# (REVISED) Most Formidable Low-Med Altitude Fighter Aircraft



## Hickam Field (Dec 8, 2016)

I've done my best to include notable air-frames from Allied and Axis powers. If I missed any, by all means comment with a suggestion. Feel free to include reasoning behind your choice.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 8, 2016)

Notice that the Kawasaki Ki-100 is not included in the Poll.

This from wiki

"_An overall assessment of the effectiveness of the Ki-100 rated it highly in agility, and a well-handled Ki-100 was able to outmanoeuvre any American fighter, including the formidable P-51D Mustangs and the P-47N which were escorting the B-29 raids over Japan by that time, and was comparable in speed, especially at medium altitudes. In the hands of an experienced pilot, the Ki-100 was a deadly opponent; the Ki-100 and the Army's Ki-84 and the Navy's (George) were the only Japanese fighters able to defeat the latest Allied types_".

Japans own fight testing in March '45 showed the type to be superior to both the George and the Frank. it was used operationally, so why exclude it from the list?


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 8, 2016)

While the Typhoon may have had it's issues, it was also a beast at lower altitudes against the Fw190A


----------



## Hickam Field (Dec 8, 2016)

parsifal said:


> Notice that the Kawasaki Ki-100 is not included in the Poll.
> 
> This from wiki
> 
> ...





parsifal said:


> Notice that the Kawasaki Ki-100 is not included in the Poll.
> 
> This from wiki
> 
> ...


This quote could be used for 3/4 of the a/c on the list..... But, the Ki-100 has been added.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 8, 2016)

What about the Spitfire XII?


----------



## Hickam Field (Dec 9, 2016)

wuzak said:


> What about the Spitfire XII?


Added. Thanks


----------



## wlewisiii (Dec 11, 2016)

Not listed P-40E when being flown at seriously high manifold pressures .


----------



## drewwizard (Dec 7, 2017)

My vote would be for the FW-190 Dora. As far as I know it's the only aircraft to have opposition pilots forbidden to engage. Russian pilots were ordered to run away if they encountered the FW-190D.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 7, 2017)

drewwizard said:


> My vote would be for the FW-190 Dora. As far as I know it's the only aircraft to have opposition pilots forbidden to engage. Russian pilots were ordered to run away if they encountered the FW-190D.


I cannot imagine any Russian commander ordering any Russian to run away from anything German at the time the Dora was introduced, any more than an American commander would order a USA pilot to run from an Me 262

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Dec 7, 2017)

pbehn said:


> I cannot imagine any Russian commander ordering any Russian to run away from anything German at the time the Dora was introduced, any more than an American commander would order a USA pilot to run from an Me 262




There is no solid evidence to support this, just as there is little or no evidence that LW pilots were ordered not to engage soviet radial engine fighters (a reference to the La5n and 9) below 5000m. Neither order ever existed.

That's not to say that the Doras were not formidable, just as any of the first line german fighters were on the EF. They cut slices out of the VVS. What is true also is that VVS after Stalingrad were never all that interested in trying to win general air superiority on the eastern front by direct confrontation with the jagdwaffe. They knew they couldn't really achieve that. instead their primary mission was to keep the LW fighter force busy long enough for the Sturmoviks to get in and do what they needed to do, which is basically to go in at zero height and pummel the heer as much as possible. Secondarily the VVS was tasked with breaking up the stuka attacks on their own formation, something they were far less successful at . If a german fighter presented itself on the battlefield, the VVS would engage it, but it was not a priorty for them to go after the enemy fighters, or drive the enemy forces completely from the sky. VVS was strictly a ground support oriented weapon of war,, moreso even than the LW.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 7, 2017)

pbehn said:


> I cannot imagine any Russian commander ordering any Russian to run away from anything German at the time the Dora was introduced, any more than an American commander would order a USA pilot to run from an Me 262




Considering that Soviet pilots were expected to fight Bf109s in I-15s and I-16s, this cried for a citation. It very well may be true, but I can’t envision a dictatorship that shot soldiers for retreating telling pilots to avoid combat

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Dec 8, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Considering that Soviet pilots were expected to fight Bf109s in I-15s and I-16s, this cried for a citation. It very well may be true, but I can’t envision a dictatorship that shot soldiers for retreating telling pilots to avoid combat



It shot pilots shot down and captured for desertion.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 8, 2017)

drewwizard said:


> My vote would be for the FW-190 Dora. As far as I know it's the only aircraft to have opposition pilots forbidden to engage. Russian pilots were ordered to run away if they encountered the FW-190D.


