Aircraft VS super thread!

[David Hingtgen]

I just snagged a Luftwaffe magazine last night and it had an article about F6F vs Fw190 vs F4U (all from the same test pilot).

Basically--Fw190 fills the same role as a P-38 or P-51---high speed attacks/interception. Don't try to dogfight using it. Any Navy plane will beat most all of them in a slow/turning fight, only the Spitfire is a really good non-Naval dogfighter.

I still say the F4U is the best WW2 fighter. It's damn good at everything. Sure, P-51's may be fast and the Spitfire can turn, but the F4U is like 2nd-best in every category, vs being 1st in one category but rather poor in others.

PS---they didn't think the Bf109 was all that great period. It was simply really quick and cheap to produce, so 30,000 were made because of that, not due to being superior.

[Opus]

I think the 109s 20mm guns would utterly destroy the F4U. The Me262s combo of speed, high altitude and 20mm cannons would have given the Corsair a snowballs chance in hell. The ability to mount cannons is also what made the P-38 so sucessful. Manuverability isn't quite as important when it only takes 1 or 2 hits to tear your enemies wings off. That's all assuming the pilots are of equal ability. It was attrition that won WWII not superior technology.

The military channel, formerly discovery: Wings runs a series of versus shows that are pretty cool. I've seen Spitfire vs. 109 and MiG-5 vs. F-86 so far.

[bsu legato]

PS---they didn't think the Bf109 was all that great period. It was simply really quick and cheap to produce, so 30,000 were made because of that, not due to being superior.

That's an awfully myoptic viewpoint. There was never anything wrong with the 109 per se, it was just horribly out of date by the war's end. It, like the Stuka, was a antique 1930's design fighting a 1940's war. But remember that when the german Blitzkrieg began in '39, many of its rivals were still flying biplanes.

[Smiley424]

PS---they didn't think the Bf109 was all that great period.  It was simply really quick and cheap to produce, so 30,000 were made because of that, not due to being superior.

That's an awfully myoptic viewpoint. There was never anything wrong with the 109 per se, it was just horribly out of date by the war's end. It, like the Stuka, was a antique 1930's design fighting a 1940's war. But remember that when the german Blitzkrieg began in '39, many of its rivals were still flying biplanes.

yeah, the only reason the 109 stayed in production for so long was because Hitler had a good relationship with Willie Messerschmitt and prefered the sleek lines of the Me-109 to the radial engine FW-190

[Akilae]

For the history buffs here, pick a copy of "JG 26", it's a fascinating read of the Abbeville Kids and their planes.

[F-ZeroOne]

The general opinion I get from the various books I own is that up to the E and F models, the Bf-109 was a pretty good fighter - certainly one of the top three of the early war years. However, the later models onwards went for power above handling.

The Bf-109 also had better high altitude performance than the Fw-190, which is probably another reason why it stayed in production so long.

F4-U vs Me-262 - well, the Me-262 wasn't invincible. Granted, if it saw you coming, you couldn't out-run it and you probably couldn't get the jump on it, but a number of Me-262s did fall to piston-engine fighters (though mainly on take-off or landing - the early jet engines didn't accelerate too well, so a prop fighter with a head of steam that got the jump on a Me-262 had a chance).

It was also possible to out-fly a Me-262 - one of the first Allied encounters with a Me-262 involved a photo Mosquito (just about the fastest thing around up to that point), which managed to get away eventually.

[VF-19]

I think the 109s 20mm guns would utterly destroy the F4U. The Me262s combo of speed, high altitude and 20mm cannons would have given the Corsair a snowballs chance in hell. The ability to mount cannons is also what made the P-38 so sucessful. Manuverability isn't quite as important when it only takes 1 or 2 hits to tear your enemies wings off. That's all assuming the pilots are of equal ability. It was attrition that won WWII not superior technology.

