Fixed-Wing Aviation Greats

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

WWI Period

Even for their era.

Understood

"...a"?

Whoops!  They could carry a good load a good distance.  Admittedly, I don't they really count in that they're not fixed-winged and heavier than air


WWII Period

That is true of all military equipment.  A Mk.II Spitfire would be of little use in 1945...

True, but in this case the issue was range and possibly critical altitude.

The A6M and the Hayabusa particularly, as the war progressed, later aircraft incorporated armour and self-sealing tanks.

I'm curious which aircraft did?  I assume the Ki-61 and Ki-100 did, as did the George, I'm not sure to what extent the Frank did...

Their success was more because of their surprise rather than anything else.  Once the correct tactics were adopted, they were less and less successful.

I'm surprised the Me-109 was a surprise, though there might be a very good reason.  As for the A6M: If I recall a lot of emphasis on gunnery training was based on the AVG's experience with the Ki-43 and A6M (which were similar in appearance)

Japanese fuel was invariably at about 80-90 Octane while US and Allied fuels were 100+

Actually, the Germans got some high octane fuel from Standard Oil if I recall; threatened to cut FDR at the pockets if he tried to stop it (I'm guessing they were too powerful for FDR to stop).  Why they didn't give it to the Japanese too, I'm not sure, but it's possible they just liked the Germans more.

Both.  As the war progressed, increasing absenteeism from the factories and lower skilled labourers made it harder to get the required finish.

What rates of absenteeism did they see prior to firebombing?

You have to also take into account numbers, training and the design of the aircraft with wide-set engines.

You mean the engine-out performance at low speeds, correct?

the training of the pilots were inadequate for the most part and the design was inherent in the way the engines were separated.

Was this because so much training was needed to just teach pilots how to land the plane and handle it on one engine that little room was left for combat training?

I'm curious on this subject, what your opinions are on the Vampire?  If it saw any flight in WWII, it never saw combat, but I'm curious if it's performance from the 1945-1950 period was enough for it to be considered a great design, or merely a good one?

No doubt.  Either way, a P-38 couldn't do it.

Sounds right to me

They suffered generally from greater weight, lower powered engines than their land counterparts.

Lower powered engines?  I never heard that ever.

Other way 'round I think you'll find.

Well, wikipedia isn't the best source, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vultee_A-31_Vengeance.

Longevity and utility.   It's role changed when the war changed but it kept on flying.  It was used a a dive bomber in North Africa and in NW Europe - most successfully apparently.

So the design, despite being slow could be continuously adapted.  The fact that it seemed quite strong (able to be used as a dive-bomber) and able to turn tight at low-speeds (where it flew) was useful.

Not as many as the B-29 I suspect.  All that was needed was a more flexibly approach to how it was used (and softer landing gear).

Actually the F4U's did have a tendency for torque-stall (required a modification to the wing), the wing-flaps and cowl-flaps were modified as well.  The problem with the B-29 seemed mostly cowl & engine related.

Perhaps.  One of the thing that saved the B-29 from serious losses was the altitude it operated at.

That and its speed

The Japanese had never sought high-altitude combat until the B-29 arrived in their skies.  Their fighters weren't able to reach the B-29s initially nor stay nor track the B-29 at those altitudes.  The Luftwaffe OTOH...

Could get up there without difficulty.  I'd still like to point out that the P-51's were still able to provide escort.


Post WWII: 1945 to 1960

Fighter - F-86, MiG15, Meteor

I agree with the F-86 and MiG-15.  I'm curious as to the rationality behind the Meteor: While, I know the later Meteors were achieving performance in excess of 600 mph, that basically put them on par with our F-80 shooting stars unless they had a tighter turning arc than the F-80 or MiG-15.

As for some other designs, I'm curious as to your views on the following aircraft designs

• McDonnell F2H/F-2 Banshee: It was one of the US Navy's first successful jet-fighters: It had excellent high-altitude performance (it could technically reach 52,000 feet), a top speed between 550-600 mph at low/mid altitude and around 540-550 at higher altitudes.  It's high altitude performance may very well have given it some seriously impressive agility, and it's range allowed it to be used in the bomber-escort roles.
  
