# If you Designed your own Fighter plane, what Characteristic would you want most?



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 6, 2006)

Could be propeller, jet, or rocket aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2006)

it's not as easy as picking one from that list, you may want one aspect more than annother but in the end you'll always want the best combination, although i'd say speed or manouverability (i'm still very much in the 1930s RAF mindset  )


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 6, 2006)

Yeah, I know it's a hard decision. But the poll is more about what you would want most in a fighter.

I also thought this poll might be fun for differant users who often stress the best aspect of a fighter. The 
P-47 had the Dive, The FW had the Roll, The Spitfire had the Turn, the P-38 had the Climb, the Zero had it all!

Of course speed was one of the things the Zero didn't have.


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2006)

I would take speed because speed can dictate the fight. The Zeke didn't have the roll or the dive, it could climb fast and turn fast [at slow speeds] but it was slow.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2006)

Lightweight. That is likely to bring about a number of other positive characteristics.


----------



## wmaxt (May 6, 2006)

You want more than one of those attributes in a fighter. The P-38J-25/L had
exceptional
climb - 3724 aveto 20,000ft
acceleration - 2.8mph/sec from cruise at 15,000ft
range - 1 mission was 2,300mi not including combat at the target
high speed roll - above 350mph better than the Fw-190
at 250mph or less maneuverability was excellent (maneuvering flaps)
load capacity - 5600lbs reported
stall, power on stall (dirty, flaps and gear out) was about 60mph (AAF test) and the P-38 had no accelerated or torque stall.
initial dive up to the ~.68 mach limit.

In the hunt performance
speed - between 420 and 442
sustained dive - max was ~.68 but was very controlable with the dive slats
maneuvering ability - in a march 43 AAF test comparing the P-38F to the P-51, P-47C, P-40F, P39D the P-38 was considered the best fighter tested to date and had superior maneuvering above 15,000ft, and equal in ability from 10,000-15,000ft. BTW: the Allison P-51 was considered the best maneuvering Mustang. The later P-38J/L were better in every way than the F model except weight. John Tilley recounts how he out maneuvered a Zero at 90mph and 1,000ft

The F4U-4 had less acceleration, range, but was a little faster and could land on a carrier.

you don't get much better.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2006)

*BULLETPROOF!*

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 6, 2006)

Well, it depends on how much "toughness" you want!


----------



## lesofprimus (May 6, 2006)

Manuverability.....


----------



## Bullockracing (May 6, 2006)

I put target accuracy. If I can get in the air and put lead on the target (assuming that my target accuracy outweighs their *one* attribute), I get a mark in the kill column.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2006)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Well, it depends on how much "toughness" you want!


 I want 20mm rounds to bounce off me like rain drops!


----------



## Glider (May 7, 2006)

I think it has to be speed as you have the ability to choose when and how to fight, and also when to get out if things are going pear shaped.


----------



## Gnomey (May 7, 2006)

I would want a combination of the factors with manouvability up there as well as firepower (and bulletproof).

Joe what about 30mm rounds?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 8, 2006)

I kinda was worried multiple choice would be to easy to make a "super plane" out of too many choices.

Maybe I should have put manuverability/speed in the same poll option.


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 8, 2006)

This is what mine would look like


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 8, 2006)

Whoa!


----------



## pbfoot (May 9, 2006)

sounds like the Gripen if you checked all of them


----------



## lesofprimus (May 9, 2006)

Ur such a smartas* pb........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2006)

Well formost I would want maneuverability, however I would want a combination of maneuverability, speed, good high alltitude performance, good armour protection, dependability, and easy to maintain (I want my ground maintenance guys to be able to go out at night and have fun so it has to be easy to fix. )


----------



## timshatz (May 19, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I would take speed because speed can dictate the fight. The Zeke didn't have the roll or the dive, it could climb fast and turn fast [at slow speeds] but it was slow.




Gotta agree with that one. Speed allows you to pick when and where you want to fight. You can run away, gain a little altitude and come back. Also, speed usually, but not always but usually, means you can fight in the verticle while manuverability means you stuck in the horizontal. 

Speed allows you to dictate the fight or, if you choose, not to fight at all and head home.


----------



## Bullockracing (May 19, 2006)

timshatz said:


> Gotta agree with that one. Speed allows you to pick when and where you want to fight.



Unless my target accuracy knocks you out of the sky on the first encounter...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2006)

Probably not going to happen.


----------



## timshatz (May 20, 2006)

Bullockracing said:


> Unless my target accuracy knocks you out of the sky on the first encounter...



