# Greatest Fighter Aircraft of All Time



## 102first_hussars (Jan 28, 2006)

Okay I saw this program on Discovery about the Top Ten Best fighter aircraft, I didnt fully agree with their results so I would like to see what you guys think.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 28, 2006)

There isn't the Mig 25. My vote is for it.

DogW


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2006)

Dogwalker said:


> There isn't the Mig 25. My vote is for it.
> 
> DogW



Becuase it was junk!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 28, 2006)

Fast, high flying junk though. 

But yeah, it was junky.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2006)

We've discussed the Mig-25 before but it was a stroke of what I call "Primitive Genius." We all know how the Soviets used steel, radar and communications equipment with cathode tubes, no real egress system, etc. just to make the Mig-25 competitive. In return, when used with other air forces, it did terrible. I have the following numbers.

IRAN - IRAQ War
Mig-25 Confirmed Kills - 6
Unconfirmed - 3

Mig- 25 confirmed destroyed by the IIAF - 15

Gulf War 1, 3 Mig-25s killed by coalition forces

Middle East - 3 Mig-25s killed by the IAF

SO the Mig-25 as a fighter has a 3 to 10 kill ratio!

IIAF 2 times F-5s shot down Mig-25s! That's embarrising!!!


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 28, 2006)

Well it originated in Russia so a 3:10 ratio is acceptable you just send up 4 times as many planes 

And my vote goes to the F-86, it showed good service in Korea and onwards. Another thing where is the Lightning (EE not Lockheed)...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 28, 2006)

I think I remember that thread, Joe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> Well it originated in Russia so a 3:10 ratio is acceptable you just send up 4 times as many planes





Gnomey said:


> And my vote goes to the F-86, it showed good service in Korea and onwards.



Good Man!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> I think I remember that thread, Joe.



Yea, that was pretty funny! I wonder what ever happened to that guy!!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 28, 2006)

> Another thing where is the Lightning (EE not Lockheed)...




Its an excellent plane, but it didt have a major influence in the history of Dog Fighting.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 28, 2006)

He suffocated while his head was stuck up a kangeroos' ass.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2006)

plan_D said:


> He suffocated while his head was stuck up a kangeroos' ass.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 28, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> plan_D said:
> 
> 
> > He suffocated while his head was stuck up a kangeroos' ass.


 How pleasant...


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 28, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> > Another thing where is the Lightning (EE not Lockheed)...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Excuse me I meant to say it was an excellent plane but it didnt have a major influence in the history of Dog Fighting *so I didnt put it up there*


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 28, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> We've discussed the Mig-25 before


I love it, no reason.

DogW


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2006)

Dogwalker said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > We've discussed the Mig-25 before
> ...


No sweat!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 28, 2006)

I guess the russians thought it was top of the line, ahead of its time, so much a pilot had to go rogue and take one to Japan, but like you said FBJ it was nothing but steel, Cathoder ehem I mean Cathode tubes, goes to show what Russias idea of high quality was then eh?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> I guess the russians thought it was top of the line, ahead of its time, so much a pilot had to go rogue and take one to Japan, but like you said FBJ it was nothing but steel, Cathoder ehem I mean Cathode tubes, goes to show what Russias idea of high quality was then eh?



Well it was designed for one thing, to intercept the B-70 which never materialized, but it was a formidable interceptor for straight on, one or two shots. It was crude and could be somewhat dangerous according to Victor Belinko, they guy who defected to Japan in 1976. 

The SR-71 just danced around it when it tried to intercept the Blackbird, Belinko stated that it seemed the Blackbird was just taunting the Russians!


----------



## evangilder (Jan 28, 2006)

One of the reason for using vacuum tubes in the Mig-25 is that they are not succeptible to EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse). Any fighter that is going after a nuclear bomber should have the least amount of succeptibility to EMP.

And for the record guys, Cathode Ray Tubes, or CRTs are still used even today. That is the screen for computers, TVs, radars and even American Fighters carried them for many years.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2006)

evangilder said:


> One of the reason for using vacuum tubes in the Mig-25 is that they are not succeptible to EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse). Any fighter that is going after a nuclear bomber should have the least amount of succeptibility to EMP.
> 
> And for the record guys, Cathode Ray Tubes, or CRTs are still used even today. That is the screen for computers, TVs, radars and even American Fighters carried them for many years.



YEP!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2006)

i think harrier should be changed to sea harrier if possible.........

and i'll proberly vote spitfire..............


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 29, 2006)

Vacuum tubes or not, Mig-25 radar was the most powerful airborne radar of it's time. Among soviets there was the joke that, when the pilot forget to switch it off on landing, it kill the rabbits around the airstrip.

An interesting discussion, don't know how much accurate: http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/MiG-25.html

DogW


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

Dogwalker said:


> Vacuum tubes or not, Mig-25 radar was the most powerful airborne radar of it's time. Among soviets there was the joke that, when the pilot forget to switch it off on landing, it kill the rabbits around the airstrip.
> 
> An interesting discussion, don't know how much accurate: http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/MiG-25.html
> 
> DogW



That is true, but the stats stand - it did miserable in combat even with evenly matched opponents..

I've seen that site, some good info, some bogus, especially about the Mig-25 being designed to intercept the A-12..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2006)

Okay well here is my take on the matter. I really dont think you can compare any of these aircraft to one another. Well some you can like the Spitfire to the Fw-190 and the P-51 which in that case in my opinion would go to the Spitfire very closly followed by the Fw-190 and then the P-51. However it is impossible to compare a P-51 to a F-15 Eagle. No contest and no comparison.

Now as for the Mig-25 I agree it was a fast peace of junk. Nothing more than that also. I tried to find a picture on my external harddrive of a destroyed Mig-25 that was at the Airfield that I was based out of in Iraq. I have some good photos of it being the junk that it is.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 29, 2006)

> Vacuum tubes or not, Mig-25 radar was the most powerful airborne radar of it's time. Among soviets there was the joke that, when the pilot forget to switch it off on landing, it kill the rabbits around the airstrip.
> 
> An interesting discussion, don't know how much accurate: http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/MiG-25.html
> 
> DogW



That very same rumour surrounded the English Electric Lightning. I think the idea of the RADAR killing rabbits on landing or take-off was just a general joke of the era, or obvious misinformation.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 29, 2006)

I'm sure the rabbits didn't find it funny...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 29, 2006)

I doubt they actually killed them. But if they did ... well, the rabbit itself would be dead - but I'm sure it's little bunny friends found it horrific and tried to sue the MoD.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2006)




----------



## Gnomey (Jan 29, 2006)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 29, 2006)

I voted Fw-190. 

On the MiG-25 issue, as crap as it was you cant help but love it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

cheddar cheese said:


> On the MiG-25 issue, as crap as it was you cant help but love it.



Agree, like most Migs!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 29, 2006)

Yep! 8)


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 29, 2006)

Agreed.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 29, 2006)

I voted for the F-15 Eagle..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

Saber for me - although the F-15 is close....


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 29, 2006)

fokker DVll?


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 29, 2006)

Red Barons Plane...


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 29, 2006)

I wasn;t aware he flew the DVII


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 29, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Okay well here is my take on the matter. I really dont think you can compare any of these aircraft to one another. Well some you can like the Spitfire to the Fw-190 and the P-51 which in that case in my opinion would go to the Spitfire very closly followed by the Fw-190 and then the P-51. However it is impossible to compare a P-51 to a F-15 Eagle. No contest and no comparison.



The only thing about these aircraft that can compare is their combat record, in which clearly the P-51 wins, the main factors of this thread are how the aircraft operated during its own wars, popularity, the significanse it had on the history of dogfighting etc 

If you want to compare them the way you are thinking Adler, try separating the planes by their timeline, Camel vs DR.1 WW1, Triple threat-P51 vs Spitfire vs FW-190 WW2, F86 vs Mig 15 Korea etc.

Does that help?



Oh and by the way, the DR.1, I made a mistake, I thought that was the one that the BAron was flying, so I should have put DR 2


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

I saw the Discovery Wings show that aired this competition. Some of the "experts" on there were freaking pinheads. They were attempting to say that certain aspects of the Mig-21 and F-4 Phantom were "flawed." I bet none of those guys ever got close to a combat aircraft either as a pilot or as a maintainer!!!


----------



## Aggie08 (Jan 29, 2006)

I like the -25 for its looks and its speed. How was the sr-71 able to fly circles around it?

I went with the phantom. It's too bad they left missiles to do all the work in the early years of the vietnam war, but overall a great (and awesome looking) bird.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 29, 2006)

Oh and by the way, the DR.1, I made a mistake, I thought that was the one that the BAron was flying, so I should have put DR 2[/quote]
Yeah Ober Leutnant Basil Fawlty was the best in the Fokker DR2


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

Aggie08 said:


> I like the -25 for its looks and its speed. How was the sr-71 able to fly circles around it?


Read Mig Pilot - On spy missions they would get to altitudes where the -25 was just closing in on them but still out of range, light up the afterburners and leave them in the dust, the SR-71s would then turn around (probaby a 150 mile turn radius) and come streaking back at the -25s. About this time the Mig-25 was running out of fuel...


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 29, 2006)

Ive always had the impression that the MiG-25 was designed to intercept high flying and mach 2 US bombers, such as the XB-70 and B-58. It was fast, had a powerfull radar to burn through ECM and was designed to carry nuclear tipped AA missles. Anything else, it was substandard or useless. Its role and impact on aviation history is quite limited. Personally, I dont think it should have even been included on the list. 

I also agree with several of you on you have to compare aircraft against its peers. Plus, you have to differentiate between the "dogfight" fighters and the "interceptor" fighters. Consider the stakes in the cold war for a nuclear armed bomber and the devestation it could do. The F4 might have been able to perform far more missions than the Lightning but the Lightning had a far better chance to take out a bomber than the F4.

IMHO, for the time period between 1953 and 1975, there should be two catagories. Best interceptor and best fighter.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 30, 2006)

> the Lightning had a far better chance to take out a bomber than the F4.



How so? Im aware the early model phantoms had no cannons but that was fixed up right away, the EE lightning would have been a better choice simply because of its response time to an incoming raid, but in terms of actually shooting down a bomber with an F4 is not a problem, It was heavily armed moose, now if you want to say it had a better chance of shooting down a bomber then it could a fighter (naturally bombers are easier to shoot down) then that would make perfect sense.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 30, 2006)

The performance data for the Lightning was posted and it demonstrated that it could get off the ground faster and intercept the hypothetical bomber further from the target. 

Of course once both planes had its radar lock on the bomber, then its goodnight for that target. The Lightning could just get into a firing position sooner.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2006)

Aggie08 said:


> I like the -25 for its looks and its speed. How was the sr-71 able to fly circles around it?



Also the SR-71s top speed any how was faster than that of the Mig-25. The top speed of the SR-71 is still classified.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Aggie08 said:
> 
> 
> > I like the -25 for its looks and its speed. How was the sr-71 able to fly circles around it?
> ...



The top speed of the SR-71 ever published was mach 3.3, there are those that say it could fly faster than that, I believe them!!!


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 30, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Aggie08 said:
> ...


So do I but even at mach 3.3 it was faster than every plane in existance and some AA missles as well.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 30, 2006)

The SR71 was not a bomber.


----------



## Smokey (Jan 30, 2006)

*Kyushu J7W1 Shinden*

It featured:

Swept wings
It featured decent cockpit visibility when taxiing and in the air
Twin vertical tails
Provision for a jet engine
Tricycle landing gear
Canards
Cannon armanent in the nose
Intakes to the side of and below the cockpit like modern jet fighters

all in one aircraft

It flew twice, and its vibration problems would have been fixed by the use of a jet engine 

http://www.eagle.ca/~harry/aircraft/shinden/



> On 3 August, 1945, this strange-looking craft took to the air for the first time after many delays in acquiring necessary parts and solving some of the engine ground-cooling problems. The second and last of the two short flights was completed just as the war came to an end. Total flying time for the Shinden was approximately 45 minutes.
> 
> Of the few items to be corrected was the strong torque pull to the right on takeoff and noticeable vibration in the propeller and its extended drive shaft. Solutions were underway to correct these problems, but both would have been negated by the planned use of the 1 ,984 Ib thrust Ne 130 turbojet for an advanced model which was to have been the J7W2 Shinden Kai.










http://www.ne.jp/asahi/airplane/museum/cl-pln10/2004cl/shinden.html


----------



## evangilder (Jan 30, 2006)

With a total flying time of 45 minutes, you could hardly call the Shinden the greatest fighter aircraft of all time. Barely even an "almost was".


----------



## Smokey (Jan 30, 2006)

as in most newish features in one aircraft


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The SR71 was not a bomber.



That it wasn't but in the day it gave the Mig-25 work (and fits)


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 30, 2006)

The design speed of the SR-71 was a little over mach 4 and I don't know of a case where Kelly Johnson missed a design mark. I knew a former radar operator fron Kadena who said it wasn't unusual for a SR-71 to accelerate away from a persuing SAM. 

I ran accross this a while back
Though I travel through the valley of death, I will fear no evil........... I'm in a SR-71 at 80,000ft and still climbing. This is reported to be on a sign at the Kadena main gate.

wmaxt


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 30, 2006)

They should have made the the SR-71 a high altitude bomber, then the energy wasted on taking out SAMs would not have been a problem in Veitnam.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 30, 2006)

I had the opportunity to watch the 71 on radar once and using the old time distance rate formula was over 2000 Knots certainly very quick


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 30, 2006)

There is a host of engineering problems with trying to precision hit something when your traveling at Mach 3. A bomber version of the SR71 would have added nothing of value, that a B52 couldnt do.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 30, 2006)

Thats probably a VERY interesting story pb..


> There is a host of engineering problems with trying to precision hit something when your traveling at Mach 3


I agree 100%...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2006)

My fist program at Lockheed was on the SR-71/U-2. You carried the same clearance badge for each aircraft. We did work on sub assemblies and ground support equipment being rebuilt in the early 1980s. There were always rumors and stories of what the SR-71 can do and not do, but it seemed those with the right clearances new that the aircraft was a lot faster than what was published....


----------



## Lunatic (Jan 30, 2006)

Vacuum tubes are succeptable to EMP.

What is correct to say is that they not nearly as succeptable as transistors.

On the other hand, it is much easier to shield a tiny transistor as compared to a (relatively) huge vacuum tube.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 30, 2006)

I will have to say F-15 for it overall performance and longevity. It has been on top of the mountain or near the top for a long long time. Some fighters are great for 2-5 years and then they are crap, not the F-15 it just keeps going and going. I think longevity has to play a big role in the process of picking the best fighter of all time.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 30, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> I will have to say F-15 for it overall performance and longevity. It has been on top of the mountain or near the top for a long long time. Some fighters are great for 2-5 years and then they are crap, not the F-15 it just keeps going and going. I think longevity has to play a big role in the process of picking the best fighter of all time.



Agreed it is a great plane, but then again we have never seen it go toe to toe with an SU-37, or a Mig 29 Fulcrum.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 30, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> Hunter368 said:
> 
> 
> > I will have to say F-15 for it overall performance and longevity. It has been on top of the mountain or near the top for a long long time. Some fighters are great for 2-5 years and then they are crap, not the F-15 it just keeps going and going. I think longevity has to play a big role in the process of picking the best fighter of all time.
> ...



True but you said all time not right now what is the best fighter.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 30, 2006)

Lunatic said:


> Vacuum tubes are succeptable to EMP.
> 
> What is correct to say is that they not nearly as succeptable as transistors.
> 
> ...



Tiny transistors are VERY succeptable to EMP and are actually tougher to shield against it from happening. 

Big ole vacuum tubes are next to impossible to cause permanent damge or degredation from EMP.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Vacuum tubes are succeptable to EMP.
> ...



Agree 100%


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 31, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> 102first_hussars said:
> 
> 
> > Hunter368 said:
> ...



Im just looking for an excuse to say the SU-37 in a MILLION times better than the F-15 but the -37 has no combat record so as usual Im babbling about beating a dead horse,


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 31, 2006)

Dogwalker said:


> Vacuum tubes or not, Mig-25 radar was the most powerful airborne radar of it's time. Among soviets there was the joke that, when the pilot forget to switch it off on landing, it kill the rabbits around the airstrip.
> 
> An interesting discussion, don't know how much accurate: http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/MiG-25.html
> 
> DogW


this a true story a civilian cleaner was walking in front of a cf101 which was testing its radar this guy ignored the warning signs and walked in front of the 101 while carrying a armload of flourescent lights the lights lit up he dropped them and ran and quit his job


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 31, 2006)

It'easy to believe, but the reaction of the man was probably a bit exagerate.  
Flourescent lights can lit up even near normal telephone antennas like this, 





or in particularly windy nights (due to the static).

DogW


----------



## evangilder (Jan 31, 2006)

True, you can light a flourescent bulb by standing near high tension wires and pointing it at the wires.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 1, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > plan_D said:
> ...



Eeeewwwwww.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Feb 2, 2006)

Anyway, the results of the show "Greatest Fighters" on discovery had said that the P-51 was in fact the best, I cant argue with its kill record or its sleek sexyness.


----------



## Desert Fox (Feb 18, 2006)

Obviously its the Spitfire. The wondrous purring noise the V12 Merlin engine makes, the elliptical wings and the superb handling-you cant get much better than that


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 18, 2006)

The Spitfire's notoriously short range means its relegated to the "also ran" catagory.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 19, 2006)

Plus you can get the Merlin sound from a P-51 too.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 19, 2006)

and you get the sound of FOUR merlins with the lanc, plus she has long range- thus she must be the greatest fighter of all time!


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 19, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and you get the sound of FOUR merlins with the lanc, plus she has long range- thus she must be the greatest fighter of all time!


Interesting logic Lanc. That was one problem with most fighters of the time. The only ones that really had the range (and good still fight) were the P-47, P-51 and P-38. The Spifire as a interceptor was almost second to none and range isn't a big factor (despite this the range of the Spitfire was increased throughout it's lifetime).


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The Spitfire's notoriously short range means its relegated to the "also ran" catagory.



I dont see why...calling the SPitfire an also-ran is extremely naive. Its an interceptor, for home defense, not for escorting bombers into Germany.

I also consider the Spitfire the greatest fighter of the war, but Id have a P-38, Fw-190 or 5-serie Italian fighter anyday.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 19, 2006)

Its what you do on offense is what wins wars.

If you want a point defense bomber interceptor, the P38 and F4U could fill that role with ease.

