# best fighter of ww II



## a finn (Jun 2, 2004)

I saw that here was some time ago discussion about the best fighter of WW II. My contribution to that discussion : 

Best kill ratio : Brewster B-239 (Used by Finnish Air Force) and the whopping kill ratio was 26:1


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

i was just going to mention that - i think thats a pretty amazing kill ratio for only about 49 planes to acheive, i think throughout the war they only lost about 12 of them?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2004)

It looks pretty good on paper but it was against Soviet pilots. The Finnish were good pilots and had some pretty inventive tactics for air warfare. It certainly doesn't qualify the B-239 as the best fighter.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

It was effective in the early years but throught out the years it got out classed in the engine department, but the handling and manoeverability were brilliant 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 2, 2004)

Maneuverability brilliant? I don't think so. Or maybe you would like to ask the Marines of VMF-221 who lost 13 of the 19 Buffaloes committed to the battle of Midway. One of the pilots who survived the battle, Captain Philip R. White, later wrote, “It is my belief that any commander who orders pilots out for combat in an F2A should consider the pilot as lost before leaving the ground.”


----------



## a finn (Jun 2, 2004)

Well, here's a comment about B-239, it was said by Ilmari Juutilainen, leading finnish ace (97.5 victories) : "I started my Brewster flights in the beginning of April 1940, doing all the aerobatics maneuvers, stall and dive tests. I was happy with my Brewster. It was agile, it had 4,5 hours endurance, good weaponry - one 7,62 mm and three 12,7 machine guns - and an armored pilot's seat. It was so much better than the Fokker that it was in another category. If we had had Brewsters during the Winter War, the Russians would have been unable to fly over Finland."

So, remember that Finnish Brewsters were F2A-1 models, which was much lighter and more agile than later F2A-2's

I'm still not saying it was the best fighter, but pretty good in the circumstances


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

97.5 victories, how do you get a half?


----------



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

but as was said, it was against the soviots...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

its still impressive 8)


----------



## a finn (Jun 2, 2004)

Well, I don't know how you get a half-victory. It must be shared with someone else. But it can get even more strange than that. In some sources the number of his victories is 94 and a sixth of a kill. I don't know which is the correct number, but strange numbers still


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)




----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2004)

It was all against the Soviets though. 

To get a fraction of a kill you either share the kill with a wingman, or several wingmen. Or you shoot up the plane but never see it go down.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 2, 2004)

Typically shooting up an aircraft that wasn't seen to crash would only be ruled as a probable and not as half-kill. Different air forces had different methods of calculating scores with some counting half kills and even probables as whole kills for propaganda. One country even awarded extra kills based on the size of the plane, three kills for downing a 4 engine bomber for example.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 3, 2004)

probably the french, to make em look better


----------



## a finn (Jun 3, 2004)

C.C. you're probably right. Or how about germans, how do you get over 300 victories without cheating somehow. (Although I have heard that german aces got their kills so that the wingman "almost" made it, and then the ace finished the job.)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 3, 2004)

that said i think Hartmann was pretty good.

Wlcome to the site btw  hope to see a lot more of you around


----------



## plan_D (Jun 3, 2004)

You have to remember with the German aces a lot of them served in the Spanish Civil War then went to the Eastern Front. In both areas they were better trained pilots, and mostly in better aircraft.


----------



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

IT'S MY BIRTHDAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!  

however back on topic, in "The RAF at war" (there you ge erich, a referance) it talks about a british newspapersaying that "the luftwaffe now holds mosquito night fighters in such high regard, if a pilot shhots one down, he's allowed to count it as two", proberly not true and only properganda, but funny all the same


----------



## Erich (Jun 3, 2004)

Lanc thanks for posting a reference..........I feel better now........burp ~

say you are correct, Goebbels tried to make the Mossie LSNF bomber force sort of a propaganda toold and anyone that shot down a Mossie was consdiered a hero for a weeks time. Day or night, and then that idea fizzled out as the LSNF decided to continue their bluffs with the Luftwaffe defences and used four differnet routes in towards Berlin and it's environs and then a different way out back to England. No the pilots were not given credit for two kills but their usually was quite a nice letter write up about the victory.

happy bithday by the way and many more to come........ !


----------



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

thanks, i think you're begining to aprechiate me??

and once again, more initails i don't understand, what does "LSNF" mean??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 3, 2004)

> happy bithday by the way and many more to come........ !



not if i have anything to do with it.....


----------



## Erich (Jun 3, 2004)

lanc :

the LSNF was abbreviation of the high altitude Mosquito bomber force.

..................... Light Night Striking Force ....................

get in and hit and then fly like crazy for home. 

E ~


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 3, 2004)

Shouldn't that be LNSF then?


----------



## Erich (Jun 3, 2004)

u are correct............stinkin allergies can't think


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 3, 2004)

I thought that was the way I had seen it but I wasn't sure. And my typing is plenty bad as well.


----------



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

i notice nobody else wished me a happy birthday .............


----------



## plan_D (Jun 4, 2004)

I apologise, Lanc. Happy-late-Birthday. 

Erich, what were the NJG using the 262? And were they all 262A-1a?


----------



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

> I apologise, Lanc. Happy-late-Birthday



thank you..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 4, 2004)

Happy-late birthday Lanc.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 5, 2004)

i sent you an e-card lanc... you obviously forgot


----------



## Erich (Jun 6, 2004)

the Me 262 unit at night was Kurt Welters 10./NJG 11. Every one of the kills in the big staffel was with the A-1a and only one in the B-1a, although nearly all the pics of the unit show the B-1a in line up after surrender.

Erich ~


----------



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

how many marks of the 262 were there, as i only ever hear of the A-1??


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 6, 2004)

Me-262 A-1/a-Fighter/Interceptor
Me-262 A-1/U4 Experimental Zerstorer with a 50mm Mauser Kannone in the Nose
Me-262 A-2/a Fighter Bomber
Me-262 B-1/a Two Seat Trainer
Me-262 B-2/a Two Seat Nightfighter
(There are more, but these are the only ones I know-kinda. I also know of a variant that was used for tests that had a glazed nose and a position for a bombardier, kinda like the pinpoint variant of the P-38)


----------



## Erich (Jun 6, 2004)

the first one was the typical fighter encountered in the day light skies over the Reich.

second one was primarily a prototype but did fly with Gallands JV 44 on a couple of missions. the 5cm wepon always jammed and never fired in anger.

# 3 was the bomber used in KG 51, and 54

# 4 was a trainer and just that. not many built and flown as there was not time for new recruits to be trained properly. they got into their operational craft, and sat thge cockpit and with a few manual directions expected to fly off the tarmac and take on the enemy.

the B-1a/U-1 was the two seat night fighter in Kurt Welters outfit but the two seater only scored 1 Mosquito, the single seater still preferred as radar operators came into the unit quite late.

the B-2 unit never saw service but was the palnned replacement for all of the jets in Kommando Welter. An excellent design and it was hopeful that this jet could make a difference in the night skies but the war ended before the jet was ever put into service.

E ~


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2004)

Me-262A-1a/U3 reconnaissance which had no guns.


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 6, 2004)

Hey what do all you lot think about the Me-163...? 8)
I reckon it was the best.
Did you know there was a japanese variant?


----------



## Erich (Jun 6, 2004)

yes best death trap. what a bunch of crock. about 12 victories..........useless


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 6, 2004)

The first 163 shot down was flamed by a P-38. And given the chemicals that thing was carrying, most of them flamed on take-off. And having every landing be 'dead-stick' had to be nerve-wracking.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 7, 2004)

> Did you know there was a japanese variant?



yeah, it was called the yokosuka okha or something wasnt it? was that any better?


----------



## luca servitto (Jun 7, 2004)

i knew that too  what the..... THE BEST!!   what are you smokin'?  Imagine being strapped into a tiny cockpit and being surrounded by the most dangerous and volatile chemicals known to man


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 7, 2004)

C.C. the Okha was a Japanese kamikaze rocket. The Japanese copy of the Me-163 was the Ki-200 Shusui and was, as far as I know, simply a direct copy of the German rocket plane.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 7, 2004)

yeah i found out it was the Ki-200 shortly after i made the post, as far as i knew the okha was the only japanese rocket.

and the 163 wasnt very good at all, it killed more german pilots that it did allied pilots


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 7, 2004)

An typically a very horiffic death at that.


----------



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

> it killed more german pilots that it did allied pilots



as did the HE-177..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 8, 2004)

but the 177 wasnt really an interceptor, was it


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 8, 2004)

Aside from intercepting the ground, no it wasn't.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 8, 2004)

intercepting the ground


----------



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

suely the ground would be intercepting the 177??


----------



## Gemhorse (Jun 8, 2004)

HAPPY [belated] BIRTHDAY, Lanc. - You are a Gemini perhaps...? - I've recently just had my birthday too....- Now, didn't they use Buffalo's in the Far East initially ?...Came off poorly against the Japs, although they had some particular virtue, I just can't quite remember at present - I'm checking that out. The Me 163 was a flying-bomb, literally, and disrespectful to have expected pilots to fly them, but the idea was a short fast ascent to the US bombers, a squirt of 30mm's, and down again...wouldn't want ONE bullet to hit it though...- I always felt the Ar 234 more reliable than Me 262's, although they weren't really into a 'fighter' version....The Me 163 and the He 177 were both rather dismal failures, the 'Grief' probably did more operational service though...- And since the Mosquito's been mentioned, it's my natural choice of Best Fighter, but when it comes to 'kills', we've all got our own ideas there...I'd probably choose the Spitfire......


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 8, 2004)

Buffalo did see some service with the RAF in the far east but were no match for the Japanese fighters (even with the British cutting armament and fuel to save weight). 

The Mosquito was a great aircraft but I don't think it should be considered for 'best fighter' since it wasn't used very much as a true fighter (it was probably the best night fighter of the war but in my mind that's different). I think the 'best fighter' should be an aicraft that had considerabl success and impact in the air-to-air arena.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 9, 2004)

I'd go the Spitfire Mk. XIV as the best, it's range wasn't amazing but it was the best dogfighter. So a perfect defensive plane. 

The P-38 would get my vote for best offensive plane because of its range, manuverability, payload and survivability.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 9, 2004)

good, ill agree with that.

gemhorse, the 177 did see more service than the Komet, they built over 1000 He-177's and only about 100 Komets, but im not sure on that fugure.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 9, 2004)

Those seem to be pretty good choices Plan_D. But, as we have discussed, the Lightning would have been an amazing defensive plane if it had the chance (that was what it was designed for anyway).


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 9, 2004)

is that the nose of a P-38 in your signature LG?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 9, 2004)

Yep. Bad news for any Axis pilot who saw that in his rear-view mirror.


----------



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

you see C.C, told you.......................


----------



## Gemhorse (Jun 10, 2004)

Yeah, I agree with that assertion LG, I'm chuffed you believe the Mosquito to have been the ' Best Nightfighter ' of the War, something I too believe...That's why I put Spitfires, and although the Mk.XIV is my personal favourite variant, overall they were successful fighters - I'm really amazed in my research how the Germans never won, because some of theirs were potentially excellent aircraft...the Fw 190 series culminating in the Ta 152 , the Do 335 , and the Jets...well...there was one that really was MOST unique, the Gotha Go 229, which if they'd got that up out there sooner, would have been truly formidable...apart from the speed, [607 mph @ 39,000 ft], and 4 X 30mm's , had awesome handling-characteristics...- Apart from all that though, the 'Best Fighter' Trophy should really go the the P.51 Mustang, whose presence throughout most of the War in it's different models, in different Theatres, really did make a profound difference....


----------



## Erich (Jun 10, 2004)

so the air is clear, you do know that the Do 335 was never operational and was only being tested by war's end..........

the Ta 152H is still top notch as a piston engine job...........


----------



## Thorlifter (Jun 11, 2004)

Hello Guys. I'm new to the board so I thought I'd throw in my .02. I truely think the BEST fighter is a matter of personal preference. There's so many that were top notch planes.

Mustang, Corsair, FW-190, Spitfire, ect.

There are many that are not too far behind and a good argument could be made for them.

The kill ratio of the Hellcat. The Hurricane. The Thunderbolt. The Lightning. The total kills of the Bf-109.

In my opinion, I'd have to go with the Corsair. The Corsair was extremely fast, could outdive a P38, outmanuever a Mustang, and outroll a Hellcat. But you know what guys.......I don't think you'd go wrong with ANY of the above mentioned planes.

Thorlifter


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 11, 2004)

thats very accurate 8) youre right, all those planes were superb, but i go with the lightning because it was more than just a superb fighter 8)


----------



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

what else is it then, a hot water bottle??


----------



## Gemhorse (Jun 12, 2004)

I'll stick with the Mustang, it's record of service is exemplary, and besides, there are still alot flying today, yet another indicator of it's longetivity...- Also, my post on the German aircraft, of the 'would could-have-beens', in the finish, the Fw 190 series in entirety, must perhaps be the 'Best of German' aircraft...[includes the Ta 152, Erich...] - I just thought the others were very exciting concepts of their Time, and worthy of mention...particuarly the 'Gotha'.....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 12, 2004)

The Corsair could NOT outdive a P-38. The only thing that could hang with a P-38 in a dive is a P-47. Now, the P-38 did have a rather low critical mach number meaning that several aircraft had a higher terminal speed that the P-38. The P-38 accelerated so quickly that it was only in a prolonged dive from extremely high altitude (30,000 ft+) that anything other than a P-47 could hope to catch it.

