Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 Hey people. Almost every one of our jet threads turns into an F-14 vs F-18 thread, which is AWESOME. HOwever it derails topics and so forth. So with that. I made this thread. THink the A-4 owned ass in dogfighting? Think the F117 is better than JSF? US planes suck and flankers will own us? Tomcat better than hornet? F15A better than F15C? Put it here! So this can double as a comparison thread as well. ie comparing planes to other planes. So let me start. I think the F-20 rocked and I now see why SHin got it as a replacement for his F-8 in area88. I think Tomcats RULE and will always like it more than hornets. I think the F/A-18D marine night attack version is AWESOME simply because its the best airccraft the jarheads have today. A-6s RULE and A-6F would have been lovely like tomcat 21. F-22 is a worthy successor to the F-15 but the F-18F is not a good one for the tomcat. JSF is just a supersonic F117. Discovery channel made tornado IDS look awesome. Oh yea. I think military planes and fleets in general were better in the 70s in terms of arrangement and plane mixes...I mean we had dedicated bombers and fighters..now we get planes forced to multirole but too small to fulfill the role. late 70s and early 80s ahd the strongest carrier fleets. in the next 10 years I think the navy will lack the lethal punch it always had. heh. what blackjack would be scared of a fully armed superbug on cap? it probably wouldnt even be able to catch up! oh yea. I also think the F42000(USA) was cool looking but wonder if the F8-3 super crusader could have taken it on.
David Hingtgen Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 Hey, *I* was going to start an "all purpose" aircraft debate thread! Should have done it last night... I'll chime in later.
Gaijin Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 (edited) Tomcats will and always will rule. Edited June 2, 2004 by Gaijin
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 2, 2004 Author Posted June 2, 2004 HELL yea! Super bugs jsut dont do the decals as good either, squadron decals look WAY better on a tomcat than on a superbug..go to mats and see the squadrons that converted...their super bugs look nowhere near as awesome as their old tomcats...and yes I am talking abouit the CAG planes as well!
Vinnie Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 What the heck? Us rotar heads get no lovin'? How 'bout an Army AH-64D Longbow vs a USMC AH-1 Super Cobra? What about the merits of the UH-60A (medevac config) vs the HH-60L? Or the current AirCav troop's OH-58D vs the proposed replacement with the AH-6? Oooh, or all joking aside. How bout we compare the MV-22 Osprey to the MH-60L or even the MH-47E and see if the Marines should really be sinking billions into their future beyond the horizon VTOL rather than jumping on with the Army and getting their proven and capable helicopters.
Druna Skass Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 I've always wondered if the V-22 would make a great weapons platform if they ever got all the bugs out...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 2, 2004 Author Posted June 2, 2004 (edited) ME 2. I love the concept but its been plagued for a LONG ass time now. longer than comanche. I wonder why it hasnt veen axed yet. very cool to watch however and i only hope a gijoe vehicle based on it comes out. I jsut came out with a bunch of VS matches for this thread. F-4 vs F-8 F-15 vs Su27 F-14 vs F-18 Eurofighter vs Rafale(THIS should be interesting) Ea6B prowler vs E/A-18G rhino F-15 ACTIV vs Su-37 Super Flanker F-16 vs FSX(japan F-2) F-86 sabre vs F-100 super sabre F-14 vs mig 29 MIg 1/44 vs S37 and yes....lets make this thread big as hell and lively! we can start with one discussion and keep more going in this thread alone pertaining to fighter planes! and... Teen fighter megamix! want to know if the tomcat could take on the small F-16? F-18 the underdog? Edited June 2, 2004 by Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 2, 2004 Author Posted June 2, 2004 Oh yea. LEt this discussion also include product comparisons....rather than start a gijoe and other toyline compatible airplane thread as well as a diecast model thread, lets contain it all in there to save bandwidth!
Edveen Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 I have no clue why but I love the F-16, its my favorite! Ever since I first saw it as a child I was like "I wanna fly that f***** thing!" In terms of dogfighting I think it can hold its on. But If it has to go against a mig-29, ill put money on the mig. and when the hell is Russia and USA going to collaberate with an airplane! Just think about the possibilites! Radical Design (Su-37,47 and so on) with the latest technological crap in avionics (Fly-by-wire, super computers all that jazz). I cant imagine what kind of an extreme plane it would be! Ed This takes alot of steam out, thanks for making this thread haha.
Druna Skass Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 Is that S-55 LFT in Delta Strike an actual aircraft. It's that single engine mini-Flanker.
