Author Topic: Best Fighter of all Time (Read 2533 times)

Charon · « **Reply #75 on:** October 28, 2003, 03:13:49 PM »

Quote

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

Capt. Pork · « **Reply #76 on:** October 28, 2003, 03:28:36 PM »

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.

MotorOil · « **Reply #77 on:** October 28, 2003, 05:13:35 PM »

Quote

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.

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.

MotorOil · « **Reply #78 on:** October 28, 2003, 05:21:44 PM »

Quote

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.

Gixer · « **Reply #79 on:** October 28, 2003, 05:28:15 PM »

Midnight,

What an awsome pic, thanks for posting it.

...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~

NUKE · « **Reply #80 on:** October 28, 2003, 05:33:42 PM »

Quote

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.

cpxxx · « **Reply #81 on:** October 28, 2003, 06:28:26 PM »

Quote

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'

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.

Rino · « **Reply #82 on:** October 28, 2003, 07:18:50 PM »

Quote

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

Angus · « **Reply #83 on:** October 29, 2003, 03:27:22 AM »

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

MotorOil · « **Reply #84 on:** October 29, 2003, 09:27:33 AM »

Quote

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.

NUKE · « **Reply #85 on:** October 29, 2003, 09:40:06 AM »

Quote

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.

MotorOil · « **Reply #86 on:** October 29, 2003, 04:40:46 PM »

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.