quote:

Originally posted by retleo99:
I'll go jump into a Citabria, which also has a fear factor of zero, and with no GUMP to fret about...

ROFLWTIME! Gear Down And Welded = No GUMP. The only truer truisms are the old saws about runway behind you and altitude above you.

On the other hand, as a habitually-IFR airman no matter how nice the weather, I've always been a firm adherent to the admonition to "keep the rubber side down," a concept with which the Citabria (the name comes from "Airbatic" spelled backwards- go figure) seems to have some inherent, chronic difficulty...

I've been trying to catch the V-22 Osprey episode for weeks with no success so far. Can't wait to stumble upon it some dark & stormy night.

Thanks for the confirmation that we are not the same person. For a minute there I was afraid that the voices in my head (the ones that keep telling me to stay home and clean my guns) had come back and I was posting to myself again...

quote:

Originally posted by Chicagoswsuburbs:
Oh, wait..news flash...[Aryeh Nusbacher] he is now a she. That right air fans..HE had a sex change, and I dont think you will be seeing HER on any more shows... SHE goes by the name of LYNNE now. I am not making this up...just google on his old name...

OMG! You're right! The "hot news" is at http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007210235,00.html. His/her/its new name is Lynette.

Looking back at my original rant in this thread about this jerk, I called him "effeminate." I had no idea how right I was. This calls for a beer. Maybe even two!

you people are insane the mustang is the the graetest fighter ever biult and flown.but you are right about the corsiar it should have made the list but the p61 blackwidow also shuold have made the top ten fighters list.

you people are insane the p51 was and is the best fighter ever built and flown but you are right about the corsiar it should have made the list but another plane should have made the list. that plane is the p61 blackwidow.

you are all insane the p51 mustang was and is the graetest fighter plane ever built.but the corsair should have made the list
but there is another plane that should have made the top ten list that plane is the p61 blackwidow.

I think this show is prejudiced against naval and marine aircraft.

They snub the Corsair and Hellcat completely. The F-4 is the only naval aircraft mentioned and it is referred to as a "turkey". The thing that is never mentioned is that the F-4 was not designed as a dogfighter.

I think the reason the USAF commentators are so critical of the F-4 is because of the USAF's failure with the aircraft. The USN created TOPGUN and trained their men on how fly against non-like aircraft and laid the ground work for all future air combat training. With the Revolt of the Admirals that had to be a bitter pill for the USAF to swollow.

Something i noticed today while watching the replay of the show. Aryeh or whatever his/her name is now makes the point that the Raptor is too excessive in what it does and says its a waste of money. Ok point taken as an opinion and thats fine. However he contradicts himself later in the show when discussing the Mig/Super Saber where he states that the US has constantly underestimated the forces of the Soviet Union and thought of them as slow and whatever other derogatory terms he uses to break down US/Russo relations.

Anyway my point is if his thinking is along the lines of the US always underestimating the Soviet Union, then the Raptor is the perfect answer for whatever is to come. Unknown to anyone right now is what the Russian PAK-FA and Chinese JJ-X projects will bring forth. Doesnt it make sense to attempt to have a capable fighter that can be easily upgraded and modified upon the release of the PAK-FA, JJ-X projects? Being that neither of these projects will even see the air for at least another year for test flights and then being put through paces and further developed as all aircraft are. It is conciveable to think that the PAK-FA/JJ-X wont be combat capable until at least 2013-2015, this gives 4 years of development for the PAK-FA. I lowballed it, but concievable I think depending on how much homework Sukhoi did before construction. So before the PAK-FA is combat ready and before the JJ-X even takes her maiden flight, the US Military will have 2 combat ready and capable stealth jets in the Raptor and Lightening II. That kind of puts ahead doesnt it? Upgrading those aircraft will be far less intense than having to play catch up and build a whole new aircraft.

This guy just doesnt seem to make sense. On one hand he is berating for having the "ultimate weapon." On the other he is berating because we didnt take enough chances and out engineer the Soviets, something he claims happened all the time. Well which is it?

As for them favoring Air Force over Navy. I think this stems from the fact that the Navy doesnt have "fighters" by definition. We may look at the Hornet and Tomcat as fighters, but they are technically designated interceptors in their Navel forms designed to protect the fleet and take out bombers. Not to go head to head for air superiority.

quote:

1-F-22 Raptor
2-Su-37 Terminator

I do not think the F-22 should be anywhere near #1, what has it done in combat?

The Su-37, is that even in production yet?

Put in a WWI plane like the Folker Dr-IV instead.

For what it's worth here is my Top 10.

1. P-51
2. F-15
3. Bf 109
4. F-14
5. Hellcat
6. Albatros D.V
7. Spitfire
8. Zero A6M5
9. P-47
10. F-16

Honorable mentions include Fw-190, F-86, Mig-15, Neuport, Fokker Dr I, Corsair, and Me 262.

