Venomstick121
Airman 1st Class
- 294
- Dec 21, 2023
This is in contrast to a previous thread that I have. I'll go first, A-10 warthog.
What is a plane that is overrated for it combat effectiveness
- Thread starter Venomstick121
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Admiral Beez
Major
Pretty much everything from the 1990s onwards from Sukhoi and MiG.
Have any of their aircraft defeated a NATO-origin fighter even once these last 20 years?
When the Ukrainians have E-2 vectored and well-piloted Vipers the Russian Su's and MiG's are going down hard.
Have any of their aircraft defeated a NATO-origin fighter even once these last 20 years?
When the Ukrainians have E-2 vectored and well-piloted Vipers the Russian Su's and MiG's are going down hard.
Last edited:
I spoke for a couple of years ago to Polish MiG-29 pilots who were engaged in training fights against modern NATO fighters and also trained on them. They also argued that despite the MiG's obsolescence, it could fight on an equal footing with many more modern fighters - with a well trained pilot and error-free tactics. And the only opponent that leaves the MiG no chance in any situation is the Rafale. Perhaps they were overstating MiG - I won't argue.
Last edited:
I think the Polish pilots were referring to the within-visual-range, A.K.A. dogfighting capabilities of the MiG-29. The MiG still remains a highly maneuverable and powerful jet fighter.
However: the MiG-29 as flown by the Polish Air Force would still be at a disadvantage in a dogfight, as they are still equipped with 1980s era Soviet missiles and helmet sight system.
Today's NATO fighter aircraft are light years ahead in this respect. We won't even mention longer ranged, BVR combat with radar guided missiles.
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I'm sure a few Iraqis might disagree with you.
My own picks, for the time period of the forum, would be the Ju-87 or the Fairey Fulmar, and as much as it pains me to say it, the P-38.
Why do you think the A-10?
Is there ANYBODY out there who thinks the Fulmar was any good?? It was reportedly maneuverable, and had a respectable endurance (range = 780 miles), but max speed = 272 mph; ceiling = 27,200 ft; initial climb rate = 1,320 ft/min.; time to 5,000 ft = 4.4 min. I wonder how it fared against a Bf-109 ...
Some Soviet pilots (the most of them were well-trained already before the war outbreak) on completely obsolete I-16s successfully opposed the Bf.109 in 1943. The problem was that they could not catch up with the bombers. But they could engage in a dogfight with fighters and, with some luck, even shoot down a heedless enemy.I wonder how it fared against a Bf-109 ...
Shortround6
Major General
Is there ANYBODY out there who thinks the Fulmar was any good??................................................ I wonder how it fared against a Bf-109 ...
Now tell me how well the 109 would operate 300 miles from shore?
Or even how the 109 would get home from 300 miles from shore?
Or even find a German carrier (pipe dream) 100 miles away on a stormy day in the Atlantic?
Fulmar didn't have to shoot down 109s.
It had to shoot down Fw 200s, He 111s, Arado 196, BV 138s and so on.
Also Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 (caution here, the Specs on Wiki are for a model that didn't show up until late 1942)
CANT Z.506
CANT Z.501
And the list goes on.
Any Bf-109 pilot with half a brain would avoid getting into a turnfight against an I-16. Instead, he would use "boom-and-zoom" energy tactics, in which speed and climbing ability would be more relevant than pure maneuverability, and the I-16 would be totally outclassed. Of course, anything can happen in an airfight, but a Fulmar (like the I-16) would normally be dogmeat against a 109.
Admiral Beez
Major
The FAA's all-time top scoring fighter? Sounds good enough to me.
You make a good point in regard to the Atlantic. Given the absence of German fighters in the Mid-Atlantic, a carrier-based Fulmar would be able to do well against those slow German FW-200s and reconnaissance planes. (It would have had a hard time catching a He-111, which had similar max speed to the Fulmar.)
In the Mediterranean, the Fulmar could definitely hunt down the Cant flying boats, but it would have a hard time catching SM.79s, which had max speeds of 267 mph (SM.79-I), 270 mph (S.M.79-II) and 290 mph (S.M.79-III). And a huge factor in the Mediterranean would be the presence of Axis fighters. When Bf-109s or MC-202s or even MC-200s were present, the Fulmars would have a very hard time surviving. Heck, an Me-110 using boom-and-zoom tactics should make short work of a Fulmar!
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
A carrier fighter doesn't have to be able outperform the opponent's fighters if the opponents fighters can't get there.
(Wow, I didn't think my posting would hit so many nerves!)
You are absolutely right, as I conceded to Shortround6 in regard to the Mid-Atlantic: In a scenario populated by low-performance planes (low performance in everything except for range), the Fulmar could do well. The one-eyed man ...
When I wrote my first posting I was thinking "Mediterranean" rather than "Mid-Atlantic". And in the Mediterranean those Axis fighters COULD get there, and then ... OUCH!
Shortround6
Major General
I am waiting to see the 109 fly out 300 miles from base, fly around for an hour, spot an enemy ship, radio the report in (with a somewhat accurate location), and then fly back to the base.
According to the memoirs of Soviet pilots on I-16s (e.g., V. Golubev from the 4th GVIAP of the Baltic Fleet), German fighters were quite readily engaged in maneuvering fights on turns.
Shortround6
Major General
We often forget the altitude difference. What you can do at 13,000ft is not what you can do at 8,000ft let alone what you can do at 1000ft or lower (torpedo run.)
Fulmar would still have trouble. It takes a while to cover even 3-5 miles with only 20mph speed advantage but the Fulmar wasn't as bad at low altitude as using other aircrafts 12,000ft and higher altitudes suggest. A Hurricane I using 6.25lbs of boost was good for between 285-290mph at the Fulmar II's best speed altitude. Better but not the 310-320mph that most spec sheets give (the 18,000ft height).
And even the SM.79s have got to be going lower than 7000-8000ft if they want to hit anything with bombs.
A Fulmar II in the Med in the Spring of 1941 beats an MC 202 that shows up the late Fall of 1941.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Larger balkenkreuzes?I am waiting to see the 109 fly out 300 miles from base, fly around for an hour, spot an enemy ship, radio the report in (with a somewhat accurate location), and then fly back to the base.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I'm a bit provincial myself. Totally spaced on the Med.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Is there ANYBODY out there who thinks the Fulmar was any good?? It was reportedly maneuverable, and had a respectable endurance (range = 780 miles), but max speed = 272 mph; ceiling = 27,200 ft; initial climb rate = 1,320 ft/min.; time to 5,000 ft = 4.4 min. I wonder how it fared against a Bf-109 ...
There are folks here who argue it was a decent ship. I'm not one of them.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
