It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Greatest Fighter Aircraft - Ever?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   
What...you mean that we have to listen to the opinions of "Darn pesky kids?"

Now in my day things were a lot different........................LOL

BillyTheCat




posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Why is everyone ignoring the Fw190 that much? If the Germans didnt resistted against it. Well not all of them did but a quite allot of important people thought it was a threat for the Bf109 programme. I think if that didnt happen it could have entered service 6 months earlier perhaps even more. It already outclassed every aircraft when it did enter service. The only thing that saved the Spitfire was its upgradabillity. If it wasnt such a easily upgradable plane they would have to design a whole new aircraft.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Guys, I know I've said this time and time again on my Greatest Tank - Ever?
thread, but please don't start slanging matches.

I reported on a Brit Channel 5 programme where former air to air combat vets dared to offer their opinions as to what was the world's greatest air to air combat aircraft.

Yes the F-117A Nighthawk is a bomber! I said that, so did it's pilot who flew it in Bosnia/Kosovo and GWI. What part of that statement don't you understand?

The F-18 pilot said that his aircraft was magical. it was one of the best all round 'fighter-bombers' and as such, pilots like himself suffered problems with the heads up displays on the dark vizor of his helmet. It is because of this extra stress during combat missions that he relegated it to where it came in the overall rankings.

My final thought goes to our Colonial friend who, magnaminous in victory, says that the Spitfire should triumph over the P-51 Mustang.

My warmest thanks Sir - you are a gentlemen.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Hurricane deserved a top 10 spot!

Cheap, easy to produce in small low-tech plants, robust and repairable at squadron rather than factory. The quality of the original design showed in developments of hurribomber and typhoon / tempest. May not have been as advanced as the spit but earlier, cheaper, more serviceable and 95% as effective. Many German pilots refused to believe they'd not been downed by a Spitfire

The BoB was won by hurricanes and polish / czech pilots, spin has twisted history to fit the popoganda

[edit on 12/7/05 by CTID56092]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Hey CITD you are so right and what's more, it shot down more German a/c during thew Battle of Britain than any other a/c.

Just goes to show that if you give pilots something flashy, that flies like a dream, that can turn on a dime, is sooooooooo good looking, has a distinctive throaty roar, then they're bound to show off and steal the show.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Once again I saw a slightly different programme on discovery channel.

10. F/A22 Raptor
9. Sea Harrier FA2
8. Sopwith Camel
7. ME262
6. Spitfire
Joint 4th. Mig 15 + F86 Sabre
3. F4 Phantom
2. F15 C Eagle
1. P51 Mustang



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Wtf? Sea harrier in 9th place above the raptor?
All american planes takeing top 3 positions?
Mind you discovery only really focus's on USA.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Its because the raptor has no kills at all or service length.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK_05_XM29
Its because the raptor has no kills at all or service length.

Its not that, its the fact the sea harrier is ninth....IMO it should be higher but **shrugs*** must be a yank thing...



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Again a wrong list. The P51 never totally outclassed the Fw190. It didnt even totally outclass the Bf109G. I would rather have a Fw190D or A8 than a P51. Why? Better manuverabillity and more heavily armed. The P51 only had its speed and range.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   


Its not that, its the fact the sea harrier is ninth....IMO it should be higher but **shrugs*** must be a yank thing...


It had a British narrator
.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   
A little difficult to make comparisons when the selection spans just under a century of aircraft production.

Any military innovation, aircraft among them, is only 'the greatest' until surpassed. The top-ten list cites examples of the evolution of airpower and some of the individual peak-performers therein.

That aside, I too am a fan of the P51-Mustang.... notably missing from the provided list however were the Sopwith Camel, Zero and Stuka, also fine craft of their day.

As a gesture to my late father I must also mention his reverence for the P38 Lightning and his recollections of the part it played in bringing him home safely from WWII.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK_05_XM29
It had a British narrator
.

Dear god the influence!