As an air defence mechanism, your point is a good one. So much so that is a valid way of defending airpspace 
(and what are fighter planes in the first place but a basic unit of aerial defense). AAA is based on the premise of being stronger and more accurate than it's target. It land based and no particularly moble. Effective without a doubt, smart commanders have always tried to manuver around it to save casualties. 

However, when it comes to a bomber formation defending itself against fighters, the theory of "the bomber will always get through" was found bankrupt. Even when 12-13 .50 machine guns were on the aircraft, the faster fighters could pick where and when they wanted to attack as well as which formations to attack. Firepower and a steadier platform did not overcompensate for the ability to pick you spot and exploit weaknesses (stragglers, coffin corner, ect.).

Moving forward to the Jet age, air to air missles and radars, it gets more complicated. In this realm, it is system against system. A pilot in a modern jet is as much a system operator as he is an aviator. Much tougher question to get your head around.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2006)

As long as your systems do not fail...


----------



## timshatz (May 20, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> As long as your systems do not fail...


 True, to paraphrase Scotty, "The more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the pipes". 

When the fire control radars go down, or data links or whatever, you go back to the mark two eyeball and then...


----------



## lesofprimus (May 20, 2006)

To be honest, the pilot that could fly faster at higher altitudes had the advantage in 90% of all combats... Dive outta the sun and surprise! ur dead....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2006)

In the old days yes, but not so much today.


----------



## Bullockracing (May 20, 2006)

I do believe the poll is a little too open. The feature most wanted for a fighter plane is the ability to dominate the airspace. Doing that requires the ability to find your foe, maneuver into firing position, and knock him out of the sky, in that order. Everything else is icing on the cake.

Perhaps SbW can come up with a poll that is a little more pointed?


----------



## lesofprimus (May 20, 2006)

Well, seeing how this poll is in the WWII Aviation section, I was concerned with WWII combat....

As u may have noticed, the majority of posters here are either for maneuverability or speed.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2006)

The 2 things that would keep you alive in WW2.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 20, 2006)

Exactly....


----------



## Bullockracing (May 20, 2006)

Roger that, but stealth was included, I guess that threw me off...


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 20, 2006)

Okay, my aircraft's characteristics would be in the area of Manouvarability, with a decent speed, its ability to maintain full speed without losing its entire fuel supply, it would be a stealth Strike Fighter with the ability to identify individual targets from extremely high altitude, my plane would be equipted with the latest and most innovative weaponary, and have a f**king Slick airframe.


----------



## Bullockracing (May 20, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> ..... would be a stealth Strike Fighter with the ability to identify individual targets from extremely high altitude......



You all see how easily I'm confused? I'll weigh back in with a better thought out answer than my original.....


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 20, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *BULLETPROOF!*



MISSILE PROOF AND CRASH PROOF


----------



## Bullockracing (May 20, 2006)

Okay, I say speed, with it's companions horsepower and climb rate. I would justify this with the AVG experience using less maneuverable planes against more maneuverable planes. Getting to pick and choose my battles would be paramount, see the 190D-series planes that outran P-51s when they didn't start in an advantageous position...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 20, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> MISSILE PROOF AND CRASH PROOF


YEP!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 21, 2006)

Damn now we are getting into Star Wars aint we!?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## lesofprimus (May 21, 2006)

If thats the case, I want Slave II as my combat aircraft.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 21, 2006)

I would just build the Millenium Falcon! With modifications to make it more maintenance friendly and reliable.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 21, 2006)

The Falcon was as manouverable as my *** cheeks though... Speed it has, but the firepower compared to Slave II, let alone a simple Tie Fighter, just dont cut it, especially when ur hyperdrive is tits up......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 21, 2006)

Yeah but I would have plenty of room to sleep with Princess Leia in it.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 21, 2006)

In combat, who has time for pus*y???? Even Solo wasnt that good....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 21, 2006)

You obviously have not seen me in action!


----------



## lesofprimus (May 21, 2006)

If u can prove it, my respect for u and ur door gunning capabilities would go up several notches....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 21, 2006)




----------



## 102first_hussars (May 21, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would just build the Millenium Falcon! With modifications to make it more maintenance friendly and reliable.



True true, man Cpt Solo had b*tch of time keeping that BUFF running


----------



## lesofprimus (May 21, 2006)

Yea, but after the defeat of the Empire, the Rebellion completely refitted the Falcon with new hyperdrives, an updated weapons suite, and all the new modern day avionics....