If you want a point defense interceptor to go after fighters, the P38 and F4U also could fill that role with ease.


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 19, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Its what you do on offense is what wins wars.
> 
> If you want a point defense bomber interceptor, the P38 and F4U could fill that role with ease.
> 
> If you want a point defense interceptor to go after fighters, the P38 and F4U also could fill that role with ease.



AND
If you want an escort that can go the distance the P-38 will do it.

If you want to drop 4,000lbs bombs 500mi from base anf fight its way out the P-38 will do it or 2,000lbs to 800+mi anfd fight their way home again its the P-38.

If your fighting over water the P-38 has an extra engine to get you home Or the F4U can just land on a carrier.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 19, 2006)

Exactly. The Spitfire was a remarkable aircraft for the first part of the war. But when it was time to take the fight to the axis powers, the P38, P51 and F4U filled the role.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 19, 2006)

Are you saying the Spitfire didn't take much of a role after 1940? Or that it even saw any axis aircraft? 

The Spitfire took the fight to the axis throughout the war. In every theatre of war from the Asian Steppes to Burma, from North Africa to Great Britain the Spitfire fought every single Axis nation with great distinction.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 19, 2006)

The Spitfires claim to glory rapidly faded from the scene towards the end of 1943. After the P38's were flying their missions, and the P47's got their long range drop tanks, the fight was brought into the Reich. At that point, the Spitfire role was more or less "sloppy seconds".

When the P51's were deployed in quantity, the role for the Spit was pushed aside even further.

In the PTO (including the CBI), it was a marginal player. The extra long ranges precluded its use for any lasting effect.

I will say it was the greatest fighter up to middle 1943. After that, it was far from it.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 19, 2006)

well syscom i wish you better luck in this discussion then your one on the B24


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 19, 2006)

Well, tell me how many Spitfire sorties there were over Germany in 1944?

How many Spitfire sorties in the PTO between New Guinie and Rabaul?

How many Spitfire kills were there of the Luftwaffe in 1944 and 1945?

Like I said, an excellent plane whos time came and went when the long range fighters took to the air.

Plus I more than proved my point about the B24. Still tied with the Lanc for 2nd best.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 19, 2006)

how many P51 38 and 47s were scrambled or flew Cap to cover the build up of Overlord forces from 42 to 44 ? how many took part in the largest air battle in the west at Dieppe? Each one of the fighters in this discussion was was a great fighter but in all reality the Luftwaffe in 44/45 was spent force the glory days of the Luftwaffe were over and had been since the end of 43 not to knock the tenacity and courage of any of the pilots


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 19, 2006)

The Luftwaffe was eliminated as a force by the P38/P47/P51.

And the only reason the Spitfire had the CAP over England was it couldnt do anything else.

Range means a lot and when you cant fly to where the fight is, then youre not contributing much.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 19, 2006)

If the Spitfire didn't have the range to engage the Luftwaffe? How were the Luftwaffe encountering Spitfires? Must have been some kind of ...well, I just don't know what. All those reports of Spitfire encounters must have been against Mustangs and Lightnings. All those Spitfire VIIIs over Burma couldn't have been there, it's just not true. Those Spitfire Vs and IXs flying over Russia must have just been made up. The Spitfire XIVs that the Luftwaffe hated, must have just been Western propaganda 'cos it could have NEVER engaged the Luftwaffe. 

And what about North Africa and Italy? And don't tell me the Spitfire took the most pictures of Europe ... because that's just a big lie too.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 19, 2006)

If push came to shove I would say the luftwaffe was probably more abused on the Eastern front then on the Western front maybe the fact the Luftwaffe was not present on the Channel or North Sea is a statement about the prowess of the guys who flew the Spits and how many stragglers of the daylight raids were saved by the Spits yes range means a lot and the guys who escorted the B17s til Sept/Oct 43 to the German border probably wish they could have gone further but please don't mock their contribution as little


----------



## plan_D (Feb 19, 2006)

There were Spitfires flying over Germany! And there were Spitfires flying in the VVS. The Soviet Union were practically begging for the Spitfire IX to protect Moscow.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 19, 2006)

But their were no Spitfires flying past the Netherlands and Belgium untill airfields in France were established. The early P47's had a similar range issue untill the long range drop tanks were available. P38's and P51's never had this issue and simply flew deep into Germany and fought the Luftwaffe where they were. 

The best fighter is the one that can bring fly to the fight where ever it is and hold its own. While the P38's and P51's were flying over Berlin, the Spits were waiting over the Channel wishing they could get into the fight.

But if the Spit had the range issue solved, then why were none of them being used for the bomber escorts? 

And the Spitfires performce in the CBI was decidedly "so-so". It simply didnt have the range required to fly where the main action was, and that was in the Solomons and New Guinie.

Like I said, it was perhaps the best fighter int he first half of the war, but was quickly outclassed by other types.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 19, 2006)

The Spitfire was flying over France escorting bombers, where the Luftwaffe was still in operation. The Spitfires in the Soviet Union were operating against the Luftwaffe there. The Spitfires in North Africa were operating against the Luftwaffe there. The Spitfires in Italy were operating against the Luftwaffe there. There were Spitfires over Belgium and Holland. 

And the Spitfires in the CBI attained a 8:1 kill:loss ratio. That is not "so-so" ...


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 19, 2006)

But there were no Spitfires flying over Germany.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2006)

> Still tied with the Lanc for 2nd best



dude everyone proved you wrong on that one! we all agreed the lanc was outright second you provided no real argument, but this isn't the place for this, go back to the bomber threads if you want to carry this on.........



> But there were no Spitfires flying over Germany.



pD's already said there were, heck even i've heard about spits over germany..............


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 20, 2006)

Dude! the Spit must have been HORRIBLE and not have deserved a place as one of the greatest fighters of WW2 if it cant just go from France to Germany.
this is the wrong place for a lanc, it deserves the place as one of the greatest BOMBERS

and Spitifres were also used as bomber escorts alot earlier, prolly during the luft's glory days


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2006)

yes spits escorted early light bomber raids into france and some of the low countries early in the war, and the spits DID escort daylight raids later in the war, the reason you don't hear about them much is because the RAF flew most bombing sorties by night later in the war, how do you propose a primarily day fighter escorts a lanc to berlin at night? that's why we had mossies..........


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 20, 2006)

They also did Rhubarbs and such like over France in 1941-43...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2006)

they helped out the lancs when they were doing some gardening too........

(i wonder how long we can keep a conversation going with RAF slang )


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 20, 2006)

Without recieving some major boosts to internal fuel, the Spitfire couldn't of made a long range escort like the P-51/P-38 and to a lesser extent the P-47.

But, by the middle of 1944, with the fitting of wing tanks, rear fuselage tanks and enlarged foward tanks, Spitfires had double their internal fuel capacity, and with the fitting of external tanks its range had increased by around 250%. Spitfires VIIs were running 4 hour long daylight escort missions by mid 1943.

Did it turn into a long range escort fighter? No, of course not. But its not as useless in the post '43 ETO/PTO/MTO as syscom would have us believe.

Similarly, while the Spitfire couldn't operate effectively over Germany as a long range escort in 1944, the P-51 could hardly of fulfilled the role of point interceptor that the Spitfire played over Britain in 1940, Malta in 1942 and over the Continent in the post D-Day period. 

Its really a case of design priorities. Spitfires were designed as short ranged point interceptors. The P-51 was designed for long range operations.

The Spitfire pushed the LuftWaffe back into France and then kept it there. Can you imagine the USAAF trying to to build up its first mass bomber formations in late 1942 and 1943 without the RAF running constant interference? Or getting masses groups of P-51s, P-47s and P-38s into the air without the RAF controling British airspace?

The excellence of the Spitfire and the dedication of the RAF allowed the USAAF to concentrate on destroying the LUftWaffe. Someone else was running defence, so they could concentrate on offence. If the USAAF were forced to defend their own airspace, do you think they could of projected power nearly as effectively as they did?


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 20, 2006)

Of course not which is why the defence of British Airspace was just as important if not more important than the offensive action against the Luftwaffe undertaken by the USAAF. For what it did the Spitfire was (and is) a great aircraft.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 20, 2006)

Good points guys. Let's not forget that a lot of the American fighters were designed or altered based on lessons learned by the British.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2006)

and in some cases even went as far as using british engines with british engineers high up in the design stages 

but to say that interceptors were not needed over south england post '41 is rubbish, as has been said the raiders that would otherwise have caused havoc amoung the formating bombers had to be kept out, which is what the RAF, and more specifically the spitfire did, the LW still had fighters based in northern france, as long as they were there there was a threat......


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 20, 2006)

Jabberwocky said:


> ......Spitfires VIIs were running 4 hour long daylight escort missions by mid 1943....



There is no evidence they escorted 8th AF bombers past the low countries. They had the same range restrictions as the P47's.



> .....as useless in the post '43 ETO/PTO/MTO as syscom would have us believe...



It was the best allied fighter up to the end of 1943. Then its role as carrying the fight to the Luftwaffe was over as the long range P51's and P38's went where the Spit (and P47) couldnt. It's obvious its glory days were eclipsed.



> Similarly, while the Spitfire couldn't operate effectively over Germany as a long range escort in 1944, the P-51 could hardly of fulfilled the role of point interceptor that the Spitfire played over Britain in 1940, Malta in 1942 and over the Continent in the post D-Day period.



The P38 always had a phenominal rate of climb. This was its origionally designed role. In 1943, it could have been easily used as an interceptor if it had been made available for that mission. 

Plus as Ive said before, the Spit was the best allied fighter in 1940-through most of 1943.



> Its really a case of design priorities. Spitfires were designed as short ranged point interceptors. The P-51 was designed for long range operations.



In 1944 and 1945, the air war had changed where the allied requirement for interceptors were way back on the list. Once the long range fighters were chasing the Luftwaffe all over Germany and Poland, the Spitfire was way in back waiting for an occasional and inconsequential German intruder.



> The Spitfire pushed the LuftWaffe back into France and then kept it there. Can you imagine the USAAF trying to to build up its first mass bomber formations in late 1942 and 1943 without the RAF running constant interference? Or getting masses groups of P-51s, P-47s and P-38s into the air without the RAF controling British airspace?



There were no "mass" 8th AF bomber formations untill summer of 1943. In fact, there were also few P47 groups to go with them. It really wasnt untill Jan/Feb 1944 that the AAF had enough P38's and P51's to penetrate deep into Germany. 

As Ive said plenty of times, the Spitfire was the best allied fighter up to the end of 1943. After that time, its role was becoming more and more irrelevant.



> The excellence of the Spitfire and the dedication of the RAF allowed the USAAF to concentrate on destroying the LUftWaffe. Someone else was running defence, so they could concentrate on offence. If the USAAF were forced to defend their own airspace, do you think they could of projected power nearly as effectively as they did?



In 1944, there was a flood of 8th, 9th, 12th and 15th AF fighters. The fighters of all these AF's brought the fight to the Luftwaffe and kept them bottled up. Where the allied bombers were flying, so will you find the Luftwaffe.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2006)

> There were no "mass" 8th AF bomber formations untill summer of 1943. In fact, there were also few P47 groups to go with them. It really wasnt untill Jan/Feb 1944 that the AAF had enough P38's and P51's to penetrate deep into Germany.



he wasn't refering to the spits escorting the bombers, he was talking about spits in the interceptor role keeping german raiders from northern france from entering british airspace and reaking havoc in the formating bombers, imagine the trouble a handful of -190s could cause if they got into the bombers amoungst the chaos of the formation, why is it that they didn't do this? because of the RAF keeping them out.........


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 20, 2006)

Up to the end of 1943, the Spits did a great job doing this. In 1944, there were plenty of 8th and 9th AF fighters to also do interception work if required.

In fact, you can make an argument that the P38 would have been superior to the Spitfire for the interception role as its endurance was so much higher, it could climb to altitude and wait for the incoming German planes than to have to stay on the ground and then scramble.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 20, 2006)

yes they became a force to be reckoned with but probably lacked experienced aircrew to man the force except for those that cut their teeth with RAF/RCAF many of the top US pilots trained with the RCAF


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2006)

> it could climb to altitude and wait for the incoming German planes than to have to stay on the ground and then scramble



the reason for the frantic scrables was not because the pilots thought they didn't have much fuel so wanted to stay on the ground as long as possible, it was simply because they didn't get much warning, france is only a few miles away, that means you aint gonna get much warning, as soon as incoming raiders were spotted, fighters were scrabled, P-38s would've got no more warning than spits, in fact they proberly would've got less because of all the extra channels it had to get through to get to the americans, the british got warnings straight from the horse's mouth, we were the horse's mouth!


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 20, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> yes they became a force to be reckoned with but probably lacked experienced aircrew to man the force except for those that cut their teeth with RAF/RCAF many of the top US pilots trained with the RCAF



Even the RAF had rookies that needed experience.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 20, 2006)

> the reason for the frantic scrables was not because the pilots thought they didn't have much fuel so wanted to stay on the ground as long as possible, it was simply because they didn't get much warning, france is only a few miles away, that means you aint gonna get much warning, as soon as incoming raiders were spotted, fighters were scrabled, P-38s would've got no more warning than spits, in fact they proberly would've got less because of all the extra channels it had to get through to get to the americans, the british got warnings straight from the horse's mouth, we were the horse's mouth!



Not true. The P38's could have been up at altitude loitering around for 6 to 7 hours at a time and then pounced on the incoming aircrfat. the Spits didnt have that type of endurance. And extra time to scramble fighters becaus eof communication channels? Ummmm...... ever heard of placing a telephone into the P38 base operations center? And then why worry about scrambling times when your P38 is already up at altitude and only needs to be vectored into position.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 20, 2006)

I'm not sure the radios or frequencies were compatable plus the time involved in upgrading the crews and a/c to work within the RAf system the compatability issue is still with us today as for your previous post about air combat in the PTO the USAAF from mid 43 til the end of hostilities only accounted for 501 a/c destroyed 370 in the air and 131 on the ground the USN was the major force


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 20, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> I'm not sure the radios or frequencies were compatable plus the time involved in upgrading the crews and a/c to work within the RAf system the compatability issue is still with us today as for your previous post about air combat in the PTO the USAAF from mid 43 til the end of hostilities only accounted for 501 a/c destroyed 370 in the air and 131 on the ground the USN was the major force



I'm not sure about your numbers. Theyre way to low for the AAF.

And even if your numbers are correct, so what? The Spitfire was not the type of fighter you wanted in the SW Pacific.

Radio issues? Not very hard to correct is it. "Upgrading" the crews? What makes you think they needed to be upgraded?


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 20, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> > the reason for the frantic scrables was not because the pilots thought they didn't have much fuel so wanted to stay on the ground as long as possible, it was simply because they didn't get much warning, france is only a few miles away, that means you aint gonna get much warning, as soon as incoming raiders were spotted, fighters were scrabled, P-38s would've got no more warning than spits, in fact they proberly would've got less because of all the extra channels it had to get through to get to the americans, the british got warnings straight from the horse's mouth, we were the horse's mouth!
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The P38's could have been up at altitude loitering around for 6 to 7 hours at a time and then pounced on the incoming aircrfat. the Spits didnt have that type of endurance. And extra time to scramble fighters becaus eof communication channels? Ummmm...... ever heard of placing a telephone into the P38 base operations center? And then why worry about scrambling times when your P38 is already up at altitude and only needs to be vectored into position.



So what the P-38's could of been loitering for 6/7 hours if I was wanting to defend my country from air attack I would rather have pilots who have been in the air for 30 mins (Spitfire's who have been scrambled) than 6 or 7 hours (P-38's on patrol). The combat efficiency of a pilot who has been in the air for 6 or 7 hours will be less than that of a Spitfire pilot who has been scrambled as fatigue would of set in and so the pilot would not be as alert. Taking this into account I would rather have Squadrons of Spitfires on standby on the ground rather than Squadrons of P-38's on patrol for 7 hours at a time.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 20, 2006)

Thats a stupid way of looking at it. Aircraft on the ground are sitting targets. Aircraft climbing for altitude for an intercept are at a low energy level.

ANY airplane at altitude is ALWAYS ready. And even if a pilot is a little tired from sitting around up there for few hours will be plenty alert and ready to fight once they get a shot of adrenaline going.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 20, 2006)

I never suggested that they were escorting USAAF 8th Air Force heavies. However, they were escorting RAF Halifaxes and Lancasters on daylight raids to the submarine pens at La Pallice and La Rochelle. Spitfire VIIs operated all the way up to the Saarland, right on the German border. 

There was a period where the Spitfires were undoubtedly outranged by their USAAF counterparts, namely from late 1943 until the middle of 1944. They weren't much use in escorting the heavies over Germany, true, but something of equal importance was going on over France at the same time as the 8th AirForce fighters began to find sucess: the systematic destruction of the LuftWaffe in northern France. Spitfires played key escort and fighter bomber roles in the winter and spring of 1944, ensuring the success of Point Blank, Crossbow, the Transportation Plan and the build up to Overlord.

After the Allied landings in June, Spitfires were the first fighters to land in France, after running short of fuel escorting medium bomber formations past Paris. From June to the end of the war, the Spitfire was the primary air superiority fighter of the RAF over Europe. As the ground forces pushed further into France, Spitfires racked up a steady stream of kills, day in and day out. They covered and protected the Allied armies, flew fighter bomber sorties, escorted medium bomber formations, flew standing patrols and attacked LuftWaffe formations. While the P-51 was knocking the stuffing out of the LuftWaffe over Germany, the Spitfire was doing the same thing over France. 

By June 1943 there were 4 FGs of P-47s, the 4th, 56th, 78th and 353rd. By the end of August 3 more P-47 equipped Fighter Groups had joined them, the 355th, 352nd and 356th. There were 7 P-47 groups active before any of the P-38 or P-51 groups began operations. The heyday of the P-51 was from early 1944 to late 1945. The Spitfires heyday was from late 1939 until the end of the war.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 20, 2006)

but the spits did escort the 8th airforce on numerous raids sweinfurt regensberg and as you stated not far enough but to the german border give or take and my numbers ref usaaf kills I picked up from US defence docs


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 20, 2006)

The Spits and P47's throughout 1943 couldnt penetrate German airspace period. Once the bombers crossed the border they were at the mercy of the Luftwaffe.

The same thing goes for France. Draw your radius of action from England and all the Luftwaffe had to do is stay outsde that arc. 

