# the slowst plane of ww2



## NightHawk (Aug 7, 2004)

in your opinion what was the slowst plane of the war ?


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

That's not an opinion. Slowest speed overall? Slowest cruising speed? Slowest speed at altitude? Sea level speed?


----------



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

and what do you mean by "of the war" do you mean designed in the war, used in the war, beacuse you could easy say a plane from the 20's that may have flown 1 mission, however i think the storch is a big contender.................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

B-25 Roc must be in the top 10.


----------



## toffi (Aug 7, 2004)

Polikarpov Po-2 for sure.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

B-25 Roc had what, 134 mph top speed?


----------



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

198mph, maybe 199 in a dive...........................


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 7, 2004)

i meen: the minemum flying speed.all planes thet took part in the war. anything else ?i think Fieseler Fi 156 Storch had a min flying speed of 48 kmp thet was slooooooooow.


----------



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

by that do you mean the slowest it can sly without stalling??


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

A lot of the World War 2 aircraft had low stalling speeds. For the Fi-156 it had to be low, being a Recon plane.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 7, 2004)

According to legend, the PBY flew and even dove at 90 mph.


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 8, 2004)

hay give me a break now i just registerd 3 days ago im still learning.
so come on give me some slack.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 8, 2004)

You've got to deal with it, we're like this to everyone. You'll learn...


----------



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

the thing is we can't answer you question without knowing exactily what you mean?? if you mean the slowest it can fly without literally falling out the air, you mean the slowest stalling speed...................


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 8, 2004)

he who askes if foolish for 5 minuts. and he who dose not is foolish forvever.kong fu zea


----------



## plan_D (Aug 8, 2004)

And he can understand that please translate 'cos I have no clue. - Plan_D 2004.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 8, 2004)

"He who asks is foolish for five minutes, and he who does not ask is foolish forever"~GRG 2004


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 9, 2004)

how cant you not understand. u need me to say it in simple english ???\
ok if a man askes about something he dosent know hes a fool for 5 minuts. and if he dosent ask hes a fool forever got it ?


----------



## plan_D (Aug 9, 2004)

See, I don't need it in simple English, I need it in English.


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 9, 2004)

WELL I WORT IT IN ENGLISH HAPPY ???


----------



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

but you will be a fool forever, it's here on the website.......................


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 9, 2004)

why am i a fool what didnt i ask ?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 9, 2004)

Chill, chill.


plan_D is like that...


Example:his biggest _kamerad_ here is lanc, but they seem to hate each other...


In an online convo with C.C. a while back, he said it was too hostile here and that was why he left.

But then again, it is a site about war...


Plus, it helps the site's comedic value...


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 10, 2004)

war is hell. so...........lets make tea insted of war 8)
and bye the way is there a WW2 plane thet can shoot down a V1 buzboomb ???


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 10, 2004)

P-51D/K, Spitfire Mk.XII-Onward,Tempest Mk.V/VI, Meteor (Jet)...



Those are all the ones I know.


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 10, 2004)

Thankes. i know a tank thet no plane could destroy. but to bad it was only a prototype and never leaft the drowring bord.
its called p-1000 ratte i dont think thet no plane could take this tank out. 
Weight (combat ready): 1 tons
Length: 35.00 meters
Width: 14.00 meters
Height: 11.00 meters


Armor Armament
1 x 128 mm Gun
8 x 20 mm FlaK 38 Guns
2 x 15MG151 Machine guns
2 x 280 mm SK C/34 guns
Maximum Armour: 360 mm
Propulsion
Engine: 8 x MB 501 diesel
Power: 16 000 HP
Specific power: 16 000 HP / ton
Speed (*): 40 kph


Production
Quantity: none


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 10, 2004)

That was just a fantasy, though...


The Maus would have been impractical, imagine that thing!


Maus
1x 128mm gun
1x 75mm coaxial gun
2x hull Mg-34
Top speed around 20mph


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 10, 2004)

That was just a fantasy, though...


The Maus would have been impractical, imagine that thing!


Maus
1x 128mm gun
1x 75mm coaxial gun
2x hull Mg-34
Top speed around 20mph


----------



## plan_D (Aug 10, 2004)

The turret on the P-1000 actually became a turret in the Todt Battery, if my memory serves me correctly. The Maus was impractical as it was, the P-1000 was just silly.


----------



## toffi (Aug 10, 2004)

If the Maus looked like a huge barn, how the P-1000 would looked like?


----------



## plan_D (Aug 10, 2004)

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/p1000.htm#1000

Like that.


