mig-31bmI am wondering why you asked the question since every time anyone gives you an answer you find a reason to disagree?
Anyway, my turn.
Best fighter: Supermarine Spiteful
Reason: It has a cool name.
Moggy
because the answear was not very helpful and kind of meaningless , the question was which fighter is best overall then it kind of already assume that pilot skill is more or let on the same level , so answear like no plane is better it only depend on pilot is really useless , it only show that the poster was really lazy
Ex : if the question was like which is better fighter a f-22 or a Zero then i dont think anyone here would say oh there no one better , it only depend on pilot
mig-31bmOk fastest wins every time. Simple eh?
no , there also acceleration , climb rate , roll rate
mig-31bmJDK hit the “nail on the head” there is and never will be the best machine.
There will always be the human factor. (unless the Terminator films become reality)
On top of that technology advances at such a rate !
Read ” The Blonde Knight”
But I do have a photo of the best fighter ever.
let just limit it to the aircraft near the end of WW II , also yes human is a factor but it doesn’t change the fact that some machine is just superior to the other , like the example i have made:, there no way for the top ace in a me-262 to shot down a normal pilot in a f-22, f-35
mig-31bmI don’t think that was ever put to the test in a combat situation. I doubt that the F8F could turn with a Zero at lower speeds
no , not in combat but they do test the performance of the f8f before produce it in number and it shown to be able to turn very good ( if i remember correctly it could turn as good as the zero )
But it did combat, with great success, various Albatros and Fokker Biplanes with considerably higher maximum speed.
they have not use boom and zoom at that time , still doesn’t change the fact that tri-plane , bi-plane eventhough great turner are later replaced by faster mono-plane
The Hurricane fought against faster Bf109s/110s during the Battle of Britain, very effectively.
what the kill ratio of Hurricane vs bf-109 till the end of the war then ?
Try comparing it’s speed with the F-104s that it met in the India/Pakistan wars.
how many f-104 that Gnat shot down ? the answear is zero , while f-104 shot down at least 1 Gnat
The SHAR was still substantially slower (which was your point) than the Argentine Mirages and Daggers that it met during the Falklands War, and which it defeated in 100% of resolved combats between them. It also fared well in mock combats with the F-15 (Sharkey Wards Book references this if I remember correctly)
Mirage and dagger have to fly long distance to reach the place where they was fighting thus have very little fuel left to maneuver , when the Mirages arrived on target they had little fuel left. This meant they couldn’t use afterburner and very little time on target. They could not use supersonic speed to their advantage due to fuel shortage so that limited them to subsonic which is equal to the speed of the Harrier wy , Mirage and dagger were force to fly low under radar horizon to evade Roland SAM thus their advantage in speed was negated , Harrier used a much more advanced missile the Aim-9L with all-aspect ability thus allow it to engage Mirage from much longer range while Mirage used an older version of aim-9 at that time that can only be fired in tail aspect, If both planes had met on equal terms with full weapons and fuel and the Harrier dont have fire support from SAM ,the Harrier would have been hard pressed to win as the Mirage could attack and break away at will.
mig-31bm1) What’s your point? Biplanes shot down monoplanes, too.
my point is monoplanes is better , that why they replace bi-plane , yes there may still chance that bi-plane can win again mono plane in some rare occasion , however most of the time monoplane will shot down bi-plane
2) No, it shows that experience and technology to build the Fw190D-9 progressed enough to produce it. The two aircraft are about as alike as chalk and cheese, not just in performance. Not to mention the respective first flights were at least four years apart.
to put it simple if you put the 2 in a fight , there will be more time the fw-190 come out as the winner , not 100 percent but most time
3) If Hartmann had the tactical advantage, he might well do.
modern fighter radar like on f-22,f-35 can detect fighter like the me-262 from 200-300 km and shot it down long before Hartmann even know what going on , also me-262 can’t even operate at the altitude that f-22 normally flight , the different at cruise speed is also too big to even sneak up from behind , and then there some thing called DAS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fm5vfGW5RY , sorry the me-262 will have no chance no matter how good the pilot is
mig-31bmBecause alot of aircraft are not used primarily for A 2 A combat.That happens as a consequence of what has happened previously.Most aircraft are either built for ground warfare ,backing up ground forces etc and are then bought into combat.Missiles will negate most of this so pretty pointless.
what i mean is it possible to say which fighter is better , and have more advantages and that why new fighter replace the old one
mig-31bmThe RAF, Luftwaffe and Italians (at least) were still using some biplane fighters into 1941. And they were still shooting down enemy aircraft.
the fact that most , if not all airforce replace bi plane with monoplane show that mono plane is more superior
No, the Hurricane isn’t as good (speed-wise) as a Fw190D-9, but did the two types ever meet in combat? No.
well fw-190d was introduce much later in the war , isn’t that alone show that it better ?
All this talk of speed and performance is irrelevant as it always, and forever, comes down to one thing: the man in the seat.
there only so much thing a man can do , i think performance of airplane play an important role ( at least 60 percent ), Extreme example :there no way an ace (even Erich Hartmann) in a me-262 going to shot down a normal pilot in a f-22/35
mig-31bmDepends who sees who first. And, as has been said, the Zero could probably keep turning until the cows came home – or the Bearcat pilot bugged out.
it is pretty impossible for the zero to be able to evade the bullet from the bear cat with success rate of 100 percent , given the fact the bear cat turn just as good , and better at everything else , if they both see other at the same time then the superior of the bearcat is undeniable
mig-31bmEr… no it isn’t.
