Greatest ever Fighters

[derspiess]

The top 10 fighters of all time should include:
P-51
Me-109
Spitfire
Me-262
MiG-21
Zero
Camel
F-14
Albatross D.III
Dassault Mirage

We can debate the ordering, of course, and there may be a couple of candidates I missed.

So why is the Me109 on your list but not the Fw190?

[PDH]

So why is the Me109 on your list but not the Fw190?

Kurt Tank sucked monkey balls.

[derspiess]

Kurt Tank sucked monkey balls.

Noted. 

[grumbler]

Me?  You were the dude who attacked me for no reason.  I thought we were just talking about planes.

When you throw around lines like "but we cannot all be literate," expect a like response.

Anyway the Fokker Triplane is called the best WWI fighter all the time and undeservedly so and IMO it is because of Richtofen.  If the article did not consider it the best then why did it put it in its top ten and not another fighter plane?  Why would it have even considered that plane without Richtofen?  It was not a very numerous plane and did not exactly dominate the skies at any point.  Even the Nieuport Baby and the Fokker Eindecker at least did that.

I have no idea why the article rated the plane so highly.  I suspect that it was because the author didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, and this was the only WWI fighter he had any idea about.  The implication that the Triplane was the first to have synchronized machine guns (when they had, in fact, been in service for over two years when the D.I entered combat) makes his judgement even more suspect.  As I stated long before you, it was not considered, even in its time, the best fighter (though it was probably the best in a dogfight).

That was a projection on my part.  It did not say that the Triplane was the best because Richtofen shot down 20 planes in it...but then I didn't put fucking quotes around it or claim that was a direct quote from anything.  It was my own opinion and analysis of why the Triplane is over-rated.

And when I pointed out, quite corectly, that no one was making the argument you claimed to be refuting, you claimed that the article was making that argument (when you knew good and well, apparently, that it wasn't making that argument and that you were simply projecting again), and got snippy.

Why was it the classic World War I fighter?  What did it do besides have Richtofen fly in it?

The author's email address is probably available from Channel Five.  Why don't you ask him? 

[grumbler]

So why is the Me109 on your list but not the Fw190?

The -109 was in service far longer.  Fighters on the drawing boards or in prototype don't shoot down any enemy aircraft.

Others may put different interpretations on "greatest," of course, but that's how I see it.

[jimmy olsen]

and the F-15 doesn't even make the list!

Why would it? It hasn't seen much air-to-air combat in its career, Timmay.  You chemo fuckstick.

Then why does the F-14 belong? I think the -15 has seen more combat than it has...

IIRC it's 104-0

[PDH]

Others may put different interpretations on "greatest," of course, but that's how I see it.

  This would make sense if you weren't a communist.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

So why is the Me109 on your list but not the Fw190?

The -109 was in service far longer.  Fighters on the drawing boards or in prototype don't shoot down any enemy aircraft.

Others may put different interpretations on "greatest," of course, but that's how I see it.

In that case, and considering you put the MiG-21 on the list, the F-4 should be there as well.

[grumbler]

In that case, and considering you put the MiG-21 on the list, the F-4 should be there as well.

F-14 should read F-4.  Much as I love the Tomcat, it's not top-ten.  Phantom, yeah.  Especially the older smokey ones.

[Berkut]

In that case, and considering you put the MiG-21 on the list, the F-4 should be there as well.

F-14 should read F-4.  Much as I love the Tomcat, it's not top-ten.  Phantom, yeah.  Especially the older smokey ones.

That F-14 thing confused me after you nixed the -15 for not seeing enough combat to qualify.

[Tonitrus]

In that case, and considering you put the MiG-21 on the list, the F-4 should be there as well.

F-14 should read F-4.  Much as I love the Tomcat, it's not top-ten.  Phantom, yeah.  Especially the older smokey ones.

That F-14 thing confused me after you nixed the -15 for not seeing enough combat to qualify.

How much combat did the Iranian F-14s see in their war with Iraq?

[grumbler]

That F-14 thing confused me after you nixed the -15 for not seeing enough combat to qualify.

I didn't nix the F-15 for insufficient combat - I never even mentioned it.  It's a great plane, but you do need to fight in real wars to get into the top 10 fighters of all time.  The Phantom itself barely qualifies, and only the fact that it was a mainstay for so many airforces and navies for so long really gets it into the top contention.

[grumbler]

How much combat did the Iranian F-14s see in their war with Iraq?

Not a lot.  They didn't have to parts to keep such a specialized beast going at full pitch.  It actually was used more as an AWACs than a fighter (AWG-9 FTW!).

[jimmy olsen]

In that case, and considering you put the MiG-21 on the list, the F-4 should be there as well.

F-14 should read F-4.  Much as I love the Tomcat, it's not top-ten.  Phantom, yeah.  Especially the older smokey ones.

That F-14 thing confused me after you nixed the -15 for not seeing enough combat to qualify.

How much combat did the Iranian F-14s see in their war with Iraq?

Iran's claims don't seem credible to me, but I'm certainly not an authority on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_F-14_Tomcat#Iranian_Service

[Razgovory]

I would think the P-38 would be better then say the P-51.  The 38 saw more action and had a longer life span.