The military channel, formerly discovery: Wings runs a series of versus shows that are pretty cool. I've seen Spitfire vs. 109 and MiG-5 vs. F-86 so far.

The 262 had a rather nasty bite of 4 30 mm Mk-108s. Not 20mms.

Just a slight correction.

Also, the 109, while not the best fighter of the war, was a formidable opponent if flown correctly.

Personally, I don't think any of the American fighters were the best, I'd put my money on a Yak-3 or a La-7. The Russians had some awesome planes.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

The Bf-109 also had better high altitude performance than the Fw-190, which is probably another reason why it stayed in production so long.

Several of the top aces preferred the 109 to the 190. Not sure if this was because of their familiarity to the 109 that biased their views though. Galland certaintly preferred the 190.

Well, it wasnt the airframe that led to that. They gave the better high-alt engines to the 109. If Kurt Tank had his way and was given the DB engines to equip his 190s things might have been quite different.

[hellohikaru]

Later FW 190 like the Dora-9 and Ta152H all have liquid cool engines optimised for higher altitude fights. They were more of an interceptor than a dogfighter,

The german 30mm 108 guns led to the French DEFA and British ADEN, eventually to the powerful BK27 27mm gun. Powerful weapons those.

Russian fighters like the La-7 and Yak-9 were excellent low altitude fighters and were quite tough.

Edited February 2, 2005 by hellohikaru

[David Hingtgen]

Jumping ahead 60 years:

F/A-22 does well in tests, cannot be engaged by ground systems:

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123009729

Also, current rumor is that the Super Bowl flyover will be F-22's this year.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

David, any news on the YF-23 restoration/RFB?

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Later FW 190 like the Dora-9 and Ta152H all have liquid cool engines optimised for higher altitude fights. They were more of an interceptor than a dogfighter,

The german 30mm 108 guns led to the French DEFA and British ADEN, eventually to the powerful BK27 27mm gun. Powerful weapons those.

Russian fighters like the La-7 and Yak-9 were excellent low altitude fighters and were quite tough.

Even when he finally got permission to install inline engines, he was forced to use the Jumo engines when he preferred the DB ones. Doras and 152s might have been better if Professor Tank had his way.

IIRC, the Oerlikon cannon found on the Viggen had the same KE after 1500m of flight as the shell of the DEFA/Aden cannon at the muzzle!

[F-ZeroOne]

That reminds me - the Bf-109 was also available. A lot of combat aircraft of World War II were used simply because they were there and ready. I seem to remember that the FW-190D9s had a total production run of a few hundred , probably no more than a thousand or so, while the Ta-152 was limited to just over two hundred - against a total FW-190 run of 20,000, and BF-109 run of well over 30,000 (though most of those after 1943, when German aircraft industry kicked into high gear - for much of the early war years German aircraft output lagged behind even that of Britain, which is why the Luftwaffe kept running into the famous "last 50 Spitfires" during the Battle of Britain... )...

...the history of the German aircraft industry in W.W. II is littered with "might-have-beens", which is one reason why it holds such interest for us aviation fans...

[Gunbuster]

Did anyone here watched Nova's Battle of the X-planes? Was this an old documentery? I just saw it tonight and it felt like a "real" Macross Plus

[ewilen]

Yes, old. Pretty good, though. In a way the X-32 vs. X-35 thing was a reprise of the YF-22 vs. YF-23 ATF competition which led to the Raptor. M+ undoubtedly was inspired partly by the earlier competition.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Very true in every sense. The YF-23 was more of a radical plane rather than the conventional F-22. Same with The technologically advanced FCLS on the YF-21 compared to the conventional FBW YF-19.

Not to mention the YF-21 is derived from the YF-23. Man this makes me regret not buying the YF-21FP.

[Lynx7725]

Okay, this is DEFINITELY OT, but I don't really want to start a separate thread on this and I know DH checks this thread out, so I decided to commit the lesser sin..