Dont forget that once the 8th and 15th AF bombers began their regular penetrations of the Reich in early 1944, the Luftwaffe pretty much ceased to exist in France. The P38's and P51's that flew to Berlin also swept France on the way home. 

My point is this:
1) The Spit was the best allied fighter up to the end of 1943.
2) The only role that the Spit had in the first 1/2 of 1944 was an interceptor.
3) By that time, the P38 could do the same job as well as fly long range missions.
4) By the time the Spit reestablished itself in France (in June 1944), there werent many chances for it to fight as they still had the same old range restrictions. 
5) The RAF and AAF tactical squadrons were covered by a myriad of fighters and were never dependant on Spitfire escort. The numbers of dog fights between P38's, P47's Spits and Typhoons were quite few in number.
6) By the time the Spitfire was close enough to fly around Germany, the air war was already won.
7) The P38 was NOT the all time great. The Spit was a great plane for 1940-1943, but not after. The P51 was the greatest fighter of 1944 and 1945 simply because it was good in all catagories and had the exceptional range to go to where the enemy is.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 20, 2006)

Spitfire pilots claimed around 1,200 German aircraft in the final 10 months of the war, outscoring all other RAF fighters by a ratio of around 2:1, while making up about 35% of Fighter Commands front line strength. 

I'd hardly call 1,200 kills inconsequential.

Besides the Spitfire did a lot more than act as an interceptor. By 1944 it was a jack of all trades operating in more than a half-dozen variants: medium range escort, high altitude recon, low altitude fighter, high altitude fighter, low altitude recon, fighter bomber and even a carrier capable fighter. About the only job it didn't do was long range escort.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 21, 2006)

1200 kills from July 1944 to April 1945? Do those numbers agree with German figures? Are those from only the ETO or include MTO as well?

Any breakdown on whether they were bombers or fighters?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 21, 2006)

> Not true. The P38's could have been up at altitude loitering around for 6 to 7 hours at a time and then pounced on the incoming aircrfat. the Spits didnt have that type of endurance.



dude thats combat air patrol, NOT interception.............



> And extra time to scramble fighters becaus eof communication channels? Ummmm...... ever heard of placing a telephone into the P38 base operations center?



dude that's not how the RAF operate, anywhere in the british military if you wanna so much as sneeze you gotta ask permission from your CO, the RAF wouldn't have made it as simple as phoning through to an american base, to an RAF base it would be easy, to put it through to an american base would be the absolute last resort, all other options would be weighed up first, if you think communications between the nations were that good or that the americans were seen as our saviors by the british you're wrong, it wasn't as easy as just picking up a phone and you weren't seen as our saviors, you were seen as loud and obnoxious, don't get me wrong we were glad to see you but only because it's someone else to, quite literally take some of the flak and give us food and metal...............



> And even if a pilot is a little tired from sitting around up there for few hours will be plenty alert and ready to fight once they get a shot of adrenaline going



even after a few hours driving a car your attention levels and energy levels drop significantly, to claim that a pilot who has been up in the air for hours will have the same energy levels as one who has just taken off is rubbish..........

what's more when raids were coming in they were often very large, we needed 5 or 6 squadrons at a time to intercept, are you planning on keeping these 5 or 6 squadrons of P-38s up the air all together?


----------



## evangilder (Feb 21, 2006)

Sending aircraft up to loiter for extended periods when they might not even face enemy aircraft is costly in fuel and wear and tear.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 21, 2006)

especially if you want to keep several entire squadrons up at the same time which it sounds like he's implying.........


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 21, 2006)

And even if your numbers are correct, so what? The Spitfire was not the type of fighter you wanted in the SW Pacific.

[/quote]

Agreed. I think, unless they were on carriers, the spits were only used in CBI. I don't have my stuff in front of me but did the Aussies use them in New Guinea?

:{)


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 21, 2006)

The Spitfires were not even worthy of carrier operations (after 1942). The Corsair and Hellcat had similar performance figures with a more reliable radial engine, plus a lot longer endurance.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 21, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Sending aircraft up to loiter for extended periods when they might not even face enemy aircraft is costly in fuel and wear and tear.



Evans, its war. Anything you do will wear out eqmt. Logistically, the consumption of fuel for these hypothetical P38 squadrons is minimal.

When you have 3000 aircraft of all types flying around, whats another 100?


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 21, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> especially if you want to keep several entire squadrons up at the same time which it sounds like he's implying.........



Are you implying that its impossible to fly eight squadrons simultaneously?

The 8th and 9th AF could put up over 2000 aircraft in the air at one time early in 1944. 

By middle 1944, that figure goes up to close to 3000.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 21, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and in some cases even went as far as using british engines with british engineers high up in the design stages
> 
> but to say that interceptors were not needed over south england post '41 is rubbish, as has been said the raiders that would otherwise have caused havoc amoung the formating bombers had to be kept out, which is what the RAF, and more specifically the spitfire did, the LW still had fighters based in northern france, as long as they were there there was a threat......



Ummm, did you read where I said the Spit was a great fighter untill the end of 1943.......... will you please specify where I said that they werent needed prior to that time?

I will be clear about this one more time........ 
1) The Spitfire was the best fighter the allies had up to the end of 1943. 
2) Once the P38/P47/P51 went looking for the Luftwaffe in their own backyard, the need for the Spitfire went downward. The Luftwaffe was fighting for their lives over Berlin, not the English Channel.
3) The P38 was designed as an interceptor. Its climb to 30,000 feet was similar to the Spit. There was no single engine fighter threat from the Luftwaffe aftre Jan 1944. It was German bombers that was the threat, and that meant the Spitfires superior maneuverability over the P38 meant nothing. If the 8th AF so desired, the P38 squadrons could have been converted to interceptors, kept back in England and performed the same function as the Spitfire, with the added bonus of enough fuel to stay on station for hours.
4)


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 21, 2006)

> dude thats combat air patrol, NOT interception.............



Better to have ANY fighter in the air ready to attack, than ANY plane on the ground that needs time to scramble, form up, climb to altitude and then get ready for the fight.



> dude that's not how the RAF operate, anywhere in the british military if you wanna so much as sneeze you gotta ask permission from your CO, the RAF wouldn't have made it as simple as phoning through to an american base, to an RAF base it would be easy, to put it through to an american base would be the absolute last resort, all other options would be weighed up first, if you think communications between the nations were that good or that the americans were seen as our saviors by the british you're wrong, it wasn't as easy as just picking up a phone and you weren't seen as our saviors, you were seen as loud and obnoxious, don't get me wrong we were glad to see you but only because it's someone else to, quite literally take some of the flak and give us food and metal...............



OK, FDR will send a telegram to Churchill and ask him to "please place a phone in your RAF operations room, next to the desk of your fighter director who has authority to scramble the fighters, and please have it setup as a direct line to the base where our P38's are based.. And by the way, I will have the 8th AF commander dispatch an officer each night for the next days comm frequencies so we can all talk on the same channel".

And the US was loud and obnoxious? heheheheheh, sore point with you still? hehehehehhehe.



> even after a few hours driving a car your attention levels and energy levels drop significantly, to claim that a pilot who has been up in the air for hours will have the same energy levels as one who has just taken off is rubbish..........



5th AF, 8th AF (and in 1945, the 7th AF P47N's) went on 12 hour missions on a regular basis. The pilots hated it but when the battle started, they all were fully alert. Of course since the RAF never had those types of fighter missions, such pilot performance data was not fully understood by your aviation doctors and "shrinks".



> ...what's more when raids were coming in they were often very large, we needed 5 or 6 squadrons at a time to intercept, are you planning on keeping these 5 or 6 squadrons of P-38s up the air all together?



Well, since the AAF doctrine were for the squadrons to fight together as a group, it would take some changes in the tactics to have them fight as individual squadrons instead. No problem. The AAF were commanded by some smart people and could change doctrine and tactics as quick as needed.

Besides, they would be defending against small numbers of intruders, not mass attacks at the multiple group level.


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 21, 2006)

While the jet age is not and never will be a area of interest for me, I do have a question about the Mig-21. How was it as a fighter? I have read one book that said it was a pure pleasure to fly but how good was it as a fighter ? Thanks


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 21, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> While the jet age is not and never will be a area of interest for me, I do have a question about the Mig-21. How was it as a fighter? I have read one book that said it was a pure pleasure to fly but how good was it as a fighter ? Thanks



I've worked on a Mig-21, we had a Russian come and test fly it...

I was told it was a joy to fly but got real heavy at high speeds. There was a CG problem when flying without the centerline tank and allowing the main tank to go under 1/3 capacity (or something like that). It also lands REAL fast....

Its combat record had highs and lows - while formitable, it took its lumps in Vietnam and in the Middle East, and I know the Islamic Iranian Air Force shot down a few during the Iran - Iraq War.

The IAF still uses them and they did well aganist the PAF.

Here's a site that will give you combat data...

http://www.acig.org/

The guy I was working with broke an engine igniter, the whole tail had to come off to change it...






Al Hansen


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 21, 2006)

How come the Mig has no identification marks? I though all aircraft had to have "N" number displayed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 21, 2006)

It does - If I remember correctly the N number is under the Horizontal Stab...


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 21, 2006)

Thanks Joe


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 21, 2006)

Wasn't there 2 versions of the Mig 21 called the big or little tail not sure which one was the newer but it was a fix for for porpoising at higher speeds or some such affliction


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 21, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> Wasn't there 2 versions of the Mig 21 called the big or little tail not sure which one was the newer but it was a fix for for porpoising at higher speeds or some such affliction



There were 2 basic versions of the Mig-21 in several variants. The early Mig-21F was basically a day fighter and was probably the sleekest of the bunch. The Later Mig-21P, PF, PFM and BIS absorbed a lot of gadgets and somewhat changed flying characteristics and although there were more powerful engines installed, performance was a give and take situation. I've been around the F, PF and UTI (Trainer) versions and you could see how this aircraft really evolved.

I never heard about the high speed porpoise but it wouldn't surprise me. The Russian test pilot we hired told us numerous times that the Mig-21 could be a very dangerous aircraft in the hands of an untrained pilot...


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 22, 2006)

and not to mention that you will lose 2 engines and a bigger plane if a P-38 gets lost, and also the superiority to German fighters, it isnt that easy to kill a 109 or a 190, well, not until the latter half of 1944


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 22, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> and not to mention that you will lose 2 engines and a bigger plane if a P-38 gets lost, and also the superiority to German fighters, it isnt that easy to kill a 109 or a 190, well, not until the latter half of 1944



The engine manufactoring capacity of the US was so huge that replacing "lost" engines was not an issue.

The P38, while not a miracle fighter that could defeat any plane in the Luftwaffe, was still good enough to hold its own against an Me-109 or FW-190.

Probably more (this is just a guess......) than one German fighter pilot who was lost to a P38 in an "other than bounce" situation was due to the German pilot underestimating what the P38 could do.


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 22, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The Spitfires were not even worthy of carrier operations (after 1942). The Corsair and Hellcat had similar performance figures with a more reliable radial engine, plus a lot longer endurance.



I ran across this piece of info while researching a rubuttal on another thread. It seems that during Okinawa, the RN deployed a 4 carrier Task Force that seemed to have included Seafires. I guess they must of been used for local defense and possibly in close kamakazi hunters. Just guessing.

:{)


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 22, 2006)

The Seafires were used because the RN had nothing else to use. I dont know why they didnt request the Hellcat or Corsair.

The Seafires drawback was its short endurance and an airframe that was too weak for carrier ops.

The moment the Seafury became available, then the RN finally had a great shipboard fighter.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 22, 2006)

The RN showed the USN how to use the Corsair from carriers, they used them alongside Seafires on Carriers from 1943 (I think). They USN didn't use them on carriers until 1944...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 22, 2006)

Very Correct!


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 22, 2006)

Here is the entry from www.naval-history.net. They had, according to this, Corsairs and Hellcats too.

:{)

"MARCH 1945

Okinawa 1945 - Royal Navy Campaign Honour

British Pacific Fleet - On the 15th, Adm Rawlings signals from Manus to Adm Nimitz that the British Pacific Fleet is ready to join Adm Spruance's Fifth Fleet. Now known as Task Force 57, battleships "King George V" and "Howe", carriers "Illustrious", "Indefatigable", "Indomitable" and "Victorious", five cruisers including the New Zealand "Gambia" and 11 destroyers, two Australian sail for Ulithi to refuel. On the 26th they are on station off the Sakishima Islands in the Ryukyu group. Their mission is to prevent the islands being used as staging posts for Japanese reinforcements flying from Formosa to Okinawa. BPF's main weapon is of course not the battleships, but the Seafires and American-made Avengers, Hellcats and Corsairs of the carriers' strike squadrons. They start their attacks that day." 

I also agree Gnomey, the RN used Corsairs on carriers before the USN and USMC did and proved thier feasability.

:{)


----------



## evangilder (Feb 22, 2006)

Yep, as a matter of fact, it was the Brits who taught the Americans how to land a Corsair on a carrier. Not something that _I_ would want to do!


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 22, 2006)

I should have phrased my response "why use the seafires at all if they had Hellcats and Corsairs".

The Seafire was definatley not a carrier aircraft.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 22, 2006)

Neither was the Corsair until the Brits showed the Yanks how to use it as one


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 22, 2006)

So here is the choice, land on a pitching deck with the Spit's narrow gear or the Corsair's loooong nose. I think I would prefer to have Scotty transport me.

:{)


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 22, 2006)

The Brits get kudo's in figuring out how to land the Corsair on the deck of a carrier. 

Its also too bad the Seafury was not ready untill after the war.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 23, 2006)

indeed the earlier corsairs did look impossible to land on carriers, not to mention its huge propeller


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 23, 2006)

the large propeller was the reason for the gull wing, it was the best way of keeping the prop from eating up the deck and still keep what would otherwise have to be long fragile gear short and stronger...........


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 23, 2006)

correct, hadnt that wing been bent the Japs wouldnt have that many nightmares about US planes


----------



## CurzonDax (Feb 23, 2006)

So having to come at a almost 90 degree angle to the deck and then have to turn to land on the deck and still try to hit the 2 wire is too much fun for me. Add to that battle damage, weather, pilot exhaustion, and just plain having a bad monday, these pilots have my respect. 

:{)


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 24, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> correct, hadnt that wing been bent the Japs wouldnt have that many nightmares about US planes



The F6F gave them plenty of nightmares.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 24, 2006)

ya, but you still would have more nightmares if there were 2 evil bunnies trying 2 kill you rather than 1 right?


----------



## lonestarman63 (Feb 25, 2006)

needs little support and can handle many roles, yet can be anywhere where as the others need to have a base or field


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 26, 2006)

needs little support? dude havent u heard of heat-seeking SAMs?
others need to have a base, so u mean the harrier doesnt need a base?

a harrier without fuel or weapon's only use is something to use for cover if ur being shot at


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2006)

i believe he was refering to the corsair and it's ability to operate off carriers..............


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 26, 2006)

look at his post carefully... it says "post subject: harrier"


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2006)

oh yeah... no one ever actually looks at though cos very few people use it......

but he means that not only can the harrier operate from carriers, she doesn't need a prepared runway to operate, she proberly has the best rough feild abilities of any front line aircraft, that being said sometimes she doesn't even need a field, 100ft of any ground and she's away, she can land on the spot and her remarkable ability to operate from forests even! means she can be placed close to the front and the enemy wont even know they're there, whereas they spot all the planes sitting by the runway with their satalites..........

and heat seaking SAMs are a threat to any aircraft, i'm willing to guess that due to no big exausts at the rear with afterburners she has less heat signature than most planes, admitedly more speed would be helpful in evading them but in saying that the on;y plane that could really outrun missiles on a regular basis was the SR-71...........

having said all this however i feel that we should discuss the sea harriers and not the RAF harriers as they're used in the Ground attack role, the sea harriers being used as fighters and ground attack............


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 26, 2006)

a list of greatest ever fighters isnt complete with the harrier


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 27, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> So having to come at a almost 90 degree angle to the deck and then have to turn to land on the deck and still try to hit the 2 wire is too much fun for me. Add to that battle damage, weather, pilot exhaustion, and just plain having a bad monday, these pilots have my respect.
> 
> :{)



what was the standard procedure to land a corsair?


----------



## johnny (Feb 27, 2006)

No Defiant there either!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 27, 2006)

Looma said:


> a list of greatest ever fighters isnt complete with the harrier



again make that the Sea Harrier, the Harrier as used by the RAF is for Ground attack and has minimal abilities for the air to air role, whereas the Sea harrier has all the attributes of the RAF harriers but with specialist air to air capabilities in the form of the Blue Vixen RaDAR and more extensive air to air weapons suite...........


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 27, 2006)

The Harrier doesnt even deserve to be in the list. Perhaps in the "top ten most highly specialized and unusual". But nowhere near the top ten best ever.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 27, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The Harrier doesnt even deserve to be in the list. Perhaps in the "top ten most highly specialized and unusual". But nowhere near the top ten best ever.



I'd even pick the Spitfire over the Harrier in the rankings.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Feb 28, 2006)

Well it pretty much won the air war over the Falklands.

Let me remind you guys the aircraft in this poll are based on its attributes of its own time, what made it unique, combat record ect. 

Vertical take Off and landing is gonna be a big part of the future and the Harrier is what started it.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 1, 2006)

IMO the 109 should be in that list


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 1, 2006)

The -109 was nowhere near the Greatest Fighter Aircraft of All Time...


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 1, 2006)

I think the 109 one of the greats. Excellent performance, long service and chosen mounta of the highest scoring aces history has seen.

However, the 109 almost always played second fiddle to another type for most of its service, whether it was to the Spitfire, FW-190A/D, P-51, La-5/7, Yak-9 or other. Despite this, it was ALWAYS competetive and ALWAYS a dangerous opponent, no matter what period of the war. It was even dominant in some campaigns (Poland, Norway, France and Russia pre 1942 come to mind) and had enough performance and class to be consistently deadly, often in the most inexpert of hands.

The again, along with the IL-2 and some others like the Zero and Battle, it would probably go equally well on a 'Greatest Target Of All Time" list, seeing how many were eventually shot down during the course of the war.


----------



## CurzonDax (Mar 1, 2006)

Actually the Fokker product that needs to be on the list is D. VII which was even mentioned in the Treaty of Versailles and I personally would pick the SPAD XIII or the S.E.5a as better aircraft than the Camel. 

