Top ten in aviation

[jack973]

I do not know if this topics has been posted but I think is nice to see how other people classify the different airplanes in aviation history. Probably we won´t agree with some classification but I think we can discuss this gently about what we think.

Top ten Fighters
http://military.discovery.com/technolog ... intro.html

Top ten fastest military airplanes
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-fastest-m ... planes.php

Top ten most expensive military airplanes
http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0 ... 03,00.html

[JohnB]

I don't know about you, but I always get my impartial, expert opinions about military aircraft from Time.

And the top ten fighters list looks like it was made up by people who only know about military aircraft from watching the Military Channel.
Really, the Harrier (not a fighter) or Me-262 over the Thunderbolt, Zero, Hellcat or Corsair?
Yes, both were historically significant for being VTOL and jet, respectively....but being first does not mean they're the "best".

Silly list, as most "bests" are.

Last edited by JohnB on Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Mudge]

I agree. The list is totally subjective. That said, I'm not going to join in what will become a "hoo-ha" about the "best/fastest/etc.". Reason being, when it's all over with, we'll still have 746 different opinions, none of which are in total agreement. But, that's a good thing 'cause that's what this forum is about. Differing opinions. (A lot of which are unsolicited. )

Mudge the independent

Last edited by Mudge on Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[fritzthefox]

It is interesting how military aircraft unit prices have escalated well beyond inflation. A B-29 purchased in 1944 with today's dollars would have cost around 7 million dollars. That's a bargain compared to the B-2. The B-2 has nearly double the performance in terms of range, ceiling, speed and bombload...but you could buy 200 Superfortresses for the price of one Spirit.

Makes you wonder if there isn't a more reasonable performance/price ratio we should be seeking. There is something to be said for quantity over quality. You don't have to worry about a single bird strike taking out an entire bomber group.

[JohnB]

Apples & oranges....
The B-2 (or any modern aircraft) can do things the B-29 could only dream.
Imagine a F-14-15-16 over Korea...it's a fair guess that a lot of F-86 pilots would still be alive if they had the capability to destroy a MiG far beyond visual range. Or all the 105s lost trying to take out a bridge in North Vietnam...today, we'd send a cruise missile and forget it.

Again, one reason why the B-2 cost so much is they only built 21. If they built 21 B-29s intead of thousands, their unit price would have been much higher.
(To put it another way, Ford spent billions on the new Taurus...imagine them building only 21...they'd be a hundred tmes more expensive than a Rolls.)

Getting away from warplanes..back in the 70s a new Beech Baron as $100-150,000. A new one is about $1 million.
BUT the new one have avionics that bizjets and airliners didn't have in the 70s.

As far as a performance/price ratio...it would work only would work if we never had to face an enemy.
All the "other guy" would have to do is outspend you....

[jack973]

here we have other top list

Top 10 worst aircraft
http://www.wired.com/culture/culturerev ... orstplanes

Top 10 private jets
http://www.chilloutpoint.com/featured/t ... ashed.html

great planes
http://military.discovery.com/tv/great-planes/

Top 10 fighter planes in history
http://www.militaryfactory.com/articles ... istory.asp

[fritzthefox]

Apples & oranges....
The B-2 (or any modern aircraft) can do things the B-29 could only dream.
Imagine a F-14-15-16 over Korea...it's a fair guess that a lot of F-86 pilots would still be alive if they had the capability to destroy a MiG far beyond visual range. Or all the 105s lost trying to take out a bridge in North Vietnam...today, we'd send a cruise missile and forget it.

Again, one reason why the B-2 cost so much is they only built 21. If they built 21 B-29s intead of thousands, their unit price would have been much higher.
(To put it another way, Ford spent billions on the new Taurus...imagine them building only 21...they'd be a hundred tmes more expensive than a Rolls.)

Getting away from warplanes..back in the 70s a new Beech Baron as $100-150,000. A new one is about $1 million.
BUT the new one have avionics that bizjets and airliners didn't have in the 70s.

As far as a performance/price ratio...it would work only would work if we never had to face an enemy.
All the "other guy" would have to do is outspend you....

Had the original 132 B-2's foreseen by military planners been built, the unit cost would still have been over half a billion dollars per plane. They cost twice as much to maintain as any other strategic bomber in service. They are not a bargain, economies of scale notwithstanding. That being said, the argument is not without merit...had only 21 B-29's been built, they would've cost about as much as a B-2 in inflationary dollars.

I will not concede that the comparison is apples to oranges, though. It's expensive apples to oh-my-gosh-were-these-watered-with-unicorn-tears-or-something expensive apples. Both aircraft were designed to drop a bunch of high-explosive (or nukes) on a distant nation and come back in one piece. We live in a day and age when there are a lot of ways to do that. The B-2 tries to do it sneakily. That is what all that expensive extra tech is for. It can't fly higher or faster than modern air defenses, nor can it outrun a modern interceptor. (The B-29 could do both when it was built) It stays alive via stealth. When (not if) someone finds a way to defeat stealth tech, it will be as hastily retired as the B-29 was when it became obvious that jet powered fighters made it obsolete.

It is not a revolutionary weapon. It is just another high-tech strategic bomber that happens to cost 200 times more than a previous high-tech strategic bomber.

[SaxMan]

I know these lists are at the whims of the writers, and everyone has their opinions on what a "Top 10" list should consist of, but putting the XB-15 on the 10 worst list is just flat out ignorant. The plane was a test bed. It was never designed to be mass produced. The XB-15 did set a number of load carrying and weight-to-altitude records, IIRC. It also gave Boeing and the AAF a lot of knowledge on what was needed to build REALLY big airplanes. Without the experience of the XB-15, particularly with the need for even more powerful engines than what existed at the time, the B-29 may have not developed into the successful weapon that it became.

I'm surprised the writer didn't put the Model 299 on the list, after all, it crashed immediately after winning the competition (very obvious and intentional sarcasm is completely intended).