By: sferrin
- 17th July 2010 at 23:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I didn't "avoid" anything. I simply came up with the list I thought was the top eight IMO. No need for people to get all upset about it, it's just an opinion for gods sake.
By: Logan Hartke
- 18th July 2010 at 04:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Huh?
Douglas, Douglas, oh yeah, the Douglas Dauntless!:cool:
But that wasn't a fighter now was it? what pure fighter types did Douglas ever produce in its history?
You're clearly not big on aviation history. I can loan you some books if you like.
They built superb attack, transport, and comercial aircraft, but fighters?
The only ones I can think of was the F3D Skynight & F4D Skyray (and limited F5d Skylancer), hardly great fighters.
The F4D Skyray was a great plane at the time. Its pilots loved it and it had fantastic performance for a naval fighter. They didn't hand out Collier Trophies for turkeys.
"Once he got into it, [Rahn] found the stick forces were very heavy and handling at high speeds was rough. His initial efforts at spin tests were downright terrifying: the Skyray could (usually) recover from a spin, but the book had to be rewritten to tell pilots how to do it. Despite all that, Rahn called the machine a "fighter pilot's dream", the best machine he had taken into the sky since flying the Spitfire. Its instability made it supremely agile for a skilled pilot, and Rahn claimed that he out-flew every Air Force chase plane sent up with him. Marine Major Marion Carl, one of the top test pilots of the era, flew the Skyray and claimed: 'If we had this airplane now in Korea, I could just pop off the MiGs -- one, two, three.' "
The F5D Skylancer was BRILLIANT. The Navy just decided it would be a good idea to have more than one supplier for their carrier planes for the next few decades. It was a good decision, but sad for the great Douglas company.
The A4D (while designated as an attack aircraft) was as much a fighter as many other aircraft throughout history. The Blue Angels don't fly attack planes. Such a fantastic little plane. It's spent over 50 continuous years as a carrier-based fighter/attack plane. Name another type to claim that... That's right. There isn't one.
The pièce de résistance however, was the A4D Skyhawk, better known as the A-4. It may have been designated an attack plane, but it was as much a fighter as many aircraft throughout history. The Blue Angels fly fighters. Top Gun instructors fly fighters. Name another type to serve as a carrier-based fighter/attack aircraft in a combat role for OVER 50 (!!!) years. There isn't one. Such a fantastic plane. Still going strong. It served in Vietnam, the Yom Kippur War, the Falklands, and the Gulf War.
Douglas was good to the US Navy, the fighter community included.
By: pagen01
- 18th July 2010 at 15:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The A-4 was an attack aircraft and mainly used as such, all be it a fantastic light one.
The Skyray was a good fighter that saw 8 years of service, but not a great one. Over shadowed by dependable Panther / Cougar (problamatic Cutlass & Demon around at same time aswel), and only a year after its own service entry by the superb Vought F-8 Crusader (best ever, single seat, single jet engined, gun armed carrier fighter ever?).
Crusader also effectively saw the end of Skylancer programme.
Agree that Douglas were brilliant to the Navy, but I'm not too sure that they rated as a great Fighter builder.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 19th July 2010 at 09:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm intersted as to how you rank EADS vs BAE systems.
Apart form the fact that both support the Tornado and the Typhoon programmes (and arguably, BAE was the lead designer of the Typhoon at least), that BAE also design the Harrier, the Hawk, are a major design partner in the F-35 programme. To my mind BAE have a much larger portfolio in the military sphere vis a vis EADS.
For me, Typhoon is not BAe thing. It's EADS thing. Last time I checked, the plane was British/German/French/Italian, not British.
By: MiG
- 19th July 2010 at 10:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For me, Typhoon is not BAe thing. It's EADS thing. Last time I checked, the plane was British/German/French/Italian, not British. Bye.
You'd be wrong then since it's British/German/Italian/Spanish. The fact is that the design originated in discussions between BAe (as was) and the German MBB and took it's shape in the form of the EAP built by BAe.
