Warbird Information Exchange

I don't know much about modern jets, but was recently talking to a charter pilot who was ex F-16. He claimed it was the best fighter. He said it was way better than F-14, and some better than F-18. I can't remember the details but I think he thought it was better than F-15. Now I don't know if he had ever even flown the other types or against the other types. Who is a knowlegeable unbiased source that has flown them all? And is it mostly the plane, the pilot, or the weapons that count? I have flown with a fighter pilot who has two air to air Mig kills in an F-16. He was a big fan of US missles. Of course as I read the title it was not just a question of which was best, but which was more important.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

For the 1920's, it appears that the Curtiss P-1 hawk series was pretty predominant. For a sample of fighters from that era, take a peek at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:U ... _1920-1929

40's? Have to be the P-51...

Agree that the F-100 was the predominant fighter in the 50's, even though the -86 was predominant in Korea.

60's? F-4, hands down.

70's? Two gongs for the Rhino.

80's? F-16. (Sorry, Randy)

90's? F-15E

2000 on? F-18E. The F-22 isn't fully operational AF-wide yet, and this decade is almost over..

But that's just my two cents...

_________________
Bob

Once the F-16 can claim a 103-to-zero real-world combat air to air kill ratio, then I'll buy that it's the 'best fighter of the decade' in the 80s.

I think this is exactly the point - in the decade, which fighter aircraft swayed the larger effect, i.e. 'carried the load' or turned the tide in achieving air superiority (with a nod to attack/strike).

Always a fun (if ultimately inconclusive) game.

1900 - 1910 there weren't any fighters as we understand them now. Carrying a hand-held Lewis gun to try and hit the rigging/ground with in a Wright is historically significant, but isn't relevant here, IMHO.

Tommy Morse. Most fun US fighter, no scores on the doors then for any US fighter types.

Although Glenn's cunningly avoided putting them head to head, if we are getting picky about how 'important' a type was, the P-40 could've lost several vital campaigns but didn't, and there was no real alternative aircraft. The P-51 won many, later, battles but there were always alternatives, even for the range to Berlin (which wasn't a war winning action in itself, though very important). Therefore the often under-rated P-40 gets my vote over the P-51, even as a pure fighter. It wasn't as good as the Mustang, but it was there to stem the tide when we really needed it - and 'we' was a lot of nations and fronts.

F-86. getting a lot of competing requirements right in a period of change. The right balance of performance etc. at the right time.

F-4 Phantom II - redefined what a fighter could and should be. More significant than the F-14, 15 and 16, which are just trying to look prettier than a Phantom, because they aren't in the same league (in their eras...)

2d

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

You go James !! Prettier than a Phantom,...heh, heh, I like that.

We just discussed in another thread that a Phantom got yet another kill just the other day. Still kickin' A$$ after all these years !! Frontline fighter of the free world for 30+ years !!

Of course the Phantom was the catalyst that allowed them to refine what they needed the F14, F15, F16, and yes even the F-18 to be able to do. They also designed out all of those #$%^&* stress panels and all of their $%%^& Hi Torque screwa !!

_________________
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass..."
Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto

You can't help but respect the F-4s achievements, and for those that come up with the 'if it looks right it'll fly right' bull, give me ugly but effective any day. There's no pretty on a Phantom, just stuff for a reason.

The F-4; aesthetic and efficiency insparation for the A-10.

If the original Phantom was so ugly it was delivered upside down, were the RAAF's 24 loaners the right way up?

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Good point. I revise my list. Raptor WILL BE the best US fighter...but next decade.

I strongly disagree that the F-15 is any less significant than the F-4, though. The US and Isreal have controlled the skies wherever that plane has flown for three decades, and I don't think a single Mig has even scratched the paint. And the E model makes it is just a good a mud-mover as any F-4.

The F-4 rocked, no doubt, but the Eagle is a worthy successor.

_________________
What is red, furry and on your six?

No question about that, Fritz. A worthy successor, to be sure !

_________________
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass..."
Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto

The F-4, do it all, but not real well, was a good new AC in the 60's. But what about the old Thud, the F-105 was credited with most tonnage hauled downtown in NVN, and with the Weasel version was credited with most deadly missions in the war.

I think the F-105 Thunderchief should be the 60 vote.

Kurt

_________________
A-7D, the Short Little Ugly "Flyer" and A-10A Warthog, weren't called an ATTACK plane for nothing. Remember for a little relief on the ground, call your local Air Force to "Go Ugly Early"!

Do you have a link for that thread by chance?

Here ya go.

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=19037&highlight=qf4

_________________
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass..."
Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto

What is the difference between a warbird which was designed to drop bombs and an aircraft which was designed to do air to air combat. What does it take to be a fighter? I know the Thud wasn't the greatest but it deserves its place of honor, the Phantom did both fighting air to air and ground support by bombing. So is it a fighter or bomber?

_________________
A-7D, the Short Little Ugly "Flyer" and A-10A Warthog, weren't called an ATTACK plane for nothing. Remember for a little relief on the ground, call your local Air Force to "Go Ugly Early"!

YES !!

_________________
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass..."
Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto

This thread is way off. Fighters are fighters, and fighter of the decade for the USAF, strictly speaking will exclude many types. Perhaps fighter of the conflict?

These are the correct answers...


1900-1920 no indigenous US Fighter produced

1920-1929 the true answer is the P-12, flown in 1928. A Boeing it bests the P-6 Hawk based on economy, servicability and length of service.

1930-1939 the fighter of this decade, the P-36/40 Hawk series. Built in many versions and exported, the inline fighter to beat of the time was the P-40. The P-51 was a response to this design at the end of the 1940's, and it soldiered on for an entire war, not always on the front line, but on the lines.

1940-1949 F-86 Sabre. Swept wing and jet power. The ultimate piston foghters early in the decade are powerless against this type of technology.

1950-1959 F-4 Phantom, 1955. Still in service somewhere....With Collings!

1960-1969 F-4 Phantom. Still the King. Exported and improved, it retains the title as the fighter that carries its nation's will into air to air engagements.

1970-1980 F-15 Unbeatable and unbested.

1980-1989 F-15 Never lost against a gun or missile firing adversary.

1990-1999 F-15 is still the varsity

2000-2010 F-22 now the standard.

And thats it! The rest move mud or carry bags!