Top 10 Fighter Planes of All Time

Thorgalaeg said:
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.
 
YNCS said:
What about the F4U Corsair?

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.
 
YNCS said:
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 ;)
 
Speedo said:
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.
 
El Justo said:
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom