# 5 Favourite Planes



## Maestro (May 31, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i just don't the like the bubble canopie on the spit, it doesn't look right.............



That's one of the reason that make me put the Mk. XIV second behind the Mk. IX. That, and because the Mk. IX had a longer life. (From 1942 until the end of the British decolonisation wars.)


----------



## I./JG53_lud13 (May 31, 2004)

Still I say Bf 109G-2 is the BEST Bf 109 ...than comes the K4


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

fair enough 8) i dont think the K-4 was produced in mass numbers anyway was it?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

The Spitfire Mk. XIV was still the best, and the best dogfighter of the war. 
They didn't produce the K-4 in large numbers, in any case the Merlin engined HA-1112 was the best 109..but we won't go into that, it didn't see service and it was Hispano built...for Spain...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)




----------



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

so germany suplied planes so they could defend themselfs to the country they'd bombed 6 years earlier, isn't that rubbing it in?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

Germany bombed Spain as a help to Franco, the Spanish dictator. Germany helped him put down the resistance. This was not rubbing it in.


----------



## I./JG53_lud13 (Jun 2, 2004)

The number of suplied Bf 109K-4 to the Luftwaffe was about 1000 planes..just like your Spitfire Mk XIV...AND THEY ARE VERY VERY CLOUSLY MATCH......And usualy it about to pilots to outcome who will be shoot down.
And plan_D........few words to you
You sad: in any case the Merlin engined HA-1112 was the best 109..but we won't go into that, it didn't see service and it was Hispano built...for Spain.
Cmon dont tell me you actualy belive what you wrote here???
The HA-1112 got Merlins beacose they dont have any more DB605 engines you know..(and the airframes where from G-2 by the way) just like the Jumo variants in C.Slovakia.
And they are not built for Spain but in Spain


----------



## I./JG53_lud13 (Jun 2, 2004)

The Jumo versions where Bf109G-14 airframes


----------



## Erich (Jun 2, 2004)

sorry guys still do not have a listing yet. pretty hard when you can easily get a headache thinking upon which a/c Allied or Luftwaffe/Japanese that was superior in altitude, speed, dive and of course range. also the time of year in the war......

looked back through old postings in this interesting thread. No JG 7 did not receive the Bf 110. The Unit was designated a jet unit from the start and started and finished the war with the Me 262A-1a.

also the dora D-9 was a stop gap to provide high cover for the Me 262 Kommando nowotny and for other 109 Fw 190A units. It still could not provied the maximum altitude needed to pounce on the P-51 D and H's. Although this was due to lack of experience of the new Luftwaffe pilots, more than anything. The Ta 152 with increased altitude and speed performance was to succeed the Dora in the roles mentioned but only III./JG 301 first and then STab./JG 301 had the Ta 152H at it's disposal during the war.

v/r

Erich




dang I'm tired today...........


----------



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

> v/r



what does that mean Erich??


----------



## Erich (Jun 2, 2004)

v/r

very respectfully

cheers

E ~


----------



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

oh, i never seem to get abreveations...................


----------



## Erich (Jun 2, 2004)

CC and others...........

hth .................. hope this helps


----------



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

why is it so few people have names you can shorten, mine's easy, C.C.'s easy, but few others..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

LG's easy.......

the reason i dont get abreviations is cos i just dont use them


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2004)

The HA-1112 was built in Spain (Hispano is a Spanish company) for Spain and export. The HA-1109 had the Hispano-Suiza 12Z engines and the HA-1112. Yes the HA-1112 was the ulitmate design on the old airframe. 

Erich...the Bf-110 serving with the JG-7 I believe was a question I asked a while ago which was answered, by you.


----------



## Erich (Jun 2, 2004)

I apoligize..............it must be the pollen in the air here.........my head is spinning


----------



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

so are the weels on the bus...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 3, 2004)

no, the wheels on the bus go round and round 8)


----------



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

i.e., spinning.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 3, 2004)

anyway, my list has changed......again 

1. P-38
2. P.108
3. Hurricane
4. FW-190 D-9
5. P-39 Airacobra


----------



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

why the P-39??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 4, 2004)

Ok, I know 'favorite planes' isn't about which planes were good, but I don't really see any reason to be so keen on the P-39. The pilots of the 39th FS in the Pacific said they would rather have been issued trucks because they could fly higher than P-39s!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 5, 2004)

i like the idea of putting the engine in the middle


----------



## Skufr (Jun 5, 2004)

I like the P-39. I don´t know if it would make my top five list, but it´s a pretty cool aircraft.

My top five favs :

1. Spitfire Mk.XIV ( just the sound of the Griffon engine is reason enough to place it first ).

2. B-24J Liberator ( big, bad and ugly. How can you not love it ? )

3. B-26B Marauder ( hottest bomber of WWII )

4. Bf 109G ( best looking Bf 109 )

5. He 177A-5


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 5, 2004)

nice choices 8) personally i prefer the 109E and 109K though 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 5, 2004)

Well, if you are so hot on the engine in the middle, why not go with the P-63 King Cobra. At least it had decent performance. B-26 is a good choice, but I would have gone for a later version, the F or the G probably.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 5, 2004)

P-63? I dont think ive actually seen one of those before, ill look into it 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 5, 2004)

It appears to be an enlarged P-39 but actually was an almost completely new design featuring a new tail and a laminar-flow wing. Armament consisted of a high-powered 37mm M10 cannon through the propellor hub, 2 .50cals in the nose and another .50 cal in each wing. Speed was around 410mph. Almost all of them when to the Russians and I haven't seen much on their combat record but apparently the Russians loved them.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 5, 2004)

a comparison of the P-39 and the P-63 should be quite interesting 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 5, 2004)

P-63 would have killed the P-39. But it still lacked a turbosupercharger so it was strickly a low-altitude machine. It was supposed to be a real beast in close air support missions though.


----------



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

i've never liked the idea of noseweel landing gear for a fighter, it just looks stupid, and i'd proberly always feel like i was about to tip over backwards................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 6, 2004)

P-38 used it. And so does every modern fighter. It did allow for much better pilot vision on take-offs and landings.


----------



## Maestro (Jun 7, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i've never liked the idea of noseweel landing gear for a fighter, it just looks stupid, and i'd proberly always feel like i was about to tip over backwards................



You'got a good point Lanc. I don't like the idea of nosewheel landing gear neither. I always fear of that gear geting out but staying "unlocked" while landing, making the plane "crash" on the nose and then going upside-down. You understand what I mean ?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 7, 2004)

i think nosewheel landing gear, or "tricycle undercarraige" is a good idea.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 7, 2004)

Like I said EVERY modern combat aircraft uses it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 8, 2004)

and if every modern combat aircraft uses it, it has to be good.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 8, 2004)

Modern aircraft cannot use tail-draggers, if you use common sense and look where the engine is, you'd be burning the ground with the engines. It is much more stable with a Tri-cycle gear as well.


----------



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

when i said for a fighter, i meant for a WWII fighter, the main weels wouldn't be that far back and so there would be allot of wieght behind the main gear, so i'd always feel like i would go over backwards...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 8, 2004)

but thats just you......


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 8, 2004)

An obviously they didn't go over backwards. Consider the P-38 for example, the fuel tanks were located directly over the main gear (as far as front to back) and the armament and engines were forward. But the greatest advantage was the wonderful visibility allowed for take-off and landing.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 8, 2004)

Oh, and you may want to look at the landing gear arrangement of MODERN prop-driven aircraft as well.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 8, 2004)

it wasnt long before they used tricycle undercarraige on carrier planes either. the Grumman F7F Tigercat was the first.


----------



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

perhaps i should adjust what i said, again, i mean single mid-mounted engined fighters of WWII, like the P-39 and P-63..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 8, 2004)

it still worked though


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 9, 2004)

It did look funny and did require some neat engineering work to get everything in place but it did offer considerable advantages. On an interesting note, the Germans were planning to use tricycle gear on many of their new fighters like the Me-309.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 9, 2004)

1. Piaggio P.108
2. Lockheed P-38 Lightning
3. Macchi MC.202
4. Hawker Hurricane
5. Spitfire XIV




is my updating becoming obsessive?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 9, 2004)

How did the Mk. XIV get on there? Did I drill it into your head..?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 9, 2004)

partly yes, but other things as well


----------



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

i see the P.108 has made it's way to the top again??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 9, 2004)

yep, but not ITS way to the top, you mean HER way to the top.


----------



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




----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 12, 2004)

why you shocked? all machines are hers...


----------



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

not italain ones...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 12, 2004)

especially itailan ones..


----------



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

why, most were pig ugly...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 12, 2004)

ive yet to see an ugly italian object.


----------



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

breeda 65??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 12, 2004)

thats ok.


----------



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

no it's not................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 12, 2004)

im not saying its good looking, but theres nothing wrong with it


----------



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

post a pic of it and i'll point out things that are wrong with it.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 12, 2004)

why dont you post a pic? (i dont wanna post a pic, i cant be arsed)


----------



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

because i haven't got a pic of it.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 13, 2004)

fair enough


----------



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

it looks like a fighter equivilant of the 52..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 14, 2004)

The canopy is possibly the ugliest thing I have ever seen on a fighter.


----------



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

it's got the aerodynamics of a weelbarrow...........


----------



## Piaggio108 (Jun 26, 2004)

I seem to recall that it was a ground attack plane. Yes, the cockpit is ugly. 


1)Piaggio P.108
2)Fiat RS.14
3)SAI 403
4)Reggiane Re.2001
5)P-38

The B-24J was ugly, that turret on the front aparently caused a lot of drag. The earlyer verisons were better looking, even if they weren't able to defend themselves from the front. Don't see why they couldn't have just put a modified chin turet in it.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 26, 2004)

The escort XB-41 was equipped with the same Bendix chin turret used on the B-17. It was shown to be no better than the manned turrets already in use.


