again, this is not my list.

as w/ the naval list i posted yesterday, this list is the product of a similar program on The Military Channel where there are 5 different variables taken into account. audience polls, aviation architects, and aviation historians apparently all weighed in on the matter.

iirc, the criteria for the list was as follows:
- fear factor
- fire power
- kill ratio
- innovation
- service length

F/A 22 Raptor
http://img.lenta.ru/news/2005/10/24/raptors/picture.jpg

Sea Harrier FA2
http://www.janes.com/defence/gallery/saifs_gallery/images3/0035.jpg

Sopwith Camel
http://www.earlyaviator.com/archive/m/images/1917.Sopwith.Camel.jpg

Me 262
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/photos/gallery_005/Me%20262%20pre-delivery%20shot.jpg

Supermarine Spitfire
http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/uk/supermarine/spitfireI-III/01spitfire-beehive.jpg

Me 109
http://lynx.uio.no/jon/gif/aircraft/me109.jpg

TIE - MiG 15 Fagot & F-86 Sabre
http://www.avions-militaires.net/images/photos/mig15.jpg
http://www.constable.ca/f86_3.jpg

McDonnell-Douglas F4 Phantom
http://www.danshistory.com/f4.jpg

F-15C
http://www.aero-pix.com/jax02/f15/f15-c.jpg

North American P-51D
http://www.warbirdphotos.net/aviapix/Fighters/P51/p51-d.jpg

According to their rules I think the Me 109 has to be the nr. 1 as there were over 30.000 built, the most air victories were achieved by this plane as well, it was feared and was in service for 20 years (1935- 1955). And it was very innovative, too.
Also I doubt the F 22 raptor should be on the list or the sea harrier.
But again we should collect the planes first:
Additionally to the remaining 8 planes, I suggest to add the Fokker E I, D VII, FW 190, Zero, perhaps also MiG 29, Su 27 are candidates.

a) Fokker E I: The first real fighter. It lead to the first Fokker scrouge as it dominated the air in 1915/ 1916.
b) Fokker D VII: The best fighter of ww1, so feared that the allies demanded every single plane in the cease fire agreement.
c) FW 190: Probably the best fighter of ww2. 20.000 planes produced. Outstanding fighter and fighter bomber.
d) Mitsubishi A6M2 and A6M3 Zero: A perfect plane for the dog fight: long range and very agile, high fire power to 2 MG and 2 20 mm cannons, however very vulnerable.
e) MiG 29: In the 80s partly ahead of the western planes
f) Su 27: Also an outstanding Russian plane

The latter three however don`t reach the top, but should be considered.

Adler

the Fokker DVII most definitely deserves to be on the list. no doubt.

again though, this list is completely subjective. i mean, it seems a tad biased w/ all of the American stuff on the list (not that they weren't good planes or anything but...)

the Phantom being that high in the list was a surprise to me. i say that only b/c it was discovered not long after its introduction in Vietnam that the complete lack of guns on this beast was a huge error.

this was at a time when many in the US Defense Dept believed that the classic dog fighting days were over and that guided missile technology was going to supplant the classic fighter roles.

these assessments were proved wrong as pilots and crews began mounting their own guns onto the F4s b/c they had no way to defend themselves in close. once they had these guns hooked up, the F4 was up to snuff to conduct the so-called classic dog fights.

1. Hawker Hurricane (1935)
2. de Havilland Mosquito
3. Blackburn Buccaneer (1958)
4. Mikoyan MiG-29 Fulcrum (1977)
5. etc., etc., etc.

I cannot really be bothered to think so much, but I think the above were all spectacular at the time they were built. The Buccaneer, for example, could fly under the radar band to avoid detection. Things like that.

"There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war's over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked." - Hermann Göring (1943)

the Mosquito is on the Top 10 Bomber list actually...i'll probably post that tomorrow or the next day :)

Some varients were bombers, but since it was originally intended as a fighter and was immortalised as a night-fighter, that's where I put it ;)

Okay as night fighter we have to add the He 219 Uhu (owl).
OTOH the F 4 is quite a good plane, at least in the F 4E and other variants having guns. Otherwise it would be a huge error. The gun is a must for all planes. And several states still use them. Germany still has about 150 F 4F, refitted to launch AIM 120 missiles and AIM 9 L. Although it is planned to ohase out the plane, it will be in use until the next decade. And then the plane is 60 years old (first variant). No bad plane would have such a long service time. So yes, it is justified that it is in the top ten, but IMO it is a bit too high rated.
But again this is subjective.

Adler

What about the F4U Corsair?

http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/f4u_1.jpg

I figured I'd see the Zero on there somewhere, considering I read so much about it's early dominance in the Pacifc during WW2. Then again, I have about 0 knowledge of planes outside of Red Baron, so I wasn't suprised.

What's the one the Red Baron flew?

He flew several planes, the most famous was the Fokker Dr. 1 triplane. Howver this was despite his successes a mediocore plane. That is correct that this plane is not in the list.

Adler

b) Fokker D VII: The best fighter of ww1, so feared that the allies demanded every single plane in the cease fire agreement.
c) FW 190: Probably the best fighter of ww2. 20.000 planes produced. Outstanding fighter and fighter bomber.
d) Mitsubishi A6M2 and A6M3 Zero: A perfect plane for the dog fight: long range and very agile, high fire power to 2 MG and 2 20 mm cannons, however very vulnerable.
e) MiG 29: In the 80s partly ahead of the western planes
These planes get my approval as well.

The actual list is, well, quite screwed.

Not sure that it fits the Criteria but the Spitfire has an almost mythical aura in Britian for it's defence of the realm in WWII. It's also an awesome bit of kit for it's day which was simple and easily put together.
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads11/spitfirepol.jpg

PrinceofLeigh,

i've often heard and read that the Spitfire is considered by many as the most beautiful plane of all time (in appearance that is).

PrinceofLeigh,

i've often heard and read that the Spitfire is considered by many as the most beautiful plane of all time (in appearance that is).
True, it also adheres to the adage, "if it looks right, it flies right". Not that I would know personally of course, it's merely what the Old Boys say when they describe it. The Cannon at the Church a friend of mine had his son Christened in flew one.

In modern times however I think the Raptor looks the slickest.

True, it also adheres to the adage, "if it looks right, it flies right". Not that I would know personally of course, it's merely what the Old Boys say when they describe it. The Cannon at the Church a friend of mine had his son Christened in flew one.