I think that alot of aircraft wern't even concidered. Like the F14 Tomcat, F4U Corsair, A7 Corsair and how about the Japanese Zero, the Grumman Hellcat or even the A6 Intruder. What's up with those aircraft? Any one of those are certainly better than the F22 Raptor (which didn't prove it's worth yet). So what if it can do neat things in the air. WHAT HAS IT DONE???

I love lists like this even though they do tend to repeat too much. I think every list I have seen over the years has either the P-51 or the F-15 as the top plane. OK, fine. But IMHO (and I do have a soft spot for the F-14) I think that it should be in the lower part of any top ten list. Mostly because of its fear factor. The rumors I have heard said that the F-14 scared almost all the "bad guys" that it fought or might have fought. Of course this was b/c of the 100 plus miles of the AIM-54. At the time the Tomcat had the longest reach of any fighter in the world. The F-14 was the only NATO plane that Soviet/Russian pilots feared. (so rumor says)There are also stories that said that during the first Gulf War, if and Iraq pilot saw a Tomcat radar tracking him from 150 miles away, he ran. Even in the the first few days of the Gulf War, Iraqis would go fight the F-15 even with its impressive record. But if they saw a Tomcat coming, they left. Rumor also says that the Tomcat did a good job during the Iran/Iraq war in the 80s. Not as good as the F-15 but perhaps good enough to be near the bottom of any top ten list.
I found this on the web. Take it for what it is worth:

The F-14 in the Iran/Iraq War

The F-14 in the Iran/Iraq War

The Iranian F-14 force saw much more combat than their US brothers. During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war IRIAF F-14 drivers claimed some 100~ confirmed victories over Saddam Hussein’s air force. It is known that only 5 of the Iranian F-14s were lost in air to air combat during the war, giving them a very respectable kill ratio of some 20:1. Their victims included both older MiG-21 and 23 series aircraft but also the more advanced Mirage F1 and the vaunted MiG-25. Standing orders to pilots in Saddam Hussein’s air force was that when an F-14 arrived in the sky they were not to engage but to break off and evade combat. The most successful Iranian F-14 pilot was Major Jalal Zandi, who shot down 9 confirmed and 3 unconfirmed Iraqi combat aircraft. Another Iranian F-14 pilot, Major Rahnavard, flying alone attacked a formation of 12 Iraqi MiGs over the Persian Gulf in two separate engagements, downing four aircraft in one day.

OK, I agreed with some of the Military Channel's list, so I don't think it was entirely Hollywood/market driven, but I also feel that they made some major mistakes.

First, we've got to have some useful criteria.

My own involve six factors:

1. Degree of use (function of number built, number of countries that used it, length of service, and years in production).

2. Innovation (not just technical innovation by itself, but the degree to which said innovation influenced later designs; also we are talking about conceptual innovation, not just particular technical gizmos).

3. Flight performance relative to contemporaries. Now first, by "contemporaries", I mean either aircraft which were developed to fight in the same war, or, if developed in peacetime, aircraft developed within five years of each other. By "developed", my main marker is IOC (initial operational capability). Now, back to what I mean by "flight performance", I'm talking about max speed, cruising speed, service ceiling, initial turn rate, sustained turn rate, transient maneuverability, climb rate, acceleration rate. I'm NOT including range/endurance (that shows up later in my book). In short, the degree to which the aircraft in question can OUTFLY contemporaries.

4. Firepower. This is payload, on-board weapons, RANGE/ENDURANCE (i.e., fuel as a weapon to outlast the other guy, or reach deeper into enemy territory), avionics that aid the pilot in accurate/effective delivery of ordnance, survivability (physical robustness, ECM, stealth).

5. Operational flexibility. This is ability to operate in all weather, in different roles, and basing flexibility, plus ease of maintenance as this contributes to basing flexibility and sortie rates.

6. Combat record. What is the kill ratio? How effective was it in destroying ground targets, if applicable? What was the loss rate per sorties flown? Did it have a decisive impact on a given war?

Now that I've fleshed out my criteria, here's my own top ten list:

1. F-16 Fighting Falcon. (I agree wholeheartedly with you, "strechg", it is incredible that they left this one out). In light of all my criteria above, to me, this is INDISPUTABLY #1. Most widely used current generation fighter; over two dozen countries use it. Already in service over a quarter century, with a lot of years left in the front line. Extremely innovative (e.g., first fly-by-wire aircraft of any kind), superb combat record for both air-to-air and air-to-ground. About the only thing wrong with it is that it isn't very good at roadside basing, but depending on the country, this isn't all that important in most instances anyway.

