Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Big surprise the Natter broke the sound barrier, she was a freakin human missle!
Top 10 Fighter Planes of All Time
- Thread starter El Justo
- Start date
Zardnaar
Deity
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.
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.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
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
Adler
Thorgalaeg
Deity
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.Zardnaar said:
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.
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).
Thorgalaeg
Deity
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.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
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.
Zardnaar
Deity
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.
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.
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.
Zardnaar
Deity
Gallienus said:
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.
Zardnaar
Deity
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.
El Justo
Deity
no kidding?Vietcong said:
please read the first post before you litter the thread
Ace
Emperor
Zardnaar said:
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.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
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
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
deo
Emperor
Why is there a TIE betwen the MIG 15 and F 86? The MIG sucked it all over the F 86 in Korea...
El Justo
Deity
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...
deo
Emperor
NO! I meant that the MIG was far better than the Sabre...
El Justo
Deity
ohdeo said:
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...