:{)


----------



## Royzee617 (Mar 1, 2006)

FCS tho I hate lists and rankings especially, IHTS the 109 is the best ever if you rank according to kills and numbers built. Maybe then the Zero. Nothing comes close to these fantastic machines, and their pilots, except maybe the Gloster Gladiators over Malta or Finland IMO!


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 1, 2006)

The -109 and Spit always suffered from lack of range. Thats what keeps it from being the best.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2006)

Zero - over-rated....


----------



## Royzee617 (Mar 1, 2006)

Kills speak for themselves - there is no other criterion for success!

YHTBJ the Zero 'over-rated' you sound like the top brass before WW2. Saburo Sakai hammered the opposition in his 'sports plane with machine guns'.

Besides what has range got to do with being 'best'? The Gustav hardly needed range when hacking into the Yanks over Berlin. Endurance counts for little when you are out of ammo.


----------



## elmilitaro (Mar 1, 2006)

true.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 1, 2006)

Royzee617 said:


> Kills speak for themselves - there is no other criterion for success!
> 
> YHTBJ the Zero 'over-rated' you sound like the top brass before WW2. Saburo Sakai hammered the opposition in his 'sports plane with machine guns'.
> 
> Besides what has range got to do with being 'best'? The Gustav hardly needed range when hacking into the Yanks over Berlin. Endurance counts for little when you are out of ammo.



I think what Flyboy is saying (without having to say it literally) is that the Zero was good for a short period of time. aka When is first came out and up to around early 42. What has to be kept in mind is that the USA had poor planes in the East at that time and and even worst tatics. Trying to dogfight (which they tried to do) with a Zero in 1941 was crazy. So USA pilots learnt that and stopped dogfighting it and used thatch and weave tactics and hit and run tatics and the Zero could not deal with those tactics. Not to mention the Japs had trained and combat tested pilots from China at the time and the USA had nothing but green pilots. After the USA pilots got some exp. and good tatics and decent planes they shoot down Zeros in droves. Over all from 42 forward the Zero did not have that great of a record in combat if you look at kill ratios. You mention Saburo Sakai and his record, he was a good pilot no arguing that but his kills all came before the middle of 42 and early when the oppotion was weaker. He would not have done well from 42 forward, he most likely would of been killed in combat like Hiroyoshi Nishizawa who was the leading Jap ace of the war who was killed in 44 in combat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2006)

Royzee617 said:


> YHTBJ the Zero 'over-rated' you sound like the top brass before WW2. Saburo Sakai hammered the opposition in his 'sports plane with machine guns'.



Here we go again.....  I'll educate you with some earlier posts....

Over all the "Mystical" Zero never achieved better than a 2 to 1 kill ratio over USAAF and USN aircraft during its heyday which would be during 1942. As a matter of fact by the end of the Summer 1942 5th AF Fighter groups were starting to gain air superiority over New Guinea and they were doing it with P-39s, P-400s and P-40s! 

You had several pilots in the theater at the time who scored kills in P-39s and P-40s and as a whole operated very effectively against Japanese forces until the P-38 entered the theater in late 42. Jay Robbins, Thomas Lynch, and Danny Roberts were all top P-38 fighter pilots but all would do well when they first arrived in the area flying P-39s (Lynch got 2 Zeros in May 42' flying the P-400). As a matter of fact the 39th Pursuit Group operating out of New Guinea did extremely well with the P-39 considering it's limitations. 

Again, there were folks knocking down Zeros with 39s, 40s and 400s. They held the line until the P-38 arrived and their losses weren't reflective of what you would think the Zero could inflict.... 

Here's more data....

http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_list_of_tables.html 

FEAF (China excluded) Fighters only (P-39s and P-40s).... 

FEAF 
LOSSES 
Jan - 0 
Feb - 44 
Mar - 12 
Apr - 0 
May - 32 
Jun - 28 
Jul - 11 
Aug - 11 
Sep - 10 
Oct - 0 
Nov - 32 
Dec - 8 

FEAF 
KILLS 
Jan 0 
Feb 20 
Mar 14 
Apr 14 
May 14 
Jun 20 
Jul 4 
Aug 41 
Sep 0 
Oct 6 
Nov 25 
Dec 54 

For entire 1942 the FEAF lost 148 aircraft in air-to-air combat while destroying 212 = 1.43 to 1 FEAR vs Japan. You could slice numbers and do more research and attempt to insert Japanese aircraft by type, but considering the most numerous aircraft were the Zero and Oscar, these numbers do not represent great success by the Japanese. If you note Dec 1942, it's the month the P-38 began heavy operations. 

If you go to the site the remaining years shown on these tables show a huge lop-sided picture with one month showing 130 kills for 19 losses (Aug. 1943). 

Now let's talk about the USN!

This cut and paste is from R Leonard - he has mounds of archives and records as his dad was a WW2 navy ace....

Japanese Major Aircraft Types Losses to Major USN Combat Types in Air-to-Air Action: 

F6F - 5163 
F4U/FG - 2137 
FM - 422 
F4F - 905 
S2BC/SBW - 43 
SBD - 138 
TBF/TBM - 98 
PB4Y - 210 
PBY - 13 
PB2Y - 5 
PBM - 11 
PV - 5 
Total - 9150 

At the same time the USN Losses and resultant Japanese:USN Ratio: - 

F6F – 270; ratio = 19.1 to 1 
F4U/FG - 189; ratio = 11.3 to 1 
FM - 13; ratio = 32.5 to 1 
F4F - 178; ratio = 5.1 to 1 
S2BC/SBW - 18; ratio = 2.4 to 1 
SBD - 79; ratio = 1.7 to 1 
TBF/TBM - 47; ratio = 2.1 to 1 
PB4Y - 28; ratio = 7.5 to 1 
PBY – 36; ratio = 0.4 to 1 
PB2Y - 0; ratio = 8.0 to 1 
PBM - 3; ratio = 3.7 to 1 
PV - 6; ratio = 0.8 to 1 
Total - 867; ratio = 10.6 to 1 

Japanese Losses by Type to USN Aircraft - 
*A6M Series - 3896 *
Ki-43 - 529 
Ki-61 - 477 
Ki-44 - 385 
Ki-27 - 145 
Ki-84 - 144 
J2M - 49 
N1K - 35 
C6N - 55 
Unident SE VF/VO - 247 
D3A - 801 
D4Y - 271 
B5N - 203 
B6N - 174 
Unident S/E VB/VT - 51 
A6M2-N - 71 
E13A - 128 
F1M - 47 
Unident S/E Float - 96 
G3M - 34 
Ki-21 - 88 
G4M - 477 
Ki-46 - 82 
Ki-45 - 77 
J1N - 41 
P1Y - 149 
Ki-48 - 57 
Ki-49 - 25 
Ki-67 - 10 
Unident T/E Combat - 227 
Flying Boats - 69 
Transports - 80 
Trainers - 29 
TOTAL - 9249

Do the math and factor in the Zero and you will find it suffered sadly. Never the less it could be deadly in the hands of a formitable pilot as you mentioned like Saburo Saki but he was one great pilot that made his mark but couldn't turn the tide, so with all this,


*You were saying?!?*


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 1, 2006)

Ohhhhh crap Joe thats a good one. This is what happens when you talk about something you don't know about. Alittle bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Nice one Joe, he must of ticked you off for you to do all that number crunching hehe. I laughed so hard Joe that is sweet.

LMFAO.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 1, 2006)

Royzee617 said:


> Besides what has range got to do with being 'best'? The Gustav hardly needed range when hacking into the Yanks over Berlin. Endurance counts for little when you are out of ammo.



Range counts for a lot. It means youre on offense. You can attack your opponent from any direction on the map. 

Remember one thing about your -109's........ they werent exactly instilling terror in the hearts of the escorting US Fighter pilots.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 1, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Royzee617 said:
> 
> 
> > Besides what has range got to do with being 'best'? The Gustav hardly needed range when hacking into the Yanks over Berlin. Endurance counts for little when you are out of ammo.
> ...



The 109 was a very dangerous foe at any point in the war, if you are not sure about this ask any USA pilot personally, I have. But you are right the 109 had slipped alittle at that point of the war, it no longer could be considered the best fighter in the world (even if u liked the 109). Endurance is very important like you said, look at 109 in BoB, see Spitfires in 41 or P47 trying to escort B17 in 43. Endurance counts bigtime.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> Ohhhhh crap Joe thats a good one. This is what happens when you talk about something you don't know about. Alittle bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Nice one Joe, he must of ticked you off for you to do all that number crunching hehe. I laughed so hard Joe that is sweet.
> 
> LMFAO.



LOL - Thanks! I wasn't ticked, but we went though this a few times here!


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 1, 2006)

Yup... The -109, while a great airplane, was more lethal because of the pilot flying it than the actual airframe itself... I have talked to many pilots and aces, and none were too concerned about the -109, but mention the -190 and its a slightly different conversation...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Yup... The -109, while a great airplane, was more lethal because of the pilot flying it than the actual airframe itself... I have talked to many pilots and aces, and none were too concerned about the -109, but mention the -190 and its a slightly different conversation...



Yep!!! - Talk to a former AAF bomber crew member, it seems their disposition changes and they almost get flashbacks when they hear "FW" or "190"


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 2, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The Spitfire's notoriously short range means its relegated to the "also ran" catagory.



Exactly, range is an edge the P-51 had over the Spit


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 2, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> Actually the Fokker product that needs to be on the list is D. VII which was even mentioned in the Treaty of Versailles and I personally would pick the or the S.E.5a as better aircraft than the Camel.
> 
> :{)




The SPAD XIII had poor visibility and insufficient rate of climb and its range was shit in comparison to the Camel, its service came late in the war between late 1917 to wars end.


the S.E.5a though was a preferred plane of many allied ace due to easy handling it suffered the same problems as the SPAD in addition it was not near as manouvreable as the Camel, The Camels armament, not that it was more powerfull, it was simply more practical.


----------



## Royzee617 (Mar 2, 2006)

IMO there have been some really great crates with inferior range - the RAF's Lightning for example. This represented the classic trade-off between highest performance and fuel consumption and weight. These days combat persistence is still key but they don't like to discuss it. Can always IFR. For example, you hear about top planes doing an airshow routine with minimum fuel for enhanced performance and seldom do they carry a representative load of ordnance. 

Another good example of modern times is the F/A-18.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 2, 2006)

Royzee617 said:


> IMO there have been some really great crates with inferior range - the RAF's Lightning for example.


Uh Oh! get down, PD is gonna pounce!

But no, Range is a huge thing to sacrifice when developing an all around capable fighter but the Lightning was never designed to be an air superiority fighter but a quick Interceptor, range wouldnt have been so much of need for the lightning as it was so godamm fast thats why they called it the lightning...I think


----------



## Royzee617 (Mar 2, 2006)

Yes, I agree. Used to love this plane and really miss it at airshows. We used to have a few nearby at Cranfield but we had to be content with high speed runs. Have to go to South Africa to see and hear the last all-British supersonic fighter. I like the ADV too which is the exact opposite - very long legged and possibly the better as a fighter, interceptor etc. Has better ergonomics for the pilot, two pairs of eyes, combat persistence with 8 missiles, good EW, good links with controllers, looks mean too. But nostlagia aside it somehow hasn't quite got the sheer power of the Lightning. 
One final note - interesting that the Lightning was replaced by the F4 and ADV, both with side by side engines rather than the unique over-under of the Lightning. A bit like shotguns!

I also like the F104 but I doubt that beastie would make any Top 20 fighters. Top 20 airshow performers maybe.... oh happy daze with the Wikings and that Canadian Starfighter team, in the circuit howling away. Bliss.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 3, 2006)

> One final note - interesting that the Lightning was replaced by the F4 and ADV, both with side by side engines rather than the unique over-under of the Lightning. A bit like shotguns!


 
The Lightning was removed from service with the introduction of the Tornado F.2 in 1989, the Phantom was also replaced by the Tornado. The Phantom was to accompany the Lightning, never replace it because the Lightning was a better interceptor. The Lightning entered service 1960 some years before the Phantom. 

At least thats what I was told when I thought the same thing.


----------



## Royzee617 (Mar 4, 2006)

Nuf said!
I wonder which had the better climb rate - the Lightning or F4? I know they did some official record setting with the F4 but the Brits were more coy.
See 'Sageburner'
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/mcdonnel_F4A_sage.htm

"1962 April 12, world record for climb to 30,000 meters, 371.43 seconds at NAS Point Mugu, LtCdr. D. W. Norberg USN, pilot." F4H.

But Wikipedia says "former holder of the world air-speed record and the first aircraft capable of supercruise".
"The Lightning’s speed and climb performance were excellent not just by 1950s or 1960s standards but even compared with modern operational fighters. Its initial rate of climb was 50,000 ft per minute (15 km/min). The Mirage IIIE climbed initially at 30,000 ft/min (9 km/min); the F-4 Phantom managed 32,000 ft/min (10 km/min); the MiG-21 managed 36,090 ft/min (11 km/min); the initial rate of the F-16A is 40,000 ft/min (12 km/min), and the Tornado F-3 43,000 ft/min (13 km/min). Only the later F-15 and MiG-25 had higher rates of climb".
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning


----------



## Royzee617 (Mar 4, 2006)

There's more:
"In 1984, during a major NATO exercise, Flt Lt Mike Hale intercepted an American U-2 at a height which they had previously considered safe from interception. Records show that Hale climbed to 88,000 ft (26,800 m) in his F3 Lightning. Hale also participated in time-to-height and acceleration trials against F-104 Starfighters from Aalborg. He reports that the Lightnings won all races easily, with the exception of the low level supersonic acceleration, which was a dead-heat".

Good stuf comparing the Lightning with the F15 too.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 5, 2006)

We've been through all this before, Royzee, just go to the Post-War forum and look at the threads concerning the Lightning. I went into great detail about the Lightning, against quite the opposition to my beliefs ! 

Hussars is right, the Phantom never replaced the Lightning. It was set to do so but that was quickly abandoned as the MoD realised the superiority of the Lightning in the interceptor role. 

The records of the Lightning are not shown in public, when the Lightning was in service the Lightning was never entered to break any records. They wanted to keep it's ability secret. The climb of Mike Hale to 88,000 feet has only been made public recently , before that the Lightning could only climb to 60,000 feet - apparently... 

Even to this day it's ability is secret. For example, it's top speed is recorded as Mach 2.3 - yet it climbed to, and over-took a Concorde at 57,000 feet and flying at Mach 2.2, while on stern intercept. These are the same official records that state the Lightning could fly to 60,000 feet - when it can go much higher! 

A T-Bird Lightning actually beat a F-15 to 30,000 feet , albeit it was stripped down.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=874&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=80


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 5, 2006)

The Lightning was the best cold war interceptor. But many things go into whats makes an aircraft "the greatest". One of them is versatility. The Lightning was a fantastic aircraft in one catagory, and thats what limits its rankings.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 5, 2006)

> The Lightning was the best cold war interceptor



No way, The F4 all the way, the lightning may have been a better plane in many areas but range is its downfall. In terms of "Cold War's best" but that should be left for another poll, which gives me an idea.


----------



## Royzee617 (Mar 5, 2006)

OK chaps - didn't see that. But sticking to the point never has been my strongpoint!

I agree about the 'best' relating to a mix of characteristics. But.... I stick to my contention that the only genuine yardstick of 'best' is which one 'bested' more of its opponents than all the others. Post-WW2 planes hardly get over the ton. Maybe the F4 is the best (but probably you have done that topic in CW too). Overall, the most kills were recorded over Russia in the initial period of Barbarossa then maybe over Germany (day and night) - once again it comes down to the 109 in all its forms.

Moreover, the 109 was produced in the most numbers.

These are such important factors that they outweigh all else.

IMO no poll about 'greatest warplanes' can exclude the 109.

That said I should reiterate that I hate the plane. It killed so many of our good people. Perhaps the last victim being the wonderful Mark Hanna.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 5, 2006)

What are you talking about, hussars!? The Lightning was far superior to the F-4 in the interceptor role. I proved the Lightning was better than the F-14 in the interceptor role, I'd like to see you try and prove the F-4 was better. 

Aircraft knocked down while others tried to prove were superior to the Lightning in the interceptor role: 

F-101
F-106
F-104
F-14 ... Which was a good debate - lots of good information came from that. 

In fact, for the moment the only aircraft I can think of that is better is the F-15. It can actually reach the target first, I think ...


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 5, 2006)

The Lightning was a hands down winner in the interceptor role.

But for fighter-bomber/dogfighter/wild weasel it comes up short.

The -109 hardly deserves to be included in the "best" catagory. The FW was a far better machine.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 5, 2006)

Don't discount the Lightning as a fighter-bomber, I have mentioned it's usage in the past. It seems to have been well used, and well adapted to the ground attack role. It was a strong airframe, and could escape from the danger zone very quickly. 

I'm not going to say it's the best, or anything of the sort. But it did have potential in that area. And yes, it was used in that role at least once. 

In the dogfighter role, I wouldn't put it down either. Since the Lightning could out-climb anything by a long shot. Many a pilot would be troubled when reaching the tail of the Lightning then seeing it pull vertical and climb up and away ...way past their own ceiling too, if it wanted to. And in super-sonic combat the Lightning's full-flight tail plane gave it an edge. 

Wild Weasel ... it's a fast climber ... ! 

Anyway, I'm not saying it's the best. It certainly was no air superiority fighter , but it should not just be given up and said it could only intercept because that's not true. It's just that's basically all it did. Longer legs could have been given to the Lightning ... 

Oh well, "could have, would have, should have ..."


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 5, 2006)

looking at this poll there is one glaring ommission in my point of view the f 104 easy to maintain 2 hour engine swap ... all the black boxes could be swapped at end of rwy in under 20 minutes ....holds records for speed at lo level...... easily the king of hi flyers even higher then lightning and its still flying operationally 50 years later


----------



## plan_D (Mar 5, 2006)

Excuse me? The F-104 could not fly higher than the Lightning - the opposite is the truth. Since when has the F-104 been able to reach 88,000 feet ?! 

And low level flight, the Lightning and F-104 were in dead heat during acceleration according to the pilots that raced the planes ! 

Get a freakin' clue - just read all the stats I reeled off to your previous crap 'bout the Lightning being inferior to these piles!


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 5, 2006)

There was a modified F104 that reached 130,000 ft. I could be wrong...... perhaps flyboyj knows more of the details.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 5, 2006)

The F-104 could not even reach 60,000 feet . I want to see this 130,000 feet ! Especially since I was not believed instantly when I mentioned the Lightning climbed to 88,000 feet !


