Most successful jet fighter of all time?

[tempestfan]

The Whittle type design was a better engine and more reliable.

Hmm...how many centrifugal jet engines have been built post 1960 ? I will certainly ring no nationalistic bell, but the reliability issues of the late war German jet engines were to a large extent due to unsuitable (=inferior) materials having to be used, AFAIK, as with many other crucial items of equipment.

@ KRK4m, as you summed up all the various (in many aspects rather dissimilar) Su-7/9/11/15/17 etc., doing the same for the Mirage III/V/F.1/2000 will get us to roughly 3.5k if I have added everything up OK (and if the Wiki numbers are reliable enough).

[bzn20]

I meant compared to the German engines at the time,obviously. The lack of materials,fuel etc. would have made a difference but thats what they flew with and what we have to "judge on". Its all we have to go on.Its not a what if. And nothing past 1960 doesn't mean anything as things get developed the earlier designs and technology get left behind, its a natural progression.

[Giorgio N]

But in reality the F-84 was the first in these aspects - we are talking about the results and not about the intentions

The 37mm gun wasn't an innovation, but it was an important feature against the 0.5in MGs of F-80, F-84 and F-86.

Surely RD-10 (Jumo 004) and RD-20 (BMW 003) axial jets were used by the Russians nine years before the MiG-19. But here we have original Russian design (not the RR copy) - I forgot to put "indigenous" in my yesterday entry

The development of guns for aircraft is a fascinating subject in itself ! Personally (and I'm not alone as much more competent people than me thinks the same) I don't rate the presence of the 37mm on the MiG-15 as an important feature against the opposing fighters in Korea. Granted, a single shot could destroy a Sabre, but it was not the ideal gun for this kind of targets anyway. Different story when we look at the MiG-15 as an aircraft meant to defend Soviet airspace from the US bomber threat. The 37mm really was a bomber destroyer, a 3X23 mm would have been a better choice for dogfighting. No surprise that practically every fighter after the MiG-15 used guns in the 20-30 mm range while the job of dealing with bombers was left to rockets first and later missiles.

Hmm...how many centrifugal jet engines have been built post 1960 ? I will certainly ring no nationalistic bell, but the reliability issues of the late war German jet engines were to a large extent due to unsuitable (=inferior) materials having to be used, AFAIK, as with many other crucial items of equipment.

The centrifugal compressor has a number of advantages and with the technology and particularly the materials available in the late '40s it was afterall a better choice. Of course once better materials became available the axial compressor clearly became the better solution. Not that today centrifugal compressors are not used, as plenty of turbine engines still use this solution.

@ KRK4m, as you summed up all the various (in many aspects rather dissimilar) Su-7/9/11/15/17 etc., doing the same for the Mirage III/V/F.1/2000 will get us to roughly 3.5k if I have added everything up OK (and if the Wiki numbers are reliable enough).

The Sukhois mentioned above may look dissimilar but are really part of a same family and descend from a common design. The same can not be said of the various Mirages as these really share the name only, apart from a few bits and pieces.

[steelpillow]

Me 262 wing sweep measured at 25% chord is just 15 degrees - thinking this way the first swept-wing fighters were Hawker Nimrod and Demon. Or maybe even Nieuport Bebe and Morane Saulnier AI, while Ilyushin Il-28 has forward-swept wings

That's well off beam. Messerschmitt swept their wing for the same reason later jets did, to delay the onset of wave drag in the transonic region. If the Hawker Demon got above Mach 0.85 it is news to me.

They also knew of the aeroelasticity and other problems associated with high sweep, so he chose to be a bit cautious first time round.

So I guess the 262 is double the winner: once for the jet engine and twice for the swept wing.

Oh, hang on, except I believe the swept-wing Me 163 Komet beat it into the air, and into service, by a few months. A dead heat, Messerschmitt one-two on the podium?

[bzn20]

Thats very nearly a "like" Steelpillow! The Me163 was Rocket powered and a 1st for that (I think)

I liked it anyway!

Edited February 3, 2015 by bzn20

[old thumper]

You would have to be completely crackers to go up in a Me 163. I know Eric Winkle Brown flew the Me 163 but no matter what happened in that flight he knew he would only be flying it the once.

[squezzer]

Mirage III of course!

[Sean_M]

must be me262 - scared the sh&*t out of everyone and made them build there own

[Adam Maas]

Just a note on the Viggen. While the RM8 was indeed the second afterburning turbofan to enter full-scale production, the Viggen was not the second afterburning turbofan powered aircraft to enter service. The afterburning Spey powered Phantom FG.1 preceeded the Viggen into service.