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Interesting thread. But put F/A - 18 and Harrier in Top 10 fighters EVER, must be joke (Sabre too). Very interesting at all. In Iraqi Gulf war, F-16 have 95% of all missions, where he flown, acccomplised (or 98% i am not sure). I want you to ask do you know what is F/A-18 G-limit? It's 4G-s.
And one more question why americans still use F-14's for Fighter's sweeps and CAP over Airplane carriers.
Harrier is good (but not that much). In Fokland's Argentina's pilots did not know with what they are fighting with. He is too slow. Also you can only hover for 90sec before he will burn up.
Sabre was so "good" that American pilots want to put bubble gum in the wind shield for gun sight (MiG's in Korean and in the Vietnam war was much better).
Ok i assume you put only plane's who was in real war actions. But what happend with Suhoi's? What about most manuverable plane ever (Su-37)?
I was watching Discovery Channel when they was talking about F-22 ( fifth generation) and his ability's and when he compare with Su-37 (the best of four generation) he said "Su-37 is one of the best fighter's ever".

F-117 Fighter LoL. I want to see F-117 in close combat.

[edit on 13-7-2005 by Serbian_SPIRIT]

[edit on 13-7-2005 by Serbian_SPIRIT]

[edit on 13-7-2005 by Serbian_SPIRIT]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 01:17 AM
link   
I'm a little confused why, or how, the F-117 could be considered the 10th best fighter aircraft of all time. It's really more of a tactical bomber than a fighter. I would imagine an F-16 could trounce the F-117 in a dogfight, if both were equally matched in, or denied, standoff weaponry, and the F-16 isn't primarily a fighter anyway, and more importantly it's not on the list (not that it should be, but it certainly deserves to be there more than the F-117, imo). Further, how many F-117 dogfights have there even been? I can't think of any... so how can it possibly stand next to Zeros, Mustangs, and Spitfires in terms of fighting ability?

-koji K.

[edit on 13-7-2005 by koji_K]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 01:23 AM
link   
They DON'T use F-14s anymore. They have been retiring them for a couple of years now. 4G load limit? WHere did you hear that from? link please. The max for a Hornet is 7.5, with a max sustained of 6.6. It might be 4 with external fuel tanks attached, but 4 certainly isn't the max it can pull.

The Harrier won't "burn up" after 90 seconds of hovering. It will lose power, because it has used all the water it was pumping into the engine for extra power.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   
F-16 isn't primarily a fighter? huh? The F-16 was built strictly AS a fighter and had ground attack capablility added a LONG time after development. The F-117 doesn't even have a radar on board for a2a capability, which means it can't carry a2a missiles. It's a tactical bomber not a fighter.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
F-16 isn't primarily a fighter? huh? The F-16 was built strictly AS a fighter and had ground attack capablility added a LONG time after development. The F-117 doesn't even have a radar on board for a2a capability, which means it can't carry a2a missiles. It's a tactical bomber not a fighter.


You're right about the F-16s, I retract my statement! It just seems to have been used more in ground attack roles in recent history, at least on the news. But yeah, re tactical bomber, that's what I said!

-koji K.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
4G load limit? WHere did you hear that from? link please. The max for a Hornet is 7.5, with a max sustained of 6.6. It might be 4 with external fuel tanks attached, but 4 certainly isn't the max it can pull.

The Harrier won't "burn up" after 90 seconds of hovering. It will lose power, because it has used all the water it was pumping into the engine for extra power.


I am sorry about the G-limit my mistake.
About harrier he will burn up because he use trusters (i can't very well exp. on english little opens where trust go from engine) on nose and wings for balancing. They are hiting and when he use all water for cooling he will burn up.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 02:00 AM
link   
The thrusters on the nose and wingtips are very very small. They are only puffer vents they use for moving side to side and rolling the wings. The main vents are along the body of the plane. Two on each side right by the intakes, and two on each side back by the tail. Those are the ones that they use to hover with. The vents on the back of that little boom that sticks out, the wingtips, and the nose are only for fine control when they are hovering and have nothing to do with actually keeping them in a hover.

[edit on 13-7-2005 by Zaphod58]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join