Here is my reasoning against the Mustang. The only theatre in which it can be considered the top fighter is the ETO and as I have mentioned before it's role there has been overplayed. The P-38 was THE fighter in the MTO and the PTO and that's a matter of record. Additionally it served in the Carribean, the CBI, the Aleutians, and virtually anywere else the Americans were in the fight and was doing so long before the P-51 arrived on the scene.


----------



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

that's because the P-51 wasn't around at the time................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 13, 2004)

Early P-51s saw action in the MTO and the CBI and yet were considered inferior to the P-38. Now if an Allison engined P-38 was superior to an Allison engined P-51, and guesses on what a Merlin powered P-38 might have been like? But even after the P-51 was introduced the P-38 was still considered to be the fighter in the Pacific, was far more versatile, and could outperform the P-51 in virtually every category.


----------



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

> the P-38 was still considered to be the fighter in the Pacific



am i correct in thinking that was primarily for it's range??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 14, 2004)

Range and twin-engine reliability and in the Pacific those two cannot be overstated. You also have to remember that there were some very good P-38 pilots in the PTO and they had learned to use the P-38 with a great skill to the point that they could dogfight Zeros and Oscars.


----------



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

but obviously not out turn them??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 15, 2004)

Well that depends. All things being equal, there was very little, if anything, that could out turn a Zero or Oscar. As the speed increased the P-38 could turn with both types. A pilot who knew how to handle a P-38 could use the Fowler flaps and even the dive flaps to suck the turn in even tighter and (I've heard) out-turn the Spit. Anyway, I've read of several P-38 pilots being able to handle either Japanese type in a dogfight.


----------



## Maestro (Jun 15, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> Well that depends. All things being equal, there was very little, if anything, that could out turn a Zero or Oscar. As the speed increased the P-38 could turn with both types. A pilot who knew how to handle a P-38 could use the Fowler flaps and even the dive flaps to suck the turn in even tighter and (I've heard) out-turn the Spit. Anyway, I've read of several P-38 pilots being able to handle either Japanese type in a dogfight.



I don't think ANY European/American craft could out-turn a Spit... MAY BE the P-38, with a GREAT pilot (and A LOT of luck) could out-turn a Mk. I... But never out-turn a Mk. IX or a Mk. XIV.

At least, that's my opinion.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 15, 2004)

I've not seen any official testing on the maneuverability of late model P-38s but a P-38F (without combat flaps) was shown to outturn a P-51. Here is a quote from the website Planes and Pilots of WWII (a very well researched site. "Especially the P-38 which could out-turn anything the Luftwaffe had and could give the Spitfire pilot pause to consider his own mortality." I'm willing to bet a P-38L could hang with either a Mk. IX or Mk. XIV.


----------



## Erich (Jun 15, 2004)

hmmmmmmmm out turn anything the Luftwaffe had ? not sure about that in 1945. did they ever encountere the Dora ? The Tank, which I know they did not.........let's see it would have to be the 9th or the 15th AF correct with the P-38's ?


----------



## Maestro (Jun 15, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> I've not seen any official testing on the maneuverability of late model P-38s but a P-38F (without combat flaps) was shown to outturn a P-51. Here is a quote from the website Planes and Pilots of WWII (a very well researched site. "Especially the P-38 which could out-turn anything the Luftwaffe had and could give the Spitfire pilot pause to consider his own mortality." I'm willing to bet a P-38L could hang with either a Mk. IX or Mk. XIV.



It's not a miracle to out-turn a P-51. The Spitfire Mk. IX could out-turn a P-51 even when the Mustang was using his flaps. I've already posted/translated an comparison I took from a book between the P-51B and the Spitfire Mk. IX...

I'll find it and post it here again...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 15, 2004)

I've not seen any specific information on the maneuverability of the Dora but it seems to me it would have been similar to the 190A since weight and wing area remained relatively unchanged. The 152 should have been better but I'm not sure how much better. The 190's best asset was its roll rate and not its rate of turn. All of the P-38s had been phased out of the 8th before 1945 but they were still active with the 9th and 15th. Experience in both the ETO and the MTO had shown the P-38 to be able to out turn both the 109 and the 190. Col. Taylor (CO of the 14th FG, 15th AF, 1944) noted that the P-38 could outmaneuver anything 'friend or foe.' I'm not sure what models of the Spit were in the area but I know that the would have included at least through the Mk. V. The P-38 had several advantages over any single-engined aircraft in a turning fight.


----------



## Maestro (Jun 15, 2004)

Ah ! Got it !

The comarison between the Sitfire Mk. IX and the P-51B.

"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)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 15, 2004)

The Mk. XIV was faster than the Mk. IX but what I've seen suggests the Mk. IX handeled better and that alot of pilots considered it to be the best all-around model of the Spit.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 15, 2004)

I decided to check on the claim that the 2 20mm and 4 .303s were better than the 4 .50cals of the P-51B. Per second, the Spit delivered 4.928lbs of lead and 1250kW of kinetic energy. In comparison, the P-51B was churning out 5.346lbs of lead and 910kW of kinetic energy. The Spit delivers more energy, but the 'Stang throws more weight. With the 6 guns of the P-51D, it was no contest.


----------



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

> The Spit delivers more energy, but the 'Stang throws more weight. With the 6 guns of the P-51D, it was no contest.



but when you look at the guns of the earier marks, they had 8x.303s...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 16, 2004)

The 8 .303s used by early Spits and Hurricanes put out 3.784lbs ber sec and 480kW of muzzle energy. No contest. The four-gunned P-51B delivered considerably higher firepower.


----------



## Maestro (Jun 17, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> I decided to check on the claim that the 2 20mm and 4 .303s were better than the 4 .50cals of the P-51B. Per second, the Spit delivered 4.928lbs of lead and 1250kW of kinetic energy. In comparison, the P-51B was churning out 5.346lbs of lead and 910kW of kinetic energy. The Spit delivers more energy, but the 'Stang throws more weight. With the 6 guns of the P-51D, it was no contest.



You forgot to count in the four 303s of the Spitfire Mk. IX. That added to the two 20 mm cannons, you beat the P-51B. Because, as far as I know, the P-51B only had four guns.


----------



## Maestro (Jun 17, 2004)

And by the way, I think what kills is energy, not weight. Let's compare... 

It's a rotten analogy but anyway...

When arabs use stones to kill someone, they use small ones, yes ? So, what's the use of a 200lb stone if you can't throw it strong enough to kill someone ?

At least, that's what I think.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 17, 2004)

That info for the Spit factored in all six guns. And yes it did have better performance than the P-51B in terms of firepower, but not the P-51D. 

Weight of fire gives some important information. It gives an idea of the number of rounds being fired, and the number of times a target may be hit. Weight is a key compontent of kinetic energy (1/2 mass x velocity sq.) and, unlike kinetic energy, the weight of a burst is constant for any range.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 18, 2004)

> When arabs use stones to kill someone, they use small ones, yes ? So, what's the use of a 200lb stone if you can't throw it strong enough to kill someone ?



a better one is why use a large stone and try and just your opponent, why not use a small stone and get it so accurate it'll not them out......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 18, 2004)

It was just a poor analogy to begin with . . .


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 18, 2004)

something like that happens in the film Braveheart, watch that and you'll see what he means.................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2004)

The idea of of the P-51 out-gunning the Spitfire is stupid anyway, just by looking at it like that. Quite standard knowledge a 20mm round does more damage than a 12.7mm. 

And it's most widely recognised the Mk. XIV was the best dogfighter of the war.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 18, 2004)

I've seen it several times. Great film. Of course, throwing a pebble isn't going to knock someone out since it doesn't have enough weight behind it.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2004)

He didn't throw a pebble, he threw a rock. And I bet you I could knock someone out with a small rock.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 18, 2004)

if you get it in the right place......................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2004)

Do you want to stand there and let me try?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 18, 2004)

I know he throw a rock, my point was you need some weight or else you've achieved nothing. A single 20mm round does more damage than a single .50cal round. But the .50cal has a higher rate of fire by about 25% meaning more hits will be scored. The weapon itself is lighter meaning more can be carried, and very few (if any) fighters in WWII were capable of standing up to the sustained drumming of .50cal weapons.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2004)

None can take a beating from 20mm either.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 18, 2004)

No, so we've reached a mute point. A Spit could down whatever it was shooting at an the Stang could down whatever it was shooting at.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2004)

It's amazing how we argue over nothing.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 18, 2004)

Well, it terms of numbers, the Mustang did have a slight edge. It terms of real-world performance, it didn't really meaning anything. Though, personally, I wished the RAF would have phased out the .303 a little sooner and got the 4 20mm or 2 20mm and 2 .50cal versions of the Spit into action a little sooner.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2004)

.303 ammo was in vaster numbers, I think. After all, we had countless that was ready to go out to France until it got invaded in 1940. And we used TRAINING rounds against the Germans. 

Still a mix of .50cal and 20mm would have been better, agreed.


----------



## Maestro (Jun 18, 2004)

plan_D said:


> Still a mix of .50cal and 20mm would have been better, agreed.



I agree too. A mix of 20mm and .50cal would have been great.


----------



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

so once again more mass agreement......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 20, 2004)

You know . . . there was one aircraft that made excellent use of a mixed .50cal/20mm armament throughout the war


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2004)

One 20mm, which was 37mm at first.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 21, 2004)

Yes because the US was obsessed with the 37mm weapon for ait-to-air use between the war years. Why that was I'll never know.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2004)

Do you think the P-38s weapons were perfect, or maybe replacing one .50cal with a 20mm? Or even all .50 cal? Would have been better?


----------



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

for a larger aircraft like that you would expect a bit more, look at the beaufighter (yes i know it's allot bigger), but it had 4x20mm and 6x.303, that would make short work of anything out there....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 21, 2004)

There were a couple of tests done on the P-38's armament during the war. One managed to cram 8(!) .50cal machine guns into the nose and another fit a second 20mm cannon (2 20mm and 4 .50cal total). Both tests were successful but no change was ever implimented. All in all, the weaponry on the P-38 made for a good balance in rate of fire, weight of fire, destructive power, and ammo load.


----------



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

i stil think it needed more.....................


----------



## ev0 (Jun 22, 2004)

3*.50cal + 2*20 mm rounds would have been the ideal. The 20 mm's would have given the aircraft a much better punch and something to fire at bigger aircrafts with.....


----------



## Gemhorse (Jun 22, 2004)

I've gotta agree with LG on this...It's always annoyed me the RAF continued to use the .303 for so long - The .50's 750/850 rpm might be slower than the .303's 1,150 rpm, but a .50 is a 710 grain bullet [usually] to the .303's 174 grains, virtually a mini-cannon shell ! And then it's only a 100 fps slower than a .303....that's 'rocks against pebbles' guys...- I voted Mustang and you'll notice they got rid of .30's in them pretty early in the game...The thing that made the difference between the Mustang and the Spit was the Laminar-flow wing, which they finally implemented on the Supermarine Spiteful, abit late for the War...I believe the Spit was more manoevrable, but remember the Mk.XIV was a very heavy fighter, but very powerful...the Mustang always had the greatest range, and agility against the German aircraft, the Fw 190 had the greatest rate of roll, the Mustang was supreme in the ETO in the finish, as the P-38 was in the PTO, but I still love the Spitfire in all it's variants, it 'took the weight' in most of the combat, at least the ETO and MTO, where it's range allowed...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 22, 2004)

Well like I mentioned, a P-38 was tested with 4 .50cals and 2 20mm. The 20mm cannons were fed from 90 round drums (9 secs of firing time). That made for a heavier punch, but one that didn't last as long. Still, it was probably the best armament option attempted. 4 20mm cannons were considered but the ammo load became so low that it wasn't worth the effort. 

Interesting note, although the Fw-190 had the highest rate of roll of any fighter I know of (by an insane margin) the P-38L could out-roll it at high speed (350+ mph).


----------



## Gemhorse (Jun 29, 2004)

Everything I've read about the Lightning in the ETO indicates that it was out-manoevred by the later Luftwaffe fighters, but not so the Mustang....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 29, 2004)

I've got countless reference from both American and German pilots that the P-38 could out-turn both the 109 and the 190. An unlike many fighters, the later marks of the Lighting turned even better thanks to combat and dive flaps.


----------



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

i always thought it was because of the flpas that they could turn that well anyway..........................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 29, 2004)

Well the combat flaps where added on the G model Lighting and they did wonders for the turning ability though I have read that it was able to out-turn the Luftwaffe fighters without these. Starting with the J-25 model, the dive flaps were added and these could be used to quickly pitch the nose up, further tightening the turn.


----------



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

to be honest i doubt the lightening could out turn a 109.......................


----------



## Maestro (Jun 30, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> to be honest i doubt the lightening could out turn a 109.......................



Yeah, me too.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 30, 2004)

The words of Johannes Steinhoff, Kommodore of JG 77
"Pilots who had fought them said that the Lightning was capable of appreciably tighter turns and that they would be on your tail before you knew what was happening."

