Best Fighter For It's Time

"Chad Irby" wrote in message . com...
In article ,
Stephen Harding wrote:

The "best" plane will be best due to reasons having little or nothing
to do with how well it flies!

That might not even come into play. Look at the F-20 Tigershark. Very
nice plane, flew as well as just about anything in the air at the time,
and had *big* advantages in maintenance (as low as one-third the cost of
the F-16 to support). In some fields (interception and scramble
flights), it was better than anything (from the time the pilot hit
"start" to 30,000 feet was about 2.5 minutes).

Nobody bought any.

This thread isn't about 'best'. It's about 'very clearly superior for it's time'.

You can argue the F-20 was better or worse than the F-16, but it was not
very clearly superior. To use a naval example, I'm looking for
Dreadnoughts and not Queen Elizabeths. Revolutionary designs and not
just good planes.

Drewe Manton wrote in message .4...
"Tom Cooper" waxed lyrical
:

Besides, the total combat score for the F-14 is also (at least) two
times better than that of the F-15.


Errr. . as I understood the Tomcat's score stands at something in
the high forties - something like 5 from the US Navy and forty-odd
from Iran, whilst the F-15's stands at something over 100, 30
something for the USAF, a few (four? two Phantom and two Mirage
F-1) for the Saudis and the balance with the IAF, mainly over the
Bekaa in 1982. So as far as I'm aware the F-14's score is something
less than half the F-15's (unless the Tomcat scored a quiet 150
somewhere to give it a ratio of (and I quote) "(at least) two times
better than that of the F-15" Could you cite sources for your claim
please? Wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong, certainly
wouldn't be the last!

Err... no! ;-))
The story with 40 kills is based on the Mullahs taking away something
like 70% of IRIAF's air-to-air kills and crediting them to the IRGC
air-defence units after the war with Iraq.

IRIAF F-14's score goes into 120+, with some 30 probables more (so,
yes, it's very likely around 150) - for three confirmed losses, plus
two LARAF Su-22s, two MiG-23s, and an Iraqi Mi-8 shot down by USN
F-14s. This is opposed by something like 70 US and IDF/AF kills scored
by F-15s, in exchange for two probable losses. BTW, IRIAF F-4s scored
over 100 too; F-5E/F's score shouldn't be too far either.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq; War in the Air, 1980-1988
http://www.schifferbooks.com/militar...764316699.html

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585

Subject: Best Fighter For It's Time
From: "Charles Talleyrand"
Date: 7/23/03 2:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time

Suppose you're an air minister. The Fokker Eindekker has just come out.
Do you want some? YES

Suppose you're a pilot. You can fly either a Fokker Eindekker or it's
competitor. Which would you pick?



A Norden on an Eindecker? Sind sie verruckt? Auf ein zweidecker vielleicht.
Aber auf ein Eindecker? Niemals.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Err... no! ;-))
The story with 40 kills is based on the Mullahs taking away something
like 70% of IRIAF's air-to-air kills and crediting them to the IRGC
air-defence units after the war with Iraq.

IRIAF F-14's score goes into 120+, with some 30 probables more (so,
yes, it's very likely around 150) - for three confirmed losses, plus
two LARAF Su-22s, two MiG-23s, and an Iraqi Mi-8 shot down by USN
F-14s. This is opposed by something like 70 US and IDF/AF kills scored
by F-15s, in exchange for two probable losses. BTW, IRIAF F-4s scored
over 100 too; F-5E/F's score shouldn't be too far either.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq; War in the Air, 1980-1988
http://www.schifferbooks.com/militar...764316699.html

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585

I will probably buy your book one day but I have to ask what kind of evidence
did you get to see in order to validate these claims? Have Iranian claims been
verified against admitted Iraqi losses? Given the secretive nature of both
regimes I have to wonder how accurate these fiqures really are. Does any other
nation confirm the Iranian victory claims? Does the Iraqi order of battle and
other sources really support 300 plus losses over 8 years? What do/did the
Soviets have to say about the exchange ratio? How many Iraqi wrecks can be
accounted for in Iran?

John Dupre'

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 21:27:32 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:


And, the cockpit ergonomics were decidely sub-standard. I only offer
this opinion as a former Northrop worker with a couple of hundred
hours in the F-20 cockpit of the dome, although not always with F-20
flight parameters as the operating model.

I always thought Northrop missed a chance with the F-20. Rather than
shoehorning a f404 in to an f-5 airframe (it's still an F-5 but quicker).

An F5 sized airframe with an F16-XL style cranked arrow wing and large
flat
underside would have given say 80-90% of the gripens performance 15 years
ahead of its time.


And required a lot of expensive R&D

Keith

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ...
Gotta suggest that there were a number of "Marks" of the Spit produced
and the later ones were clearly superior to the 109.

Sure. Early Spits were roughly comparable to Me-109 and
late Spits were roughly comparable to F-190/P-51/F-6s.

The Spitfire was not revolutionary, in the sense the
Fokker Eindekker or the Me-262 was.

I'm looking for revolutionary, not 'good'.
Fokker Eindekker

Agree--one wing and low drag.

And guns firing through the propeller arc. I believe that
was a very big deal.

In article ,
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...

