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.

 

Defining the Breed - Fighters

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Agreed
I would have like to do a thread on naval fighters but, as I have said elsewhere, I don't want to clutter the board up or they will just start to be deleted/moved.

IF there was a naval fighter list though last part of it it would go from F-4 Phantom to F-14 Tomcat and end right there, at least until we see what the F-35C is really going to be like.




posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 01:20 AM
link   
I have to disagree with you making breed of MiG-25 and F-15 which if means epochmaking.
As the information I have got, the Foxbat was refered to A-5 Vigilanter so that almost no maneuverablity just do direct line to intercept target.
As you have said "one advantage doesn't define the breed", despite the Foxbat could do M2.8 suopersonic.
On the other hand, no matter see any aspect of point, F-14 IS THE ONLY ONE to be breed. Its airframe is wide enough for carry more fuel, cuneal airlets for higher speed reach M2.35 alyhough its configuration is too complicated because of swing wing. In a simulant race, F-14 win all of times except one is draw.
Let's trun to F-15, if Eagle and Foxbat can both be breed, then Fagot also can be breed same as Sabre. Can you give me a reason why not?



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Simply personal choice emile, we are all free to make our own. I named the MiG 25 not particularly for its own merits but mainly for the response it drew from the USA, resulting in the F-15 which then went on to be the best fighter for three decades thats why both of them are named. Meanwhile the Fagot and Sabre were contemporaries, like the Spitfire and Bf-109 were, and I just chose one. Either is a good choice but I just swung towards the Sabre.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Don't you know how much influnce by F-14 in design of USSR, which reflect on Su-27 and MiG-29 do you? why you didn't raise Tomcat? even its naissance is earler than Eagle?
Contrarily, I couldn't see any influnce showed on f-15 by MiG-25.
You'd better constitute an unitive standard to measure the make breed.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Emile, purely based on our own opinions, we are all free to believe what goes where, no need to forc the F-14 down out throats. The F-14 was a very great interceptor, and it does deserve a spot, however, so many other aircraft came out in its time period that have just as much of an influence, be it a response to the F-14, or the F-14 a response to that aircraft it self.

I agree with Waynos' placement of the F-15 on the chart, just not the MiG-25 Foxbat, I don't really recognize the MiG-25 as deserving of such a spot. The Foxbat was built in response to high altitude, fast allied nuclear bombers, such as the XB-70.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
okok that is fair enough! I will give up to badger with this



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Like Shattered already said emile, its just choice. Basically I said to myself 'right, its 1944. Think of one truly great fighter plane, but only one.' and repeated this exercise for each 'period' from 1915 to 2000. Ask different people the same question and you will get different answers. Thats why I don't say that the MiG 15, P-51, F-14 etc are wrong, just not the ones I would choose. It would be fun to see other peoples definitive fighters through the ages and then we can have even more examples of 'how on earth could you not pick' replies


Regards the F-14, and I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just explaining my line of thought, I reasoned that of the two choices the F-14 was flawed by direct comparison with the F-15 by dint of its wing mechanism, variable geometry was already on the way out by then as a design trend and, after choosing the F-111 which brought this trend into vogue it would have been wrong of me to pick the F-14 when the F-15 brought in a lightweight combat optimised fixed wing of very advanced design, therefore, for me the F-15 is the definitive fighter design from that age.

Remember, this is not about saying that these are the best fighters or most successful or anything like that. By definition there can only be one 'definitive' fighter. Therefore to include the F-14 I would have to leave the F-15 out. Thats what I was trying to do, not make a list of ALL the best fighters, but make hard choices between several excellent ones.

I cannot think of any single reason why I would leave out the F-15, so the F-14 gets left out. It was the same hard choice between the Spitfire and P-51.

[edit on 8-11-2005 by waynos]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
what no 262?

sad



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Originally posted by rmatrem
P-51 was just rated the TOP Fighter of all time by the discovery channel... nuff said...