Oberleutnant Fraz Stiegler of JG 27
P-38s "could turn inside us with ease and they could go from level flight to climb almost instantly."

Hans Pichler
"In my estimation, the P-38 was more maneuverable and faster than our Bf-109G-6. . . "


----------



## Gemhorse (Jul 5, 2004)

The Bf 109's biggest handicap was those leading-edge flaps, which came clunking out ...However, I have reservations about the Lightning vs Fw 190's, particuarly the Dora's...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 6, 2004)

Well, I've got to be honest, I've never seen any evidence of a direct test between a P-38 and a Fw-190. However, in head-to-head tests, a P-51 was shown to out-turn the 190 and the P-38 was shown to out-turn the P-51. I've also seen several authors who suggest the P-38 could out-turn the Fw-190.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jul 8, 2004)

The Mustang vs Fw-190, the 190 is nearly 50 mph slower at all heights, increasing to 70 mph above 28,000 ft...little to choose from in the maximum rate of climb but the 'Stang is considerably faster at all heights in a zoom climb....and can always out-dive the Fw-190. - Turning circle, the Mustang has a slight advantage, but no-show with rate of roll against the Fw....Basically they were close competitors, but in the light of all that, the Mustang really superceded the P-38, both in range and agility against German fighters. The Bf-109 was almost equal in the climb with the Mustang, but that was about it. They didn't fare well against P-47's either... The P-51H was about the fastest piston-engined fighter at 487 mph, but barely got into it's stride before the War finished...[ abit like the DH Hornet and the Ta-152] - Mustangs also scored some success against the Me-262's in certain situations, but ultimately the Mustang's were responsible for the gradual demise of Germany's best seasoned pilots, sometimes at cost to themselves...Everything I've read indicates the P-38 contributed by quantity to the establishment of Air Superiority, along with P-47, Spitfires and Tempests, but combat superiority was asserted by Mustangs...


----------



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

i think i'd pretty much agree with that..................................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 8, 2004)

Here's a quote that you might finding interesting . . . 

"All other parameters being equal, it was the radius of the Lightning which allowed the ETO daylight bombing offensive to succeed at a time when losses were high and long term success questionable. By the time Mustang numbers built up in the ETO, the Luftwaffe had already crossed the knee in the Lanchesterian attrition war curve and defeat was inevitable. While the much admired P-51 made a critical contribution, it is worth noting that cumulative deployments of the Merlin powered P-51 matched the P-38 only as late as the end of 1944, which is clearly at odds with the established mythology. With the 8th AF, the long range escort load was shared equally by the P-38 and P-51 throughout the decisive first half of 1944."


----------



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

yet later the P-51 became the plane of choice................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 9, 2004)

In Europe yes. In made sense for Doolittle and the 8th to focus on one fighter to simplify logistics (note the P-47s were being passed to the 9th). It also made sense since the number of P-38s was limited and commanders in the Med. and the Pacific were litterally screaming for them. 

This is from Art Heiden with time in both P-38s and P-51s . . . 
" The 8th was, at last, being flooded with Mustangs and well trained pilots. The Mustang was a delight to fly, easier to maintain cheaper to build and train pilots for, and had long legs. In those respects you can rightfully call it better, but it could not do anything better than a P-38J-25 or L. Just remember who took the war to the enemy and held on under inconceivable odds. Enough of the crap." 
In short, the P-38 was being replaced for economical reasons and not because the P-51 offered better performance.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jul 9, 2004)

Although the advent of the Jet age had arrived, I'm so totally appalled at the decision of US Commanders to scrap the aircraft where they were, rather that take 'em home or hand them over or sell them -etc. - It was what we still see alot of from US Forces around the World...total unmitigated WASTE of basically good resources... - The Lockheed Lightning was a major sufferer of this policy, to the point where today LG, there are only about a half-dozen of these remarkable aircraft still flying Worldwide...that's bloody sad....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 9, 2004)

I think with the return of Glacier Girl to flight condition it is up to 7 but I'm not positive about that. I do know that post-war you could buy a surplus Lighting for $1,250 and that there were more than 500 brand news planes that were scrapped. It wasn't just the dawn of the jet age that did them in either. Countries always down-size the military right after a war and that cause a lot of planes to de destroyed before their time.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jul 10, 2004)

I keep a close eye on the Warbird Restoration scene, and I just love it when they do something like 'Glacier Girl'...she's a beautiful restoration...You are quite right though, about down-sizing Postwar, it has seen so much awesome aviation lost forever...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 10, 2004)

I would have loved the chance to have bought a P-38 for $1,250. Now days, you could spend that much just gassing the plane up.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jul 11, 2004)

Yeah, that was alot of money in those days...What excites me these days is this new idea of buying the plans and building your own, following some people's tried techniques, or using their basic plan with your own ideas for say, powerplants...There's an article in the current 'Classic Wings' down here, that has these different Spitfire 'replicas' that have been built ; a chap named Russ Harmuth, based at Calveras County Airport near San Francisco, CA, whose putting a 1,200 hp Allison in his one, is built from plans...There's obviously huge scope for these types of replicas, as most cannot afford an original, but The Movement in general support the addition of these aircraft, as they add flavour and interest to the Warbirds worldwide, over and above restorations...When you've only a coupla dozen Lightnings say, left worldwide, with restorations ongoing on some, it is a new option for those who just have to 'have one', and going by the modified late postwar versions of Lightnings, they could be real performers !...They had one enlarged model capable of 600 mph, didn't they, an XP something?....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 11, 2004)

I've never seen anything about any version of a Lightning getting anywhere near that fast. An Allison engine in a Spit? That's gotta look kinda weird. Like the DB engine fitted to a Spit.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 12, 2004)

This?

I think it looks better...


----------



## Maestro (Jul 12, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> This?
> 
> I think it looks better...



Personnaly, I prefer the "classic" British Spitfire. I don't like the nose of the captured version of the Spitfire.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 12, 2004)

Yeah, that nose just doesn't look right. It's like an airborne Frankenstein.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 12, 2004)

And that Swastika on the tail is just...wrong. Okay for the Stuka, surely not for the Spit.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 13, 2004)

The nose looks too much like a 109s.


----------



## ev0 (Jul 13, 2004)

How well did the spitfire do in kill/death ratio and so on?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 13, 2004)

I don't know, but ideally if anyone is going to say it should be for the different theatres of operation. Not all together. Since it served in Burma, Europe, Africa and Russia (with Soviet pilots). 
And the many different marks of Sptifire, it varies a lot.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 13, 2004)

And it's only natural for the nose to look like a 109. The Merlin-engined 109 had a front end that looked a lot like a Spit after all.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 13, 2004)

I was just making an obvious point.


----------



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

the merlin engined spit looks allot better.......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 15, 2004)

The Merlin-engined Spit looked even better than the Griffon-engined versions in my opinion.


----------



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

it's just those classic lines isn't it??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 15, 2004)

I would think so. The Griffon was just a little too big and spoiled the lines. Of course, whatever was lost in asthetics was more than made up for in performance. Maybe it's just be, but I think planes often get uglier in their development.


----------



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

i don't think that's the case with the 109....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 15, 2004)

Well, there are exceptions, but the extra electronics, bigger engines, added armament, wing area, balances, etc. that are added to most planes over the years just ruin the original lines.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jul 16, 2004)

Yeah, I had misread the information; - apparently a pilot had succeeded in recovering from a dive achieving 600 mph, in a P-38J...but there were later developments of the Lightning....


----------



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

the "fusilage" of that XP-58 looks like the P-61.........................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 16, 2004)

It is similar. The both the XP-49 and XP-58 had serious trouble with their engines. Of the course of it's development, various versions of the XP-58 were designed around 5 different engines types leading Kelly Johnson to describe it as Lockheed's first 10-engined fighter. The USAAF also never decided on an appropriate goal for the XP-58 (bomber destroyer and attack bomber were both considered). In both instances, time and effort were drawn away from the proven P-38 and basically wasted. Still, that's a very nice plan view of the three of them.


----------



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

though the P-38J looks the better of the 3...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 16, 2004)

I think so. The XP-58 was simply beastly and the cockpit of the XP-49 just didn't look right (thought you can't tell from the plan view).


----------



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

actually the more you look at it, the more the whole XP-58 looks like the P-61......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 19, 2004)

It did, but there were several noteable differences. The XP-58 (in the final form) was going to be powered by liquid-cooled engines instead of the P-61's radials.


----------



## Helios (Aug 18, 2004)

Hi to all, my first post...

Just to mention this, it is hard to just rate a plane without rating the pilot. For example, the lightning, an excellent plane of course, but what if some newbies meet a well-trained dogfighter?
15.11.1943 13:10 P-38
15.11.1943 13:10 P-38
15.11.1943 13:11 P-38
15.11.1943 13:12 P-38
Four P-38 going down in just three minutes hit by one! pilot in its Me-109. Now, if you just recognize this short list, what is the better plane then? Of course, it is nonsense, but it shows how hard it is to compare 'facts'. What fighter has a better role rate, a better climb rate, is faster, has a higher range, and then is shot down by an outdated fighter just because of a worser pilot. So, imho, it is okay to bring these facts, they are interesting, but indicating nothing...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 18, 2004)

Actually...


The Me-109 has quite the advantage...

Smaller, more agile, and depending on the variant, the great match-maker, the Mk-108.


----------



## Sagaris (Aug 19, 2004)

The shape of the planes in that plan view posted up there look very odd to me, was it common for planes of WWII to have that type of construction?


----------



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

actually range and top speed don't depends on pilot skill.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 19, 2004)

That basic outline was not very common. That was one reason that the P-38 was chosen to fly the low-level cover over the Normandy beacheads - it would be easily recognized by Allied gunners.


----------



## Helios (Aug 19, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> actually range and top speed don't depends on pilot skill.................



...and don't guarantee a victory. Thats my only message, even the best fighters can be and were shot down, so it is right: There is allways somebody who is better than you...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 19, 2004)

Well, it always did depend on the pilots.

I was just stating the _Me-109_'s advantages.

Look at Finand's Winter War and you'll see that equipment advantages make up less than half the battle.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 19, 2004)

Actually, the statement that there is always someone better than you is a logical fallacy as it would require an infinite number of individuals.


----------



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

well said..................


----------



## Helios (Aug 20, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> Actually, the statement that there is always someone better than you is a logical fallacy as it would require an infinite number of individuals.



In fact your statement is wrong, as it implements that a person is able to do the same thing everytime with the same accurancy, strength a.s.o. But that is nearly not possible due to the great variety of influencing factors (with a look at the chaos theory). So, this infinite regress is no logical problem, as there is no time mentioned within the sentence.
For our 'problem', the answer is much more easier, since it is no secret that even the best pilots were sometimes shot down by beginners. This would not be possible, if your statement was true. Reality has proven that there is always someone better than you, and i am sorry for stealing your illusion that you are the best of all


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 20, 2004)

Many, many German Aces were shot down Multiple times by inferior, new or green airmen and crews...


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 20, 2004)

On April 15th 1941, to celebrate General Theo Osterkamp's 49th birthday, Oberstleutnant Adolf Galland Kommodore of JG 26, decided to join the festivities and personally deliver some lobsters and oysters in his new Bf-109 F...

Flying from Brest to Le Touquet, France, Galland decided a detour to England was in order... His hunter's instinct paid off as near Dover he surprised a large flight of Spitfires.... 

Being unfamiliar with the new F models Galland inadvertently lowered his landing gear in the heat of the air battle... . Even with this handicap he downed three Spitfire Mark II's.....

As Galland flew through the formation, famous RAF Ace Paddy Finucane chased Galland down, riddled his plane with shells, and shot him down, claiming him as a victory....

Finacune was by no means green or new, but the # of kills that Paddy had was 32, (which makes him 1 of 4 Brits to go over 30 kills) was nothing to the Seventy somethin kills that Galland had by then...


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 20, 2004)

Here is another little example....

April 26, 1945 - Lt. James J. Finnegan, was leading Green Flight of the 10th FS, part of a 16 P47 formation, escorting medium on a mission to Schrobenhausen, Germany.... 

Attacking Me-262's swooped in and attacked.... 2 bombers go down and a 262 breaks off... At the controls was none other than General Adolf Galland, leader of this elite unit (JV44). 

Over Schrobenhausen, Finnegan heard the warning 'Jet Bandits'... He then spotted Galland's fighter and dived after it.... Not even an Me 262 could easily escape a P-47 in a power dive, and Finnegan soon caught up with him, and got off a short burst of fire. He observed strikes to the jet's right wing root, before Galand banked left into a cloud.

Finnegan broke off the pursuit and returned home, where he duly reported the encounter, and was credited with a damaged and probable. Nobody in the group knew who the German jet pilot was; and it wasn't until years later that Finnegan found out. 

Galland, having brought off an exeptional dead stick landing, had suffered a knee injury painful enough for him to be hosptalized, and was lost to JV44 Squadron for the remaining weeks of the war.

Quote from Finnegan...
"I was at about 13,000 feet and estimated them to be at about 9-10,000. They were climbing, and I pulled a split-S towards the one that turned left, and almost ended up right on top of him - about 75 yards away!! 

I gave a 3 second burst and saw strikes on the right hand engine and wing root. I was going so fast, I went right through everything, and guessed my speed at about 550 mph. I recorded it as a probable..."

