# Best Fighter



## GregP (Jul 28, 2003)

Has anyone seen the August 2003 edition of Flight Jourmal?

In it, Corky Meyer was asked to pick the best fighter in both the European (ETO) and Pacific (PTO) Theaters. He elected to use the following criteria:

1) Must have been built in numbers of 10,000 or more and must have seen constant production improvement in combat capability

2) Must have been capable of 4 missions: a) fighter vs. fighter, b) air-to-ground, 3) bomber protection, and 4) Photorecon.

3) Must have been friendly to pilots with 200 hours of training.

4) Service record.

Based on the above criteria, he concluded the best ETO fighter was the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, and the best PTO fighter was the Grumman Hellcat.

I must say, he defended his choices very well with clear numbers and logic. He DID state that the overall winner may well have been the Russian Yak-1 / Yak-9 series of aircraft, but that the combat records of things like sorties, victories, losses, and bomb tonnage dropped were unavailable ... so he placed it 5th, just behind the North American Mustang.

If you haven't seen the article, you might be able to find it at http://www.flightjournal.com . Check it out.

Corky was there at the time and flew most of the planes in question. The ones he didn't fly were clearly identified.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2004)

well, it doesn't look like "corkey meyer" knows a great deal about the subject, a truely great fighter isn't defined by criteria, a great fighter will be in a field of it's own, standing out above the rest....... and as for the "200 hours training" comment, most pilots managed nine hours beofre getting thrown into combat..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2004)

nah the best fighter has to be british, something like the messerschmitt bf-109 *i know it aint british but i feel like being annoying*


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 13, 2004)

Nah.....the Bf was good, but I really think that the 110 was better. The supermarine was also a pretty good fighter, along with the B-42 Corsair


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2004)

i never heard of the 110 - im stupid you see. but i know nowt about planes, i just like em. i do like the bf-109 though


----------



## Erich Hartmann (Jan 13, 2004)

hmmm...........neither have lots of people, thats ok though


----------



## Crazy (Jan 13, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> i never heard of the 110 - im stupid you see. but i know nowt about planes, i just like em. i do like the bf-109 though



Gasp! Let us correct this!

















Learn all about the 110 here


----------



## Erich Hartmann (Jan 13, 2004)

Goldfish WATERPROOF.............no possible way...


----------



## Crazy (Jan 13, 2004)

I didnt think it was possible either, but I'm beyond disbelief. I just take it in stride now.

seems a bit odd, though. I mean, waterproof, a goldfish? weird...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 14, 2004)

Cheers! i found that pretty helpful. at least now im a little bit less dumb than i already was


----------



## Crazy (Jan 14, 2004)

np m8


----------



## I./JG53_lud13 (Jan 15, 2004)

Only one stand above all....Bf 109 (by the way P-51 only had numerical strenght )


----------



## Crazy (Jan 15, 2004)

True lud, the Bf-109 had a lifespan from before the war began to the final defense of Berlin. Not bad for a German plane 

(BTW, u an IL-2 FB person? I recognize your name from VOW)


----------



## I./JG53_lud13 (Jan 16, 2004)

Yep m8
Crazy Serb


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 16, 2004)

come on people, lets not forget the British planes, spitfire the hurricaneamoung others


----------



## I./JG53_lud13 (Jan 16, 2004)

hurricane was not so good , but spitfire on the other very good althroug matched through war by german planes.Only mkXIV are a bit ahead of germans but on the other hand 109k-4 could hold on against all allied fighters, not to mention fw190d9 (considerd by many the best german piston fighter not by me ) and me 262. But again TOO LITLE TOO LATE


----------



## Erich Hartmann (Jan 16, 2004)

The me-262 was good, only hitler screwed them up by making them bombers. They did not have the time or qualified pilots.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 25, 2004)

yea, but all that aside it was one hell of a fighter..............


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 28, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> come on people, lets not forget the British planes, spitfire the hurricaneamoung others



If the Spitfire Mk XIV or the F.21 (If they got the 21 working ok  ) had the range of the P-51, it WOULD of been the best all round allied fighter of the war, M8 8) 8) 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 28, 2004)

i think it unfair to say best fighter should be built in over 10000 planes.
just because a lot wer built doesn't mean they wer the best,some wer cancelled due to end of war-had the war continued it woulda been the best...means nothing better was worth producing.
there wer some really good prototypes...mb5 f2g2 xp72 to name a few
but for my pennies worth-the criteria are how well in dog fight at medium
or how good at high altitude?
for medium alts...my money is on the f8f or yak3/107
above 25000 feet i would go for ta152h or p-51h


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 28, 2004)

like i said, a truely great craft will be in a class of it's own, and can't be put into criteria, like the spitfire or bf-109


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 29, 2004)

yeah i think the bf-109 definately has to be the best, its my fave plane anyway


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 29, 2004)

You should get into the Spitfire, C.C  

A Classic Plane 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 30, 2004)

more than a classic, to me the second best plane ever (behind concorde)


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 30, 2004)

I have to agree with you here, M8 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 31, 2004)

good man


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 3, 2004)

hehe, yup, were going backwards in aviation, getting rid of the concorde indeed...... 

im not saying i dont like the spitfire, its a great plane thats renowned all over, but for me i just prefer the bf-109  ive changed my mind since then though, i like the piaggio p-108 now


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 3, 2004)

only a russain.........................................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 3, 2004)

er, im stumped lanc, are you implying that the russins are indecicive or what?


----------



## Crazy (Feb 3, 2004)

Do I sense a tone of resentment in that statement, Lanc?

Watch it. The Russians made my favorite game. And their neighbors made my OTHER favorite game.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 3, 2004)

hey cheddar what plane is that in ur signature? i dont recognize it


----------



## horseUSA (Feb 3, 2004)

it is the Piaggio P-108,
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=868#868
that is the topic that it is disscused in


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 3, 2004)

thank you


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 6, 2004)

how'd we get fron best fighter to an italian bomber?


----------



## Archer (Feb 6, 2004)

I'll get us back on topic.

The Corsair is the best WWII fighter.


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 6, 2004)

Spitfire Mk XIV  

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 6, 2004)

spitfire, hurricane or 109


----------



## Crazy (Feb 6, 2004)

Spit, 109, or Corsair 8)


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 6, 2004)

Hot Space, Antelopes or Spam  

Hot Space


----------



## Crazy (Feb 6, 2004)

They rank equally in my book


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 6, 2004)

See................told you the Brit's are the best  

Hot Space


----------



## Crazy (Feb 6, 2004)

Now, I wouldn't go THAT far


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 6, 2004)

Ok, who's the best at doing EVERYTHING in the world............ok, so it's other countries. But who invented the wheel? That's it, I don't either  

Ah, but we are good at...................................a.........oh, no we're not   

Hot Space


----------



## Crazy (Feb 6, 2004)

You guys seriously advanced the ship field. Had the most powerful navy in the world for a time.

But remember, it was in the U.S, where powered flight was born


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 6, 2004)

Not really.

They say it was a French man in 1898  

I do think otherwise though  

Hot Space


----------



## Crazy (Feb 6, 2004)

Who are _they_? 

You need to get out more, Space ol'carp


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 6, 2004)

SUSAN? BETTY? WHERE HAVE YOU'VE BEEN ALL MY LIFE     

Hot Space


----------



## Archer (Feb 6, 2004)

The Brits are good at flying the Corsair off carriers, beat the US to use carrier-based Corsairs anyways.


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 6, 2004)

The Royal Navy tought the US Navy how it was done.

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Feb 6, 2004)

are you sure about that


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 7, 2004)

well, we do pride ourselfs on our naval heratige


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 7, 2004)

Viper said:


> are you sure about that



Sorry, but it is true, M8  

The U.S Navy were the 1st operator of the F4U, but they found when the Corsair landed on the Deck it would bounce over the wire. The U.S Navy at the time were happy with the F6F so they gave all their F4U's to the U.S Marine Crops who use them as Land Based Fighters.

The Royal Navy knew about the bounce of the F4U but were in need of a Top Class Fighter and to cut a long story short, the Royal Navy and Vought improved the F4U so it was safe to land on Carriers. The U.S Navy impressed with this started putting the F4U's back into Navy service.

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 7, 2004)

this aint the pic i chose for me signature!


----------



## Archer (Feb 7, 2004)

To expand on what Hot Space said, one major concern other than the bounce on landing was forward visibility in the birdcage Corsairs. The Brits got around this by having the Corsairs come in for landing from the side of the carrier and they only straightened out to land at the last moment so they had better visibility on their approach. Also, the FAA carriers hangar decks were slightly lower than the American's, so eight inches was cut off each wing tip (clipped wings). Inadvertantly this also reduced the bounce on landing somewhat.