David Hingtgen Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 Oh, F-4 vs F-8 is easy. F-8. Why? Because they did it all the time in real life, and the F-8 always whipped the F-4. And the USAF F-4's always did much worse against the F-8 than the USN F-4's did, much the the chagrin of the AF. F-8's took on EVERYBODY in mock combat, and beat them all. And still had the best numbers in Vietnam.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 2, 2004 Author Posted June 2, 2004 hell yea crusader rocked,. From all accounts the supercrusader may have been able to hit mach 3 but was never fully explored.also it was very manueverable and FAST. Many people wonder why the phantom replaced it and again I bring the notion of POLITICS. It also looked weird as hell...kind of an inverted sharknose. Kind of cool. You can tell by looking at it that it was advanced and a phenomenal design. Kind of how the Su37 is to the SU27 only more radical. Even the normal crusader looked cool. My homeland country(philippines) used to fly some ;saders but now I believe we use the F-5. For the love of god I only wish we get F-20s since my country's military is pretty sorry in that respect. Had the crusader been the main navy fighter during nam I am sure driscoll and duke wouldn;t have been the only naval acves in the war. Many missed oppurtunities happened not just because lack of gun, but lack of manueverability in the F-4. If russia and the US wewre to make a plane togethere I assume it wouild more than likely look like the X-02 in ace combat 4. Its got FSW(USA X-29/Russia S37), swing wings(F14), long range AAA(tomcat phoenix), gun (teen fighter), stealth*YF23) and more. NOt to mention it just loooks cool. though I doubt russia and the USA trust each other enough to warrant even working on a new plane togethere. F-16 rocks...so does the japanese F-2 which was based on the falcon. The falcon is a very very nice plane ....too bad the iron eagle movies sucked though.
Skull Leader Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 I thought the F-2 WAS a Fighting Falcon, just with a more advanced engine? Hey, the first Iron Eagle movie was pretty cool, it's just the sequels that sucked!(killing off the lead character at the beginning of the second one, only to bring him back for some really F-ed up other sequel...)
Smiley424 Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 F-16 had always been my favorite fighter plane. I dunno, I just like the design, especially the underbody intake (which is why I'm also a fan of the Eurofighter, Rafale, Mig-29, and the various Flankers). The Japanese variants/upgrades of their F-16s were especially cool looking in the concept art I've seen, though I haven't see what the real life production ones look like. Anyone have any links??? V-22 Osprey, god, that thing is still in testing and development? I figured it'd be in full scale production and deployment by now. Eurofighter vs Rafale, I like how the Rafale looks better than the Eurofighter, but I think the Eurofighter is the better plane.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 2, 2004 Author Posted June 2, 2004 FSX or F-2 is heavily based on the falcon but has different avionics and wings. It was initially supposed to have better avionics and canards but the technology was not given to japan to do so. THe first iron eagle was kind of inspirational but it had so many screw ups ...like firing one maverick and showing the plane still armed with 6 in the next shot. The story however is really realy unbelievable. Inspirational but never happenbing nonetheless. Yea and the later sequel where the dude came back sucked as well.
ewilen Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 Shin and I always seem to end up on opposite sides when it comes to aircraft... I like the F-4 better than the F-8, though I have to admit it's a visceral thing--and sentimental as well, since the F-4 was the first fighter I ever learned to recognize. Still, the Crusader's record (8-0?) isn't the stuff Cy Young winners are made of...once the Navy started thinking about how to use the F-4 (i.e., post Top Gun) it dominated in Vietnam. I don't have time now but I can also drag up links pointing to why it was chosen as the main Navy fighter over the Crusader.
Neova Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 Let me join the fun even though I don't know squat about figher planes: X-29 vs F-15 Active vs ST 21 vs F-22 Swing Wing (hypethetical) vs F-16 vs F-23 vs Mig SU-37 all at Top Gun. Assuming pilots are nearly the same skill wise... Which fighter would come out on top? Think Macross Plus
hevangel2 Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 Ar... Shin in Area 88 eventually end up in a X-29, I don't think X-29 is any good in fighting any other fighters. How about AV-8 vs JSF VTOL type?
hellohikaru Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 Dave I was looking at AC4's F-15C ACTIVE. Was wondering how practical it is to have the canards mounted without having to relocate the gun ? I notice the real active test plane are 2 seaters with F-15E style cockpit and they have no gun.