That turned out to be his last flight in a P-47... Finnegans total kills for the war were Three (THREE) (3), an FW-190 and an Me-109, in addition to the Me-262. 

Finnegan had 3 freakin kills in all of WW2... And basically shot down one of the greatest fighter pilots and tacticians the world has ever seen, who had around 100 kills at the time...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 20, 2004)

That's not Galland's machine, that's Franz Stigler's.

It is thought to be Galland's since he took a picture next to it.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2004)

ty for the info and correction...


----------



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

i hope the lobsters aren't in the fuel tank in the top one...............


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2004)

No, the lobsters and oysters we in a basket behinds Gallands seat...


----------



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

good, they'd make interesting fuel though..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2004)

Engine would probably run alittle rough tho... 

And smoke like a bastard...


----------



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

the lobster would be nicely smoked though............


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2004)

Yea, but I'm sure it would be overcooked to my liking....


----------



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

well when the FW-190 comes with the wine that should help wash it down................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2004)

Depends on the wine....


----------



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

you know cornish wine was recently voted as good as the best frence or spanish wine....................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2004)

I didnt know that and i dont belive it... The southern Coast of England isnt exactly known for its fine wines...

And I assume the vote was done in England??? In Cornish proper???


----------



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

it was actually done by some consumer magazine...........


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2004)

Written and printed in the UK???


----------



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

yes


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2004)

I thought so.. Alot of Wine mags printed here in the States say that "California wines are as good as French and Spanish..."

Funny how we all compare our wines to the French and Spanish..

Hmmmmm....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

Aussie wine is the best 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 21, 2004)

Crappy white, dry, table wine goes good in a Fanta Orange.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 22, 2004)




----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 22, 2004)

And that crappy, white, dry table wine comes from the Cornish Area in England doenst it????


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 22, 2004)

Actually, it's cheap wine my aunt buys at a "Hyper"-Market (Wal-Mart for instance, is an example) that's made in Brasil.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 22, 2004)

small tip, never drink german wine...


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 22, 2004)

Thank you for the tip... Next time I'm in Bohn, I'll remember that sound advice..


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 23, 2004)

Any tips on champagne?


I likes me some champagne LOTS!


Champagne, and Amarula.

The time I'm in Berlin for the World Cup, I'll be sure to get drunk.

Cheers.


----------



## Maestro (Aug 23, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> Any tips on champagne?
> 
> 
> I likes me some champagne LOTS!
> ...



Did you know that the lone drink that truely named champagne is the one wich came from the "Champagne" region in France ? If a champagne doesn't come from Champagne, well it' only a sparkling wine. That's my sister's boyfriend (who came from Paris) who said that to me.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 23, 2004)

wow i didnt know that.

the best champagne is babycham


----------



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

i can't stand wine, it's ing..................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 23, 2004)

And u are how old Lanc???

Maybe when u get older, you'll learn to enjoy a nice Merlot or White Zinfindel...


----------



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

i'm 14, funny thing is, most people of my age don't really like beer (although they pretend they do) and like wine, i'm the other way round...............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 25, 2004)

Beer is piss-tastic.

Red and certain White wines are nice.

Amarula is fan-tab-spendulous.

Champagne is gre-fan-som-spendulous.

Pinga is nice, bery nice.

My mix of crappy white wine with a Fanta goes good anytime.

The thing is to drink the Fanta down to a 1/3 12 oz. (4oz. for the math wizzes ) quantity and put an equal quantity of wine in.

Unsophisticated procedure, but it's done in my Grandma's pantry while no one is looking. (They may be in the living room which is just around the bend, just not looking.)


----------



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

not many places i can get alcohol..............


----------



## MichaelHenley (Aug 25, 2004)

Gee, Alcohol comes into a lot of topics dosen't it?


----------



## JCS (Aug 25, 2004)

I'm quite the opposite of you guys; I never even tasted any kind of alcohol and I don't plan to, the same with drugs.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 25, 2004)

Drugs and tobacco should burn in hell.


No reason for 'em.


A bit of the drinky-drinky at times is fine, just nothing major.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 25, 2004)

I dont think inanimate objects can go to hell...


----------



## MichaelHenley (Aug 25, 2004)

I think that makers of inanimate objects that cause other people to die should go to hell. I quite agree with GrGs.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 26, 2004)

Automobiles cause people to die... So do gun makers, and motorcyle makers, and electric blankets, and knives, and ect ect ect....

I made a spear one time that was really sharp and pointy... It could pierce your flesh if i so chose to do so, and could have killed someone..

Should I go to hell as well???


----------



## MichaelHenley (Aug 26, 2004)

I don't mean things like_ that_...


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 26, 2004)

They all kill people.... Whats the diff???

And for the record, I was joking about the spear....


----------



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

> cause people to die... So do gun makers



that's sumething i don't believe in, i believe that it's the person that pulls the trigger that kills, not the gun................


----------



## Maestro (Aug 26, 2004)

Agreed. It's like saying that car builders kills... They don't, that's the idiot who drive like a F1 pilot in a 30 Km zone that kills.

Or the drunk f*cker who drives after drinking 2 full bottle of wine...


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 26, 2004)

I agree as well.. I was attempting to make a point....

Cigarette manufactures dont make u smoke their cigarettes...

Drug dealers dont make u do their drugs...


----------



## Maestro (Aug 27, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> Cigarette manufactures dont make u smoke their cigarettes...



No, but they put crap into it to make us addicted.

But you're right on the point that they don't make us smoke their cigarettes... They only drove the smokers "addict" by the crap they put into cigarettes.


----------



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

> Drug dealers dont make u do their drugs



actually in some cases they may do..................


----------



## Maestro (Aug 27, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > Drug dealers dont make u do their drugs
> 
> 
> 
> actually in some cases they may do..................


 
I don't think so... Drug dealers are more worryed about getting their money... "If you don't pay your bill, I'll break your legs."


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 27, 2004)

The only time drug dealers make u do their drugs is if ur a street whore... They control them by getting them hooked on heroin or crack and then giving it and taking it away from them if they dont do the tricks and make him money...

A very horrible way to live life....


----------



## Maestro (Aug 27, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> The only time drug dealers make u do their drugs is if ur a street whore... They control them by getting them hooked on heroin or crack and then giving it and taking it away from them if they dont do the tricks and make him money...
> 
> A very horrible way to live life....



I agree with you at 100%.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 28, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> The only time drug dealers make u do their drugs is if ur a street whore... They control them by getting them hooked on heroin or crack and then giving it and taking it away from them if they dont do the tricks and make him money...
> 
> A very horrible way to live life....




Whats This?


FEELINGS?!


----------



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

yes beacuse you would love to live that way wouldn't you..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 28, 2004)

Feelings??? Of course.... Hard addictive drugs are the bane of humanity...

Recreational drugs are nothing compared to them...


----------



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

mmmmmmmmm paracetomal......................


----------



## MichaelHenley (Aug 30, 2004)

Can we PLEASE stop talking about drugs and either:
1. Do something about the problem, or
2. Get Back on the topic?
It's just that i don't like talking so negatively about stuff like that.


----------



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

ok then are we looking for the best dogfighter of the war then?? or the fadtest or most manouverable or what.............


----------



## MichaelHenley (Aug 31, 2004)

All- Rounder would be good...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 31, 2004)

I still like the P-38 for its combination of speed, climb, range, firepower, surprising maneuverability, and versatility.


----------



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

and the mossie beats the P-38 in almost all those criteria...................


----------



## MichaelHenley (Sep 1, 2004)

Here we go again...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 2, 2004)

P-38 took speed. P-38 took climb easily. Also range (excepting photo varients which the P-38 EASILY outgunned). The P-38 was also more maneuverable.


----------



## Maestro (Sep 2, 2004)

Lightning or Mosquito ? To hell with that ! They were both good craft. The Mossie was disigned _especially_ for dive-bombing missions, while the P-38 was more a fighter than a bomber.

For me, the best all-rounder plane was the Spitfire Mk. IX. Fast, one of the most (if isn't the most) manoeuvrable plane of the war. It could handle _anything_ the Luftwaffe had. and with its three variants (8 x303 *or* 2 x 20mm cannons + 4 x 303 *or* 4 x 20mm cannons), it could almost destroy anything in air, on sea or on the ground. (Because it could carries 2 x 250 lbs bombs.)

_That_ is the kind of plane I like.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Sep 2, 2004)

Actually the different armament is on account of the wings.

Also, it could carry 1x 500lb bomb, 2x 250lb bombs.

The thing about it being able to take on any OKL aircraft, there isn't much chance for it to take down a Dora or Ta-152 at high alt or an Fw-190 A-6 down low.


----------



## Maestro (Sep 2, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> Actually the different armament is on account of the wings.
> 
> Also, it could carry 1x 500lb bomb, 2x 250lb bombs.
> 
> The thing about it being able to take on any OKL aircraft, there isn't much chance for it to take down a Dora or Ta-152 at high alt or an Fw-190 A-6 down low.



Thanks for the extra info on the Mk. IX.

Of corse it could not _easily_ take down a Dora or Ta-152... But it was still competitive against them ! And the first marks of FW-190s were outclassed by the Mk. IX.

At least, that's my opinion.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Sep 2, 2004)

That's why I stated the A-6, it was fairly distinguished down-low, being one of the more bomb-capable Fw-190's.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 2, 2004)

And there were plenty of things that WEREN'T going to be destroyed by 2 x 250lb and 1 x 500lb bombs.


----------



## Maestro (Sep 3, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> And there were plenty of things that WEREN'T going to be destroyed by 2 x 250lb and 1 x 500lb bombs.



That's why I said "_almost_ everything". Of corse, two 250 lbs or one 500 lbs bomb(s) can't destroy a bunker (for example). But that's why _bombers_ exists ! After all, isn't the topic of this thread "Best _fighter_ of WWII" ?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Sep 3, 2004)

Anywho, I prefer the Spit. Mk. XVI, the lines are classic and so is the performance. 8)


----------



## Maestro (Sep 3, 2004)

Hmmm... I never heard about that Mark... Are you sure it isn't Mk. XIV instead of Mk. XVI ?

Anyway, the Mk. XIV was not bad. It had a Griffon engine that was more powerful than the Merlin. However, I don't like it's bubble canopy. I prefer the good old Malcom hood... The plane was looking better.


----------



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

> Are you sure it isn't Mk. XIV instead of Mk. XVI



the Mk.XVI looked the same as the XIV but had a merlin, not a griffon..............



> one of the most (if isn't the most) manoeuvrable plane of the war



i think the most manouverable plane "award" must go to the zero.................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Sep 4, 2004)

Thanks, I did mean the Mk.14!


----------



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

i don't like spitfires with clipped wings............


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 5, 2004)

I dont either...


----------



## plan_D (Sep 5, 2004)

Why don't you like Clipped-Wing Spits? They look mean, and their low-level agility was superb!!!


----------



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

i think it ruins the classic lines............


----------



## Maestro (Sep 5, 2004)

Personnaly, I don't really care about Clipped Wings (because it had good low-level performance). However, the "original" wings were looking better.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 6, 2004)

OK... I went through and wrote down all votes here...

My vote is for the Fw-190 D...

Its rather a sad showing of votes...

3 Spifire Mk XIV
2 P-38
2 Fw-190D
2 Mossie
1 P-51D
1 Spitfire Mk IX
1 Corsair
1 Ta-152H
1 B239

Lets refinalize our votes here...

I say the -190D...


----------



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

i don't know what i've voted for.....................


----------



## Maestro (Sep 6, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i don't know what i've voted for.....................



Wasn't it the Mossie, Lanc ?


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 6, 2004)

Yes Lanc said the Mossie...


----------



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

and i stand by my answer................


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 7, 2004)

I dont really think the Mossie belongs in this group... I think the best fighter in WW II should be a plane that was air to air...

How was the Mossie in air to air combat??? (Not Nighttime)
If a Fw-190D and a Mossie got into it at 25,000 or 5,000, the only thing the Mossie could try to do is run away....


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 7, 2004)

Absolutely the DH Mosquito !!! - What a crying shame the DH Hornet, our Mossie's 'hot-rod' version wasn't quite ready in time, because that would've set it in concrete....Primarily the Mosquito was a PR aircraft, then a Fighter, then a Bomber and ultimately a Fighter/Bomber, which certainly gives it an 'all-rounder' appeal, but it was fast, manoevrable and deadly, didn't use up a lot of valuable material and wood is more easily repairable...imagine a Griffon-engined version !...


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 8, 2004)

The Mossie is not catagorized as a "Fighter" in any book I have ever read, or even looked through...

This is quoted from The Complete Book of WW II Aircraft...

"The DH 98 project was launched privatly by de Havilland in 1938. The aim was to construct a bomber-reconnaissance plane flying at such a high altitude and at such great speed, that it would need no defensive armament."

Quotes from The Great Book of WW II Airplanes....

"The Mosquito had a high wing loading and landing speed, coupled with a very steep approach path. The elevators were particularly light, and it was possible to overstress the airframe in pulling out of a dive without too much difficulty. The Mosquito was generally sensitive to pitch."