----------



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

> that turret on the front aparently caused a lot of drag



you can't really say that as that is true of any turret.........................


----------



## Hot Space (Jul 2, 2004)

1. Spit XIV.
2. P-51.
3. Lancaster.
4. B-17.
5 Me 262.

8) 

Hot Space


----------



## Dan (Jul 2, 2004)

1:F4U-1D
2:Spitfire
3-38
4-51
5:B-17


----------



## Dan (Jul 2, 2004)

ok i messed up on that last one

1: F4U-1D
2: Spitfire
3: P-38
4: P-51
5: B-17
:BIG:


----------



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

I'm glad you put the lanc above the B-17 there HS...........................


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 7, 2004)

Hi all,

Been lurking here for a bit and finally decided to join in. Thought the top 5 fave thread would be a not bad self-intro, so here are mine (as of today--they kinda change regularly):

In no particular order:

1. Mossie
2. Ju87
3. Zero
4. Lanc
5. Spitfire/Hurricane, can never decide

Cheers


----------



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

that's a nice selection you got there, and welcome to the site....................


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 9, 2004)

Thanks. I figure there's always room for one more Lancaster advocate...


----------



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

to right there is, just so long as you don't try and steal my crown.....................


----------



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

right then, i can't be bothered to go back and look, so can we get people's lists back up please, here's mine.....................

1) Avro 683 Lancaster Mk.I/III
2) De Havilland DH.98 Mosquito FB.VI
3) Glostor Meteor F.III
4) Supermarine Spitfire Mk.V (not to sure though)
5) Heinkel He-111H-20


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

1-Spitfire Mk. XVIII 
2-Me-262A-1a
3-Fw-190D-9
4-Mosquito (Any variant) 
5-Hurricane Mk. IV


----------



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

nice list, no lancaster though??


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 27, 2004)

Mine's changed a bit:

1. Mossie
2. Stuka
3. Emily
4. Zero
5. Spit/Hurricane/Mustang


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 27, 2004)

Oh, and as for variants, the first ones, I guess. Frankly, if the first mark isn't good enough, then the rest aren't going to be...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

I think you plug the Lancaster enough, Lanc.


----------



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

are you kidding, you can never plug the lancaster enough.................


> Frankly, if the first mark isn't good enough, then the rest aren't going to be...



but most planes get better as they're developed..........................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

Like the Spitfire. The Spitifre Mk. I would get slashed on by the Mk. XVIII


----------



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

that's different as the Mk.I was a good plane, i think he's saying that a bad plane can't be improved.......................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

My point still stands.


----------



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

i think we need DP back in here..............


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

We do? Why... 


...wait, I know why. The whole thing that he said, one of us doesn't get it.


----------



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

that one being you....................


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 27, 2004)

Well, sheesh, Obviously later marks are going to be better.. It's not like they say: "well, here's a good plane, let's make the next one not so good"  

What I meant is that I reckon the first mark is the one that sets the tone for the series--if the first is good, many improvements will follow.

And in the case of the Spit, for example, the excellence of its initial design allowed for the improvements that followed...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

My point was still a valid one in the world of World War 2 aviation.


----------



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

mmmmmmm......................

not really.........................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

Are you going to say that the Mk. I Spitfire was better than the Mk. XVIII!?!


----------



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

oh, that was your point, it kinda sucked....................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

Sucked, but it was still valid.


----------



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

fair enough.......................


----------



## Maestro (Jul 27, 2004)

Here is my list (it never changed) :

1 - Spitfire Mk. IX
2 - Spitfire Mk. XIV
3 - Hurricane (any Mark)
4 - Mustang III
5 - Tempest V


----------



## toffi (Jul 27, 2004)

1) Supermarine Spitfire Mk. V
2) Messerschmitt Bf 109E-7
3) PZL P.11c
4) Bristol Blenheim Mk.IV
5) Vickers Wellington


----------



## Maestro (Jul 27, 2004)

toffi said:


> 1) Supermarine Spitfire Mk. V



Spitfire Mk. V ? I would understand the Mk. IX, Mk. VIII, Mk. XIV or Mk. XVIII.

But the Mk. V ? It was outclassed by the Focke-Wulf 190 ! (That's why they produced the Mk. IX.)


----------



## toffi (Jul 27, 2004)

All of the planes I've listed were outclassed by some other. But these are my favourites.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 27, 2004)

toffi said:


> All of the planes I've listed were outclassed by some other. But these are my favourites.



Maestro, like toffi says, I reckon this is a "favorite plane" list, not a "I think this is the best plane" list... You can't really argue with people's choices...

But I like yours... wish I had room for the Tempest in my list


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 27, 2004)

Toffi must be awefully sentimental. Those are some pretty old planes on his list (even by 1945 standards).


----------



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

i think we should limit choices to just one mark of any chosen plane, that way more variety can be put in, agreed??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 28, 2004)

Yeah, but that also limits the number of planes you can choose. I think limiting that to just 5 is hard enough already.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

That is true. I want the Mustang III on there as well or the P-47N but being only 5 I had to give way. So we'll keep any mark, or all marks available.


----------



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

> Yeah, but that also limits the number of planes you can choose



no it doesn't, if anything it frees up a space on your list.....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 28, 2004)

How does that free up space? Saying (for example) 
1. Spit XIV
2. Spit IX

takes up more space than saying
1. Spit (any mark)


----------



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

that's what i mean, if you say 

1) spitfire (any mark) 

insted of

1) spitfire XIV
2) spitfire IV

then you have an extra space for another plane...............


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

Just let them have the choice. They might not want another plane, and need to use up the five slots. 

1-Spitfire Mk. I
2-Mk. IIb
3-Mk.IV (First Griffon engined Spitfire)
4-Mk. XIVe
5-Mk.XVIIIc

 That isn't my proper one. The other one is.


----------



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

> Mk.IV (First Griffon engined Spitfire)



i thought that was the XIV...............


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

No. The Mk. IV was an experimental Spitfire with the Griffon engine.


----------



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

wow, never knew that...............


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

You learn something everyday. Even though that's not true, but there you go.


----------



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

i knew it!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

Knew what!?!


----------



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

that the IV didn't have griffon..................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

Yes it did. Or was that the III. One of the early marks did.


----------



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

oh well..................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

Was I right!?! Tell me which one, my brother has the book. I suppose I could phone him up to make sure.


----------



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

you do that because i don't know.................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

Ok, I will


----------



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

that'll make for an interesting conversation though 

"hey, i'm just ringing because i need some info from one of your books, that's all"


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

That's exactly what I said. He's not bothered, he does it to me too. 

The Mk. II had a Merlin-XII engine. IIa 750 built, IIb 170 built. 
Mk.III one built with Merlin-XX. Mk. IV experimental Griffon prototype. I was right.


----------



## Maestro (Jul 28, 2004)

dead parrot said:


> Maestro, like toffi says, I reckon this is a "favorite plane" list, not a "I think this is the best plane" list... You can't really argue with people's choices...



That's right. Sorry.


----------



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

it just so happens that the top plane on my list also happened to be the best of the war.................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 29, 2004)

I fail to see how you come to that conclusion.


----------



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

"bomber" harris called it the "single most ipmortant factor in wining WWII"..................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 29, 2004)

Patton called the M1 the most important factor, does that make it the best rifle. Some Japanese General said that the Chindits were Japans greatest trouble, does that make them the best fighting unit (I think they were)? 

The Lancaster wasn't the best. For a start, you cannot compare a heavy bomber to a fighter or recon plane. Then you've got the B-29 which was better than the Lancaster in ability anyway.


----------



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

> ability anyway.



perhaps, but it had no charactor.................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 29, 2004)

Any machine that kills lots of people for a cause, has plenty of character.


----------



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

not really.................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 29, 2004)

I think it does, I hope remember the whole idea of these planes.


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jul 29, 2004)

1-Ju87 Hence my nickname
2-Mossie love it
3-Supermarine Spitfire cus it's a symbol of british resistance in ww2
4-Yak-9 cus its my fave russian fighter
5-Me262 cus its the best plane in ww2(I know it's debatetable)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 29, 2004)

Who cares about the 'character' of an airplane when the bullets start flying?


----------



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

the crew..................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 30, 2004)

Us, 60 years later.


----------



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

the crew 60 years later.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 30, 2004)

My point was, the Lanc MIGHT have had more character than the B-29, but I know which one I would have rather flow my missions in.


----------



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

so you'd pick the lanc too then......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 31, 2004)

No. I would pick the plane with greater speed, range, ceiling, firepower, payload, durability, and comfort . . . The B-29.


----------



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

i almost had you though....................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 1, 2004)

Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades...

And maybe a depth charge...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 1, 2004)

And nuclear weapons. But come on Lanc, the B-29 was clearly the better bomber.


----------



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

yes it was, but i'll only admit that if you're man enough to admit that the lancaster had more charactor....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 1, 2004)

Than the B-29? Yeah, the Lanc did. But I also think the B-17 had more character than the Lanc.


----------



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

> But I also think the B-17 had more character than the Lanc



no way!! the lanc had bags more charactor than the B-17..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 2, 2004)

Well, I'm not sure how you are defining character, but I believe the B-17 had. It was the prettiest of all the four-engined bombers.


----------



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

personally i think it was pig ugly and that the lanc was the best looking, second comes the halifax....................


----------



## Maestro (Aug 3, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> personally i think it was pig ugly and that the lanc was the best looking, second comes the halifax....................