I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure that vast majority of the design changes to the Corsair to make it better suited to carrier ops was by VF-17 Jolly Rogers and a Vought representative. They flew and were carrier-qualified in F4U-1 (birdcage) Corsairs. VF-17 and the representative came up with the small spoiler on the right (I think) wing so that the left wing wouldn't drop suddenly at low airspeeds (ie carrier landings), the first bomb racks for Corsairs if I'm not mistaken, an improved tailhook, and I think there were some other minor changes. VF-17 was ripping off tailhooks on carrier landings when the hooks got caught on the deck and when the hook broke it flew over the stern of the carrier, and in the ensuing wreckage no one realized the hook wasn't there. The reason it was realized that the tailhook was being torn off the Corsairs was that a greenshirt - who I think were the ones to get the wire off the tailhook - saw the hook going flying over the stern.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 8, 2004)

awwww, poor tail hook, never even saw it coming, and think of the little baby tailhooks that lost their father


----------



## Birdmanwest (Feb 11, 2004)

Well it depends on the technological situation of those certain times.
For 1930's the Bf109. For beggining of war, Focke wulf 190. And later on the Mustang seems to have exceeded above those.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 13, 2004)

P-51 was ok, just one problem, it wasn't brittish


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 13, 2004)

lanc, stop being predjudiced against other countries planes, all the best planes arent british y'know  credits due where credits due...


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 13, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> P-51 was ok, just one problem, it wasn't brittish



It was Designed for the British using Brit Spec's and later it had a Brit Engine, but it was the American's that made the P-51 what it was 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## Archer (Feb 13, 2004)

P-51 isn't a carrier plane either...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 14, 2004)

fair enough, it was a good plane


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 14, 2004)

i dont like mustang... and on a random note i figured out that swastikas are good! go to http://www.swastika-info.com/en/start.php for more info


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 15, 2004)

why don't you like the mustang, it was a good plane, but it's your opinion i suppose


----------



## Viper (Feb 16, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> lanc, stop being predjudiced against other countries planes, all the best planes arent british y'know  credits due where credits due...


thankyou chedar couldnt have said it better


----------



## Viper (Feb 16, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> why don't you like the mustang, it was a good plane, but it's your opinion i suppose


what do u mean "was"it stil is!!,my grandpa was telling me that in the 1960's he could have bought a p-51d for 12'000$!!!! i dont know how he could pass that offer.but his friend bought three


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 19, 2004)

You guys are all wrong! the guy who was asked what the best fighter was would have to have been a bloody yank to give the names of American planes! by far the BEST fighter of WW2 was undoubtably the unsung hero the Dehavilland Mosquito! that plane did everything! and even though it was much smaller, was made of wood, and originally a fighter it was capable of carrying a bomb load equal to that of a B-17 (a much larger plane) and it was one of the fastest planes of WW2   
(faster than a bloody Thunderbolt!)


----------



## Viper (Feb 19, 2004)

hes sold them all unfortunatly,he also had a sea fury and some jets and harvards,and he died so....


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 19, 2004)

The Mosquito was a good plane, and a great night figher, but when it came down to a dog fight, a mustang or spitfire or fw 90 could get behind it and take it out. It was faster then the planes mentioned but it could not compete in a dogfight.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 20, 2004)

I agree it was not a great dogfighter but the point of it being a Nightfighter and a fast, wooden plane was that it didn't get into dogfights - it would use radar to sneak up on enemy planes in the dark and take them out before it got into a dogfight. Thats why it was made of wood and had no real armour - and why it hardly suffered any losses during the war - because it was designed for speed and a good enough plane to AVOID getting into dogfights - either the fight was over before they got close enough to dogfight or the Mosquito could escape to a safe distance and finish off the enemy plane before it could turn on it


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2004)

ah, at last, someone with a equal love for the mosquito, thanks whaler


----------



## Viper (Feb 23, 2004)

the mossie was a sweet plane it did everything,all roles,my opinion it was one of the best planes


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 24, 2004)

The mosquito was a _sweet_ airplane but I wonder, can we count aircraft that had the *potential* to be bloody amazing but which the Reich Air Ministry did not make use of?

If so I nominate both the Arado Ar-240 and the Focke-Wulf FW 187.









> Germany, perhaps more so that other nations, seemed to develop an aircraft and then abandon the project in mid-stride. The Fw187 Falke was an outstanding example of this, and its case is even more incredulous because it was a surprisingly good fighter! Although it was never put into full production, it was a superb foundation for later twin engined German fighters. The first model Fw 187 (this would be about 1937) was 50mph faster than the Bf 109 prototype which had the same engine, despite the fact that the Fw187 weighed almost twice as much and had twice the range. Later the V3 adopted a twin seat cockpit and this version of the Fw187 was much more accomodating for the crew. During this stage of development, the Fw187 was dubbed a zerstorer, or Destroyer (heavy fighter), and they were given heavier armament than other aircraft of the time. Still, there was no inclination that Germany would put the Fw187 into full production, and the Falkes built were mostly used for testing. Only three A-0 model Falkes ever saw action, and they supposedly scored several kills in 1940. These three were then loaned to a Jagdstaffel in Norway that flew Me110s, and they reported that the Fw187s were a greatly superior aircraft. However, when Germany found out about this the Fw187s were taken away instantly, and development was ordered ceased. Actually, the Nazi Government was shooting itself in the foot by recalling the Fw187s and ordering the development ceased. Had it continued, Germany would have had a top class fighter far superior to the Me110. The reasons for Nazi Germany's loathing of the Fw187 is still not fully known.













And from the Warbirds Resource Group site the following information.



> Type: Destroyer heavy fighter
> Origin: Arado Flugzeugwerke GmbH
> Models: A, B, C Series
> First Flight: May 10, 1940
> ...



Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2004)

i think the spit. was the best fighter


----------



## Viper (Feb 24, 2004)

i agree it was the best britesh fighter,then the mossie


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 25, 2004)

FW 190 D series and the Ta 152/153

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 25, 2004)

my friend was on this site the other day and he started saying that his great uncle was the first people to ever fly in the mosquito  dunno whether to believe him or not, his story sounded convincing enough though


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 25, 2004)

oh, i dunno bout that...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2004)

me neither..... of anyone could find out the name of the crew that were in it on its maiden voyage it would be helpful 8)


----------



## ZLIN pilot (Feb 26, 2004)

Back to the Mustangs for $12,000...sweet deal I must say, immediately after the war the Canadian government auctioned off dozens of surplus Kittyhawk Is (P-40Es I believe) and Hurricane XII(?)s for $25 - 50 Canadian! Boy was I born 50 years too late! I remember seeing this on a web page ages ago, they had pictures of one particular plane still in RCAF livery and natural metal paint. The owner bought it in 1945 or whatnot and continues to run-up the engine to this day.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 26, 2004)

Back on the subject of the best fighter has anyone ever heard of a 'Kyushu J7W Shinden' codenamed 'Magnificent Lightning'?

It was built by the Japanese only 12 days before they surrendered but it was a Heavy Interceptor capable of speeds of 466mph (faster than a Mustang) its engine was in the rear and it had 4 nose mounted 30mm cannons...thank god the war ended when it did otherwise i think this plane would've caused havoc   

http://avia.russian.ee/pictures/japan/kyushu_j7w.jpg


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2004)

yeah, but the american fighters in the pacific could take ALLOT of damage, unlike most Jap. planes


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 26, 2004)

Four 30mm cannons? thats ALOT of damage mate - they were designed to intercept and shoot down bombers with that firepower - so what chance does a fighter stand?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2004)

oh yes, a fabtastic flight simulator for the ps2, includes such planes as the bf-109, the corsair, the aformentioned "shinden" and the swordfish 8)

it also has a jet helicopter, aint quite sure about that


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2004)

actually most modern helocopters have jet engines


----------



## Archer (Feb 28, 2004)

CFS2 has it too


----------



## aussie jim (Feb 29, 2004)

EAW as well  ..nice for taking out the B29s in the pacific 8) .

Best plane the fw190 series as a whole OR the spit series..but i can be indesicive so maybe the 109 series  ..the 110 doesnt deserve to be on the best palne list i think tho..it was no hope against any good spit or hurri pilot ..the hurri is also up there as a good fighter..ground attack /rugged/versatile/ship duties and longevity made it a superb plane.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 29, 2004)

does anyone know any good flight sims for PS1?


----------



## aussie jim (Feb 29, 2004)

> does anyone know any good flight sims for PS1?



