Fallout Studios Forums

I just watch discovery channel about 10 greatest fighters
1. P-51 Mustang (WW2)
2. Supermarine Spitfire (WW2)
3. Mig-21 Fishbed (Coldwar)
4. F-18 Super Hornet (Modern)
5. Messerchmitt Me-109 (WW2)
6. F-86 Sabre (Korean War)
7. Harrier Jump Jet (Modern)
8. Mitsubishi Zero (WW2)
9. Fokker Triplane (WW1)
10. F-117 Nighthawk (Modern)
Logical or not?

The Spitfire's better than the Mustang, and the Mustang is too d@mn over-rated. The P-38 should have been on that list (in place of the Mustang), and the MiG 29 should actually replace the MiG 21. To be truthful, 10 is too short a list for the "Greatest fighter planes ever". That list should have been at least 20 or 25.


Regards,

Major Nuker

well how did they rate these based on other airplanes at the time or what ?

becuase mordern i would have to say raptor simply becuase that planes so darn cool
Edited by cryptkeeper, 18 August 2006 - 04:34.

You need to look at everything about said Fighter that's how they did it and that's how those fighters got on the list it's not just weapons and speed you need to think about you know .

They missed the Sopwith Camel.

Also, I think this list is based on notoriety rather than any technical abilities, otherwise the FW-190 would've gotten on there easy.
Edited by AllStarZ, 18 August 2006 - 05:52.

They rate it based on technical problems, speed, special features, manuverability, range (Mustang can go to germany and back but Spitfire can't), Pilot problems

The 'top ten' show from military channel is better, go to the military channel to see the results. Anyways, the F-117 is FAR from the tenth top fighter, it was shot down although 'stealth' it ain't fast, it ai'nt manuverable etc. It's just from how famous it is, i mean, a f*cking HARRIER AND NIGHTHAWK got on there, but a F-15C eagle isn't, and the flanker series? It's f*cked up.

Harriers got onto there because they're unique. They have V/STOL capability which absolutely no other modern craft possesses. It is faster than a helicopter, and insanely maneuverable. This is why it finds service with many armies, airforces, and navies from the United States to India.

that list is so bullshit.
The mig-15 isn't even mentioned and same goes for the F-14 and F-15 and who have shown better performance in battle then the F-18. F-117 doesn't deserve a mention because its not even a fighter cause it cant perform air to air role.

AllStarZ, on 18 Aug 2006, 17:59, said:

And, it also can't do much sh*t for air-air (didn't say it COULDN"T but it's very unlikely it could survive an air-air battle (or a dogfight for that mmatter).

Eddy01741, on 19 Aug 2006, 20:33, said:

The Harrier isn't the only VTOL aircraft out there- the Yak-38, Yak-141, and the F-35B have VTOL abilities. The Harrier was decent in an AA role in the Falklands War; a few Argentine Mirage IIIs were shot down by Harriers in the opening of the war.
I suppose the F/A-18 got on that list due to its great versatility (but then again, it was a list about fighter aircraft).

They forgot the UFO...

U.F.O.

Anything invoving the Greatest Ever series is illogical.

Like Nuker said, with all the fighters/multi-role out there in the past century, ten is not enough to have a decent list.

Eddy01741, on 19 Aug 2006, 16:33, said:

Actually it would be a good air-to-air aircraft. Subsonic speed aside, it is very maneuverable.

Well, try that against... say, a flanker, and see how 'manuverable' it is. I mean, for a VTOL plane, it's sh*tty manuverable, but compared to conventional fighter jet, it's got little chance (not to mention new 5th generation jet fighters). But then again, the F-35B will smoke it in manuverability, and it'll replace the harrier (and like a ton of other aircraft including the F-16 mainly (well, not the F-35B, but the F-35A will be replacing the F-16)).

lol, f117 fighter, if they call that a fighter then the P-47 should be on there.

The P-47 kicked way more ass for the time as well, it's called the best attacker (not bomber) ever, as in for it's time (just like the mustang is teh best fighter).