Concerning the bombers, personnally I prefer the B-17. Then comes the B-25 and the Lanc. (I know, the B-25 is a twin engined bomber, but I think it looks great.)


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 3, 2004)

Heres a new twist for this topic.. Follow along if u please...

Which Bomber did the German Fighter Pilots Hate the Most??? (Dangerous)

Which Bombers crew served weapons were the most lethal to a Luftwaffe pilot???

Kill Zone Radii???
Calibre???
Amount of lead able to be thrown out???

I dont know enough about bombers to give solid opinion, but I would say the -17 cause of the Ball Turrent...

Put that in your pipe and smoke it...


----------



## Erich (Aug 3, 2004)

to your first question either the B-17 or B-24. Most probably the B-17 since it could take more punishment and had a firm belly turret installed. the cine films I have show B-24's being torn apart from the rear while B-17's seemed to disintegrate slower. yeah I know that sounds gross but it's the truth, although I hae some ugly stuff of B-17's having wings/engines rip away from the fuselage.....

back on topic, I think through my many personal interviews of German day pilots defending the Reich that all would say that attacking a bomber box (pulk) from any anagle was a terrible and scarey adventure but it had to be done to bring as many of the Viermots down, and one less bomber meant less bombs on the homeland. passing through and diving through a heavy and tight B-17/B-24 formation was quite lethal especially if you were part of a very small formation of fighters with all .50's aimed at you or so it seemed to the German vets.....


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 3, 2004)

Stats I just found...

The 8th AF incurred lots of losses during the Second World War. The first official mission flown by the 8th Air Force was four A-26 Havocs (borrowed from the British) to an airfield in Holland (in coordination with other British Raids) on July 4th 1942. Three of the four aircraft were shot down. Two by flak and one by a FW-190 over the channel. They went in low and unescorted to surprise the Germans. Sort of worked. One got shot down over the field, one shot down as coming into the field and as mentioned the third as it was trying to get back to England. It was a portent of things to come.

Outside the American Air Museum at Duxford they have glass plates etched with plane symbols with 1 plane equaling 10 aircraft lost. They are 10 feet high and 6 feet wide if I remember and the wall is around 150 feet long. It is set along the entranceway to the museum at Duxford.

These statistics came from the 398th BG newsletter:

Bomb Group/ Station/ Bomber Type/ Missions Flown/ *Losses *
34th Mendelsham B-17 170 * 34 *
44 Shipdham B-24 343 *153 *
91 Bassingbourn B-17 340 *197 *
92 Podington B-17 308 *154 *
93 Hardwick B-24 396 *100 *
94 Bury St. Edmonds B-17 324 *153 *
95 Horham B-17 320 *157 *
96 Snetterton Heath B-17 321 *189 *
100 Thorpe Abbots B-17 306 *177 *
303 Moleworth B-17 364 *165 *
305 Chelveston B-17 337 *154 *
306 Thurieigh B-17 342 *171 *
351 Polebrook B-17 311 *124 *
379 Kimbolton B-17 330 *141 *
381 Ridgewell B-17 296 *131 *
384 Grafton Underwood B-17 314 *159 *
385 Great Ashfield B-17 296 *129 *
388 Knettishall B-17 306 *142* 
389 Hethel B-24 321 *116* 
390 Framlingham B-17 300 *144* 
392 Wendling B-24 285 *127* 
398 Nuthampstead B-17 195 *58 *
401 Deenthrope B-17 256 *95 *
445 Tibenham B-24 282 *95 *
446 Bungay B-24 273 *58 *
447 Rattlesden B-17 257 *97* 
448 Seething B-24 262 *101 *
452 Deopham Green B-17 250 *110 *
453 Old Buckenham B-24 259 *58 *
457 Glatton B-17 237 *83 *
458 Horsham St. Faith B-24 240 *47 *
466 Attlebridge B-24 232 *47 *
467 Rackheath B-24 212 *29* 
486 Sudbury B-17 188 *33 *
487 Lavenham B-17 185 *48 *
489 Halesworth B-24 106 *29 *
490 Eye B-17 158 *40 *
491 Metfield B-24 187 *47 *
492 North Pickenham B-24 64 *12 *
493 Deebach B-17 158 *41 *

Other losses occurred too. Collisions, training accidents and so on. The table below summarizes all losses:

Aircraft Type Number Lost 
B-17 4,754 
B-24 2,112 
P-47 1,043 
P-38 451 
P-51 2,201 
Total 10,561 

Thats alot of warm bodies... Dead...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 4, 2004)

I'm not speciffically sure which bomber the Germans feared more, but the guns on the B-24 were slightly more accurate, especially the tail guns. Th B-24's tailturret over a consierable greater field of fire and the more rigid mounting meant to more accurate shooting.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)

HMmmmmmm...

Another interesting question is which Gun Position got the most action???

I am under the assumption more fighters attacked from the 6 oclock posistion, or from above...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 4, 2004)

That's been the case on the flight sims I've played. Alot of the German pilots preferred the safer head-on attack but it wasn't always worth the time it took to set uo.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)

I would think that fighters want to fly above and from the sun, and use dive speed to come in fast... That would mean that a topside gunner would see alot of action...

Is there a statistic somewhere stating which crewman got injured or killed the most??? Stories that uve read???

Do u see a pattern???


----------



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

generally the tail gunner was the most likely to be hit, but i think the tactics were to sweep acroos the rear of the bombers......................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)

Ive seen both kinds of attack... High sweeping attacks, and tail on...

I would think that a slower tail end approach would more likely force the fighter damage, as opposed to a high G fast diving attack...


----------



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

but remeber that after the war someone somehow managed to work out that only 1 in every 6000 rounds fired from defensive posistions on american bombers in the ETO actually found their target.....................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)

This i can believe... You had a better chance of gettin syphilis from a sheep than shoot down an attacking fighter....


----------



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

teir main role was to deter the attackers, i mean, would you rather go for a bomber that will fire at you, or one that wont..................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)

A wall of lead is a great deterrent to any fighter pilot....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 4, 2004)

I wouldn't hold to that sheep-syphilis comment though. The claims of enemy fighters shot down by American bombers may have been exaggerated, but they were considerable. I think the variety of weapons the Luftwaffe tried (such as 210mm rockets, large caliber cannons, etc.) illustrate how effective the combat boxes were.


----------



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

but don't you think that carrying 1.5 tons of ammo on the average mission is a bit extreme when you're carrying 6000lbs or less of bombs??


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 5, 2004)

LOL good point.....

And the sheep/syphllis comment was a joke LG...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 6, 2004)

Not necessarily when that 1.5 tons of ammo allows you to bomb in daylight producing greater accuracy.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 6, 2004)

Ive been reading alot about German pilots recently.. And a surprisingly high number of Aces went down to the gunners on some of them bombers... I was surprised.... Guys with 80 kills.... and more...


----------



## plan_D (Aug 6, 2004)

Les, LG can't get jokes don't bother with them.  

Well it's all luck if you get hit by a bomber or not, so I'm not surprised.


----------



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

> Not necessarily when that 1.5 tons of ammo allows you to bomb in daylight producing greater accuracy.



but they still needed fighter escort..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 6, 2004)

Not saying they didn't. But they did considerably better than British or German attempts at flying daylight raids.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

British didn't have fighter escort during the early daylight raids. And the German bombers were much lighter than American bombers so they were never going to be successful.


----------



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

> Not saying they didn't. But they did considerably better than British or German attempts at flying daylight raids.



the B-17 was designed as a daylight bomber, and you're right, it was one of the best daylight bombers of the war, the lancaster and halifax were designed as night bombers, as such they didn't need to be so overloaded with guns that there was no room left for bombs......................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

As for the German bombers, they were tactical close support bombers. Not suited for strategic bombing campaigns.


----------



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

and ask yourself, would the B-17 have been as good as the lancaster or halibag at night, i doubt it....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

Waste of time, it had a stupidily small bomb load. You'd never see a B-17 carrying a 13,200 lbs bomb.


----------



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

or a 22,000lb grand slam for that matter.......................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

Yes. I was reading about the Tirpitz as I wrote that so I was talking about the Tall Boy.


----------



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

but the tall boy was 12,000lbs, not 13,???lbs (i can't remeber exactily what you said)..................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

I don't actually know, but what I was reading said 13,200 lbs TallBoy. And as that figure was in my head, I decided to use it. I don't really care about how the Tirpitz was ended, I'm actually reading mostly about all the Navies. And a little thing about the Italian Aircraft Carriers.


----------



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

little's the right word..................

and the tall boy weighed 12,000lbs, i don't know where they got 13,200lbs.........................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

So was it 32 Lancasters and 3 hits that capsized the Tirpitz?


----------



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

well there were to raids (i'm doing this from memory so there will proberly be mistakes) and it the first raid launched from russia, one hit from a 2,000lb bomb, the damage this caused forced the germans to move the tirpitz to within range of a raid launched from britain, in the second raid there were two hits from tall boys, forcing it to capsize.................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

It says three, here.


----------



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

but it also says the bomb weighed 13,200lbs.....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

That's true, but how many sources of yours say 2?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 7, 2004)

I believe there were three raids launched against the Tirpitz but one was hendered by the German smoke screen if I remember right. 

Bomb weights are often rounded (for example the true weight of a 500lb bomb is something like 505lbs). Maybe that was the case with the Tallboy - but that's just a possibility.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 8, 2004)

I read there were several raids on the Tirpitz, but the last one that capsized it said there were three TallBoys that hit it.