That might not even come into play. Look at the F-20 Tigershark. Very
nice plane, flew as well as just about anything in the air at the time,
and had *big* advantages in maintenance (as low as one-third the cost of
the F-16 to support). In some fields (interception and scramble
flights), it was better than anything (from the time the pilot hit
"start" to 30,000 feet was about 2.5 minutes).

Nobody bought any.

This thread isn't about 'best'. It's about 'very clearly superior for it's
time'.

You can argue the F-20 was better or worse than the F-16, but it was not
very clearly superior.

For a smaller country with a limited budget, it certainly could be.
Maintenance costs were the big selling factor, and good time-to-scramble
was a nice point.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

I will probably buy your book one day but I have to ask what kind of
evidence
did you get to see in order to validate these claims? Have Iranian claims
been
verified against admitted Iraqi losses? Given the secretive nature of
both
regimes I have to wonder how accurate these fiqures really are. Does any
other
nation confirm the Iranian victory claims? Does the Iraqi order of battle
and
other sources really support 300 plus losses over 8 years? What do/did
the
Soviets have to say about the exchange ratio? How many Iraqi wrecks can
be
accounted for in Iran?

Fair questions, John.

1.) What kind of evidence is there?
Actually multiple: starting from eyewitness accounts, via comprehensive
official records (including gun-camera shots, photographs of the wreckage
etc.), down to intel reports (via FOIA inquiries). In over 80% of the cases
we were very well able to cross-check the infos.

If you're not sure should you purchase a copy or not, try to get the volume
104 of the AirEnthusiast (published March this year), to see the article
"Fire in the Hills", which is detailing the fighting during only two smaller
Iranian offensives, undertaken October-November 1982. Examining the claims
for the "Mi-24 shot down an F-4 Phantom", or an "F-14 shot down six Iraqis
within few seconds" (which can be found also on this NG) to the last detail,
it's perfectly illustrating the wealth of sources we were able to use, and
the way it was possible to cross-examine the evidence.

2.) Were claims verified against admitted losses?
Against those officially admitted by Iraqi authorities: no. That is
impossible to do, as these barelly admited 20 own aircraft as lost during
the war, while issurd alone over 100 claims for Iranian F-14 shot down...

Otherwise, see point 1: in fact, we're better able to confirm what we're
talking about than most of those who published anything about the Israelis.

3.) Does any other nation confirm Iranian claims?
Nation: not. Service: yes (several of them).

4.) Does the Iraqi order of battle and other sources really support 300 plus
losses over 8 years?
In fact, they support a loss of something like 450 aircraft and approx 150
helicopters.

5.) What do/did the Soviets have to say about the exchange ratio?
Except that they were losing their own planes and pilots sent to Iraq for
testing as well, they are - in general - either as quiet as a grave or
babbling nonsence (the Archives of the Defence Ministry, however, remain
closed when it comes to this topic). Nevertheless, we've found several of
them (and few people from some other countries: East Germans, Poles etc.)
who were there - and ready to talk - too.

6.) How many Iraqi wrecks can be accounted for in Iran?
Don't know: the research is far (very far) from being over, but official
records (most of these containing photographs) exist for 250-300. Over 100
Iraqi planes were shot down over the Persian Gulf, and others were lost
elsewhere, where their wreckage could not be found.

I hope that helps.


Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq; War in the Air, 1980-1988
http://www.schifferbooks.com/militar...764316699.html

Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585

In article ,
Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
...

Albatros (not clearly better than a Spad)

It was in service a few crucial months earlier, however,
and its advantage was extended by the initial low production
rate of the SPAD.

Fokker Eindekker

The Eindecker could be claimed to be the *only* fighter of
its time. However, in terms of performance and handling, it
was a rather mediocre aircraft, and its time of superiority
was fairly short.

Me-262

A contemporary with the roughly equivalent Meteor.

F-4 (clearly better than the Mig-21 and the Mirage (maybe))

Not in a dogfight. I admit that it could carry more bombs :-)

I think one aircraft that might be a good candidate is the
Polikarpov I-16, a revolutionary aircraft for its time, and
far ahead of anything until the first Bf 109s entered service.

I'd go for the *just* post-war aircraft, if only because their
competition had been removed! Neuport Nightjar or perhaps Fairey
Flycatcher post-WW1, maybe De Havilland Vampire or Gloster Meteor
IV (a big advance on the wartime Meteor) post WW2. Not. on
paper, perhaps a huge advance on the wartime types, but with all
the bugs worked out, better performance (enough!), better agility,
and familiar enough for available pilots to make the most of them.

Outside those limits, the i-16 is a good choice - a revlutionary
design, and sofar ahead of the competition from other nations as
to be ridiculous. The only trouble was figuring out WYF to do with
it, and even the Soviets weren't that sure, as witness the flip-
flopping back to biplane designs with the I-15bis and the I-153.
Without any way of really testing it there was no way of knowing they'd
really, really got it right - as they had.

Now, with not-fighters the answer is easy. EE Canberra.. Still peerless,
though admittedly as a recon. platform..

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

In article , Charles Talleyrand
writes
Can you think of some equally dominating airplane?

Although not a fighter, the EE Canberra certainly had an impact. It
could fly higher than most contemporary fighters and out turn any that
managed to reach it high up.

Again not a fighter, the V2 rocket was streets ahead of anything else if
that counts?

--
John