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.
Top 10 Fighter Planes of All Time
- Thread starter El Justo
- Start date
Thorgalaeg
Deity
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?
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
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" ******** 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.
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" ******** 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.
It's more what the Echo has that the Charlie doesn't.Thorgalaeg said:
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.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
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.
El Justo
Deity
very interesting!
Thorgalaeg
Deity
What words of strike eagle pilots are you referring to?
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
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.El Justo said:
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
Thorgalaeg
Deity
Ahhh, OK. 
cincybearsfan
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21
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.
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.
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.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
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.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
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
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
cincybearsfan
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21
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.
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.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
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
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
cincybearsfan
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21
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 
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.
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 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.
C~G
Untouchable
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 4,146
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.
That is very interesting and also quite disturbing comment.cincybearsfan said:
cincybearsfan
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21
C~G said: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.
