Author Topic: Comparisions  (Read 1277 times)

Offline TonyJoey

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1953
Comparisions
« on: June 03, 2009, 01:03:54 PM »
I've lately gotten curious as to what plane, in aces high (excluding jets), is (comparitively), as far as performance, most similar to the:

1.F-4 Phantom?

2.MiG-21?

3.F-8 Crusader?

4.F-86 Sabre?

5. MiG-15?


My answers:

1.P-47 D-40

2.Fw-190A8

3.F4U-1A

4.F6F-5

5.Ki-84Ia
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 01:06:30 PM by TonyJoey »

Offline Rino

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8495
Re: Comparisions
« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2009, 02:35:36 PM »
     I'd swap #2 Mig-21 with an La-5  or 7
80th FS Headhunters
PHAN
Proud veteran of the Cola Wars

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22408
Re: Comparisions
« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2009, 04:29:18 PM »
Technicality, but the Phantom didn't have a cannon.   
-=Most Wanted=-

FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline BnZs

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4207
Re: Comparisions
« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2009, 05:06:07 PM »
1.F-4 Phantom-Fw-190 D9

2.MiG-21-Ta 152

3.F-8 Crusader?-F4U-1A

4.F-86 Sabre?-P-51D. Although I'll admit this one is really more of a same company and same "look" type of comparison rather than being based strictly on relative performance. :)

5. MiG-15?-109, hard to decide which.


« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 05:27:30 PM by BnZs »
"Crikey, sir. I'm looking forward to today. Up diddly up, down diddly down, whoops, poop, twiddly dee - decent scrap with the fiendish Red Baron - bit of a jolly old crash landing behind enemy lines - capture, torture, escape, and then back home in time for tea and medals."

Offline TonyJoey

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1953
Re: Comparisions
« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2009, 05:38:37 PM »
Technicality, but the Phantom didn't have a cannon.   

Who needs the .50's on the jug when ya got 10 rockets.  :D

Offline MachFly

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6296
Re: Comparisions
« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2009, 06:18:27 PM »
You can't compare that stuff, it's like saying what WWI airplane is most similar to F-22.

The only thing that you can compare is the type of missions they did, not the performance.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 06:25:38 PM by MachFly »
"Now, if I had to make the choice of one fighter aircraft above all the others...it would be, without any doubt, the world's greatest propeller driven flying machine - the magnificent and immortal Spitfire."
Lt. Col. William R. Dunn
flew Spitfires, Hurricanes, P-51s, P-47s, and F-4s

Offline TonyJoey

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1953
Re: Comparisions
« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2009, 07:14:00 PM »
You can't compare that stuff, it's like saying what WWI airplane is most similar to F-22.

The only thing that you can compare is the type of missions they did, not the performance.

Yes you can, to some extent. On advantage of the F-4 Phantom was raw power. What are some planes in aces high with a lot of pure power? The Phantom was a very large plane. What are some planes in Aces High that compared to other aces high planes is pretty big, and has a lot of raw power etc, etc. You're never going to be exact, but rough estimates are possible as to what plane compares similarly with a plane of another era.

 :salute

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Comparisions
« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2009, 07:35:14 PM »
And you picked the P-47D-40 to represent something with raw power?!?

Try something like the Bf109K-4 or Spitfire Mk XIV if you want to feel power in a WWII airframe.  Yes, the P-47D-40 has more power, but it is so heavy you can't feel it.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline beau32

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 615
Re: Comparisions
« Reply #8 on: June 03, 2009, 07:54:20 PM »
Technicality, but the Phantom didn't have a cannon.   


The F-4E had a internal cannon in the nose.




During the initial design of the Phantom, several proposals had been considered for a cannon-armed version. In fact, the original F3H-E proposal was designed around a quartet of 20-mm cannon. However the philosophy of the day was that the air-to-air missile was the wave of the future and that the internal gun was an obsolete holdover from an bygone era. Consequently, all Phantoms to reach production had been armed exclusively with missiles.

However, the all-missile fighter had shown some serious drawbacks in the initial air-to-air battles over Vietnam. The earlier Sparrow, Falcon, and Sidewinder air-to-air missiles did not perform up to expectations. They were expensive, unreliable, and vulnerable to countermeasures. Many an enemy MiG was able to escape unscathed because a Phantom-launched missile malfunctioned and missed its target. The Phantoms could carry a podded cannon mounted on the centerline, but it was relatively inaccurate, caused excessive drag which reduced the performance of the Phantom carrying it, and took up a valuable ordinance/fuel station.

An initial F-4 variant with an internal M61 cannon had been proposed by McDonnell to the USAF in March of 1961, but had met with little enthusiasm. McDonnell began a new design study for a gun-armed Phantom in late 1964 and finally got the attention of the Air Force. The gun-armed F-4E was finally funded in June of 1965. It was destined to be produced in greater numbers than any other single Phantom variant.

The main difficulty in equipping the Phantom with an internal cannon was in finding a place to put it. The solution was found in using the sharper, longer nose of the F-4C reconnaissance version. The new nose was fitted with an AN/APG-30 radar set and an external pod was mounted underneath the nose that could carry a single six-barrel 20-mm General Electric M61A1 rotary cannon

The first YRF-4C (62-12200) was modified to test this new arrangement. A lead computing gunsight was cannibalized from an Air National Guard F-100D. Flight test instrumentation was carried in a centerline pod. Temporarily redesignated YF-4E, the modified aircraft first flew on August 7, 1965.

After 50 flights, the first YF-4E was re-engined with J79-GE-J1B engines (prototypes of the -10 and -17 series). The results with the YF-4E were sufficiently encouraging that two other YF-4Es were produced by modifying an F-4C (63-7445) and an F-4D (65-0713). These planes had the definitive nose-mounted cannon installation. The second YF-4E had the gun and no radar, but the third had both the gun and the radar. Both aircraft were powered by the J79-GE-J1B engines, but both were later re-engined with the definitive J79-GE-17 powerplant, which required new mounts and additional titanium sheeting in the engine bays to accommodate the higher temperatures.

The severe space constraints in the new nose meant that a new ammunition feed system had to be designed for the M61A1 cannon. In addition, the proximity of the gun to the radar set required that very effective vibration dampers and noise/blast eliminators had to be designed.

An initial batch of 96 F-4Es was ordered in August 1966 as part of an F-4D contract. The first production F-4E (serial number 66-0284) flew on June 30, 1967, R. D. Hunt and Wayne Wight being the crewmembers.
"There is always a small microcosm of people who need to explain away their suckage."

Offline Rino

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8495
Re: Comparisions
« Reply #9 on: June 03, 2009, 08:59:08 PM »
Technicality, but the Phantom didn't have a cannon.   

Technically it sure did after 1967



That was just the internal, the SUU16/23 came earlier



     Sorry about the redundant post, I worked fire control on block 35 F-4Es made in 1967 and 68 down at Moody AFB.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 09:02:47 PM by Rino »
80th FS Headhunters
PHAN
Proud veteran of the Cola Wars

Offline Rino

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8495
Re: Comparisions
« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2009, 09:05:59 PM »
And you picked the P-47D-40 to represent something with raw power?!?

Try something like the Bf109K-4 or Spitfire Mk XIV if you want to feel power in a WWII airframe.  Yes, the P-47D-40 has more power, but it is so heavy you can't feel it.

      Having spent some time around F4s, I can assure you that neither the 209 or the Spit in ANY way shares flight
characteristics with it.  The F4 is a huge bus with enormous power and has never been noted for it's manuverability.
80th FS Headhunters
PHAN
Proud veteran of the Cola Wars

Offline MachFly

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6296
Re: Comparisions
« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2009, 09:08:11 PM »
      Having spent some time around F4s, I can assure you that neither the 209 or the Spit in ANY way shares flight
characteristics with it.  The F4 is a huge bus with enormous power and has never been noted for it's manuverability.

thank you

you can't compare it with any WWII fighters.
"Now, if I had to make the choice of one fighter aircraft above all the others...it would be, without any doubt, the world's greatest propeller driven flying machine - the magnificent and immortal Spitfire."
Lt. Col. William R. Dunn
flew Spitfires, Hurricanes, P-51s, P-47s, and F-4s

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22408
Re: Comparisions
« Reply #12 on: June 04, 2009, 08:04:44 AM »
Technically it sure did after 1967

(Image removed from quote.)

That was just the internal, the SUU16/23 came earlier

(Image removed from quote.)

     Sorry about the redundant post, I worked fire control on block 35 F-4Es made in 1967 and 68 down at Moody AFB.

I know the E's did.   I was thinking along the lines of the entire production.   Most people don't realize the number of kills the Jug got in WWII.  If I'm not mistaken they shot down more Axis fighters than the P-51.   Not only that, the Jug was a better Ground Attack fighter.

When LyeEL and I went to the Kalamazoo Airzoo this year, he got to sit in their D-40 (painted as Gabreski's D-25).   The gentleman at the Jug flew them in WWII as well as the P-51.   He said flat out "Gimme the Jug anyday.  It was a pain in the a** to taxi, so you had to wind your way to see.   But once you were in the air, the control of the plane was as smooth as butter.   You did not have to move the stick much to get a reaction.   Not to mention the amount of room you had in the Jug."

-=Most Wanted=-

FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline chewiex

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Re: Comparisions
« Reply #13 on: June 04, 2009, 06:18:43 PM »
      Having spent some time around F4s, I can assure you that neither the 209 or the Spit in ANY way shares flight
characteristics with it.  The F4 is a huge bus with enormous power and has never been noted for it's maneuverability.

I would think if a comparison would have to be made with the F-4 Phantom, I would think the Tempest would be closer than anything else. Tons of power and low/mid alt speed to boot. Handling characteristics could be compared too, both fly like a bus with great visibility.
A8Chustr (Formerly A8Chewey, DasChewy) ..for a wounded man shall say to his assailant, if I live, I will kill you. If I die, you are forgiven. Such is the rule of honor. Lamb of God, Omerta from "Ashes of the Wake".