the war. So it must be the aircraft. I'll stick with the Spit.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Interesting debate, good rational discussion most of the time except for Grunherz (On Probation) who managed to descend to the schoolyard level again!:lol
In the modern era, the F15 is up there but it has to be said much of modern air warfare that superiority of one aircraft over another was as much to do with training and E3 as much as the airframe itself. Israel's pilots were so much better than thier Arab neighbours but even they nearly became unstuck when the technology game was upped by the Arabs in the 1973 war. The problem is that in recent years one side had overwhelming superiority over the other. It would be interesting if two comparable sides went to war with modern fighters. India and Pakistan spring to mind, not that I would wish a war between them to settle this argument;)
I still maintain my original opinion, the Spitfire and P51. Both were war winners and if you strictly keep to the notion of Fighters they are 'sans pareil'. The CF105 doesn't count as it never flew as such, but it's Canada's TSR2. Both still raise the hackles in their respective countries.
I think the Malta campaign proves it again for the Spit. At times only a few Spitfires were available to fight off axis raids yet they managed to hold on and outfought hordes of 109's etc. You can hardly say that RAF pilots were that much better than their Luftwaffe counterparts at that time in the middle of the war. So it must be the aircraft. I'll stick with the Spit.
I also agree the Spit was a world class design, it was a pure interceptor and designed without compromise as such.
The BF-109 was also a pure air to air design and shared the strengths and weakness of this design, namely short legs and low payload capability.
The 51 had a high alt and long range requirement like the 47 and this took away from its air to air capability (esp. when heavy) but its heavy load capability gave it a greater air to ground role.
All designs had pluses and minuses inherent in the airframe, this is why it is hard to compare side by side. The ability to do many roles well is a more useful design when it works well. The requirements of the Navy added to the compromise and further compromised their designs. The F8 is an example of a full on fighter with no air to ground in the plane. The design of the F-15 actually had the slogan "not a pound for air to ground" until of course the F-15E came along.
The old what is better argument must have a set of perimeters built into the discussion or it gets gray fast.
How about these questions?
1. What is the best Air to Air interceptor for short-range air defense from 1940 to 1942 and also from 1943 to 1945 (two-part question)?
2. What is the best multi role fighter for ground attack and then air to air on the way out is considered? (Same two time frames as above)
3. What is the best long-range escort fighter? (Same time frames)
4. What is the best dog fighter (knife fight) with no concern for air to ground but range is a factor. (same time frames)
Now do the above for today's aircraft
:aok
-
Originally posted by artik
You know try to figure out what is best plane from this planeset:
the best of nonperked AH planes:
P51D
190D-9
109G10
La7
What is best fighter plane? :lol
Stop kidding yourself the good planes could be different but best - every one will have some weak sides and some strong sides as in this planeset I show:
P51D - very fast - slower then 190 at low alt but climbs better and turns much better then 190, fire power not the best, best views, good contolable plane
190D-9 fastest at atitudes below 10k - worster turner - worst climber, best roller
109g10 fastes above 10k best climber - worstes diver every one outdives it, hard to control for less expirienced pilots, very low roll ratio
La7 - best turn, climber, speed, accelertion - but below 8k after it very week
As you see every one could be bitten at some situations but... all quite close
So what is the best plane?
We can talk what are best planes but..... not the best one
It's really hard to say what was the best plane in WW2. The P-51 and P-47 excelled in the ETO but didn't do as good in the PTO. The P-38 only had marginal success in the ETO but excelled in the all other theaters and in the PTO was the most dominate USAAF fighter. The majority of the USAAF aces in the PTO flew the P-38 and only a handful were P-51 and P-47 pilots.
So in the ETO the P-51 and the P-47 can be argued that they were amongst the best but the same can't be said of their service in other theaters.
ack-ack
-
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
The Hurricane got more kills not because of the numbers fielded but because of the tactics employed by the RAF during the BoB. The Hurricanes were tasked to go after the bombers while the Spitfires were tasked to engage the fighters. German bombers were shot down in greater numbers than German fighters.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
The Hurricane got more kills not because of the numbers fielded but because of the tactics employed by the RAF during the BoB. The Hurricanes were tasked to go after the bombers while the Spitfires were tasked to engage the fighters. German bombers were shot down in greater numbers than German fighters.
ack-ack
Whether it was fighters or bombers is irrelevent, since I was talking about kills - the Hurricane did get more kills than the Spitfire during the BoB.
During the BoB, the number of Hurricanes were roughly double that of the Spitfire. Can't find exact rearm/refuel times but the Spitfire took at least 10-15 minutes longer than the Hurricane to refuel/rearm.