In my opinion this maybe a comment taken out of context and then extrapolated to within an inch of its life. It is common in official discussion of a fighters strengths and weaknesses to read things like "under no circumstances engage fighter "X" by doing "Y" or if engaged by fighter "X" from above then dive away, that does not mean it is the end of the fight or in different circumstances that you should not give fighter "X" the whole nine yards by performing manoeuvre "Z". It may be clear to those in historical and modelling discussions what is a FW 190D it was never that clear to any WW2 pilot who frequently "shot down" types that were never in the air that day.


----------



## Kai Stemm (Dec 8, 2017)

What?!? Where are my biplanes? We all know that the CR. 42 was the best fighter... why? Because for one it's a biplane and 2 you cannot beat these Italian camouflages.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drewwizard (Dec 12, 2017)

remember that at this time the kill ratio for German pilots was very high. Even the Russians were having trouble replacing aircraft (always enough pilots even if very inexperienced). When the Dora appeared it was a shock. best zoom fighter of the war. Couldn't catch it, couldn't stay with it in level flight (and flown by the best German pilots). Not sure how long the order lasted. Even the ME-262 was in trouble when ganged up on, and the Soviets introduced a few very good planes themselves soon afterward.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 12, 2017)

FW190D entered squadron service in roughly September 1944, with the early versions lacking MW50 injection systems. Rated max speed was 426mph according to most general sources. Not sure at what altitude. Roll rate was described as average.





La7 preceded the dora by several months and was only 15mph slower. It had superior performance up to 5000m, lighter armament but better roll rates. VVS considered this fighter fully the equal of any LW conventional aircraft. There was never any hesitation by the Soviets to use it in its intended role at any stage. It vastly outnumbered the Dora at all stages. It had some poor serviceability issuesearly on as did the doras Doras did not chalk up impressive tallies against this perticualr aircraft. Of the 5000 La 7s produced to May 1945, only 107 were lost in air combat. Some of the units that flew this aircraft chalked up impressive tallys in exchange.

The 63rd Guard Fighter Aviation Corps began combat trials of the La-7 in mid-September 1944 in support of the 1st Balktic front. Thirty aircraft were provided for the trials, which lasted one month. During this time the new fighters made 462 individual sorties and claimed 55 aerial victories while losing four aircraft in combat. Four other La-7s were lost to non-combat causes, mostly related to engine problems. A total of three pilots were killed during the trials to all causes.

One regimental commander, Colonel Ye. Gorbatyuk, a Hero Of the Soviet Union commented: "The La-7 exhibited unquestionable superiority over all r German aircraft in multiple air combats. In addition to fighter tasks, photo reconnaissance and bombing were undertaken with success. The aircraft surpasses the La-5FN in speed, manoeuvrability, and, especially, in the landing characteristics. It requires changes in its armament, and urgent fixing of its engine."

The twin ShVAK armament inherited from the La-5 was no longer powerful enough to bring down later, more heavily armored German fighters, especially the Sturmbock FW190s, in a single burst, even when Soviet pilots opened fire at ranges of only 50–100 meters.

The 156th Fighter Air Corps of the 4th Frontal Aviation Army was the next unit to receive the La-7 in October 1944. At one point during the month, they had fourteen aircraft simultaneously unserviceable with engine failures. By 1 January 1945 there were 398 La-7s in front-line service of which 107 were unserviceable. Gradually this serviceability issue did improve, By 9 May 1945 this had increased to 967 aircraft, of which only 169 were unserviceable.[ For the operations in the far East, 313 La-7s were assigned and only 28 of these were unserviceable on 9 August 1945.