BAe is also the single largest shareholder if taking the German and Spanish division seperately. And even if you don't, I'd wonder how you could simply discount BAE and Finnemicannica from your deliberations. It is patently obvious that BAe is a massive influence, if not the major designer, of that aircraft and thus to take EADS above BAE on the basis of shareholding seems nonsensical.
it is surely impossible to seperate BAE from the design of the Typhoon, and thus to elevate EADS becuase of that programme is to elevate BAE.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 17th July 2010 at 23:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I didn't "avoid" anything. I simply came up with the list I thought was the top eight IMO. No need for people to get all upset about it, it's just an opinion for gods sake.
Posts: 355
By: Logan Hartke - 18th July 2010 at 04:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're clearly not big on aviation history. I can loan you some books if you like.
The F4D Skyray was a great plane at the time. Its pilots loved it and it had fantastic performance for a naval fighter. They didn't hand out Collier Trophies for turkeys.
"Once he got into it, [Rahn] found the stick forces were very heavy and handling at high speeds was rough. His initial efforts at spin tests were downright terrifying: the Skyray could (usually) recover from a spin, but the book had to be rewritten to tell pilots how to do it. Despite all that, Rahn called the machine a "fighter pilot's dream", the best machine he had taken into the sky since flying the Spitfire. Its instability made it supremely agile for a skilled pilot, and Rahn claimed that he out-flew every Air Force chase plane sent up with him. Marine Major Marion Carl, one of the top test pilots of the era, flew the Skyray and claimed: 'If we had this airplane now in Korea, I could just pop off the MiGs -- one, two, three.' "
http://www.vectorsite.net/avskyray.html
The F5D Skylancer was BRILLIANT. The Navy just decided it would be a good idea to have more than one supplier for their carrier planes for the next few decades. It was a good decision, but sad for the great Douglas company.
The A4D (while designated as an attack aircraft) was as much a fighter as many other aircraft throughout history. The Blue Angels don't fly attack planes. Such a fantastic little plane. It's spent over 50 continuous years as a carrier-based fighter/attack plane. Name another type to claim that... That's right. There isn't one.
The pièce de résistance however, was the A4D Skyhawk, better known as the A-4. It may have been designated an attack plane, but it was as much a fighter as many aircraft throughout history. The Blue Angels fly fighters. Top Gun instructors fly fighters. Name another type to serve as a carrier-based fighter/attack aircraft in a combat role for OVER 50 (!!!) years. There isn't one. Such a fantastic plane. Still going strong. It served in Vietnam, the Yom Kippur War, the Falklands, and the Gulf War.
Douglas was good to the US Navy, the fighter community included.
Cheers,
Logan
Posts: 10,647
By: pagen01 - 18th July 2010 at 15:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The A-4 was an attack aircraft and mainly used as such, all be it a fantastic light one.
The Skyray was a good fighter that saw 8 years of service, but not a great one. Over shadowed by dependable Panther / Cougar (problamatic Cutlass & Demon around at same time aswel), and only a year after its own service entry by the superb Vought F-8 Crusader (best ever, single seat, single jet engined, gun armed carrier fighter ever?).
Crusader also effectively saw the end of Skylancer programme.
Agree that Douglas were brilliant to the Navy, but I'm not too sure that they rated as a great Fighter builder.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 19th July 2010 at 09:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For me, Typhoon is not BAe thing. It's EADS thing. Last time I checked, the plane was British/German/French/Italian, not British.
Posts: 165
By: MiG - 19th July 2010 at 10:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You'd be wrong then since it's British/German/Italian/Spanish. The fact is that the design originated in discussions between BAe (as was) and the German MBB and took it's shape in the form of the EAP built by BAe.
BAe is also the single largest shareholder if taking the German and Spanish division seperately. And even if you don't, I'd wonder how you could simply discount BAE and Finnemicannica from your deliberations. It is patently obvious that BAe is a massive influence, if not the major designer, of that aircraft and thus to take EADS above BAE on the basis of shareholding seems nonsensical.
it is surely impossible to seperate BAE from the design of the Typhoon, and thus to elevate EADS becuase of that programme is to elevate BAE.