hellohikaru Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 Ar... Shin in Area 88 eventually end up in a X-29,I don't think X-29 is any good in fighting any other fighters. How about AV-8 vs JSF VTOL type? Those Conquest fighters did a good job against Rattlers Seriously though the X-29 is like a F-20A Tigershark with FSW. I believe it will make a great close-in fighter. AV-8 which model ? A,C or B.....in a dogfight maybe the AV-8B because of the JSF rear blindness
David Hingtgen Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 (edited) ::gets out F-8 in Vietnam and F-4 in Vietnam books:: (BTW, Osprey has some great books out nowadays) Also gets "the big F-4 book". From what I can see, F-8's score is 19-3. During the same period until the F-8 was taken out of service, so this is the first part of the war), USN F-4's scored 13-5. USN overall is 32-8. USAF F-4's did a bit worse, 59-15. USAF overall was 87-43. That's NOT good. But the F-8 sure was! (note: the above numbers are only for the period that the F-8 was in service--the numbers improved later on, as explained why below) Overall, in Vietnam: F-8's flew less (there were simply fewer of them), shot down 50% more MiG's proportionately, and got shot down themselves less often. Though I will mention that F-8 pilots always had practiced dogfighting, while many F-4 crews were tought only how to intercept with a missile, and had never even gone beyond 3G in the plane, and literally had no idea how to fight close in. The USN had F-8 crews teach their F-4 crews how to dogfight, basically. Then the USN formed Top Gun, and F-4's did even better. Taught all their F-4 crews all the dogfighting stuff they could. USAF thought that their training/tactics couldn't possibly be the problem, and added guns and got the F-4E. SLIGHT improvement, while the newly Top Gun-taught Navy F-4's started rocking. Navy never ever got guns for their F-4's--not gunpods, and not internal. Just got really good at dogfighting with missiles. Even the F-8 used missiles, gun kills were basically non-existant. But when it needed a gun, it had 4! Eventually, after losing to both the USN F-8's and F-4's in mock combat (5-1 against USN F-4,s 10-1 against F-8's I think, I can't find it, and I'm not looking into a 4th or 5th book tonight), and MiG's in real combat, the USAF eventually started flying/fighting like the USN. Combined with the new tactics, and actually having a gun, the USAF started racking up 5 or 6 MiG's for every loss at the end of the war. But all that time, Navy F-4's and F-8's were putting up those kinds of numbers from the beginning. PS--the X-29 IS an F-20 with FSW. (or d*mn close). The first X-29 was actually converted from an F-5A. New cockpit and FBW and an F-18's engine. And the F-20 is basically an F-5 with a new cockpit and an F-18's engine. And check out the tailfins of both, with the distinctive ram-air inlet section at the base. If you really want, you can kit-bash an X-29 from an F-5E kit and an F-18 kit. The basic design of the F-5 is an incredibly good one--became the F-5E, then the F-20, and the P530 which went into the YF-17. Then McDonnellDouglas whapped it with the ulgy stick, doubled the drag, and made the F-18 from it, and basically ruined the design. So much for the F-17's amazing acceleration and low weight and super-amazing high-alpha. PPS--the real F-15ACTIVE is an F-15B, that's why it's a two-seater. It's literally "what NASA had sitting around". It's actually the FIRST F-15B. There's almost nothing in the rear cockpit of an F-15B/D. Makes it easy to model! Don't know where you'd put the gun in a production model, honestly. Edited June 2, 2004 by David Hingtgen
Rodavan Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 Like this thread , I found some amazing picture on a Russian site of f-14 , thought you would like it - if you think it's in the wrong thread ,please move Mods I have pictures @ higer res if somebody want
trueblueeyes Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 Since the Osprey was brought up in a previous post, I have a question. Did they ever get the damn thing to fly without crashing? Just wondering where they are on that project. ......... And for David and other modelers who might know...I spotted a new Osprey model in my local shop a couple of months ago. Can't remember who made the kit but I think it was in 1/48 scale. Just wanting some info on the kit before I purchase it. Thanks, Melissa (who doesn't want to fight with another model right now after spending way too much time and effort on the Airfix B-29 model I'm currently working on...talk about an aggravating, poor-fitting, excessive flash, and don't get me started on pin holes and ejector pin marks, model!)