The La-7 was flown by the top Soviet ace of the war, Ivan Nikita Kozhedub who scored his last 17 air victories in 1945 in the La-7

The British test pilot, Eric Brown was given the chance to fly an La-7 at the Tarnewitz Luftwaffe aircraft test station on the Baltic coast, shortly after the German surrender in May 1945. He described the handling and performance as "quite superb", but the armament and sights were "below par", the "wooden construction would have withstood little combat punishment" and the instrumentation was "appallingly basic".

Production of the La-7 amounted to 5,753 aircraft,

The La-7 ended the superiority in vertical maneuverability that the Me 109 had previously enjoyed over other VVS fighters. Furthermore, it was fast enough at low altitudes to catch, albeit with some difficulties the FW190Ds and the VVS spent some considerable time stalking these particular aircraft because of the sneak raids they were carrying out at low altitude.


----------



## drewwizard (Dec 13, 2017)

The Dora was introduced in August 1944. The plane was regarded as a match for the P-51D and showed this. better turning than the FW-190A and much faster in dive and zoom. The Russian front fighters were very good below 10,000 feet and had an advantage in speed and turning (little armor like the Zero). Above this they were in deep trouble. Dora tactics were to sweep at 8,000 feet and dive on the low flying Russian aircraft, or if they could coax the Russians into climbing, meat on the table. 

an exert from wiki - Delivery of the Fw 190D-9 began in August 1944. The first Gruppe to convert to the "Dora-9" was III/JG 54. Their initial assignment was to fly "top cover" for Me 262 jet fighters during takeoff when the jet fighters were specially vulnerable because of their poor acceleration. At first, Luftwaffe pilots were somewhat suspicious of their new fighter, since the Jumo 213 was thought to be only a "bomber" engine. However, it soon became apparent that they had a winner on their hands. The "Dora" could out-climb and out-dive its BMW 801-powered predecessor with ease, and it possessed an excellent turning rate at speed. An experienced pilot could pull a tighter turn in a D-9 than he could with the BMW-powered FW-190A. The general opinion of the pilots who flew the FW 190D-9 was that it was the finest propeller-driven fighter available to the Luftwaffe during the entire war. In fact, many of its pilots considered it more than a match for the redoubtable P-51D Mustang.

The Russians published a lot of propaganda (as did everyone), but the sad truth was that the kill ratio German to Russian peaked at 60 to 1. Add to this , this new fighter shows up which could zoom down from 10,000 feet, shoot down your wingman and zoom back up out of reach with out you being able to do anything about it. All you could do was wait until it was your turn to die. 

This all sounds good, but with the Russians producing and acquiring aircraft faster than even this kill ratio, the Germans were doomed. Same with tanks and other equipment. Tigers and panthers averaged a 16 to 1 kill ratio, but the T-34 was produced 25 to 1.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 14, 2017)

According to Hardesty, who in turn uses Krivosheev, VVS losses 1941-1945 can be summarized as follows






LW combat related losses on the Eastern Front were in the order of the following
Some Facts about German Aircraft Losses in WWII - SimHQ Homepage

1941: 2849
1942: 5092
1943: 4116
1944-5: Not collated 

The ratio of losses soviet/german (ie not including the considerable efforts made by the German allied forces) 1941-3 was
1941: 7.4:1
1942: 2.8:1
1943: 6.4:1


Not great for the VVS, but certainly nowhere near 60:1. If losses of 60:1 were ever achieved, which I seriously doubt, they were statistical abherrrations, and there would need to be many instances where the exchange rate was far below the median to enable this to happen.