Anyway, a friend of mine went overseas and I popped by my airport to send him off. I got up to the viewing gallery and took some shots of the airliners parked there.. thought DH might like to see some, given his interest.

First up is Tiger Airways, a local low budget airline. Not sure what class this is...

.. but it doesn't compare well with a full-fledged airliner. A minnow in fact.

The two planes are more or less at the same distance, so you can see the size difference.

Next is a newly arrived Australian Airlines (subsidy of Qantas). Thought the livery was pretty cute. The first pic, you can see the front gear in action turning the big beast...

and in the second you see the full livery of the airline:

There was another Australian Airways flight departing when this was coming in, and I caught the pilot testing his control surfaces:

He then proceeded to taxi out, and a nice tail shot of the plane:

And the big mama of the lot, a BA Boeing 747.. big. Don't quite remember BA tails being like this though:

Yes, this is a composite photo.. the plane was too big for my telephoto to get the whole thing in one shot.

It eventually taxied out (under low light conditions) and the best shot I had was this:

It captures nicely those green guide lights on the ground (which was significant in the SIA crash in Taiwan a few years back), but I was rather puzzled by the "fog" that seems to be emitting from the port inboard engine.. not too sure what it is.

Part II coming up (IB can't handle too many images in one post).

[Lynx7725]

Part II.

Of course planes don't just move in and out like normal traffic. While waiting for the appropriate shot, I got a handful of other airlines:

Garuda -- still the same:

Korean -- also still the same:

Bangladesh -- I got a better close up if anyone wants:

A couple of SIAs.. a Megatop and a Jubliee. The Jubliee was the one used in the comparison above:

Finally, a cute little plane came in:

Bangkok, seems to be a Boeing 717 (that's written on the engine), but I've never seen something this small by Boeing before. Anyone?

That's it folks.. sorry for the OT, if anyone wants better resolutions PM me.

[David Hingtgen]

Thanks very much for the photos--I love airliners, but never see anything like that here in Iowa. (And Airliners.net doesn't like "normal" planes they tend to only feature gaudy cartoon-character one-offs) Anyways, top to bottom:

Tiger: A320-200

Singapore: 777-200

Australian: 767-300

British Airways: 747-400. That is their standard tail now, all will be repainted like that, if they haven't already. (I do think every "world tail" is gone now) The "fog" I'm guessing is just the engine starting up. Large RB.211's tend to do that, though I didn't think the newer -524's did, only earlier -524's and -22's like on the L-1011. (Though if an RB.211-22 does it you KNOW it, the cloud is as large as the entire plane--I have some pics I took myself of an L-1011 starting up)

2nd post:

Garuda: 737-300

Korean: 777-300, which are longer than 747's.

Bangladesh: A310 (-200 and -300 are identical most of the time)

Singapore: 747-400

Bangkok: 717-200

The 717 is what Boeing calls the McDonnellDouglas MD-95, which is really a DC-9. It's exactly the same as if Boeing decided to call the DC-10 the 797 after buying out MDC. The 717/MD-95 is the only one they felt like changing the name. The MD-95 is an awesome airliner, it just didn't sell well. (Mainly because everyone expected NW to make a HUGE order and never did, and TWA was bought out by AA who cancelled the order)

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

NAw it's cool man. As long as it has something to do with planes(politics aside) then it's cool here! BTW I do like pan am planes. Dunno the logo was just cool.

[hellohikaru]

Australian Airlines is a pretty old airline. They were originally TAA(Trans Australia Airlines) and handle domestic routes i think. They became Australian during the mid 80s and were bought over by Qantas in the early 90s. Thats why you see 737s in Qantas.

[David Hingtgen]

I thought the current Australian was a totally new airline, unrelated to the previous one.

