Posted on 01/11/2014 8:25:52 AM PST by Sir Napsalot
Over the last century of military aviation, several fighters have earned the nickname “flying coffin.” Military aviation inherently pushes up against the limits of technology and human endurance, particularly where fighter and pursuit aviation is concerned. Flying a fighter is remarkably dangerous, even when no one is trying to shoot you down.
Engineering a capable fighter plane is also a struggle. Relatively small changes in engine, armament, and airframe design can transform a clunker into an elite fighting machine; many of the best fighters in history were initially viewed askance by their pilots. But elite status rarely lasts for long, especially in World War I and World War II. Fighters that dominated the sky in one year become “flying coffins” as technology and tactics move forward.
And thus the difference between a great fighter and a terrible fighter can be remarkably small. As with the previous list, the critical work is in determining the criteria. Fighters are national strategic assets, and must be evaluated as such:
· Did this aircraft fail at the tactical tasks that it was given? Did it perform poorly against its direct contemporaries?
· Did the fighter show up, or was it in the hangar when it was needed? Was it more of a danger to its pilots than to enemy fighters?
· Did it represent a misappropriation of national assets?
So what are the worst fighter aircraft of all time? For these purposes, we’ll be concentrating on fighters that enjoyed production runs of 500 or more aircraft (listed in parentheses); curiosities such as the XF-84H “Thunderscreech” need not apply.
(Click through the pages for the *top* 5 list)
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalinterest.org ...
Thanks for a lively discussion.
I KNEW our FReeper In House Experts can fisk the article to threads .......
Japan has their new super phantoms. West German pilots were very proficient and won mock battles with it against the Mig29
new? New Super Phantoms?
Cool. Did they replace all the heavy metal with carbon fibre and stuff? Making it lighter would probably make it faster and more maneuverable
According to a Wiki entry....
IAI’s (Israel) F-4 “Super Phantom” or F-4-2000, which could exceed Mach 1 without afterburners, was displayed at the 1987 Paris Air Show.
McDonnell Douglas scuttled the F-4-2000’s development because it equaled the F/A-18C/D in performance and could endanger future F/A-18 sales.
I think it was in regards with the F16 being an electric power hog,which, upon losing an engine, had like 20 seconds controllable lifespan using battery and no external wind generator like the Harrier.
Iirc, it was partially that (also the same rationale as having the capsule in the B-1A) plus the Navy thought it would provide better survivability to crews lost at distance from the carrier.
Are you sure about the weapons bay? I thought the F-111B wasn’t going to have the bay because that’s where, with it’s much shorter nose (to allow visibility on approach to the carrier), that’s where all the avionics were going to go.
Also, the swing wing was very desirable for carrier ops. That’s why they kept it for the F-14 and why the NATF/F-22N was going to have one.
Hilarious! I lived in Naperville an remember the remains of the old Nike base there, which was used for sports fields and still is today.
I agree — I think that it is esthetically a beautiful plane.
Just like the P-38 of WWII vintage.
I have a memory of seeing a NIKE battery in the Watchung area of New Jersey, when we were out hiking around or something. I often wonder if I just dreamed it or imagined it. I know we talked about them a lot.
Good stuff at post 55!
I was not a pilot, but grew up in the military and was in the Army for many years. The F-4 was a very effective airframe and mentioning it on this list was ridiculous. Every aircraft has flaws in some performance parameters, but few logged as many hours as the Phantom and like others have said, they are still going!
Regarding current aircraft it is obvious that the F-15 and F-16 are terrific planes and they may eventually rank up there with the P-51 (for most measurements) although (thankfully) they will never achieve the overall combat record.
wonder what a piano could do with twin J 79s?
F7U maneater
cool.
Like the IAI version, these things were almost equal to the F-18 in 1987... your version is even more advanced it seems. Which is pretty extraordinary.
F-102
Agreed. At the end of the article are listed the author’s credentials. Not much listed in aviation.
The Missouri is parked just down from the memorial. We visited about four years ago when the BB had just come out of dry dock with fresh paint. One of the strongest impressions I got was from the combination of 1940 big guns along side 1980s missile technology.
Sounds like it would make an impression on anyone.
I would think any fighter you were shot down in qualifies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.