Lanc..i had a ps1 a fair few years ago and there is not a good flight sim for it at all..a bunch of crappy jet sims that arent worth the money  ...you need a pc with at least a geforce 2 card and you will be able to do most flight sims with it. And then you can get EAW and shoot down B17s  ..or escort Lancs.


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 1, 2004)

Hmmm,

As I prefer German WW2 aircraft, surely I'd be shooting them BOTH down?


Kiwimac


----------



## aussie jim (Mar 1, 2004)

> Hmmm,
> 
> As I prefer German WW2 aircraft, surely I'd be shooting them BOTH down?



 Yeh...im constantly find myself in the trusty 109g/k or fw190A or D series and even the TA152 blowing the crap out of Halifaxs and Lancs Libs or Forts ..sometimes the he162 Me262 or Ta183 is a cool ride as well...and to go a different way we have a flyable B17 and B24  

cheers


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 2, 2004)

what game are we talking about again?


----------



## aussie jim (Mar 2, 2004)

EAW man 8) European Air War ....


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 2, 2004)

A.K.A. game with shitty ass graphics 8)


----------



## Crazy (Mar 2, 2004)

The graphics ARE pretty bad, but how's the play aspect of the game?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 2, 2004)

even if its good it wont be easy playing a game that looks that bad and im too used to fb's flight model (and damage model) to start another sim now cuz itd take a while to break me into it


----------



## aussie jim (Mar 2, 2004)

Germans are Geniuses really has no style does he...  The medium distance graphics are apparently a lot better than FB (this is from EAW and FB players) The FB plane graphics are better tho in close  Playability is really good now in EAW as our FM modeler has revamped nearly all of our planes and changed hitbubbles and damage models etc. over the last two months. Most of the newbies are starting to find it pretty hard to compensate for Torque etc and sideslip heh he.

He actually moved away from FB and came back to EAW as he said the Graphics in close were nicer in FB but the FMs and DMs were very average and that a lot of them were just out the window..he is more interested in how the planes fly etc than how nice the game looks..overall for a 5 year old game (going into 6 years now) i thought it didnt look that bad?

When you approaching over 100 Fortresses with 24 escorting Mustangs in an FW190 the last thing you notice is that the rivets /bolts in the cockpit arent perfect 8) .

sorry ...Rant off  really..it is a vastly different experience than what most people think as there is nothing left of the original that came out of the box.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2004)

wow, that game looks sweet  is it availiable in uk and what are the minimum pc requirements? 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 3, 2004)

what i wanna know is why in the bottom left it says "P-51D"?


----------



## Archer (Mar 3, 2004)

Maybe we should get back to the best fighters...thats why I made the EAW thread (and asked why it said it was a P-51D)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 3, 2004)

i think the mosquito is a strong contender...........


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 3, 2004)

I strongly agree! 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2004)

yeah me too, the mossie was a great plane 8) has to be the hurricane for me though


----------



## aussie jim (Mar 3, 2004)

> what i wanna know is why in the bottom left it says "P-51D"?



its because we swop planes in and out of slots in the game and the corsair uses the P51 slot Lanc 8) ..although it has the flight and gunnery model of the Corsair. I just slipped the skin in for a pic and didnt load all the files needed for a full mission.

CC the game will run on a fairly low end pc but if you want to use all the hi res graphics you will need something a bit better ..but you only need 256 ram asomething like a nvidea geforce 2 card ..some guys run it on really low end systems and stay with default terrains and stuff...its a blast mate  and sorry but i didnt realise there was an EAW thread  i will go hunt it down tho.

So did we decide on the best fighter


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 4, 2004)

Hey Aussie, i thought you would've voted the Commonwealth Boomerang as the best fighter!.... national pride and all that


----------



## aussie jim (Mar 4, 2004)

..yes well...the poor old Boomerang


----------



## Crazy (Mar 4, 2004)

The Ca-15 was awesome....


An Aussie-built version of the P-51, by Commonwealth


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 4, 2004)

I like the Boomerang. For a stop-gap fighter it was very good.

Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 5, 2004)

Yep Kiwi's right - for a stop gap fighter it was excellent...more than a challange for the Japanese at the time - i think it deserves more credit and recognition than it got (like so many planes during WW2)


----------



## R Pope (Mar 14, 2004)

Cheddar--Geoffrey deHavilland was the pilot on the Mossie's first flight.


----------



## BatGirl (Mar 23, 2004)

que voulez-vous dire, vous ne faites-vous pas le français?


----------



## Huckebein (Mar 23, 2004)

Est-que tu est Francais Batgirl? Ou est-que c'est ta francais ... ta francais... 'de l'ecole' (?)

Je suis desole, ma francais n'est pas bien...


----------



## Huckebein (Mar 23, 2004)

For an on-topic post: 



> What I don't like is when people say that it is unfair to compare certain types of aircraft because one had a better/ more powerful engine than the other. Surely this is irrelevant? The debate is about whether or or not one _aircraft_ (engine and all) was better than another - so having a smaller engine is no excuse...
> 
> For my two-penneth, I consider the Mustang as the best all-round fighter of the war - hence the number of airforces that purchased it post-war to fulfil a variety of roles (sorry HS  ). On the other hand, had a Mustang and a Spitfire XIV (or even *shudder* an F.Mk XXI) ever got into a dogfight, there can be no doubt (assuming comparable pilot skill) as to the outcome. Unless the P-51 started with, and maintained, a huge energy advantage, it would get chewed up by the Spit's greater turn-rate, acceleration, climb-rate and overall speed. Similar things can be said about the Tempest - again only inferior to the Mustang in terms of range.
> 
> ...




This is my argument (and if anyone recognises it I don't care - what's the use in changing an argument that has shut up a combined total of 15, yes _15_, Americans and three Frenchies, and made them admit that the Spit XIV would beat a P-51 in the air).


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 23, 2004)

hey a Bf-109K-16 or Ta-152H flown by a pro would beat either of those likewise flown by a pro and i dont qualify as an american so that tally becomes 14 (_yes 14!) _americans!


----------



## BatGirl (Mar 24, 2004)

> Est-que tu est Francais Batgirl? Ou est-que c'est ta francais ... ta francais... 'de l'ecole' (?)
> 
> Je suis desole, ma francais n'est pas bien...



Ah non je ne suis pas français, je suis anglais, mais parler un petit


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

A brief history of RAF Mustang Operations.. 


The Mustang’s achievements in WW2 with the USAAF tend to overshadow its work with the RAF, who of course took the aircraft in to combat before the Americans ever did. RAF operations can be grouped in to three types:


a. Army Co-operation including low level recce, naval strike using Allison engined P51A’s or Mustang 1/ll’s. Some also acted as low level interceptors against low flying German raiders.

b. Long range escort missions for coastal strike and bomber operations using Mustang lll’s and lV’s.

c. Ground attack and general fighter support using Mustang lll’s and lV’s.


a. The RAF loved the early Mustangs and it was very much missed when the production line closed in favour of the Merlin engined B’s and C’s. As a low level fighter the P51A had few equals in speed and range, even if its agility was exceeded by the low altitude cropped wing Spitfire Mk V’s. Mustangs saw action all over Western Europe including Dieppe flying in ones and twos at ranges Spitfire’s could only dream about in their armed versions. Mustangs had the standard day scheme of green/brown uppers and sky undersides later replaced by the green/Ocean Grey/Medium Sea Grey scheme. Markings were a standard mix of B roundels on the upper wings and C and C1’s on the under sides of the wings and fuselage sides (A’s on the green/Dark Earth versions). The RAF also had some of the 20mm cannon armed aircraft designated 1a’s. The last Mustang 1/ll squadron kept their aircraft until 1945. All others having been replaced by other types or Merlin Mustang versions.


b. As North American ceased production of the Allison engined versions the RAF reequiped some of the squadrons with less well suited types such as the Spitfire Mk V. While the Spitfire is still the best fighter of WW2 in this role the early Mustangs were certainly the better aircraft as their long range and rugged construction were very useful operating at these altitudes and mission profiles. The RAF then shifted attention to the Merlin engined Mk lll’s (the US B/C). The B/C were the same aircraft made by different factories with tiny differences between them, hence the RAF’s use of the same designation. By late 1944 this version had established itself as a competent performer capable of doing all that was asked of it. RAF modifications gave the aircraft a bulged Malcolm canopy for improved visibility and cockpit access and the US modification to the ammunition feed resulted in an end to the gun jamming problems that beset the aircraft when it first entered service. Some authorities believe the Malcolm hooded C with the modified ammunition feeds to be better than the later P 51D due to the loss of lateral stability that resulted from removing the fuselage side area. These Mustangs roamed far and wide over Europe escorting RAF bombers as Bomber Command increasingly turned day light precision raids such as those carried out by 617 and 9 Squadron’s using Tallboys and Grandslam earthquake bombs. Mustangs also carried out escorts for Mosquitoes and Beaufighters as far away as Norway for anti shipping strikes. Leonard Cheshire even used a Mustang for experimental target marking for 617 Squadron in place of the Mosquito he normally used. Almost all examples were green/Ocean Grey/Medium Sea Grey. Polish units often had colourful markings and large kill boards, 19 Squadron was quite well marked and its post war examples such as the well known Dooly Bird were almost gaudy. These Mustangs took part in the anti Diver patrols against the V1 and were very successful, even if the Tempest had the speed edge on the Mustang. 


