I agree about the ratio. We lost 382 Phantoms in combat. This of course includes the ones lost to SAMs and AA fire, so the official kill/loss ratio is 1.5-to-1. Go back and look at the kill/loss ratio for the F-15.

I would think it would be more influenced on the training of the pilots and how often they can practice.

The aircraft is but a tool..

So are some of the pilots but that's for another thread. :D

:har: Well said.

Kind of compairing apples and oranges. There is good reason why the four aircraft were develpoed in the first place. It comes down to mission, many of which have changed considerably over the years.

Do you want a long range/loiter A/C with the ability to defend CBGs from ALCMs ? A close in gunfighter to act tactically against a high quanty agile fighter threat? A multi-role A/C which can replace non-mach capable medium bombers? Or a top cover A/C which can dominate the airspace?

I suspect all four would be valuable.

I'll admit the F-15 does a great job shooting down poorly trained Syrians and Iraqis fleeing to a neutral country. :haha:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/pict...pictureid=3336

R.I.P. :salute:

The ANG flew them out of Gowen Field when I was a kid. As much as I like the birds that have been in service since, the F4 tops my list. I like all the unusual little details in the design that keep the whole system in balance. And from a certain angle the Phantom looks very much like a bird of prey. A thing of primitive beauty, I guess. :DL

But, since we are talking about these other aircraft I'd have to vote for the F-14. It was a very complicated design that actually worked out pretty well, despite some of its flaws. And of course that impressive weapon system. Didn't know that Eagles would have a hard time fighting a Tomcat, though. I'd have thought it would be the other way around. What is this world coming to? :lol:

I voted for the F-14.Never saw as much air to air combat as F-15 because it was not used by other nations like Israel but F-14 shot down some planes and no air to air losses as far as I know.

Personally, I think when it comes to F-14 versus F-15, it's a quality of the pilot thing:arrgh!:

Could very well be the case. :yep:

But an Israeli F-15 landed safely after an in air collision which removed the starboard wing of the F-15. Admittedly this isn't the primary role of the F-15 it does lend credence to its robust nature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_EXtBEaBbs

That's pretty amazing, isn't it? How the pilot managed to wrestle back control is beyond me, man. :)

Aerodynamics and the knowledge that if all else failed he had a way out.

That is how he did it.

Airline pilots can't just leave. But 25° of bank/10° of pitch is also limiting.

In the video he sort of explained it. By increasing his air speed he decreased the amount of lift required to stay airborne and was able to correct the spin. This principle is why aircraft have flaps, they increase lift to allow the aircraft stay airborne at low speeds. Aircraft with less wing area have higher stall speeds requiring larger flaps or breaking gear ('Chutes, or arrester hooks) to land.

The F-8 Crusader has flown several times (both by accident or design) with what amounts to 60% wing area by having its wings folded. (Not sure if the folded wings also add to lift pushing the aircraft down negating more wing area or what)

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/3...gsfolded67.jpg

http://mofak.com/Night_Infamy.htm

May I suggest Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, to clear your mind on this subject. I think it will clear the minds of the non-aviator types when it comes to weight v. gravity visa vis thrust v. lift.

All four are great aircraft, but the comparison is not precise. For example the different production blocks can differ greatly for a type, and you also have to take intop account like radar signature, radar quality, maintenance, etc. Other factors relativise existing qualities. The Phoenix missile for example was designed to track huge Soviet bombers before they could start to flood the airspace with missiles - it was not designed to be used at maxiumum range against small fighters (if they even could be tracked over that maximum range at all).

My vote is for the most ugly of the four, the modern and newest F/A-18E/F, the Super Hornet, Block II and III. The latest blocks of F-16 also would be a good choice due to its versatility. The F-15 and F-14 have great looks, no doubt. But I wonder about their survivability in an strong and modern electronics environment. They are simply the oldest of the four, and have great radar signatures for their type class. Although the F-15 received several upgrade programs and replacements of its radar, the airframes have started to show wear and tear due to their age.

I think all four types are inferior to both the Raptor and the Eurofighter, with the Eurofighter being a multi-role-capable fighter.

I have lost track in recent years of what the Russians are coming up with these days. I'm sure you better don't count out their latest models. And at least in the past Russians tended to have some really nasty A-A missiles, of both precision and great range.