----------



## toffi (Aug 8, 2004)

15th September 1944 - first air raid on Tirpitz using Tallboys (16 Lancasters with them and 11 with standard bomb load) - only one bomb exploded near the ship. Huge blast and wave caused by explosion broke away a big part of upper deck and damaged ship's side.
29th October 1944 - one Tallboy (out of 32 used) exploded near Tirpitz damaging ship's side.
12th November 1944 - third and last air raid with Tallboys. 32 Lancasters (29 with Tallboys) achieved two direct hits and one almost direct (just by the Tirpitz), which ripped up ship's hull. Tirpitz in a very short period of time turned turtle. 800 of total 1204 seamen died. 

Source: "Battleships of Second World War" by Cezary Szoszkiewicz


----------



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

so in a way we were both right........................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 8, 2004)

Yes, I'm good with that outcome. 8)


----------



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

of course i was more right than you.....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 8, 2004)

I fail to see how, as I stated 3 bombs dropped when you said 2. Since 2 actually hit though, you were nearly right. While I was completely right.


----------



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

> well there were to raids (i'm doing this from memory so there will proberly be mistakes) and it the first raid launched from russia, one hit from a 2,000lb bomb, the damage this caused forced the germans to move the tirpitz to within range of a raid launched from britain, in the second raid there were two hits from tall boys, forcing it to capsize.................



if you read that you'll find i do meantion hits from three bombs................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 10, 2004)

You stated in two different raids, when I was talking about the final raid when the Tirpitz actually sank.


----------



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

which constituted of 2 tallboys.................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 10, 2004)

No, two tallboys that hit. And one was a near miss.


----------



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

that was a different raid....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

So if you were talking about one raid, and I was talking about another. Then we were both right, and you were no more right than I. 8)


----------



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

but we were talking about the same raid.................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

I was ORIGINALLY talking about the raid that sunk the Tirpitz. Which had three in it.


----------



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

ok i think we need to go back and figure out where we went wrong.................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

I don't know, it got muddled up somewhere.


----------



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

yeah and since then it's just been us two going on for ages..................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

At least it was about World War 2. And in fact about aviation.


----------



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

and huge bombs................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

And sinking big lumps of metal.


----------



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

and not just metal, and that's what makes it interesting.................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

And not just any metal, German metal.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 11, 2004)

Actually, it could have come from anywhere in the Reich...


(Unless, of course, the Tirpitz was built before 1938...)
[For those who don't know, the Third Reich by January 1, 1939 {to be blunt and innacurate; I don't know when Czechosloazakia was annexed or when the _Annschluss_ occured other than in the year Nineteen-Hundred, Thirty-Eight, A.D.} already consisted of Germany, Austria, and Czechoslovakia.... What I'm getting at is that the metal itself might not have been German...]



Just to make things more complicated...


----------



## plan_D (Aug 12, 2004)

I can't fully remember but I think Czechoslovakia was taken in October 1938. Austria was March 1938. Even with those two countries it's most likely that Tirpitz was German steel, since steel from the Rhine-Ruhr Valley is/was some of the best steel in the world.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 12, 2004)

Most likely...


----------



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

why are we having a debate about which steel was used to make the tirpitz.......................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 12, 2004)

Because it gives us a reason to post.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 12, 2004)

Wow, I didn't even notice I hit 800...


----------



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

wow, i didn't even know i'd broken 4000.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 20, 2004)

ok, 1200 posts behind, i have my target.....


----------



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

and you're not allowed to just spam your way there, i've done barely any spamming since you've gon.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

youve done a fair bit though, ive been following your progress...


----------



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

not that much................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

just enough though


----------



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

not enought to warrant you making 1,200 spamming posts.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

but im me and i shall use my own tried and tested techniques


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

well, seen as i aint been around for a while, i feel obliged to update me list...

1. P-38J
2. Bf-109G
3. Fw-190D-9
4. P.108A
5. IL-2 Type 3m

On reflection, it aint really changed that much


----------



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

1) Avro 683 Lancaster Mk.I
2) De Haviland DH.98 Mosquito FB.VI
3) Glostor Meteor F.III
4) Fairey Swordfish Mk.I
5) Supermarine Spitfire Mk.IX

i don't think the first 3 have ever changed but this is the first time i've included the stringbag and it's leapfrogged the spit..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2004)

1) Fw-190D-9
2) P-51D-5-NA
3) Ju-87G-1
4) F4U-4
5) P-38J


----------



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

very few of the planes in your list are included in other lists..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

in whos list?


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2004)

I could care less about anyone elses list... Those are MY favorite 5 planes...


----------



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

i didn't say it was a bad thing, i was just pointing out it's a very unique list.................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2004)

Well.. Im a unique individual... And a Yankee...


----------



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

which isn't that strange on this site...............


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2004)

AHhhh, but some unique individuals take it to a new level.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

im a unique individual but thats not necessarily a good thing


----------



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

it's not a good thing in your case....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

it is if youre my gf...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 21, 2004)

Your human girlfriend or your imaginary Ferrari 275?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 22, 2004)

what do you think? actually dont answer that


----------



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

my money's on the car, i know what he's like...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 21, 2004)

can you read? i said DONT answer that


----------



## MichaelHenley (Sep 22, 2004)

Ooh. CC's getting scary!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 22, 2004)

i scare everyone...just be glad you cant see my face


----------



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

he's right you know................


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 22, 2004)

For some reason I dont think I'd be scared of him...


----------



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

you wait 'til you see his hair..................


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 22, 2004)

Talk is cheap.... Post a pic....


----------



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

i don't keep a pic of him on my computer, it's not like he's my girlfriend or anything................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 22, 2004)

There  (sorry, more veteran members may remember that)


----------



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

yes i remeber that................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 24, 2004)

i tried posting my pic but it was too big, ill do it later...


----------



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

that's a nice shot of a whirlwind..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 26, 2004)

isnt bad is it


----------



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

it was a pretty good fighter...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 26, 2004)

was it? I dont actually know much about the whirlwind, i thought it was heap of steaming s**t


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 26, 2004)

C.C. is closer in his estimation. Fuel load wasn't all that impressive and there was no fuel transfer system so if one engine was lost you had better be really close to base and have plenty of fuel left for your one good engine. Firepower was impressive but ammunition load was minimal. Worst of all, the Peregrine was a terrible engine leaving the Whirlwind with an underpowered and unreliable engine.


----------



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

really, my book said it was pretty good..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 26, 2004)

I was sure it was a crap plane...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 26, 2004)

The Brits only accepted two sqaudrons of them. Total production run was about 800 less than that of the Defiant if that tells you anything.


----------



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

that says allot really...............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2004)

I would have to say my 5 favorite planes of WW2 were the:
1. Me-109G
2. Fw-190D
3. P-52 Mustang
4. Me-262
5. Hawker Hurricane
The Me-109G just because I love the plane. It was built in such huge numbers. It had great performance and you have to admit it was a very attractive looking aircraft. And I choose the Hurricane over the Spitfire just because it was the savior of the Battle of Britain. I mean what a better way for the Hurricane to go out then with winning possibly the most decisive air battle of the european theatre.


----------



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

but the hurricane didn't "go out" after the BoB it gave vital service in north africa as a tank buster and the FBs were far better than the spit FBs....

but apart from that's it's a good list, if a little fighter biased.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 10, 2004)

And you put P-52 instead of P-51.

But I cant complain of your list, very sensible choices, I think I should repost mine.

1. Piaggio P.108A
2. Lockheed P-38L Lightning
3. Hawker Hurricane
4. Fiat G.55
5. Focke-Wulf FW-190D

The P.108 because it was just such a damn interesting plane, made in 1941 and it had more defensive armament than any other bomber of the war apart from the B-29; and Mussolini's son was also killed in one. Also, with the A version having a 102mm cannon for attacking shipping, it has the 2nd biggest gun ever fitted to any plane ever.
The P-38 because it was probably the best all-round plane of the war, The Hurricane because of DerAdlerIstGelandet's reason, the Fiat G.55 because it was probably the best Italian fighter of the war and the 190D because it just looked so damn good.


----------



## JCS (Nov 10, 2004)

I'm too lazy to look back to see if I already posted mine, so I'll just post 'em again..

1) Bf109E and G
2) Nakajima Ki-27
3)P-47
4)B-25
5)TA152


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 10, 2004)

Ki-27, was that the Kate?

I dont know much about Jap planes....I really need some educationg on them


----------



## JCS (Nov 10, 2004)

Close, The Ki-27 was the Nate. The Kate was the Nakajima B5N.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 10, 2004)

Ah ok, cheers  I always liked the Ki-61


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2004)

Thanks for the correction on the P-52 Mustang. LOL! Dont know why I put that instead of P-51. 2 other planes that I really are the Me-264 or the so called "Amerika Bomber" which first flew in 1942 but never made operational status and I believe one was captured by the French towards the end of war. I think it just and interessting aircraft. The other being the Arado Ar-234, the first true Jet powered bomber. It was such a great looking aircraft and I can only imagine what it was like to fly.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 11, 2004)

The Me-264 would have been a truely amazing aircraft, whereas the Blitz WAS a truely amazing aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2004)

The Ar-234 was quite an accomplishment. Do you know of any attempts by the Germans to build a heavy bomber powered by jet engines?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 11, 2004)

Ho.XVIII, think GINORMOUS Go-229...