"The de Havilland Mosquito of the Second World War was a truly successful multi-role combat aircraft. Following the initial skepticism that greeted the concept, the Mosquito was adopted as high-speed bomber, reconnaissaince aircraft, and night fighter, going on to pioneer one of todays most important warplane catagories, that of the heavy, long range interdiction/strike aircraft."

A fighter is plane that fights other fighters..... A fighter bomber is just that.... A night fighter is just that...

I'm sorry but I dont follow u guys on the Mossie and the title Best Fighter in WW II....

Best Night Fighter??? Possibly...

Best Fighter Bomber??? Maybe...

Best Fighter??? Nope...


----------



## Maestro (Sep 8, 2004)

I agree with Les.

The Mossie wasn't designed for fighter missions, but for bomber/reconnaissance missions.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 8, 2004)

I would have to say ditto to all that Les has mentioned. In general, when people saw 'fighter' (at least when discussing WWII) they mean day fighter. That is why aircraft that were flown at night were known as night fighters. There was NO version of the Mossie designed to fly fighter missions during the day. To the best of my knowledge. no Mossie ever flew a daylight fighter mission (such as CAP, escort, or a fighter sweep). Some FB.VIs may have scored daylight kills but those would have been when they were some other type of mission. But all of that asside, the Mossie didn't have the kind of air-to-air capability (and certainly not the record) to be considered the best fighter.


----------



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

best alround day fighter would be the spit Mk.XIV....................


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 8, 2004)

Well, I can see your points, although when the Mossie first flew, it was faster than the then current Allied single-seat fighters...So, if we subtract the Mossie and P-38 from this, although the Spitfire was a true fighter, I feel the Mk.IX was probably a hot contender for the ETO...the Mk.VIII in the PTO...Everyone seems very keen on the Mk.XIV, but as Alex Henshaw, Test Pilot of Spitfires, stated that the more modified the Spitfire became, something would be in penalty for these improvements...in other words, the faster they were, the heavier and less manoevrable they became....Ginger Lacey nearly flew a new Mk.XIV into the ground when based in the Far East, trying to do a roll like he used to in the Mk.VIII, simply because they suffered the penalty of being heavier and less manoevrable. - All things considered, that being range, armament, performance and historically-proven capability, I feel the P-51D was the 'Best Fighter'...it's also the most prolific of restored Warbirds flying today, and it's combat service went way beyond the end of WWII....In my reading, the exploits of 'Bud' Anderson and Chuck Yeager illustrated to me how formidable the variants of Mustangs were, and the task of establishing Air Superiority over the Germans was...Aviation Artist Zoenig did this terrific painting 'Can't talk - Gotta shoot' that I use as a screensaver, which pretty well sums-up the fighting Mustang........


----------



## Maestro (Sep 8, 2004)

Gemhorse said:


> All things considered, that being range, armament, performance and historically-proven capability, I feel the P-51D was the 'Best Fighter'...it's also the most prolific of restored Warbirds flying today, and it's combat service went way beyond the end of WWII....In my reading, the exploits of 'Bud' Anderson and Chuck Yeager illustrated to me how formidable the variants of Mustangs were, and the task of establishing Air Superiority over the Germans was...Aviation Artist Zoenig did this terrific painting 'Can't talk - Gotta shoot' that I use as a screensaver, which pretty well sums-up the fighting Mustang........



The Mustang was a good plane. But concerning the "lifetime", the Spitfire Mk. IX had a longer life. Created in 1942, it served until the end of the British decolonisation wars.


----------



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

i believe the last spitfire sortie flown by "the last" was in 1954...............


----------



## Maestro (Sep 9, 2004)

It's possible, I don't have the exact date.


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 9, 2004)

That may have been the FR-47 Seafire...My research indicates the Mustang was still flying in 1978 with the USAF, 'F-51's' being used as chase planes....They built some interesting versions post-WWII, such as the 'Cavalier' model, then a turbo-prop model which was good for 540mph and then the 'Enforcer' model with a Lycoming T-55-L-9 turbine engine....The USAF released the majority of their Mustangs in 1957 though, and that's not bad considering the Jet Age was well and truly the thing then... But don't mistake me, I have a GREAT love for the Spitfire, and I love the lines of the Mk.XIV the best...- the Mk.'s VIII and IX were, I feel, the best 'combatant' versions...One could also acknowledge the superb work done throughout the War by the PR Spitfires, their contribution to the Allied victory in Europe and the Med. was supreme, particuarly to the pilots who flew them, unarmed....- Really, the Mustang had 'the range', which was what set it apart from all others...We could argue 'armament' till 'the cow's come home'- If the Spits flew the long-range escort missions the Mustang did, well, that was fundamentally the difference between them...Our Kiwis flew Spitfires throughout the War and I recently got a book about their exploits, most impressive...Aviation Artist Ron Fulstow captured their essence in 'Spitfire Strikes - 485 Sqn.'....


----------



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

20 years of service was a long time back then...................


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 10, 2004)

The toss up between an Fw-190D and a P-51D is a tough one.... 

I like the 190D alittle bit more, because quite honestly, it made such a huge gap between the Axis most advanced plane, and the Allies top plane....

The Dora so outlclassed the competition when it first came out.. The P-51D, while a truly remarkable aircraft, did not mark such a decisive difference between combatants...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 10, 2004)

I don't remember where it was on this site, but I believe I gave a pretty thorough review of the P-38L taking the P-51D in just about every perfromance category. The P-38L could handily outclimb or outdive it. Above 15,000ft the P-38L was faster (though the speed of the two was never separated by more than about 10mph). The P-38L also had range, payload, and firepower over the P-51. It could turn with or even inside of the P-51 (depending on alitude) and outroll it at speeds above 325mph or so.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 12, 2004)

I would never knock the 38 in any sort of competition... It was also the aircraft that the Top 2 Leading American Aces, Bong and McGuire, flew....

But I dont think the 38 had quite the impact in aerial combat as did the 190D and the 51D...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 13, 2004)

It definitely had more impact than the 190D. There were over 10,000 Lightnings produced and they were in service for the entire period of American involvement in WWII. They shot down more Japanese aircraft than any other fighter. And (as an interesting note) it was June of '44 before the number of P-51Ds in the ETO matched the number of P-38s. By that time, the quality of the Luftwaffe was definitely on the decline.


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 13, 2004)

Yeah, but the turning point for the Allies was when the Spitfire Mk.IX took on the Fw-190....that balanced the fighter conflict initially, but the escort work was in serious jeopardy until the P-51D arrived...the P-38J was a quite advanced model and didn't arrive on the scene till mid-1943. Lightnings weren't as easy to fly, being twin-engined, they were bloody freezing flying over Europe,[no cockpit-heating] and were prone to frustrating engine-failures, a point that is associated with Lightning losses in combat. Please don't misunderstand me, it was a VERY fine aircraft, awesome firepower and agile with it, and the L model was the 'Lightning in maturity'; - the Pacific was really their best theatre; - but virtually everyone that I've read about that flew Mustangs loved them, they were the best thing since 'sliced-bread' when the D model came onto the escort role.
Alan Deere, the NZ Ace, flew Spitfires during the period of the Fw-190 ascendancy, stated that of the two main Mk.IX models, the IXB's [officially known as LF IXC's] were powered by Merlin 66's and attained their best performance at 21,000 ft., roughly the same as the Fw-190...the Spits were 30 mph faster, better in the climb and vastly more manoevrable...He felt that as an all-round fighter, the IXB was supreme and undoubtably the best mark of Spitfire....and this model was still in combat over Europe at the end of the War, although other later models were being used by various Squadrons. As a matter of interest, the Spitfire Mk.XVI [16] was a Mk.IX with an US [Packard]-made Merlin 66 engine, with a few modifications including extra fuel tanks, and had greater range....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 13, 2004)

All I was trying to state is that the IMPACT of the P-51D has been vastly over rated.


----------



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

it was over-rated but not by as much as you really think, it wasn't until they had the 'stang that they could continue the daylight raids.............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 13, 2004)

The daylight raids couldn't have been (and were) continued with the P-38. P-38s were the first Allied fighters over Berlin. Unfortunately they were never available in the ETO in the numbers really required.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 13, 2004)

Sorry, but I have a typo in that last post. Couldn't should have read could've.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 13, 2004)

They could have been available in the ETO, but since they had problems performing there, they were sent to the PTO, where they were screaming for them....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 13, 2004)

And don't forget they were screaming for them in the MTO where they were facing essentially the same opposition they were facing in the ETO.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 14, 2004)

I dont know about the Med, but the reason they were screamin in the PTO was because the planes they were usin were crap vs the Zero....

I dont think the planes that were bein used in the Med by the Allies were crap...

And as far as i know, there was only one unit that transitioned from -47's to the -38.... All the others transtioned OUT of the -38 and into a new replacement aircraft... Not really typical of the "Best Fighter"...


----------



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

our hurricanes (and some spits) were doing ok for themselfs in the med.....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 14, 2004)

But only the P-38 had the range to hit targets over the Med. And it was in the MTO that the P-38 earned the nicknamed "Fork-tailed Devil." It should also be noted that by the time the P-38L was arriving in Europe the decision had already been made to switch to the P-51. That decision probably had more to do with economics (P-51s being cheaper to build and maintain) that with performance.


----------



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

numerous twin engined bombers and a couple of fighters (pricipally the beau) had the range for the med, the P-38 wasn't the only one...............


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 14, 2004)

> It should also be noted that by the time the P-38L was arriving in Europe the decision had already been made to switch to the P-51. That decision probably had more to do with economics (P-51s being cheaper to build and maintain) that with performance.



I dont really believe that... In all circles that I have read about, or watched, the P-51 was generally superior to the P-38 (except maybe the pilots that flew -38's...) which is why they implemented the transition... ...


----------



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

any documentary will tell you that all pilots loved the P-51 and said it was a pilot's dream, and that it was the best plane they ever flew, some of those men had already flown the P-38.........................


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 14, 2004)

Good point.. I have also seen this as well....


----------



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

and you can't argue with someone who's flown both..................


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 14, 2004)

If they are a crap ass pilot u can, but most of these guys were seasoned vets with many combat hours logged...


----------



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

you coulod still argue with a "crap ass" pilot (of which there were none), he's flown both with the same skill and can tell which is better to fly/fight in.....................


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 14, 2004)

Yea, but there are also a minority of pilots that flew both and liked the P-38 more.... 

2 sides to every coin Lanc...


----------



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

but that's only very few of those, most will tell you the P-51 is the best plane they ever flew.....................


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 14, 2004)

I agree...

LG wouldnt....


----------



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

LG's just out to start arguments................


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 14, 2004)

Actually I think we are instigating this one ....


----------



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

lets make a statement and see if LG can resist aguing...........


----------



## Maestro (Sep 14, 2004)

No plane is perfect.

Examples :

- The Spitfire (in my mind) was the best dogfighter, but it didn't had the range to escort bombers to Berlin and back.

- The P-51 was also a good dogfighter (in my mind, not as good as the Spitfire) but it got the range to escort bombers to Berlin and back. However, in spite of the numerous tries the US Navy did, the P-51 couldn't land on a carrier (that's why they bought some Seafires).

I won't argue that the P-51 is better than the P-38, because I prefer the P-51 to the P-38 anyway.


----------



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

don't confuse the best with perfect, they're very different.............


----------



## Maestro (Sep 14, 2004)

I know, but it seems that LG thinks that the P-38 is perfect. In fact I'm quite sure he couldn't tell us a lone disadvantage.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 14, 2004)

There were plenty of disadvantages. Kelly Johnson once listed 15 bad points of the P-38. These included reduced reward visibility, poor cockpit heating, slow rate of roll, poor intercooling, etc. However, it must be noted that most of these were corrected with the introduction of the J-25 and the L. That being said, it wasn't perfect. Every aircraft is a compromise. I just happen to feel that the P-38 managed to blend the traits one might desire in a fighter very well. 

As an interesting note, the P-51 was tested as a naval fighter in 1944. With Robert Elder at the controls, a modified P-51 made several landings and launches from the carrier USS Shangi-La.


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 14, 2004)

Yes, I'm inclined to agree there Maestro...the Lightning to LG, is what the Mosquito is to me, but the reality here is about single-engined fighters. Both the Mossie Lightning were superb aircraft but even I have conceded that this is about s/s fighters. The P-38's biggest problem in the ETO was not having an engine in front of the cockpit, and therefore gave no heating for the pilot....no matter how good the pilot, he's not able to give his best if he's freezing his nuts off trying to dogfight at 30,000 odd ft. In the PTO, it was the opposite, because of insufficent cooling and a cockpit hood that couldn't slide back, the pilots were virtually in their undies tennis-shoes, but they were able to dogfight, albeit most aggressively! - Even at altitude, the sun's heat through the canopy kept them hot. Anyway, the Corsair was really the first US Fighter to check the Japs Air Supremacy, the Wildcat was deadly too, but not as fast , and all that was learned from the Wildcat from it's baptism-of-fire at the heroic defence of Wake Island onward, went into the Corsair and Hellcat. The early Lightnings had teething troubles, particuarly with the tail-section, and once their engines incorporated opposite-rotating props that made the torque manageable, they were otherwise a handful for one pilot to dogfight. Also, in the MTO, Lightnings were sort-after for PR work particuarly, but also ground-attack and escort.
As Lanc points out too, the Beaufighter did superb work in all these theatres and IT'S firepower WAS formidable, they just weren't as fast.
- All said and done though, I feel the Spits Mustangs are real canidates for 'Best Fighter', so let's continue............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 14, 2004)

The P-38 had counter-rotating props from the outset. I'm not aware of any other aircraft of the era that had this particular feature. That feature offered the P-38 an advantage over single-engine typse in that it could turn equally well in either direction. A single-engined fighter (until the advent of contra-props) would always be slower turning one direction because it had to fight the engine torque.


