Best Fighter For It's Time

"Charles Talleyrand" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
My question is this: Which fighter had the clearest advantage over it's
the other fighters of it's time frame?

For example, the Fokker Eindekker would clearly lose to an F-14. However,
the
Eindekker had a large advantage over other fighters when it was
introduced.
An F-14, though a fine plane, did not have so clear cut an advantage over
it's contemporaries.

Planes clearly NOT on the list

Albatros (not clearly better than a Spad)
Spitfire (was about as good as a Me-109)
F-14 (not clearly better than an F-15)

Planes ON the list

Fokker Eindekker
Me-262
F-4 (clearly better than the Mig-21 and the Mirage (maybe))


Ahem, err, the F-14 was not "clearly better" than the F-15?

Not only is the plane more maneuvreable at lower speeds (bellow 450kts) and
speeds over Mach 1, or in posessiong of a far superior weapons system, but
it had - until the AIM-120 was introduced on the F-15C MSIP-II Eagles - also
a distinct superiority in medium-range, and it remains superior to anything
world-wide in long-range arena.

Besides, the total combat score for the F-14 is also (at least) two times
better than that of the F-15.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq; War in the Air, 1980-1988
http://www.schifferbooks.com/militar...764316699.html

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585

"Tom Cooper" waxed lyrical
:

Besides, the total combat score for the F-14 is also (at least) two
times better than that of the F-15.


Errr. . as I understood the Tomcat's score stands at something in
the high forties - something like 5 from the US Navy and forty-odd
from Iran, whilst the F-15's stands at something over 100, 30
something for the USAF, a few (four? two Phantom and two Mirage
F-1) for the Saudis and the balance with the IAF, mainly over the
Bekaa in 1982. So as far as I'm aware the F-14's score is something
less than half the F-15's (unless the Tomcat scored a quiet 150
somewhere to give it a ratio of (and I quote) "(at least) two times
better than that of the F-15" Could you cite sources for your claim
please? Wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong, certainly
wouldn't be the last!

--
--------
Regards
Drewe
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

Charles Talleyrand wrote:

My question is this: Which fighter had the clearest advantage over it's
the other fighters of it's time frame?

Not that I expect to head off the no doubt hundreds of posts that will follow because versionsof
this question are a perennial favorite on the NG, but the correct reply is that your question is
far too general for any answer to be meaningful.

Guy

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Guy Alcala wrote:

Charles Talleyrand wrote:

My question is this: Which fighter had the clearest advantage over
it's
the other fighters of it's time frame?

Not that I expect to head off the no doubt hundreds of posts that will
follow because versionsof
this question are a perennial favorite on the NG, but the correct reply
is that your question is
far too general for any answer to be meaningful.

Don't know that's entirely true. Certainly lots of gray area in such a
question,
but the Me 262 was pretty clearly a leap ahead of anything (available) in
the air
doing its job during its activity period.

Perhaps a bit less true with the Fokker Eindekker, but it certainly wasn't
labeled
a "scourge" for nothing.

Problem is, it is very rare for competing designs to be very far apart in
technology
at any given time. This is true for ships, stereos and automobiles as
much as
aircraft.

I think I might be inclined to throw in the F-117, even though it is not
really a
"fighter", as long as we limit the discussion to competing designs doing
the same
type of job. A Learjet with a machine gun could shoot down a 117 in a
dogfight, but
that's not what an F-117 is designed to do.

How about the A6M2 "Zero"? Although it didn't reign supreme for long, it
was pretty
clearly superior to everything it met when flown and fought as doctrine
dictated at
the time.


SMH

What Guy said is considered in the fighter community to be the right answer.
The reality of this oft asked question is that no single aircraft can be
found supreme throughout it's performance envelope when compared directly to
the entire performance envelope of another aircraft. This has been proven
out again and again in our modern comparison performance or delta Ps
performance testing. The answer is ALWAYS where in the envelope and/or
mission parameters is the comparison taking place?
The reasons are extremely complex, and go to the very root of comparison
performance testing, and basically involve not only design parameters, but
constantly changing dynamics as expendables are used. Most of us in the
community agree as well that even if performance is standardized, as in 50%
fuel and combat weight presented as specific units, a difference between the
cockpits (pilot factor) can nullify any and all performance data as the
comparison progresses in real time.
Nailing a "best fighter" down to one single answer is a question often asked
and discussed by "historians". You can actually get it close (enough for
government work anyway :-).......but when you get down into the guts of a
real answer, most of us in the community consider this quest a single "best"
fighter a moot discussion. But don't get me wrong here........go to the O
club on a fighter base on any given night, and you will run into a whole
flock of fighter pilots arguing like hell about just this question; but when
the bar closes, they all seem to leave scratching their heads just like the
rest of you!! :-)))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI
Retired

"Ed Rasimus" a écrit dans le message de
...

As for the Mirage, I've sat in my F-4 and watched a
Mirage III do absolute magic at high altitude. No superiority for the
venerable Phantom there.