Never got off the boards, although it was supposed to carry an atomic bomb to New York...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 11, 2004)

The Junkers Ju-287


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2004)

Yeah I have picture of this aircraft and information and specifications of the Ju-287, but I dont think it was a heavy bomber in the same catagory as lets say a B-17 or B-29. I might be wrong though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2004)

Actually the Gotha Ho-229 you are refering to was to be a fighter. It could only carry about 1000kg of bombs in the fighter/bomber configuration. And several of them were built and flown on test flights. There is an exellent example of it at the Smithsonian Institute. If you go to the X-planes forum here, I have posted several pictures of it and I believe I posted the specifics of it. It was a truely remarkable aircraft. Some people refer to it as the Go-229 but was actually the design of Walter and Reiner Horon so it was given the designation Gotha Ho-229. Here I will post the specifics of it again.
Gothaer Waggonfabrik AG. to Horten design (see note below)
Type: Single seat fighter/bomber

Engines:
Two Junkers Jumo 004B turbojets
Thrust: 1,980lb (900kg)

Dimensions:
Span 16.75m
Length 7.47m
Height 2.80m

Weights:
Empty: 10,140lbs (4600kg)
Max. loaded: 19,840lb (9000kg)

Speed:
607mph (977km/h)
Ceiling:
52,500ft (16,000m)

Range:
1,970 miles (3170km) at 393mph (635km/h) with two drop tanks

Armaments: Planned
Four Mk 103 or Mk 108 cannon
Plus
Two 1,000kg bombs



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments:
First flown in January 1945, the Ho 229 was the innovative design of Walter and Reimar Horten, both former Luftwaffe officers. The test programme showed the 229 to have outstanding speed and handling characteristics but developement was halted when US troops overran the research facility. Some dispute has arisen over whether the 229 should be classified as the Go 229 or Ho 229. Since Gothar was supposed to build 229 and didn't really design it, I'm arbitrarily going with the Ho 229 designation in honor of the designers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2004)

Excuse me I meant Horton not Horan.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 11, 2004)

It's fine...


I know the Go-229/Ho.IX was a Fighter-Bomber, what I meant was that the Ho.XVIII could be thought of as a huge version of the Go-229...


http://www.luft46.com/horten/ho18b.html


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2004)

Oh I am sorry, I misunderstood your post. Thats awesome, do you know of anyplace I can get info on the that aircraft?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 11, 2004)

Link is above...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 11, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah I have picture of this aircraft and information and specifications of the Ju-287, but I dont think it was a heavy bomber in the same catagory as lets say a B-17 or B-29. I might be wrong though.



No it wasnt, i just looked and it wasnt actually that much more than the Ar-234.


I dont think the plane GrG was referring to was the Go-229; he was saying there was an enlarged version of it that was a long-range heavy bomber.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2004)

cool thanks alot, so are you originally from germany or is your screen name just in reference to the type of aircraft germnay was designing?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 12, 2004)

Probably the latter, he's actually a Dutch-Brazilian who lives in America.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2004)

Oh thats cool. And you are from England correct?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 12, 2004)

Yup. 8)


----------



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

and before you say anything, i'm not from England, i'm from Cornwall


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 12, 2004)

Newsflash, Cornwal IS IN England.

Anyway, isnt it a bit late for you?


----------



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

yes, very much so..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 12, 2004)

You best get off to bed then before all the Yanks come on, its a rowdy place then


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 12, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> Probably the latter, he's actually a Dutch-Brazilian who lives in America.




More Portugese than Dutch, actually...



Mostly I just say Brasilian...


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 12, 2004)

My (Revisited) List....

1) Fw-190D-9 
2) Ta-152H 
3) Ju-87G-1 
4) Fw-190A8/R2
5) P-51D-5-NA


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

Going all the way back Back in May, this is what the following members thought....

The Lanc said this first......
1) Avro Lancaster (obviously) 
2) DH Mosquito 
3) Glostor Meteor 
4) B-29 
5) Hawker Hurricane

Then this::::::::::
1) Avro 683 Lancaster 
2) DH Mosquito 
3) Hawker Hurricane 
4) Glostor Meteor 
5) FW-190A

AND THEN THIS!!!!!!
1) Avro 683 Lancaster 
2) De Havilland DH.98 Mosquito 
3) Glostor Meteor F.3 
4) Hawker Hurricane Mk.II 
5) B-29

And once again::::::
1) Avro 683 Lancaster Mk.I/III 
2) De Havilland DH.98 Mosquito FB.VI 
3) Glostor Meteor F.III 
4) Supermarine Spitfire Mk.V (not to sure though) 
5) Heinkel He-111H-20

CC said this first:
1. Piaggio P-108 
2. Hawker Hurricane 
3. Messerschmtt Bf-109 
4. Heinkel He-177 
5. Ilyushin IL-2 

THen changed to this:::::::::
1. Piaggio P.108 
2. Hawker Hurricane 
3. Messerschmitt BF-109 
4. Fiat CR.42 
5. Vickers Windsor 

THEN TO THIS!!!!
1. Piaggio P.108 
2. Messerschmitt Bf-109 
3. Short Stirling 
4. Hawker Hurricane 
5. Short Sunderland

AND THEn??????
1. Messerschmit Bf-109 
2. Piaggio P.108 
3. Hawker Hurricane 
4. Breda 88 
5. Lockheed P-38 Lightning

Then he said the following:
ive always loved the 109, it probably wont be there for long though 
ill probably get bored of the 109 sooner or later 

Then changed again to:::::::::
1. P.108 
2. Bf-109 
3. MC. 205 
4. P-38 
5. P-47 

And then once again::::::
1. Hawker Hurricane 
2. Piaggio P.108 
3. Lockheed P-38 Lightning 
4. Messerschmit Bf-109 
5. Bell P-39 Airacobra 

UUGGGGGGHHHHHH... no more on CC.. I cant handle anymore....
His last list is:::
1. Piaggio P.108A 
2. Lockheed P-38L Lightning 
3. Hawker Hurricane 
4. Fiat G.55 
5. Focke-Wulf FW-190D 


bronzewhaler said this first:
1) DH Mosquito 
2) A6M 'Zero' 
3) Gloster Gladiator 
4) Grumman wildcat 
5) Vickers Wellington

Then switched to this............
1) Gloster Gladiator 
2) DH Mosquito 
3) A6M 'Zero' 
4) Grumman Wildcat 
5) Vickers Wellington

kiwimac said:
FW 190 (all marques) 
Me-109 (all marques) 
Hawker Hurricane 
Heinkel He-219 
Heinkel He-280 

nutter said:
Spitfire 
Lancaster 
hurricane 
109 
mustang

HotSpace said:
Spitfire XIV 
Spitfire XVIII 
Spitfire F.24 
Sopwith Camel 
My best friends Dog 

jj1982 said:
Hawker hurricane 
gloster gladiator 
b-17 fort 
de havilland mosquito 
the old favorite the spitfire mkXVI 

Andrew said:
Spitfire all Marks 
Mosquito all Marks 
Lancaster all Marks 
Mustang Merlin Engine 
Hurricane all marks 

aussie jim said:
Me109 through to the BF series ..always been my favourite the 109s. 
FW 190 d9 
Hurricane 
Tempest/Sea Fury 
Mosquito 

Hugh Janus said:
1. Avro Anson 
2. Messerschmitt me-410 
3. yak-3 
4. fairey Gannet 
5. junkers ju-86 

PlanD said this first:
1. Spitfire Mk. XIV 
2. P-38 Lightning 
3. C-47 Skytrain 'Dakota' 
4. FW-190 
5. Hurricane IV

Then this::::::::
1. Hurricane Mk. IV 
2. Li-2 
3. Spitfire Mk XIV 
4. B-24 
5. Me 262

AND THEN THIS::::::::::
1) Spitfire Mk XIV 
2) DH Mosquito 
3) B-24 
4) Me-262 'Swallow' 
5) FW-190 

And then once a freakin again:::::::::
1)Spitfire Mk.XIV 
2)Mosquito (Any variant) 
3)Hurricane IV 
4)Fw-190A-8/R8 
5)Mustang III 

Brad said first:
1.LANCASTER 
2.METEOR 
3.ME262 
4.MOSCITO 
5.SPITFIRE

Then said::::::::
1 meteor 
2 lanc 
3 spit 
4 262 
5 zero


TimT1 said:
1) F-4U Corsair 
2) P-38 Lightning 
3) P-51 Mustang 
4) F-4F Wildcat 
5) P-47 Thunderbolt

LG said:
1) P-38 Lightning 
2) Spitfire 
3) Fw-190 
4) Ki-84 Frank 
5) La-7

Maestro said:
1. Spitfire Mk. IX 
2. Spitfire Mk. XIV 
3. Hurricane (Any Mark.) 
4. Mustang III 
5. Tempest V

Lud13 said:
1. Bf 109G-2 
2. Bf 109 all other types 
3. FW 190D-9 
4. Ta 152H 
5.Me 110G-4 Nightfighter

HotSpace said:
1. Spit XIV. 
2. P-51. 
3. Lancaster. 
4. B-17. 
5 Me 262.

Dan said:
1:F4U-1D 
2:Spitfire 
3-P-38 
4-P-51 
5:B-17 

deadparrot said:
1. Mossie 
2. Ju87 
3. Zero 
4. Lanc 
5. Spitfire/Hurricane, can never decide 

Toffi said:
1) Supermarine Spitfire Mk. V 
2) Messerschmitt Bf 109E-7 
3) PZL P.11c 
4) Bristol Blenheim Mk.IV 
5) Vickers Wellington

Stuka-99 said:
1-Ju87 
2-Mossie 
3-Spitfire 
4-Yak-9 
5-Me262

DerADler said:
1. Me-109G 
2. Fw-190D 
3. P-51 Mustang 
4. Me-262 
5. Hawker Hurricane 

JCS said:
1) Bf109E and G 
2) Nakajima Ki-27 
3)P-47 
4)B-25 
5)TA152 

Whew!!!!!!!! That took forever......... All 30 somethin pages........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

Wow les, credit to you for being so bored you do something like that! Even _I_ dont get that bored 



> Hugh Janus said:
> 1. Avro Anson
> 2. Messerschmitt me-410
> 3. yak-3
> ...



