The best fighter of the 1950's.

[Waynos]

Dave - you are correct. It was the redesign of the YF-102 to the F-102A that resulted in the Whitcomb Area Rule change to fuselage because of disappointing speed performance of the YF-102.

The F-102B was a further and major redesign of the A and became the basis for the F-106 because the B was so significantly different.

Er, hello? Who was correct?

no offence Dave, you too

 

[drgondog]

Er, hello? Who was correct?

no offence Dave, you too

did not see your post 25

 

[The Basket]

Supermarine Scimitar?

Best of 1950s?

No!

Garbage.

The Spitfire was still in service so I vote for that!

 

[timshatz]

Ok, one more. How about the Mirage 3. That was a very good fighter.

This is harder than I thought. None of those fighters listed is a dog. Not a single Brewster Buffalo in the bunch.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I'm a little fuzzy on 1950's aircraft, (well, anything past World War II I guess. )

I do know the Mig 21 was an amazing fighter when it came out, and was better than a lot of the other fighters out there.

 

[Flyboy2]

=Graeme;490938
G'day FB2. Did you happen to read that from the Wiki site above?

Ya I did, and actually thought that was a little wierd as well, but thought they might be referring to some Tu-95 versions with the buldge in the front.

do know the Mig 21 was an amazing fighter when it came out, and was better than a lot of the other fighters out there.

It sure was, some versions of the MiG-21 still service in airforces today. The MiG-21 was small and manuveurable, and even gave American pilots some headaches in Vietnam...

Now nobody shoot me over this statement, but I believe the MiG-21 was roughly the equivalent to the F-4 Phantom in regards to how many entered service and the variability of the design.

 

[pbfoot]

Its kinda tough to choose since some of the aircraft on the list are 1st generation and some were 2nd verging on 3rd ,

 

[Graeme]

As for the best aircraft, I'm going to have to say on combat record with usage and longevity its got to be the MiG-21

That choice and reasoning would make Bill Gunston very happy!

Ya I did, and actually thought that was a little wierd as well, but thought they might be referring to some Tu-95 versions with the buldge in the front.

This? As far as I know it's a radar randome known as the "Crown Drum" nose randome. I think Richard Whitcomb would be ashamed of the Bear with all its lumps and bumps.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Just a thought, but is not the MIG-21 also the most "shot down" fighter on this list??

I love the Lightning, but I had to go with the F-106.

 

[kool kitty89]

On the Tu-95 comment, as it's a subsonic (or transsonic) aircraft, why would area rule even be considdered? (or matter)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It sure was, some versions of the MiG-21 still service in airforces today. The MiG-21 was small and manuveurable, and even gave American pilots some headaches in Vietnam...

Now nobody shoot me over this statement, but I believe the MiG-21 was roughly the equivalent to the F-4 Phantom in regards to how many entered service and the variability of the design.

The MiG-21 was respected by US pilots but there were a few incidents where a good portion of the NVNAF MiG-21 force were almost wiped out (Operation Bolo). Also consider that the US imposed "rules of engagement" on fighters that was later lifted in May of 1972.

The MiG-21 performed better than the F-4 at certain altitudes, but the F-4 could easily exploit and better the MiG-21. Never the less the MiG-21 was a very good design despite some limitations.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Its kinda tough to choose since some of the aircraft on the list are 1st generation and some were 2nd verging on 3rd ,

Agree...

If you want to base combat career and over all impact I'd say the F-86. Performance and longevity - the F-106

 

[drgondog]

On the Tu-95 comment, as it's a subsonic (or transsonic) aircraft, why would area rule even be considdered? (or matter)

KK - I don't have all the data so just speculating.

The Tu-95 was faster than the F-80 and Me 262, the wings were swept the same as an F-86 which meant they knew they were in transonic regime (of course) - and that is where the major wave drag rise occurs.

I have zero idea one way or the other whether an 'area rule' fuselage was considered as part of the design or whether the many bulges on this a/c had some other purpose like housing radars, etc., but if they did (I don't have a plan view handy) it would be very noticable wasp waist at the wing/body intersection..

 

[drgondog]

Just a thought, but is not the MIG-21 also the most "shot down" fighter on this list??

I love the Lightning, but I had to go with the F-106.

air to air - it might be. "All in" combat losses, probably the 105 in VN but 90% of those were Sams/flak/ops rather than air to air

 

[davparlr]

Er, hello? Who was correct?

no offence Dave, you too

I gave you credit. See post #27.

 

[Waynos]

Yeah, I saw that, sorry, I meant you were right too

 

[Lucky13]

Didn't the Crusader swap bits and bobs with the MiG-21 a few times over 'Nam? How many '21's did the Crusader nail and the other way around?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Didn't the Crusader swap bits and bobs with the MiG-21 a few times over 'Nam? How many '21's did the Crusader nail and the other way around?

The F-8 killed 19 MiGs, 4 were 21s. I think 3 were lost and if I'm not mistaken to MiG-17s

 

[Soren]

I believe the Lightning outperforms the MIG-21 in most areas really.

Very few if any 1950's fighters can be compared to a fighter like the F-15, the Lightning is perhaps the only one.

 

[Flyboy2]

On the Tu-95 comment, as it's a subsonic (or transsonic) aircraft, why would area rule even be considdered? (or matter)

Yeah, I don't think the area rule would count there, and I don't think it was used

This? As far as I know it's a radar randome known as the "Crown Drum" nose randome.

Thats what I was thinking of, I knew if it was a radar but didn't know if thats what was counting. I guess not.