The B747 was launched and introduced after the C-5 was underway, the B747 has no resemblance with Boeing’s proposal for the CX contest. The story that Boeing – dissatisfied about the loss of the contract – turned their proposal into a civil airliner is false. Many items of the CX contest made the aircraft unusuable for civil market, despite the fact that Boeing’s proposal was a design study.

The Me-262 does not use swept wings for the delay of the critical Mach number! The Me-262 has no pressurized cabin, the engines haven’t been mounted under the wing for structural reasons and actually everything is different. The Me-262 has basically none of the technology used in modern airliners, structures, engines, control, systems, all different.
It is somehow very arrogant towards Boeing to claim they needed a German jetfighter to design the up to now most successful civil airliner.

Schorsch

The Me-262 is not a fluke, subsequent fighters like the Messerschmitt P1011 or the Ju-287 show that in Germany in the mid 1940s, there was enough knowledge about the effects produced by swept wings, the Ju-287 wings or the Me-163`s prove very clearly the Me-262 swept wing showed to the engineers the benefits of sweeping the wing either forward or backward.

Independently of how the Me-262 got its wing back, later German designs continued the trend of sweeping the wings, the main reason is because they understood the effects they produced, the He-162 had for example variants with forward or backward sweep wings

Now i am not suggesting the Me-262 of 1942 had all the modern technologies you see in a Beoing 777, no i did not say that, what i simply said the basic concepts of modern jet aircraft were already present in the Me-262.

the Boeing 747 of course was modified to fill PanAm`s needs for a long range airliner, nevertheless it started its development as a military program; cargo aircraft can fill military or civilian needs, the DC-10, L1011, the B747, the An-124, the Il-76 are a few examples.

Boeing is one of the largest aerospace companies thanks to its ability of turning military into civilian jets or viceversa, and the Boeing 747 is one good example, Antonov did the same with the An-124 but they have not taken it as far as make an airliner of the An-124 despite it usually carry troops

The Russians didn’t possess the technology in the late 50ies to do something similar, afterwards they in my eyes reconned that a close to M2 supersonic bomber for strategic raids is pretty bad in cost versus benefit. They therefore sticked to more or less in-threatre strategical bombers, that could strike targets farer away than tactical aircraft (which still where pretty short-legged), but were unsufficient for intercontinental strike. After all, that was a wise decision given the availability of ICBMs.

The B-58 was a powerful weapon, but too costly and after introduction of wide SAM coverage it lost its edge. The same mission could be fulfilled by F-111 just ten years later, with more flexibility and less costs (while the F-111 is also a hangar queen and money eater).

The Tu-4 was even less mature than the XB-70.

The MiG-25RB is a funny aircraft, due to small bomb load and limited aiming devices a marginally effective aircraft (even tactical nukes need some aiming). I think the R is more importand than the B.

i think if we incluede bombers into the equation of the 10 best modern aircraft, we had to do a more exhaustive analisys.

If i just mention the best combat aircraft including helicopter, recce and bomber aircraft or cargo and special missions aircraft 10 aircraft are not enough

1. Would be the 747 why? well this aircraft was the product of a military cargo airplane need by the US and this aircraft revolutionized air travel, has make huge profits and still has found some military applications such as a command post or a laser armed weapon capable of dealing with ICBMs.

2.would be the F-15 the greatest combat aircraft of the last 30 years

3. would be the 707, this aircraft has worked in several roles and make lots of money for their makers from airliner to AWACs or tanker this aircraft really has the things to called the best multi-purpose machine

4. Would be the MiG-21, this little fighter brough supersonic aircraft to the poorest and less developed countries has a good combat record and still is in use.

5. would be the B-52, this bomber was and is one of the best bombers of all times, even still can launch cruise missiles and make a difference in the combat zone after more than 50 years of its first flight

6. The Me-262 the father of all the modern combat or jet airliners.

7.The MiG-25 the greatest of all the fast aircraft, build in large numbers, has amazing capabilities for the time it first flew and gave birth to the MiG-31.

8. the Mi-8 the most produced and influencial helicopter design of the XX century, gave birth to the Mi-24 and Mi-17, this helicopters continues making money.

9. the Il-76 also a great design this aircraft is the russian equivalent to the Boeing 707, can be modified tio be an AWACS, tanker or simple airliners.

10. the F-117 the only real breakthrough in technology of the last 40 years.