• Hawker Sea Hawk: It was one of the Fleet Air Arm's first successful carrier-based aircraft, it was fast and agile, and it performed well, and was evidently rugged and versatile.
  
• Hawker Hunter: It was fast and agile, almost certainly supersonic in a dive
  
• Mikoyan Gurevich MiG-21 Fishbed: Though it flew before the Crusader, mentioned below in this entry, it entered service in 1959: The aircraft had a very good rate of climb and acceleration, an excellent roll and pitch-rate, and good instantaneous agility when flown above 350 KIAS; top speed was in excess of Mach 2 and, while it's radar was almost comically simple, it seemed to work good enough for most intents and purposes, and more advanced versions were developed (though some lacked guns).  It's responsive controls and small profile made it difficult to visually follow in close-in aerial combat, which may very well have been where it was actually the most dangerous.  While a bit insane, the aircraft did use an explosive charge system to actually clear a jammed gun (a feature our planes did not have).  It is still in active service with some nations to this day.
  
• Chance-Vought F8U/F-8 Crusader: It was one of the best naval fighter-planes of its day in terms of performance: Despite being carrier-suitable, it actually weighed less than land-based supersonic fighter-jets such as the F-100; it had better range, more maneuverability, and possibly better speed (at least at certain altitudes if not all around).  Though it was generally thought of as a day-fighter, it was versatile, serving in the reconnaissance role (F8U-1P/RF-8A), a limited night-capability (F8U-1E/F-8B, and F8U-2/F-8C), a night-fighter (F8U-2N/F-8D), and an all-weather fighter-bomber (F8U-2NE/F-8E).  It served from 1957 to 1976 as a fighter, and all the way until 1987 as a photo-reconnaissance bird.
  
• Convair F-106 Delta-Dart: Entering service in 1959, it possessed maneuverability (instantaneous/sustained turn-rates, roll-rates) on par with its smaller predecessor, the F-102A combined with a considerably greater top-speed (Mach 2. and intercept radius (650 nm).  It had an excellent radar and fire-control system, and some of the best CCM money could buy for the time (it was sometimes even able to burn through B-52's jammers).  Though the aircraft lacked guns for much of it's early life, it's nuclear-tipped missile could be effectively employed against an unsuspecting fighter stupid enough to get within a couple miles in front of it (a mock engagement between an F-106 and F-16 successfully saw the F-16 defeated via this method), and while it served out almost all it's life in ADC/NORAD & ANG units, it was briefly used to provide top-cover in Southeast Asia, and plans were created somewhere between 1965 and 1968 for a gun-pack equipped model (which finally entered service in 1972).
  

Canberra, Voutour

The Canberra was effectively designed to do what the De Havilland Mosquitos were capable of doing: The Mosquito was designed predominantly as a high-altitude level-bomber with sufficient speed and agility to escape fighter-attack.  At Mach 0.88, it was faster than our B-47's, and was capable of flying higher than any bomber in the early 1950's AFAIK.  Though it wasn't as maneuverable as the Mosquito (one B-57 came unglued during a 4.8g maneuver in 1964: I'm not sure how much of that was due to weight and fuel-load, altitude and gust-response or metal fatigue), it's high altitude performance, probably meant that it was able to out turn almost anything up high (which is more accurately saying, everybody else sucked worse, but at the end of the day the goal is that you come home alive in one piece).  It turned out, like the Mosquito, to make a good photo-reocnnaissance platform, as well as the B-57 which was a tactical-bomber, ground-attack plane.  Though I blabbered a lot, my views on the Canberra are actually quite positive and I'd consider it to be an excellent design, and it's high altitude capability was boosted even further by extending it's wings, adding small little turbojets to it's wings in conjunction with larger TF33's.  It was basically the USAF's unofficial rival to the U-2.

As for the Vautour: It was sort of a strange fighter-bomber that could do fighter-interception, ground-attack, and bombing at altitude using a Norden bombsight.  It's limited all-weather capability were said to be a problem in Europe, though it worked well in the middle-east.  I'm not sure if I'd consider it a great.