In modern times however I think the Raptor looks the slickest.
nice mate ;) and i agree, the raptor is rather sexy looking for a plane :p

The SU-27 Flanker deserves a spot on that list.

As does the F-16. It's probably a much better fighter than either the F-15, or F-22 (since it looks like a swing wing).

And I imagine B-17's and A-10's are on the bomber list then?

Mig-21 is a must in that list. It is one of the most important post ww2 planes. In number built, wars fought and service lenght. It is as a flying Ak-47.

Hmm, the MiG 21 was and still is widely used. However she is in no way a real super plane. She never was that. And also her engines, although designed for that, could only go Mach 2.0 by being irreparably damaged. In Vietnam she was indeed a threat but only also because the early F 4 did not have a gun.
The F 16 is a widely used light fighter but the abilities IMO do not justify it on the top.

Adler

d) Mitsubishi A6M2 and A6M3 Zero: A perfect plane for the dog fight: long range and very agile, high fire power to 2 MG and 2 20 mm cannons, however very vulnerable.
Adler

The designers had to sacrifice a hell of lot to increase the range required as it design was primary a naval plane requiring long distance. To archieve this along with its extremely agility they had to remove a huge amount of stuff. From heavier amour, to self sealing tanks, stronger frame leading to the zeros extreme lightness and excellent performace. They also managed a extremely capable fighter using only a 1000HP engine.

One of the greatest expolits can be seen as zero making 1000km fligh from rabual to henderson air field, dog fighting for some 20mins then making the 1000km flight back. A massive feat.

I wouldnt have choosen the zero the late model Raiden was more capable and advanced fight, It had good amour all round, higher top speed, well designed that was unfortunity plagued with problems from "rushing" and then "shoe hoeing" the 2000Hp engine inside it. The Radien had only 1/3 of the range of the zero and was significantly heavier.

Greatest expolits where archieved when the japanese put the limited numbers into special squadrens. One fighter took on an 12 US Hellcats in which it shot down four and the rest broke off. The Radien fighter amazing landed despite being absolutely riddled.

Hmm, the MiG 21 was and still is widely used. However she is in no way a real super plane. She never was that. And also her engines, although designed for that, could only go Mach 2.0 by being irreparably damaged.
There are so many planes in that list i would not consider a "super plane"... And first time i heard that engine story btw, what engine are you referring to? Mig-21 are so widely used and there are so many Mig-21 variants with different engines it is a nonsense to say simplt his engine was this or that way.

Well IIRC the first variants built in the 60s. However it is my personal opinion that the MiG 21 was in no way innovative nor an über- plane. It wasn't ever the top of the planes. However, as said, this is my opinion.

Adler

I think that the military plane (not only fighter) built in largest numbers after ww2 and used in most countries and wars in the world deserves it. BTW, dating his initial design and first flight as back as the first 50s, it is rather notorious that even today it is one of the main fighters in many air forces, India or China among them. And far of the end of his career it is receiving continuous upgrades to extend his lifetime well into the first quarter of the 21th century. I can hardly think of any other plane so important and succesful. (well C-47, C-130 or maybe B-52 come to mind, but they are not fighters of course ;) )

iirc, the fishbed wasn't the most highly produced post ww2 plane...it ranks second behind the hercules transport plane.

i have a few knocks on the mig21 and they are from what i've gathered from researching the vietnam war.

north vietnamese pilots actually preferred the MiG 17 Fresco to the Fishbed. this was b/c the MiG 21 was not as manueverable as the MiG 17.

w/ regard to non-Soviet use:
it was produced by liscence in several countries although it was often outclassed by the more modernized western aircraft. Israeli F-15s made mince meat out of the Fishbeds.

the pluses for the Fishbed imo are:
it was one of the first Soviet air craft to combine the interceptor role w/ that of a fighter plane. it was fast and light weight (much like its contemporaries of the era like the Starfighter and the Mirage III). however, this doesn't say a whole lot since the Starfighter and Mirage were just okay imo.

the bottom line for me:
the Fishbed does not make my own personal list. a nice air craft and all. but not a 'Top Ten' one i'm afraid.

It seems all your knots are from the article in Wikipedia. ;) It is wrong in some points: AFAIK about 2000 Hercules have been built against about 10000 Mig-21 not counting later Indian built and Chinesse versions. About the Mig-17 maybe the Vietnamese pilots prefered it, but for USA planes the dangerous one was the Mig-21 (and without an internal gun just as the F-4 :D )

OTOH I find much less reasons to add the Sabre, F-4 or Sea Harrier. Of course you can make your list as you wish. ;)

an adendum to the MiG21:

according to some of my dusty sources, it was the only fighter aircraft to have ever shot down a b.u.f.f.'er in anger.

Friendly Fire:
I am not an expert in Japanese planes and so we can exchange Zero with Radien quickly.

Adler

Me 262 might have good innovation and fear factor, but lacked the rest completely, same thing for the F/A-22 Raptor

The Yakovlev Yak-3 was regarded as a very good plane, though it came late in the war when the tide was already turned against ze germans.

It seems all your knots are from the article in Wikipedia. ;) It is wrong in some points: AFAIK about 2000 Hercules have been built against about 10000 Mig-21 not counting later Indian built and Chinesse versions. About the Mig-17 maybe the Vietnamese pilots prefered it, but for USA planes the dangerous one was the Mig-21 (and without an internal gun just as the F-4 :D )

OTOH I find much less reasons to add the Sabre, F-4 or Sea Harrier. Of course you can make your list as you wish. ;)
no, wikipedia wasn't referred. it was some other non-electronic references i have and it was all off of the top of my head...

the Sabre absolutely belongs on the list. i am curious to see what you'd put in its place. same for the F4 and Harrier actually...

I find not reason to add the Sabre. It had not a long career, it was not so massively produced, it was not a "super plane" since it was matched with the older Mig-15... It was not the first in anything. The only reason to add it is becuase it was at the Korean War and that was the first decent USA jet fighter. It is mostly the same for F-4.

I would rather maintain only the Mig-15, since it was the first operational jet fighter after ww2, or would add the F6F Hellcat becuase it won the pacific war for USA. Or the P-47 being the plane built in largest numbers in USA history and becuase in fact it was more important for the WW2 outcome than the P-51. Or the FW-190 for the same reasons that the Bf-109 but adding that it was better. And of course the Mig-21.