But it still wasnt a match for Slave II........


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 21, 2006)

That may be, but the Slave II was a pursuer Enforcement ship, it was good against Gunboats, and other larger ships but hardly capable against Starfighters such as the X-Wing and the Tie Fighter.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 21, 2006)

> but hardly capable against Starfighters such as the X-Wing and the Tie Fighter.


U obviously dont know ur Star Wars vessels.... If u recall, Jango Fett just about smoked a Master Jedi in a Starfighter....


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 21, 2006)

Thats different, Jango Fets experience was against older models, the X-Wing and Tie Fighters (though made in the 1970's) are tenx more advanced and manouverable than that of the recent trilogy, god!!!!


----------



## lesofprimus (May 23, 2006)

This particular Firespray Class Attack Starfighter, the only one left after Jango destroyed the other 5, was illegally and heavily modified by Boba Fett.... It has immense power, maneuverability, and weaponry, its hull is magnetically polarized for long range sensors, and makes the F-117 and B-2 look worthless in the stealth department.... The hull is magnetically polarized and acts like an antenna for all electronic signals and pulses within range of the ship.... These magnetically attracted pulses of power tend to jam and scramble enemy sensor scans, reading them as some sort of ion storm rather than as a starship.... This system, thought to be an Imperial Navy military secret, was somehow acquired by Fett and has given him a decisive advantage on many hunts.... On top of this, Slave I's particle vapor trail has been dampened to make the ship nearly untraceable.... He can use this system to sneak onto worlds undetected, much to the dismay of his targets and planetary law-enforcement agents.... It can also detect vibrations, engine signature's, and can be controlled by Fett's helmet... He stripped it down to bare materials, and gradually built it to be one of the fastest and deadliest ships in the galaxy.... 

It has a Class One Hyperdrive, monstrous deflector shields, heavily reinforced armor plating and tremendous sub-light engines, as well as an armament suite second to none.... Slave I also has an illegal sensor masking and jamming system that allows it to slip through sensor grids undetected... 

Two thirds of Slave I's interior is dedicated to the powerful Kuat Engineering Systems F-31 drive engines and the four Kuat X-F-16 power generators, giving Slave I the speed of an Alliance Y-Wing fighter, which was slightly slower than the X-Wing and Tie Fighter...

Bottom line, u run into Fett, u either end up in one of his cages or dead...


----------



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

you make some good points but as for all them weapons it's a bit like overkill aint it? it'd be like digfighting in a B-wing, quite why you'd want to outrun a Y-wing is surely irrelivent, they were old and past their best, still a hard beast to bring down though, all things said for a dogfight i'd want me a V-wing or Delta 7 Jedi Starfighter..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 23, 2006)

We need to start up a Star Wars thread here since there are so many fans.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 23, 2006)

I started one a long time ago, and it had some action and then died, just like my hockey thread....



lanc said:


> but as for all them weapons it's a bit like overkill aint it?


When ur a bounty hunter, u have to deal with any situation that comes up, be better equipped, better sensors ect ect.... The one whose better armed is the one that comes home for dinner.......


----------



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

for bounty hunting i'll agree there's no finer mount, but i though we were talking dogfights? inwhich case i prefer small fast fighters like the Delta 7 (the Eta 2's no real improvement, apart from the ion cannons, looks stupid though) and the V-wing, i dunno why but i've never really been a big fan of the A-wing........


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 24, 2006)

I like SW


----------



## JohnnyL (Jul 22, 2006)

Unmanned.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 22, 2006)

I'd want my fighter to be reliable- I wouldn't want the engine falling off at 20,000 feet


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 19, 2006)

Nerd alert... 

Anyway, I would want a fighter that had the firepower, toughness, range, and speed to serve my needs. Either a P-38L or P-51D.


----------



## Chief (Dec 19, 2006)

Manuverability would be first, second speed, third accuracy, and finally reliability.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 19, 2006)

Wow look at this thread. Like the Phoenix from the ashes...


----------



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

and all because P-38 didn't quite grasp what it was about


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 20, 2006)

Damn! Not again! I keep forgetting to look at the dates!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 22, 2006)

I would want Range, higher ceiling, armour, speed and manouverability, and above all else FIREPOWER!!!!!!!!