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 5, 2006)

The 104 had a service ceiling of under 60,000 feet, although modified ones have broke world altitude and speed records. The NF-104 had a rocket motor in the tail, it was supposed to be an "Astronaut Trainer." Here's a BIG photo from Edwards AFB PAO







Here's a great site about the NF-104...

http://www.nf104.com/index.html

In one of my many discussions with Tony LeVier, he once told me the F-104 suffered a similar fate as the P-38 did in Europe. It got a bad rap due to poor pilot transition training, had its mission change several times during it's gestation, and was never operated to its fullest potential. Remember the -104 came from the input of Korean War pilots and their desires in an air-to-air combat aircraft. I've met several Canadian and Marineflieger pilots who loved the -104 and hated to give it up, on the other side I met several pilots who didn't think too highly of it, one of them being Dick Rutan who had some time in it. In his words, "Take off, go real fast, turn, almost stall, land real fast..........


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 5, 2006)

I wasn't slamming your lightning I was suggesting an a/c that should be on the list due to numbers produced , length of service , its ability to remain a viable alternative the fact it was very easy to maintain The bloody thing was at home in any realm it found itself in it was flown by just about any modern western air service and its still sitting on QRA in Italy and easy to work on 50 years after Kelly Johnston spawned it come on its slam dunk to be on that list and the thing "the zipper"still holds recognized records for speed and altitude


----------



## plan_D (Mar 5, 2006)

No, you were suggesting that the F-104 could climb higher than the Lightning and that it was also faster than the Lightning. Both being untrue , unless you want to count the NF-104 which would be stupid since it wasn't even a fighter. It was the Starfighter with a kick up the ass, no combat use what so ever. 

A F.6 Lightning vs. F-104S would provide the best results in combat, and in the interception role the Lightning would prove superior. It could climb faster, accelerate faster, climb higher and was faster all round.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 5, 2006)

I didnt know that NF-104 was modified so extensively. Therefore, I will agree that the Lightning still holds top honors for cold war era interceptor.

F4 is still a better jet though, just for its versatility. It was "good" enough in most roles to make it the best jet for the years between the end of the Korean War, to the end of the cold war.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 5, 2006)

I can suggest this link i believe you might believe this document from the national aviation museum of canada and read about the 104 from its library well sourced and documented
http://www.aviation.technomuses.ca/collections/
http://www.aviation.technomuses.ca/pdf/Starfighter_F104.pdf
its in the research papers aircraft histories and in it it gives factory 104 as capable of 90000ft zoom


----------



## plan_D (Mar 5, 2006)

It states the service ceiling of the CF-104 being 58,000 feet, and normal operation at 48,500 feet also. I will admit that it's zoom-climb ability is impressive, but that's factory fresh. And the CF-104 that achieved Canada's altitude record was modified. 

If I wanted I could state the Lightning can beat the F-15 in a sustained climb to 30,000 feet because a stripped down T.5 Lightning did so. The F.3 Lightning that zoom-climbed to 88,000 feet was fully laden. 

I do not believe the F-104 could achieve greater heights, or speeds than the Lightning without modification which would make it incapable of combat. 

The F-104 never had a thrust:weight ratio that equalled 1:1 , the Lightning would do at some point in it's climb. The Lightning was actually faster than the F-104 anyway, at Mach 2.3 recorded. Since the real records for the Lightning have yet to be released , the zoom-climb to 88,000 feet is just a story. The official records are yet to be released , and I'm eagerly awaiting them. 

Anyone with a bit of sense would realise the Lightning can out-climb and out-pace the F-104. You rely too much on world records without realising that world records open the abilities to the public - think if the SR-71 true records were released !


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 5, 2006)

Theres no reason to hold secret the Lightnings true performance figures.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 5, 2006)

please I don't want to get in a lightning/ 104 pissing contest but the thing is century series fighter and its its almost outlasting the F4 its got more years of service then any other a/c on that list up top with maybe the exception of the MiG 21 and they probably fly those Kampuchea. I don't have any personal 104 experience other then transit a/c but upon investigating the 104 slowly became impressed and no longer think of the 104 only as the German lawn dart .I wonder what Hartman thought of it


----------



## plan_D (Mar 5, 2006)

syscom, the British government still hides information from World War II ! The Lightning was reported at 60,000 feet for decades , and the official figures of the Lightning are not it's true ability. There's every reason to keep it a secret - surprise is a great weapon. 

The shortest life of a secret in Britain is 25 years from the end of it's importance. The Lightning left service in 1989 ... we have another seven years to wait .


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 6, 2006)

The -104 was never intended as a pure "heavy" interceptor (bomber killer) in the sense of the Lightning - the 104 was supposed to be an air superiority fighter such as the F-86 but with far superior performance. Through the 50s and into the 60s the thing was pushed into roles that it wasn't intended to do - low level Minni nuclear bomber, interceptor, fighter bomber, etc.

I recently met through work a fellow by the name of Kieth Phillips, he's a retired USAF Col. who flew the -104. Keith was an IP at Luke and worked with Luftwaffe folks. He worked with Hartman and never heard Hartman say any bad things to say about the -104 (at least to him) but he did say that he (Hartman) was the best pilot he ever flew with...

Keith had nothing but praise for the -104 and he thought is was the best fighter of its day when flown as an air-to-air fighter....


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 6, 2006)

Aircraft knocked down while others tried to *prove were superior to the Lightning in the interceptor role*: 

F-101
F-106
F-104
F-14 ... Which was a good debate - lots of good information came from that....[/quote] 

I wasnt talking about intercept role, you said that the Lightning was the greatest Fighter of the Cold war not interceptor, in which I replied the F-4 is the best all around fighter.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 6, 2006)

Aircraft knocked down while others tried to *prove were superior to the Lightning in the interceptor role*: 

F-101
F-106
F-104
F-14 ... Which was a good debate - lots of good information came from that....[/quote] 

I wasnt talking about intercept role, SYS said that the Lightning was the greatest Fighter of the Cold war not interceptor, in which I replied the F-4 is the best all around fighter.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 7, 2006)

I said the Lightning was the best cold war interceptor. In other roles, it wasnt so good.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 7, 2006)

Yes, syscom clearly stated best Cold War *interceptor*.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 7, 2006)

and he did too, shit, ok never mind then.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 7, 2006)

No problem. We all make mistakes...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 7, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> F-14 ... Which was a good debate - lots of good information came from that....


[/quote]

Nope the Lightning still has not won that either. While I agree the Lightning was one of the best of all times, and I have allways agreed with that, the F-14 was a more capable interceptor overall than the Lightning was. It had a better weapons package and avionix package and overall performance was great as well.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 7, 2006)

But the statistics proved that, even with the Phoenix missile, the F-14 would still be beaten to target.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 7, 2006)

Does not mean that the Lightning was more capable than the F-14. How many targets can the Lightning aquire and engage at one time? How far out can a Lightnings radar aquire its target? Overall the F-14 was more advanced, and more capable.

Am I saying the Lightning was not one of the best? No I think it is one of the best of all times the F-14 is more advanced and more capable.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 7, 2006)

The Lightning can acquire it's target, and destroy it before the F-14 can. That's been proven , simply enough the Lightning was quick enough to be amongst the enemy before the F-14 had destroyed it's target . 

And since the Lightning would be amongst it's enemy, the two missiles and two Adens were open to any target in the area. It's all well and good having fancy avionics , but the Lightning was still intercepting the target further out from base than the F-14 was.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 7, 2006)

You are missing my point pD.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 7, 2006)

No I'm not. You're saying that the F-14 carried a better weapons package, and superior avionics which is true. And once the F-14 was in the air, it could certainly deal with equal or more targets than the Lightning. 

But , the Lightning would be destroying enemy planes before the F-14 . Which is what you want when you've got waves of nuclear bombers coming toward your shore , you want them blown out of the sky as quick as possible. And the Lightning does this . 

On top of that, looking at a squadron basis ... a F-14 squadron would take longer to scramble than a Lightning squadron . Meaning, there'd be more Lightnings in the sky than F-14s .


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 7, 2006)

Id agree the F14 has a better avionics and weapons system, but its true the Lightning can intercept the target at a farther distance. I suppose in the scheme of things, whomever can destroy their target first gets the honors.

Plus the F14's had crappy engines (except the -D model)


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 8, 2006)

> But , the Lightning would be destroying enemy planes before the F-14



The F-14 can be loaded with AIM 54 Phoenix missiles, meaning it can engage multiple targets at a range of 140 km away(once hit a drone at 230 km away) as apposed to the Red Tops that can only engage at 12 km, with this said the F-14 would be engaging targets way before the Lightning.



> On top of that, looking at a squadron basis ... a F-14 squadron would take longer to scramble than a Lightning squadron . Meaning, there'd be more Lightnings in the sky than F-14s



The F-14 can carry an assorted load of 8 missiles, meaning, there is no need to send dozens of Tomcats in the air, so not a whole lot of time would _really_ be wated on organizing a group, the only time wasted would be loading the weapons and taxiing the plane, the F-14 can achieve 45,000ft a minute (some sources say 50,000ft a minute) but _again_ with a load of 4 AIM-54 missiles that more than makes up for lost time.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 8, 2006)

> The F-14 can be loaded with AIM 54 Phoenix missiles, meaning it can engage multiple targets at a range of 140 km away(once hit a drone at 230 km away) as apposed to the Red Tops that can only engage at 12 km, with this said the F-14 would be engaging targets way before the Lightning



what you think the -14 can fire 'em off as soon as his gear's up? he'll need altitude before he can even think about firing any missiles, and were the tomcats sitting on the end of the runway, fueled and armed in a constant state of alert? no, meaning extra time is needed to get them out to the runway and ready to go, in the meantime the lightning's rocketing through 40,000 and 50,000ft



> The F-14 can carry an assorted load of 8 missiles, meaning, there is no need to send dozens of Tomcats in the air



is that because, the ruskies, being so nice, would only send small formations over if they're going to bomb us? they don't want to cause the americans the inconvenience of having to send up more than one plane at a time so they'll only send four  if they launched a large scale raid you'd need entire squadrons of either aircraft, you're gonna get a lightening squadron up before a tomcat sqn, heck i'd bet good money we'd get a vulcan sqn up to counter attack the russians before you'd get a tomcat sqn up


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 8, 2006)

If an a/c is on alert status whatever kind from b52 to C130 or SAR helicopter you can bet that it can airborne in under 5 minutes watch the scrambles of 52's or Vulcans from the cold war era it doesn't take long if you look at the runway layout at interceptor bases you'll observe the area where the a/c on alert in the QRA (quick ready alert) have their own little hanger which for the most part is apart from the normal ramp because the a/c are armed the ramp is located in close proximity to the end of the runway with its own taxiway allowing a short taxi time to the end of the runway the a/c are plugged into their start carts etc and all that remains is for the crew to turn the key taxi to the rwy and go I was unable to convert any google map images of aerodromes over to show this feature


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 8, 2006)

pbfoot, use "screen save" function, then cut and paste the "map" image.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 8, 2006)

> he'll need altitude before he can even think about firing any missiles,


 
The AIM-54's HAP modification improves capabilities against very high and fast targets and is more than capable of hitting targets higher than its platform.



> if they launched a large scale raid you'd need entire squadrons of either aircraft



How many planes are in a squadron, 24? if the case and you want to talk about numbers 24 Tomcats can take out roughly 192 bombers as apposed to the lightning taking out 48, and the Tomcat taking out the planes from 140km distances as apposed to the Lightning being right in there dealing with escorts and rear gunners and dealing with that shit is _what really takes up time_ so whatever find more ways to beat a dead horse I dont care, to be honest I think some of you guys love that plane just a little too much.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 9, 2006)

what kind of Soviet bombers are these anyways? Bears? Blinders? Backfires? B*tches?


----------



## plan_D (Mar 9, 2006)

I've already proven that even if a Tomcat was equipped with the Phoenix, the Lightning would reach and engage it's target first. Just do the math, it's simple. In fact, just go to the thread "Cold War Intercept" and I did the math for you ! And the Tomcat carries six Phoenix missiles, not eight. 

The Tomcat has to reach 40,000 feet before the Phoenix reaches it's full potential, and he cannot fire and forget either. The Lightning may not reach firing range first, but the distance the Lightning has already achieved over the Tomcat means that the Lightnings missiles would be reaching their target first. 

And you're basing this off missiles alone ? I believe the US made the mistake of not equipping the Phantom with cannon in Vietnam. The 30mm Aden on the Lightning will tear up anything it comes across , and it has two of them ! 

What if the enemy sends out fighters first ? The Tomcat has to waste very expensive Phoenix missiles on little fighters , while the Lightning could actually fly straight over them! If you look at history, all Tomcat kills have been made with the Sparrow anyway.



> For the performance of the F-14. Well, the Lightning can be at 44,000 feet, direction and cruise in four minutes from call on a ground strip. The F-14 would be up in eight-nine minutes, after all it takes the F-14, with my crude working, three minutes-twenty seconds to reach 40,000 feet - that is if it can maintain a 30,000 minute climb rate, which it couldn't. So, I'd say about four minutes. Plus, on the bell it has to warm up and set up it's avionics, so being polite I'd say the F-14 is at 40,000 feet, direction and cruise in about eight-nine minutes, that's at least four minutes slower than the Lightning. That's okay, right? It's got the Phoenix to make up for that. But no, because the Lightning's recorded speed is Mach 2.3, that's around 26 miles per minute ...that means in the four minutes the Lightning has travelled over one hundred miles - more than the range of the Phoenix ... and Mach 2.3 isn't even the top speed of the Lightning.



There's the math for you , that I did in the Post-War thread "Cold War Intercept". 

And we're talking Bears and Bisons, looma. My dad used to send up Lightnings to intercept them all the time.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 9, 2006)

> How many planes are in a squadron, 24? if the case and you want to talk about numbers 24 Tomcats can take out roughly 192 bombers as apposed to the lightning taking out 48, and the Tomcat taking out the planes from 140km distances



good lord are you really that dence? 

1) there are 12 aircraft in a british fighter squadron (now it's 16 though i believe)

2) as pD has pointed out, the F-14 can carry only 6, very expensive Pheonix missiles

that means by sending up a squadron of F-14s (which takes considderably longer than lightenings) you're getting 72 pheonix in the air, assuming every aircraft is carrying a full load of pheonix (which i severly doubt), the pheonix isn't exactly fire and forget, for your simulation you're really expecting every aircraft in the squadron to fire off their missiles as soon as they're within the 140km range, and for every single missile to hit? and this is from what, 1,000ft, after all you don't seem to think you need much of a ceiling to fire off a pheonix


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 9, 2006)

A carrier launched F14 with a full Phoenix load also has fairly limited fuel capacity.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 9, 2006)

proberly not the best idea to bring up fuel capacity when comparing a lightening to any plane  that said the pheonix would also slow down the climb rate........


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 9, 2006)

Anyway this thread has gone off topic for too long lets change back to the original discussion.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 10, 2006)

Talk about throwing in the towel...

"Yo Mick..."


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 10, 2006)

yeah hussars, come on, stand your ground, not gonna let a 15 year old beat you are you  this's still on topic if you ask me.........


----------



## Desert Fox (Mar 10, 2006)

i know this isnt what the conversation here is about and i also know that this is not a WWII plane, but its as near as, dammit. i believe that the AC-130 Spooky has got to be one of the greatest planes built. it has more than triple the armament of the F14, and, of course the Lanc (still a good plane in my book tho) and its all concentrated in one spot, making it ideal for surpressing fire in 'hot' zones.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 10, 2006)

as a fixed wing gunship she has no equal, however she's not a fighter..........


----------



## Desert Fox (Mar 10, 2006)

damn straight its not a fighter, but its capable of many different roles in the military. She has no equal, yes. My fave fighter tho would have to be either the Spitfire or the Hurricane. Maybe the Tempest, although thats more an attack aircraft not a fighter


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 10, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yeah hussars, come on, stand your ground, not gonna let a 15 year old beat you are you  this's still on topic if you ask me.........



well theres so many things that I want to say, but I cant put them into text, we would have to be having a face to face discussion about it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 11, 2006)

> Maybe the Tempest, although thats more an attack aircraft not a fighter



no the tempest was very much a fighter, it's the tiffy that's ground attack........


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 11, 2006)

so thats what a typhoon is called


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 11, 2006)

yes the Typhoon was also known as the tiffy, and the Tempest was a development of the Typhoon...........


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 11, 2006)

of course it is...


----------



## plan_D (Mar 11, 2006)

Bring it face to face, hussars? Is that because you cannot stand being wrong and would hit lanc ?! Despite the fact lanc didn't really beat you , he kind of just continued with what I was saying.  

The math is there, and it's actually in favour of the F-14. And the F-14 still loses !


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 11, 2006)

Thats not what I meant, I meant sitting down in the same room together and having a verbal discussion, simple, no hitting just talking and why would I threaten to hit a fourteen year old kid?


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 11, 2006)

some 14 yo's deserve to be smacked, heheheheheheh

"The math is there, and it's actually in favour of the F-14. And the F-14 still loses !"

Someone explain that statement to me.


----------



## jacknisen (Mar 11, 2006)

I vote for the Jug. That's the P-47 Thunderbolt for all you jug heads out there. Fast, lots of firepower, and almost indestructible. Killed a lot of Krauts with this one. If you ask me, we should go back and kill some more!


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 11, 2006)

go back? dude, using any WWII plane over Berlin in 1943 could make anyone have a heart attack, if not fighter/flak attack


----------



## plan_D (Mar 12, 2006)

The times were favouring the F-14, as in I was giving it extra time when in reality it would be slower. For example, in my calculations I estimated it could keep it's initial climb rate all the way up to 44,000 feet. I also gave it's climb rate for when equipped with Sparrows, not six Phoenix missiles.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 13, 2006)

jacknisen said:


> If you ask me, we should go back and kill some more!



What do you mean by that? The war has been over for 60+ years.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 13, 2006)

jacknisen said:


> I vote for the Jug. That's the P-47 Thunderbolt for all you jug heads out there. Fast, lots of firepower, and almost indestructible. Killed a lot of Krauts with this one. If you ask me, we should go back and kill some more!




Thats not a funny comment friend. There is German people here and people with German relatives here that would take great offence to that kind of comment. Just stick to commenting on the plane.