-
Originally posted by Rino
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
Along these same lines, didn't the MiG-21 lack a radar-guided missile system? I recall reading that the Vietnamese MiG-21s were heat-seeking-missile-capable only, whereas the US Phantoms had both Sidewinders and Sparrows. Same goes for the F8E Crusaders. I may be wrong, though. Most of my missile knowledge comes from "Jane's Fighters Anthology".
-
The Hurricane got more kills not because of the numbers fielded but because of the tactics employed by the RAF during the BoB. The Hurricanes were tasked to go after the bombers while the Spitfires were tasked to engage the fighters. German bombers were shot down in greater numbers than German fighters.
ack-ack
I've also read that while this was the theory, in the air whoever was in position to attack enemy aircraft, fighters or especially bombers, attacked those aircraft regardless. Frankly, it was a lot harder to shoot down a bomber with 8 303s than it was to shoot down a fighter. I believe it was Tuck who developed a multipass engagement tactic using the three planes in the Vic to down a single bomber.
Charon
-
Personally, I'd like to see the mig 1.44 in action. (Refer to following link)
http://www.xp-office.de/Mig35/index1.htm
As well as the Sukhoi S-37 Berkut (as opposed to existing su-37) forward swept design. (link)
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/s-37_berkut.pl
Doesn't look like we'll be seeing them in combat however, rather as test-platforms for various technologies. Damned shame. They look cool as hell and come from two pretty reputable firms. The Berkut is said to be fitted with rear-firing missiles, and can readily outperform the already amazing SU-37 Superflanker.
-
Originally posted by artik
But the main problem with Harrier in not weapos, manuverability, Radar etc.... It is subsonic. That means it is not figher plane it is strike plane like in AH Ju87 and Il-2 good but... bombers.
It has no chance in air combat with Fighter planes F-18/16/15 or others.
:rofl you know - the only one thing Zerro does good is truning - even F4F and P40 in right hands better - they faster, stronger, and better divers. The sucses of Perl Harbor and early IJAF vs USAF was absolutly failture of US Intelegence and good trained Japanies pilots- US pilots didn't know about perfomances of Zerro nothing.... the expireicne of IJAF pilots was much better - that was the reason of first victories but then.... I think you know history
Artik my friend your info is a little off. Try telling the Argentines the Harrier isn't a fighter. The only thing it had going for it was it's radar and systems, this is what allowed it to dominate over the Argentine air force. The US uses it as an attack plane as they have better aircraft in inventory for A to A.
As for the Zero, you should try one, I'll take one any day over a P40, F4F. The JAF was having a difficult time against the Chinese until the Type 0 came along, so pilot experience can be ruled out. The Zero is faster, more maneuverable and has better firepower than both the P40 and the F4F. Just as an example I (A6M) met Leviathn (P40) in the MA, one on one. It was all over in a couple moves. He rolled that P40 quite nicely but it was no match for my Zero. This is what the JAF found as well. The problem became the F4U, new US tactics and the fact the JAF could not produce enough planes to meet demand.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Should have been the CF-105 Arrow.
It was 20 years ahead of eveything else. :(
*sigh*
Stupid stupid Diefenbaker. Killed more than an aircraft with that one. He was an American butt kisser. Cost Canada thousands of jobs and part of our identity I'd say.
-
Midnight,
What an awsome pic, thanks for posting it.
...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~
-
Originally posted by MotorOil
Stupid stupid Diefenbaker. Killed more than an aircraft with that one. He was an American butt kisser. Cost Canada thousands of jobs and part of our identity I'd say.
Seems like it's a good idea that it was canceled. It would have been a huge waste of money for you guys. Now, on the other hand, the US offered to buy these planes FOR Canada but the offer was refused due to national pride.
-
Originally posted by Charon
I've also read that while this was the theory, in the air whoever was in position to attack enemy aircraft, fighters or especially bombers, attacked those aircraft regardless. Frankly, it was a lot harder to shoot down a bomber with 8 303s than it was to shoot down a fighter. I believe it was Tuck who developed a multipass engagement tactic using the three planes in the Vic to down a single bomber.
Charon
Actually that was confirmed for me today when a book arrived with a chapter describing a running fight between a recce Ju 88 and no less than five Spitfires which took place here in 'neutral' :lol Ireland in 1942. It was attacked by no less than five Spitfire Vb's at different times, presumably cannon armed. One Spit was shot down by the gunners killing the pilot, it actually crashed a mile or so from where I'm sitting right now. Two others ran out of ammo and were forced to make dummy attacks. They did knock out an engine though and two further Spitfires used up their ammunition before setting the engine on fire, forcing the Junkers to crash land under control. Incredibly all the crew survived almost unscathed . So even a cannon armed Spitfire (five even!) had trouble knocking down a bomber. Then again they were second line pilots based in a quiet sector who seemed as bad marksmen as I am in a AH Spitfire.