----------



## toffi (Aug 10, 2004)

Well, quite... hmmm... impressive... (???) Honestly, I've never heard of this project.

Not only guns but also turret looks like taken straight from Gneisenau or Scharnhorst just with middle barrel missing.


----------



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

> is there a WW2 plane thet can shoot down a V1 buzboomb





> P-51D/K, Spitfire Mk.XII-Onward,Tempest Mk.V/VI, Meteor (Jet)...



and the mossie, in fact most planes at 400mph plus could do it......................



> Weight (combat ready): 1 tons



now are you quite sure??


----------



## plan_D (Aug 10, 2004)

Well, toffi, the turret was used in "Batterie Oerlander" near Trondheim. I had heard of the project before, but as it never left the drawing board not many people would have heard of it. 

All the information is on that site. The King Tiger weighed 68 tonnes, so 1 tonne is just a bit out there.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 10, 2004)

It was to have been 35 meters long, 14 meters wide, 11 meters high. 
The tracks were to be 3.6 meters wide. 
Powerplants were either two MAN Marine Engines (8,500hp each) or 8x Daimlers at 2,000hp each. 
Top Speed 40km/h 
Weight~900000-1000000kg 
Armament could have been: Two Naval (Gneiesnau/Scharnhorst, indeed!) 280mm Guns, Single 128mm, or eight Flak 38 20mm's and two Mg-151/15 15mm's. 

P 1000 turret ended up at coastal defence battery (Batterie Oerlander) near Trondheim, Norway. 




> In December of 1942, Krupp created new design of 1500 ton tank - P 1500. It frontal armor would be 250mm thick and it would be armed with 800mm super heavy mortar "Dora" type and possibly two 150mm artillery pieces. P 1500 would be powered by two or four submarine diesel engines. In early 1943, Albert Speer cancelled both projects. P 1000 turret ended up at coastal defence battery (Batterie Oerlander) near Trondheim, Norway.
> 
> Even before P 1000 and P 1500, in 1939, Krupp began working on other similar projects for projected series of self-propelled coastal guns for the German Navy - Kriegsmarine. Series was to include 14 different platforms designated from R1 to R14. Armament was to range from 150mm to 380mm and it was to be mounted on fully traversible turntables on tracked carriages. One of the designs was R2 coastal gun armed with 280mm gun. The series never left drawing boards.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 10, 2004)

P-47Ms and P-61s also shot down buzzbombs.


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 11, 2004)

if i remmber it was a turret from a battle ship on the ratte.
germens liked to build big. but the amrican soviet t-95 program thet was a meen tank they build it was low but long and waid it could match up with maus and king tiger.


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 11, 2004)

if i remmber it was a turret from a battle ship on the ratte.
germens liked to build big. but the amrican soviet t-95 program thet was a meen tank they build it was low but long and waid it could match up with maus and king tiger.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

Just read the site, the turret on the P1000/1500 was used on Battery Oerlander in Trondheim. They look like Battleship turrets, because they basically were. 

The T-95 was not Soviet, it was completely American. And it was useless too. Seeing as the T-95, Maus or P1000 never saw combat I don't know how you can ramble on about them being good.


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 11, 2004)

the 95 was a joint soviet amrican project i know belive me.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

You obviously don't know if you believe so. Is this coming from a person who said the P1000/1500 was 1 ton. Or that the turret was off a Battleship. 

Do you want to look at some of the Soviet Experimental designs? 

http://www.battlefield.ru/kv_exp.html

Look on there. 

The T28/T95 was a pure American AFV design and the first model was completed in September 1945, the second completed around the same time but lost to fire. The whole project was cancelled in October 1947. 
Pacific Car Foundry designed and built the T28/T95...and the Soviets had nothing to do with it.


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 11, 2004)

ok im wronge and i agmit so get of my back.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

I never was "on your back". I merely proved you to be incorrect, so now you've learned.


----------



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

don't worry about him nighthawk, he does that allot, it's the only way he can make himself feel good.....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

What are you talking about!?! Should I have let him continued thinking that, when it was incorrect!?!


----------



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

you wouldn't understand.......................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

Like you could explain. So maybe when people are wrong we should just let them continue being wrong!?!


----------



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

no it was just the way you said it....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

It was the "I know, believe me" that made me reply like that.


----------



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

ok....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

What was all that about? I do that to make myself feel better, I never reply like that unless someone carries something pointless on. Like the Multi-Role thing!!!