I don't have much information on the losses of the minor air forces involved. The Finns achieved really impressive exchange rates but I don't know the exchange rates for the other minors....Italy, Rumania, Slovakia and Hungary. I know that Rumanian losses during Fall blau exceeded 400 a/c and that they contributed more than 600 a/c to Fall Barbarossa, with an average daily strength of just over 100 a/c, suggesting a loss of about 500 a/c in that first 6 months. I'm guessing completely, but would not be surprised if the total losses of the minors 1941-43 were in the order of 3-5000 a/c. on those assumptions, the exchange rate of the VVs goes up to something like

62600/17057 VVS to Axis a/c losses

or an exchange rate of about 3.7:1 overall 

we can go through similar exercises for the tank losses if you like....

it seems to me you have based your assessments purely on claims, which you just cant do and expect to emerge from the process looking at all credible. Facts are we will never know precise losses, and that has been used in the post war hype by both sides to make bombastic claims about exchange rates. but loss rates of 60:1 on any consistent pattern just never happened. It is not possible at this point to confirm victories losses for a particular type with any credibility at all. They are unverifiable claims mostly, wildly inflated for a purpose other than getting to the truth.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 14, 2017)

Oh, c'mon, everyone knows that having a black cross anywhere on an aircraft improves performance by 15%. 
60:1, 6:1 - what is a zero betwen friends?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 14, 2017)

By 1944 the performance of Soviet aircraft was vastly improved I cannot visualise a situation where loss rates are 60:1 especially when that superiority was in favour of the side that lost. Many top German aces were actually shot down themselves and even if they shot down 100+ planes did not have an overall 60:1 ratio.


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 16, 2017)

parsifal said:


> "_An overall assessment of the effectiveness of the Ki-100 rated it highly in agility, and a well-handled Ki-100 was able to outmanoeuvre any American fighter, including the formidable P-51D Mustangs and the P-47N which were escorting the B-29 raids over Japan by that time, and was comparable in speed, especially at medium altitudes. In the hands of an experienced pilot, the Ki-100 was a deadly opponent; the Ki-100 and the Army's Ki-84 and the Navy's (George) were the only Japanese fighters able to defeat the latest Allied types_".


I never knew the Ki-100 had maneuvering advantages over our planes: I knew it had a good service ceiling by Japanese standards.



GrauGeist said:


> While the Typhoon may have had it's issues, it was also a beast at lower altitudes against the Fw190A


Was that due to its thick-wings? It hampered higher altitude performance, but that usually is good for lift...



wuzak said:


> What about the Spitfire XII?


That's a good observation: With the Griffon it's power to weight ratio increased, but it didn't have quite the high altitude performance



wlewisiii said:


> Not listed P-40E when being flown at seriously high manifold pressures


What performance could that yield?


----------



## drewwizard (Dec 21, 2017)

I did a little lookup on aircraft production. Aircraft reported losses are much debated in the way of accuracy. The production data can sometimes give a more accurate picture of aircraft losses. You don't build combat aircraft to populate museums after a war. 

Lend lease warplanes delivered to Russia during the war total 17,821. Russia produced 158,220 Warplanes during the war. Of these losses from the above spread sheet are (all losses) 102,600. That means Russia ended the war with 55,620 warplanes. (about the same amount as Japan produced during WWII). Either the numbers of losses were reported very low, or after the war the Russian airforce would be massive. The excess outnumbered the aircraft produced by Germany during the best production year (1944) by 20% The numbers don't jive.
according to the chart presented.
Two German pilots were responsible for 3% of the Russian combat losses in the last two years of the war? Hartman and Barkhorn. The top 10 German aces (essentially all Russian kills) were responsible for 9.5% of all the Russian losses in the last three years of the war. Now I am really impressed.

Drew

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 21, 2017)

drewwizard said:


> I did a little lookup on aircraft production. Aircraft reported losses are much debated in the way of accuracy. The production data can sometimes give a more accurate picture of aircraft losses. You don't build combat aircraft to populate museums after a war.
> 
> Lend lease warplanes delivered to Russia during the war total 17,821. Russia produced 158,220 Warplanes during the war. Of these losses from the above spread sheet are (all losses) 102,600. That means Russia ended the war with 55,620 warplanes. (about the same amount as Japan produced during WWII). Either the numbers of losses were reported very low, or after the war the Russian airforce would be massive. The excess outnumbered the aircraft produced by Germany during the best production year (1944) by 20% The numbers don't jive.
> according to the chart presented.
> ...