Oh right... so then it MUST be true



Note that the question Waynos is asking is not: which is the best fighter... but


how would you pick the ones that define the genre in any given period


I now realise my earlier statement about the Me163 or TA183 is not viable as both were quite a bit ahead of their time, and did not define the aircraft of the period.


They are not always right, but the Discovery Channel has more resources availible for research. Therefore, it can be used as a good source of information. And they used a good variety of quailifications to pick the best fighter of all time. Here is the list:

10. F22 Raptor
9. Sea Harrier FA2
8. Sopwith Camel
7. Me 262
6. Spitfire
4. Mig-15 ( Tie between Mig and F-86 )
F-86
3. F-4 Phantom
2. F-15C
1. P-51 Mustang

The P51 was one of the most important planes to fight in the European Theater. It entered the war at a crucial point. Without this plane and its long range capabilities the war may have drug out longer and more bombers and their crews may have been lost. The P51D is and was considered the ultimate fighter. With its bubble canapoy, giving the pilot a full 360 degree view and having six machine guns and a Rolls Royce engine this plane was fast and highly manueverable. It could take on any of the German's piston powered fighters with ease. The pilots of the P51 were very pleased with its manuverability. According to the Discovery Channel and their reseach, they stated that the P51D was not only the best fighter for the 1943- 1946 period, but the best fighter of all time. It had one of the highest kill-loss ratios at 19 to 1. The P-51 was designed as the NA-73 in 1940, at Britain's request. The design showed promise and Army Air Force (AAF) purchases of Allison powered Mustangs began in 1941, primarily for photo recon and ground support use due to its limited high-altitude performance. But in 1942, tests of P-51s using the British Rolls-Royce "Merlin" engine revealed much improved speed and service ceiling, and in December 1943, Merlin powered P-51Bs first entered combat over Europe. Providing high-altitude escort to B-17s and B-24s, they scored heavily over German interceptors and by war's end, P-51s had destroyed 4,950 enemy aircraft in the air, more than any other fighter in Europe.

"The P-51 was an immediate success. It outperformed even the Spitfire, but the Allison engine placed limitations on the performance..." www.aviation-history.com...



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by rmatrem
The P51 was one of the most important planes to fight in the European Theater. It entered the war at a crucial point. Without this plane and its long range capabilities the war may have drug out longer and more bombers and their crews may have been lost. The P51D is and was considered the ultimate fighter. With its bubble canapoy, giving the pilot a full 360 degree view and having six machine guns and a Rolls Royce engine this plane was fast and highly manueverable.

"The P-51 was an immediate success. It outperformed even the Spitfire, but the Allison engine placed limitations on the performance..." www.aviation-history.com...


So the Eigtth AF may have had to turn to night bombing, where Window had destroyed the radar capability of the German Schrage-Musik BF 110s and the Kammhuber Line generally.

Anyway, Lightning had the range of Mustang without drop tanks.

Spit had a bubble canopy. And more guns. And after the Mustang was given a decent engine, the same Rolls Royce engine. In fact by 1944 the Spit had a better engine, the Gryffon.

The whole point is that Spit was better armed from the beginning, and she came out six years ealier. Mustang did not have a bubble canopy from the get-go, or the Rolls Royce engine, it had to develop to get those things. Spit didn't.

The Mustang's single best credited acheivement was when the "coloured boys" from Tuskegee shot down five Me 262s.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by rmatrem

10. F22 Raptor
9. Sea Harrier FA2
8. Sopwith Camel
7. Me 262
6. Spitfire
4. Mig-15 ( Tie between Mig and F-86 )
F-86
3. F-4 Phantom
2. F-15C
1. P-51 Mustang


Several small facts scream out to me here, first the absence from that list of the Hawker Hurricane is ludicrous, considering that at the end of the Battle of Britain Hurricanes had destroyed more German aircraft than all other defences combined and yet here it doesn't even make the cut?

Second I notice that the top four are all American while the Spitfire is back in sixth and then I notice that the not yet combat tried Raptor makes number 10, while the MiG 21 HAS MADE NO IMPRESSION AT ALL. Clearly no national bias at work there then, tell me, Where is the Discovery Channel based?