c. Most notably in Italy the RAF employed the Mustang in the lll and lV versions for ground support work and general fighter escort, but in Italy the Luftwaffe was virtually absent by the beginning of 1945, so the main role became ground attack including missions over the Balkans, where the Mustangs superior range was put to good use. In this region Silver painted Mustangs first appeared in some numbers, (later in NW Europe), but most aircraft retained normal RAF camouflage of green/Ocean Grey/Medium Sea Grey. It should be noted that most late RAF Mustangs were the K version with a different propeller to the D’s. The best looking Mustangs were used by 112 squadron, who in many case’s applied their well known sharks mouth nose decoration. It makes a Mustang look really evil! Post war under the terms of lend lease the Mustang did not survive long in RAF service as late Spitfires and Tempests along with Meteors and Vampires became the standard RAF fighters.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2004)

> Ah non je ne suis pas français, je suis anglais, mais parler un petit



ah bon, tu habites ou?


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 28, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> A brief history of RAF Mustang Operations..
> 
> 
> The Mustang’s achievements in WW2 with the USAAF tend to overshadow its work with the RAF, who of course took the aircraft in to combat before the Americans ever did. RAF operations can be grouped in to three types:
> ...



Wow JJ - it must've taken you hours to copy that off a website! or did you just use Cut and Paste?


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 28, 2004)

I note that both the FW190 and the ME109 were also used post-war by various airforces, including the IAF. The P51 was a good fighter, make no mistake, I think however that the FW190 especially the D-series and the TA152/153 were better.

Kiwimac


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 29, 2004)

Actually Bronze, that was the effort of an hour an a half worth of research


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 29, 2004)

Wow an hour and a half....did you use tracing paper? \/


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 29, 2004)

Please...lay off with the abuse


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 29, 2004)

that wasn't abuse - just joking around - unlike you not to bite back JJ - trying to get me in trouble with my bosses?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 29, 2004)

hi everyone, im kind of, er, 

BACK  8)

thanks bronzewhaler - that email was touching, and i have been missing the site 8) no need to give up your position though  i was planning on making a triumphant return in a month or so anyway, but i need the site


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 29, 2004)

Can anyone tell me why my thread concerning the deletion of spam and off topic posts was deleted?????


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 29, 2004)

maybe they took offence


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 29, 2004)

Nope, nothing offensive in it..I simply asked that if spam and posts were deleted, could it be done in some kind of sense. I was reading posts from 2003 that made no sense because they were blatently replies to a question or previous posts which had been deleted! The threads were just making absoulty no sense to me whatsoever. I posted it for all to look at and reply with thier thoughts but it been deleted....I think HS is guilty cos all spam is deleted, EXCEPT His...  ....


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 29, 2004)

Well thats a good way to carry on if you want HS to issue you with another yellow card Mr. And somehow i don't think he'd remove this one if you aksed him nicely  

there has been alot of upheaval lately and admin are coming down hard on it - nothing personal 8)


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 29, 2004)

Bronze wrote

Well thats a good way to carry on if you want HS to issue you with another yellow card Mr. And somehow i don't think he'd remove this one if you aksed him nicely 

there has been alot of upheaval lately and admin are coming down hard on it - nothing personal 


I'm sorry bronze but really, what on earth is wrong with my post???? I was simply making a valid point in a civil manner, or was it cos i made a non offensive joke at HS.....Really, I cant be arsed with too much of this.....perhaps its time for me to say goodbye....
Goodbye cruel world
I'm leaving you today
nothing you can do or say will make me change my mind
goodbye
goodbye 
goodbye!


----------



## horseUSA (Mar 29, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> Bronze wrote
> 
> Well thats a good way to carry on if you want HS to issue you with another yellow card Mr. And somehow i don't think he'd remove this one if you aksed him nicely
> 
> ...


It wasn't deleted it was moved to the suggestion category, because it didn't belong in the aviation category


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 29, 2004)

I know that but in case you hadn't noticed lately the number of threads spanned 3 pages! there were too many silly threads that weren't on the subject of aircraft of WW2 and some of them (like yours - although useful wren't strictly on topic) were deleted or moved - like i said - it was nothing personal, theres no need to leave over it


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 29, 2004)

Thankyou horse....to tell you the truth I wasnt aware such a place existed..but hey thanks anyway...


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 29, 2004)

> I think HS is guilty cos all spam is deleted, EXCEPT His... ....
> _________________



Hot Space, it has been brought to my attention by a Moderator that perhaps i am hinting that you a hypocrite...I must stress that the comment is a JOKE...something some people are having trouble comprehending.....Please take no offence


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 29, 2004)

[/quote]
something some people are having trouble comprehending.....Please take no offence[/quote]


 




(immature but funny  )


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 29, 2004)




----------



## Hugh Janus (Mar 30, 2004)

bunch of w****** 

the best fighter was easily the he-52, i mean, who whould have thought of putting TWO wings on a plane


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 30, 2004)

hmmm,

Let me see, most airforces pre ww2 and post about 1913. 

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 30, 2004)

> who whould have thought of putting TWO wings on a plane



well, mos people did


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 30, 2004)

Hugh Janus said:


> bunch of w******
> 
> the best fighter was easily the he-52, i mean, who whould have thought of putting TWO wings on a plane



Unless i'm mistaken wasn't the He52 a biplane?


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 31, 2004)

I think he meant the Heinkel He 51, which was a biplane fighter. The He 52 was an experimental High altitude fighter.







Source: http://www.cbrnp.com/profiles/quarter2/he51.htm

Kiwimac


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 31, 2004)

This is the only image I have been able to find so far of the Heinkel He 52






Source: http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http:/...echia.com/rsmodels/En/Katalog11.htm&qte=0&o=0

Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 31, 2004)

Hardly the best fighter of WW2 was it?  

wow...thats one hell of a lengthy source... 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 31, 2004)

no we did mean the he-52 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

Well the He-52 was just a biplane high-altitude prototype...although it was just a big wind-up, nothing ever came of the He-52 (not that it would have been much of a threat if it had  )


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 2, 2004)

we knew it wasnt much cop, thats why we put it!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

i take it they figured us out then?

(it was like SO C.C.)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 3, 2004)

it was martyns idea actually 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

yup, all him..........................

and the best fighter was the hurricane.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 4, 2004)

sure was 8)


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 4, 2004)

I should have guessed!

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 4, 2004)

guessed what, that the hurricane was better?


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 4, 2004)

Of all the fighters that I have looked up the specifications to the P-47D model stands out. It would go 433 mph and fly up to 42,000 feet. The P-51 Mustang would do 437 mph and up to 41,900. So it looks like a tie between the P-47D and the P-51 as being the best of WW2.


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 5, 2004)

Hmm,



> Specification Table for the Focke-Wulf Ta 152H-1
> 
> Type	High-altitude fighter
> 
> ...



http://members.aol.com/pelzig/ta152.htm

So it would fly higher and faster than either the P 51 and P 47.

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

yup, the ta-152 was a figther and a half 8)


----------



## corpcasselbury (Apr 5, 2004)

My pick remains the Chance-Vought F4U Corsair. I'd match one of them against any other piston engined fighter. In fact, during the Korean War, a Corsair pilot actually shot down a MiG-15! 8)


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 5, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> yup, the ta-152 was a figther and a half 8)



It surely was. When the Ta 152 was being flight-tested, Kurt Tank was flying an unarmed version. He was bounced by a couple of p51-Ds. Rather than being shot down in flames, he simply pushed the throttle through the bar and out-raced them!  

Now thats what I call a plane!