One factor might be the right off rate due to the conditions in USSR. The aircraft were not that robust being often a wooden ply build and the conditions atrocious. The vast majority of airfields had little if an cover and these things can tell on an aircraft.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 21, 2017)

There is also a thing where claims aren't actual kills. Applicable for all combatants, not just pilots/airmen.


----------



## drewwizard (Dec 21, 2017)

Even gun camera footage was not a good indicator of a kill. This topic should be it's own thread. 
What is a kill? Does it mean the pilot leaves the airplane alive before it impacts the Earth? Pilot is killed? Airplane is totaled? Airplane lands somewhere other than home? Do you count crash landings?
I read the book thunderbolt. In one encounter, he made it back home, but the engine lost several cylinders, and there were cannon holes all over the plane. The plane would never fly again. Is that a kill? If someone landed in a field (controlled landing) because the engine died after an attack, is that a kill? Every organization had different criteria. Then you have the reporting requirements. Is gun camera footage enough? Do you need two witnesses?


----------



## pbehn (Dec 21, 2017)

drewwizard said:


> Even gun camera footage was not a good indicator of a kill. This topic should be it's own thread.
> What is a kill? Does it mean the pilot leaves the airplane alive before it impacts the Earth? Pilot is killed? Airplane is totaled? Airplane lands somewhere other than home? Do you count crash landings?
> I read the book thunderbolt. In one encounter, he made it back home, but the engine lost several cylinders, and there were cannon holes all over the plane. The plane would never fly again. Is that a kill? If someone landed in a field (controlled landing) because the engine died after an attack, is that a kill? Every organization had different criteria. Then you have the reporting requirements. Is gun camera footage enough? Do you need two witnesses?


Just look at how many aces were shot down themselves, some several times.


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 25, 2017)

drewwizard said:


> I did a little lookup on aircraft production. Aircraft reported losses are much debated in the way of accuracy. The production data can sometimes give a more accurate picture of aircraft losses. You don't build combat aircraft to populate museums after a war.
> 
> Lend lease warplanes delivered to Russia during the war total 17,821. Russia produced 158,220 Warplanes during the war. Of these losses from the above spread sheet are (all losses) 102,600. That means Russia ended the war with 55,620 warplanes. (about the same amount as Japan produced during WWII). Either the numbers of losses were reported very low, or after the war the Russian airforce would be massive. The excess outnumbered the aircraft produced by Germany during the best production year (1944) by 20% The numbers don't jive.
> according to the chart presented.
> ...





Actually, it speaks volumes about a basic flaw in the Luftwaffe. If those two guys fall down some stairs, the Luftwaffe loses a lot of its effectiveness. Better to have fifty guys with seven kills each than 49 holding the coat of the one getting 350.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Mar 8, 2018)

P-40E


----------



## Greg Boeser (Mar 9, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Actually, it speaks volumes about a basic flaw in the Luftwaffe. If those two guys fall down some stairs, the Luftwaffe loses a lot of its effectiveness. Better to have fifty guys with seven kills each than 49 holding the coat of the one getting 350.


Shores identifies that very issue when he notes that when Marsielles crashed, his unit had to be pulled out of the line due to the loss of morale.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 12, 2018)

wlewisiii said:


> P-40E



Any reasoning why?


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Mar 12, 2018)

Kai Stemm said:


> What?!? Where are my biplanes? We all know that the CR. 42 was the best fighter... why? Because for one it's a biplane and 2 you cannot beat these Italian camouflages.
> View attachment 475338


Looks like the Alfa-Romeo crest on the wheel cover. Where are the guns mounted? What was the engine type-and hp??