----------



## Maestro (Sep 14, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> The P-38 had counter-rotating props from the outset. I'm not aware of any other aircraft of the era that had this particular feature. That feature offered the P-38 an advantage over single-engine typse in that it could turn equally well in either direction. A single-engined fighter (until the advent of contra-props) would always be slower turning one direction because it had to fight the engine torque.



So... ? I don't think it was noticable for the pilot.

I don't think the Spitfires/Hurricanes pilots noticed that during the BoB. Neither did the Spitfires/Hurricanes/Mustangs/Typhoons pilots during Operation Overlord.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 15, 2004)

It was noticeable, especially in a low-speed turning flight. The lower the speed is, the more problem torque causes (if often showed up during the flight). The thing is, in a near-stall speed turning, a single engine fighter pilot has to be aware that there is the possibility of the engine torque flicking him out of the turn and into a spin.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 15, 2004)

Many many pilots ended up in the chute, or even dead because of engine tourqe....


----------



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

it was even worse in WWI, because of the tourqe of the sopwith camel (amoung others) it was quicker to turn 270 degrees to the right than 90 to the left...................


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 15, 2004)

Yea I heard that before as well.... Pretty easy to figure out which way ur opponent was gonna turn away from u when ur on his 6....


----------



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

well if you think about it, if you're on his 6, and he turns 90 degrees left and you go 270 to the right, you'll still be in a good firing posistion..........


----------



## Plane Guy (Sep 16, 2004)

Call be a traitor, but I think that the FW 109 was one of the best out there. One of the few drawbacks was the fact that it's proformance dropped at high altitude. But come on, do you think that even a Lancaster could survive one coming at it with .20mm cannons blazing?


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 16, 2004)

Oh oh.. New guy who hasnt read alot of previous posts before posting his first.....

The 190D, or Dora, solved the problem of the high altitude deficiency...

Which is the plane that I think was the Best in WW II, the Fw-190 D...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 16, 2004)

THe Fw-190 was a brilliant fighter (with terrific firepower and an unbelievable rool rate) but it turned fairly slowly and was short-ranged. Even the Dora-9 was outrun by plenty of other fighters. I think it was a great fighter, and personally my favorite German fighter, but not the best of the war.


----------



## Maestro (Sep 16, 2004)

For once, I agree with LG. The FW 190 was a great fighter... But personnally, I prefer the Spitfire.


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 17, 2004)

Yes, the Fw-190 [any variant] is my favourite German fighter...I've just got the latest 'Classic Wings Downunder' magazine, and it's got Flugwerk GmbH's first of a dozen limited edition, brand new A-8's advertised on the back cover for sale....ahhhh, can you imagine having the coin to buy one ?! - They are just flight-testing at the moment, but the two guys that started Flugwerk had a vision that they were such an awesome and important aircraft design, they had to make these accurate reproductions of them, so that they would be available for all to see at Airshows etc. - They spent time with Kurt Tank, before he passed away, for his knowledge, and have tracked down aircraft and parts worldwide, and now have it set-up to start making the kitsets. - Bloody awesome...
- Theres also an article about Doug Champlin's Fw-190D-13/R11, which Gosshawk, in Mesa, Arizona, another Focke-wulf specialist outfit, have been doing a 3 year, 26,500 hour extensive restoration on, has been wheeled-out for the media recently...there's no plans to fly it, altho' near airworthy, it's just so rare and valuable....it's off to Seattle's Museum of Flight. [you lucky Americans !] - Gosshawk also have an F-8 they're building to fly, called 'White 1'...check it out at www.white 1 foundation.org


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 17, 2004)

I recently found a hard-plastic 1/18th scale 'toy' of an Fw-190D-9. It even has a pilot and a drop tank. I'm hoping to had that to my collection soon.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 18, 2004)

i think the Do-335's pretty interesting, never really got to prove itself though..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 19, 2004)

LG, say what u want about the -190D, but it is closer to best WWII fighter than the P-38....


----------



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

easily.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 19, 2004)

P-38L would out-run, out-dive, and out turn it.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 19, 2004)

And the -38 would probably end up getting shot outta the sky as well....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 20, 2004)

I am happy to discuss which aircraft we THINK are best. As I've mentioned before, however, best is a very subjective term. Best at what mission? At what altitude? In which weather conditions? At which part of the war? All of these things should factor into the thinking as to which fighter should be considered best. But when all is said and done, we are still left with an opinion. That being said, I've voiced my opinion and am all to happy to listen to and discuss others.


----------



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

ok then, in my opinion, the P-38 doesn't deserve the title of best fighter...........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 20, 2004)

That's an opinion. Do you have any reasons to support it? I try and always include some rationale behind my posts.


----------



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

i fell it had less of an impact on the war than say, i don't know, the mossie for example.................


----------



## Maestro (Sep 20, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i fell it had less of an impact on the war than say, i don't know, the mossie for example.................



... Or the Spitfire or the Mustang.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 20, 2004)

Okay. That is an argument. The Mossie, however, was not a fighter or (at best) a fighter of limited impact. The only true fighters were the night fighter marks and they were two specialised in their mission to have much of an impact.

The Mustang did not enter combat until the war was half over and the defenitive D model wasn't around until the war was 2/3 over. Furthermore, it neither saw the widespread service nor posessed the multimission capability of the Lightning.

The Spitfire is probably a better choice that either of these two but I still feel it inferior to the Lightning it the limited strategic ability it could play due to its limited range.


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 20, 2004)

That was really well put, LG, about rationale etc. - As I said earlier, this topic really doesn't include the Mosquito, but I suppose the P-38 being a s/seater, it WAS more a Fighter. - As for the Mustang, I believe that it DID play a very definitive role in the War, the 'D' series was really it's 'icing on the cake' model...While May 1942 may have been the Mustang's entry date into action with the RAF, it's replacement of the P-40 heralded the arrival of an aircraft whose ultimate contribution to eventual Allied victory was inestimable ! The early model was good for 375 mph initally [ the Spit was good for 340 mph then], and while these models weren't the bee's knee's over 15,000 ft, it partnered-up to Allied requirements admirably, on all Fronts...The P-38's best theatre was the Pacific, no doubt about that...the P-51's earlier models contribution to low-level combat, attacks and recce, was huge in Europe and the Far East and also the Med. For those who flew them, they were the gloves that fitted all pilots, and overall had very few vices. - Although the P-51 didn't have a vast line of variants, that was a testament perhaps of it's success, something they realised right back at it's prototypes...'It's a winner !', being essentially an aircraft specifically designed for purchase by Britain. - I find it very hard to make a choice between the Spitfires and the Mustangs, they were both superb aircraft of noble lineage, created under the pressure of War, against a formidable enemy. The P-38 never really totally achieved the fame the Mustang did, but I still think they were Exceptional Fighters...Often in combat, it's the pilot that makes the plane... 
While I loved the Fw-190's, both them and Bf-109's cannot achieve 'Best Fighter' or else we'd all be talking German, wouldn't we ?
- The 'Best Fighter' would be an overall winner. - I think one serious contender would be the Corsair, an aircraft our Kiwi pilots had alot to do with in the Pacific...Our guys used to dogfight with the Aussies, who had P-51D's...the F4U's could outmanoevre the P-51's, turning inside them, due to their higher lift wing section; - both had extremely long-range, bordering on 8 hrs, but due to the power [2250 hp against 1,590 hp in the P-51], the Corsairs used and carried about 50% more fuel... but they were also roomier and cooler, and there was the 'radial vs inline bullet-damage factor' too...but then, the P-51 could pull away in a high-speed dive....The Corsair, Lightning and Hellcat were big fighters, the Spitfire and Mustang were smaller, and they could really perform for such compact aircraft....[/u]


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 21, 2004)

All excellent points. 

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html

This link should direct you to an excellent article focusing on the P-51 v. F4U issue. I found in very interesting. Most interesting to myself where the things mentioned about the P-38's ability to turn, climb, dive, and accelerate. And if you want to talk endurance, the P-38 was the final word for WWII fighters with the L flying missions lasting up to 10 hours in the Pacific. 

It is interesting to me that Martin Caidin describes his book as "Fork-Tailed Devil: The P-38" as being "the full story of the best American fighter plan of WWII." Martin Caidin is a serious student of aviation and this it no faint praise. Capt. Heiden who flew both the P-38 and the P-51 preferred the P-38 for its superior rate of climb, power, and stall characteristics. He also notes that the P-51 could not do anything better than the P-38. My question is this, if the P-51 deserves to be considered for the 'Best Fighter' title and the P-38 could outperform it in virtualy every catergory, why not consider the P-38 for the same title?


----------



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

> While I loved the Fw-190's, both them and Bf-109's cannot achieve 'Best Fighter' or else we'd all be talking German, wouldn't we ?



absolutly not 
1) hitlet had no plans to make us change language, he didn't make the 
french do it
2) weight of numbers beat them, it wasn't because they werte bad fighters................


----------



## Maestro (Sep 21, 2004)

Gemhorse said:


> While May 1942 may have been the Mustang's entry date into action with the RAF, it's replacement of the P-40 heralded the arrival of an aircraft whose ultimate contribution to eventual Allied victory was inestimable ! The early model was good for 375 mph initally [ the Spit was good for 340 mph then], and while these models weren't the bee's knee's over 15,000 ft, it partnered-up to Allied requirements admirably, on all Fronts...



Two things...

First, you mistaken on the entry date into action of the Mustang... I always heard of it as first used in 1944. In fact, the P-51B entered just in time for the beginning of Operation Overlord (wich began in April 1944).

Second, I don't know wich Mark of the Spitfire you compared with wich Mark of the Mustang, but they both had quite the same speed. Taken from one of my books (the planes compared are the P-51B and the Spitfire Mk. IX) :

"[...] With the same engines adjustments, the Mustang was faster than the Spitfire, at any altitude (30 to 45 km/h). With the engine pushed to the maximum (around 3,000 RPM), the speed was the same between 10 and 15,000 feet, and between 25,000 and 32,000 feet. [...]"

Note : The top speed of the Spitfire Mk. IX at 25,000 feet is 408 MpH.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 21, 2004)

Both the P-38L and the P-51D had a speed of 437 mph at 25,000ft.


----------



## Maestro (Sep 22, 2004)

LG, if you want to compare the latest fighters, then we'll compare the P-38L or the P-51D to the Spitfire Mk. XIV or Mk. XVIII. I think their speed would be quite the same.


----------



## johnny (Sep 22, 2004)

Can only be 1. the P-51D Mustang. Was the best looking one too.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 22, 2004)

The P-38L had the Spit (any mark) on range (read stratefic value), payload, firepower, durability, diving ability, level speed and climb were probably pretty close and the L could nearly match a Spit in a turn but didn't have to worry about any torque flicking it out of a turn into a spin.


----------



## johnny (Sep 22, 2004)

If the P-38 was that good howcome it was not used extensively on long range escort for the 8th Airforce.They waited for the P-51B didnt they?


----------



## evangilder (Sep 22, 2004)

Actually, the P-38 started bomber escort missions from the 15th AF (Italy) even before the complete surrender of the Italians. They started bomber escort missions into Germany from the 15th AF in February of 1944. The P-38s in the 8th did fly bomber escort missions. The first P-38 escort mission to Berlin occurred on March 3, 1944, flown by the 55th FG.


----------



## johnny (Sep 22, 2004)

But the mustang was already escorting bombers in late '43 wasnt it.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 22, 2004)

Yes and no. They started cross channel excursions in late 1943, but the long range escort missions didn't start until 1944. The first P-51 escort to Berlin was in March of 1944. The 8th received their first Merlin powered Mustangs in October of 1943 but didn't start across the channel until December of 1943, scoring their first victory on December 16 on a mission to Bremen.

It should be noted that the range was expanded with the drop tanks. The first drop tanks were 85 gallon drop tanks on the centerline, aft of the pilots position. This dramatically changed the center of gravity, affecting the directional stability until the tank was empty. From what I have read, the directional stability with the extra tank presented quite a challenge to pilots, especially new and inexperienced pilots. Limiting the tank to 65 gallons helped, but it was still a factor. It did extend the range for them though and got them farther. But I would think if they encountered fighters early on the mission, the tanks would be a negative factor in the fight and might even have to be jettisoned with fuel still in it so that they could be effective in the dogfight.

The key benefit of the 38 on the escort missions was the redundancy of the engines. They could make it back with only one and fight another day. You didn't have that luxury with the P-51.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 22, 2004)

The 85 gallon tank on the P-51 to which you referred was not a drop tank but an internal tank located directly behind the pilot. The stability problems were quite a problem. I have read that it became standard practice to use the fuselage tank before using the drop tanks. The result was that (quite often) half-full or better drop tanks had to be jettisoned limiting the range of the escort.