Sourcehttp://fw190.hobbyvista.com/Dan1.htm






Sourcehttp://mitglied.lycos.de/spezialserien/hpbimg/Focke Wulf Ta 152.JPG

Kiwimac


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 5, 2004)

I agree with the Focke Wulf TA 152h-1 as being a high performance fighter with about 150 were produced which started in January of 1945. Their main use was to protect the landing strips that the Me-262's used as they were landing and taking off. I wonder is any planes survived the war or were they melted down. they would have made a fast air racer at 595 miles per hour at 41,000 feet
I am surprised at the lack of P-38 lightening posts. The P-38 with a trained pilot would fly circles around most fighters of the day. Richard Bong was proof of this. He shot down over 40 Japanese aircraft with little damage to his aircraft. Granted Tommy Maguire was as good as Bong but politics helped Bong. Now if Bong and Maguire had flown the number of missions the German fighter pilots and the Russian lady Pilots did during their tours . Who can guess the number of aircraft each would have shot down.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2004)

> It surely was. When the Ta 152 was being flight-tested, Kurt Tank was flying an unarmed version. He was bounced by a couple of p51-Ds. Rather than being shot down in flames, he simply pushed the throttle through the bar and out-raced them!



Bloody hell! 



> agree with the Focke Wulf TA 152h-1 as being a high performance fighter with about 150 were produced which started in January of 1945



just to be picky, 220 were made


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 6, 2004)

Is it my imagination or does the Ta-152 just look like an FW190 thats been streched? 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2004)

it does a bit  probably for the aerodynamics 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 8, 2004)

I think the Ta-152 was a very close cousin of the FW 190..in outward design anyway (I could be hideously wrong as i don't know much about German aircraft  )


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 8, 2004)

its actually a stretched Dora-9, not just any old butcher bird! it has longer wings as well (Dora-9 was long nose version of Fw-190 with an inline engine for high alts and if you see a pic and think it has a radial it IS an inline) but Ta-152 had a better engine and the wings were longer than the fuselage by, oh, about 11 feet ir such


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 8, 2004)

Right....but you must admit the resemblance between the FW190 and the TA152 was uncanny? 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 8, 2004)

no it isnt, they were just made by the same company, designed by the same genius, shared the same basic airframe and concept (heavily armed high-alt interceptor (the Fw-190 could be considered high alt when it was first used)


----------



## ForkTailedDevil (Apr 8, 2004)

Speed while important doesn't determine how great a fighter is. I don't think the Mustang or the Thunderbolt would qualify as the best fighter probably wouldn't even break a top 10 on my list. 

The Me-109K while capable of competing with the latest US fighters was not as agile as previous models it did have a excellent rate of climb. 

I think one of the best fighters was probably the Lavochin LA-7 very agile fast good firepower.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2004)

hey, I'm back, sorry, we've had more problems with our computer, we just had the whold thing reinstalled. Anywho, lets not forget the shiden, it could kick the ass of any allied fighter in the pacific, it just came in a bit late.................


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 10, 2004)

hey, I'm back, sorry, we've had more problems with our computer, we just had the whold thing reinstalled. Anywho, lets not forget the shiden, it could kick the ass of any allied fighter in the pacific, it just came in a bit late.................

My hat is off to lancaster !. I have been a fan of Japanese aircraft and I am surprised how little is published about their design. There was a aircraft wind tunnel for design at Tachikawa AB Japan. A lot of Japanese aircraft designs were tested there. The USAF took over the base after WW2 and they converted the wind tunnel into a movie theater. While I was stationed at Yokota AB (about 18 miles away) in 1969 I went to the movie theater at Tachikawa many times. I wondered why the ceiling was concrete and curved so I asked someone. There is a lot of history in aircraft design by the Japanese engineers. But the Japanese did not have high octane gas for their airplane which was lucky for the B-29's The Shilden is a outstanding design.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2004)

it was cirtainly better than any allied fighter.........................


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 10, 2004)

Some of the Japanese aircraft were better performing aircraft then any of the allies.. I can not argue with that but. The Allies had self sealing gas tanks and armor for their pilots which made their aircraft safer but slower. Most of the cream of the Japanese aviation pilots were killed by the time of when defending the homeland became a priority. However the Japanese had a lot of enlisted pilots that were quite good. One thing an enlisted pilot learned right away was not to out perform any of the Officers in his flight group. Other allied Air forces used enlisted pilots to their advantage but the US Army air corp had no regular enlisted pilots that I know of. The Japanese air corp did a fine job with what they had on hand. It is a shame most of Japanese advanced airraft designs were brought back to the states and studied before being scraped. The Russians had lots of female fighter pilots but they are largely ignored for some reason. Mainly male pride I suppose. The United States used females to ferry their aircraft to other bases from the factories but the Air Force ignored their rights to benefits when they requested them. They were finally given some benefits but way after the war had ended. Shame on the USA for ignoring their war effort.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2004)

and for ignoring ours...................


----------



## plan_D (Apr 11, 2004)

'the Americans will always do the right thing...when they've exhausted every other alternative' - Winston Churchill

It couldn't be put any other way...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 11, 2004)

im back from my "holiday" now im totally confused and have no idea what were all on about


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2004)

so what's new.................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 12, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> no it isnt, they were just made by the same company, designed by the same genius, shared the same basic airframe and concept (heavily armed high-alt interceptor (the Fw-190 could be considered high alt when it was first used)



Are you blind? 8) they look very similar (except the Ta152 looks streched)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 13, 2004)

that's the only visible difference.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 13, 2004)

> so what's new.................



good point 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2004)

they finally changed your rank to helper member then................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 14, 2004)

Oh cool - congrats C.C =D> =D> =D> 

when did they change it? 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2004)

he became one of "the few" a few days ago, but they only just chnged his rank.............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 14, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> GermansRGeniuses said:
> 
> 
> > no it isnt, they were just made by the same company, designed by the same genius, shared the same basic airframe and concept (heavily armed high-alt interceptor (the Fw-190 could be considered high alt when it was first used)
> ...


 sarcasm..... it is sweet when you hand it out and sour when you taste it......


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 14, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> that's the only visible difference.............


 AHEM! wing length! and a hole in the prop hub as well as two missing cannons....


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 15, 2004)

Do you find it tastes sour Germans? 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 15, 2004)

well when you dont notice it and need it to be pointed out to you, it makes me feel stupid, and thus it is sour!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 15, 2004)

Dear oh dear...nevermind - its not your fault you live in a country where they have very little grasp of the concept of Sarcasm... 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > that's the only visible difference.............
> ...



give him a break germans, we all know the lanc has problems with his eyes 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2004)

if you're trying to get a 152 of your tail, you tend not to nothice things like that..............................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 15, 2004)

how would you know? have you had to shake a one-five-two? only joking mate but seriously now, the wing length IS VERY apparent!


----------



## Crazy (Apr 15, 2004)

It almost has the appearance of a glider, IMHO


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2004)

i can see where youre coming from there 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 16, 2004)

that's why i said "that's the only visible difference"


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 16, 2004)

Very fecking visible


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 17, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2004)

but it's still the only real visible difference..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 18, 2004)

8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 19, 2004)

best fighter has to be the mossie....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

nah, hurricane or 109 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 19, 2004)

the hurricane wasn't the best........................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

was in the early years of the war, it just got outclassed 8)


----------



## Maestro (Apr 19, 2004)

The Hurricane wasn't bad, but personnally, I would say that the best fighter was the Supermarine Spitfire Mark IX.

It had all the maneuvrability of the olders Marks with a more powerful engine (a Merlin 61 V-12 (the same than the P-51 Mustang)) and a wounderful armament: two 20mm cannons, four Browning 303 machine guns and two bomb racks for the ground attacks.

Have I said that it was my favorite plane? 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

the spit was good, but highly over rated 8)


----------



## Maestro (Apr 19, 2004)

Over rated? Why do you think so? Did you ever flew (or do you know somebody who flew) a Spitfire Mk. IX?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 20, 2004)

no, im not on about that particular mark, but it was highly over-rated, everyone forgets it was the hurricane that shot down more planes in the BoB 8)


----------



## plan_D (Apr 20, 2004)

Yes, the Hurricane did shoot down more, and the Hurricane was in higher numbers (32 Squadrons of Hurricanes to 11 Squadrons of Spitfire) but the Spitfire Mk. IX was not in BoB and secondly every mark of Spitfire outclassed the Hurricane.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 20, 2004)

not in my eyes 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 20, 2004)

it terms of performance, it did.......................


----------



## Maestro (Apr 20, 2004)

plan_D said:


> Yes, the Hurricane did shoot down more, and the Hurricane was in higher numbers (32 Squadrons of Hurricanes to 11 Squadrons of Spitfire) but the Spitfire Mk. IX was not in BoB and secondly every mark of Spitfire outclassed the Hurricane.



This time, I have to agree with Plan_D. The Mk. IX wasn't in the BoB. As I said when I posted the database about the Mk. IX on this site, the Mark IX was created in 1942, in order to surpass the German FW-190. (And it did it well!) 8)

Here is the link (read the "Remark" section):
 http://www.ww2aircraft.net/?p=info&airinfo=150


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 21, 2004)

by the endof the warr all fighters could beat the FW-190..................