----------



## wlewisiii (Mar 12, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Any reasoning why?



Tough, reliable, able to absorb enormous amounts of damage and still get home. The ability to push the -39 engine to insane levels of manifold pressure helped tremendously as well. I've read on this site of as much as 75" hg being used on an engine that was rated for war emergency at 56".
Higher usable speed, especially at low level, compared to it's opponents. Keeping your speed up (diving or using what would now be called a "low yo-yo") allowed the P-40 to turn inside the Zero which had a difficult time with control forces past 250 mph. 
Considerably more maneuverable than people today realize (an interesting description of it by the late Jeff Ethell in this video 
_View: https://youtu.be/rki8tnsLodQ_
is of the P-40E being like "A Pitts with an Allison Engine". )

Perhaps it's wrong to say best overall in the war but I do think that in 41~42 it was a far better plane than many have remembered it as over the decades. OTOH, I do just simply like it. OTGH, if I had to fly combat in a single engine aircraft of any kind during WWII, I'd take a P-47.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Mar 12, 2018)

wlewisiii said:


> Tough, reliable, able to absorb enormous amounts of damage and still get home. The ability to push the -39 engine to insane levels of manifold pressure helped tremendously as well. I've read on this site of as much as 75" hg being used on an engine that was rated for war emergency at 56".
> Higher usable speed, especially at low level, compared to it's opponents. Keeping your speed up (diving or using what would now be called a "low yo-yo") allowed the P-40 to turn inside the Zero which had a difficult time with control forces past 250 mph.
> Considerably more maneuverable than people today realize (an interesting description of it by the late Jeff Ethell in this video
> _View: https://youtu.be/rki8tnsLodQ_
> ...



I'd take the P-47 "Jug" as well- tremendous firepower, good control in a dive scenario for attacking ground forces and tanks/armor- and well armored enabling the 'Jug" to take hits and still be functional.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## billrunnels (Mar 13, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> I'd take the P-47 "Jug" as well- tremendous firepower, good control in a dive scenario for attacking ground forces and tanks/armor- and well armored enabling the 'Jug" to take hits and still be functional.


Speaking of attacking ground forces, we were returning from a mission when I heard voices on the radio and machine gun fire. I spotted a squadron of P-47 aircraft strafing an enemy force near a small town. They were in a circle. I heard one say "out of ammo will return as soon as possible". They were committed to what they were doing.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 13, 2018)

Ive always maintained that the P-51 was the best long range escort, but the p-47 was the most versatile US fighter of the war. In cricket terms it was the best all rounder in the team.


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 13, 2018)

wlewisiii said:


> Tough, reliable, able to absorb enormous amounts of damage and still get home. The ability to push the -39 engine to insane levels of manifold pressure helped tremendously as well. I've read on this site of as much as 75" hg being used on an engine that was rated for war emergency at 56".


Wow...


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 13, 2018)

wlewisiii said:


> Tough, reliable, able to absorb enormous amounts of damage and still get home. The ability to push the -39 engine to insane levels of manifold pressure helped tremendously as well. I've read on this site of as much as 75" hg being used on an engine that was rated for war emergency at 56".
> Higher usable speed, especially at low level, compared to it's opponents. Keeping your speed up (diving or using what would now be called a "low yo-yo") allowed the P-40 to turn inside the Zero which had a difficult time with control forces past 250 mph.
> Considerably more maneuverable than people today realize (an interesting description of it by the late Jeff Ethell in this video
> ...
> ...



Granted, the V-1710 was about the only engine capable to close to the king of overboosting - Merlin - when it is about high manifold pressures.
OTOH, over-boosting worked at low altitudes for the V-1710-39, already by 10000 ft there was just ~50 in Hg, or about 1400 HP. By 15000 ft, it was 38 in Hg and ~1040 HP. Combined with high weight of the P-40E and no great streamlining of it, that meant that in mid-altitude band (say, between 10000-20000 ft), it was ill able to handle Axis best. Like the Fw 190, Bf 109, Zero, Ki-44 etc. Spitfire and Typhoon were much better at that altitude, so were the Soviet fighters, P-38, P-51 and probably the P-39. Granted, the P-40 rolled better than all of them, save Fw 190 and clipped-wing Spitfire marks. 
I'd rather pick the P-40N of all the P-40 marks, but this means waiting until winter of 1942/43 to get. Or the P-40B/C?


----------



## Kai Stemm (Mar 13, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> Looks like the Alfa-Romeo crest on the wheel cover. Where are the guns mounted? What was the engine type-and hp??