If it's not classified, can you tell us where it was? Australia? Israël?
France? Somewhere else? Just curious...

Regards,
ArVa

In article ,
Stephen Harding wrote:

The "best" plane will be best due to reasons having little or nothing
to do with how well it flies!

That might not even come into play. Look at the F-20 Tigershark. Very
nice plane, flew as well as just about anything in the air at the time,
and had *big* advantages in maintenance (as low as one-third the cost of
the F-16 to support). In some fields (interception and scramble
flights), it was better than anything (from the time the pilot hit
"start" to 30,000 feet was about 2.5 minutes).

Nobody bought any.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote:

My question is this: Which fighter had the clearest advantage over it's
the other fighters of it's time frame?

For example, the Fokker Eindekker would clearly lose to an F-14. However,
the
Eindekker had a large advantage over other fighters when it was introduced.
An F-14, though a fine plane, did not have so clear cut an advantage over
it's contemporaries.

Planes clearly NOT on the list

Albatros (not clearly better than a Spad)
Spitfire (was about as good as a Me-109)
F-14 (not clearly better than an F-15)

Planes ON the list

Fokker Eindekker
Me-262
F-4 (clearly better than the Mig-21 and the Mirage (maybe))



F-16
F-16 was a return to the fighter concept: manueverability, range, speed
-- in spades!


F-22
F-22 is a quantum leap in capability: supercruise, stealth,
maneuverability, range, fire control system. Nothing else comes close!

--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called ³Random Signatures² into your Preferences folder.

Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Stephen Harding wrote:

The "best" plane will be best due to reasons having little or nothing
to do with how well it flies!

That might not even come into play. Look at the F-20 Tigershark. Very
nice plane, flew as well as just about anything in the air at the time,
and had *big* advantages in maintenance (as low as one-third the cost of
the F-16 to support). In some fields (interception and scramble
flights), it was better than anything (from the time the pilot hit
"start" to 30,000 feet was about 2.5 minutes).

Well, not exactly. The F-20 was nice, when competing against the
Foreign Military Sales competitors--the F-16/79, an upgraded A-7 and
something else that I can't currently recall. It was a bit behind the
power curve in T/W compared to the F-16 and really couldn't do the
"big iron" job for distance. It certainly wasn't offering CCIP bombing
to the standard already well established by the F-16.

The time to scramble was a neat ad campaign resulting from the fast
alignment feature of the ring laser gyro INS, but once scrambled, the
radar certainly didn't compete with the F-15 and the lack of AIM-7F
(and AIM-120) capability meant it was quick to the fight but without
credible weapons.

And, the cockpit ergonomics were decidely sub-standard. I only offer
this opinion as a former Northrop worker with a couple of hundred
hours in the F-20 cockpit of the dome, although not always with F-20
flight parameters as the operating model.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

"ArVa" wrote:

"Ed Rasimus" a écrit dans le message de
.. .

As for the Mirage, I've sat in my F-4 and watched a
Mirage III do absolute magic at high altitude. No superiority for the
venerable Phantom there.


If it's not classified, can you tell us where it was? Australia? Israël?
France? Somewhere else? Just curious...

It's a story I've told here before. It was a Spanish Mirage III out of
Valencia. I was tasked as a "faker" or A/A target--F-4C fully loaded
with three tanks off a KC-135 in the Med east of Gibraltar. Profile
was A/B at the coast of Spain above FL 400. Supersonic run all the way
to Madrid. With three tanks, got just above the mach at the coast. As
the C/L tank went dry, hit 1.3 M. By the time the outboard went dry I
was at 1.5 and finally just over mach 1.6 at FL 460 as I approached
Madrid.

Picked up a Mirage intercepting me by his contrail. He did a
magnificent conversion into firing parameters just as I hit Madrid
TACAN. I eased out of A/B and zoomed into this attack, passing through
FL 630 as I slowed below the mach, then spiraled down through 20,000
with the Mirage firmly (and quite comfortably camped in firing
position). The guy was good and the airplane was great.

We also used to get intercepted by Mirage IIIs of the Spanish AF while
deploying to Turkey from Spain. Flight of four on the wing of a
tanker, the Mirage would join up, then do a level 360 back to the wing
at FL 310--apparently without effort. I would hate to have fought one
at altitude.

At low alt, maybe there would be a chance, but in those days before
"look down/shoot down" Doppler radar, it would have been very
challenging. I've got great respect for the Mirage.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message . net...
What Guy said is considered in the fighter community to be the right answer.
The reality of this oft asked question is that no single aircraft can be
found supreme throughout it's performance envelope when compared directly to
the entire performance envelope of another aircraft. This has been proven
out again and again in our modern comparison performance or delta Ps
performance testing. The answer is ALWAYS where in the envelope and/or
mission parameters is the comparison taking place?

This is true, but perhaps besides the point.

Suppose you're an air minister. The Fokker Eindekker has just come out.
Do you want some? YES

Suppose you're a pilot. You can fly either a Fokker Eindekker or it's
competitor. Which would you pick?

Can you think of some equally dominating airplane?