The P51D is and was considered the ultimate fighter. With its bubble canapoy, giving the pilot a full 360 degree view and having six machine guns and a Rolls Royce engine this plane was fast and highly manueverable.


Strange, but for the feeble six machine gun armament that could be a description of the Spitfire, remember the Spitfire started out with eight machine guns but by 1942 had progressed to four 20mm cannon.


It could take on any of the German's piston powered fighters with ease.
ditto Spitfire.

The pilots of the P51 were very pleased with its manuverability.
ditto Spitfire.

According to the Discovery Channel and their reseach, they stated that the P51D was not only the best fighter for the 1943- 1946 period, but the best fighter of all time.
and yet the Spitfire is 6th? How very odd.


But in 1942, tests of P-51s using the British Rolls-Royce "Merlin" engine revealed much improved speed and service ceiling, and in December 1943, Merlin powered P-51Bs first entered combat over Europe.
By which time the Spitfire was beginning to leave the Merlin behind and Rolls Royce Griffon powered Spits were starting to reach the Squadrons.


"The P-51 was an immediate success. It outperformed even the Spitfire, but the Allison engine placed limitations on the performance..."


That final statement is clearly a nonsence, an immediate success but with limited performance, yeah right,
it was designed as a fighter but had to be useed in the ground attack role because its performance was severely lacking at altitude, it was nothing more than a second line aircraft with the RAF until it was refitted with the Merlin to become the outstanding success it eventually did.

That looks like a demolition job on the Mustang, it isn't. It is a demolition job on a ridiculously flawed and biased 'survey'.

[edit on 11-11-2005 by waynos]



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   
I find it funny how I'm quoted and answered as if I need to be "debunked". lol
Actually, being a Aeronautical Engineering student, I like to pride myself as not having bias. I look at the two by the numbers and with conceptional design and performance specifications. The spitfire is a cultural representation of the UK's defiance and success in WWII; the P-51 is NOT. Therefore, it is not likely I am prone to bias.

I, on the other hand, don't care to correct any of the misleading statements posted prior, but instead I have quoted resonable sources which say otherwise.

With that in mind, it is clear the Spitfire was an important part of defeating the german forces, but that is not what makes an all around great fighter.

For example the Mig 21, although an awesome aircraft in it's own right, never proved itself as a fighter in combat, therefore scoring low as an all time fighter. The Mig 15 (cough... not American... cough) did make it as 4 because it saw considerable action in the Korean War amonst other factors.

The P-51 was designed to support the European fight and it did it well. It took on more roles then it was designed to do. It had an inovative design ahead of it's time (the f-16 uses a similar intake), it was easy to reproduce, it had a larger load capacity than other fighters, it finished with an awesome kill ratio, and it was used for many years afterwards including the korean war.

In other words, the two aircraft may have been similar in ability, but their service records couldn't be any more different. For example, say there are two Royal Marines, both have the same trainning and similar abilites. One is utilized more than the other, completing more missions and staying in service 20 years longer. The result is the one which has more experience and has proved itself time and time again, will be considered the ideal Royal Marine more than the other. The P-51 was very versitile (multi-role) and proven to be deadly, with other factors stated prior. That is why it was considered the number one fighter of all time.

One giant negitive for the P-51 was it was liquid cooled! One good shot, and it was down... which is typical for American made aircraft... ha!
The Spitfire, however, was air-cooled, and could take hit after hit and keep on flying!

Lastly, I don't agree with the f-4 being number being number 3 or even on there at all. It was a heavy, sloppy design.. it didn't even have cannons... just a few missles. But I guess it has seen a lot of action! So as being a fighter, it was able to prove it's worth... which I still think is crap.. lol!

Ultimately, we clearly have different ideas about what make a fighter great compared to another. I guess it would be best if we made a list of the specfications needed to be consdered as such. We can't play the same game if we play by different rules. So let's make the rules...