What's your view on the following designs

• AD/A-1 Skyraider: First flew less than half a year before the Second World War ended.  It served throughout the Korean and at least part of the Vietnam war, as a tactical-bomber, a close-air-support plane, probably an observation plane, an ASW aircraft, and a COD and probably other stuff that I don't know about.  It was designed effectively as a dive-torpedo bomber which while probably not used, endowed it with fighter like agility and a good payload.
  
• A4D/A-4 Skyhawk: It had a look more like a fighter than a bomber, and could out-climb at least early F-86's, though it couldn't quite turn with them.  It had one of the best roll-rates on earth at the time, and carried a 5,000 pound payload with a maximum weight of 20,000 pounds at first; though designed as a day-bomber, it was modified into an all-weather design, some even served as fighters in some air-forces (and briefly in the US Navy).
  

Bomber - Any of the V-bombers, B-47, Canberra

The B-47 was an excellent plane for it's period; as for the V-bombers: I know little about the Vickers Valiant, though the Avro-Vulcan, Handley-Page Victor were fantastic (high altitude, fast, able to go supersonic in dives, and agile for their size) well defended with ECM.  As I already said before with the Canberra, it also did it's job very well.  I'm curious as to your views on the B-52 and B-58.

Helicopter - Dragonfly, Whirlwind

The Westland WS-51 Dragonfly was a Sikorski S-51 under license.  I know little about it though, let alone the Whirlwind.

Transport/Sea Plane - Douglas aircraft, Super-Constellation

So, I'd assume this would include the...

• Douglas DC-6: (V)C-118/R6D: First one to make a flight post-war
  
• Lockheed L-1049/L-1249: Does the earlier Constellations count?
  
• Douglas DC-8: Used by the USN at least as the C-24
  

...the DC-7 never flew with a military designation, though I suppose if you are just talking about it as a plane period.

As for your views on the following?

• Boeing C-135/KC-135/EC-135: Though often thought of as a 707 derivative, it's fuselage is 4.5 inches shorter, it's wings are different, and the tail is different on at least some.  Ironically due to the different wing and tail, it can fly at Mach 0.92 to 0.95
  
• Boeing 707: Used in the USAF under the following designations C-137/VC-137 Stratoliner; E-3 Sentry (initially known as the EC-137), E-6 Mercury, E-8 JSTARS, the C-18 family; NATO has the CT-49, and Brazil has the KC-137
  

.

Modern Era: Post 1960

Fighter - F-4 Phantom, Sea Vixen, Mirage III, MiG21, Su17/20/22

No dispute on the MiG-21 and Mirage III (not to mention all of its variants).  As for the Su-17/20/22, I know little about the aircraft, but from what I remember they weren't terribly maneuverable so I'm not sure in what regard they were useful other than in the bombing-role. 

As for the F-4 Phantom, I'm kind of mixed on it: It was definitely versatile (interceptor, fighter-bomber, wild-weasel), it was fast, had a better intercept radius than the F-106, climbed like a rocket, and maneuvered well at supersonic speeds; it's missiles were of good range and radar permitted engagements beyond what the F-106A would allow.  Unfortunately, it's corner velocity was kind of high, and it limited it's maximum maneuverability to below 17,000-20,000 feet, though it's maximum sustained agility in level flight was quite impressive (7g), it existed only along a narrow range of speed.  Some criticized the operational modes the radar possessed, as well as ECCM features as being inferior to the F-106A's early on, though the biggest complaint was the lack of a gun (which the F-106 also lacked), which was ultimately rectified (on the F-106 as well) on the F-4E.

As for the Sea-Vixen: I know little about it, it doesn't seem to be very fast, so unless it has excellent radar, and is remarkably agile, it doesn't seem to compare with more advanced designs.

I'm curious as to your opinions on the English Electric Lightning, and fighters that were flown post 1970 to modern day.

[PR19_Kit]

Boeing C-135/KC-135/EC-135: Though often thought of as a 707 derivative, it's fuselage is 4.5 inches shorter.............

Narrower............

[KJ_Lesnick]

PR19_Kit

Narrower............

Whoops!  Sorry about that