That user never existed, It was actually me playing a dirty trick...


And Im so glad I update it so much, it make your life hell


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

Well, it wasnt so much that I was bored, but once I started out, I realized how big of a post it would be, but had to finish it up... Had I known it woulda taken so long I wouldnt have done it....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

Ah


----------



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

1) Avro 683 Lancaster B.I
2) De Haviland DH.98 Mosquito FB.VI
3) Glostor Meteor F.III
4) Fairey Swordfish Mk.II
5) Supermarine Spitfire Mk.II or Mk.V


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

1) Piaggio P.108A
2) Lockheed P-38L Lightning
3) Macchi MC.205V
4) Focke Wulf FW-190D
5) Hawker Tempest Mk. V


----------



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

wow never pictured you going for the tempest.............


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

With CC's list, absolutly NOTHING surprises me...... That sucker flip flops his Top 5 more than a short order cook at a pancake house.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

The top 2 always stay the same, and theres usually a plane thats there or there abouts...I think ill change it again:

1. Piaggio P.108A
2. Lockheed P-38L Lightning
3. Focke-Wulf FW-190D
4. Messerschmitt Bf-109K
5. Supermarine Spitfire Mk. XXII

Damn, its radically changed within 41 mins...Im strange


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

I think ur more confused than strange.... Seeing how ur young and just getting into WWII planes in the last 8 months or so, I can sorta understand,,,,, The top 2 were not always the same.. U have flipped them a couple times as well.....

I think u need to reexamine your list and make it:

TOP 5 WWII FIGHTERS EVER...

Make a solid list of ur alltime favs and leave it that way..... The -190D has been my favorite since childhood.... Changing ur list all thime just proves that ur confused and un-informed..... 

Just pick ur alltime favs and leave it at that..... It doesnt have to be ur favs right now, but alltime...... Right now since weve been talkin about tank killers, those are my favs RIGHT NOW....... Alltime it is the Dora....

You try and do the same and see what u come up with.... ALL TIME TOP 5


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

I pass my previous list on as that.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

CC's previous list:::::::

1) Piaggio P.108A 
2) Lockheed P-38L Lightning 
3) Macchi MC.205V 
4) Focke Wulf FW-190D 
5) Hawker Tempest Mk. V


----------



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

he wont want the tempest there for long i don't think........

and the lanc and mossie have always been my top two, the meteor's always been either 3rd or 4th, but the last two have always been up for grabs, almost always one of those spaces is filled with either the spit or hurricane, i've settled on the spit now though..................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2004)

There are just too many planes that I like from all of the sides in the war. The all had some spectacular aircraft. But I still think the Me-109 is the greatest. It may have been outclassed by many towards teh end of the war but she was awesome! I will never change that as my favorite but the other 4 could change as I learn more about them or well I guess just change my mind.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> CC's previous list:::::::
> 
> 1) Piaggio P.108A
> 2) Lockheed P-38L Lightning
> ...



I thought my previous list was the one with the Spit in it


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

Thats the last one u typed it CC.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> The top 2 always stay the same, and theres usually a plane thats there or there abouts...I think ill change it again:
> 
> 1. Piaggio P.108A
> 2. Lockheed P-38L Lightning
> ...



No that was definatley the last one I typed, take a look. The bottom of the previous page.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

OK I believe u....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

Good.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 13, 2004)

1. Supermarine Spitfire (All Marks).
2. North American P-51D Mustang.
3. Mitsubishi A62M Zero.
4. Messerscmitt Bf-109G.
5. Fokker Angelis Helicopter.

Not sure whether I am allowed the 5th as it is an early helicopter that was being used during the 2nd WW2 as a troop carrier. It was also used to carry weapons and therefore rates as a combat aircraft. Topic is unclear whether it is all meant to be fighters or tank killers so I added in the Fokker Angelis Helicopter because I thought it was cool. If so the last one is the German Jet the Me-262A-1.


----------



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

as long as it was used by an airforce, naval air arm or army air command in a state of war with any axis or allied nation i think it can be counted, doesn't have to be a fighter or tank-buster either, it can be any type of plane...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 14, 2004)

Indeed it can.


----------



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

although i don't believe anyone's gone for the storch yet.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 17, 2004)

Or the Avia B.534


----------



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

has anyone gone for anything French??


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 19, 2004)

What did you have in mind?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 19, 2004)

Potez 341


----------



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

well no i was just asking if anyone has ever gone for a french plane...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Les' list should answer that question for you...


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

Huh??????


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

lanc wants to know if anyone has ever included a french plane in their top 5; so I said a quick glance at the list you made should answer the query...


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

Oh.... I thought u meant my personal listing....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Oh right sorry...my bad


----------



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

> a quick glance



trust me, you can't have a "quick glance" at a list like that...................


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

Certainly not.. It took me forever to put that list together....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Surely you would still be compiling it now if it was taking you forever...


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

Forever in a past tense.. It SEEMED like it took forever....

Better use of the English language????


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Yeah, surely a simple "ages" or "a bloody long time" would suffice though


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

We dont use the word "Bloody" except in terms as such as:

"Ill have a BLOODY Mary"
"Damn that severed head sure is BLOODY"
"Carlos took his BLOODY Stump and waved it in the air"


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Shame, its very versatile


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

We use the work Fuck in place of ur Bloody......

That FUCCKIN Bono is such a retard.....
That BLOODY Bono is such a retard.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Bono aint a retard...I like Bono


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

I used that as an example.... Some of his views in the past have not been accepted positivley here in the states...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

What kinda views we talking about here?


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

Political mainly....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Example?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 20, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> We dont use the word "Bloody" except in terms as such as:
> 
> "Ill have a BLOODY Mary"
> "Damn that severed head sure is BLOODY"
> "Carlos took his BLOODY Stump and waved it in the air"



We sometimes use the word "bloody", but we're a wishy-washy people anyway.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)




----------



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

ok what do you guys think of sting, CC thinks he can't sing but i like his, and the police's, music..................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

Sting is one of the greatest. Not really my kind of music. If you want to talk music how about Metallica, Iron Maiden, Pantera, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, stuff like that.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 22, 2004)

Sting cant sing.

Wahey Deep Purple and Black Sabbath! Thats more like it!  As is Motorhead, Thin Lizzie and Led Zeppelin 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

All great bands. Metallica by far the best though seen them 6 times since 1988 including last december before I got shipped off to Iraq. In fact they are the band that changed my life in about an hour I am getting the Metallica Scary Guy from Binge and Purge tattooed by my buddy on my arm.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 22, 2004)

I dont really remember any Metallica songs...I would probably recognise the song if I heard them though 8)


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 22, 2004)

Old Metallica rules and still makes me warm and fuzzy when I hear those older songs..... Sanitarium, Escape, Call of the Kutulu, Justice for All, Master of Puppets ect ect...

But the newer Metallica just really dont do it for me.... I like the new song Monster, but thats about it... Anything from the Black Album and later I really dont get into... THere were a couple of good songs on the Black, but after that I lost interest....

My favorite bands are Clutch, Primus, Helmet, Soundgarden, Tool, Nirvana......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 22, 2004)

The Primus songs you uploaded in the music thread are amazing, you really got me hooked on 'em...any chance of more?


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 25, 2004)

Since I am assuming this is just WW2 I would go.

1. Spitfire.
2. Mustang.
3. B-36 Peacemaker.
4. Mosquito.
5. Horton Flying Wing. (All flew but 5 never made it to front line service).


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

B-36 doesnt count - wasnt WW2 mate 8)


----------



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

it was designed in WWII but it still doesn't count...................


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 28, 2004)

I./JG53_lud13 said:


> Still I say Bf 109G-2 is the BEST Bf 109 ...than comes the K4



Naw, the Bf 109F-2 high altitude version was the best 109. 1 x MG151/15 with 200 rouds, 2 x MG17 with 1000 rpg, and NO2 injection (like the K).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



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

wow for people with no idea about planes (CC included) that would make absolutely no sence.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Ironic, that does actually make sense to me...


----------



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




----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2004)

No seriously it does...

Things have moved on lanc since the days of old...


----------



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

if you say so................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 30, 2004)

I do say so - Im no longer the naive person I used to be, I consider myself fairly knowledgeable now 8)


----------



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

and you are, i like the fact that it was me that got you into it, the fact i've taken you under my wing..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 1, 2004)

And the fact im now flying out from under it...


----------



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

well that two, although we know have alot to learn from each other, gone are the days when my word was God...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 3, 2004)

Indeed 

My siggy suits us 2 perfectly, you in the B-17, being dominant 
And me flying out under the wing In my amazing Me-410


----------



## JCS (Dec 4, 2004)

> 1) Bf109E and G
> 2) Nakajima Ki-27
> 3)P-47
> 4)B-25
> 5)TA152



I'm going to switch mine around, since I've got 2 new favorites...

1) Bf109E,G
2) Nakajima Ki-27
3) FW190D-9
4) Hurricane Mk.IIB
5) TA152H-1


----------



## Cheap Labour (Dec 4, 2004)

1. Spitfire, all early Marks (Like IX and prior. Anything after IX was an eyesore.)
2. Wildcat
3. Lancaster
4. B-17 F series. (The nose turret and Cheyenne rear turret on the G series ruins it.)
5. I-153 (Biplanes have two wings. Does that make it twice as fast? )


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2004)

Nice choices CL - How comes the Wildcat instead of the Hellcat though?
Heres yet another revised list of mine...

1. P.108A
2. P-38L
3. Fw-190D-9
4. Savoia-Marchetti SM.79
5. Reggiane Re-2005


----------



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

a very unusual list for you.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2004)

I just changed it a bit...


