[jim]

Originally Posted by VMF115

Well ok FormerViperDrive, the Mig 25 in my book was a piece of crap and this is based on Soviet defector Lieutenant Viktor Belenko's mig-25 close inspection and showed that is clear a copy of the Avro arrow. Now as for as the mig-23-27 line is concerned, they where cutting edge at the time of their introduction. Now we are not talking about how the air force’s of the world maintain their aircraft are we? because If so the USA will win this every time, I thought the topic was about aircraft manufactures. And yes I know the SU-27 is not a MIG product.
I don’t mean to offend any one here.

Good discussion VMF, you cannot offend anyone with a good discussion. I didnt think you would get away with your assesment.
I was just waiting to see who jumped in first.

Great stuff.

[VMF115]

Originally Posted by jim

Good discussion VMF, you cannot offend anyone with a good discussion. I didnt think you would get away with your assesment.
I was just waiting to see who jumped in first.

Great stuff.

Thanks Jim, Now I am a big fan of Grumman and Lockheed but for the sake argument I feel that Russian aircraft manufactures get the short end of the stick and are not fully represented some times.

Many right them off as junk and don’t put in to account that the Russian air force had budget problems and many of the third world counties that fly Soviet era and Russian fighters don’t have the in-house facilities or the money to maintain them.

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by VMF115

Well ok FormerViperDrive, the Mig 25 in my book was a piece of crap and this is based on Soviet defector Lieutenant Viktor Belenko's mig-25 close inspection and showed that is clear a copy of the Avro arrow. Now as for as the mig-23-27 line is concerned, they where cutting edge at the time of their introduction. Now we are not talking about how the air force’s of the world maintain their aircraft are we? because If so the USA will win this every time, I thought the topic was about aircraft manufactures. And yes I know the SU-27 is not a MIG product.
I don’t mean to offend any one here.

I don't see why there would be any offense, VMF115. I'm just making a point using the knowledge I have, that's all. MiG is a great aircraft manufacturing company, I just don't think objectively it can be called the best there is or was.

BTW, I was at the Paris Air Show in 1989 myself, and got to see the Su-27 and MiG-29 for the first time in person then (I've seen then real close several times since, including particularly the Luftwaffe MiG-29 when they still had them). At the time, I was flying the F-16 at Hahn Air Base in Germany, so I had more than a passing interest, if you know what I mean. I was more impressed with the Sukhoi, personally. Maybe it's the shear size of it, and the Cobra maneuver which was just amazing at the time (and is still very cool).

As far as aircraft maintenance, I wasn't aware I breached that subject. If I was misunderstood, sorry. However, since you mention it, how easy an aircraft is to maintain should be taken in consideration. In that area, the Russian designs actually tend to score pretty well due to their ruggedness and simple systems (not so good in the engine durability department, until very recently).

Please don't take anything I write personally. I'm only trying to get to the truth, or close to it, the best I can.

FVD

[VMF115]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

I don't see why there would be any offense, VMF115. I'm just making a point using the knowledge I have, that's all. MiG is a great aircraft manufacturing company, I just don't think objectively it can be called the best there is or was.

BTW, I was at the Paris Air Show in 1989 myself, and got to see the Su-27 and MiG-29 for the first time in person then (I've seen then real close several times since, including particularly the Luftwaffe MiG-29 when they still had them). At the time, I was flying the F-16 at Hahn Air Base in Germany, so I had more than a passing interest, if you know what I mean. I was more impressed with the Sukhoi, personally. Maybe it's the shear size of it, and the Cobra maneuver which was just amazing at the time (and is still very cool).

As far as aircraft maintenance, I wasn't aware I breached that subject. If I was misunderstood, sorry. However, since you mention it, how easy an aircraft is to maintain should be taken in consideration. In that area, the Russian designs actually tend to score pretty well due to their ruggedness and simple systems (not so good in the engine durability department, until very recently).

Please don't take anything I write personally. I'm only trying to get to the truth, or close to it, the best I can.

FVD

No prob.

[Old Crow]

When I started this thread I should have explained my thought process more fully. To me, at least, this is not an issue about who makes literally the best aircraft, but rather which manufacturer's aircraft have had the most significant impact. In other words, it is analogous to the debate about most valuable player versus best player; the best performing aircraft may not necessarily be the most valuable.

Timing, model development, availability of parts and support, ease of operation, the nature of enemy assets being deployed, political considerations, theater, and other myriad factors can combine to dictate which airframe will succeed and which will not. More importantly, actual use and results, at particular times and places, are the most important measures, to me, at least, of whose aircraft turn out to be the most important and valuable. The baddest dude on the aviation block, which never fires a shot in anger or is deployed in significant numbers, does not make the manufacturer most important, at least by my reckoning.

Circumstances will often dictate the valuable nature of an airframe. Take Grumman's Wildcat, for example. During the dark early days of the war in the Pacific I think one can make a case for the Wildcat, though being theoretically outclassed by other airframes, being the bulwark against the Japanese until better aircraft came on the scene including, of course, Grumman's Hellcat. Hawker's Hurricane is another example of an airframe made legendary as much by time and place as actual capability.

I think you can make a case for North American, for example, even though the number of models may have been less, because of the special role their planes fulfilled in combat and the time and place of their actual involvement: P-51and B-25 in WW2, in Korea, the F-86, and today, the B-1.

I agree with the technical analysis of Mig products- pro and con- but I would have to say they merit serious consideration simply because Mig products actually fought in great numbers, with militarily significant results, in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam.

Lockheed is a great choice again because their airframes actually performed in harm's way in shooting wars. But, on whole, I think the body of work of Grumman's planes exceeds the body of work of Lockheed and any other manufacturer. Besides the cats in WW2 and the Avenger, Grumman planes fought significantly in Korea (Panther) and Vietnam (A-6 Intruder) and, of course, there was the iconic F-14 controlling the skies and projecting power (while shooting down a few birds) for 30 years. Plus, Grumman made a significant impact on support roles with the S-2 Tracker and E-2 Hawkeye as well as the electronic warfare version of the Intruder, the Prowler. These planes performed front-line service in the Cold War and shooting wars over the last 4 decades.

O.K., I've got my helmet and flak vest on so let's hear the rebuttal.

[VMF115]

Old Crow that is a good post, and no flake from me, but how about a flask of whisky?

[Old Crow]

how about a flask of whisky?

You can offer a toast to Bud Anderson.

[VMF115]

Originally Posted by Old Crow

You can offer a toast to Bud Anderson.

SURE WILL!!!

[Epapazian]

While I would place Lockheed, Boeing and Grumman in a three-way tie for first I find it interesting that nobody has mentioned German or Japanese manufacturers yet. Take Messerschmitt for example. Certainly the BF-109 was a stellar, albeit somewhat tricky to land, design. And the ME-262 certainly ranks high as the first successful mass produced jet fighter. Focke-Wulf also deserves consideration, not only for the awesome FW-190 series, but also for little gems like the FW-189 "Uhu", and Kurt Tank's final masterpiece, the TA-152. As for the Japanese, Nakajima's "Oscar" "Kate" and especially its "Frank" were impressive for their era and Mitsubishi turned out the outstanding A6M Zero-Sen, plus the "Betty", "Nell" , "Sally" and "Peggy" bombers, the last being every bit as good as our B-25.

[VMF115]

The Japanese mostly copied western designs, they where efficient but they where not thier own, in fact also the technology they had at the beginning of the war was also the same technology they had when they surrendered. Sure they had a few unique designs but they came two late to do help with their war effort.
Basically they had no idea that the war would last that long and we would sue for peace.