There were two different types of drop tanks used on the P-51. One was an aluminum design containing 75 gallons and the other was actually constructed of layers of paper glued together and contained 108 gallons. This was done as glued paper was of no advantage to the Germans if the dropped tanks were recovered. However, the gasoline had the nasty habit of eating through the glue and the tanks could not be pressurised. The result was than the 75 gallon aluminum was most used.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 22, 2004)

It should be noted that the number of P-38s available in the ETO during the early part of the bomber campaign was limited due to the high demand for P-38s in the MTO and PTO. There were really on two 8th AF FG to see much action with the P-38 (the 20th FG and the 55th FG) and they would often find themselves out numbered by as many as 10-1.


----------



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

going bact to an earlier post, i'd rather be out in a spit than a P-38...............


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 22, 2004)

As it pains me to say this, I would too... The -38 killed alot of its pilots because their skill wasnt up to par...


----------



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

spit looked better too...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 22, 2004)

The P-38 was a difficult plane to learn to fight in, but as it pilots would tell you, twin-engined training in America was a joke. But here is something to consider . . . 

Col. Taylor of the 14th FG MTO said,
"It required at least twice as much flying time, perhaps more, to chieve the level of skill which was necessary to realise the full capability of the ship, as compared with what it took with a single engine fighter. Only after about 150 or 200 hours could a man hope to be an expert, but when he reached that point he could be unbeatable in the 38."


----------



## evangilder (Sep 22, 2004)

You are right about the tank, my bad. If it was aft of the pilto and underneath, that would have placed it in the air scoop! (DOH!). The directional stability issue this caused was a problem. Some say the first hour of flight, the pilot had to concentrate on just getting to plane to fly straight, and in the direction they wanted. Not a good scenario!

The two-engined training was almost no-existent for the young P-38 pilots. Also being the first airplane to experience the compressibility, at least on the American side, that didn't give an inexperienced pilot much room for error. Once they properly adjusted to it though, they could use the P-38 as a formidable weapon. 

The 2 top aces of the US both flew P-38s, Richard Bong and Thomas McGuire. That should say something about the P-38.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 22, 2004)

> Only after about 150 or 200 hours could a man hope to be an expert



Unfortunatly, alot of pilots either crashed or died in combat before those #'s were reached....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 22, 2004)

That's not 150 hours of combat, but 150 hours of flight time period. Getting the P-38 into service was considered a maximum effort. That meant that a lot of pilots were entering combat with as little as 25 hrs in the type. Now if the training had been up to par (say what alot of those P-51 pilots were receiving in 1944) things might have been a lot different. 

Raymond Crawford (P-38 pilot in the MTO) had this to say,
"If a pilot survived his first 10 missions, he could count on about a 90 to 100 percent chance of finishing 50 or more missions without becoming a statistic."

The P-38 was like the B-26, it was a handful to learn, but it proved a very powerful weapon once it was learned.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 22, 2004)

And 40% of P-38 pilots didnt survive their first 10 missions....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 23, 2004)

Where in the world did you get that number?


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 23, 2004)

I made it up to prove a point.....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 23, 2004)

Some how making up numbers doesn't seem to prove anything. I will grant that the numbers I cited were an opinion . . . but they were the open of a pilot who was there and who saw what a properly handled P-38 could do.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 23, 2004)

Out of all the American aircraft used in WWII, the P-38 had the highest # of accidents and pilot deaths per sortie...

The -38 wasnt considered the best of anything until the latter versions started to be produced... Both the -190 and the -51 were both dominating from the time they went operational, let alone the D series variants...

Best fighter is an opinion of the poster, thats it.. While I can sit here and blow on ur -38, you can do the same to my -190.... Its almost pointless...

All in all, the P-51D, the Spit XIV (or IX), the P-38J, and the Fw-190D make out the top 4 outta 5.... Add in the Hellcat or the Corsair and uve got the Top 5...


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 24, 2004)

I reckon we could rate all these fine aircraft on many various criteria... Over the period of those 6 years, technological developments accererated as in no other time in previous history...But when it comes to an aircraft uplifting the morale of Nations..... 

-I've just been given a loan of the RAF 485 [NZ] Sqn.'s RNZAF Official History book, and in reading the foreword, written by Group Captain E.P. [Hawkeye] Wells, DSO,DFC and Bar, [12+ kills], he states...
'I arrived in the U.K. during those eventful days of the summer of 1940. France had just fallen and the future looked very black, but in spite of these preoccupations, I still remember clearly the thrill of my first flight in a Spitfire and my pride when I landed this beautiful but fragile creature without damage and the confidence this gave me for the task ahead. This splendid aircraft was to be my mount for the whole of the War and, although we had some nasty moments together, she never failed me. I know there are many others, not only in 485 Sqn, who were served equally faithfully by the valiant Spitfire...'
- The Squadron went operational from Driffield, [Yorks;] in March 1941 to end up in Fassberg, [Germany;] during April-July 1945, and flew Spitfire variants.... F Mk.1 ; F Mk.1A ; F Mk.IIA ; F Mk.VB ; LF Mk.VB ; LF LR Mk.VB ; F Mk.VC ; F Mk.IXB ; and LF Mk.XVI. over this period.

- When you remember the 'Spitfire Fund' and how that spurned this huge patriotic effort to help build-up the 'Fighter Force to go against the invading Hun', [and then the Jap,] and this occurred right across the Commonwealth, there wasn't or I believe hasn't been any aircraft ever, that has engendered that level of Recognition and Praise....It didn't just win the battle, it went on to help win the War.....particuarly in the 'Peoples' mind.....
- I love all these aircraft that we're discussing, they were each and every one of them unique, powerful, devastating weapons on wings, and although the Mosquito [and Hornet] are my most favourite, at the end of the Day, the Spitfire is my final firm choice of 'Best Fighter'....the 'Peoples' Choice'....


----------



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

> It didn't just win the battle, it went on to help win the War



if you're refering to the BoB it's proberly worthy of note that the hurricane accounted for more planes than all other defences combined, but it did help win the war.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 24, 2004)

when the hurricane was at its peak it was formidable


----------



## evangilder (Sep 24, 2004)

The Hurricane is my favorite. It was the unsung hero of the BoB. Unfortunately, the one in our museum was sold to a collector in Canada 
It was the only flying example of a Hurricane in North America. Fortunately, I got some nice pics of it before it was shipped out. The worst part was, it was trucked out, not flown!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 24, 2004)

the hurricane is probably my favourite fighter too


----------



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

> the hurricane is probably my favourite fighter too



what, not the P-38??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 26, 2004)

P-38 second fave fighter  The P-38 is my fave plane cos it wasnt just a damned good fighter...


----------



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

but the mossie was a better bomber than the P-38 was a fighter............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 26, 2004)

i dont think so  prove it


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 26, 2004)

The mossie was not a better bomber than the -38 was a fighter.. Thats just plain silly to say...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 26, 2004)

Exactly, The mossie was a great bomber, but the P-38 was a better fighter than the mossie was a bomber. you dont hear about Mossie aces or anything....


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 26, 2004)

LOL mossie aces....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 26, 2004)

8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 26, 2004)

Are these the exact same arguments we went through on the P-38 v. Mossie thread a while back?

The P-38 was the better aircraft because it was an excellent fighter and good bomber. The Mossie was an excellent bomber but at best an average fighter.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Sep 26, 2004)

Actually, there was a Mossie day fighter ace flying one of the FB models...

Didn't get his name, saw the feature on the cover of an aviation mag at Borders...


----------



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

and the mossie was the best night fighter the allies had...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 26, 2004)

The Beaufigher wasnt bad, the P-38 was quite effective in that role and im sure there were several other good ones.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 26, 2004)

1 Mossie ace isn't that impressive. And a night fighter is quite different from being a fighter.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 26, 2004)

I agree...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Sep 26, 2004)

Just proving a point...


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 26, 2004)

And a good one at that.... I didnt know...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 26, 2004)

I had seen that magazine but never had the chance to read the article. I am sure it was interesting but it hardly proves the case of the Mossie being a great FIGHTER aircraft.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 26, 2004)

I dont think anything could prove the Mossie was a great fighter.... Fighter/Bomber is a different story....


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 27, 2004)

Firstly, the Hurricane was a great fighter in the BoB and held the battle as more Spitfires came on line...in no way do I denigrate it's AWESOME contribution to the early battle to hold England from invasion, and it went on to serve admirably on other fronts throughout the War. It was terribly out-classed when the Fw-190 came on the scene, even the Mk.V Spits had to work hard until the Mk.IX appeared.- [ I'm at the stage in this book where the Fw-190 made it's debut, and contrary to popular belief, many of them fell to Mk.V's guns, but gradually German Radar and tactics did get the better of them...]

- I notice though, we keep going back to P-38 / Mosquito....You guys can keep crying-down Mosquitos, and pumping-up the P-38...I guess you have to, because P-38's in the ETO just didn't do it, as I've posted already, and there were 'Mosquito Aces' as you call them, they just didn't trumpet on about their successes...Over an above the Mossies very impressive Nightfighter Role, you may want to check-out the Banff Strike Wing's role and other Wings activities leading up to and after D-Day...If it was such a 'loser' aircraft as you suggest, then why did the US 8th AF have over 40 Canadian-built F-8 PR Mosquitos for their use for their 'Strategic Air Offensive'...-The Mosquitos' huge contribution to Pathfinding with Bomber Command lead to eventual Victory, they were the first aircraft to down a V-1 air-to-air on 15 June 1944 [FB.6 of 605 Sqn.] then there were all the duties they performed in the Far East and Pacific...

- The P-38 was quite distinctly unique in it's configuration, the Westland Whirlwind was the only other aircraft remotely like it, that comes to mind, and they were grossly under-powered...The only other aircraft that I believe came into the roughly the same catagory was the DH Hornet, and you don't want to go there, partly because altho' it flew during the War, it didn't enter service until afterwards, and it WAS a better aircraft....
- The P-38 can't have been so successful, or else they wouldn't have trashed them on the spot at War's End....whereas the Mosquito and it's hot-rod s/seater progeny, the Hornet, went on to serve for a decade or two postwar, when the Jet Age really set-in.....Even the Mustang stayed-on for bloody years after, but not the P-38, F4U, Hellcat etc. etc.....

- The Spitfire was the 'Best Fighter' and 'Best PR s/seater'... it was there at the beginning, the end, and afterwards.....it's ONLY drawback was it's limited range, which was gradually accomodated like the others, with drop tanks...
- The Mosquito was the 'Best Nightfighter, Best Pathfinder, and Best Fighter/Bomber [along with the Beaufighter], and it was also 'Best twin-engined PR'....
- Sorry guys, it'll be a rainy day in hell before I concede the P-38 was the 'Best Fighter', other than in the PTO, and it's service in the MTO....It was never as reliable as the Spitfire or Mosquito, and even the Pilots of the Day said so....


----------



## Crazy (Sep 27, 2004)

Here's a little bit posted on the Fighting Irish BB...



> The BEST Fighter/Bomber of WWII
> 
> The Facts Tell The Whole Story
> 
> ...


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 27, 2004)

I have conceded that the Corsair, was I feel, the 'Best Radial Fighter/Bomber'...Our guys flew them, and earlier-on, P-40's, in the PTO.- On US orders, we had to destroy all of them after our Occupation Duties in Japan, around 1947....shocking bloody waste, considering what excellent aircraft they were, especially considering a restored one today is worth $1.2 million +...
All I've read indicates they were better as 'shore-based ' fighters, leaving the Hellcats to Carrier-based work, but they did great work from the shore landing-strips, 'daisy-cutting' for the Ground Forces, and could carry some serious ordanance besides the 6X .50's for fighting and strafing....
- However, I'll stay with the Spitfire, [Mk's V, VIII, IX AND XIV in particular], their overall service worldwide is well-documented, and as I've said, no other aircraft gave The People the Morale to Fight, like the Spitfire did....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 27, 2004)

Gemhorse, most aviation historians will tell you that the P-38 was disgarded too early and it would have proven far more valuable over Korea than the P-51 or (probably) any other prop-driven fighter except for perhaps the Corsair as that was the only other fighter that could hope to match its payload and its durability.


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 27, 2004)

Well, I can't say I've studied the P-38's history in great detail, and if they belatedly thought it would have been the go in Korea, I would have thought the Corsair the better choice....simply because of the vulnerability of in-lines to enemy fire. I believe this was proved correct anyway, the F-51D suffering heavy losses in Korea, losing nearly 60 out of some 250 used in the ground-attack role....It more or less terminated the Mustang as a fighting aircraft.
The success of radial-engined ground-attack fighter/bombers was shown later during Vietnam with the Skyraiders' tour-of-duty....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 27, 2004)

Granted a radial is far supperior to an in-line for ground attack but the Lightning did have two of them which corrected for their vulnerability in part. A lot of Lightning pilots appreciated the placement of the engines (along with the armor mount inboard of the turbo-superchargers) as they provided excellent protection of the pilot against flanking fire.


----------



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

i think i'd rather be in a tiffy, corsair or a t'bolt than a P-38 for ground attack.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 27, 2004)

Those were excellent aircraft. But so was the P-38. It had better payload than any of those types, twin-engine safety, and better pilot protection (armor plating ahead and behind and an engine to either side). The twin-engine, counter-rotating props made it extremely stable in strafing runs (no torque pulling either way). And it is interesting that, in the ETO, it was 2 P-38 groups that were specifically recognized for their success at locco-busting.