----------



## plan_D (Apr 22, 2004)

The FW-190 was a threat and was comparable to most fighters throughout the war, it was a brilliant fighter. And in 1942 it was scary for the RAF.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 22, 2004)

until the first time it was engaged in combat, when the RAF realised it wasn't all it cracked up to be....................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 23, 2004)

actually it was MORE than they cracked it up to be, mate.... dont let your Birtish pride confuse you, make no mistake, the "Butcher Bird" as indeed better than most spits (excluding the beautiful bubble canopied ones of course...---were those post war only?)


----------



## plan_D (Apr 23, 2004)

The Mk. XIV Spitfire was better than the FW-190 but that's not to say it had an easy time with it. The FW-190 was everything and more it was cracked up to be. 
When it was reported in 1942 the RAF began sending out patrols to stop them probing British airspace, it is recorded that out of all the sorties FW-190s did over Britain the RAF sent out 6 patrols, this is some idea of how scary the 190 was.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 23, 2004)

i read an account of the first pilot to engage a 190 and he said he shot him down quite easily.......................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 23, 2004)

i doubt that and thats why i said "most" models of the spitfire. there are two reasons i doubt that statement Lanc, the first is that these werent junior pilots that got the Fw190 in early '42, this was Jg26, the highest scoring squadron of any country, of any war with planes!!! the other reason is that the Mk.V (all models of it) was inferior to the Fw190 in almost every aspect! sure, I'll admit it had some great features, better climb rate than the Fw190 being one of them, but for the most part, the Fw190 was superior.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 24, 2004)

I have to agree with Germans. And in any case I doubt they would class any combat, let alone one against a superior plane easy.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2004)

i'm just quoting what the man saud, if i can i'll get the book out the library and get the whole quote....................


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 24, 2004)

I am adding a Japanese fighter plane, The Ki-44 Shoki code named Tojo to the list. The Ki-44 IIc model had (4) 40 mm cannons firing a 1/2 kilogram bullet. On Feb 19th of 1945 a small number of Ki-44's shot down 10 B-29s out of 120 B-29's in that mission. The Ki-44 in all of it variants was one of the Japanese better fighter planes.


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 24, 2004)

This is the 40 millimeter cannon used on the Ki-44. One of its features was the round was caseless. I have not been able to determine how the powder was ignited. In researching the various cannons used by the allies I found out that the Germans were starting to use the gatling style cannons to their aircraft along with a 2 barrel gast type cannon. The Germans used electrical primed shells in their cannons. I am guessing that General Electric copied the German designs for their Vulcan 20 mm cannons. The Germans designed some of the better armament of WW2 and the Japanese were a close second. THe Japanese also had a 57mm and a 75 mm cannons mounted on some of their aircraft.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 24, 2004)

the problem with Japanese heavy aviation arms is that they were rare (  ) they usually kept the maximum size to 20mm. anyway, going with the bomber destroyers, the Ki-84C had two 20mm Ho 5 cannons in the nose (replacing the 12.7mm mgs in the Ki-84a: the Ki-84b also had twin 20mm's in the nose and two more in the wings like the Ki-84a) and two 30mm Ho 105 cannons in the wings (one to each wing). (yes, crazy, i DID get this info from aep  )


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2004)

the shiden was pretty good too................


----------



## plan_D (Apr 25, 2004)

The Henschel 129 had a 75mm cannon on it, one variant anyway. The anti-shipping Mosquito had a 57mm cannon on it. 

And one thing, 40mm isn't a bullet, it's a shell.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 25, 2004)

some P-108's were armed with 102mm cannon for anti-shipping (i must give credit to C.C. for that information............)


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 25, 2004)

The HS 129 could only fire the damn 75mm cannon 3 times in a row in any attack. More than three meant the plane was flying backwards 

Kiwimac


----------



## Crazy (Apr 25, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> (yes, crazy, i DID get this info from aep  )




I expected nothing less


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 26, 2004)

Some of the later Japanese aircraft are excellent!

Ki-45 Dragon Slayer







Kiwimac


----------



## plan_D (Apr 26, 2004)

Well the A-10 Warthog now, if it could fire it's gatling gun for any longer than 8 seconds it'd be flying backwards and stall. That's why you don't fire it like that, German pilots weren't stupid, and it's not as if you need to hit a tank from on high many times with a 75mm cannon, they only had 12 ammo.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 26, 2004)

> Some of the later Japanese aircraft are excellent!



the right, the shiden was kick ass, it could beat any allied fighter in the pacific, it's only real drawback was the lack of propper fuel avalible...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 27, 2004)

> some P-108's were armed with 102mm cannon for anti-shipping (i must give credit to C.C. for that information............)



some p.108s? only one had it and it was a prototype 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 27, 2004)

my mistake, and i think it's about time you gave me credit for som of the stuff i told you...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

you told me stuff about the p.108?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

no, like most of the stuff you've ever posted.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

the spam is my own


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

ok, i'll give you that................

best fighter (why is there two of these?) is the DH Mossie...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

nah im sticking with the hurricane 8) or possibly the bf-109, not sure 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2004)

the 109 was better...........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 29, 2004)

My name reveals my bias but my vote goes to the P-38. When discussing the best fighter of the war it's important to consider an aircraft that was involved in the war from start to finish. I may be mistaken but I believe that limits us to the Bf-109, the Spitfire, the Zero, and the Lightning. The Lightning was by far the most versitale of any of these remaining contenders and so it gets my vote.

I also think that the P-38L has to be considered one of the best period. It had range, speed, climb, killer firepower, and the versatility to fly any mission a fighter might be asked to fly. I've read comments from both German and Japanese pilots that a P-38 would turn a lot better that people would admit and the L with it's boosted controls would outroll a FW-190 at high speeds! I've got tons more I could say, but I'll leave it at that.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 30, 2004)

YP-38 service delivery was 16th September 1940, and the USAAC P-38s didn't start delivery until 8 June 1941. So as you can see, the Lightning wasn't from start to finish because the war started 3rd September 1939, one year before delivery for combat tests. 
So that negates the P-38 if you want to be picky.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 30, 2004)

And you've also missed off the Soviet fighters of the Lagg, Yak and Mig series.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2004)

so what your saying is that just because lets say, the P-51, wasn't around at the start, it was a poor fighter.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 30, 2004)

Well, if we are going to be ultra picky on the start point, you are limited to aircraft of either Germany or Poland. My point on that was that the Lightning was in service for the entire period the US was in the war. 

For the Soviets, the LaGGs and MiGs were NEVER the best fighters. The Yak-1 held its own, but it wasn't til the Yak-3 and -9 and the La-5 and -7 that the Russians had anything really capable of bettering a 109 or 190.

With regard to the P-51, I am new to the discussion so I may have missed what defined "best." It was a great fighter, but Merlin engined Mustangs didn't come around until late '43 or so and the D didn't get into the mix really until roughly mid-'44. It may well have been the best fighter of that PERIOD but it clearly wasn't the best fighter or '41 or '42 since it wasn't there. That was my point.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2004)

i'm just trying to say that just because it wasn't there for the whole war, it doesn't make it a poor fighter, but my fave fighter has to be the meteor..........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 30, 2004)

I wouldn't claim that it was a poor fighter either. But the Germans had fighters in development that the P-51 couldn't have touched. Fortunately they were to late to have an impact and it is that lack of impact that prevents them from featuring in most "best fighter" discussions. The P-51 had tremendous impact, but later in the war. The Spit, the Zero, the 109, and the P-38 were making an impact the moment their respective countries entered the war and continued through to the end.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 30, 2004)

I was saying you should have included the Soviet planes in your 'in from the start list'. The Spitfire XIV was the best dogfighter, and it beat the P-51D Mustang on everything except range...American and British pilots that had flown the Mustang and the Spitfire perfered the Spitfire. 

The Spitfire could handle itself against anything in a dogfight, and that was all the way through the war. So from your list it's the best. Since the title is Best Fighter not Best Fighter in 1941, the thread holds more discussion.


----------



## Maestro (Apr 30, 2004)

plan_D said:


> I was saying you should have included the Soviet planes in your 'in from the start list'. The Spitfire XIV was the best dogfighter, and it beat the P-51D Mustang on everything except range...American and British pilots that had flown the Mustang and the Spitfire perfered the Spitfire.
> 
> The Spitfire could handle itself against anything in a dogfight, and that was all the way through the war. So from your list it's the best. Since the title is Best Fighter not Best Fighter in 1941, the thread holds more discussion.



Once again, I agree with Plan_D.