----------



## Royzee617 (Mar 13, 2006)

Some pilots were as scared of the P47 as the enemies were. Awesome beast with much to its credit, maybe a Top 50 fighter but it was a bomber really, well a fighter-bomber. Much smaller A2A scores than 109 or P51 etc.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 13, 2006)

Who was "scared" of the P-47 as a pilot?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2006)

Well lets see, a friend of mine who is now a Blackhawk Crewchief in my unit, was a Tomcat mechanic in the Navy and he said that when an alert happened it took them 2 minutes to get the first 2 Tomcats in the air, thats 2 minutes my friend. Not a bad time to get into the air. He said the next 2 would take about 3 to 4 minutes to get into the air. Okay 5 to 6 minutes for 4. So in 4 minutes you can have 30 to 35 Pheonix missles on Tomcats climbing to alltitude. Once the Tomcats are to Alltitude the Tomcat can fire those 30 to 35 missles at targets at ranges that the Lightning has to fly to.

I will say this again. The Tomcat is more overall capable than the Lightning, The Tomcat can carry a better overall weapons package than the Lightning, the Tomcat has a better overall avionix package than the Lightning, The Tomcat is the premier Cold War interceptor. The Tomcat is a better ovarall aircraft than the Lightning. Period!!!!

By the way, the last 2 squadrons of the old Cat just returned from there last combat mission.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 13, 2006)

The only drawback to the F14 was its crappy engines.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 13, 2006)

Here is a linnk to a friend of mine's Tomcat shots, including the arrival of the last cruise at Oceana this past week.

http://www.haviland.org/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=1


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 13, 2006)

Good shots there!


----------



## plan_D (Mar 14, 2006)

You're talking about an interception from an aircraft carrier, steam catapulted from a ship is much different, and a lot quicker, than taking off from a concrete runway. 

And even then, you haven't taken into account the climb to 44,000 feet while equipped with six Phoenix missiles. It would not be able to sustain 32,000 feet per minute while carrying that payload. 

No one has denied that the F-14 has a superior avionics system, nor has anyone denied the weapons package is superior. What is being said is that the Lightning, from a ground strip, could be intercepting and destroying it's targets earlier than the F-14 could, even if it was carrying the Phoenix missile. Carrying a package of Sparrows just allows the Lightning so much of an advantage in the speed of interception it's not even worth mentioning.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 14, 2006)

Hello I have been read this thread alot. Could someone PlanD or anyone show us some pics of the Lightning and some performance stats for both F14 and Lightning. I never have been all that interested in jets but this is interesting to me. Excuse my lack of knowledge of both planes. I know alittle about the F14 but nothing about the Lightning (it sounds like a good plane from PlanD), is it still in use?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 14, 2006)

> Well lets see, a friend of mine who is now a Blackhawk Crewchief in my unit, was a Tomcat mechanic in the Navy and he said that when an alert happened it took them 2 minutes to get the first 2 Tomcats in the air, thats 2 minutes my friend. Not a bad time to get into the air. He said the next 2 would take about 3 to 4 minutes to get into the air. Okay 5 to 6 minutes for 4. So in 4 minutes you can have 30 to 35 Pheonix missles on Tomcats climbing to alltitude. Once the Tomcats are to Alltitude the Tomcat can fire those 30 to 35 missles at targets at ranges that the Lightning has to fly to.
> 
> I will say this again. The Tomcat is more overall capable than the Lightning, The Tomcat can carry a better overall weapons package than the Lightning, the Tomcat has a better overall avionix package than the Lightning, The Tomcat is the premier Cold War interceptor. The Tomcat is a better ovarall aircraft than the Lightning. Period!!!!


Thanky You!!!!!

I was kinda outnumbered there for a second...


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 15, 2006)

One thing Id like to point out is if the Tomcat was carrier based, there would be the potential of weather conditions at sea that would preclude the launching of any aircraft.

The Lightning would never see conditions like that thus could sortie.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 15, 2006)

*British Aerospace (English Electric) Lightning*

*Type:* (F.6) Single-seat supersonic all-weather interceptor, strike and reconnaissance aircraft.

*Powerplant:* Two 15,680 lb Rolls-Royce Avon 302 turbojets.

*Performance:*

*Top Speed:* Mach 2.3 at 40,000 feet. 

*Range:* (Internal fuel) 800 miles.

*Rate of Climb:* (Initial) 50,000 per minute.

*Ceiling:* 60,000 feet.*
*Armament:*

Two 30-mm Aden cannon (120 per gun) in forward ventral pack.

Two Firestreak or Red Top missiles on forward pylons, or 44 2-in spin-stabilized rockets. Or five Vinten 360 70-mm cameras. Underwing/Overwing hardpoints can carry up to 144 rockets or six 1,000 lbs HE, retarded or fire bombs. 

The forward ventral tank could be removed, replacing the 30mm Aden with extra fuel. 

*This is recorded ceiling, it has been since proven by various pilots that the Lightning could, in fact, reach heights greater than 60,000 feet. As one pilot, Mike Hale of 11 Sqdn. zoom climbed to 88,000 feet in his F.3 Lightning. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The British government still has not released the full capability of the EE Lightning. It's ability to climb above 60,000 feet was only released recently, but personally I knew it could all along. My dad did work on them for several years during the Cold War, after all. 

The first Lightning flew in August 1954, but was yet to be called the Lightning. It was the P.1, and several days after it's first flight the P.1 achieved what is known as super-cruise. It surpassed Mach 1 without the use of afterburners (re-heat). 

The P.1B, now known (unofficially) as the Lightning achieved Mach 2 on fully after-burning Avon engines. It could also achieve supercruise, something that the operational Lightnings could never do. 

The marks of the Lightning are F.1, F.1A, F.2, F.2A, F.3, T.4, T.5 and F.6 for the RAF. The only other nation to use the EE Lightning was Saudi Arabia, F.53 and T.55 were their marks. These were re-conditioned F.3 (F.53) and T.5 (T.55). 

The Saudi marks were capable of ground attack, and were the only Lightnings used against enemy targets in a border clash against Yemen. The only aircraft shot down by a Lightning was a pilotless Harrier that risked the lives as the pilot lost control and had to eject. 

The Lightning was used on the frontline of interception throughout it's service life, both in Britain and Germany. 11 Sqdn. based at RAF Binbrook was my dads squadron, and Lightnings were scrambled daily ... sometimes three times a night to intercept Soviet Tu-95 'Bears' and various other Soviet bombers ... 

The Lightning was the only NATO aircraft to intercept a Concorde travelling at Mach 2.2 at 57,000 feet. The Lightning not only caught, but overtook the Concorde while on stern intercept . 

The Lightning left service in 1989 , when it was replaced by Panavia Tornado. The British government desired a multi-role capable aircraft, and saw no development potential in the Lightning. 

There's few Lightnings left now, despite it being a wonder of a machine and definately a massive step forward in supersonic flight. It's design period began in 1947 ... 

Anything else, just ask ...


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 15, 2006)

why do i always see fighters right next to bombers as if they arent gonna bring the bomber down?


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 15, 2006)

Cold war, to shoot it down would of brought reliation from the Soviets so they didn't, they just shadowed them until they where out of the West's airspace.

Good pics pD.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 15, 2006)

Thanks PlanD. Great information and nice jet.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 15, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> One thing Id like to point out is if the Tomcat was carrier based, there would be the potential of weather conditions at sea that would preclude the launching of any aircraft.
> 
> The Lightning would never see conditions like that thus could sortie.



Britain is well known for having retarded weather, so it doesnt matter whether its on land or the channel.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 15, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> Cold war, to shoot it down would of brought reliation from the Soviets so they didn't, they just shadowed them until they where out of the West's airspace.
> 
> Good pics pD.


then why are the bombers there? if they will bomb the others will retaliate and kill the bomber which will make the Soviets retaliate


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 16, 2006)

It is all about testing the others capabilities. The Soviet bombers weren't going to bomb and the West's fighters weren't going to shoot them down (unless either was told too but both sides knew thee consequences). They were provocative flights that were more probing than offensive bombing missions.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 16, 2006)

and they didnt get anywhere, just wasted some fuel


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 16, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> and they didnt get anywhere, just wasted some fuel



No - it was a game that tested the will of both sides - valuable photo infomation was also gathered during these intercepts....


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 16, 2006)

ok fine, besides tomcats use up more fuel dont they? and they're just gonna escort them till they get the hell out of your backyard


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 16, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> ok fine, besides tomcats use up more fuel dont they? and they're just gonna escort them till they get the hell out of your backyard


No the could hook up with a tanker if they had to and continue on - the F-14 had pretty long legs...


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 16, 2006)

so could the lightning right? see that pic over there?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 16, 2006)

Yep!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 17, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> loomaluftwaffe said:
> 
> 
> > and they didnt get anywhere, just wasted some fuel
> ...



You guys had been winning the spy plane game for years, first the U2 then the Blackbird.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 17, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > loomaluftwaffe said:
> ...


Very true hussars although the Soviets still tried and didn't get very far...


----------



## Royzee617 (Mar 18, 2006)

Both the Lightning and Tomcat were great planes each with its own S&W.

Notwithstanding the Libyan GoS incident, neither plane got to really prove its potential in actual combat (unlike the F15). 

What they both did was deter and demonstrate the determination of their respective operators. The Russkies were testing the RAF's defences but both sides likely never expected to fight. But if they did not launch the alert birds then it might show the Soviets we were weak. Besides they would have come in with barrage jamming etc not one bomber at a time. Both sides knew they had obsolescent machinery too in the age of the ICBM and Polaris etc.

The F14 did similar work protecting the carriers.

BTW I read in a Tomcat book that the USAF kept the F14 back during the second GW so they could rack up the kills. So that distorts history somewhat. The Lightning may have also seen action in the Middle East but not much is on record. 

The RAF never shot down an enemy in wartime with its jet fighters of the past 3 decades methinks. Whether it is the Lightning or F4 [Tornado too so far] there have been no pure kills let alone RAF aces!

I am trying to think of the last pure A2A kill by the RAF. The Falklands was a FAA affair. Maybe a GR3 hacked down a Herc or helo but did no true dogfighting. Besides it's not a fighter/interceptor, it's a GA plane.

The RAF's Hunters and Javelins did little A2A either. So it might boil down to a Meteor hacking down a V1. Not much return for all that it costs but that's the downside of deterrence.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 18, 2006)

Royzee617 said:


> BTW I read in a Tomcat book that the USAF kept the F14 back during the second GW so they could rack up the kills.


Not true - I believe during GW2 several F-14s were being used as a bomber. As far as kills, I don't think there was a single air-to-air engagement during GW2, the Iraqi Air Force basically didn't exist...


----------



## Royzee617 (Mar 18, 2006)

You're correct - the book where I read that was about the 'Bombcat'. Shows how good Grumman's design was. But no chance for A2A.

MW I have been re-reading a book on the Hunter. The only action the RAF planes saw was G2A. Some A2A by IAF et al. quite a few lost too.

So I suspect zero kills by Raf jets against other jet fighters. The last A2A was likely a RAF pilot over the Falklands. But flying an FAA plane.


----------



## Royzee617 (Mar 18, 2006)

Or maybe it was that Jaguar shot down by an F4 on an exercise. Or was it v-v?


----------



## Royzee617 (Mar 18, 2006)

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/phantom/history.html
" With increasing recognition that the Phantom was much better suited than the Lightning to defending the UK's airspace and the surprise success of the Jaguar programme, RAF Germany in particular began to lose its Phantoms, which were re-tasked with air defence while Jaguars took over the ground attack and recon roles. Revenge of a sort was had when one Phantom shot down a Jaguar over Germany - it was, of course, an accident. So the story goes, anyway!"


----------



## Royzee617 (Mar 18, 2006)

http://www.kmike.com/oz/77/MK8OPS.htm
Meteors in Vietnam.... but they're Aussies... no RAF fighter planes in 'nam...


----------



## Royzee617 (Mar 18, 2006)

"But have the RAF or ADA produced even one ace? How about Israel- though they are secretive about pilot identity".
See:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-6266.html

lots of interesting, if heated, discussion about PAF vs IAF etc.


----------



## Royzee617 (Mar 18, 2006)

Chinook CH-47c of CAB 601 destroyed on the ground near Mount Kent by Flt Lt. Hare RAF. Flying a Harrier GR3.
Hare destroyed the Chinook using his 30mm cannon. In the same attack Sqn Ldr Pook badly damaged a Puma ( SA 330L ) of CAB 601 also on the ground near Mount Kent, again using his GR3s 30mm cannon. Pook returned to finish the job of on the 26th of May, destroying the helicopter.


----------



## Royzee617 (Mar 18, 2006)

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...ds&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=14&client=firefox-a

pic:
http://www.raf.mod.uk/gulf/h_images/migeater.jpg
but this is not A2A


----------



## Royzee617 (Mar 18, 2006)

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_303.shtml

also:
"If the ownership of the airframes is removed from the equation, then the Falklands was the last occasion with the RAF providing about 25% of SHAR pilots who scored about 25% of the victories. The joint leading scorer was from the RAF (Flt Lt Dave Morgan), although he subsequently transferred to the RN. 

"RAF pilots also scored victories flying with the USAF during the Korean war, and, IIRC, there was one scored while with 77 Sqn RAAF on Meteor 8s.

......
"the last RAF pilot flying an RAF aircraft to achieve an air-to-air kill was Fg Off Tim McElhaw of 208 Sqn on 22 May 48. The sqn were based at Ramat David, to the southeast of Haifa, covering the final withdrawal of British Forces from Palestine following the declaration of the state of Israel on 14 May 48. Hostilities had already broken out between the Israelis and the surrounding Arab states, then on 22 May 48 at 0610 hrs two Egyptian LF9 Spitfires attacked the RAF base at Ramat David, presumably mistaking it for an Israeli base. The Spitfires strafed the Spitfire FR18s of 32 and 208 Sqns that were parked in two neat lines, destroying two and damaging another eight. Nobody was injured in the initial attack despite a number of bombs also being dropped on the airfield. 

The majority of the pilots of 32 and 208 Sqns were recovering from a severe hangover when the initial attacked occurred, having enjoyed a particularly exuberant Dining In Night at which it had been decided that the Officers’ Mess would be burnt to the ground on the final departure to prevent it falling into the hands of the Israelis. After the initial attack two pilots of 208 Sqn (Fg Offs Geoff Cooper and Roy Bowie) got airborne in Spitfire FR18s and mounted a standing patrol over the airfield. At 0710 hrs three more Egyptian LF9 Spitfires returned to attack the airfield again, destroying a Dakota that was attempting to land, killing two of the crew. Cooper and Bowie shot down one Egyptian LF9 each, the third was shot down by the combined fire of two RAF Regiment Bren Gunners, Sgt Atkinson and AC Waind. 

At 0930 two Egyptain LF9s decided to stage a third attack on Ramat David. This time Fg Tim Off McElhaw and Fg Off Hully of 208 Sqn had taken over the standing patrol. Fg Off McElhaw flying Spitfire FR18 TZ228 managed to intercept and shoot down both LF9s, despite this incident being the first time he had ever done any air-to-air firing. Tim McElhaw was later shot down himself by a Canadian flying a Spitfire LF9 for the Israelis - but that's another story. 

Tim McElhaw is still alive, along with Roy Bowie – I have no idea what happened to Geoff Cooper after he retired as the aviation correspondent of the Daily Telegraph or Hully. The above details form part of an article I have written about the incidents involving the IAF and RAF in 1948/9 which should appear in Air Enthusiast early in the New Year. 
by
Heimdall
..........
To illustrate the point about skewing the kill ratios for your own end there was the example of the RSAF F15 nuking a pair of IAF Mirage F1s in the 1st GW:

"Are you thinking of the RSAF F-15 that got two Mirage F-1s?? Don't recall seeing the F3 credited with victories... 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 

[Post 20]

Author : Navaleye

Date : 6th December 2004 15:55 

Archimedes, you may well be right, now I think more about it (that brain cell still functions) I think the F3 got hauled off by an American controller. I guess they didn't want the flying fin to score any points when an F15 was in the air. 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 

[Post 21]

Author : Magic Mushroom

Date : 6th December 2004 16:39 

Navaleye,

You're correct. The RAF F3 had committed and was about to engage when it was hauled off to enable a Saudi F-15 to engage the target for 'political reasons'. I know 2 of the F3 aircrew involved (one of whom is now on E-3Ds) and they were exceptionally frustrated as they were in a far better firing position and then the Saudi almost missed the engagement!!

........
RAF exchange pilots certainly got kills with the USAF in Korea. John Nicholls (later an AOC in C Strike or something equally important) got the first in December 1952 (after damaging three more). 

Squadron leader Max Higson from No.43 Squadron destroyed at least one MiG-15. 

A Flight Lieutenant Daniel who flew with 334 FIS at Kimpo was credited with damaging two MiGs during his six-month tour during 1952.

Flight Lieutenant RTF Dickinson, shot down one MiG-15 

Flight Lieutenant John Granville-White shot down one MiG 15 

Flight Lieutenant Graham S Hulse shot down three more MiG 15s 

Other post war kills all happened in wars where admitting them was impossible or politically undesirable, in just the way that the SAS's exploits have so often gone unacknowledged. 

I was assured (by someone who was there) that No.208 Squadron took its revenge after four of its unarmed Spits were downed by the IDF/AF. That can't be confirmed, though Tim McElhaw of 208 (later OC 14 in the Canberra era) certainly got two Egyptian Spit Vs on 22 May 1948, and on 7 January 1949 B.Spragg of No 6 squadron, flying an RAF Tempest, shot down an IDF/AF Spitfire IX. 

There are also persistent reports that a Venom mate got a kill during the Suez op (perhaps on 5 November, perhaps Flg. Off. Dave Williams of No.249, his victim being a Meteor), and that a Hunter bloke got a manoeuvre kill against a MiG-17 during the Confrontation (there are lots of references to this: eg: "a Hunter got into a maneuvering contest with a MiG-17, which resulted in the MiG pilot flying his aircraft into the ground. If this actually happened, it was the only air-to-air kill of the Hunter in British service"), and that a Javelin crew got a C-130 (eg: "but the Javelin held on for a few years longer in the Far East, where it gained its only air to air victory - an Indonesian C-130 which crashed while trying to avoid a Javelin that had been sent to intercept it during the Malayan crisis in 1964.") 

The Phantom/Jag kill wasn't the first RAF own goal, either, a Lightning F2A (flown by M Valasek?) having earlier downed a Harrier GR3...... 

