Best Fighter For It's Time

Duh? Here's where those qualifications come into play. While the F-14
with its programmed wing-sweep and well-BVR weapons had some
advantages over the F-15, when you get to close engagements, the Eagle
is considerably more agile than the Tom.

Well, not actually. The F-15 has sufficiently superior T/W to the F-14A
that through careful energy management and skill, the F-15 will win the
engagement ... but in terms of instantaneous turn, pitch rate, etc, it's not
quite the equal of the Tom. Put the F110 engines in (F-14B/D) and it's
quite different. T/W is almost equal and the F-14 has an advantage
throughout much of the envelope. I think the F-15 weapon's system is
superior in most environments ... obviously so when AMRAAM is in the mix
(personally I think those individuals that denied the F-14 the AMRAAM ought
to face charges).

My opportunities to engage the Eagle in the Turkey were somewhat limited,
but when gas was not an issue (ie: I had a tanker and the use of A/B) I had
little difficulty in gaining a pipper-on guns position.

OTOH, while in a Phantom, I found myself quite helpless. I think the only
thing I could do where I might have had no disadvantage was to depart the
jet. The single seat A-4 (as configured for adversary work) often
frustrated the "superior" F-15.\

To return to the topic, I'd cast a vote for the F-8. Best air superiority
fighter in the US arsenal for its era (mid-50's competing with century
series, etc). Best kill ratio in real world combat (Vietnam). Best ramp
strike rate ... oh well.

R / John

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:54:14 -0400, Charles Talleyrand wrote:

This thread isn't about 'best'. It's about 'very clearly superior for it's time'.

You can argue the F-20 was better or worse than the F-16, but it was not
very clearly superior. To use a naval example, I'm looking for
Dreadnoughts and not Queen Elizabeths. Revolutionary designs and not
just good planes.

How about these:

Fokker Eindecker. First fighter, can't get more revolutionary than
that!

Bf 109. First monoplane fighter with retractable undercarriage and
fully enclosed cockpit.

Me 262. First operational jet fighter.

Not sure what was the first supersonic jet fighter to successfully
use AAMs. Probably one of the MiG-21 or Phantom.

Harrier. First VSTOL fighter.

F-22. First stealth air superiority aircraft.

????. First unmanned fighter.

????. First weapon that makes combat aircraft obsolete.

--
Phil
"All alternate timelines need airships" -- Steve Glover

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
...

"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?

Hi Charles;
First off, Please know that I'm not trying to rain on your parade here; just
trying to be helpful!!
:-))
You can indeed ask your initial question exactly as you did. It's fine! I'm
only offering you some additional insight, just in case you ever get into
this issue with anyone from the flight test community as you are now with
me. The subject invariably digresses into a 1v1 scenario, which, from your
post above, is about where you are going with this now. It's no biggie
really, but consider the following;
In placing the Eindekker in competition with an unknown adversary as you
have here by the general context of your questions to me, you are getting
away from your initial context, which is again fine, but in these
discussions, you must always be aware that in the context you have placed
the issue, only a general answer that deals directly with design can exist
in reality. Individual aircraft can be discussed for their design advances,
and even in a design context per time period, but you can't start pairing
individual airplanes against each other unless you are also in consideration
of the parameters I have mentioned. Take your Eindekker for example, and the
questions you have asked me in this post.
Eindekker or no Eindekker, the result of the scenario you have described
would be ENTIRELY dependent on the factors I have already mentioned. If you
placed two comparison aircraft
on the ground together, you could easily state the design advantages of the
Eindekker for it's period and be totally correct. But put the Eindekker in
the hands of a novice pilot against a highly skilled adversary in an
aircraft without the design advantages of the Eindekker, and the design
advantages could easily be nullified....and even in a specific scenario,
where the Eindekker pilot hasn't the experience in type to take full
advantage of the aircraft's design advantage......easily reversed into a
negative for the Eindekker. The important point in all this is that in
fighter comparison, the data isn't really explored in the format you're
using.
I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, and you most certainly can make
a case for a particular aircraft as a stand out in it's time. The Eindekker
is a good example of that. I'm only telling you that we in the community
take the format you are trying to nail down as moot when it comes to a
discussion of fighters in the real world.
I'm also aware that what I'm
telling you isn't necessarily tied to the format you're discussing here. I'm
only passing it on to you as general information that you might want to
consider when discussing fighter comparison in ANY format . I know you guys
like to be as
accurate as possible when you get into these things, and the information I'm
giving you is simply some of the factors we consider when making up
comparison analysis format for 1v1. I hope it's helpful to you.
What you have said about the Eindekker, and what Stephen has said about the
262 and the Zeke are pertinent , and perhaps even more pertinent then
what I'm telling you for the format you're discussing.......as long as you
don't come down to a 1v1 scenario :-))))
Bottom line on this issue as it would be seen in the flight test community
is this. As long as you are just considering design advances per se, you can
safely discuss an individual airplane as a standout for it's time; but as
soon as you take that design advantage and put it into the sky with another
airplane, the whole ball game changes to exactly what I have explained about
delta comparison fighter analysis.
All the best,
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI
Retired