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Dec 22, 2006)

Speed is for me. I want a plane that can fly into formations for one pass, then get out of there before the enemy reacts.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 31, 2006)

There are now two of these threads. This one appears more comprehensive however.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 1, 2007)

no there're plenty of repeated threads, i feel like going back and giving life back to some of my old ones, it does seem like the trend these days


----------



## abhiginimav (Jan 1, 2007)

perfect jet - although almost impossible- for me would have to be
1) fast - acheivable by hydrogen PDE ramjet engines + delta wings + slim design
2) quiet - acheivable by using the F117 style engine exhaust mufflers
3)super cruise
4) vtol/stol (vectored thrust)
5) stealth (no right angles in design + radar absorbing paint)
6) manouverable (vectored thrust + canards + sweep wing)
7) tough (armour)
8) packs a punch (massive load capabilities)
9) cheap ( new fules/ materials)
im bored now so im just gonna say -----the perfect jet must be everything
ie, the alleged Hypersoar / aurora jet but until its shroud of conspiracy is lifted , we have nothing.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 1, 2007)

And none of those design constraints are allowed to conflict.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 1, 2007)

I go to say "toughness" meaning as in P-47 Thunderbolt or A-10 Thunderbolt II "toughness" but it would be hard to get that into a modern jet... Modern Jets just can't be toughened up enough...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> I go to say "toughness" meaning as in P-47 Thunderbolt or A-10 Thunderbolt II "toughness" but it would be hard to get that into a modern jet... Modern Jets just can't be toughened up enough...


Wanna bet????


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 2, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> I go to say "toughness" meaning as in P-47 Thunderbolt or A-10 Thunderbolt II "toughness" but it would be hard to get that into a modern jet... Modern Jets just can't be toughened up enough...



Have you seen the pics of the IDF F-15 that landed minues starboard wing. Not the tip. I mean all the way to the root, fore to aft. Minor damage.

Oh and the F-18 missing 1 vertical stab.

Just some examples off the top of my head.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 2, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Oh and the F-18 missing 1 vertical stab.


There was a pic around here somewhere of one missing the entire radome.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 2, 2007)

Ah. Didn't see that one. What was cause? Collision?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 2, 2007)

Yes indeed. It took half a stab right off of the other one it hit. Maybe the one you referred to earlier, or was that a different case?

TonyRogers.com | F/A-18 Mid-Air Collision


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2007)

abhiginimav said:


> perfect jet - although almost impossible- for me would have to be
> 1) fast - acheivable by hydrogen PDE ramjet engines + delta wings + slim design
> 2) quiet - acheivable by using the F117 style engine exhaust mufflers
> 3)super cruise
> ...



With the exception of Cheap and being powered by ram jets you just described the F-22.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2007)

You're right, Chris.

The F/A-22 could be described like that, with much more. His description is of the airframe capabilities. The F/A-22 is smart as well, with many ingenius avionics packages with room to upgrade. This aircraft was designed from the start to last for an extremely long time, so there'll be no need to change the airframe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2007)

Agreed.


----------



## bigZ (Feb 6, 2007)

I want speed/range and the latest in detection.

Am a crap shot and want the fastest way out before I get in a situation. 

I prefer living like a lamb than dying like a lion any day.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Feb 8, 2007)

Well you could fly a bomber. Droping bombs causes more damage than bullets. 

Seems like today guided missiles do most of the fighting between aircraft anyway.


----------



## drewwizard (Dec 13, 2017)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I want 20mm rounds to bounce off me like rain drops!


 A sturmovik fan?


----------



## drewwizard (Dec 13, 2017)

My vote was stealth. The F-22 was a complete game changer. If you can't see me, I can do all kinds of bad things to you and get away with it. pull up hose you down, and drift away.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 13, 2017)

drewwizard said:


> My vote was stealth. The F-22 was a complete game changer. If you can't see me, I can do all kinds of bad things to you and get away with it. pull up hose you down, and drift away.


Ive seen pictures of an F 22


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 13, 2017)

drewwizard said:


> My vote was stealth. The F-22 was a complete game changer. If you can't see me, I can do all kinds of bad things to you and get away with it. pull up hose you down, and drift away.



Stealth is not invisible however. You can see an F-22, you just may not realize it is an F-22...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 13, 2017)

Let me rephrase my above post. All I was saying is that stealth technology is not 100% effective. There are two many factors involved. Basically what stealth does is reduce its radar cross section. It does not make it completely "invisible" to radar, but can make it very hard to detect. 

I am pretty sure the F-22 is about as "invisible" as you can get though. I believe Lockheed Martin said it was the equivalent of a steel marble, so yeah you may not see it coming...


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 5, 2019)

never mind


----------

