Greatest Fighter Aircraft of All Time

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

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]

Originally Posted by syscom3

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]

Originally Posted by CurzonDax

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 **** 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]

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]

Originally Posted by Royzee617

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]

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]

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]

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...l_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]

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]

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/vie...asc&start =80

[syscom3]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.