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI
Retired

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
snip

To return to the topic, I'd cast a vote for the F-8. Best air superiority
fighter in the US arsenal for its era (mid-50's competing with century
series, etc). Best kill ratio in real world combat (Vietnam). Best ramp
strike rate ... oh well.

R / John

What about the Sea Harrier FRS.1 in the Falklands, with 20+ kills and no Air
to Air losses? Operating when outnumbered with about 5 Argentinian combat
a/c for every Harrier in service.

David

It certainly wasn't offering CCIP bombing
to the standard already well established by the F-16.

If I recall correctly,the F-20 had a CEP of 6 mils in CCIP bombing(I think 8
mils in CCRP,but don't hold me to that),which is pretty comparable to an F-16..

the lack of AIM-7F
(and AIM-120) capability meant it was quick to the fight but without
credible weapons.

The F-20 fired both AIM-7M and AIM-120 during weapons trials,I have a vid
showing both.

On 24 Jul 2003 05:50:46 GMT, (EB Jet) wrote:



It certainly wasn't offering CCIP bombing
to the standard already well established by the F-16.

If I recall correctly,the F-20 had a CEP of 6 mils in CCIP bombing(I think 8
mils in CCRP,but don't hold me to that),which is pretty comparable to an F-16..

the lack of AIM-7F
(and AIM-120) capability meant it was quick to the fight but without
credible weapons.

The F-20 fired both AIM-7M and AIM-120 during weapons trials,I have a vid
showing both.
so did the F-16, but you know what they say, puting a Sparrow on a
F-20/F-16 would be like puting a anchor on it. The F-16XL fixed this
by haveing the missles conformal. it could carry 4 Sparrows or Amraams
on the underside of the fusulage with very little drag. This is one of
the reasons why they carry the amraams on the wingtips.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:57:06 -0700, Lyle wrote:

The F-16XL fixed this
by haveing the missles conformal. it could carry 4 Sparrows or Amraams
on the underside of the fusulage with very little drag.

Would a single seat XL been available in time as an alternative to rolling
out the 'C' model I wonder ? The increase in capability over the standard
planform makes for an interesting 'what if'.


greg


--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
She'll chew you up, ain't no lie

I will probably buy your book one day but I have to ask what kind of
evidence
did you get to see in order to validate these claims?

1.) What kind of evidence is there?
Actually multiple: starting from eyewitness accounts, via comprehensive
official records (including gun-camera shots, photographs of the wreckage
etc.), down to intel reports (via FOIA inquiries). In over 80% of the cases
we were very well able to cross-check the infos.

3.) Does any other nation confirm Iranian claims?
Nation: not. Service: yes (several of them).


4.) Does the Iraqi order of battle and other sources really support 300 plus
losses over 8 years?
In fact, they support a loss of something like 450 aircraft and approx 150
helicopters.


Lots of other stuff in reply as well.

Thanks so much for clarifying those points. Your book now goes close to the top
of my wish list. Fascinating stuff.

Any list or account of fighter or helicopter aces?

John Dupre'

"JDupre5762" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

snip

Any list or account of fighter or helicopter aces?

One of the problems with research to this topic is that many of the names of
those that survived can't be named in public, while most of those that can -
are dead. With other words: we named only those we could.

But, we interviewed almost 100 pilots from both sides, so there are plenty
of narratives in both books (BTW, next year also "Iranian F-14 Units in
Combat" will follow - again in Osprey's "Combat Aircraft" series).


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

"ArVa" wrote:


But since the guy was about to retire and the Mirage was his last plane,
maybe he was a little bit biased. I guess (fighter) pilots have a natural
tendency to cherish their last bird more than the ones they have previously
flown, don't they?

Regards,
ArVa


Well, for most of us, it's the first fighter, not the last that holds
the special place. Here's what no less a personage than Ernest
Hemingway had to say about love of fighters:

"You love a lot of things if you live around them, but there isn't any
woman and there isn't any horse, nor any before nor any after, that is
as lovely as a great airplane, and men who love them are faithful to
them even though they leave them for others. A man has only one
virginity to lose in fighters, and if it is a lovely plane he loses it
to, there his heart will ever be."

- Ernest Hemingway, August 1944.

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