PS---no "airplane vs" topic is as heated as Airbus vs Boeing. That's just asking for trouble on a lot of forums. Of course, my answer is always MDC, but most people know the REAL answer is Lockheed and automatically exclude it. The Constellation was so awesome some airlines kept them around a few years instead of buying jets (or at least, not as many jets). And the Tristar is still the best and most advanced airliner ever. There's more to a plane than the cockpit, it's the other systems that really show technology. Only airliner with an all-moving tailplane. And the same DLC as the Tomcat. And an auto-land better than any 777 etc.

Edited February 14, 2005 by David Hingtgen

[ALLAN]

I thought the current Australian was a totally new airline, unrelated to the previous one.

PS---no "airplane vs" topic is as heated as Airbus vs Boeing. That's just asking for trouble on a lot of forums. Of course, my answer is always MDC, but most people know the REAL answer is Lockheed and automatically exclude it. The Constellation was so awesome some airlines kept them around a few years instead of buying jets (or at least, not as many jets). And the Tristar is still the best and most advanced airliner ever. There's more to a plane than the cockpit, it's the other systems that really show technology. Only airliner with an all-moving tailplane. And the same DLC as the Tomcat. And an auto-land better than any 777 etc.

The last couple L-1011s that Delta was flying were a POS. They broke down constantly and every time you pushed one back it left parts behind. That airplane caused me alot of late nigts due to mechanical delays.

[David Hingtgen]

All planes become maintenance nightmares after 30 years, especially those with complex/unique systems (F-14 anyone?). Simple planes (DC-3's, or even DC-9's) are easier. And from what I've seen/heard, DL pretty much just ran their Tristars until they needed a D-check then sent them to the desert. I've never seen a fleet so "mis-treated" until retirement. Most airlines tend to maintain a "we're going to get rid of it soon" type decently well, but DL really seemed to give no attention at all to their Tristars once they knew they were going to phase them out. (not to rag on DL mx, I like DL a lot--but boy did their Tristars seem to get not an ounce of care in the last few years of their lives) I actually flew on DL once (with an extra stopover at ATL) purely to get a Tristar before they went out of service.

Edited February 15, 2005 by David Hingtgen

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Retracting brought up a vs battle in another thread,

F-15K vs EF2000 for Singapore.

I assume the typ[hoon offered has a gun? LEts hope!!

Also, the first EAP concept had dual vert stabs. Could it have any advantage aerodynamically over the present typhoon?

[David Hingtgen]

F-15K would rock at long range (massive power/speed, could do the "speed-boosted long-range AMRAAM launch" better than any other plane), but the EF-2000 could certainly out-maneuver close-in.

Dual vert stabs are rare and rather pointless on delta-winged planes.

Anyways, the real reason I'm posting is that Dragon has posted some stuff:

http://www.dragonmodelsltd.com/05-NUG-Dragon-booth/index.htm

Notables are the VFA-102 Super Hornet and VFA-122 drawing, the VF-111 F-14 again, and looking in the background, VF-84 F-14. (1980's, not white-belly) Still no nose-pitot on the F-14... Also the F4U is rumored to have movable wings (folded/unfolded).

[Mislovrit]

Staying on topic, which is the better European attack helicopter, the A129 Mangusta or the Tiger helicopter?

[Warmaker]

Ahh, I so love the F4U Corsair. I just recently received the Trumpeter F4U-1D.

I guess I watched too many episodes of "The Black Sheep Squadron." I thought that squadron was fictional until I went into boot camp and was told about Boyington. Then I drop by years later in MCAS Yuma, Arizona. The Black Sheep are still around, as VMA-214.

What's cool with some of the Marine squadrons is that some of them proudly display a Corsair on their logos still. VMA-214 does and VMFA-323.

The Corsair was big, fast, funny shaped, but a bueatiful plane to me.

[David Hingtgen]

I'll say it again:

The Corsair is the coolest-sounding plane ever. Merlin-Mustangs have nothing on it. And the Mustang's sound is merely from the engine--you can take it out of the plane, run it on a test stand, and get the same sound. A Sopwith Camel would sound the same if you put a Merlin in it. The Corsair's sound is actually caused by the plane shrieking through the air at high speeds...