About the Harrier it is not in the same league that the others but i would add the Harrier GR. 1. only becuase innovative reasons. And in any case not the Sea Harrier.

wow wow wow, has anyone even thought of the P-40? Seriously. BTW Don't forget that the Hellcat made more aces out of American pilots in WWII than the P-51, and it was as maneuverable as the Zero but more than twice its weight. It was tough enough for the Pacific too. It's service length was nine years aswell. The P-40 was in virtually every theatre in WWII. It was operational from 1938 to 1958 and was used by the u.s. Britain, australia, new zealand, Brazil, Canada, China, Chile, Egypt, France, Netherlands East Indies, South Africa and Turkey. ;) don't forget these planes

You forgot the Russians. However the P 40 was IMO a good plane like many others, however, in no way leading nor innovative enough to be in the top ten.
The F 86 Sabre was also a good plane, but it was indeed a bit worse than the MiG 15 and over Korea mostly the planes with the better pilots won: the US. That's why they had a kill ratio of 10:0.

Adler

I think the F-4 Phantom belongs on the list. First designed in the 1950s as a naval air superiority fighter, the F-4 went into production in 1960 for the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marines. The U.S. Air Force selected the F-4 as a fighter bomber in 1963. When production ended in 1981, 5,195 Phantoms had been built, making it the most numerous American supersonic military aircraft. In addition to the three branches of the United States military, the Phantom served with the armed forces of eleven other nations. Although retired from USAF active duty in 1996, over a thousand Phantoms were still in worldwide service as of 2005.

No mention of the Fw 190? The Butcher Bird should be up there. :) Its kinda irks me that the Spitfire is reguarded as the plane that won it against the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain, because even if its what people would like to believe the numbers says otherwise, the Hurricane ugly as it may be was the only fighter available in great number to the Royal Air Force.

Though, I've seen and heard a Spitfire mkVI and its truly amazing to see one of the warbird still flying as of today. You really feel something when you hear the engine screaming as the plane fly over your head. Even if it was in its time a weapon of war, i'm in awe when i see one. Very much like a kid.

The given question is just to impossible to answer. You simply can't compare so many different aircraft out of all of aviation history. Plenty of the aircraft that would be regarded as the most important are so because they so combat, and in most cases a lot of it. OTOH there are many, many superb aircraft which had the "misfortune" of doing their service during peace time.

IMO the only way to even begin to approach such a question is to break it up into time periods. If I'm bored tomorrow I may do so, but not even touching that tonight :p

And first time i heard that engine story btw, what engine are you referring to? Mig-21 are so widely used and there are so many Mig-21 variants with different engines it is a nonsense to say simplt his engine was this or that way.

It's very typical. Take the MiG-25 for example. Its claim to fame is being a Mach 3 interceptor, but yet if it does so its engine life is severely reduced, if the engines aren't outright destroyed. PVO pilots were in fact limited to Mach 2.5 to extend engine life. The most famous example is the Mach 3.2 flight a Foxbat made over Israel in '73, that made the western air forces start crapping their collective pants. What they didn't know, of course, was that the engines on that bird were toast - literally.

The F-16 is another good example. The Dash One for it gives a VNE of 800 KCAS. This is because of the earlier aircraft using the F100-PW-200 engines, which had an open loop engine control system. Get going to fast, and the compressor discharge pressure can build up beyond the physical limits of the engine. If you're lucky, nothing *very* bad happens, and you just end up with an engine which will never fly again (not to mention you flying a desk for the rest of your career). If you aren't lucky, the turbine can go right through the tip seals and start in on the engine casing. If it's *really* not your day, things can get hot enough to actually ignite the titanium engine casing, which pretty quickly eats through both hydraulic systems, leaving you just a passenger in a roman candle going down at 1,000 mph. Not good.

Of course, the -220 and -229 F100s, and the newer versions of the GD F110 used in Vipers now have closed loop control, and will control fan rpms to limit the N2 discharge pressure. So you're much less likely to damage the engine or kill yourself if you go crazy. The 800 KCAS limit still exists though, because the Viper's canopy hasn't been certified for those kinds of speeds. Not to mention the aircraft's flutter limit, though it's (in theory) on the high side of 900 KCAS.

What about the F4U Corsair?

http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/f4u_1.jpg

Try flying one on a flight sim. I guarantee you, it won't be one of your favourites.

Very good ground attack ability, but very sluggy at stall fighting - more of a zoom n' boom plane.

I think the F-4 Phantom belongs on the list. First designed in the 1950s as a naval air superiority fighter, the F-4 went into production in 1960 for the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marines. The U.S. Air Force selected the F-4 as a fighter bomber in 1963. When production ended in 1981, 5,195 Phantoms had been built, making it the most numerous American supersonic military aircraft. In addition to the three branches of the United States military, the Phantom served with the armed forces of eleven other nations. Although retired from USAF active duty in 1996, over a thousand Phantoms were still in worldwide service as of 2005.

It wasnt really a good dogfighter, though. The F-4 was built and designed for stratiegic bomber interception, not to get in close with the MiGs. The thought was that dogfighting was a 'thing of the past' ( an idea we have now, ironic that we havent learned from history, its been thought- and proved wrong- many times), so it only carried missles, no guns at all. Its ability to turn was less than great, turning a mere 10 degress per second to the MiG 21's 24 IIRC. It was much better suited to ground attack than air superiority, even if it did put a lot of commies out of the sky. Another problem was it exhaust, you could see that thing for miles around. This was fixed later, i believe. I dont think the F-4 was that great of a plane, at least not worthy of being on the list. It was more famous than it was effective.

an idea we have now, ironic that we havent learned from history, its been thought- and proved wrong- many times

The Navy seems to be going that way via the downgrade they took via the Superbug. The AF OTOH certainly hasn't F-15C, F-16, F-22, all superb at ACM. If the F-22 isn't the most manuverable aircraft in active duty service, it's in the top 3.

well with the over the horizon detection on planes now, we can shoot from 40 miles away, and deal with the enemy before we ever show up on their radar. However, this advantage will be short lived. Allow me to exlpain:
Now, we have the distinct advantage of stealth. We can see the enemy, who cannot see us, at least until we are close up, but that hardly ever happens. However, once our enemies gain stealth technology, we cannot see them, either. Thus, we are again back in 1945, and only engage our enemies when in visual range. If you are in visual range of another supersonic aircraft, then you are already in a dogfight.

EDIT: Oh, and what is the superbug? I also dont see how the USN took to the idea, the F-18 and the new F-35 are most excellent dogfighters

Oh, and what is the superbug? I also dont see how the USN took to the idea, the F-18 and the new F-35 are most excellent dogfighters

The F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornet was nicknamed the "Bug", this the F/A-18E/F SuperHornet is the "Superbug".