Number one in my new list

number two

Number three

The F-4 did not introduce nothing new it only evolved what the Me-262 already tried,

I know you don’t generally get concerned with this Flogger, but if you want people to take you seriously then don’t say stuff like this. That statement is entirely too simplistic, and can be torn apart in a million different ways. For your sake, don’t do it.

Phantom II

Do not be so simplistic too, i said i can sustained the german fighters of WWII gave all the basic technologies that later evolved into modern aircraft, of course people will differ, some might say no this jet or that jet, i am not any one to convince you in such a subjetive matter, i can also mention many things other jets brought, but personally i think the German Me-262 had the basic technologies we still use in modern fighters such as Radar, jet engines, air to air missiles, sweep wing, of course the fans of other jets get upset they want their favorite jets to be very influencial, but at least from my point of view, the F-4 Phantom II`s innovations are evolutionary in technological terms, yes it had a better radar, better and longer range air to air missiles and a more complex aerodynamics, yeah it is true but the He-178 influeced more simply because was the first of a kind all modern aircraft that use a jet owed it to the He-178, all modern aircraft that use sweep wings also owed it to the Ju-287, Me-262 and Me-163, all modern aircraft that use a ejection seat owed it to the He-162, the idea is the most important aspect an in that sense the Germans used and applied first these ideas and technologies, these seven german aircraft, the Me-262, He-162, He-178, Ju-287, Messerschmitt P1011, Me-163 and Ho-229 tested the basic technologies that we use today all modern technology stems from these basic aircraft, all modern jet aircraft had an origin in these technologies, there have been few other technologies since then applied and i do not think the F-4 gave such advanced or primordial technologies.

The only few breakthroughs of modern times, have been, stealth, modern avionics and fly by light other than those advancements are evolutionary in nature, in fact thrust vectoring was used in the V-2 rocket and supercruise is just a very economical and powerful jet engine

Same as above: Sukhoi T-4 was test aircraft, technology demonstrator to put it positively, failed result of a failed requirement if you put it badly. FBW was used in aircraft since the mid 1950s for tests. Most American fighter manufacturers had according test beds, as did Russian design offices possible had, too.

The question is the idea not if it was later used, i will give you an example the Messerschmitt P-1011 was never flown but many aircraft already have been based upon this early machine one example is the P-1011 is basicly a Su-22.

The Su-22 of course is a more refined and advanced aircraft than the P-1011 but that is basicly an evolution of the same concept applied in the P-1011, Both are swing wing jet powered aircraft with a frontal air intake

If you want innovation here is a partial list

Fokker Eindecker — first plane that you can ever consider to be a true fighter

Albatros DIII/V — ? first planes to ever use a monoque construction, allowing for better air streamlining.

Junkers D-1 — first all metal monoplane fighter

Junkers 87 — first true CAS plane and the first ever effective dive bomber

Me-109 — first fighter to use adjustable forward wing slats and retractable landing carriage. First to have an all enclosed canopy and first to use cannons. First also to use gyroscopic gun sights and the first to use a radio.

Me-110 night fighter (was it a C series) — first fighter to ever have a radar onboard

P-51 Mustang — first fighter to ever use a bubble canopy; first to use laminar flow principle

Me 262 — first operational jet fighter, first with sweep wing

Me 163 — first and only ever rocket fighter. First combat plane to ever use a tailless configuration.

Ta-163 — not sure if this is the correct number, first plane to feature an open nose inlet and sweep wing, influenced designs like the MiG-9.

MiG-15 — first fighter to abandon the dihedral wing layout; first ever to feature wing fences.

F-86 — first plane to use radar ranging for gunfire and hydraulic controls. First fighter to ever use a guided missile.

MiG-17 — First transonic jet.

F-102/Mirage III — first delta winged fighter? contested between the two. F-102 first plane to use area rule.

F-111 — first variable wing combat aircraft in service. First plane to ever have terrain following flight control. First to use a turbofan.

Saab Draken — first compound delta wing aircraft in service

Saab Viggen — first canard delta fighter in service

F-4 Phantom — first operational widespread fighter to have BVR.

F-14 — first fighter to use a slotted array radar, and peer to peer networking.