----------



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

make up your mind..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2004)

I have 8)

You should see my SM.79 model, looking amazing with the camo on it 8)


----------



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

can't wait, we've still gotta do our little model comparisions aint we...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2004)

Yep 8)

You'll have to come round after christmas or something 8)

The SM.79 is easily best so far, much better than my Dora, which does look slightly better with the decals applied...

Talk to me on MSN and ill show you if you like.


----------



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

show me what exactily


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2004)

My 190 and SM79


----------



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

that's ok then..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2004)

Indeed.


----------



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

we'll have to make a list on what we'll compare them on lol........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2004)

Yup, I think quality of build, paint scheme, errrrrrrrrrrm, errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrm


----------



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

Ego of maker............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2004)

Choice of plane...


----------



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

time to build (longer is better, but that's always been the case 8))


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2004)

Well the thing is I build my plane in a couple of days, leave it for a month or 2 and then paint it in a couple of days...

It should the the ratio of how good it looks and how quick it is, if it looks amazing but only took a short time it should win...


----------



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

no it shouldn't, i say we get an indipendant jury to decide...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2004)

Consisting of who...


----------



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

random people off the street..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2004)

"You, old man, I dont know who the hell you are but which model looks better - My Stuka or the lancs Hurricane"

Thats gonna get 2 respones:
Either:

"Stukas, where? Ill blow their sorry little Nazi bottoms out the sky, what what?"

or...

"Ah, now that takes me back to the summer of 1940, I was a handsome looking lad..." *7 hours later* "...and thats how Fido saved me from imminent doom"


----------



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




----------



## Stallion_51 (Dec 16, 2004)

1. P-51D Mustang
2. F4U Corsair
3. A6M5 Zero
4. P-40 Warhawk
5. P-47 Thunderbolt..the "Jug"


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 16, 2004)

No bias at all in your list then


----------



## Stallion_51 (Dec 16, 2004)

nope...no bias at all.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 16, 2004)

I can see why you like those planes though. I love the P-40. 8)


----------



## Stallion_51 (Dec 16, 2004)

cheddar, yep, for what the P-40 was, it held its own. Can you imagine dogfighting with a Zero in that thing? I guess that's where you find out how good of a pilot you are.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 16, 2004)

Yup 8) Could be worse though, could be a P-39...

Or the P-400 as they were known during Pearl Harbour, "A P-40 with a Zero on its tail"


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 16, 2004)

This is the list.

1. P-38
2. F-4U
3. Spitfire
4. fw-190
5. B-25

There are a few others even the P-47 that a lot of Germans credited with breaking the Luftwaffa.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 16, 2004)

Good list, Especially because the P-38 is at the top 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 16, 2004)

I agree. But of course I have no bias either . . .


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

You see people think my favourite plane is the P-38, but it isnt...


----------



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

yes but you often fail to mention the P.108 and you spend more time researching the P-38 than you do the P.108...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

Yup, because theres almst nothing to research about the P.108  I cant argue it as the best plane in anything other than best potentaial bomber.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 17, 2004)

Alright, here's a not-too-thought-out list...


(Out of WW2)

1. Me-262
2. Fw-190D-9
3. Bf-109*EDITED*F-4
4. Typhoon
5. Yak-9


No, no bias for me either...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 18, 2004)

There might be more to research on the P.108 if it had ever done anything . . .


----------



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

but it wasn't the best potential bomber............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

I think it was.

And hey, The P.108 killed Mussolinis son, you should be thankful it ridded the world of a possible future dictator.


----------



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

> I think it was.



suprise us...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

Well, the technology was similar to that of the B-29's, 4 years earlier. It had a decent payload, good firepower, Good ceiling and speed, excellent range and it was better than any other bomber the Axis had during that time period. Had Mussolini's son not been killed in one, production may well have continued and the plane may have been developed into a formidable bomber. The P.108 A with the 102mm cannon would have made an excellent ship buster and would have been helpful in Malta had the Germans not captured the only example. The P.108C was the Transport version, with a slightly larger fuselage for hauling goods. Most of the P.108's remaining after production were converted into Transports.

And although irrelevant, I think it was damn good looking too 8)


----------



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

what were the engines like, reliable?? powerfull??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

> The Piaggio P.108 B was the only heavy four-engine bomber to see service with the Regia Aeronautica during World War Two. Too few were built to play a significant role in the war, only 163 P.108 Bs having been built. The P.108 B was an all-metal cantilever low-wing monoplane with an retractable under-carriage, driven by four 1,350 hp Piaggio P.XII radial engines. The first prototype was finished in 10/39 and had a very advanced defensive armament for its day of two 7.7 mm machine waist guns, a 12.7 mm machine gun in the lower turret and a similar weapon in the nose turret, and two remotely-controlled twin gun turrets in outer engine nacelles. The first Allied bomber with a similar armament was the Boeing B 29, developed four years later. The bomb load of the Piaggio comprised of 7,700 lbs, all carried internally in the bomb bay.
> 
> The only unit of the Regia Aeronautica ever to fly the P.108 B was the 274th Long-Range Bombardment Group. This unit was formed in 5/41 around the first machines that came off the assembly lines. The training of the crews lasted far longer than anticipated and in 6/42 the 274th became operational. The most spectacular raids with the P. 108 B were flown in 10/42 when several night attacks against Gibraltar were undertaken from Sardinia. Several versions were derived from the P. 108 B: such as the P.108A, which had a 102 mm anti-shipping gun in the nose; the P.108C airliner and the P.108T transport. The latter two versions had a larger diameter fuselage for transporting passengers or freight. They were hardly used by the Regia Aeronautica, the main user being the German Luftwaffe. In 9/43, after the Italian armistice, the Luftwaffe had captured all fifteen P.108 Cs and P.108 Ts built. They were used at the Russian front, as part of Luftflotte 2, where they performed sterling duties, among others during the evacuation of the Crimea in 1944.



There we go, 1,350hp. Its hard to tell if they were reliable as it wasnt used to much...


----------



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

were they used on any other types??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

I dont think so...


----------



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

crew and crew compartments??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

Dunno, ill have to look..


----------



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

you better, all this kinda stuff has to be taken into account........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

Being Italian the crew compartments didnt matter, if they needed to squeeze them in then they were squeezed in


----------



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

how many crew were there??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

I said I dont know, ill look it up...


----------



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

escape??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

Ill look that up too...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 19, 2004)

1,350hp isn't all that impressive really. The B-17 and B-24 matched it, the Lanc had it beat, and the B-29 blew it outta the water, figuratively speaking.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 20, 2004)

This is an Italian engine in 1940 though, with the firsrt prototype being completed in 1939. It wasnt that bad really.


----------



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

found anything yet??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 20, 2004)

P.108 information is very hard to come by, it could be a while before I find anything.

Why are you so interested all of a sudden


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 20, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> P.108 information is very hard to come by, it could be a while before I find anything.
> 
> Why are you so interested all of a sudden



I don't know about anyone else but I can't reasearch every WWII plane it's nice to pick up the information though.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 20, 2004)

The P.108 is an interesting plane 8)


----------



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

i'm only interested because all of this will need to be known before you can make a claim like yours...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

Well what plane do you have to oppose it...


----------



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

damn i knew you'd say that, i even had a list somewhere!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)




----------



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

just give me time..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

Time is something we dont have...


----------



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

yes we do................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

No we dont, the average human being only has 600,000 hours to live...


----------



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

and i've wasted several with this argument............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

Yes


----------



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

mind you so have you so we're even................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

No were not, I would only have wasted it on milk and gingernuts


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 23, 2004)

CC, 600,000 hours equates to 68.493150 years old..... The average life expectancy is higher than that... 

Atleast I certainly Ill last longer than that.... I plan of fishing for sailfish around those years......


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

Average male lives to 76...in the civilised world.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 23, 2004)

TY for the confirmation......

The correct amount of hours for the average human life expectancy is 665,760 hours...

Damn CC, trying to jip us outta 65k hours.....


----------



## evangilder (Dec 23, 2004)

Yikes! I have already burned through about 383,000 hours! I better start taking better care of myself!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 23, 2004)

CC was deducting the 65K hours he spends spamming on this website.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 24, 2004)

LMFAO.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 24, 2004)

I got the information from one of Jeremy Clarksons comlumns, I wasnt that far off


----------



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

i think we'd notise if we'd lost 65,000 hours of our lives................


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 24, 2004)

plan_D said:


> Average male lives to 76...in the civilised world.



Assuming he dies of "natural causes".


----------



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

what like "falling" off a cliff??


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 24, 2004)

My point is that life expectancy figures like this usually exclude anything but death from accidental or violent causes. I think the average life expectancy for a black male in America is acutally something like 38 years, when counting all causes of death.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Dec 24, 2004)

No, not assuming you die of natural causes. It's not saying you'll live to 76, it's saying average life expectancy...taking into account those that die at 1, and those that die at 100.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 25, 2004)

plan_D said:


> No, not assuming you die of natural causes. It's not saying you'll live to 76, it's saying average life expectancy...taking into account those that die at 1, and those that die at 100.



You're sure of that? I can remember studying this stat in college almost 30 years ago, and it excluded violent death (and the male life expectancy was only about 70).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Dec 25, 2004)

I'm glad you stated 30 years ago. You do realise that 30 years is a long time, medical science has advanced a lot since 1974.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 25, 2004)

plan_D said:


> I'm glad you stated 30 years ago. You do realise that 30 years is a long time, medical science has advanced a lot since 1974.