Also it's worth noting that the RM8 really was little more than duplicating a TF30 on a full-size JT8D core (the TF30 was also JT8D derived, but used a downsized core). Saab originally asked for the TF30, but none were available to them at the time.

[iJones]

I voted for the F-15 just for it's combat record. However, to be regarded as succesful (imo) is a combination of many factors including numbers produced, numbers exported, reliability, upgradability, etc.

For example the F-104 was built in greater numbers than Mirage III and 5 put togheter but I would consider Mirage to be more succesful.

Speaking of the MiG-19 I remember reading somewhere that the best way to start the engines was to engage the fuel pump and wait until there was a puddle in the engine. Then throw a burning rag down the tailpipe. Also you had to check the wind direction and start the downwind engine first. Otherwise it wouldn't get enough air to start. Dunno if there's any truth to that but it's a good story.

Edited February 14, 2015 by iJones

[squezzer]

Regarding the prod and export number, it has not a lot to see with the aircraft capabilities. It is more a political matter. For instance, the Mig 21 was an export success mainly because the russian block air forces had to by it. It's similar with US jets nowadays. Buying US jets is mandatory if a country wants US support even if, in some case, the US jet is not operationnally sumerior to its counterparts (I m not saying here that US jet are crap, just the political matter has very often the upper hand on the operationnal matter when talking about combat jet purchase). Even the kill ratio is not enough: what about a Sea Harrier without all aspect IR missile in the Falklands? Some aircraft were crap in some pilote hands annvery good in other hands ( P-39 were bad aircraft in the view of the US but were quite efficient for the Russians). Just my 2 cents on a longstanding and endless debate. ;-)

[old thumper]

Most if not all Sea Harrier kills were stern shots and the P39 was being used at a much lower altitude by the USSR than by the Western Allies, which is a large part of the reason why the Russians found it suitable.

[NikolaiBolekoff]

Comment on Most successful jet fighter of all time:

In this context, selecting the foremost fighter from all time period is, at best, complex and complicated. In terms of its fighting characteristics and ease of production, the SPAD (Societé Anonnyme Pour l'Aviation et ses Dérivés) S.XIII is my first choice. Based in large part on the counsel of French aviators such as Georges Guynemer, the XIII lacked the maneuverability of some of some of its opponents and partners, but could outpace most of them and performed very well in either a climb or a dive. Production of the nearly 8,500 aircraft eventually entered service was an uncomplicated undertaking. Noteworthy early dependability problems were worked out by the end of the war, and in any case were overwhelmed by the XIII’s fighting ability.

The S.XIII was used to expand not only French fighter squadrons, but also the air services of Allied nations. American ace Eddie Rickenbacker scored twenty of his kills flying an XIII, many over the most advanced German fighters of the day, including the Fokker D.VII.

[NikolaiBolekoff]

See the previous comment: OOPS!- misread the question...I thought you meant the Most successful fighter of all time. This is easier: the Lockheed-Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor. If he sees you, you're dead! If you see him, run away, run away.

[Hook]

See the previous comment: OOPS!- misread the question...I thought you meant the Most successful fighter of all time. This is easier: the Lockheed-Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor. If he sees you, you're dead! If you see him, run away, run away.

I'd think that to qualify, a fighter should at least have some sort of combat record.

AFAIK the F-22 only combat so far has been dropping bombs unopposedly on Islamic State.

Cheers,

Andre

[tempestfan]

Just a note on the Viggen. While the RM8 was indeed the second afterburning turbofan to enter full-scale production, the Viggen was not the second afterburning turbofan powered aircraft to enter service. The afterburning Spey powered Phantom FG.1 preceeded the Viggen into service.

Also it's worth noting that the RM8 really was little more than duplicating a TF30 on a full-size JT8D core (the TF30 was also JT8D derived, but used a downsized core). Saab originally asked for the TF30, but none were available to them at the time.

The RM8 seems to have worked rather well in the Viggen, which probably cannot be said to that degree for the TF30. Saab, Volvo and Flygvapnet perhaps should be grateful that they didn't get the TF30 after all ;-)

[dazdot]

I like the comments for the sabre. For innovation etc but. Surely for innovation it's predecessor that gave north American their ideas would be the real innovation ladies and gents the me 262. Not numbers built although a lot were. Nor combat record because history is against it but if not for politics this aircraft could have made a real difference. The first swept wing fighter. Leading edge slats for maneuverability.just about had multi role capability although not good And a very good idea about area rule. They just didn't realise it. North American redesigned the sabre on seeing the 262. Come to think of it the mig 15 bears a passing resembelece to the ta153 as well doesn't it?