2. F-4 Phantom II. A jack of all trades that was pretty good at most, produced in enormous numbers, decisive impact on two major wars (Vietnam, Yom Kippur), and until the F-35 comes on line, STILL the only fighter simultaneously used by all three fixed wing fighter flying U.S. armed services in the front line. Versatility, numbers in service, and firepower gave us a huge edge over the Soviets for the better part of the Cold War, and when it came out, it was WAY ahead of its time, influencing numerous subsequent designs.

3. F-15 Eagle. Terrific aircraft in most respects, but not so many built, not so widely used as others, due to high price tag both to buy and operate. A "rich man's" airplane, pretty much. But if you can afford it, certainly among the best (hey, I did rate it #3 in top ten of all time).

4. P-51 Mustang. Very widely used, long service life for a prop plane, war-winning fighter, but not so innovative, really. Didn't break much new ground, not like the ones in my top three. Had plenty of competition in it's day (e.g., F4U Corsair, Spitfire Mk. IV, Focke Wolfe FW-190, Ki-83). Maybe was better than contemporaries I just listed, but not by a huge margin. That Japanese Ki-83 was fantastic; the most under-rated airplane of WW2, in my view.

5. F/A-18 Hornet. This was the very first "true" fourth-generation fighter, right out of the box. All of the features we associate with such planes today - digital fly-by-wire, all-glass cockpit, multi-role in the same sortie per avionics/displays - this was the first to have them all from day one. More widely used than the F-15, and while expensive to buy, cheap to operate, and can operate out of ANYWHERE. Performance in Gulf War Two was sterling, proving itself as an incredibly reliable and sturdy all-weather platform. Controversial in many ways, with some admitted glaring weaknesses (e.g., range, non-afterburner flight performance), it is still an under-rated plane in my book.

6. Mig-25 Foxbat. Not as great as people thought when it came out, it was still a terrific point-defense interceptor and recon platform. A major technological accomplishment, this plane is most significant for the fighter "arms race" it initiated, really provoking the development of a whole family of Western fighters.

7. Sturmovik IL-2. This is the most heavily produced airplane in history, of any type. Played a decisive role in the bloodiest war between two countries in history as well, as a much feared and devastatingly effective close support fighter bomber. As such, introduced the concept, in workable form, of the airplane as "flying tank" (kind of like a WW2 A-10). Had lousy speed and range, but could turn on a dime; this combined with super guns (23mm) made it a useful air-to-air fighter in skilled hands. More than one Russian became an ace in this mount.

8. F-86 Sabre. War winning fighter, very widely used and heavily produced, this was the signature Western fighter of the early Cold War. Relatively short service life and limited innovation keep it a lot lower on my own list compared with the Military Channel's. Can't believe they put it on a par with the Mig-15; the Mig-15 didn't win a war for anyone, and was quickly superceded by the Mig-17.

9. F-22 Raptor. Has to be on my list just for sheer innovativeness and combat capability; this is the most powerful air-to-air fighter in service in the world today. But limited production and no combat record keeps it lower on my list than some other participants in this forum would have it.

10. Fokker Eindecker. I can already see many of you scratching your heads. This was the first "true" fighter. I know the MC quiz says some British plane was, but I disagree. Before the Eindecker, combat planes were unarmed except for infantry weapons that were carried onto the planes, or crudely mounted. Flying the plane and employing the weapon were two distinct acts. But with the Eindecker's interrupter gear, the airplane became an integrated weapon system for the very first time. You used the plane itself as a weapon, pointing the aircraft and firing. As such, it was revolutionary, and dominated the sky for the first year or two of WW1. The British/French were only able to counter it when they captured one, and directly copied the interrupter gear technology. So, this one makes my list, even if it is only #10, just by virtue of being the very first.

I watched that "joke" of a list and feel that I should add my two-cents for what it offers.
I have no problem with the P-51 being listed as "The Best FIGHTER" aircraft. It would be closely followed by the "Zero," the Spitfire, the FW190, the ME109, the Hawker Hurricane, jets F-86 and MIG 15, and the Hellcat/Wildcat.
But, for all-around performance, fighter AND ground-attack/bomber, you have to include to P-47 and the P-38. Especially the P-38; the choice of the two top aces in WWII, Dick Bong and Tom McGuire. If you have never enjoyed the sound of those twin Allisons get to an airshow where the "Lightning" will be flying.
Remember, these are combat-tested aircraft, flown by pilots (not computers) who depended on their experience.

The speed record wasn't broken by the F-15 Eagle but by the MiG-25 Foxbat. Its speed record wasn't broken until the SR-71 was built.
I don't think that the Harrier should be in there. The MiG-25 should be in that list. As should the Su-27.

quote:

Originally posted by hellcatprincess:
The Show Was great but I agree with The Moondog that the Corsair and F6F Hellcat should have been on the list

I agree with you becuase both the Hellcat and Corsair were both better than the Mustang since the Hellcat had over 5,000 plus confirmed kills in WWII. The Corsair was very adaptable with its design. The Mustang came late into the war that it was unable to rival the Hellcat and Corsair.