The Bug certainly is no slouch at ACM, but the Superbug is a considerable downgrade from it. Significantly poorer acceleration, substantially lower combat ceiling, very high transonic drag rise...

I recall one particular quote from a F/A-18C pilot involved in the side-by-side testing of the SuperHornet with the Bug - "We outran them, we out-flew them and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for them."

Now, we have the distinct advantage of stealth. We can see the enemy, who cannot see us, at least until we are close up, but that hardly ever happens. However, once our enemies gain stealth technology, we cannot see them, either. Thus, we are again back in 1945, and only engage our enemies when in visual range. If you are in visual range of another supersonic aircraft, then you are already in a dogfight.

I am doubtful that that will happen. Even if the other guy has a level of stealth comperable to yours, if he emits practically anything at all, you can be own well before he's in detection range - and that's with current technology.

Besides, I'm fairly sure that detection technologies will advance to nullify much of the stealth advantage in the near future. It's basically the same old "cannon vs armor" race that's been around forever. You may get an advance in armor (stealth) that protects you for a time, but it's inevitable that the cannon (detection technologies) improves to nullify that advance.

Even so, if what you predict happens, I wouldn't want to be the pilot having to face the Raptor/AIM-9X/JHMCS combo ;)

The F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornet was nicknamed the "Bug", this the F/A-18E/F SuperHornet is the "Superbug".

The Bug certainly is no slouch at ACM, but the Superbug is a considerable downgrade from it. Significantly poorer acceleration, substantially lower combat ceiling, very high transonic drag rise...

I recall one particular quote from a F/A-18C pilot involved in the side-by-side testing of the SuperHornet with the Bug - "We outran them, we out-flew them and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for them."
I should know that, I live next to NAS Pstuxent River *slaps forehead*
The Super Hornet is more of a tactical striker, correct? To replace the A-6. Thats why we're getting JSF in a few years.
On that note, the EA6-B is being replaced by F-18s as well, the ECM Hornet is called the Growler. I guess it's good, it'll give them more leaniency with parts, but if one part is found faulty youre screwed for putting all your eggs in one basket. I hope this re-oufitting of the F-18 doesnt lead to the same mistake the Army made with the M-2 Bradley - it was supposed to fill the gap of so many other vehicles, that instead of doing on job great, it does 10 jobs alright-to-okay.

The Super Hornet is more of a tactical striker, correct? To replace the A-6. Thats why we're getting JSF in a few years.
On that note, the EA6-B is being replaced by F-18s as well, the ECM Hornet is called the Growler. I guess it's good, it'll give them more leaniency with parts, but if one part is found faulty youre screwed for putting all your eggs in one basket. I hope this re-oufitting of the F-18 doesnt lead to the same mistake the Army made with the M-2 Bradley - it was supposed to fill the gap of so many other vehicles, that instead of doing on job great, it does 10 jobs alright-to-okay.

IMO that's exactly what they're doing. While the F/A-18C could play more of a strike replacing the A-6 & A-7, as of now the Superhornet has to fill the shoes of the F-14 (last Tomcat squadron retired their aircraft this spring) in the fleet defense role. Even after the naval JSF comes online, the Superhornet will be the premier fighter, since the JSF is definetly intended for the strike role.

Of course the AF is guilty of similar with the JSF. They're expecting it to replace the F-16 and A-10... which are some pretty big shoes to fill, especially the A-10's.

The U.S. Air Farce has never liked the A-10. The Army forced the Air Force to get the Warthog. Back in 1958, the military services agreed on how aircraft would be used by the various services. The so-called Key West Treaty stipulated that the Army wouldn't have any armed fixed-wing aircraft and the Air Force would provide air support planes for the Army. When the A-10 was under discussion, the Air Force said they didn't want any, preferring to spend the money on sexy fighters. The Army then said "okay, if you're not going to get the best tank buster we've ever seen, you're failing to keep your side of the Key West Treaty, so we'll drop the treaty and get the A-10 ourselves." Rather than let the Army into the armed fixed-wing business, the Air Force bought the A-10. As quickly as they could, the Air Force transferred A-10s to reserve and Air National Guard squadrons.

I dont imagine JSF to fill the CAS gap very well, as it has supercruise. Its definitely too fast. We might as well buy some SU-25s (or 39s), they'd probably fare better.
It would have been nice for them to keep around the F-14s for a whiel longer, but they were just too expensive to maintain, both timewise and moneywise. Plus, with the Tomcats gone, we lose the platform for our longest range anit-air missle, the Phoenix. I doubt JSF is big enough to handle those beasts.
Now I'm sure Joint Strike will replace the Harriers nicely, I like it's VSTOL system ( though the fan is a bit funny IMO), and it ought to be a good dogfighter, at least better than the Super Hornets, with that vectored thrust and all. I think, though, that the USN (and thus the RN) are reluctant to comission a purely Air Superiority fighter like the Tomcat again, simply because the danger of enemy air force is so much less than during the Cold War, they're more likely, until something truly dangerous comes along ( like if we ever have to match up against other F-22s, or those damn Eurofighters, you know they beat F-15s in an unplanned mock dogfight over the Lake District?), we're likely to stick with those F/B combinations like what we have now.

It would have been nice for them to keep around the F-14s for a whiel longer, but they were just too expensive to maintain, both timewise and moneywise.

So instead they passed off a new, inferior aircraft as a "simple upgrade" to Hornet. Upgrades available for the Tomcat fleet would have resulted in a vastly superior aircraft for much, much cheaper.

Plus, with the Tomcats gone, we lose the platform for our longest range anit-air missle, the Phoenix. I doubt JSF is big enough to handle those beasts.

AIM-54 has been out of service since 2004. It's really not that great of a loss - after all, a 30 year old missile designed to kill bombers. Not very affective against fighters at all at anywhere near it's maximum range. The missile just doesn't carry enough energy to follow a manuevering target, so you have horrible Pk's.

Really, even with the reduced range, the AMRAAM is vastly superior.

I think, though, that the USN (and thus the RN) are reluctant to comission a purely Air Superiority fighter like the Tomcat again, simply because the danger of enemy air force is so much less than during the Cold War

The real irony is that the F-14 was a highly effective bomber by the end of its career. Just check out the book Black Aces High and their great success in the strike and FAC-A roles. Upgrades would have improved the Bombcat even more, but instead we get... the Superhornet.

those damn Eurofighters, you know they beat F-15s in an unplanned mock dogfight over the Lake District?