Moggy
what you mean ??? , if it not possible to say which fighter have more advantage then what the point of developing new aircraft ?
mig-31bmTheoretically the Zero could keep turning out of trouble until the Bearcat ran out of fuel or the pilot went home for his tea.
if iam not wrong , the bear cat turn as good as the zero and superior in every other aspect except range , also the airframe of the Zero easily broken up with few hit compared to other fighters of it’s time , with equal number and pilot skill there no chance that the zero can win again the bear cat
If your contention was correct; Sopwith Camels, Hawker Hurricanes, Folland Gnats/Ajeets, BAE Sea Harriers etc (to quote but a few British examples, other nations combat aircraft are available too) would all have been abject failures in combat.
Sopwith Camels and other bi-plane was later replaced by mono plane
Hawker Hurricanes is no way as good as Fw-190D , P-51B or Spitfire , it not a failure but it only doing alright
Folland Gnats have quite the same speed as other aircraft of it’s time like f-86 , it not slow for it’s time at all
BAE Sea Harriers strength vertical take off and landing and in it’s time we already have missiles with speed of mach 3-4 and radar to attack BVR so speed become alot lest important ( however it still not as successful as supersonic fighter like f-15 or f-16 )
mig-31bmhere is something i gather from another website , not sure how accurate the information though
In order to assess the effectiveness of these two aircraft, we need to examine their capability against allied aircraft, not including jets, they would have met in the summer of 1945, the P-51H, and P-47M, and let’s throw in the F4U-4 for fun. Aircraft are listed from best to worst.
Wing Loading, Gross (lbs/wing area)
F4U-4 39.6
P-51H 40.4
Ta-152H 41.7
P-47M 43.1
Do-335 51.0Power Loading,Gross-SL (wt/hp)
P-51H 4.3
F4U-4 5.06
P-47M 5.1
Ta-152H 5.1
Do-335 5.8Power Loading-25k
P-47M 4.74
P-51H 5.94
F4U-4 6.9
Ta-152H 7.48
Do-335 unkPower loading-30k
P-47M 4.74
P-51H 7.11
F4U-4 7.3
Ta-152H 7.8
Do-335 uknAirspeed-SL (mph)
P-51H 410 mph
F4U-4 374
Ta-152H 370
P-47M 365
Do-335 uknAirspeed 25k
Do-335 474 (at 21k)
P-51H 466
P-47M 453
Ta -152 449
F4U-4 448Airspeed 30k
P-47M 467
Ta-152H 463
P-51H 448
F4U-4 442
Do-335 unkRate of climb, SL (ft/min)
P-51H 4600
P-47M 4000
F4U-4 3600 (at mil rated power, not WEP)
Ta-152H 3445 (only data I’ve seen)
Do-335 2165Rate of climb, 25k
Ta-152 unk, 2854 at 29k
P-47M 3000
F4U-4 2700 at mil power, not WEP
P-51H 2350
Do-335 unkCeiling (ft.)
Ta-152H 49540
P-41H 41600
F4U-4 41600
P-47M 41000
Do-335 37400Of course, this doesn’t show all the comparison and some I don’t have, especially with the Do-335 and its DB-603E engine. But we can come up with some trends. One, the Do-335 is very heavy, with a loaded weight of 21,120 lbs (about the weight of the A-20 attack bomber) and this shows up in its poor power loading and wing loading. This also appears to impact its rate of climb and time to climb (I only had time-to-climb for the V-1 version which has a slightly less powerful engine. Time to climb to 26k was 14.5 min compared to the 7 min for the P-51H). Also, its ceiling was the lowest of the bunch. It is very fast at 21k ft make 474 mph, but not far off from the P-51H which most likely has quite a superior climb and power loading. This airspeed difference (less than 10 mph) is not enough to make an overpowering aircraft, as the speed advantage of the Me-262 did.
The power curve for the P-47M is amazing with basically a level 2800 hp from10k to 33k+, which shows up on its impressive power loading.
Below 25k ft., both the P-51H and F4U-4 would be formidable opposition to both the Do-335 and Ta-152H. The P-47M really comes into its own from 25k to about 33k due to its large power loading advantage. At around 30k rate of climb drops off.
Ta-152H would pretty well contest the airspace above 25k and dominate above 30k.
mig-31bmWhat everyone is trying to tell you mig-31 is that the word ‘best’ cannot be defined, so searching for ‘the best fighter’ is a fruitless exercise.
Your point about speed is relevant, up to the point where you introduce A2A missiles into the equation. Now maneuverability, the ability to fire off some decoys and jink out of the way of a high speed incoming munition, assumes importance.
Moggy
but at least , i think it possible to say which fighter have more advantage than the other
mig-31bmThe large number of times that slower aircraft have routinely bettered faster ones throughout air combat history would tend to imply that tactics are more important than outright performance.
but still it better to have aircraft with better performance , a zero trying to fight a bear cat will pretty much end up being shot down
mig-31bmNot really. The RAF tested an EE Lightning against a Spitfire in case they came up against P-51 Mustangs in Indonesia. If the Lightning did not get drawn into a turning dogfight with the piston-engined fighter, and adopted what amounts to a zoom-and-boom attack, it would be easy. If it turned into a turning fight, it would not.
.
what i mean is more agile fighter dont really have tactic to reply when faster air plane use boom and zoom attack , even if they do , it still seem that the faster fighter have advantage
mig-31bmNot necessarily, it is more an indication of matching tactics to available performance and the combat situation. There have been several occasions where manoeverability has been of more importance than sheer speed.
so what tactic that agile aircraft like zero or Supermarine can use to defense again faster opponent like hell cat or Ta-152
isn’t the fact that we changing from tri plane to bi plane and to mono plane , and also from piston to jet engine show that speed more important than maneuver ?
Sign In
