"If you can walk away from a landing, it's a good landing." -Chuck Yeager
In our little universe of SimplePlanes and WarThunder we tend to focus on performance. Miles per hour, tons of explosives, gallons of fuel. Climb rates, turn rates, wing loading. All that stuff is important, crucial even, but it certainly doesn't define success.
There are less obvious factors like cost, maintenance, availability, pilot workload and especially safety factors. After all, what good is the highest performance fighter in the world if you can only afford to build one and it crashes on takeoff?
We discuss whether planes are good or bad all the time, and it's almost always subjective. Ren and I were debating the merits of the A-10 vs the F-35 the other day. One of us was quick to mention the low cost and staggering weapons load of the A-10, while the other pointed out that the F-35 needs no fighter screen and can perform missions the A-10 can't. I think we both came to the conclusion that it's an apples-to-oranges comparison.
To me, success is measured in enemies defeated, passengers delivered, and missions safely completed. How often was it called upon and how often did it fail? But even this can be misleading. After all, the Brewster Buffalo had a kill ratio of 33:1 but how many people would view it as the deadliest fighter of the Second World War?
So how do you consider success for an airplane, and what planes stand out in your mind?
@F104Deathtrap Yeah, you're definitely right there. F-15 and Su-27 rule the jet age, P-47 and Mosquito rule the Age of Props.
@PhantomAviator I think the F-15 and Su-27 (and the Su-27 derivatives) are pretty close to one another, but they're both the most successful fighters in service today.
I think the P-47 and deHavilland Mosquito might be the best multi roles of all time, by virtue of the sheer number of missions carried out.
IMO the F-15 is the best multirole fighter ever built
@KnightOfRen Exactly
@F104Deathtrap
I say they both have their pros and cons
@KnightOfRen Not just range, but loiter time as well. It's a much better aircraft for supporting troops, assuming the air is clear.
Don't forget the A-10 has a longer range as well.
@AndrewHarrison The plane went into a vertical spin and couldn't be recovered so he ejected. The thing is, early model 104's ejected the pilot downward through the floor and the ejector rocket caught his head on fire. He was ok, but it was a hell of a mess.
@F104Deathtrap Ahhh ofcourse, I actually watched that movie many times as a kid.
For me it’s primarily pilot’s opinions. For example the LaGG-3 I consider a respectable aircraft in terms of firepower, but from pilots’ opinion it is completely useless garbage.
@BagelPlane Sure does, though sometimes aircraft can be repurposed surprisingly well.
@F104Deathtrap in my opinion anything that gets sh*t done is successful
Depends on it’s role and/or intended goal I’d say.
@Aldriech Reliability is key, for sure. Military history is littered with the wrecks of planes that ignored reliability in search of performance. The F-104 is a perfect example, pure trash when it was called upon.
@F104Deathtrap Yeah, a combat aircraft's criteria to be a successful aircraft is different. I do believe reliability is still a main factor though. But I do guess that a successful combat aircraft should be what role that aircraft excels the most. The A-10, as you said, was a low-cost aircraft that is excellent at doing its job and about the F-35- well I don't know much of the plane, all I know is that it is a multipurpose aircraft.
@QuitePossiblyMangled The Zero is a great example of a plane with stellar performance becoming a gigantic liability. Sacrificing safety features for performance was a worthwhile trade so long as the edge in performance kept the pilot safe. But once that lead evaporated, so did Japan's supply of capable pilots, leading to a vicious cycle of failure that doomed the IJN.
@Aldriech For general aviation, yes. For combat? No.
@PapaKernels I am not ready to relinquish control over to Skynet just yet.
Lots of stuff but the main thing would probably be cost, reliability, range, and fuel economy.
With the amount of time it takes to make an aircraft, we should do what czinger did with the 21c and make a totally AI made aircraft. It could probably save a couple years on the production process.
@F104Deathtrap cool tag me when you post it
Combat record, Cost, and Adaptability
-Combat record: Was it good at it's job? The F-35 may be great now, but if push comes to shove and it is unable to accomplish it's mission, then it wasn't a great aircraft
-Cost: Was it worth the cost? Was it good for the pilots? More or less was it worth it for the military and . If a long range fighter is uncomfortable, then pilots will be at a disadvantage and limited. If it cost too much or uses rare materials, then it's limited by production.
-Adaptability: Was it able to adapt to new and better fighters? An example would be the Zero. It was great in the beginning of ww2 but became outclassed by newer american aircraft.
@F104Deathtrap oof
@rexrexThezion At my speed? Probably 3 more months, lol.
ooh F6F when?