----------



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

hey hey hey, i need a reason to post just as much as you.....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

Yes, but there's no need to getting insulting.


----------



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

how was that insulting!!.............


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> don't worry about him nighthawk, he does that allot, it's the only way he can make himself feel good.....................



I found THAT insulting.


----------



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

oh sorry, i meant it as a joke..........................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

Well maybe with a tone of voice, I would have recognised it. Maybe a  would have helped.


----------



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

what, you mean you didn't pick up the joking tone of voice??


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

No, I was a fool to miss it. The joking tone of voice was so obvious from the typing, I'm sorry for missing it.


----------



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

i mean come on, anyone could hear the joking tone................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

Even...erm...well...yeah anyone.


----------



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

why do i have we felling we spend wayyyyyyyy to long on the site..................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

At the current moment (refering to this month) I cannot do anything during the day because I'm waiting for a call from Lufthansa.


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 12, 2004)

i think theres got to be a free topic becous this canot go on. thet in the last pages of the topic the sobject is diffrent from the begining.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 12, 2004)

You think all the threads stay on the original topic!?!


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 12, 2004)

no, but i think thet starting an open topic is a good idea. 8)


----------



## plan_D (Aug 12, 2004)

It was a good idea. And someone will answer the question, eventually.


----------



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

we could answer your question nighthawk (is it ok to call you NH??) because you still haven't told us exactily what you mean by "slowest plane"........................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 12, 2004)

He meant the lowest stalling speed.


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 13, 2004)

you should read the pages thet came before this one than you will have a clearer picture in your mind. and you can call me NH.


----------



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

read back?? i've been posting in the topic the whole time, you were never specific about what you said..................


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 13, 2004)

hmm.....well still im just learning dont forget that.


----------



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

i'm not having a go at you...........................


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 14, 2004)

the wings on your lancaster looks like they are going to break


----------



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

the lancaster has what's called a wing tip dihedral, that means that the wings go up at an angle but not sraight from the wing root. on the lancaster the dihedral starts just outboard of the inner engines, which is why the wings look bent, and i assume that's what you mean when you say they look teir gonna break.....................


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 15, 2004)

yes thet is exactly what i meen.


----------



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

so yes, they're supposed to look like that, if you ever see it from the front you'll see what i mean..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 17, 2004)

Most aircraft have dihedral. Anhedral (wings bending downward) is much rarer but is present on the Harrier. On the subject of wings breaking, B-24 crewmen stated that the slender Davis wings seemed to bend considerable when the B-24 was flow at or near maximum weight.


----------



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

although interestingly i don't think the B-24 has a dihedral................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 18, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> Most aircraft have dihedral. Anhedral (wings bending downward) is much rarer but is present on the Harrier. On the subject of wings breaking, B-24 crewmen stated that the slender Davis wings seemed to bend considerable when the B-24 was flow at or near maximum weight.





The B-52's are ridiculous...

Ever seen those?


----------



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

the harrier has a greater anhedral.....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 19, 2004)

I have seen a B-52 up close and personal. I'm not sure which aircraft (Harrier of B-52) has the greater anhedral . . . but the Harrier's is intentional, the B-52's is the result of its size.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 19, 2004)

The B-52 has fairly +0/-0 degree wings; in level flight in good weather, the wings are flat.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 19, 2004)

But they are anything but flat when it's on the ground.


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 20, 2004)

its like thet voyger. the wings almost toched the ground on take off but whan its in the air they are nice and flat.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 1, 2005)

I would say the Mk.II Swordfish was the slowest. It was a damn slow torpedo plane and made an easy target for german anti-aircraft guns.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 1, 2005)

The Swordfish was very effective. I dont think the slowest plane is a matter of opinion anyway  There are several that were slower than the Swordfish (Fi-156 Storch, Piper Cub etc..)


----------



## evangilder (Jul 1, 2005)

The subject was vague, slowest top speed, or slowest low speed. The Storch is definitely in the top 5.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 1, 2005)

and the swordfish's speed was something of an asset to be honest.......


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2005)

I think all aircraft share the lowest slow speed, all at a remarkable 0 mph.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 1, 2005)

Indeed


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 13, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> But they are anything but flat when it's on the ground.



The B-52s wings are straight (more or less) on the ground when the wing tanks, esp the drop tanks, are empty. The bogy wheels can sometimes be several feet off the ground. The transformation from an akward lump on the ground to an amazingly gracefull plane in the air is pretty incredible. Also the wings will flex over 30 feet when maneuvering in flight, they are very flexible.

wmaxt


----------

