4 ms·

> he designs the best fighter plane ever flown by pilots Easy there, comrade.

MiguelHudnandez 13y ago
Which planes do you know to be better, and if you have time, why?
vinceguidry 13y ago
Perhaps I was a little hasty making that assertion. I'd be very interested in hearing about a plane that was actually built that improved on Boyd's design.
- huhtenberg 13y ago
  I was making a joke based on a sweeping breadth of your statement and the fact that every single Russian would disagree that Americans could built a better plane, leave alone the best one. In particular, it is a common belief that any Sukhoi would fly circles around a comparable F, and Mig would do the same, just not as elegantly. That said, I am curious what were comparing Boyd's F-15 to.
- icegreentea 13y ago
  If you're comparing within generations, he's probably talking about the Su-27 and MiG-29. Kinematically, those two platforms are probably able to match or exceed the F-15 and F-16 in at least some flight regimes. Remember that when Boyd applied his design principles, they were set up to design planes that could defeat any current designs - the performance characteristics of the Flanker and Fulcrum were not really known at the time. If you're comparing across generations, I think it's pretty fair to assume that many of the 5th generation fighters are likely kinematically better than either the F-15 or F-16 in dog-fighting engagements. You can hear a US Airforce talk that includes a discussion about engaging F-22s in dog fighting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEa-R37PeU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEa-R37PeU. Wanna skip to 7:50 or so, but the whole thing is pretty interesting if you're into that type of thing
  - vinceguidry 13y ago
    > Kinematically, those two platforms are probably able to match or exceed the F-15 and F-16 in at least some flight regimes. I'd need to read more, but I don't doubt that the four in-service aircraft are comparable. The design I was referring to was that of the YF-16, the prototype plane Boyd developed in secret. It was so maneuverable that it enabled a completely new type of combat tactic, called in the book I read the 'buttonhook turn'. When the Air Force was done with it, though, it lost all the aerodynamic characteristics that made it special.
    - icegreentea 13y ago
      If the book is "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War" by Robert Coram, then I've also read it. It's very easy to over state what Boyd did. As in, what he did in reality was so fantastic and unbelievable that it's very easy to attribute additional not fully truthful aspects to him. Unfortunately, can't really talk about the YF-16's combat potential as a dog fighter all that much. But what I can say is that if you apply Boyd's earlier work (E-M theory and E-M charts) to the the YF-16, then its very likely that you -can- compare the various airplanes. While it's certainly true that the YF-16 could perform the buttonhook turn to significant advantage in a wide variety of situations (the buttonhook turn is used when being pursued. By initiating a ridiculous tight turn, you could dump enough velocity to cause the opponent to overshoot, and then MOST importantly, the YF-16 had the thrust-weight ratio required to rapidly regain the energy it had just lost and allow it to reengage), it's quite likely that either the MiG-29 or Su-27 could have beat it in other regimes. For example, look at how the F-4 (a terrible dog fighter) was able to find advantageous engagements against generally aerodynamically superior MiGs during Vietnam (aided by Boyd's E-M work). It should also be pointed out that amongst the things that the Air Force forced onto the F-16 was a much better radar. Nearly all the major changes made to the production aircraft degraded its talents as a dogfighter (as you point out) while vastly increasing its flexibility and its ability to engage at long-range - decisions which in retrospect were massively beneficial. The biggest thing to ding the USAF with is that they did not sufficiently increase wing area to compensate for the mass increase. In other words, Boyd's vision of where air combat was heading wasn't really spot on. Also, credit should go to where it belongs. Boyd did not design the YF-16 by himself. The rest of the "Fighter Mafia" deserve just as much credit, as well as the designers at General Dynamics.
- pedalpete 13y ago
  You seem to be into your planes, have you heard of the Avro Arrow? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow There is also a pretty good film about it's development starring Dan Ackroyd. I don't know much about planes, but I remember in High School (90s) when we learned about the Arrow, it was reported that no fighter jet had yet to match her specs. Looks like the F-18 comes close to the Avro top speed.

