FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
syscom3 said:
Beka Valley, 1984 - that was a full out slugfest and ended early because of Syrian capitulation
The Greatest Fighter Jet of All Time. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter 102first_hussars
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Beka Valley, 1984 - that was a full out slugfest and ended early because of Syrian capitulation
For me there is no way to compare planes from different era's. The military channel did a top fighter all-time based on different aspects of each plane like power plant, armorment, manuverabity, amount produced and the impact they on history and I am proud to say the "Mighty Mustang" took top honors mainly for impact it had on the war. The F-15 was a close 2nd followed by I believe the F-4. Hell they even had a WWI bi-plane forgot the name but I"m sure it was a Fokker but don't quote me on that. For me it was the Tomcat, she was sleak had nice curves great radar and the nick-name" Fleet Defender " just sounds cool, but that's just my opinion I could be wrong.
I agree with you on the F-14, thats my pick and always has been.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
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.
Sorry, but I don't think the F-4 belongs here. It was lacking in dogfighting capability. I think there were several contemporary aircraft that was better dogfighters. First is the F-8, then Mig-21, maybe F-5, probably others. The F-4 will stand as one of the all time great aircraft due to its versatility and overall competence. I think that correcting its shortcomings was the inspiration for aircaft such as the F-14, 15, 16, and 18.
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.
Sorry, but I don't think the F-4 belongs here. It was lacking in dogfighting capability. I think there were several contemporary aircraft that was better dogfighters. First is the F-8, then Mig-21, maybe F-5, probably others. The F-4 will stand as one of the all time great aircraft due to its versatility and overall competence. I think that correcting its shortcomings was the inspiration for aircaft such as the F-14, 15, 16, and 18.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The F14 was more a fleet defense fighter than a dogfighter.
It was woefully heavy and except for the -D model, underpowered with crappy engines.
The great thing about it was the avioncs and missle systems.
Other than that, It was mediocre.
It was woefully heavy and except for the -D model, underpowered with crappy engines.
The great thing about it was the avioncs and missle systems.
Other than that, It was mediocre.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
syscom3 said:
Question. Did the F-105 jocks get the same dogfighting skill upgrades as the F-4 pilots?
This should raise some hackles.
Gotta disagree on the second paragraph. The F-4 was also part of the 50s design era, designed basically replacing the woefully underperforming the Demon. All of these planes were built for the wrong war (the F-4 for a missile toting intercepter). The F-4 was the best at being adapted for the real world (the F-105 was a close second and honored itself greatly) and was good in many roles. It was not great in any particular role. There were several aircraft that were superior to it in dogfighting (I am sure there are a line of F-8 pilots that could discuss happy experiences dogfighting against the F-4, also a few F-5 guys). It could also bomb but there were better (e.g. A-7, an F-8 offspring). The F-4 was in my era and I knew many guys who flew in them. I am sure most would say they were great. Some have said they were dogs. The F-4 was without a doubt one of the greatest overall fighter planes in history. Its fame was primarily for adaptablity and adequacy. It was never an overpowering fighter. As for as the Israelis are concerned, they have a history of outstanding flying no matter what the plane. It would be interesting to hear an Israel discuss the merits of the F-4 vs the Mirage or the Israeli version of the Mirage (Kfir?). Lastly, the F-15 was specifically designed to overcome the inadequacies of the F-4 against its contempory foes, designs that made it an outstanding dogfighter against its contemporaries, oh, and by the way, it also turned into a great air-to-ground weapon (of course great weapons helped).
Another comment about the F-105. When cleaned up and the fire was lit, nothing could touch it at low level. Escort fighters wouldn't worry when they saw a 105 in this mode it would just simply pull away. If you look at head on and cleaned up, it is hard to find a cleaner airframe. I never thought of it as a great dogfighter, which it wasn't designed).
syscom3
Pacific Historian
davparlr said:
I've seen some recent evidence that a MiG-15 flown by a pilot who knew what they were doing was more than a handfull for the F86's. Plus the Mig-15 flight performace was better than the F86.
For the F4..... it may not have been superior in any one thing, but the era it was flown in, it was good in enough of them. The F8 might have been a great dogfighter, but it could never have handled the wild weasel support.
The F15 and 16, while excellent aircraft have one facet missing in the their resume's.... theyre not carrier capable. The F4 is.
Conversely, the F14 isnt a close air support aircraft, and its crappy engines limit its roll as a potential long range air defense fighter. The F18..... well its something for everyone, master of none.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Not really...syscom3 said:
Although it accelerated quicker and flew highher it was very unstable and its cannons had a poor trajectory. At high speeds the Mig-15 "Shakes and snakes."
The F-86 was faster and at certain altitudes actually more maneuverable and of course more stable...
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
syscom3 said:
American F-86 aces would tell you that a Mig flown by an expert, ususally Russian, pilot was a handfull. To hear the Russians tell it, Russian pilots had a greater than even kill ratio over the F-86, but then, you gotta believe what they say. Overall the F-86 was the better fighter. The Mig had some quirks and manual flight controls.
Your comments on the F-4 was about what I said. F-8 pilots thought they were invincible. The F-4 pilots, when taught how to fly the F-4 against the F-8, were more successful. But the F-8 pilots never had to learn how to attack the F-4 to beat it. That debate will go on ad infinitum.
I don't think carrier qual is an important criteria for the worlds best fighter.
F-18 is a much better F-4. Its important for a Navy plane to handle multiple roles well and the F-18 does this job just fine. I am not sure how the F-35 will stack up against all the F-18 capability but it will certainly be superior in most.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
davparlr said:
I think it is important as carrier aircraft are solidly built. The USAF got a solid airframe and both branches of the services saved loads of money on a common airframe.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
If you count their participation in the Korean War that magical 10 to 1 kill ratio probably goes down to 3 or 4 to one. Many Russians who flew in Korea "really" over-exaggerated their kills in as much I remember reading that they claimed something like 250 F-80s destroyed, well I don't think there were that many in the whole theater at any given time!!!davparlr said:
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
syscom3 said:
All this is true for the F-4. Especially considering the state of Air Force design. Also, It is easier to convert a Navy design into an Air Force aircraft rather than vice versa. However, I don't think the F-18 would be considered a better fighter than the F-16, more flexible yes.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
For air-to-air, I'd take the F16.
For ground support, Id take the F18.
For ground support, Id take the F18.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
syscom3 said:
I agree. The F-18 also has more avionics space for growth.
Bullockracing
Airman 1st Class
I picked the F-15, just because it can accelerate vertically and the 16 can't. If I knew more about the Su-37, I may have picked it.
Okay but what kind of advantage is that really when it comes to fighting other aircraft. Sure you can take off and get to alltitude quicker but there is no advantage in that when it comes to dogfighting or ground attack or anything like that.
The MIG-15 was only handful for the F-86 Sabre in the beginning, later on with the introduction of the F-86F which had a better and more powerful engine and was equipped with automatic-slats, the MIG-15 wasn't nearly the headache it used to be. The increased engine power coupled with the automatic-slats meant that the Sabre could now out-maneuver and out-climb the MIG-15.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And when the F-86 Es and Fs came into the theater, the A models weren't quickly rotated out. I show some As remaining in the theater until late 1952.