Nor was MiG-Eater's kill the only such victory in the Gulf War. On 17 January 1991 a JP233 bomblet dropped by an RAF Tornado GR.Mk.1 did for an Iraqi MiG-25PD as it attempted to take off.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 19, 2006)

The one thing I can't find is if the RAF had any kills in 1956


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2006)

Well I think it comes down to this pD.

Overall the F-14 had better capabilities than the Lightning, now having said that.

The Lightning and the F-14 were the premier Cold War Intercepters and did one hell of a job deterring a posibble "Hot" War.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 21, 2006)

Agreed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2006)

Allright!


----------



## Royzee617 (Mar 21, 2006)

So nobody cares that the RAF has no jet aces?

Has quite a bearing on which was the best ever post-ww2 fighter methinks.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2006)

I dont really think it does actually because there are not that many post war aces anyhow. There are no USAF F-16 aces, does that make the F-16 a bad aircraft? No.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 21, 2006)

"Lt. Col. Cesar Rodriguez, Capt. Michael Shower and Capt. Jeffrey Hwang — each piloting an F-15C — took down a total of four MiG-29s in the first three days of the conflict. Hwang was credited with two kills on March 26, 1999. Lt. Col. Michael Geczy had the final one of the conflict on June 4.

Rodriguez, now a colonel at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, is one of three active-duty Air Force members with three kills. Col. Thomas Dietz, commander of the 307th Fighter Squadron at Langley Air Force Base, Va., is another.

Dietz had three aerial victories in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War.

Rodriguez had two of his three kills then, before scoring again in Kosovo.

Col. Robert G. Wright, chief of the special air operations branch at NATO’s AirNorth at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, had all of his in between those two conflicts."


----------



## Royzee617 (Mar 22, 2006)

Ok - interesting.
But it bothers me that the one time best air force in the world has zero kills in half a decade.... it's not much to proud of for a start. Plus we like wars us Brits... have lost a lot of grunts but no a2a kills at all? Mad. A similar WoT having all those tanks since it is only recently the BA has been able to use these expensive beasties.

But does the F15 vs F16 mean that the USAF has a pecking order? Only use your best available assets of course. But the 'lightweight fighter' as the F16 was originated, is now a bomb truck or WW. Daft.

The F15 and F14 are magnificent machines but way way too big for A2A. Can spot them coming for miles. Was just as bad with the F4 (plus all you had to do was fire your weapons at where the smoke trail starts!)


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 22, 2006)

but these days, you spot them after the catastrophic explosion near your position


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2006)

Royzee617 said:


> The F15 and F14 are magnificent machines but way way too big for A2A. Can spot them coming for miles. Was just as bad with the F4 (plus all you had to do was fire your weapons at where the smoke trail starts!)



Too big for air-to-air? As long as the aircraft has the capabilities for air to air it doesn't matter - both fighters are big for a reason - it enables them to carry the weapons, fuel, engines and avionics that made them the top fighters that they are! Spot them for miles?!? Maybe on a good radar, but they don't close leaving the smoke trail like the F-4 did.

In modern air-to-air combat visual contact is secondary (unless you're in the Israeli Air Force).


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 22, 2006)

Ok now that we are done with the Tomcat VS Lightning stuff, we can continue the discussion about the poll, for one, the P-51 is a better plane than the spit.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 22, 2006)

Oh Jesus, not again....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2006)

LOL


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 22, 2006)

you just said that without proving your point


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2006)

What?


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 23, 2006)

ROFL


----------



## davparlr (Mar 23, 2006)

How can you contest an undefeated champion? Sure, most of the F-15's 100 plus victories were against inferior pilots, but I am sure most of the other contestants have planes that were shot down by inferior pilots. And as for the F-22, and most other modern contestants, one can always ask "What is your won-loss record?". The answer would be either not near the F-15 or "Well,...."


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 23, 2006)

I say the F4 has a better combat record than the F15


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2006)

davparlr said:


> How can you contest an undefeated champion? Sure, most of the F-15's 100 plus victories were against inferior pilots, but I am sure most of the other contestants have planes that were shot down by inferior pilots. And as for the F-22, and most other modern contestants, one can always ask "What is your won-loss record?". The answer would be either not near the F-15 or "Well,...."



100+????


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 23, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I say the F4 has a better combat record than the F15



An F-15 was NEVER lost in combat!!!F-4s were shot down in air-to-air over Vietnam, Israel and Iran....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2006)

Yes but I dont think that the F-15 has 100+ kills. Dont take me wrong the F-15 is a much better aircraft than the F-4.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 23, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > I say the F4 has a better combat record than the F15
> ...



But then, the F15 has never fought in a high intensity conflict.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2006)

That does not make the F-15 a bad fighter. You have too look at the all around picture of it.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 23, 2006)

With all that aside, how do you think the F-15 would do against an SU-37?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2006)

I think the Su-37 has the F-15, now having said that the F-15 with a good pilot will do just fine aswell.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 24, 2006)

The F-15 is an older plane and the Su-37 ius still a new (probably cancelled) prototype
an F-15 is more comparable to an Su-27/Mig-29


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2006)

well if you wanna compare it to a Su-27, i'd give it to the -27, just........

and there's no way i for one would call the best ever fighter on the loss ratio of a plane that's never really been in a large, high intensity conflict against equal opposition, do you really think that no F-15s would be lost against large equal opposition............


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 24, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What?


i meant hussars just said that the mustang was better than the spit without saying anything

and if a large number of F-15s flew into a large formation of say MiG-29s... damn enemy pilots arent that stupid


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2006)

I think the Su-27 is actually more capable than the F-15, however with the avionix package and weapons package of the F-15 it evens itself out. Combined with a good pilot and the F-15 could get the edge.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > syscom3 said:
> ...



Bekka Valley!!! At one point there were over 200 aircraft batteling in the air at the same time!!! That's about as high intensity as it gets!!!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2006)

Folks - the newer Russian fighters mean very little. I'm not being nationalistic but the F-15 is still reining supreme. Cope India just proved that with the newer Russian equipment the F-15 can't take on 6 to 1 odds any more but could come out ahead at 2 to 1 and will more likely win on a one on one engagement with these new Russian machines.

Loosing that 6 to 1 capability is the reason why you see the USAF wanting the F-22 so bad - many want to keep that edge....


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 24, 2006)

too bad, is it because of the skill of the Ruskie pilots? or the missiles? iveread on another post saying that russian missiles were better


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 24, 2006)

> Bekka Valley!!! At one point there were over 200 aircraft batteling in the air at the same time!!! That's about as high intensity as it gets!!!!!



Thats a single battle.

And the Bekka valley was nothing like flying over Hanoi/Haiphong or over the Suez/Golan heights in 1973.

The F4 performed well as a recon, fighter-bomber and a wild weasel. The F15 has only flown combat missions as a fighter (and yes I know about the F15E)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> > Bekka Valley!!! At one point there were over 200 aircraft batteling in the air at the same time!!! That's about as high intensity as it gets!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Bekka Valley went on over several days - it wasn't a single battle, it went on for close to a week...

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/hurley.html

And yes, the F-4 did perform well in multi roles, the fact remains it did get shot down in air to air, one could argue the environment, pilot skill and scenario, but the fact remains the F-15s air-to-air combat record is unsurpassed...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> > Bekka Valley!!! At one point there were over 200 aircraft batteling in the air at the same time!!! That's about as high intensity as it gets!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have to look at this way. If the F-15 had been around during the F-4's reign as the best there was, the F-15 would have put the F-4 to shame when going up against he fighters that the F-4 had to. Now take an F-4 and put it up against the advanced fighters that the F-15 would have to up against today and where do you think the F-4 is going to stand? 

Who cares what kind of fighting the F-4 did during Vietnam. It was engaged against different aircraft than the F-15 will be up against and the F-15 would outperform the F-4 against them.

Therefore logical reasoning states: F-15 is better.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 24, 2006)

What made the F15 superior was its engines. Put those F100 engines in an F4 and the Phantom has a whole different flight regime.

One other thing..... the F4 was also a carrier fighter. The F15 isnt.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 24, 2006)

The avionics of the F-15 are also superior . The argument about the engines is age old , it's like saying that if you put the engines of a F-15 in a EE Lightning it'd be better ... that would be awesome to see though .


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2006)

Point being?

Do you really think that a F-4 would beat a F-15 in a fight?


----------



## evangilder (Mar 24, 2006)

Man, if you did that, he Lightning would climb like nothing else. That would have been cool!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> What made the F15 superior was its engines. Put those F100 engines in an F4 and the Phantom has a whole different flight regime.


Yea - it's called mach lawndart!


----------



## plan_D (Mar 24, 2006)

They're lighter engines with about 5,000 lbs more thrust ... ! I'd like to see something out-climb the Lightning then , I bet a Saturn-5 rocket would be struggling !


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 24, 2006)

yikes


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 25, 2006)

That would of been an interesting race...


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 25, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Point being?
> 
> Do you really think that a F-4 would beat a F-15 in a fight?



As Ive said numerous times, we have to breakout the aircraft by "eras".

The F15 could beat an F4, which could beat an F100, which could beat an F86, which could beat an P80, which could beat an P47, which could beat ....blah blah blah blah.

From 1960 through the middle 70's, the F4 was the best fighter and it proved it in two major airwars.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 25, 2006)

That I can agree with.

Cuz the way this was going before one could say the Sopwith Camel was better than a Spitfire.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Apr 7, 2006)

Anyway I still thing the Mustang was better.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 7, 2006)

prove ur point...


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 7, 2006)

I could agree that the P51 was the best piston engined fighter of the WW2 era.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Apr 7, 2006)

Thankyou now all we need to do is find away to make those numbers work in its favour


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 13, 2006)

Not going to happen.


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 13, 2006)

Nope...


----------



## davparlr (Apr 21, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> As Ive said numerous times, we have to breakout the aircraft by "eras".
> 
> The F15 could beat an F4, which could beat an F100, which could beat an F86, which could beat an P80, which could beat an P47, which could beat ....blah blah blah blah.
> 
> From 1960 through the middle 70's, the F4 was the best fighter and it proved it in two major airwars.



Yes, but could an F-4 beat a F-8, or even an F-5E?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 22, 2006)

davparlr said:


> Yes, but could an F-4 beat a F-8, or even an F-5E?


 If flown correctly - yes. F-8s and F-4s used to go at it all the time in early top gun classes.

The F-5E is a harder target - it boils down to pilot skills and tactics...


----------



## Henk (Apr 22, 2006)

What the hell, the Spit got the most, that is not right.lol

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 22, 2006)

why not?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 23, 2006)

i think it's right


----------



## Henk (Apr 23, 2006)

The Spit is not better than the Fw-190.      

Well the Spit was in its own way a great plane, but my vote lies with the Fw-190.

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 23, 2006)

I can't argue that the 190 was one of the best, if not the best fighter

but it was really more of a bomber destroyer, with all those guns, bad stall characteristics and not-so-good turn rate

what i don't agree with is that the Mustang got more than the 190


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 23, 2006)

The Spit-FW-P51 were all so evenly matchd that the decider is the range of each.

Thats why the P51 was the best of them.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 23, 2006)

they're not asking for the best, they're asking for the greatest, if we're looking for the best it's the F-22 or summit like that, no, the greatest is something completely different, which was the best between the Sea fury and spitfire? the sea fury, which was the greatest? the spitfire, everyone's heard of the spitfire, P-51 and to some extent the -109, because they're legends, ask someone in Britain to name a fighter they'll say the spitfire, even though later fighters were better, ask someone in america to name a fighter they'll say the P-51, far from the best fighter but a legend all the same, in germany they'd say the -109, again not the best fighter but a great fighter, you see greatest doesn't mean best, greatness is a measure of it's legend..........


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 23, 2006)

The Fokker D7 has to be considered as one of the greatest it was considered enough of threat that it was mentioned in the 4th paragraph of the document and it reads as such 
Four .. Surrender in good condition by the german armies of the following war material 5000 guns(2500 heavy 2500 field) 25000 machine guns 3000 minenwerfer 1700 airplanes (fighters bombers_ firstly all of the D7s and all of the night bombing machines ...
has any other aircraft ever had that much attention U boats and german naval assets were mentioned 19 paragraphs later


----------



## Henk (Apr 23, 2006)

Yep, lanc I see what you mean. The Fw-190 could out turn the latest model of the Spitfire and the Spit could not keep up, but it also had to do with the Pilot. 

The Spit is very famous aircraft just like the Bf-109, but I would rather give the honor to the Hurricane than the Spitfire. The guys in their Hurricanes did great work with the aircraft they had and it was actually the guys in the Hurricanes who did the work in the early stages of the Battle of Britton.

Henk


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 23, 2006)

But it was the P51 that had the greatest impact on the war.

For propellor driven aircraft, I say its the P51.
For jet engined aircraft, its the F4.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 23, 2006)

> The guys in their Hurricanes did great work with the aircraft they had and it was actually the guys in the Hurricanes who did the work in the early stages of the Battle of Britton.



whilst true, remember it was the spit that did most of the work for the rest of the war........


----------



## Henk (Apr 23, 2006)

I agree with you there lanc mate.

Henk


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 23, 2006)

It still is a point that the Hurricane is the forgotten hero of the Battle of Britain. I agree the Spitfire did do most of the work for the rest of the war.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 23, 2006)

Come 1943, the Hurricane did nothing in the ETO. It was out-classed, plain and simple. The Fw-190A and Bf-109F would slaughter any Hurricanes in the air. And while the Hurricane did most of the work in the Battle of Britain, after that the Spitfire carried the burden of the Fighter Command solely on it's own shoulders. The Typhoon and Tempest barely made an impact in the aerial combat. 

And the Fw-190D and Spitfire XIV were even matches, it had *all* to do with the pilot.


----------



## Henk (Apr 23, 2006)

Not in the turns mate. The Spit could not do it as fast as the Fw-190.

Henk


----------



## plan_D (Apr 23, 2006)

At low speeds the Spitfire was a faster turner than the Fw-190D, at high speeds the Fw-190D was faster. The Fw-190D had a faster roll in all cases.


----------



## Henk (Apr 23, 2006)

Yes, the German pilots used the turn and roll to out turn the Spit, but if the German pilot did that to long the Spit pilot could shoot the Fw-190, because the Spit is then behind the Fw-190, because it is slower. So pilot does make or break the battle.

Henk


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 23, 2006)

And in the meantime, the P51 with its 10 hour endurance, just fly's high above them waiting for them both too run out of fuel.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 23, 2006)

While the P-51 is sitting high up there waiting, the Fw-190 is ripping the bomber formations to pieces.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 23, 2006)

The Fw190 is down low proving to the Spitfire who was best.

Besides, the B24's and B17's were up above 20,000ft, not down near the ground.


----------



## Henk (Apr 23, 2006)

plan_D said:


> While the P-51 is sitting high up there waiting, the Fw-190 is ripping the bomber formations to pieces.



ROFL      

Good one mate.

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 23, 2006)

no, why waste fighters' fuel on Mustangs when all you need is a few fragments of flak to kill that engine and bring him down?

well... not as if that will help the Me-262s we're sending up there


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 24, 2006)

You need heavy flak to bring down aircraft at 20,000 feet. Heavy flak was aimed at bomber streams, not individual fighter aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 24, 2006)

If you aimed flak at individual aircraft you could aim all day and not bring anything down.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 24, 2006)

Someone once posted info about German and US anti aircraft guns - If I remember I think it stated an average of 200 - 400 rounds were needed to take down one aircraft.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 24, 2006)

They were more deadly in killing the crew members rather than bringing the whole aircraft down. A lot of people forget that people can still be dying in the plane while it's still in flight.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 24, 2006)

In 1945, the US Army fielded a deployable fire control system for its 90mm AA guns.

It consisted of a search radar and a track radar. The track radar would lock onto its target (an individual aircraft) and feed data into a primitive ballistics computer, which in turn automatically provided the fire solution to some servo's on the gun carriage.

It actually worked, as long as the angular rate of the target's didnt exceed the servo's for the gun.

That was extremely high tech for its day.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 24, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If flown correctly - yes. F-8s and F-4s used to go at it all the time in early top gun cl***es.
> 
> The F-5E is a harder target - it boils down to pilot skills and tactics...



Early in Vietnam, under similar training programs, the F-8s were having their way with the Migs while the F-4 were struggling to the point that Top Gun had to be formed. In fact, it seems that Top Gun was formed specifically train the F-4 pilots because of THEIR (both pilots and airplanes) poor performance. You would have to wonder if the F-4 had the inherent dogfighting characteristics of the F-8, would Top Gun have been needed? The answer, of course, is yes, just not as bad. Top Gun just makes loads of sense no matter how good you plane is. Even Randy Cunningham (a good stick but a lousey person) said the F-8 had an advantage until F-4 pilots were Top Gun trained. I still don't know if F-8 pilots went to Top Gun therefore equal in training (by that time they were being phased out). It would be interesting to hear from some Navy pilots that transistioned to F-4 from F-8s. I suspect they would perfer the F-8 if nothing more than it has only one ****pit for the ego. 

My vote is for the F-15. In my opinion, no aircraft has controlled the wartime airspace as effortlessly as the F-15 has for the last 30 years. It has made its reputation with missiles and bullets flying. Most of the aircaft listed have not been tested in the realm for which they were designed.

Second is the F-86. While the Mig-15 was its equal in dogfighting, the F-86 was the better designed warfighter and like the P-51, could fly to the enemy and engage on equal terms over the enemys home base. And it is a great looking aircraft.

The F-4 will stand as one of the all time great aircraft due to its versatility and overall competence. I do think that correcting its shortcomings was the inspiration for aircaft such as the F-14, 15, 16, and 18. If it was 1960 to 1975 and you could only get one plane, it would be the F4. In spite of my opinion, the F-4 is one of my favorite aircraft. The first time I knew of it was in a Buz Sawyer comic strip. He was flying one over Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis when his nozzle failed open. I thought (and still do) it was a cool looking aircraft. A good friend of mine has his name on the F-4 at March Air Museum. He would agree with you whole heartedly.


----------



## Raptor (Jan 26, 2007)

F-15. No contest.


----------



## Lt. Mereel (Feb 1, 2007)

I'll go what Raptor said, F-15


----------



## nosredna (Feb 28, 2007)

for me its the fokker. Its reliable, saw many battles and is one of the most recognizable planes out there


----------



## Glider (Feb 28, 2007)

This may cause some debate but the following is the reasons for my choice and reasons for and against most of the aircraft on the list.