I have a book in wich a pilot compare the Spitfire Mk. IX (came out in 1942) to the P-51B (came out in 1944). I translated it from French, so I apologize for any mistake. It's says:

"The comparison of those two plane is weird, because they had the same engine. [...]

The Mustang had a greater range than the Spitfire. Their fuel consumption were the same, but the P-51 was 32 km/h faster. With their engine "pushed at the limit", their speed was the same between 10,000 and 15,000 feet, and between 25,000 and 32,000 feet.

However, the Spitfire had a better climb rate, even against the P-51B at full trottle. But the Mustang needed less power to climb after diving.

In diving, the Mustang could desengage very quickly. With the same engine adjustments, the Spitfire needed more power to stay in formation. An other advantage of the Spitfire was that it was easy to handle in the curves. It was always turning faster than the P-51B, even when using the flaps. The Mustang couldn't spin as fast as the Spitfire Mk. IX at normal speed. But the spin performances were identical at 350 km/h. Finaly, the Mustang's four Browning machine guns were greatly inferior to the Spitfire Mk. IX's two 20 mm cannons and four Browning 303."

It was the P-51B compared to the Spitfire Mk. IX. So we can see that those two craft were almost equivalent and that the preference of one rather to the other was a question of personnal taste. But think about the Mk. XIV. With all the improvements, the Mk. XIV was better than the Mustang, no matter if it was a P-51B or a P-51D.

But once again, I must say that I like the Mk. IX. 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2004)

i think it would be very interesting to compare the meteor (my favourite fighter) and the 262, could anyone find any accounts comparing them, i realise they never saw combat with each other, but perhaps if the allies flew one after the war........................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2004)

i dont, i think the 262 would just blitz the meteor


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 1, 2004)

I think the Meteor would have had trouble overcoming the speed advantage of the 262.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

it depends what mark of meteor you were in.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

in a mark 1 or 2, the meteor would have a very tough time trying to beat the 262 8) might be a bit more even in a mark 3 though


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

i wanna F.8, that would beat it hands down.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

hmmmm, im not sure, i still think the 262 would have an advantage


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

the F.8 could hit 600+ mph, and could carry more bombs and had a better range..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

yes but wasnt that after the war.... 600 mph whasnt broken until after the war in a meteor, i aint sure whether that mark actually saw service 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

you're right, it didn't see sevice in WWII, but who said we had to limmit it to the war marks?...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

because it would actually have been feasible  how could you have had a dogfight between a 262 and a currently non-existent mark of meteor?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

what about the a 262 that was used after the war, the checks used them after the war................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

Isn't this a WWII aircraft forem? If it is, I've got to say the Me-262 was the best jet fighter. If we are bringing up Post-war planes, why not just get to the heart of the matter and choose the F/A-22 Raptor?


----------



## kiwimac (May 2, 2004)

Me 262 would have creamed the Mk I and II Meteor's. The He 280 would have held its own even against a Mark III. 

Kiwimac


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 2, 2004)

kiwimac said:


> Me 262 would have creamed the Mk I and II Meteor's. The He 280 would have held its own even against a Mark III.
> 
> Kiwimac


 a Ta-152H-1 would be able to at high altitudes and so would a Dora-9 and Kurfurst-4. Attached are pictures of these planes and the Kurfurst-4 is my Siggy


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

it's close to call between the jets, it terms of achievement, the 262 was a great intercepter, where as the meteor was great at chasing V-1s...........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

Isn't that basically the same role?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

not really, a V-1 is considderably faster than a B-17, as most planes were................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

True, but that is still an interception. And I've even heard that the speed of the Me-262 caused some problems with overshooting B-17s.


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2004)

With the 4*30mm on the Me262 one pass can be enough to bring a B-17, you don't want to be hanging around a B-17 formation at slow speeds.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

unless you're one of the fighter escorts 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

But with the speed of the Me-262 it was difficult for them to get off more than one aimed burst in a single pass. And of course head-on attacks were a serious no-no.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

unless you were feeling lucky


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

More like feeling stupid. The closing speed would have been up around 750 mph. Do you wanna try flying through a formation of a few hundred B-17s at that speed?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

perhaps if life was getting me down, my family had all been killed by a bombing raid.... then id consider it


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

Sound more like a Japanese than a German.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2004)

well you know what the amricans were like, you'd be pretty safe, they would proberly end up shooting each other...............

but on the other hand, if you were in a lancaster..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

I wasn't even talking about getting shot down. I would be more worried about the chance of collision.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

collision = instant death 8) if you get shot down you have to sit and wait while you plummet to the ground 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

and if you collide, at least you're taking out another plane too 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

Collisions hardly equal instant death and many of the planes that were shot down went down because of dead pilots.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

whoops, my mistake


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

The Germans encouraged the tactic of head on attacks on bomber formations, you have to take risks or you're not going to get anything done. 
In a B-17 formation you really don't need perfect aim, those 30mm shells will probably hit something.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

you were more likly to collide in a head on attack than you were to get shot...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

yup, b-17's were big planes 8) and cos they fly in formations, it makes them a huge target 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

i know, it was a bi stupid, they had to stay in formation, even when getting attacked, the RAF let pilots try to loose the fighters if they got jumped................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

nothing to do with the planes though...


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

It sort of was, I've read interviews with Lancaster pilots saying as soon as the bombs were dropped they would bank hard, and pull round on their wing tip and the Lancaster could handle it without stalling or just ripping apart. 

The B-17 couldn't do that. You cannot throw a B-17 around like you can a Lancaster.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

The formations were due to the American tactics. In order to achieve the best bomb pattern they needed to stay in close. Any bomber (even the Lancaster despite its maneuverability) was very vulnerable to fighters when it was operating in daylight without the mutual support of enemy bombers. I also think (I'm not positive of this) that the Americans used the massed formations in an actual attempt to shoot down German fighters rather than merely drive them off. I know the kill claims were often inflated but I believe both the B-17 and B-24 were creditted with upwards of a 1,000 kills. Some fighters didn't do that.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

A larger clumped up formation makes a much easier target. The B-17 couldn't handle as good as the Lancaster in turns, and dives.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

the lancaster is a much smaller plane though 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

And yet it could carry more.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

thats because the lancaster had a massive bomb bay, a b-17 could probably have carried the same if it had a bigger bomb bay 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

That's all well and good, but it didn't. Plus the fact if it did it would have had less ammo and probably had to get rid of some of its guns.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

and theres the problem:- finding the right balance between offense and defence, the lancaster had too little defense and the b-17 had too much defense 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Exactly, the YB-40 had even more defensive though..


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

YB-40.... forgive me for saying this but dont think ive heard of that


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

It was an experimental B-17 with even more guns on it. I'm trying to find a decent picture to show the changes but I'm having no luck at the moment. 

Some examples I can remember are almost tripled ammo, twin .50 cals in each waist gun position instead of one. Two top turret guns instead of one, each with quad .50cals. There were some more but I can't remember.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

cool 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

It was cool, they combat tested it and it was way too slow to keep up with the normal B-17 formation. They were designed to be extra protection for the formation and they couldn't even keep up...


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)




----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

They carried a full bomb load though, no wonder they were so slow. Why they didn't just not carry bombs, or just carry half I will never know.


----------



## kiwimac (May 4, 2004)

You're not wrong!







Kiwimac


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

What do you mean by that, are you saying that you thought I was? Although I was wrong because I thought the two top turrets had quad .50 cals...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

I heard it was still an easy target though, mind you, al B-17s are, and going back the balance between guns and payload(yes i did look at the last page) the lancaster didn't need anymore armourment (well maybe a ventral turret, but apart from that) becasue of the corkscrew manouver, it saved hundereds, maybe thousands of planes...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

The Lanc would have benefitted from a heavier gun than the .303. Some of the late war Lancs had twin fifties in the tail or mid-upper positions and that was a definite improvement for daylight or clear night missions.

The YB-40 and YB-41 (gunship version of a B-24) did not carry a bombload. If I remember correctly, the bomb bay doors were welded shut and the space used to store extra .50 cal ammo. That was the primary reason they were so slow. After the target, ever other Fort in the formation would be 4,000-6,000 lbs lighter while the YB-40 would still be carrying a couple of tons of extra ammo.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

All the sources I've read said the YB-40 still carried bombs.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

I haven't seen that. Maybe they did, but carrying bombs AND all that ammo would have made take-offs exciting. I'm not sure where that much ammo would have been stored if not in the bomb bay. B-17s aren't that roomy inside.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

they carried 1.5 tons of ammo anyway, and the B-17 wasn't huge inside, where would they put it all..................


