Best Fighter

Originally posted by boarman
What about the Eurofighter Typhoon?

Originally posted by JokerFive
Here again, you're comparing apples with oranges. The typhoon, introduced in 2002, is light years in advance of the F-4, which came out in 1958.
What was unique about the Phantom was that it did everything, and did it well. Nothing else could touch it at the time of its introduction as an all around do-it-all fighter/bomber. When the F-15/F-16 aircraft ...[text shortened]... lar designs with much the same capabilities.
Nobody had nuttin' like the Phantom in '58.

"Spitfire, Hurricane and 109 were roughly equal in combat capacity in 1940. Any source which says they were more than just a little different is highly suspect. There were periods later in the war when Spitfires were superior to German fighters, periods when the reverse held true. Hurricane development more-or-less stopped after 1940 when Hawker concentrated on the new Typhoon and Tempest designs. The major differences between the three BofB fighters were (a) the Hurricane was easier to build and repair, and (b) the Spitfire was easier to fly closer to its limits. The myth of the Spitfire's manouverability is just that: a myth. It was, in fact, less manouverable than the Hurricane (and possibly than the 109 at altitude). In the hands of experts, the Spitfire and the 109 were an even match, but in the hands of the average pilot the Spitfire could turn faster"

From an old Jane's article

Originally posted by boarman
The ME 109 could not even get close to the Spitfires thats why they suffered so many casualties,the English aircraft were far superior to the German planes,and as for the American p-51 they never went head to head.Yes they were better than the Japanese Zeroes but i still think they were inferior to the Spitfires,but with so many other topics opinions vary .

Originally posted by General Putzer
Performance of the spit and 109 were almost identical, anyone remotely interested in ww2 aircraft will tell you that boarman. And the Mustang was better than both in every way, so much so that it had no real competition for best fighter of the war.

Originally posted by gambit3
The Focke Wulf 190 was a good plane.

Originally posted by gambit3
Is the Eagle better then the Raptor?

Originally posted by JokerFive
I agree with the general, in it's day, the F-4 was king, and that's accepted by most experts. Comparing the Phantom to later aircraft is hardly fair. The F-15/F-16's are certainly superior, but they represent a newer generation and technology.

Originally posted by JokerFive
"Spitfire, Hurricane and 109 were roughly equal in combat capacity in 1940. Any source which says they were more than just a little different is highly suspect. There were periods later in the war when Spitfires were superior to German fighters, periods when the reverse held true. Hurricane development more-or-less stopped after 1940 when Hawker concentrat ...[text shortened]... ds of the average pilot the Spitfire could turn faster"

From an old Jane's article

Originally posted by General Putzer
Performance of the spit and 109 were almost identical, anyone remotely interested in ww2 aircraft will tell you that boarman. And the Mustang was better than both in every way, so much so that it had no real competition for best fighter of the war.

Originally posted by General Putzer
Indeed it was, and is largely forgotten by the general public, everybody is so spitfire/messerschmit happy.
Hey, at least that ignorant gaybag claiming the spitfire was so superior to everything else went away....

Originally posted by boarman
You wish .
It's good to see ,that you have resorted to name calling,everyone knows that sticks and stones can break ones bones ,but names will never hurt you.
Keep em coming General.
General by name and general by nature.

Originally posted by slimjim
The F-4 was fast but it couldn't compete with the MIG 21 in close air to air combat.