Apparently the F-15E was only developed when it looked like the USAF might buy Tornadoes to replace F-111s, and it’s not got a great wing shape for low level.
(You learn a lot of random facts from Bill Gunston’s books…)
I've always liked the F16. Designed to be slightly unstable to improve maneuverability. Could you imagine going up to your boss and going "I've got a great idea for a plane lets make it unstable to fly"
Lockheed Martin F16V
Could you imagine going up to your boss and going “I’ve got a great idea for a plane lets make it unstable to fly”
Somebody somewhere mooted the idea of making the U2 without enough wheels on to land properly.
KJ - "so how the hell is this thing going to land and not fall over?"
Erstwhile designer - "erm, what about somebody in a fast car driving onto the runway as it's actually landing and chasing it with a set of wheels in the boot?"
#Cue hoots of laughter, and here we are 50+ years later.
Slight thread drift though...
What about the little Mig15? Did a good job over Korea and Vietnam.
IIRC: The Tornado GR1 excelled at what it did, optimised for low level strike missions at high speed in dense air. You'd be hard pushed to find an airframe and engine combination less well suited to zoom climbing to altitude and staying there for any length of time. If I recall correctly, the plan was to re-engine the F3 with EJ200 engines from the Eurofighter as part of an MLU, which could have been quite a thing but rendered pointless by the existence of the Eurofighter itself.
Think Daffy has the best suggestion, the F22.
I wonder how that would fare against the F35, though?
And scuttler’s pic is lovely....the turn rate they have is astonishing for such a big jet!
The F22 would hammer the F35 in air to air combat. The F35 is a strike fighter, the F22 is an air superiority fighter. The F22 is designed to maintain energy during dog fighting, the F35 is not, it’s wing area is too small and it’s fuselage too large to allow for true energy retention. It’s what happens when you design an aircraft for too many purposes. The F35 has a huge fuselage area and small wing area in order to accommodate the lift fan and low speed thrust requirements of the B variant for STOVL.
it might be in the “cool jet” list, but has no place in a “best fighter” list.
That's troglodyte thinking.
He even disdains the term “fighter” for the F-35 and F-22. “I’ve said for years and will continue to do so until the defense troglodytes finally get it (and some are slowly coming around)—5th generation aircraft are not ‘fighters’—they are ‘sensor-shooters’
https://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-16-vs-f-35-in-a-dogfight-jpo-air-force-weigh-in-on-whos-best/
Cheers Daffy & Hols2...
I'll stick with your F22 suggestion then, as 'the best'.
For anyone interested in the engineering side at Lockheed, then I can highly recommend Skunkworks by Ben Rich as a read.
Much U2 and Blackbird content.
Second that about the Skunkwork book.
Good stuff about the stealth bombers and how when computers was used for the designs the different companies ended up with very similar looking planes.
Re the Tornado, there's an interesting take on Hushkit about the compromises forced by the Tornado's variable geometry here. The Tornado was slower (at low altitude) and could not carry the same payload as the aircraft it replaced in the low level and maritime strike role.
mikertroid Member
But this is a best Fighter Jet thread, yes??! 🤣🤣
Given that this thread started with a picture of an interceptor, it may be hard to win this argument 5 pages later.
My personal favourite is probably still the F-15.
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/4404/36546937876_fa8762c1b4_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/4404/36546937876_fa8762c1b4_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
The French film of the Mirage(posted by Ewan) just shows the French pilots don't care how they perform, only that it makes them look really cool. And no expert, but aren't they high altitude fighter/bombers, while the British favour the mid altitude fighter/bomber.
There was a documentary on the Falklands conflict went into this.
'Bomb Alley' short vid showing the Mirage in action.
The Saab Viggen, the only plane to manage to catch and allegedly lock-up an SR-71. Way ahead of its time in terms of tech.
It's basically a Swedish Tornado without the swing wings, and 3 stage Volvo aferburner.
The F106 Delta Dart is really starting to grow on me, pretty much well ahead of its time.
Also heard again recently about the F111 being mach 3 capable, amazeballs!
Also heard again recently about the F111 being mach 3 capable, amazeballs!
Also untrue, according to Wikipedia it’s maximum speed at altitude was just over Mach 2, and in its natural domain (low level, in crap weather) M1.2. Again, it’s a bit questionable for a ‘fighters’ thread as for most of its career it was a low level all weather precision bomb truck with no pretence at air to air ability. You might as well stick an A-6 on here.
That’s what he claims, but if you try to check with actual witnesses, you’ll find they’re all either dead or have been institutionalized. Convenient, don’t you think?
You are Jivebunny’s alter-ego, and I claim my £5.
Re the F-22, unsurprisingly, there’s a lot of internal politics involved with that aircraft, and there were never the numbers built that should have been. I’ve read some online articles about it, I’ll see if I can track something down. I think it does have some claim to the thread title, though.
Found this, one example of the malignant narcissist running Americaputting his own obsession first...
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29698/upgrades-needed-for-sustained-f-22-ops-during-a-crisis-in-europe-axed-for-border-wall
I know it's not a fighter or a jet, but just read At The Edge Of Space, about the X-15, and as much as I'd love to fly in an F4 or F14 or F22 (and SR-71 even more), I think a full-bore X-15 altitude flight must be about as nuts as sub-orbital flying gets.
Much more interesting book to read than I expected - d'you know that only 12 men ever flew X-15? We know only 12 men walked on the moon - one bloke done both. What a life that was! 🙂
Re F111 doing mach 3, Jeff Guinn over on aircrew interview says it can.
Re F111 doing mach 3, Jeff Guinn over on aircrew interview says it can.
My understanding is that a lot of the fast jets are limited by thermal considerations rather than thrust/drag, notably the F15. At those speeds, the engines apparently function as ramjets, so if you keep pumping in fuel, they'll just keep producing more and more thrust. Problem is, they can't take the thermal stress. It would be like screwing on a gigantic turbo to a little hatchback engine and turning up the boost to 100 psi. In theory you could probably produce 1000 hp, but the engine will detonate long before that. So, the "it can do mach 3" claims sound to me like some guy down the pub claiming his Sierra Cosworth could do 200 mph if he wired the wastegate shut.
go to 60,000ft point the nose down full throttle then yes it's probably a mach 3 jet.... advisable probably not. Sustained in level flight nope. It's a bit like describing the Hawker Hunter as supersonic... yes it could go supersonic with gravity assistance but it's not a supersonic jet.
go to 60,000ft point the nose down full throttle then yes it’s probably a mach 3 jet
Once the wings are torn off it would probably go even faster... briefly