----------



## Crazy (Sep 27, 2004)

For ground attack I'd feel safest in a Corsair or a P-38


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 27, 2004)

Id feel safest in a P-38 i think.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 27, 2004)

I have read too many reports and stories of P-38 pilots getting shot down on strafing missions, usually from rounds to the engine or part of the boom getting shot away.... If u crash landed a -38 in rough terrain, u most likely didnt walk away....

The P-47, on the other hand, was a beast.... The engine could take several rounds and still keep flying.... I have noticed that the -47 was a much more durable aircraft when it came to combat damage, and many pilots walked away from crash landings and what not unscathed...

The firepower of the -38 in ground attack is unsurpassed in a fighter, but I would want survivability on the battlefield over ordinance...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 27, 2004)

A lot of P-47s, Typhoons, and Il-2s were lost on ground attack sorties too. My point is that low-level attack missions were inheriently dangerous and regardless of how durable an aircraft was some were going to be lost. I could point to instances in North Africa where strafing P-38s had collosions with telephone poles and yet returned to base. That's durable enough for me.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 27, 2004)

Alot of varying aircraft were lost to ground fire.... My point is that the -47 could handle more groundfire damage than the -38 and still return to base, dual engines or not...

Ive seen pics of Corsairs with 1/2 a wing return to base.... Pretty amazing that they could still stay aloft...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 27, 2004)

I've seen P-38's survive mid-air collisions and return to base. 

Lanc, the Tiffie used a liquid-cooled engine and so I don't think it could be considered safer than a P-38.


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 27, 2004)

Well, if we're gonna go through ''low-level ordanance-delivering attack aircraft'' again, I'll definately stick with my Mosquito !!! ...- And as much as I love the 'Tiffy', without that prop turning, they were a 7 ton brick...I know, because one of my ancestors flew one, rockets and all, into a German Radar Station in 1944....Radials did have that advantage though against enemy fire, but the inlines still went on and did their job anyway, they all had their cannons, bombs and rockets....Tactics to draw off flak were standard procedure in these attacks, based on intelligence and recce reports etc. The thing that worried me about Lightnings was those fragile twin booms, where flak or cannon could blast them apart, armour or not. As in reading of our NZ guys in Corsairs in the PTO, blasting the Japs in Rabaul Harbour which was full of flak, and all their other Operations, I would be much happier in a Corsair, especially after reading Crazy's post....which seemed to be like that item on the website LG posted before, a coupla pages back....Still think the Spitfire deserves the 'Big Gong' here though, it was on the Job the whole way through........


----------



## plan_D (Sep 28, 2004)

The Spitfire should get it, from 1939-1945 it fought. It was never out-classed either. The Spit' Mk. XVIII was probably the best dogfighter of the war. It's only true 'fault' was a lack of range but it wasn't that bad.


----------



## johnny (Sep 28, 2004)

It must be a close call between the Spit and the Mustang.But the Spit was already busy when the Mustang was still in nappies.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 28, 2004)

The Spitfire Mk. XVIII would be able to beat a Mustang in a dogfight but the Mustang had the escort range.


----------



## johnny (Sep 28, 2004)

Was that the one with the clipped wings?


----------



## plan_D (Sep 28, 2004)

I don't believe any Mk. XVIII were converted to clipped-wing. Mk. XVIII were late in the war, I think late '44 until the end. Clipped wing Spitfires were for low level combat and ground attack.


----------



## johnny (Sep 28, 2004)

Do you have a pic?


----------



## plan_D (Sep 28, 2004)

Here's a Spitfire Mk. XVIII and a clipped-Spitfire Mk. XIV


----------



## johnny (Sep 28, 2004)

The Spitfire must have had better armament than the mustang .I see on those pics that it had cannons and machine guns.Better than 6 x .50cal's.The one on the top has D-day markings I see.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 28, 2004)

There were four different wing armaments with the Spitfire. A Wing was 8x .303 cal. B wing was 2x 20mm + 4x .303cal. C wing was 4x 20mm or 4x .50cal? E wing was 2x 20mm + 2 .50 cal. 

I think I got them right. I can't remember about the C wing, or even if there was C wing.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 28, 2004)

I personally thought the E Wing was the best... Shoulda come out with that in 1941...


----------



## plan_D (Sep 28, 2004)

The e wing was the second most used, I believe. Mostly on the Mk. VIII out in Burma with the Jungle Strike Force.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 28, 2004)

As far as an armament comparison between the P-51D and the Spit, the Mustang had both A and B wings outgunned but the C or E wing Spit were supperior to the Mustang.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 28, 2004)

I dont know LG.... I think 6x .50 cal would be a better choice for dogfighting than 4x 20mm.... If I were going against bombers, then definatly the 4x 20mm....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 28, 2004)

That may be the case, but it terms of muzzle energy and weight of fire, 4 x 20mm beats 6 x .50cal fairly easily.


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 28, 2004)

The Mk.IX Spitfire was the first one to carry 0.5 Brownings...The 'Universal' wing had two 20mm gun bays, but only the inboard one was used when the mixed armament was carried. This 20mm weapon was now moved to the outboard bay, and the 0.5 in. Browning was installed in the inboard bay. With the .303 guns deleted, this change in armament meant a change in nomenclature, and the suffix 'E' was added to the Mk. number...only the 'LF and HF' models had the 0.5 in. guns......I feel the combination of 20mm and 0.5 in. machine guns were the optimum armament mixture, the 0.5 in. are virtually mini cannon anyway....anything bigger than rifle calibre has got to be a more 'decisive'-hitting round, especially against bigger aircraft [bombers]; - As in 8x.303 vs. 6x0.5 in., the latter are significantly more destructive....I'm not sure what the rate-of-fire difference is between the 20mm and 0.05 in., but even with less number of guns, I feel this was a reliable, deadly combination....Incidentally, the Spitfire Mk.IX was the first one to have the Gyro gunsight, which really helped where you were putting them 'rounds......


----------



## plan_D (Sep 29, 2004)

The Mk. VIII was better than the IX. It was the definitive Merlin-engined Spitifire. The VIII was the majority plane with the e wing, too.


----------



## Maestro (Sep 29, 2004)

plan_D said:


> The Mk. VIII was better than the IX. It was the definitive Merlin-engined Spitifire. The VIII was the majority plane with the e wing, too.



That depend on the pilot. Many pilot who flew both planes thinks that the Mk. IX was better. As well as many of them thinks that the Mk. VIII was better.

Personnaly, I think the Mk. IX was better.


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 29, 2004)

I think they were both good, one in the ETO, the other in the PTO.....After these models, they got faster but heavier and not as manoevrable, and they were both still in active service at War's end......


----------



## plan_D (Sep 29, 2004)

The Mk. XVIII was the best. 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 29, 2004)

Concerning the rate of fire difference between the .50cal and the 20mm, the .50cal typically put out around 750rpm while most Allied 20mm weapons were closer to 600rpm.


----------



## Gemhorse (Sep 29, 2004)

Thanks for that LG, I thought the 20mm was slower....it's a good armament combo tho', like the Lightning's....


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 29, 2004)

The Mk II Hispano 20mm rate of fire was 600 rpm, whereas the MkV was 750 rpm.... The .303 Mk II Brownings rate of fire was 1,200 cyclic....

The Browning M2HB (Heavy Barrel) .50 cal had a cyclic rate of 550 rpm...
The M2 .50 cal was 750-850 rpm...


----------



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

> it's a good armament combo tho', like the Lightning's....



i prefer the mossies, 4x20mm + 4x.303............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 29, 2004)

The 4 20mm were nice, but the .303 was clearly second rate as an air-to-air weapon in WWII.


----------



## Gemhorse (Oct 3, 2004)

Yeah, I'm not saying the .303 were useless or anything, but when you were up against heavier-armed fighters, heavy bombers and for ground and shipping attacks, a heavier machine-gun would be preferable....High rate of fire rifle-calibre is probably good for ground attacking infantry.... Afterall, they used them later in the rotary barrel affairs in Vietnam to great effect...- But I wish they'd had .50 in. in the Mossies with the cannon, that would've put some extra crunch in the firepower.....


----------



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

if it's got 4x20mm you cant really say it needs extra punch, but the .303 were more usefull in ground attack, after all, it was a fighter bomber...........


----------



## Gemhorse (Oct 3, 2004)

Yeah, they were just real good with the cannons anyway, that's all the Nightfighters had....but I like .50's, had a play-around with them when I was in the Army, real munty......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

me too, .50's are great


----------



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

doesn't really make a differance when you've got 4x20mm...........

and some would considder .50 to be overkill against infantry..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

Better than being underkill....


----------



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

.303 aint underkill...........


----------



## Gemhorse (Oct 3, 2004)

Yep, s'true...they look good eh?...that's why I like my pic....

Found a pic in a book the other day of a Mossie attacking shipping in a Norwegian fiord, smoke from the cannons, kicking up spouts around the ships, awesome!....it's abit small, taken at a distance from another Mossie, so I have to get it enlarged, but it's rare to see the smokin' cannon, it's usually the rockets....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> .303 aint underkill...........



Did i say .303 was underkill? No.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 3, 2004)

When ur attackin ground troops at 250mph, u could be shooting BB's and it would still decimate troops... The .303 would suffice, the .50's would be better... An enemy on the ground had a chance of survival if hit by a .303... A .50 cal round basically blew off parts, chunks, or sections upon impact...

Overkill???
In combat theres no such thing...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

Exactly


----------



## plan_D (Oct 3, 2004)

Yes there is. Dropping a 22,000 lbs bomb to kill one, single, man is an overkill.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

No, thats sadism


----------



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

or as emma would call it normality.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 4, 2004)

why would she call it that?


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 4, 2004)

Cause Emma is a Sadist???


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 4, 2004)

If she is ive never noticed  she'd would probably think 22,000lbs is a sum of money


----------



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

you realise i'm talking about emma melia here, how can you say she aint a sadist..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 5, 2004)

i dont know anything about her sadist levels


----------



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

yes you do................


----------



## Gemhorse (Oct 22, 2004)

If the Corsair was used in the European Theatre, what difference do you think this would have made to achieving Allied Air Superiority...?


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 23, 2004)

Hey Gemhorse, we revived the other Best Fighter Thread... There is a running total of votes there.... Make ur Corsair post there, so we only have 1 Best Fighter thread please...


----------



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

> what difference do you think this would have made to achieving Allied Air Superiority...?



none, we got air superiority without it, and what would it do that current planes couldn't do anyway....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 23, 2004)

Dont you think it would have been done quicker though?


----------



## Gemhorse (Oct 24, 2004)

I wasn't pushing for a vote, I was just interested in what others may have thought, what with this thing about radial-engined fighter/bombers being more 'durable' from engine damage; - the built-in dive-bomber aspect and other general points the Corsair had that might have made it 'useful'.....- They did turn-out to be a formidable F/B and why they chose to use other US aircraft in the ETO instead..... - They were afterall designated to Carrier duties initially, but alot did service from shore-bases in the PTO. - So just a general question guys, no swing either way, just wondered what others may think.........


----------



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

> Dont you think it would have been done quicker though



why?? what could it do that current planes couldn't do already?? i honestly don't think it would have done it any quicker...........................


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2004)

Well, to be honest. it depends on what year the Corsair would show up in the ETO, and what model.... The Brits did use some Corsairs in the Naval Arm...

But seeing how the Corsair was a Navy/Marine Corps fighter, and there wasnt really any land based Navy/Marine squadrons, I dont think it woulda mattered....

But..... If the RAF or USAAF used them in 1943-44, it could have made a difference.... I wonder how the Me-109 would have compared to the F4U-4 in combat.... I'd probably give it up to the Corsair....

But... Was the Corsair a better opponent to the -109 than the Spit???


----------



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

i'd rather be in a spit, like i keep saying, the corsair couldn't do anything current planes couldn't...................


----------



## Gemhorse (Oct 25, 2004)

Yeah, well I was wondering about that, just how a Corsair and 109/190 would've mixed it...I'm also reading about one of our chaps who flew Typhoons Tempests, and the Corsair seemed to do similar work as them, in the PTO....The Typhoons suffered heavy losses performing the ground-attacks, particuarly the vulnerability of their engine to flak etc...whereas radials, etc. etc....Corsairs also were also higher-altitude fighters too, whereas the Tiffy/Temps were 15-20,000 ft. max.
I dunno if the War would've finished earlier, but the Corsair was definately not used to it's fullest potentials, or in more theatres, and was capable of rockets/bombs, with 6x .5's instead of 4x 20mm though....In some ways similar to a Thunderbolt, but much more versatile, they appear to have been severly under-estimated by the Allies, or I'm sure they'd have been used more extensively.....


----------



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

but like i keep saying, what would be the point of bringing them in when we already had planes that could do their job!!!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 26, 2004)

Because you would then have more planes, and the job would get done quicker!!!!!


----------



## Erich (Oct 26, 2004)

light strike night force though I think it should be reversed and spelled out


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 26, 2004)

Errrrrrrrm, whats that supposed to mean?


----------



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

good question................


----------

