rose tinted flying goggles

Hmm....
Although I love it, something makes me want to say the P-51. Jack of all trades, master of none. Is it really the war-winning aircraft we've all been brought up to believe it to be?

Yeah, I'd have to agree with you on the P-51 there. It did its part but how much is myth and how much reality. There is always some myth to a legend.

I'd have to say that the F-16 gets a bit over rated in some aspects. A generalized aircraft that really doesn't master any one element. Lots of countries have got them, but thats because they aren't that difficult for local companies to put together. and look at the cost of an F-16 compared to say an F-15.

When the U.S. Navy took them on as Aggressor aircraft, they really showed their fragility, from what I recall the F-16N fleet didn't last more than about 5 years before their airframes had taken such a beating in those hard Navy style landings that they just couldn't go any further.

The F-16 does put on a great flying display. but does it gets its popularity from what it can do or more for its good looks? Does it get its international clients through proven track record or more economy and ease of service reasons.

Don't get me wrong, she's a decent plane and a real looker, but she is becoming a legend in her own right and has more than a bit of a mystique about her and reputation that usually proceeds her. So, Where do the F-16s realities end and her mythologies take over?

Upnorth,

Hmmm.... F-16? I used to hate it. But its grown on me. If I had to pick a modern plane that's overrated, its the F-18. Pretty soon the Navy's gonna put a radome on top of it and call it an AWACS...

That's easy, AH-1 Cobra of course!
Just kidding FW-190 poor at altitude and a very vulnerable coolant tank

As far as the F-16 goes. Let's not forget that It was designed from the very beginning as an "economical fighter". Lightweight simple design, one engine and basic avionics package. They left the bells and whistles for the other aircraft. This made them inexpensive and popular for exporting. It is still a formidable fighter with out a doubt.

Even if you take a mediocre plane and put a good pilot in it, you still have a deadly combination. More often then not it's the pilot that makes the difference, not vice versa.

My vote is for the F-18E super hornet. What a piece of crap. You know its bad when retired pilots are lobbying congress to scrap the program!

Darren

ROTFLMAO

Methinks Claymore was poking fun at me. :D
But in all seriousness, I do agree with Darren. We need new F-14s.
VIVA LA TOMCAT 21!

YEP! But seriously Jon I'll probly need your help in a couple of weeks. I'm going to build a UH-1 for a friend was a 1st of the 5th Grey Wolf (1st Cav) in 'nam and maybe a B-24 as his dad was lost in one over Yugoslavia along with the rest of the squadron.

Derek,

Sure! I'll see what units the 1/5 Cav worked with. It woudl be either the 227th or 229th assault helicopter battalions. Email me off list and I'll see what I can dig up for you!

f 15.

I think the F-16. It's our version of what the Soviets built the MiG-21 to do...Build a billion of them and supply everyone with them.

Well, I've heard the F-18 E is "Super" only in the marketing and propaganda department and that it can't climb or hold as tight a turn as the original Hornet design could.

I know the F-16 was designed and planned as an economical fighter for widespread export, it picked up where the F-5 left off. Still, there is the bit of myth to extract from the legend.

I remember several years ago, talking to a WWII RAF veteran that worked extensively in Bombers. He felt that the B-17 was the most overated aircraft of the war. He said it had a ridiculously small weapons accomodation for an aircraft of its size and carried far too much defensive armament in relation to its offensive load. Too much of its power was dragging the guns and bullets rather than carrying the bombs.

Of course even a plane that lacks in certain aspects can have those aspects compensated for by a good pilot. The F-86 (especially the early ones) is testament to that. Think about it, a post war jet, with the most modern airframe design work going into it and what is it's chief weapon? Six machine guns that could easily have been yanked from P-51s wings! When you're facing off against MiG-15s with their two 20mm and one 37mm cannons and all you've got is those outdated machine guns, you'd better be a damn good pilot.

I'd say the Mk.32 Sabre the Australians cooked up with its two 30mm cannons, Avon engine and Sidewinder capability is the aircraft that the Sabre should have been all along.

i think the f5 would have been the best or one of

P51. My uncle flew it in WWll in Europe. Prior to that he flew P-38's and P-40's in the Pacific. Of all the aircraft he flew in the war he said the P-51 was the worst. It wasn't as good as the public was meant to beleave. His preference was the P-38.

In Korea he again flew the F-51. He said he would rather have the old P-47 for the ground attack role as it was a much better aircraft. Later he got to fly the F-86F-30 and loved it.

My vote will be the P/F51. Based on the word of a man who flew it.