First, there is a problem with this list, as it has not been terribly well defined. "Top," "Best," or "Greatest" are not necessarily interchangeable terms. To my mind, "best" means functionally better than all others against which it competes with, while "greatest" means having played a more significant role in history. "Top" may be too general to be very meaningful at all. I think we may be comparing "apples to oranges" to some degree here.

I agree on the inclusion of the Fokker Eindecker in the list. With the huge innovation of the interruptor gear, this plane, with Oswald Boelcke flying it, was the father of the entire defined concept of the "fighter" plane, writing the book on the subject that is still largely followed today. The WWI "Fokker Scourge" exemplified it.

I think that a list like this needs to be tempered, not just by the virtue of an aircraft's performance capability, but also by how well a particular fighter addressed the needs of its role at its point in history. For this reason, while I bemoan the complete absence of the Corsair, Hellcat, and Thunderbolt in the list, I would give very special consideration to the Hellcat. It was exactly what was needed for its intended purpose: a plane that thousands of newly-trained pilots could fly off carriers, shoot down Japanese aircraft, and return alive in. No other fighter comes close to how well it did that.

While the Corsair was a spectacular performer, it was handicapped by being limited to being land-based until the British worked out how to land it on a carrier, which limited its effectiveness for a long time. And while Marine pilots will swear on stacks of Bibles that a Corsair will outperform a Mustang, the F4U certainly didn't have the range to do the P-51's role.

[Boy, wouldn't we LOVE to see an episode of "Dogfights" with a Corsair and a Mustang, both truly flown "balls to the walls" by top pilots, in a series of mock dogfights, to see who would win?]

And while I certainly see the sense in making a distinction between "fighters" and "attack" aircraft, there have definitely been instances in history where the best fighter for the job was one that could also perform ground attack. The Thunderbolt was truly superlative at this during WWII, escorting bombers (as far as they could go), and shooting up ground targets on the way back. I'm sure that the USAF was kicking itself in the butt during the early stages in Korea, having let all those P-47s go to other countries, and having to "move mud" with Mustangs that were so inherently vulnerable to the "Golden BB."

If for this reason alone, the Fw 190 was also a more useful and effective aircraft than the Bf 109. But it was also a better dogfighter than the Spitfire when it first appeared, and for some time following, so it definitely belongs on the list. Yet you can't deny the Bf 109, having been the most-produced fighter in history, fought so many air battles, and the favorite mount of more German aces than the Fw 190. A case in point of "best" versus "greatest."

I would not give such high marks to an aircraft purely for "innovation." The Me 262 was certainly innovative, but was it effective? Not terribly. The P-39 was certainly innovative for its mid-engine layout, heavy nose armament, and tricycle landing gear, but was it effective? Not until they figured out that it was only good for ground attack. Used in that role, the Soviets loved them.

The P-38 Lightning was also very innovative for its twin-engine, twin-boom layout, also with heavy nose armament, but its pilots froze their butts off at altitude in Europe, and the Germans were able to recognize the "fork-tailed devil" way before they were positively identified themselves, putting the Lightnings at a tactical disadvantage nearly every time. Given the plane's reputation, Lightning jockeys were also reluctant to dive away from trouble.

But with its excellent speed and range, the P-38s did wonderfully in the South Pacific, where the pilots could fly in short sleeves, while attacking altitude-challenged Japanese aircraft that would flame on the first pass. After Japan lost most of its best pilots at Midway, and the Americans learned not to "dogfight" them, any fighter with marginally better speed, protection, and firepower, was functionally superior to the Zero. Yet, due to its numbers, its maneuverability, its impact in the opening stages of the Pacific war, and how well it performed in the hands of its finest pilots, the Zero is a truly "great" fighter, in spite of the fact that nearly every single one was eventually destroyed in battle.

I would also not give so much credence to a "fear factor" in compiling this list. Any soldier who has experienced combat will tell you that every soldier confronted with combat is either scared, or a liar. I would guess that few battles' outcomes are determined by a "fear factor." Truth be told, the Flying Tigers won their battles due to superior tactics, not because of the shark mouths painted on their Tomahawks. It may be true that a psychological factor can give one side an edge, but we're not talking about who had the best trained pilots here, are we? While the pilot may indeed be the single most important component of any fighter plane, we're only talking strictly about the hardware here.

A Japanese samurai sword in the hands of a master may be the finest weapon ever made, but it's still no match against a scared kid with a mail-order shotgun. The result here would be the samurai being "greater," but the kid being "best."

So what does "top" mean? If it simply means "superior," is that qualified by its role and historical circumstance, or in spite of it?