Greatest Fighter Aircraft of All Time

[Henk]

Originally Posted by plan_D

While the P-51 is sitting high up there waiting, the Fw-190 is ripping the bomber formations to pieces.

ROFL

Good one mate.

Henk

[loomaluftwaffe]

no, why waste fighters' fuel on Mustangs when all you need is a few fragments of flak to kill that engine and bring him down?

well... not as if that will help the Me-262s we're sending up there

[syscom3]

You need heavy flak to bring down aircraft at 20,000 feet. Heavy flak was aimed at bomber streams, not individual fighter aircraft.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

If you aimed flak at individual aircraft you could aim all day and not bring anything down.

[FLYBOYJ]

Someone once posted info about German and US anti aircraft guns - If I remember I think it stated an average of 200 - 400 rounds were needed to take down one aircraft.

[plan_D]

They were more deadly in killing the crew members rather than bringing the whole aircraft down. A lot of people forget that people can still be dying in the plane while it's still in flight.

[syscom3]

In 1945, the US Army fielded a deployable fire control system for its 90mm AA guns.

It consisted of a search radar and a track radar. The track radar would lock onto its target (an individual aircraft) and feed data into a primitive ballistics computer, which in turn automatically provided the fire solution to some servo's on the gun carriage.

It actually worked, as long as the angular rate of the target's didnt exceed the servo's for the gun.

That was extremely high tech for its day.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

If flown correctly - yes. F-8s and F-4s used to go at it all the time in early top gun cl***es.

The F-5E is a harder target - it boils down to pilot skills and tactics...

Early in Vietnam, under similar training programs, the F-8s were having their way with the Migs while the F-4 were struggling to the point that Top Gun had to be formed. In fact, it seems that Top Gun was formed specifically train the F-4 pilots because of THEIR (both pilots and airplanes) poor performance. You would have to wonder if the F-4 had the inherent dogfighting characteristics of the F-8, would Top Gun have been needed? The answer, of course, is yes, just not as bad. Top Gun just makes loads of sense no matter how good you plane is. Even Randy Cunningham (a good stick but a lousey person) said the F-8 had an advantage until F-4 pilots were Top Gun trained. I still don't know if F-8 pilots went to Top Gun therefore equal in training (by that time they were being phased out). It would be interesting to hear from some Navy pilots that transistioned to F-4 from F-8s. I suspect they would perfer the F-8 if nothing more than it has only one ****pit for the ego.

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.

The F-4 will stand as one of the all time great aircraft due to its versatility and overall competence. I do think that correcting its shortcomings was the inspiration for aircaft such as the F-14, 15, 16, and 18. If it was 1960 to 1975 and you could only get one plane, it would be the F4. In spite of my opinion, the F-4 is one of my favorite aircraft. The first time I knew of it was in a Buz Sawyer comic strip. He was flying one over Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis when his nozzle failed open. I thought (and still do) it was a cool looking aircraft. A good friend of mine has his name on the F-4 at March Air Museum. He would agree with you whole heartedly.

[Raptor]

F-15. No contest.

[Lt. Mereel]

I'll go what Raptor said, F-15

[nosredna]

for me its the fokker. Its reliable, saw many battles and is one of the most recognizable planes out there

[Glider]

This may cause some debate but the following is the reasons for my choice and reasons for and against most of the aircraft on the list.

The only problem with the F15 is that it has not been tested in battle against pilots with similar levels of training and ability. I am aware of its performance and the fact thats its the fighter of choice from its introduction until the F22 arrived on the scene, but we are after the best ever, not the best since 1975

The Triplane had agility and climb on its side but it was slow, didn't dive well and had poor visibility. For the average pilot it was not effective and was replaced in the German Airforce fairly soon after its introduction.

The Camel was a fine plane but difficult to handle and was outclassed by fighters such as the Fokker D7.

F86 and Mig 15 cancel each other out. Both had advantages and disadvantages but the deciding factor in combat was the better training of the USAF. When they went against properly trained aircrew e.g. the Russians in Korea, I understand the results were more even.

F4 has a good claim but had its problems the worst of which in my mind were its engines. In combat the one who sees the enemy first often has an advantage. The F4 smokes badly and you can almost see them as soon as they come over the horizon, its a point not often made but a valid one. The F4 also lacked agility.

Mig 21 also has a claim but the Mirage III would also have a similar claim. Both were light, cheap, fast with a limited endurance. Of the two I would go for the Mirage for its flexibility.

The P51 was a fine aircraft but fragile and others could match it.

The 190 was without question the best fighter when introduced but the opposition soon caught up with it.

This leaves the Spitfire. From the moment of its introduction until the end of its life it nearly always matched the best of the aircraft of its era. There were moments such as the introduction of the Fw190 where it was left behind, but new versions such as the Mk9 in this case fixed the problem. Its only weakness was in a dive where initially it was at a disadvantage.
Range is often raised as a problem but this was a matter of choice. It certainly could have been developed and examples flew the Atlantic from St Johns to N Ireland without stopping to prove the point but the need had already been addressed.
To sum up, it was always as good as the other aircraft of the period, not better but as good as. To do this in the crucible of battle in a period from 1938 to 1945 with all the development that took place was an achievement no other plane could match.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Glider

F86 and Mig 15 cancel each other out. Both had advantages and disadvantages but the deciding factor in combat was the better training of the USAF. When they went against properly trained aircrew e.g. the Russians in Korea, I understand the results were more even.

As we now know the kill/ loss ratios were closer than previously reported when one compares the F-86 to the Mig-15. Considering the ambiguity of those numbers, the F-86 still came out on top. Although the Mig-15 was simplistic and less troublesome, the F-86 had characteristics that made it far superior, ie. hydraulic boost, triple redundant hydraulics, and a more robust structure. Pulling continual Gs in the Mig-15 meant the pilot fatigued easily thus putting the odds in the Sabers court. But finally, the inability of the Mig to operate in high mach numbers and it's instability while deploying its weapons was a major flaw mentioned by North Korean defector No Kum-Sok. The Mig-15 was a bomber killer and might of done well in that role with the ability to combat contemporary fighter aircraft with its maneuverability and high rate of acceleration, but when it met the F-86, it more than met its match and I think deep down inside, even those Russian Korean War vets who toted the party line on the Mig-15's superiority know they were matched as well....

[Jackson]

Well said Heh, I love Spitfires too, but..

No matter how you smooch it it up, no matter how sweet it is, the Mark IX was no the best fighter ever built.

Even though I pretty much agree with you.

[trackend]

I'm finding this a very hard question to answer, one because of my limited knowledge of post war aircraft but it appears the 86 was a very well founded plane. I will personally plump for the Spitfire with its ability to be constantly up graded to match anything that was put against it I know a lot of guys like the FW190 but after hearing Douglas Badder's (all be it a tad biased but never the less first hand combat action ) recollections I will go with the Spite.
Having said that I think quite a few of the allied aircraft owe much or their reputation to the Merlin (and it the case of the Spite) later Griffon power plants performance.
I still have a soft spot though for the F4U and the times I have seen them in the air compared to other fighters I found them to eat up the ground and make relatively tight (air show restricted) maneuvers with incredible smoothness which must have helped to make for a very effective gun platform.
So as I say coming to an overall single aircraft I have a bit of a dilemma even after settling on the Spite, and as all time has not finished yet who knows what the future holds, however I suspect the day of the fighter manned or remote will draw to a close it the not too distant future.