The P-47 Thunderbolt had the handling of a brick, but it was also built like Fort Knox. Though it couldn't out-maneuver a Zero (nothing could), the P-47 could take a heavy pounding. On one occasion, a bullet managed to strike the engine block, and the pilot was able to fly the plane home under its own power. IIRC only 2 of the 12 cylinders were affected by the bullet.

That list is vastly skewed and as AllStarZ said, seems to go on notoriety rather than credentials.


Regards,

Major Nuker

If there were to be a king of ground attack aircraft in World War II, it would be the Sturmovik. It was called the Flying Tank for a reason, and they have armed it with a 50mm cannon.

However, the P-47 is incredibly durable as well. Once, a P-47 got lost, was low on fuel, and was being hounded by 3 Bf-109s. They kept emptying their guns into it, and when they ran out ammo, they gave the pilot a salute and went back to their bases.

The P-47 and the Sturmovik were called "flying tanks" for different reasons. The Sturmovik for its armament, and the P-47 for its incredible durability. I doubt that the Sturmovik could have lived through what the P-47 could, but then again, the Sturmovik could probably deal out a greater volume of damage. To be fair, both of those planes would have to be put on this list for the simple fact they were "flying tanks".


Regards,

Major Nuker

The Sturmovik was called a flying tank because of its sheer durability and firepower. The P-47 less so, but much more able as a fighter aircraft. The pilot cockpit in the Sturmovik is made of thick bulletproof glass and is surrounded by a steel bathtub of the sort that you'd find in an A-10.

Eddy01741, on 20 Aug 2006, 03:33, said:

there are 2 weakness. First, the cockpit inside got lots of button, so piloting this aircraft (harrier) is like playing a piano, wrong button and then problem
Second, the 4 air nozzle is like a dream bait for heat seeking missiles.

yeah cause one on either side is like right next to the cockpit.ok WTF?!?!the F-117 is not a Goddamed fighter!!!people think that its called the F-117 that its a fighter.they only called it that because when testing it they needed the best test pilots,who wouldn't fly a plane with the "A" designation so they called it a F-117.they really need to change the name.this just goes to show you how stupid they are in military knowledge.also they don't have the F-15 on there which IIRC has never been shot down by enemy fighters.i kinda agree with the P-51D beating out the Spitfire.cause the Spit had a tendency for the engine to cut out when diving.the reason i said the "D" model is cause the A and IIRC the B models sucked balls.anyways the -109 isn't called the ME-109 its the BF-109 and it sucked regardless.they shoulda put the FW-190 in its place.

What about Stuka ? They make that annoying dive sound in Call of Duty. Anyway, the reason Discovery included F-117 and Harrier is to talk about their "features". If they put F-15 and F-16, they don't have much special features. They have interesting statistics though. I think the MiG 29 should have been included on this list as well as F-35 Joint Strike Fighter since it is a multi-role fighter.

First off, the Stuka was an outdated design before the war even started. The only reason why the Germans kept using them was because of the fact that they can dive well, and that there were plenty of them. Second, the Stuka does not even have a smidgen of dogfighting capability. Its slow, unmaneuverable, and excellent dive characteristics provided by the gull-wing configuration doesn't provide much of an advantage in a dogfight situation. But beside that, it is not a fighter plane, so if the list was based on plain notoriety and fame, it wouldn't qualify due to the fact that its a ground attack aircraft and only a ground attack aircraft.

Quote

Every aircraft is like playing a piano, and that's what training is for. Once you get used to the controls of any aircraft, it practically becomes an extension of your body. A bit harder on a Harrier, but again, that's what training and practice is for. Second, of course its vulnerable to heat seeking missiles. But its very maneuverable, and you have to account for countermeasures. Besides, dogfighting with a Harrier would more or less be a last resort or a secondary function, because the Harrier was not designed as an aerial superiority fighter.
Edited by AllStarZ, 24 August 2006 - 04:26.