No Aces there.
I dare say five P51's and the result would be quite different.
-
Originally posted by gofaster
Along these same lines, didn't the MiG-21 lack a radar-guided missile system? I recall reading that the Vietnamese MiG-21s were heat-seeking-missile-capable only, whereas the US Phantoms had both Sidewinders and Sparrows. Same goes for the F8E Crusaders. I may be wrong, though. Most of my missile knowledge comes from "Jane's Fighters Anthology".
As far as I can remember, none of the Migs deployed during
Vietnam had a non-heatseeker missile system installed.
Fortunately for them the "Great White Hope" aka the Sparrow
was still not very reliable, especially as constrained by our ROE.
Rino
-
This is a very nice thread indeed :)
What a long part about the F4 and the Mig 21. I recall reading about dogfights between those two in the Vietnam war. Well, from that source the F4 was definately the faster one, being able to extend and climb while at it, not to mention rapid extension during a dive. However, in a tight mix, the 21 was more agile.
BTW, sometimes the F4 used their brakes in hard combat. And remember, - the F4 is a naval plane as well.
But my vote, it goes to the Spit! I do not agree upon the somewhat naive theory that the Spit saved Britain, - the matter is more complicated than that. You would rather say that Dowding saved Britain, or even more correctly that the RAF did. It is the only time in military history that a planned invasion of a country was stopped by an airforce.
The number of aircraft mounted by the RAF in the BoB was smaller than the French had before the war. So far the LW had crushed all airborne opposition easily. However, during the BoB, they met for the first time an organised and decently equipped force. The LW lost. Only 2 years later, the Brits launched their first 1000 plane bombing raid on Germany.
And why the Spit? Well, although the SpitI was just roughly equal with the 109E, the beast grew well and took the superiority out of the LW fighter jocks hands. It served in great numbers, on all fronts, and was very much loved by its pilots.
Still showing up on so many airshows today, it is also the only WWII warbird that I have seen doing mad aerobatics!
Spitfire it is :D
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Seems like it's a good idea that it was canceled. It would have been a huge waste of money for you guys. Now, on the other hand, the US offered to buy these planes FOR Canada but the offer was refused due to national pride.
Canada didn't want to sell it's advanced technology to a foreign country. Besides, the sale of 3 jets would not have even come close to covering the development costs on the project. The offer was a slap in the face.
Canada wasted more money buying a lesser number and inferior American planes after the Arrow's destruction. They also bought in to the Beaumont missile defense system, as Canada did not have an interceptor to take down Soviet bombers believed to come over Canada in the event of hostilities. Spent more money once again than the development of the Arrow project and got nothing in return as the missile defense system was a flop. This combined worked out to more than two and a half times what they could have had a fleet of Arrows for. As I said earlier also, doesn't include the lost jobs, spin off businesses generated by the Avro company. It was a huge waste to kill the project.
-
Originally posted by MotorOil
Canada didn't want to sell it's advanced technology to a foreign country. Besides, the sale of 3 jets would not have even come close to covering the development costs on the project. The offer was a slap in the face.
The US offered to buy the planes FOR not from Canada so Canada could have them . In other words, our offer was to pay for the planes Canada built for themselves.
And the threat of Bombers was negated by the threat of ICBM's and that's why it was an obsolete idea to have a short range interceptor to take out bombers, when they are useless against ICBMs
The US Canceled a few our own very advanced ( more capable than the Arrow) planes just at the same time for the same reason .
We canceled the f-108 Rapier ( Mach 3 interceptor ) which was cancelled in 1959 and the plane it was meant to escort , the B-70 mach 3 bomber.
We also canceled the A-12 interceptor, which was the Sr-71's predecessor. the A-12 had internal missle bays with missles that were designed to be hypersonic.
-
Do you have some references NUKE? I'd be interested in a little more info on the US buying planes for Canada thing. I hadn’t heard that.
You're right with the ICBM threat as being one of the reasons for the project being scrapped. But the Arrow was designed as a high-speed long-range interceptor, capable of patrolling the far north. Canada at the time had nothing to patrol the entire country and the Arrow was designed to do so.
I'm sure the US has scrapped a lot of projects but then the US has the tax dollars, population and foreign clients to be able to afford more than one cancellation. A small country like Canada can ill afford to scrap too many projects like this. It marked the end of Avro, which was banking a lot on this single project.