[alpine_modeller]

I was hospitalised last week, so took the opportunity to start reading "Sea Harrier Over the Falklands: A Maverick at War" by Sharkey Ward.

Have to say, considering the intense BS/politics that British aircraft programmes have to endure and survive, especially this one, I am more certain than ever in my assertion that this accolade belongs to the SHAR. The worst battles for survival (sadly ultimately succumbing) were back at Whitehall, not over Port Stanley and San Carlos Water.....

[Hook]

if not for politics this aircraft could have made a real difference.

Politics seem to have had less to do with it than the lack of reliable engines:

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.nl/2013/06/wwii-myths-me262-jet-fighter-and-dumb_3969.html

Still, she was definitely groundbreaking.

Cheers,

Andre

[JohnT]

Politics seem to have had less to do with it than the lack of reliable engines:

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.nl/2013/06/wwii-myths-me262-jet-fighter-and-dumb_3969.html

Still, she was definitely groundbreaking.

Cheers,

Andre

Quite

I also read that the engines life suffered from the use of inferior materials in production as more advanced alloys were unavailable to Germany as they could not access the required elements from overseas by that stage in the war. The result was a shortage of engines at all stages in the 262 development and deployment and the need to operate them very carefully in combat.

[Giorgio N]

I was hospitalised last week, so took the opportunity to start reading "Sea Harrier Over the Falklands: A Maverick at War" by Sharkey Ward.

Have to say, considering the intense BS/politics that British aircraft programmes have to endure and survive, especially this one, I am more certain than ever in my assertion that this accolade belongs to the SHAR. The worst battles for survival (sadly ultimately succumbing) were back at Whitehall, not over Port Stanley and San Carlos Water.....

You obviusly haven't read the history of the F-14 program then, in comparison to the early Tomcat years the Sea Harrier had a very easy life ! BAe didn't have to be rescued by a foreign bank loan while threatening to shut down the production line...

[mirageiv]

Has to be the phantom!

[steelpillow]

Might "most successful" mean "most successfully sold into wider roles for which it was ill-suited"?

In which case, I nominate the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, a plane designed as a high-altitude interceptor but which spent far more of its life in ground-attack and similar roles.

Edited April 2, 2015 by steelpillow

[upnorth]

Quite

I also read that the engines life suffered from the use of inferior materials in production as more advanced alloys were unavailable to Germany as they could not access the required elements from overseas by that stage in the war. The result was a shortage of engines at all stages in the 262 development and deployment and the need to operate them very carefully in combat.

Metalurgy standards were definitely a big part of the Me-262 engine life issues. Difficult to resolve vibration problems also played a part.

The variant of the Jumo 004 that was installed in the production Me-262 was, for all intents and purposes, a rather downgraded version from the ones used to power the prototype aircraft. The engines in the prototypes has been built without restrictions on materials.

Edited April 3, 2015 by upnorth

[Tom Cooper]

Well, in terms of general impact, there is nothing on this list that beats the F-4 Phantom. It's not only how many were built... Originally designed as attacker, but first fielded as supersonic interceptor, Phantom II was then developed in a very versatile platform providing an unprecedented combination of offensive potential with self-defence capability. It's this kind of capability (back in the 1960s they tended to compare the F-4's bomb-carrying capability with that of the B-17) which is de-facto copied by all aircraft manufacturers around the world ever since: load it to eyebrows with sensors and air-to-ground ordnance, add few AAMs for self-defence and that's the 'perfect combat aircraft'. This makes the Phantom the first 'super-fighter', a sort of a prototype for all the F-15E-variants, advanced F-16s, and even all the super-turbos from Su-30-family.

Indeed, even today it's hard to find any aircraft type one can load with 3,000kg (6,000lbs) of bombs and then accelerate to 600kts at low altitude...

And re. question 'what aircraft to buy if money is no issue': it would've been the F-14.

Giorgio has provided some general clues... but what is entirely unknown is that back in the late 1970s, Iranians intended to develop their F-14s into a type of superior attack platform with PGM capability like that of the F-15E (developed only years later). For this purpose, they were financing the development of the TCS and IRST, AGM-53 Condor AGM, and improved PW engines.

Of course, all of this went down the sink, in 1979. But with the Shah still in throne, the history of this type would've been entirely different nowadays. Namely, with such a potent customer in the back, Grumman (and PW) would've been able to offer the type at much lower prices too. And thus, most likely, instead of all the F-15- and F/A-18-variants sold abroad, we would see hundreds of 'attack/fighter-bomber variants' of F-14s still in service (probably with the USN too)...