MiG-31 — first fighter to use a phase array radar

B-1B — first bomber to use a phase array radar

SR-71 — first operational plane to have stealth like characteristics

Ho-229 — first flying wing

F-16 — first operational plane to use FBW and relaxed stability

F-5A — first plane to ever use a LERX

MiG-21 — first plane to ever use a variable inlet

MiG-19/F-100 Hun — first operational fighter planes to go supersonic in level flight. First planes to ever feature an afterburner. F-100 Hun is the plane John Boyd flew where he developed his EM theories. MiG-19 first to have GCI datalink?

Hawker Harrier — first ever widespread VTOL combat aircraft

F-117 — first combat aircraft with VLO characteristics.

Crobato

The Sukhoi T-4 was the first aircraft with a FBW in the world

i think several of the aircraft you are mentioning are not worthed to mention, because basicly are evolutionary technology and not revolutionary leaps.

Example B-1B did not bring any thing new, the SR-71 did not bring anything new too, its stealth technology was not based upon faceting niether used complex calculations to minimize radar reflection or IR emissions.

Same was the F-4, this aircraft only used evolutionary technology, same was the F-86, the Germans already had in WWII guided air to air missiles one was the The Ruhrstahl X-4 that was a wire guided air-to-air missile designed by Germany during World War II

The MiG-19 and MiG-17 also did not bring any thing new only they broke what any way was going to be broken.

the F-14 also did not bring something revolutionary but evolutionary

In that sense the X-1 was more important because it used the wholly moveable taiplane that helped to control the aircraft to break the sound barrier.

the first delta aircraft in the world was the F-102

The only aircraft that really brought something new was the F-111 with its first terrain following radar.

By the way the A6M Zero already had a bubble canopy and flew earlier than the P-51

Simplistic thougts.
A Zero-fighter outturns a Hellcat with ease in an turning fight.
The same thing between a I-16 and a Bf-109.
Before the dissimlar training between MiG-29 and F-16/F-18 it was common knowledge, do not go into a “knife-fight in a telefon-box”.
The first purpose of that dissimilar training was to dampen the overconfidence of twen-pilots. To learn how to stay out of dangerous situations or to escape from that, when trapped.
The former SU tried something similar with over a decade delay in Mary.
By the way, in 90% of all missions flown, hostile fighters did not come near.
To explore the capabilities of a MiG-29 you have to be very good pilot with the related training-hours. In a MiG-29 with a limited number of hours (~100) per year, it took several years of service-time and constant flying to get that expertise of a first-rate-pilot or even an expertise.
So none is surprised that the MiG-29 did not live-up to the exspectations in several services.

you are right if you consider that the F-15 drivers had more money to burn in training, but technologically speaking the MiG-29 is not exactly a Zero versus a Hellcat, the MiG-29M armed with R-77 and the F-15C armed with AIM-120 are roughly equivalent at BVR combat but the MiG-29M is slightly better because it is a better dogfighter.
Of course if you have better training, you outnumber the enemy and you enemy has not AWACS or AIM-120 equivalents of course you can expect the MiG-29A will suffer losses.

In fact todays MiG-29SMT and F-15Cs are basicly equivalent, however some F-15s are much better because they are armed with AIM-9X or Python V, these makes the F-15 a better dogfighter in 2007

in 1984 the F-15A/C were armed with Sparrows, the MiG-29A armed with AA-10s, the F-15s were better BVR fighters because carried four AIM-7s instead of two AA-10s however the MiG-29 was a better dogfighter thanks to the R-73

In 1995, the MiG-29As were totally outclassed by the F-15s in BVR combat by the introduction of the AIM-120

In 2000 the MiG-29A was overcome as a dogfighter when Israel introduced the Python IV and the F-15 carried AIM-120 however the MiG-29SMT has achieved parity with the F-15 in BVR combat and up to a level the R-74 has given some parity to the MiG-29SMT

In 2007 the F-15 is a better dogfighter than the MiG-29 because it carries Python Vs or AIM-9Xs, it is possible the MiG-35 (modern upgrade of the MiG-29M) can recover the ground lost in close combat thanks to Thrust vectoring however in terms of raw agility the MiG-29 outclasses the F-15 and has done it since 1977 specially now with the MiG-35

however Russia and Ukraine are working in new air to air missiles such as the K-30 and K-74 that will achieve aprity with the Python V and AIM-9X

Technology may mark a certain generation of aircraft, but it doesn’t mark how well it fights or how great it is. Just because one was developed in the 1990s and the other in the 1970s doesn’t automatically make the newer one better.