hellohikaru Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 (edited) FSX or F-2 is heavily based on the falcon but has different avionics and wings. It was initially supposed to have better avionics and canards but the technology was not given to japan to do so. That's right the Mitsubishi F-2(FSX) is an F-16 derivative powered by the GE engine procured for the fighter support role and anti-shipping. It has a redesign canopy, full digital cockpit displays with digital backup displays and larger composite 'plastic' wings. Japan actually tested canards on a Mitsubishi F-1 and certainly have the technology to do so. The US refused to give Japan access to the FBW source codes so MHI had to come up with their own which delayed the project and balloned the cost. To save cost they deleted the intake mounted canards thus losing some but not all CCV capability. I won't say it has worsed avionics but it is certainly more than adequate for the job the F-2 does. Although the will get one of the most powerful F-16 engines it actually has a slightly worst power to weight ratio. Hasegawa has actually released great kits on this F-2 but they seem a little hard to find. Edited June 2, 2004 by hellohikaru
Mobyrz Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 Anyone know how a gripen would fare against the previously mentioned...I definitely like its look... Besides, what other non-vtol can use your neighborhood road.
Stamen0083 Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 Besides, what other non-vtol can use your neighborhood road. I don't know the EF2000 from atom, but couldn't it also take off and land on a neighborhood road?
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 2, 2004 Author Posted June 2, 2004 Well The F-4 was not as good as a close in dogfighter as the F-8. IN otherwords against the threats of that era in the air like the fishbed and mig 17, the F-8 was THEE best plane to use, NOT the phantom. The phantom has been used very very well by the israeli's however its true strenght lies in the mission it was built for, HIGH speed INTERCEPTION. Its got better strike capability and as a multirole outshines the F-8. But as a close in dogfighter it pales in com,parison to the 'sader. I am very interested in the YF17 CObra. David I never knew the plane was that overlooked....what made it special? All I hear is that the YF16 was chosen over it. And its clear to me it gotruined when it became the hornet.
Nied Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 Since the Osprey was brought up in a previous post, I have a question. Did they ever get the damn thing to fly without crashing? Just wondering where they are on that project. As far as I can tell they're pretty far along. The V-22 has an undeserved reputation as a deathtrap but if you actually look at the evidence it's not that bad. THe reason the V-22 crashed a couple of years ago was because it enterd what is known as Vortex Ring state, it's something that can happen to all helicopters. Essentially if you descend to fast without any forward motion you end up in your own rotor wash, and very rapidly lose the ability to generate lift. This is bad enough in a normal helicopter, but in the V-22 (or any other dual rotor helicopter for that matter), it's very likely to have one rotor caught in it's downwash while the other stays fine, which causes the whole plane to roll over uncontrolably. Now there are two things to remember about this: 1) The pilot of the V-22 that had the accident was shown to have been descending at more than twice the safe limit and 2) The US military has been operating dual rotor helicopters for almost as long as it has been using helicopters at all, yet the only time anyone makes a stink about a "design flaw" in the tandem rotor configuration is when they're talking about the V-22.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 2, 2004 Author Posted June 2, 2004 I cannnot seem to remember but id the osprey an armed aircraft? If so it would make a great gunbird!
Nied Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 I cannnot seem to remember but id the osprey an armed aircraft? If so it would make a great gunbird! A few years after it enters service (though with all the delays it may have it when it enters service) it is slated to get a chin gun based on the double barrelled gatling on the Comanche. Beyond that it would be dificult to mount missiles on the thing since there aren't many places to mount them that wouldn't interfere with the tiltrotor (I suppose you could put stub pylons on either side of the cockpit though). The unarmed nature of the Osprey might actually be a problem. Marine corps doctrine for the the aircraft the Osprey is replacing is to have several Cobra gunships escorting them in, but the Osprey would quickly outrun any helicopter escort it might have.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 2, 2004 Author Posted June 2, 2004 (edited) wow. This only wets my appetite for a gijoe osprey based craft even more! Hope they fix it up soon. I stll wonder why the cobra was beat by the F-16 and what advantages cobra had over the hornet. taken from f-16.net forums. bign Regular User Joined: Feb 24, 2004 Posts: 10 Location: North Carolina, USA Posted: Feb 26, 2004 - 06:39 PM Don't know if you know about this article or not. Just found my Feb 2002 issue of Flight Journal which has an article lampooning the Super Hornet for the performance pig that it is. Considering the article comes from retired Rear Adm. Gillcrist and Bob Kress, a Grumman engineer, the article is a devastating indictment of the SH, especially in regards to other available options. Some hightlights: - A quote from a Hornet pilot: "The aircraft is slower than most fighters fielded since the early 1960's" - Another quote from a Hornet pilot who flew numerous side-by-side comparison flights with thte F/A-18E/F says, "We outran them, we out-flew them and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for them." And what's up with the KF/A-18E/F. A fighter tanker? That idea is downright wacky to me. When it comes to controversial fighter programs, it seems like it's always the case where the pilots stick up for the new jet and say that the problems being encountered are normal teething problems. That doesn't seem to be the case here. anyhoo. It would seem that yes the tomcat, RULES and the superhornet has constantly worsened thge original envision of the YF17. I think I will look more online for that plane as it seems pretty neat,. And with a name like cobra not BUG its gotta be cool! lol Edited June 2, 2004 by Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 2, 2004 Author Posted June 2, 2004 on the subject of the tomcat and hornet vs war, I think it is also a good thing to include the YF17 vs the F-18ALL VERSIONS. CPbra seems awesome and like a 2 fin F-20. Its gun is in a differnet placeand I just saw a picture with a bunch of munitions mounted on 6 pylons under wing! 3 under each wing excluding the tips!