Somehow, all the media outlets trumpeting that "grand victory" of the Eurofighter manage to leave the "E" off the end of that F-15 designation. Yeah, it has some teeth, but at heart it's still a bomber, and I'd be pretty disappointed if the Eurofighter couldn't beat it.

great commentary here guys. thanks for sharing.

and Cheezy - that A-6 again :lol: that's the one you wanted in TCW!

great commentary here guys. thanks for sharing.

and Cheezy - that A-6 again :lol: that's the one you wanted in TCW!
yea, and the A-7, too! I just like them, that's all. When I think of a Nimitz class in the 80s, I see Corsair IIs and Intruders on them. Of course, I couldnt put them all on there, since carriers only carry like two planes ( and who's fault is that, eh? ;) )
Back on topic: The Phoenix, bad at manouvering? I thought it was more supposed to be anti-missle missle.

oh, and youre right, the article i read i dont recall mentioning that they were E models. I wonder how these Eurofighters will handle against a Raptor.. if they can find it:D
to be honest, I'm prejudiced against the Eurofighter simply because I dont like giant delta wings like it has

IIRC the Phoenix was specifically designed to take out Bear and Backfire bombers. The missile was long range, super fast, not particularly maneuverable, and backed by a fire control system capable of handling multiple targets.

Yep. The AWG-9 (pretty revolutionary for the time) was designed almost specifically to mate with the Phoenix and the Tomcat to form the backbone of the fleet defense against the expected waves of Red bombers - since the Tomcat could have all 6 of its AIM-54's in the air and guiding at the same time, and still track 18 additional targets.

Somehow, all the media outlets trumpeting that "grand victory" of the Eurofighter manage to leave the "E" off the end of that F-15 designation. Yeah, it has some teeth, but at heart it's still a bomber, and I'd be pretty disappointed if the Eurofighter
So the E has only "some teeth" while the C is the real fighter. Care to explain what the "C" version has that the "E" has not?

Taken from http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm

F-15 C
The F-15C is an improved version of the original F-15A single-seat air superiority fighter. Additions incorporated in the F-15C include upgrades to avionics as well as increased internal fuel capacity and a higher allowable gross takeoff weight. The single-seat F-15C and two-seat F-15D models entered the Air Force inventory beginning in 1979. Kadena Air Base, Japan, received the first F-15C in September 1979. These new models have Production Eagle Package (PEP 2000) improvements, including 2,000 pounds (900 kilograms) of additional internal fuel, provision for carrying exterior conformal fuel tanks and increased maximum takeoff weight of up to 68,000 pounds (30,600 kilograms). Externally, the differences between the F-15A and F-15C are so slight as to make identification difficult; the only reliable indicator is the aircraft serial number. All F-15As have tail numbers starting with 73- through 77-, while F-15Cs have tail numbers beginning with 78- through 86-. The F-15C is the Air Force's primary air superiority fighter, serving with active duty units at Langley AFB, VA, Eglin AFB, FL, Mountain Home AFB, ID, Elmendorf AFB, AK, Tyndall AFB, FL, Nellis AFB, NV, Spangdahlem AB, Germany, Lakenheath AB, England and Kadena AB, Okinawa. The operational F-15C force structure is approximately 300 aircraft assigned to operational units. In the mid-1990s the F-15C experienced declining reliability indicators, primarily from three subsystems: radar, engines, and secondary structures. A complete retrofit of all three subsystems could be done for less than $3 billion.
The F-15C has an air combat victory ratio of 95-0 making it one of the most effective air superiority aircraft ever developed. The US Air Force claims the F-15C is in several respects inferior to, or at best equal to, the MiG-29, Su-27, Su-35/37, Rafale, and EF-2000, which are variously superior in acceleration, maneuverability, engine thrust, rate of climb, avionics, firepower, radar signature, or range. Although the F-15C and Su-27P series are similar in many categories, the Su-27 can outperform the F-15C at both long and short ranges. In long-range encounters, with its superiorr radar the Su-27 can launch a missile before the F-15C does, so from a purely kinematic standpoint, the Russian fighters outperform the F-15C in the beyond-visual-range fight. The Su-35 phased array radar is superior to the APG-63 Doppler radar in both detection range and tracking capabilities. Additionally, the Su-35 propulsion system increases the aircraft’s maneuverability with thrust vectoring nozzles. Simulations conducted by British Aerospace and the British Defense Research Agency compared the effectiveness of the F-15C, Rafale, EF-2000, and F-22 against the Russian Su-35 armed with active radar missiles similar to the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The Rafale achieved a 1:1 kill ratio (1 Su-35 destroyed for each Rafale lost). The EF-2000 kill ratio was 4.5:1 while the F-22 achieved a ratio of 10:1. In stark contrast was the F-15C, losing 1.3 Eagles for each Su-35 destroyed.


F-15 E
Although the slogan of the F-15's original design team was "Not a pound for air-to-ground," the F-15 has long been recognized as having superior potential in the ground attack role. In 1987 this potential was realized in the form of the F-15E Strike Eagle. The mission of the Strike Eagle is as succinct as that of its air-to-air cousin: to put bombs on target. The F-15E is especially configured for the deep strike mission, venturing far behind enemy lines to attack high value targets with a variety of munitions. The Strike Eagle accomplishes this mission by expanding on the capabilities of the air superiority F-15, adding a rear seat WSO (Weapon Systems Operator) crewmember and incorporating an entirely new suite of air-to-ground avionics.
The F-15E is a two seat, two engine dual role fighter capable of speeds up to MACH 2.5. The F-15E performs day and night all weather air-to-air and air-to-ground missions including strategic strike, interdiction, OCA and DCA. Although primarily a deep interdiction platform, the F-15E can also perform CAS and Escort missions. Strike Eagles are equipped with LANTIRN, enhancing night PGM delivery capability. The F-15E outbord and inboard wing stations and the centerline can be load with various armament. The outboard wing hardpoint are unable to carry heavy loads and are assign for ECM pods. The other hardpoints can be employed for various loads but with the use of multiple ejection racks (MERs). Each MER can hold six Mk-82 bombs or "Snakeye" retarded bombs, or six Mk 20 "Rockeye" dispensers, four CBU-52B, CBU- 58B, or CBU-71B dispensers, a single Mk-84 (907 kg) bomb F- 15E can carry also "smart" weapons, CBU-10 laser quided bomb based on the Mk 84 bomb, CBU-12, CBU-15, or another, laser, electro-optical, or infra-red guided bomb (including AGM-G5 "Marerick" air-to-ground) missiles.