The only problem with the F15 is that it has not been tested in battle against pilots with similar levels of training and ability. I am aware of its performance and the fact thats its the fighter of choice from its introduction until the F22 arrived on the scene, but we are after the best ever, not the best since 1975

The Triplane had agility and climb on its side but it was slow, didn't dive well and had poor visibility. For the average pilot it was not effective and was replaced in the German Airforce fairly soon after its introduction.

The Camel was a fine plane but difficult to handle and was outclassed by fighters such as the Fokker D7.

F86 and Mig 15 cancel each other out. Both had advantages and disadvantages but the deciding factor in combat was the better training of the USAF. When they went against properly trained aircrew e.g. the Russians in Korea, I understand the results were more even.

F4 has a good claim but had its problems the worst of which in my mind were its engines. In combat the one who sees the enemy first often has an advantage. The F4 smokes badly and you can almost see them as soon as they come over the horizon, its a point not often made but a valid one. The F4 also lacked agility.

Mig 21 also has a claim but the Mirage III would also have a similar claim. Both were light, cheap, fast with a limited endurance. Of the two I would go for the Mirage for its flexibility.

The P51 was a fine aircraft but fragile and others could match it.

The 190 was without question the best fighter when introduced but the opposition soon caught up with it.

This leaves the Spitfire. From the moment of its introduction until the end of its life it nearly always matched the best of the aircraft of its era. There were moments such as the introduction of the Fw190 where it was left behind, but new versions such as the Mk9 in this case fixed the problem. Its only weakness was in a dive where initially it was at a disadvantage. 
Range is often raised as a problem but this was a matter of choice. It certainly could have been developed and examples flew the Atlantic from St Johns to N Ireland without stopping to prove the point but the need had already been addressed. 
To sum up, it was always as good as the other aircraft of the period, not better but as good as. To do this in the crucible of battle in a period from 1938 to 1945 with all the development that took place was an achievement no other plane could match.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 28, 2007)

Glider said:


> F86 and Mig 15 cancel each other out. Both had advantages and disadvantages but the deciding factor in combat was the better training of the USAF. When they went against properly trained aircrew e.g. the Russians in Korea, I understand the results were more even.



As we now know the kill/ loss ratios were closer than previously reported when one compares the F-86 to the Mig-15. Considering the ambiguity of those numbers, the F-86 still came out on top. Although the Mig-15 was simplistic and less troublesome, the F-86 had characteristics that made it far superior, ie. hydraulic boost, triple redundant hydraulics, and a more robust structure. Pulling continual Gs in the Mig-15 meant the pilot fatigued easily thus putting the odds in the Sabers court. But finally, the inability of the Mig to operate in high mach numbers and it's instability while deploying its weapons was a major flaw mentioned by North Korean defector No Kum-Sok. The Mig-15 was a bomber killer and might of done well in that role with the ability to combat contemporary fighter aircraft with its maneuverability and high rate of acceleration, but when it met the F-86, it more than met its match and I think deep down inside, even those Russian Korean War vets who toted the party line on the Mig-15's superiority know they were matched as well....


----------



## Jackson (Mar 15, 2007)

Well said  Heh, I love Spitfires too, but..

No matter how you smooch it it up, no matter how sweet it is, the Mark IX was no the best fighter ever built.

Even though I pretty much agree with you.


----------



## trackend (Mar 16, 2007)

I'm finding this a very hard question to answer, one because of my limited knowledge of post war aircraft but it appears the 86 was a very well founded plane. I will personally plump for the Spitfire with its ability to be constantly up graded to match anything that was put against it I know a lot of guys like the FW190 but after hearing Douglas Badder's (all be it a tad biased but never the less first hand combat action ) recollections I will go with the Spite.
Having said that I think quite a few of the allied aircraft owe much or their reputation to the Merlin (and it the case of the Spite) later Griffon power plants performance.
I still have a soft spot though for the F4U and the times I have seen them in the air compared to other fighters I found them to eat up the ground and make relatively tight (air show restricted) maneuvers with incredible smoothness which must have helped to make for a very effective gun platform.
So as I say coming to an overall single aircraft I have a bit of a dilemma even after settling on the Spite, and as all time has not finished yet who knows what the future holds, however I suspect the day of the fighter manned or remote will draw to a close it the not too distant future.


----------



## magnocain (Nov 9, 2007)

1. f4u
2. f-18
3. f-8
(i am a navy person)
last... the p-51

my opinion


----------



## F-14 (Jan 30, 2008)

Can any one tell me why the F-14 was not included but still i voted For the F-4 Phantom II the Reson ? i simply love the phantom and it has an amazing service record From Nam to the Iran Iraq war the Phantom had a blistering careear


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 30, 2008)

The F-14 isnt u there because its not anywhere near the best... How can u vote for the F-4 when the F-15 is the much more obvious choice???


----------



## ratdog (Sep 27, 2008)

because its not that obvious


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 27, 2008)

I suggest some of you noobs investigate the aircraft, its operational record and the mark it left in aerial combat history. IMO the F-86, F-4 and F-15 are on the tops with honorable mention to the Mirage, MiG-15/ 21 and Hunter.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 28, 2008)

I try and keep my list as short as possible

Fw-190 just a phenomenal and versatile airplane

F6F the right aircraft for the right adversary

MiG-15 made average pilots above average on the cheap

F-4 what couldn't it do? And over 5000 made is testamount to its design

F-15 penultimate air superiority fighter in any guise

Mirage III


----------



## imalko (Mar 14, 2009)

The answer to this question is simple - the best fighter of all time is Messerschmitt Bf 109. Especially if the criteria is influence on the development of fighter tactics in history of aerial warfare.
This said, I am very suprised that Bf 109 wasn't included to this list.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 15, 2009)

imalko said:


> The answer to this question is simple - the best fighter of all time is Messerschmitt Bf 109. Especially if the criteria is influence on the development of fighter tactics in history of aerial warfare.
> This said, I am very suprised that Bf 109 wasn't included to this list.



I think if you look at the poll, it was put together by a member and his opinion. As far as the 109? Certainly on the top 5


----------



## JBEES (Mar 16, 2009)

Wouldn't you all agree that manuverability and speed would make the best fighter?

The ability to out-turn and get away if needed would be the attributes of the best fighter.

Those would be the items I would want in my back pocket if engaged.


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 16, 2009)

F-15 is the only fighter to ever have accomplished kills without a loss of their own....

Speaks volumes, right?


----------



## drgondog (Mar 16, 2009)

JBEES said:


> Wouldn't you all agree that manuverability and speed would make the best fighter?
> 
> The ability to out-turn and get away if needed would be the attributes of the best fighter.
> 
> Those would be the items I would want in my back pocket if engaged.



If you were engaged by an F-22 none of those attributes would help you - even if you could out turn it (unlikely) or out run it. You have to see it - by eyeball or radar. 

If eyeball, you are in component pieces already and you don't see it by radar.

I'm not sure what the standard is for 'Best' but subjectively the F-15 gets my modern vote.


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 16, 2009)

The F-15 in all air forces has an air-to-air combined record of 104 kills to 0 losses in air combat as of February 2008. To date, no air superiority versions of the F-15 (A/B/C/D models) have ever been shot down by enemy forces. Over half of the F-15's kills has been made by Israeli Air Force pilots.


----------



## herman1rg (Mar 16, 2009)

Poll is not valid without including the Hakwer Hurricane.

I wonder what might have happened in the Battle of Britain if the UK didn't have the Hurricane. There were not enough Spitfires to deal with the Luftwaffe.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 16, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> F-15 is the only fighter to ever have accomplished kills without a loss of their own....
> 
> Speaks volumes, right?



I second that. 

And I don't like the F15. Just rubs me the wrong way. But you can't argue with the success rate. And that is after being in service for 30 years. 

What is it the Israeli's call it, the "Flying Sam Battery"?

Kinda makes you wondew when or how the first Eagle will get popped. Sooner or later, one of them is going down. Nothing lasts forever, especially in fighter combat.


----------



## Glider (Mar 16, 2009)

It has to be the F15. No fighter ever has and probably never will again, totally dominate all the worlds fighters for 30 plus years. 

Try to imagine the Fokker DVII beating the 8th Airforce over Germany or the Sopwith Camel winning the Battle of Britain, it sorts of puts it into perspective.

In modern times the 
USSR tried the Mig23, Mig29, Su27 and still haven't matched it.
The French the Mirage F1, Mirage 2000 and while the Rafel may or may not be its match, the USA came up with the F22 raising the bar even higher.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Mar 16, 2009)

drgondog said:


> If you were engaged by an F-22 none of those attributes would help you - even if you could out turn it (unlikely) or out run it. You have to see it - by eyeball or radar.
> 
> If eyeball, you are in component pieces already and you don't see it by radar.
> 
> I'm not sure what the standard is for 'Best' but subjectively the F-15 gets my modern vote.



Put simply: The F-22 does not have a combat record, the F-15 does. If and when the F-22 puts 105 enemy fighters in the ground, THEN it can make the claim to be the greatest fighter of all time. Until then, the F-15 is tops.

BTW, there is awesome video in another thread concerning the F-15; I watch the video just because I love looking at the -15, especially in action. It's kind of like the Lamborghini Countach: even 30+ years on, it still looks really good. Go 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naIWWNxF1DQ_ for the video.


----------



## imalko (Mar 17, 2009)

MiG-29 and Su-27 are not matched to F-15?!
I cant agree with that.
And french Rafalle is one generation above F-15 in rang with F-22, Eurofighter Typhoon and Grippen.


----------



## thunderbird (Jul 10, 2009)

newbie has an opinion. This site is terrible for someone like me addicted to everything about fighters. Best is an open definition especially when comparing different generations. Some of the very best airplanes aren't on the list. And each generation has its best.

I like the Hawker Tempests as the best of the active WWII aircraft, fast, powerful, tough and able to climb out of the energy hole better than any other wwII fighter, and armed to the teeth with 4 20mm cannons. If you get to choose your ride in a dogfighting game, go with the Tempest. Now an F2G with 4 20mm and the R4360 would have been an interesting ride, but it was too late for the war, and that big engine compromised its carrier performance a little.

In Korea, the F-86 flew well, but was underwhelming with its retention of .50 calibre machine guns. The Mig15 outclimbed the F-86 and was better armed with its 37 mm cannon.

In the cold war era, no one can argue with the effectiveness of the F-4 as a combat platform. The Mig21 was a better dogfighter, but its short legs meant that the Mig was bailing out of the fight and then shortly after, the pilot was bailing out as the Mig couldn't get away from the last missile shot. Performance-wise none of the planes really stuck out as superior . The Israelis used their Mirages and Kfirs as dogfighers, but their F-4s were also effective in the air-to-air combat.

In the seventies, the F-15 was King, the F-14 with its phoenix missile sytem (which was never used in combat by the Navy?) was Queen of BVR. The F-16 was a great airplane in close visual combat ranges but its radar is silly weak. And then the Russians developed the Mig-29 and the Sukhoi-27. Give me a choice and I will take the Sukhoi into vr combat with any airplane in the world.

Now The F-22 can lay calim to some amazing capability, almost 80kLb of thrust in an F-15 sized body will allow some amazing things. But its aero is compromised and who knows how well it will slash in vr. But in BVR, even if the enemy radar picks one up, the missile radar is unlikey to be able to home in on one. and in vr, I'll take a Sukhoi please.


----------



## Loiner (Jan 8, 2010)

Sorry chaps, but there's only one ageless legend on that list:






Mk IX from 'Flying Legends', c/o wikipedia.com


----------



## Tangopilot89 (May 15, 2011)

Couldn't agree with you more!

Andy


----------



## The Basket (May 15, 2011)

Glider said:


> In modern times the
> USSR tried the Mig23, Mig29, Su27 and still haven't matched it.


 
The MiG-23 flew years before the F-15 and was never designed to counter it as it didnt exist. The MiG-29 and Su-27 at least on paper match the F-15 in terms of sheer figures.

But I have to agree that the Bf 109 was perhaps the greatest fighter of all time. I am starting to see that now.


----------



## Glider (May 15, 2011)

I know its a personal opinion but the Me109 never really dominated the opposition once they faced the Spitfire. There were times when it had an advantage and others when the opposition had the advantage but it wasn't a massive advantage either way. Thats why I picked the F15, it was the plane to beat and until the Typhoon and possibly the Rafael and Grippen arrived it was never beaten.

To totally dominate the air for 30 years was a unique achievement possibly one never to be repeated.


----------



## The Basket (May 15, 2011)

The Bf 109 has greatness and heres why.,.
Probably shot down more aircraft than any other...built in huge numbers. Technologically advanced and made existing fighters obsolete...high performance. Was able to be continuously modified.

The Hurricane was never the Greatest because it was never cutting edge or high performance.


----------



## The Basket (May 16, 2011)

From a purely historical point of view...the Bf 109 is far more important than the F-15.

If the USAF had the F-14 Tomcat instead...i doubt any different outcome.

The Sea Harriers kill ratio was to me more significant than the F-15s because the SHar was fighting also against the weaknesses of the FAA as well as the Argentines. The F-15 was in pole postion with every engagement.


----------



## Glider (May 16, 2011)

The Basket said:


> The Bf 109 has greatness and heres why.,.
> Probably shot down more aircraft than any other...built in huge numbers. Technologically advanced and made existing fighters obsolete...high performance. Was able to be continuously modified.


 
The 109 was built in greater numbers because the Germans had to concentrate on them, as there wasn't any other choice for fighting at higher altitude where the B17/B24's were. No doubt had positions been reversed and the RAF had built Spits instead of the huge numbers of 4 engined bombers they would have had the largest numbers, but that wouldn't have made the aircraft a better aircraft.

As for shooting down the largest number of enemy aircraft, having built the most was one factor plus of course the huge numbers of obsolete Russian aircraft lost in the first half of the war in the East. Again it didn't make the 109 a better aircraft, it was against poorer opposition.

The 109 was a fine aircraft but it didn't in my mind dominate the sky and its for that reason I wouldn't put it first ever. It didn't make existing aircraft obsolete. The Spitfire was in the a similar timeframe and the performance was similar and it wasn't until the 109E that the Luftwaffe had a better fighter than the Hurricane and as good as the Spitfire.


----------



## The Basket (May 16, 2011)

Also the Bf 109 developed fighter tactics.

I dont agree....the Spitfire prototype did fly roughly same time as 109 prototype but in terms of production or operational readiness the 109 was 2 years ahead of the Spitfire. The 109E was coming down stream same time as the Spitfire I

It shot down its first aircraft in July 8th 1937 well before production of Spits had even started.

Greatness is not about this or that but the whole package...not just about numbers but what it did and what it allowed. The Bf 109 allowed the Germans to go to war. And that is what makes it historically one of the most important aircraft ever built.


----------



## Glider (May 16, 2011)

The Basket said:


> Also the Bf 109 developed fighter tactics.


This I disagree with, its the pilots who develop the tactics, not the plane.


> I dont agree....the Spitfire prototype did fly roughly same time as 109 prototype but in terms of production or operational readiness the 109 was 2 years ahead of the Spitfire. The 109E was coming down stream same time as the Spitfire I


To a degree I am with you on this with a but. When the 109 B - D versions were in production they were outclassed by the Hawker Hurricane which was a lot faster and more heavily armed. The 109 E as we know outclassed the Hurricane but was a fair match for the Spitfire I which had a similar development path.


> It shot down its first aircraft in July 8th 1937 well before production of Spits had even started.
> Greatness is not about this or that but the whole package...not just about numbers but what it did and what it allowed. The Bf 109 allowed the Germans to go to war. And that is what makes it historically one of the most important aircraft ever built.


This I agree with but as mentioned above in performance terms the Hurricane had the advantage over the early 109's and the Me 109 never dominated all its potential opponents. The balance swung between them and no one is doubting its performance or claim to fame.


----------



## Njaco (May 17, 2011)

Not sure I agree with you totally Glider. I believe the 109 did dominate the Spit I at least in the first few months of the BoB. The fuel injection gave it an advantage over the Spitty. The only disadvantage that I see - for that time - was the short time it had for battle. While the pilots of the LW were more experienced at that stage the constant worry of fuel range I would say played a major role in length of combat. Many times, escorting 109s simply left the scene to scoot back to France or ditch the Channel. Without that, the 109 would have duked it out with Spit for a longer period and shown its dominance. In fact I think I read somewhere - will have to look - that there were more Spits shot down from A2A combat with fighters than 109s shot down. I could be mistaken.


----------



## The Basket (May 17, 2011)

It was the 109 which drove production of the Spitfire in the 1930s.

Greatest is not about top speed at 16,000 ft. Because the F-15 is faster than either the 109 OR Spitfire

If purely figures were the basis then the Mig-25 would win this hands down.


----------



## Njaco (May 17, 2011)

in WWII?


----------



## The Basket (May 17, 2011)

This is greatest of all time. Not ww2...nor the best.


----------



## Njaco (May 17, 2011)

You're right! My mistake. Been readig too much of the Spit vs Fw 190 thread!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2011)

While I do not agree that the Bf 109 was on the best fighter of all time, it certainly was just as important as the P-51, Fw 190 and Spitfire and would deserve to be in contention with them. 

Out of the aircraft on this list, I find it hard to go against the F-15.


----------



## Glider (May 17, 2011)

Njaco said:


> Not sure I agree with you totally Glider. I believe the 109 did dominate the Spit I at least in the first few months of the BoB. The fuel injection gave it an advantage over the Spitty. The only disadvantage that I see - for that time - was the short time it had for battle. While the pilots of the LW were more experienced at that stage the constant worry of fuel range I would say played a major role in length of combat. Many times, escorting 109s simply left the scene to scoot back to France or ditch the Channel. Without that, the 109 would have duked it out with Spit for a longer period and shown its dominance. In fact I think I read somewhere - will have to look - that there were more Spits shot down from A2A combat with fighters than 109s shot down. I could be mistaken.


 
I can understand your points and do not, definately do not want, to start another which is the best debate. Most consider them a good match for the majority of the time with a slight advantages to one or the other depending on the versions involved and the year/month in question. However I don't believe that one dominated the other and even if it did, it, either SPit or 109, certanly didn't dominate the skies for 30 years as the F15 did. Its that period of time which is what I base my case on


----------



## The Basket (May 18, 2011)

The reason i choose the 109 is not climb rate but historical significance. The Hawker Sea Fury is easily better than the 109 but what did the Sea Fury do in comparison?


----------



## Glider (May 18, 2011)

Its as good a reason as any.


----------