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

In their pockets...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

Most of that normal load was carried near the gun positions. But the ammo canisters for a waste gun (600 rds late war) were huge! If you were to triple that and add a second gun at each window . . . it's going to be really tight, if not impossible to cram that all in there.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

It might not have been triple for all guns.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

Yeah. But if all of that ammo just went to a reserve in the bomb bay you wouldn't have that problem. Whichever position needed the ammo could be resupplied in flight. Of course that wouldn't have been an easy proposition.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

and what if HE rounds were used by the germans, one hit and the whold thing could blow, it would just be one huge pewder keg..............


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Hey, it was dropped anyway because it was poor so I don't know. I just read that it did carry bombs.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

The HE shell argument doesn't make sense. Would it have been any safer if the bomb bay was loaded with bombs?


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Not really. They would still detonate even if they weren't armed.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

Exactly. So if a lucky shot hits the bomb bay just right, whether it's bombs or ammo its bye bye for the bomber.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Yes, but honestly I did read that they did carry bombs as well as the extra ammo.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

i don't doubt you......



> So if a lucky shot hits the bomb bay just right



it would have to be a very very lucky shot, the B-17's bomb bay was tiny!!!!!!!!


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

I'm sure there are records, after all there are cases of aircraft just exploding, either their fuel was struck or their bombs.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

So in that case wouldn't the small bomb bay of the B-17 be an advantage and the large bay of the Lancaster be a liability?


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

I suppose it would be, but hitting the bombs in general would be a hard task, especially at night. I don't think the fighters aimed for the bomb bay, it was just a lucky hit if you managed to detonate one or bad luck if you were in too close proximity.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

German night fighters using Shrage Musik got in pretty close. They took extra care to hit the wings (with the engine and fuel tanks) rather than the bomb bay for that very reason.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Well then, it wasn't that much of a liability.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

No, it wasn't. I was just looking for a chance to rile Lancaster a bit.


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

I think I've ruined it now.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

best fighter has to be the huricane 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

Oh not again.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

oh yes again


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

it wasn't the best, that title goes to the meteor................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

the meteor was too underdeveloped in WW2, the hurricane was far more successful


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

I thought we had settled that a 262 would spank the Meteor.


----------



## Maestro (May 6, 2004)

It's hard for some peoples, like C.C. or me, to change their mind.

SPITFIRE MK. IX RULES ! 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

no we didn't, and before you say the meteor was to under developed and the 262 was faster, a F.3 could hit 548mph, not at all bad...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

When did the F.3 enter service? And that is just 8 mph faster than the 262 (which was also better armed by the way).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

44/45, i can't be sure, but it was a long time before the wars end..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

the meteor wasnt a match for the 262 during the war


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

that's because they never met................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

I just did a little checking and the Mk.III did see service during the war. It's top speed, at least from the sources I have, was only 495mph which is a far cry from 548mph. Advantage 262.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

not according to my sources......

it was better than the 262..........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

I never seen a speed that high listed. I will still go with the 262 being superior to the Meteor.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

and me, the 262 was a pioneering jet and a good one at that 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

it was good yes, but do you really think it could intercept V-1s liek a meteor could?.......


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

Why not? P-47s, P-51s, P-61s, Spits, Tempests, Mossies, and Fireflies all intercepted V-1s.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2004)

well theres no point in it intercepting V1's is there....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 7, 2004)

if they're heading for you capital there is, you're from london, you never know, i could have killed some of your family, then you'd wish you'd intercepted it.................................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2004)

well i dont know if it did or not, i doubt it, but if it did then i hae no knowledge of this whatsoever


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

The 262 could have probably intercepted a V-1. Those prop driven aircraf that intercepted V-1s didn't have an easy time doing so, the Meteor did however.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 7, 2004)

And the Me-262 was (probably) faster than any mark of Meteor to see service, clearly faster than any of the piston-engined aircraft intercepting V-1s. It would have had no problem shooting down V-1s.


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

That's what I was trying to get at, I didn't word it very well though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 8, 2004)

> And the Me-262 was (probably) faster than any mark of Meteor to see service



no, the F.8 , the last major production varient, could easily break 650mph.........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

When did the F.8 enter service? So far as I know the F.3 was the last mark in service during the war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 9, 2004)

yes but we are talking about post war meteors and 262s, of which the meteor was better...............


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

I thought everyone agreed on that...I must have missed something...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

Because the 262 didn't have the advantage of post-war development that the Meteor had. Who was flying the 262 post-war? The Checks? Please. The Meteor was better post war but only because it had better engineers working on it.


----------



## kiwimac (May 10, 2004)

Had the Me 262 had the kind of post-war development that the Meteor had, it would have continued to be the better of the two planes.

Kiwimac


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

I fail to see how since the British engines designers were and still are the best in the world. Aircraft have a lot to gain from their engines, and the Meteor engines would have been superior.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

That whole engine matter is the subject of another debate. But the Me-262 had the better airframe of the two. Even if German engines were inferior than those on the Meteor it would have been far superior to anything the Checks could have developed. And the superior airframe of the Me-262 meant that it could achieve better performance for a given amount of power.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 10, 2004)

meteor has a higher ceiling, and besides, it wouldn't be long before the EE lightening, and there's no way you could say a 262 can beat a EE Lightening......................


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

The EE Lighting was designed in 1949, and if the war was still going on it would have been a lot quicker to service because of more funding. 
And nothing could beat the EE Lightning for decades, only in the 80s when the F-16, F-15 and F-18 came into the American airforce was the Lightning finally given its cards. 

If anyone, and I mean, ANYONE says any kind of Me262 was better they are the stupidest people I have EVER met.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

But I think we are missing the point. This aircraft weren't in service during the war. The 262 was. If the war had continued who knows what the Germans might have done. We can't say so let's skip all the hypotheticals. The 262 was better than any other jet to see service during WWII.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2004)

with the exeption of the meteor.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

for christs sake lanc, do i have to spell it out?

THE METEOR WAS NOT UP TO THE STANDARDS OF THE 262 DURING THE YEARS OF THE WAR


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

I don't think we are ever going to solve anything in this thread. But I don't believe any of the wartime Meteors could defeat the Me-262.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

me neither


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2004)

but that's just it, we never got the chance to find out, i think the meteor would win it..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

it wouldnt, the meteor was only superior to the 262 after the war


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

I believe the 262 would have beaten a wartime Meteor.

Now this is just a question, because I don't know, but what did the Meteor do during the war besides shoot down V-1s? Were any of them deployed to the mainland? Did they see any offensive action?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

the F.3 did a bit of ground attack work, and they were used for recon................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

See I've never heard of the Meteor doing anything but shooting down V-1s.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

i've read abit about them, many countries ordered them after the war..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Some how we always end up on what the Meteor did AFTER the war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

because it was better after and during the war....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

After: yes because development of the 262 stopped. During: no


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

IT WAS!!!!!!!!


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

There's a convincing argument.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

So, why carry it on? You are both just going 'No'...'Yes'...'No'....'Yes'...I say, 'just stop'.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

ok, perahps we should go back to piston fighters.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2004)

perhaps we should... best piston fighter IMO was the hurricane 8) hang on, aint we been here before?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Yes we have. And you ended up backing outta that claim.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2004)

well, im backing back into it  look at it, its a magnificent plane!


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

It was a brilliant plane, yes, I agree. The Spitfire Mk. XIV was the best dogfighter of the war. The Hurricane was a great plane, and one of my favourites but it wasn't the best.


----------



## Maestro (May 12, 2004)

I agree. The Hurricane was a great plane... But it was not better than later Marks of Spitfires.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

The Hurrican wasn't better than the early marks of Spit.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Lightning Guy is right, it wasn't.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

but it looks so much better


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

The Hurricane was a good looking plane, but the Spitfire was quite possibly the prettiest plane of the war.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

well im one of the few people who thinks the hurricane was better looking, the one in my siggy does it justice


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

I wouldn't say it does it just, I've seen better. 
I think the Spitfire was one of the best looking planes of the war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 13, 2004)

i think it had the best looking wings of the war if nothing else, they look amazing............


----------



## Maestro (May 13, 2004)

I agree with Plan_D.
The Spitfire was the best looking plane of the war. I always loved its shape. 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

so no-ones with me on the looks except my mate at school


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

Looks like it C.C, the Hurricane was good looking, and was a great plane but the Spitfire was just better looking, and a better performer.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

The way the Spit's cockpit in the fuselage looked very cool. I know it limited downward visibility but it looked great.


----------



## Maestro (May 13, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> The way the Spit's cockpit in the fuselage looked very cool. I know it limited downward visibility but it looked great.



Yeah, it looked great.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

It was just a very good looking plane.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

So mass agreement.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 14, 2004)

allmost, the cockpit of the hurricane was better.......................


----------