Conformal Fuel Tanks were introduced with the F-15C in order to extend the range of the aircraft. The CFTs are carried in pairs and fit closely to the side of the aircraft, with one CFT underneath each wing. By designing the CFT to minimize the effect on aircraft aerodynamics, much lower drag results than if a similar amount of fuel is carried in conventional external fuel tanks. This lower drag translate directly into longer aircraft ranges, a particularly desirable characteristic of a deep strike fighter like the F-15E. As with any system, the use of CFTs on F-15s involves some compromise. The weight and drag of the CFTs (even when empty) degrades aircraft performance when compared to external fuel tanks, which can be jettisoned when needed (CFTs are not jettisonable and can only be downloaded by maintenance crews). As a result, CFTs are typically used in situations where increased range offsets any performance drawbacks. In the case of the F-15E, CFTs allow air-to-ground munitions to be loaded on stations which would otherwise carry external fuel tanks. In general, CFT usage is the norm for F15Es and the exception for F-15C/D's.

The F-15E Strike Eagle’s tactical electronic warfare system [TEWS] is an integrated countermeasures system. Radar, radar jammer, warning receiver and chaff/flare dispenser all work together to detect, identify and counter threats posed by an enemy. For example, if the warning receiver detects a threat before the radar jammer, the warning receiver will inform the jammer of the threat. A Strike Eagle’s TEWS can jam radar systems operating in high frequencies, such as radar used by short-range surface-to-air missiles, antiaircraft artillery and airborne threats. Current improvements to TEWS will enhance the aircraft’s ability to jam enemy radar systems. The addition of new hardware and software, known as Band 1.5, will round out the TEWS capability by jamming threats in mid-to-low frequencies, such as long-range radar systems. The equipment is expected to go into full production sometime in late 1999.

So it's not so much what the F-15 C has as it is what it doesn't have: these Strike Eagles that danced with the Eurofighters were carrying loads of ECM, External Fuel Tanks, and other such drag-inducing features. The F-15C has a 95-0 kill score, thats why it's better at ACM.

So the E has only "some teeth" while the C is the real fighter. Care to explain what the "C" version has that the "E" has not?
It's more what the Echo has that the Charlie doesn't. ;)

Even in a clean configuration, the Echo is carrying a WSO and all the extra cockpit & ejection seat weight that comes with him, conformal fuel tanks carrying about 20,000 lbs of fuel that the Charlie lacks, and a beefed up airframe to handle all the extra weight. Despite that, it's engines are only slight more powerful than those on the Charlie. Higher wing loads, more drag, lower thrust to weight ratio.

The F-15C is an air superiority fighter. The F-15E is a tactical bomber.

the Echo is carrying a WSO and all the extra cockpit & ejection seat weight that comes with him, conformal fuel tanks carrying about 20,000 lbs of fuel that the Charlie lacks, and a beefed up airframe to handle all the extra weight. Despite that, it's engines are only slight more powerful than those on the Charlie. Higher wing loads, more drag, lower thrust to weight ratio.

More drag i doubt it since both are similar and max speeds are similar too.
Higher wing loads depends of the extra weight in form of fuel/weapons the aircraft carries.
Thrust/weight (zero fuel operational weight) ratio

F-15E 2x29,100 lb/32,300 lb = 1.80
with CFT
F-15E 2x29,100/36,500 lb = 1,59

F-15C 2x23700 lb/28, 600 lb = 1,65

So the difference is minimun and depends of the fuel carried. What basically you are saying is that the F-15E is worse fighter because it can carry more fuel. A bit nonsense isnt it?

The F-15C is an air superiority fighter. The F-15E is a tactical bomber.
Nope. It is a multirole fighter with all the capabilities of the C.

Cheezy quoted from fas.org:
Simulations conducted by British Aerospace and the British Defense Research Agency compared the effectiveness of the F-15C, Rafale, EF-2000, and F-22 against the Russian Su-35 armed with active radar missiles similar to the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The Rafale achieved a 1:1 kill ratio (1 Su-35 destroyed for each Rafale lost). The EF-2000 kill ratio was 4.5:1 while the F-22 achieved a ratio of 10:1. In stark contrast was the F-15C, losing 1.3 Eagles for each Su-35 destroyed.
very interesting!

More drag i doubt it since both are similar and max speeds are similar too.
Higher wing loads depends of the extra weight in form of fuel/weapons the aircraft carries.
Thrust/weight (zero fuel operational weight) ratio

F-15E 2x29,100 lb/32,300 lb = 1.80
with CFT
F-15E 2x29,100/36,500 lb = 1,59

F-15C 2x23700 lb/28, 600 lb = 1,65

So the difference is minimun and depends of the fuel carried. What basically you are saying is that the F-15E is worse fighter because it can carry more fuel. A bit nonsense isnt it?


Nope. It is a multirole fighter with all the capabilities of the C.
You're more than welcome to believe what you want, but I'm going to take the word of Strike Eagle pilots before I take yours.

What words of strike eagle pilots are you referring to?

very interesting!
yea the SU-35 has those canards giving that incredible lower-speed manoeverability, and varibalr thrust nozzles, too. It may have been good in this simulation, but dont expect widespread similar results: all that crap makes this version of the Flanker very unstable.

Notice how the Flanker matched up with it's more contemporary design matches: the F-22 got a 10:1 kill ratio against it. thats disgusting! The F-15 is like 30 years old, the F-22 and SU-35 are much closer in design times, even if the Flanker is based on the SU-23 frame

What words of strike eagle pilots are you referring to?
The words of the pilots that I know personally.

Ahhh, OK. :D

As for the F-22 being mentioned with this list, I think it should get some consideration because it is pretty much a generation of technology ahead of everything else. I say this, not only from reading about it, but from something I read from the RAF about the Typhoon: the RAF stated that the Typhoon could meet any other aircraft in the world (or in development) and win, with the exception of the F-22. Unfortunately, I can't provide a citation. Besides, it is one of (if not) the most agile operational fighter in the world, the hardest to detect, it can outrun any other fighter in the world (due to not needing it's afterburner), it can climb quickly, it can track target's without revealing its position, and it has unbelievable electronics...it's a little like HMS Dreadnought of 100yrs ago. But, it shouldn't be high on the list

While the Raiden was superior to the Zero, I prefer the Zero for this list. The Zero completely surprised the Allies and caused the US to develop a fighter specifically designed to defeat it, the F6F. While the F6F was pretty much superior in every way, I consider the Zero to deserve a high place on this list due to its success and causing the Hellcat to be developed, even if it was worthless by 1945. The Raiden's were typically cut through like a warm knife through butter...not because of the aircraft...but due to the poor pilot farming of the Japanese military. Raidens were respectable when flow by capable pilots.