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   
why is the F-15C number 2? The F-15E is a far FAR better aircraft in the series



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
rmatrem, I wasn't 'debunking' you, just the Discovery Channel. Just because it has the name of the Discovery Channel behind it doesn't mean it isn't just someones opinion, as is mine.

However, as an aeronautical engineering student, it might interest you to note that the Spitfire is definitely not air cooled at all. Having the same engine as the P-51 sort of necessitates the saem cooling system you kow?


Other than that you have made several interesting points but nothing that changes my opinion, not that it will matter much to you



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by rmatrem
The P-51 was designed to support the European fight and it did it well. It took on more roles then it was designed to do. It had an inovative design ahead of it's time (the f-16 uses a similar intake), it was easy to reproduce, it had a larger load capacity than other fighters, it finished with an awesome kill ratio, and it was used for many years afterwards including the korean war.


hehe, thats being a bit economical with the truth, the only thing they have in common is they are below the aircraft! (oh, and there mounted off the fuselage to avoid boundary layer ingestion)


The P-51's main advantage lay in the use of newer NACA aerofoil sections, their 'laminar flow' series giving a much lower drag than contemporary designs.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
I was letting that one lie kilcoo, but since you brought it up.


It does seem a rather facile statement from an aeronautical engineering student? Maybe the course only just started?



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I was letting that one lie kilcoo, but since you brought it up.


It does seem a rather facile statement from an aeronautical engineering student? Maybe the course only just started?


Nah, probably just an oversight, I make bloody mistakes all the time!!



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 05:22 AM
link   
just read my earlier reply about the Spifires cooling system, I just think it worth pointing out that the last word is meant to be 'know', not a personal insult, which is how it reads.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by rmatrem
it is clear the Spitfire was an important part of defeating the german forces, but that is not what makes an all around great fighter.


No, but its eight-gun armament, bubble canopy, all-metal, stressed-skin construction make it "definitive".


The P-51 was designed to support the European fight and it did it well. It took on more roles then it was designed to do.


So did Hurricane, Kitty/War/Tomahawk, Typhoon, Spitfire...


It had an inovative design ahead of it's time


So did Spitfire, in fact it's innovative design was further ahead. Cantilever, all metal, stressed-skin, monoplane etc...8 guns, don't forget...


it was easy to reproduce


So was Hurricane. In fact, far easier to produce and repair.


it had a larger load capacity than other fighters


Larger than the P47's?


it finished with an awesome kill ratio


So did Hurricane, Spitfire, Wildcat, Corsair, FW 190...


and it was used for many years afterwards including the korean war.


So was Gloster Meteor, and that was also from WW2.

I know Mustang was flown by the RAAF, but they were itching to get their hands on jets (and got the Meteors because the PM was an Anglophile). I was under the impression that other than that it was Twin-Mustangs that flew in Korea, 'cause they were the only ones with the range to make it from Japan and back. By the time airfields were available on the peninsula it was F86s that did the (US') fighting.


In other words, the two aircraft may have been similar in ability, but their service records couldn't be any more different. For example, say there are two Royal Marines, both have the same trainning and similar abilites. One is utilized more than the other, completing more missions and staying in service 20 years longer.


Remember the movie Battle of Britain? Go see when it was made. Those Spits were serving with the Portuguese Air Force.


The result is the one which has more experience and has proved itself time and time again, will be considered the ideal Royal Marine more than the other. The P-51 was very versitile (multi-role) and proven to be deadly, with other factors stated prior. That is why it was considered the number one fighter of all time.


All of which is true of Spitfire, Hurricane, Mosquito, Typhoon/Tempest/Fury...

Hell, the Sunderland could claim some of those things...



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Its an interesting thread to be following. I would have to agree with the people that have been advocating the Spitfire.

Why?

On paper there are many fighters that would outclass it on both sides. Bigger, better armed, faster etc.

However, wars are not faught on papaer and the aircraft in the hands of the RAF played a decisive role in the Battle of Britian and also served an important role in keeping morale up during the Blitz as well.

Those factors alone give the Spitfire an undeniable edge when figuring out great fighters.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join