The plane is a Fiat CR 42...
Fiat CR.42 - Wikipedia

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Mar 13, 2018)

parsifal said:


> Ive always maintained that the P-51 was the best long range escort, but the p-47 was the most versatile US fighter of the war. In cricket terms it was the best all rounder in the team.



It was versatile alright. But I submit that the F6F was just as versatile, especially when factoring in the role it played in photo-recon and night fighting duties.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Mar 21, 2018)

Hansie Bloeckmann said:


> Looks like the Alfa-Romeo crest on the wheel cover. Where are the guns mounted? What was the engine type-and hp??








The emblem is the "Grifo" a mythological figure, that was the emblem of the most famous Italian "Squadriglia" in WWI.
Among them Francesco Baracca, top scorer of WWI with 34 confirmed victories, 6th from the right.






The emblem of Alfa Romeo is different:






Difficult to see an Alfa Romeo emblem on a Fiat airframe with a Fiat engine...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha2 (Apr 8, 2018)

drewwizard said:


> I did a little lookup on aircraft production. Aircraft reported losses are much debated in the way of accuracy. The production data can sometimes give a more accurate picture of aircraft losses. You don't build combat aircraft to populate museums after a war.
> 
> Lend lease warplanes delivered to Russia during the war total 17,821. Russia produced 158,220 Warplanes during the war. Of these losses from the above spread sheet are (all losses) 102,600. That means Russia ended the war with 55,620 warplanes. (about the same amount as Japan produced during WWII). Either the numbers of losses were reported very low, or after the war the Russian airforce would be massive. The excess outnumbered the aircraft produced by Germany during the best production year (1944) by 20% The numbers don't jive.
> according to the chart presented.
> ...


Oh, have you ever think how many planes US or UK produced during the WWII and how many planes USAAF/USN/USMC or RAF/FAA had at the end of the war? Do you really believe at all the P-39 Ds, P-40 Bs, B-18s, Spitfire Is, Hurricane Is, AW Whitley Vs etc. were lost in combat because none of them were in service in combat units at the end of the war. No, weary planes were scrapped. And even accepted claims were only accepted claims, not necessary real kills.

On Fw 190 D-9, to Soviets the real nemesis was "Messer" not "Fokker". The thought that 190 was very robuss and had excellent firepower but too heavy, so not too good in vertical or even horizontal fight. See how the Soviets saw the things, a bit different from how the Western Allies or Germans saw it. The 1st, max level speeds km/h, the 2nd rate of climb, m/s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Useful Useful:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Apr 8, 2018)

Juha2 said:


> Oh, have you ever think how many planes US or UK produced during the WWII and how many planes USAAF/USN/USMC or RAF/FAA had at the end of the war? Do you really believe at all the P-39 Ds, P-40 Bs, B-18s, Spitfire Is, Hurricane Is, AW Whitley Vs etc. were lost in combat because none of them were in service in combat units at the end of the war. No, weary planes were scrapped. And even accepted claims were only accepted claims, not necessary real kills.
> 
> On Fw 190 D-9, to Soviets the real nemesis was "Messer" not "Fokker". The thought that 190 was very robuss and had excellent firepower but too heavy, so not too good in vertical or even horizontal fight. See how the Soviets saw the things, a bit different from how the Western Allies or Germans saw it. The 1st, max level speeds km/h, the 2nd rate of climb, m/s.
> View attachment 488970
> View attachment 488971


"Ja, Franz, dem Fokkers vere flying Messerschmitts up dere!"

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

Here's the RAF's pick, in 1944 Tempest V Performance Data

Note: The RAF really valued their Mustangs, & solely of their Lend-Lease US fighters,
- used them extensively in the ETO,
but once the V1 cruise-missile mass-assault on London was defeated, they duly sent their new Tempests
( of the improved performance 'Series II' type) - to replace the Mustang III's of 122 Wing based in liberated Europe,
- in the role of the 2nd TAF's 'prestige' A2A/air superiority fighter.

& the RAF did have P-47's - but sent them out to Burma instead, to replace the obsolescent Hurricanes on ops, there.


----------