Does anyone else question the Me-262 being on the list? Certainly an awesome, innovative plane, and a solid design, but thanks to Hitler, it was a light bomber! Besides, the British already had deployed a jet, the meteor, so it wasn't so innovative (although it was the best jet).

I actually like the F-4 being on there for a few reasons. I'm not certain, but wasn't the F-4 the first operational aircraft to bring medium-range missles to the fight? Had the rules of engagement allowed for the standoff missles to be used, the need for guns would have been substantially reduced (not putting guns on a plane when required to obtain visual ID!?!) I knew a person in the air guard, and they were really sad to see the F-4s be retired because he felt they were really good aircraft.

I agree with the WWI aircraft selections. I know much more about WWII and cold war aircraft, and the selections seem to fit my more limited knowledge of WWI.

I'm glad that the F-16 isn't on this list. The F-16 is the cheap, lightweight fighter. The F-16 is no match for the F-15. Of course, not much else was until recently.

I'm glad that the F-16 isn't on this list. The F-16 is the cheap, lightweight fighter. The F-16 is no match for the F-15. Of course, not much else was until recently.

Assuming you're referring to ACM - there is a good chunk of the time when the Viper can wipe the floor with the F-15.

In BVR, of course, the Eagle has an edge, but that's somewhat balanced due to its significantly larger RCS.

The Falcon can cut 9G turns that Eagles can only dream about. Though they both were designed to make up for the horrible manoeverabiliy of the F-4 Phantom, the F-16 is definitely the dogfigter of the bunch. Of course, for the Viper to beat the Eagle, it has to get close, and that's the hard part: getting around the F-15's pulse-doppler radar.

The Me 262 WAS a FIGHTER! Only Hitler let them being used as fast bomber. With not the success the plane had as fighter. Also the Meteor was not capable to reach the Me 262 by far. Until about 1950 the Me 262 remained the best fighter!
Also it was the first plane to be capable of flying Mach 1. A few years ago there was an interview in Der Spiegel magazine with a veteran who flew the Me 262. He told this:
He was flying to intercept US bombers with his squadron. One of his camrades had troubles with his engines. So he had to fly back and tried to do so by flying very near to the ground. But it was useless as a P 51 was behind him and nearing. Without the speed the Me 262 was a lame duck and easy prey. However the pilot watched that. He knew he was out of range but as it was his friend he dived to reach the P 51. His plane got faster and faster but also he was nearly not able to pilot the plane any more. Than suddenly, although he was now still becoming faster, the bird showed no problem any more. So with the speed advance he was now just in time: The P 51 was just in range of his comrade. But now his Mk 108 30 mm guns made the Mustang a sudden death. So he rescued his comrade. After landing the machine was damaged heavily: Not constructed to fly at these speeds the wings and nose were burnt and some parts were missing. The pilot was sure he flew faster than Mach 1.
Also the British files of 1946 show a remark by that plane that the Me 262 is not manoeuverable until Mach 1 but after that, the problem is gone. However this explains some strange accidents with this plane, too.
At last the Me 262 downed approximately 1.000 planes in the last month, although only very few ever flew combat sorties due to the lack of fuel.
This plane belongs to the list.

Adler

Adler, I stand corrected. I had seen pictures of Me-262's with guns, but was under the (false) impression that they were only used as light bombers.

However, the first officially recognized (and documented) Mach flight was by Chuck Yeager, and he wasn't flying a 262. If the british had truely conducted tests that it wasn't manouverable until Mach 1, then that would mean that they'd actually documented it breaking the sound barrier, and hence it would be regarded as the first. I do agree that it was by far the best jet design; for it was the basis of how many fighters after the war? Adler, your fellow countrymen really did a good job of developing the V-2 and the Me-262.

Since it was used as a fighter, albeit to limited avail, I withdraw my assertion that it be removed from the list.

Well, that's not true. Indeed there was, next to several other occasions in the Me 262, which were not recorded, Oberleutnant Lothar Sieber, who achieved Mach 1 in his Bachem Ba 349 Natter rocket plane:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachem_Ba_349
Sieber was killed in the first flight of this fighter by an accident. It was also the first manned flight of a rocket and the first one of over Mach 1. Indeed the the supervisors had a bang before the plane crashed. They first thought it was an explosion, but it wasn't.
I fear, without minoring Mr. Yeager's achievements, he was not the first one flying faster than Mach 1.

Adler

Adler, of the alledged exceedences of Mach 1, the Germans win. Of the verified, the German technology helped the yanks to win. The Ba 349 is an impressive machine. I've done a little search to verify what you say, but I haven't found anything...it might be easier if I was fluent in Deutsche :) Since his aircraft wasn't in the upper atmosphere, he would have had to be travelling in excess of 750mph, which is 80+mph above the designed speed at altitude...which is impressive. Good thing it wasn't an F-104, or his wings would have torn off :lol: I can't imagine what that must have been like.

Do you know anything about the SAM that was developed in 1942? I read about it in Albert Spear's book, but I've never seen much else about it.

I was about to say something about Me-262 but Adler seems to know this issue so much better that I have to stay in the background so I don't end up embarrassing myself.

Adler, your fellow countrymen really did a good job of developing the V-2 and the Me-262.That is very interesting and also quite disturbing comment. ;)

That is very interesting and also quite disturbing comment. ;)

That wasn't intended as a insult. Now that you point it out, it does kind of come accross that way. No offense intended, Alder. I'm working on a PhD in engineering so I can definitely appreciate outstanding designs that dominate engineering for decades like the V-2 and Me-262. It is really quite hard to understand how soooo much excellent engineering came out of Germany during WWII.

Big surprise the Natter broke the sound barrier, she was a freakin human missle!

The ME 262 had massive engine problems. Most planes lost their engines after 10 hours of use or so and due to limited operational use I wouldn't rate it in the top 10..

In no particular order Me 109, P51 Mustang, Spitfire, F22, would be in the top 5. Focke Wulf 190 and the Ta 152 could be good candidates as well.