At my last airshow, I actually ate lunch sitting in the grass next to a Corsair.

[Skull Leader]

and looking in the background, VF-84 F-14. (1980's, not white-belly) Still no nose-pitot on the F-14...

might wanna check that again That's VF-103 (notice the SECDEF PHOENIX markings on the tail?) I'm so picking one of those up.

[David Hingtgen]

So it is. The fact that it's F-14*A* really messed me up. I thought it was the CVW-8 marking on the tail--it's rather similar, and was carried when VF-84 had markings quite like those in the early 80's. Saw F-14A in Jolly Rogers colors with a yellow spot on the rudder---thought VF-84 in the early 80's with the air wing marking. But looking closer it is VF-103. On an F-14A... Of course since their F-14A's have B back ends maybe the B's will have A back ends...

::edit:: Oh hey, the other pic actually labels it as an F-14B (and I have issues with that) and is clearer despite being smaller. (hey, I'm on dialup, I clicked on the "big" pic for only like 2 of the pics)

Sigh, I keep thinking the DW F-14's are going to be far worse than the F-15's in mixing up parts. All the parts are there, they're just not assembling them right. And of course, much like the F-15's, they'll probably "fix" them after like 4 releases, leaving those first produced, highly-desired schemes really inaccurate. (DW's F-15C's finally have the tailfins right and no turkey feathers---F-15E's still have boatloads of errors though) They'll probably give us messed up VF-1, VF-2, and VF-101 planes, then "fix" it and give us accurate VF-14, 11, and other squadrons not many people care about...

Edited February 23, 2005 by David Hingtgen

[Nied]

You know David I'm glad you pulled this topic back up since there's been something bouncing around in my head for a while. Why don't we pin this thread and make it the officail spot for aircraft discusions? Re-name it the Aviation Super thread! and you've got a pretty good omnibus aircraft thread, one that would save some time for the moderators (considering how many aviation threads have sprung up as of late).

[Nied]

OK Now I'm pretty much convinced that the Iranians are more of a threat than most people think. Here's a thread over at F-15Estrikeeagle.com where Tom Cooper (co-author of "Iranian Tomcats in Action") gives an assessment of the current capabilities of the IRIAF. If he's even half right (and I take many of his claims with a grain of salt) it's still awfully scary. Definetly a good argument for building more Raptors.

USAF playing cat and mouse game over Iran, !! page 2

[Noyhauser]

OK Now I'm pretty much convinced that the Iranians are more of a threat than most people think.   Here's a thread over at F-15Estrikeeagle.com where Tom Cooper (co-author of "Iranian Tomcats in Action") gives an assessment of the current capabilities of the IRIAF.  If he's even half right (and I take many of his claims with a grain of salt) it's still awfully scary.   Definetly a good argument for building more Raptors.

USAF playing cat and mouse game over Iran, !! page 2

So we should build 100 more raptors because of 25, 30 year old fighters...refurbished with solid state electronics.. in a country that has had anemic economic growth the last two decades, and doesn't look like its going to get any better anytime soon. yeah right.The International Institute of Strategic Studies reports that US AC servicability is at 50 to 60%. Sorry I don't think so.

Iraq in 1991 had more of a capability Iran today, and the US airforce is far more advanced than they were in 1991. The assertion boils down to wild speculation, where the USAF and USN would just blunder along waiting for the Iranians to shoot them down.

Edited because it was a little too political for these boards.

Edited February 23, 2005 by Noyhauser

[Mislovrit]

The US isn't going to use force in Iran.

While diplomacy is prefered use of force cannot be rule out.

Unless they want to alienate the most important voting block in Iraq

The Iranian Government have already alienated the Iraqi people against them.

be in the position where they would be thrown out by the new iraqi parliament.

For working to rid the region of another totalitarian regime, very unlikely.