Which planes do you know to be better, and if you have time, why?

Perhaps I was a little hasty making that assertion. I'd be very interested in hearing about a plane that was actually built that improved on Boyd's design.

huhtenberg 13y ago
I was making a joke based on a sweeping breadth of your statement and the fact that every single Russian would disagree that Americans could built a better plane, leave alone the best one. In particular, it is a common belief that any Sukhoi would fly circles around a comparable F, and Mig would do the same, just not as elegantly. That said, I am curious what were comparing Boyd's F-15 to.
icegreentea 13y ago
If you're comparing within generations, he's probably talking about the Su-27 and MiG-29. Kinematically, those two platforms are probably able to match or exceed the F-15 and F-16 in at least some flight regimes. Remember that when Boyd applied his design principles, they were set up to design planes that could defeat any current designs - the performance characteristics of the Flanker and Fulcrum were not really known at the time. If you're comparing across generations, I think it's pretty fair to assume that many of the 5th generation fighters are likely kinematically better than either the F-15 or F-16 in dog-fighting engagements. You can hear a US Airforce talk that includes a discussion about engaging F-22s in dog fighting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEa-R37PeU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEa-R37PeU. Wanna skip to 7:50 or so, but the whole thing is pretty interesting if you're into that type of thing
- vinceguidry 13y ago
  > Kinematically, those two platforms are probably able to match or exceed the F-15 and F-16 in at least some flight regimes. I'd need to read more, but I don't doubt that the four in-service aircraft are comparable. The design I was referring to was that of the YF-16, the prototype plane Boyd developed in secret. It was so maneuverable that it enabled a completely new type of combat tactic, called in the book I read the 'buttonhook turn'. When the Air Force was done with it, though, it lost all the aerodynamic characteristics that made it special.
  - icegreentea 13y ago
    If the book is "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War" by Robert Coram, then I've also read it. It's very easy to over state what Boyd did. As in, what he did in reality was so fantastic and unbelievable that it's very easy to attribute additional not fully truthful aspects to him. Unfortunately, can't really talk about the YF-16's combat potential as a dog fighter all that much. But what I can say is that if you apply Boyd's earlier work (E-M theory and E-M charts) to the the YF-16, then its very likely that you -can- compare the various airplanes. While it's certainly true that the YF-16 could perform the buttonhook turn to significant advantage in a wide variety of situations (the buttonhook turn is used when being pursued. By initiating a ridiculous tight turn, you could dump enough velocity to cause the opponent to overshoot, and then MOST importantly, the YF-16 had the thrust-weight ratio required to rapidly regain the energy it had just lost and allow it to reengage), it's quite likely that either the MiG-29 or Su-27 could have beat it in other regimes. For example, look at how the F-4 (a terrible dog fighter) was able to find advantageous engagements against generally aerodynamically superior MiGs during Vietnam (aided by Boyd's E-M work). It should also be pointed out that amongst the things that the Air Force forced onto the F-16 was a much better radar. Nearly all the major changes made to the production aircraft degraded its talents as a dogfighter (as you point out) while vastly increasing its flexibility and its ability to engage at long-range - decisions which in retrospect were massively beneficial. The biggest thing to ding the USAF with is that they did not sufficiently increase wing area to compensate for the mass increase. In other words, Boyd's vision of where air combat was heading wasn't really spot on. Also, credit should go to where it belongs. Boyd did not design the YF-16 by himself. The rest of the "Fighter Mafia" deserve just as much credit, as well as the designers at General Dynamics.
pedalpete 13y ago
You seem to be into your planes, have you heard of the Avro Arrow? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow There is also a pretty good film about it's development starring Dan Ackroyd. I don't know much about planes, but I remember in High School (90s) when we learned about the Arrow, it was reported that no fighter jet had yet to match her specs. Looks like the F-18 comes close to the Avro top speed.