Yes, the biggest flaw of the Me 262 were the engines problems. However the abilities of this war bird were much greater. IMO these problems do not justify the excluding of the first jet fighter.

Adler

The ME 262 had massive engine problems. Most planes lost their engines after 10 hours of use or so and due to limited operational use I wouldn't rate it in the top 10..

In no particular order Me 109, P51 Mustang, Spitfire, F22, would be in the top 5. Focke Wulf 190 and the Ta 152 could be good candidates as well.
So, you would not only remove the Me-262, maybe one the most decisive designs in aviation history, and the best fighter in the WW2, but promote the F-22, a plane that is not even in active service among the 5 most important planes in history. :crazyeye:

The ME 262 had massive engine problems. Most planes lost their engines after 10 hours of use or so and due to limited operational use I wouldn't rate it in the top 10..

That was the case with all the early jets, though- Meteor, P-80, Me-262 alike. It wasn't really until the late '40s or early '50s that turbine life really reach decent levels.

but promote the F-22, a plane that is not even in active service

The 27th FS completed their transition to the Raptor and went active sometime in late 2005 or early '06 (don't remember the exact date).

I know. I mean some REAL action to have at least some reason to include it in a list among some of the most important fighters in history.

Well the F-22 faced off against some European fighter too (in addition to that f-15 thing), and totally smoked it. I think it was an Su-35. That's Soviet. Whatever.

F22 is at least a whole generation ahead of most of the designs in the world. It basically makes most other fighters obsolete and is the best fighter ever. Its lack of real world combat keeps it from the number 1 slot IMHO. If I was a pilot in another plane I wouldn't want to tangle with one.

ME 262 is overhyped which has alot of mythical BS built around it like the Spitfire. However the Spitfire proved itself, the 262 didin't and I would include several other successful German designs ahead of this like the Me 109, FW 190. The Me 262 did have a short and decent combat record but they were flown by some of Germany's best pilots. I doubt a novice pilot could fly one as easily as a more conventional plane. To me what was responsable for the 262 record- the plane or pilots?While not as bad as the Me 163 the 262 also had a habit of killing its pilot.

For me, number one spot should go the the Hurricane and number two to the Spitfire. These were the two classes of fighter aircraft that won the Battle of Britain. If the Luftwaffe had won, Britain would have been open to invasion. The Hurricane played a larger role in the Battle of Britain than the Spitfire, but it didn't quite catch public imagination to the same extent.

I think the Harrier deserves a higher rating, as during the Falklands War it proved to the Soviets that the Americans were not entirely carrying the rest of NATO.

For me, number one spot should go the the Hurricane and number two to the Spitfire. These were the two classes of fighter aircraft that won the Battle of Britain. If the Luftwaffe had won, Britain would have been open to invasion. The Hurricane played a larger role in the Battle of Britain than the Spitfire, but it didn't quite catch public imagination to the same extent.

I think the Harrier deserves a higher rating, as during the Falklands War it proved to the Soviets that the Americans were not entirely carrying the rest of NATO.

Hurricane became obsolete reasonably fat. The Mustang, Spitefire, Me109, and FW 190 for example were still in service in the last days of the war where the Hurricae wasn't really a front line plane by then.

I know the Hurrican quickly became obselete, but it got Britain through the emergency situation in the months after Dunkirk. In the later stages of the war, the greater industrial output of the Allies meant that we had force of numbers on our side, which more than compensated for any advantages possessed by German and Japanese fighters in a 1v1 situation.

Battle of Britain was overated. Even if the Luftwaffe smashed the RAF the Germans couldn't conjure up a fleet to really transport the Wehrmacht over the channel. They were considering using river barges as they had no dedicated landing craft available.

u stoll this from that tv show on the millitary chanel

u stoll this from that tv show on the millitary chanel
no kidding?

please read the first post before you litter the thread :rolleyes:

Battle of Britain was overated. Even if the Luftwaffe smashed the RAF the Germans couldn't conjure up a fleet to really transport the Wehrmacht over the channel. They were considering using river barges as they had no dedicated landing craft available.

Actually, if the Luftwaffe had smashed the RAF, Britain was doomed. The RN would have been smashed by the Stukas in the channel. Without fighter cover and no room to maneuver, they would have been sitting ducks.

The RA was in even worse shape. Yes, they got over 330,000 men back from Dunkirk, but that is all they got back. The heavy equipment was gone, no tanks, no artillery, and no light vehicles, thus no mobility. Most of the troops were lucky if they managed to bring back their rifles. It would have been risky, but with air superiority, those barges, and the Ju 52s could have landed enough troops to do the job. All the Germans needed was a bridgehead/airhead in the south of England and the game was over. Think Crete on a bigger scale, but with less water to travel over.

At first we should make hear new criterias. I mean that fear factor and innovation are okay, but fire power and service length and also kill ratio aren't that good.
Fire power lacks in so far as early planes did not have the possibilites to use heavier weapons. One or two MG was enough. They can't be compared with a MiG 29 for example.
Service length is to be critized that good planes in earlier days were obsolete very fast. In ww1 after 0,5 - 1 year a plane was obsolete and the new one was introduced. But that didn't mean it was bad. And today there are planes developed for being in service for 30- 50 years! I mean for example the F 4 Phantom II was constructed and built the first time 50 years ago. Today the bird is still in service in many countries. Germany for example is phasing them out, but this will last until about 2011 or even later. That means it will last over 60 years as combat plane.
The same is for the kill ratios. In ww2 more combat planes were used and fought than before or after. The kill ratios then were extremely high. Today there aren't even so much planes to be in combat or to see combat.
So IMO there are only two valid criterias. The other are to be modified. But that's not very possible. I mean you can't compare the 2 MGs of a Fokker D VII with the armament of a MiG 29 (1 30 mm gun and 2 AA 10 Alamo and 4 AA 11 Archer).
Are there any suggestions for better criterias?

Adler

Why is there a TIE betwen the MIG 15 and F 86? The MIG sucked it all over the F 86 in Korea...

i think it's b/c the MiG15 wasn't necessarily a bad plane. i mean, it possessed some characteristics that were actually better than the sabre. it's generally held that the abilities of the sabre pilots were far greater than those of the mig's. thus the great kill ratio we often hear of...

NO! I meant that the MIG was far better than the Sabre...

NO! I meant that the MIG was far better than the Sabre...
oh :blush: my bad!

i guess it's the high kill ratios of the sabres that get them into that position. and iirc, the sabre handled just a little better than the fagot. so i guess it's justified although the entire list is indeed pretty subjective...