ewilen Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 Well The F-4 was not as good as a close in dogfighter as the F-8. IN otherwords against the threats of that era in the air like the fishbed and mig 17, the F-8 was THEE best plane to use, NOT the phantom. In aerial combat, you fight to your strengths and the enemy's weaknesses. From a cursory look at the data, it seems to me that the MiG 17 and similar craft were similar to the F-8, only more maneuverable. The F-4 lacked the turning ability of those craft but significantly exceeded them in acceleration, max. ceiling, and climb rate. I'll bet that if you look at the post-Top Gun Phantom in Vietnam, not to mention Israeli use--i.e., once Western pilots learned how to use the Phantom's advantages--you'll see that it achieved a superior kill ratio to the Crusader.
David Hingtgen Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 (edited) From what I could see, later US Phantom ops in Vietnam only tied the F-8's ratio, didn't surpass it. If you find a 7-1 or 8-1 ratio, please let me know. Anyways--the YF-17, like most all Northrop jets, rocked for a simple reason: It weighed nothing, was sleek, and had power. It had tremendous acceleration, good speed (it was much faster than a Hornet, 150mph or more), even better high-alpha, better pitch control, and could just generally be "thrown around the sky". It only weighed a little bit more than an F-16, but had 2 engines. The USAF went with the F-16 for the simple reason that they really wanted more F-15's. F-16A and F-15 use the same engine. If you have to buy some cheap planes, might as well buy the one that uses the F-15 engine. That way, the F-15 engine becomes cheaper, and you can buy more F-15's!!! That is THE main reason, AFAIK. Navy will almost always go for a twin-engine plane, and they've never liked chin intakes. However, the YF-17 was not suitable for carrier ops. So Northrop teamed up with MDC to make the F-18. At that point, the idea was to sell Northrop YF-17's as F-18L's to land-based operators, while the US Navy would get the McDonnellDouglas F-18A. Well, it's a long story, but basically MDC (political clout) got to sell carrier-equipped F-18's to everybody, and more or less got to prevent Northrop from selling their own design. Ever wondered why Candian and Australian and Spanish Hornets have nearly full US Navy carrier equipment? That's why. They should have bought the better-performing lighter-weight non-carrier-capable version, but Northrop was basically barred from selling YF-17/F-18L's. So anyways, to make it carrier-capable: 1. They stretched and widened the fuselage, and enlarged the spine. More fuel, but a LOT more drag. Kinda pointless IMHO, as well all know the Hornet has NO range anyways, and too much drag. 2. New gear. Can't get around it, need stronger gear for a carrier. But trying to fit it into a now-modified YF-17 fuselage lead to problems, and you get the very funky, over-engineered monsters the F-18 now has. 3. New h.stabs. Old ones were a bit too wide to make for good parking on the carrier, so they're shorter with greater chord now. Not as good as the originals. 4. Modified ailerons, stiffer wing. The one way the F-18 is better than the YF-17: roll rate. 5. Modified nose (main "uglifier" of the F-18) to accomodate new radar so as to have both air-to-air and air-to-ground modes. YF-17 was a dogfighter, only needed basic air-to-air. Also note that pretty much all non-US Hornets are operated as F's, not F/A's. 6. With all these drag-inducing mods, MDC had to cut the drag from "insane" to "way too high". So they rehaped and filled in the slots in the LEX's. Cut drag, but also cut down high-alpha performance. It's still high, but not as high as it was. The original YF-17 was so sleek, it could afford the high-drag LEX's. 7. I'm sure the flaps were modified, but I don't know specifics. Edited June 2, 2004 by David Hingtgen
Recommended Posts