F-15, today, is STILL considered on top of the food chain, with the new F-22 on top of it.

I don’t care if there were an Su-55 or a MiG-40. The Russians have failed, consecutively, constantly, and continually to create a fighter that has or will match something the United States can produce. History repeats itself too often.

Which is why I don’t see it possible that the MiG-29 (several shot down over Iraq by F-15s) or the Su-30 could be superior to the F-15… regardless of the toys or neat things they’ve got. To say “there is no competition” is ludricrous…

you’re talking about a Russian plane. Ever since WWII, the Russians (or USSR) have failed to develop good aircraft that can compete with the planes of the modern time. They bluffed a lot about how far in technology they were, scared the American military forces, and the Russians ended up sucking on their feet for it. You see it in every aircraft developed during the Cold War.

And I don’t see that changing, especially not with the F-22 about to hit mass production. How close do you think the Russians are to making something that can match or out-match the F-22? By that time, what do you think the United States will have?

The Russians have been far behind in the tech world of aviation for decades and still are. Anything they’ve built that’s impressive has been stolen/reproduced tech (made by the United States). Sure they’ve produced some nice aircraft, but none of them have been able to compete with anything yet (except poor pilots or other poor aircraft; like when 3rd world countries attacking one another).

There’s a reason 3rd world countries are using cheap and mass-produced Russian aircraft and not United States aircraft.

Hmm….. Western technology vs 3rd world (often hand-me-down equipment). 3rd world claims shot down by MiG-29; yeah, I’m going to listen to their claims.

The reason people don’t listen to “the other side claims” is because if you really look at the other side, you’ve just gotta shake your head.

America has the better technology, has the better pilots, has more aircraft, and always have after WWII and all throughout the Cold War and still today.

If the MiG-29 were really that great, we’d know it. We’d hear of it. We’d be scared of it. Fact is… we’re not.

I wonder if anyone here ever thought that the Su-30 uses some obsolete, “oh we’ve got that a long time ago” tech? :rolleyes:

The only “potential enemy” America faces is herself. Everything else ought to be shamed… even the Chinese.

ColonelMarksman

Come on man, you do not believe even your self, besides a pletora of self complaiments, there is no true to your statements.

To start with you have to check the specifications of each fighter.

I will just give you some real data.

The F-15 has worst rate of climb and sustained and instantaneous turn rate than the MiG-29, it did not have any R-73 equivalent during almost 20 years.

The MiG-29A is basicly an equivalent of the very early F-15As, late F-15C have an equivalent in the MiG-29M, the F-15E has an equivalent in the Su-30MKK.
Modern MiG-29SMT are equivalent to the F-15Cs and F-18Cs

The R-77 has an equivalent in the AIM-120 and the MiG-29M can carry also long ranged R-27RE.

If you have seen F-15 victories of F-15Cs over MiG-29As it is very easy to explain, it does not mean the F-15 is better or worst it only means numbers, upgrades, tactical support and training have influenced the air combats to assure the F-15 victories in conflicts where the MiG-29 could not deploy the same numbers and tactical support.

The F-15 has strengths and weakness, as a dogfighter is not better than the MiG-29A, in fact it is an inferior dogfighter, however it has better BVR capabilities thanks to the fact it has had more upgrades than the MiG-29s it fought though.

But if you are going to say because more than 500 F-15s and F-16 beated forty MiG-29s it is a great feat when they only could shot down six aircraft i do not feel it is a great feat, the MiG-29 were outnumbered 12:1 and were not niether russian standard MiG-29 or armed with the best weaponry the MiG-29 had, also many tried to flee.

A NATO versus WARSAW PACT would had shown you that if you had 1600 MiG-29s, Su-27s as the Soviet had the results would had been very different.

Then add the Hustler and the A-12/YF-12/SR-71 for completness.
Still, no tactical fighter aircraft can practically achieve M2.

The MiG-31 and MiG-25 can cruise at Mach 2.35 with full afterburner, its true their range will be quit short, nevertheless they can fly at that speed with a warload of several missiles. usually the MiG-25s and MiG-31 will cruise at subsonic speeds but they can cruise at supersonic speeds for few minutes, around 30 minutes to be exact.

The vast majority of fighters can get to Mach 2 with weaponry, they might not carry their max warload though, but still they can get to their max speed, however they will fly for few minutes at supersonic speeds and they will carry a light warload in the most cases