Yes which is why the age has gotten higher. But still, I would bet that figure still excludes violent death.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 25, 2004)

I was making sure everyone knew that the 76 figure is correct for this day and age. And on that note of a 30 year gap, education practices have changed somewhat in the past 30 years - believe it or not. When I was forced to listen to a teacher babble on about life expectancy 2 years ago it included all deaths.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 25, 2004)

plan_D said:


> I was making sure everyone knew that the 76 figure is correct for this day and age. And on that note of a 30 year gap, education practices have changed somewhat in the past 30 years - believe it or not. When I was forced to listen to a teacher babble on about life expectancy 2 years ago it included all deaths.



Well, I'd re-check that. I was in an advanced economics class where we were studying life expectancy trends by region in the USA vs Europe. Figures excluded violent deaths and I doubt there would be that huge a difference if the current figures included violent deaths.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



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

i'm willing to bet they count all deaths................


----------



## plan_D (Dec 25, 2004)

Well, you re-check it then 'cos it saves me going back into school and asking if it does seeing as I only left one and a half years ago and you left, what? 30 years ago...


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 26, 2004)

plan_D said:


> Well, you re-check it then 'cos it saves me going back into school and asking if it does seeing as I only left one and a half years ago and you left, what? 30 years ago...



I've tried to find the details of how the LE is calculated on the web, but so far I've not found anything that is specific. However, from the overall impression, it appears you may be correct and all types of mortality may be included. Voilent death (ie: homocide) would hardly make a difference, as it accounts for less than 1% of deaths, so both ways of looking at the data probably yeild about the same results.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



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

oh boy D's gonna make you eat one huge slice of humble pie for that one..............


----------



## plan_D (Dec 26, 2004)

No I'm not. When you win arguments, you don't rub it in 'cos then you look like the prick.


----------



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

damn why can't the kid at table tennis learn that..............


----------



## plan_D (Dec 27, 2004)

Why don't you tell him that?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 28, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> damn why can't the kid at table tennis learn that..............



You get beat at ping pong? Awwwww poor you


----------



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

just the once, and i don't play ping pong, ping pong's for pussies, table tennis is a man's game...................


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 28, 2004)

I have to ask this: What's the difference? :-"


----------



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

ping pong is primarily an american game in which the aim is to achive a rally with your openent, the person to stop the rally looses, table tennis is a game in which you have to beat your oponent, i know they sound the same but they're different..................


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 28, 2004)

Gottcha!  8)


----------



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

and it's harder to play then it looks.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 28, 2004)

They aint different at all, table tennis is just a name given to it to make it sound more professional by the pussies that play it...


----------



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

how dare you, the people at the international table tennis federation wouldn't be very happy to hear you type that.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 28, 2004)

Yeah but the only people dull enough to take it up as a profession are the Japs and Far east people, but theyre so small anyway they dont see how it differs from normal tennis


----------



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

*shock*


----------



## Vahe Demirjian (Dec 11, 2019)

My 5 favorite WW2 planes, in my opinion:

1. B-17 Flying Fortress
2. Spitfire
3. Il-2 Shturmovik
4. Avro Lancaster
5. B-29 Superfortress

Reactions: Old Old:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Crimea_River (Dec 11, 2019)

16 years ago. Wow.


----------



## Barrett (Jun 15, 2021)

There's two lists:
All-round faves

All-round:
1. Douglas SBD
2. F-8 Crusader
3. Hellcat-Corsair (OK, I cheated so sue me.)
4. Heinkel 219 what a sex machine
5. Staggerwing Beech
and
Those I've flown.
1. Douglas SBD
2. NAF N3N
3. Beech T-34
4. Pitts Special
5. F-15B (OK, I was just shoving the thing around but WHAT A RIDE)


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jun 15, 2021)



Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 15, 2021)

I'd love to hear about the N3N. I read about it in an Air Classics magazine and learned there were other trainers besides the Boeing-Stearman PT-17. The author called it the "Yellow Peril." I remember him writing it was faster(?) than the Stearman. "No brag. Just fact." he wrote. This was over 50 years ago. 

Oh yeah,
B-17 (The B model especially)
PBY Catalina. 
Just about any plane currently under discussion. 
F-86 (Not the one with the goofy nose)
Brewster Buffalo

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 16, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I'd love to hear about the N3N. I read about it in an Air Classics magazine and learned there were other trainers besides the Boeing-Stearman PT-17. The author called it the "Yellow Peril." I remember him writing it was faster(?) than the Stearman. "No brag. Just fact." he wrote. This was over 50 years ago.
> 
> Oh yeah,
> B-17 (The B model especially)
> ...



Brotha lost me at the Buffalo. He's funny like that,

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2021)

Lord have Mercy, this is one of the oldest threads on the forum.

Talk about thread necromancy...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## space dodo (Jun 16, 2021)

1. P-51D/K
2.Mosquito 
3.Lancaster
4.P-36 hawk
5.P-47


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jun 16, 2021)

Looking out till someone find the first thread ever here and starts replying.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 16, 2021)

Snautzer01 said:


> Looking out till someone find the first thread ever here and starts replying.


Challenge accepted.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Jun 16, 2021)

There is an N3N in the USN museum, Pensacola

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Challenge accepted.


You'll have to dig down to 2003 or so, but I don't think the oldest posts (before the 2.0 upgrade in fall of 2003) were archived.
The site itself goes back to 2000, however.

See the original ww2ac webpage here:
Aircraft of World War II

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 16, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> You'll have to dig down to 2003 or so, but I don't think the oldest posts (before the 2.0 upgrade in fall of 2003) were archived.
> The site itself goes back to 2000, however.
> 
> See the original ww2ac webpage here:
> Aircraft of World War II


Dose is misspelled.


----------



## ARTESH (Jun 16, 2021)

1- IAR 80/81
2- PZL series
3- He-111
4- Storch
5- Il-2 Sturmavic



Crimea_River said:


> 16 years ago. Wow.



+2 , LOL!



GrauGeist said:


> Lord have Mercy, this is one of the oldest threads on the forum.
> 
> Talk about thread necromancy...







Snautzer01 said:


> Looking out till someone find the first thread ever here and starts replying.



consider it done!



GrauGeist said:


> You'll have to dig down to 2003 or so, but I don't think the oldest posts (before the 2.0 upgrade in fall of 2003) were archived.
> The site itself goes back to 2000, however.
> 
> See the original ww2ac webpage here:
> Aircraft of World War II



Wow! Wow! Wow! that's a GEM!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 17, 2021)

1-Re 2005
2-G.56
3-F4U
4-Spitfire Vc
5-Cr.32


----------



## Just Schmidt (Jun 17, 2021)

P-39
F2A -3
He 177A-1
Breda Ba. 88
Blackburn Botha

I hope there's a space and a coat for me in the corner...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 17, 2021)

Just Schmidt said:


> P-39
> F2A -3
> He 177A-1
> Breda Ba. 88
> ...


No Buffalo?


----------



## CATCH 22 (Jun 17, 2021)

Is it a new trend, is it "just for fun" or is it something else I can't fully understand: to revive old threads. Mostly not very informative.
On the other hand if somebody finds a new answer to a question posted here 10 years ago, because new information has surfaced (a crashed plane was found in the desert or on a remote Pacific island), this will be something to follow even after a decade or two. But not a question like '_What do you think is the best camouflage colour for bi-planes flying occasionally over the Gobi desert_? _List up to 4 colours. Voting ends in 2045, at 12:00 A.M. GMT_."
If at some point a thread about somebody's favorite 5 planes died, than it's dead. Life goes on.
There was one _Wahe_ here 2 years ago, who started reanimating dead threads, just because he hasn't anything else to say. Soon after he was gone (TG!). And a few others before and after him.
IMHO it's still better to post in "Picture of the day" or "Girls and Aircraft" (what I do from time to time), because looking for the right picture, one can find thousand others and learn something more. What your favourite a/c says about you will not be part of that information though.
Cheers!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 17, 2021)

CATCH 22 said:


> Is it a new trend, is it "just for fun" or is it something else I can't fully understand: to revive old threads. Mostly not very informative.
> On the other hand if somebody finds a new answer to a question posted here 10 years ago, because new information has surfaced (a crashed plane was found in the desert or on a remote Pacific island), this will be something to follow even after a decade or two. But not a question like '_What do you think is the best camouflage colour for bi-planes flying occasionally over the Gobi desert_? _List up to 4 colours. Voting ends in 2045, at 12:00 A.M. GMT_."
> If at some point a thread about somebody's favorite 5 planes died, than it's dead. Life goes on.
> There was one _Wahe_ here 2 years ago, who started reanimating dead threads, just because he hasn't anything else to say. Soon after he was gone (TG!). And a few others before and after him.
> ...


I don’t think it’s a trend. I think it’s just newer members clicking on an interesting thread and not noticing the date. I know I did it a few times and yes, l’m one of the newer members. Then it became the latest joke. A refreshing break from groundhogs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Just Schmidt (Jun 17, 2021)

Well, there are dead threads and then there are dead threads.

Sometimes new data certainly justifies waking one to life, but in a sense this one - asking for an opinion in as far as favourite isn't inferred to translate into best (which anyways comes down in some part to personal judgements or opinions) - invites everyone who never answered it before to chime in. Any 'best', 'favorite', ' worst' or even somethin like 'between the 23rd of april 1942 and 11th of march 1945, not armed with 12.7 mil guns but having bubble canopy that never served on the eastern front' thread invites that, and there sure are a lot around. It's the kind of questions we can never agree on as something subjective kreeps in, and therefore everybodys opinion is adding something and as much worth as any other. It wouldn't surprize me if there's a three favourite thread somewhere, but usually I can't decide on any particular aircraft, and ranking five relative to each other would keep me sleepless for nights. The thread being harmless I just decided to reply on a light note, reanimating the corpse for a short while, anyway i didn't sleep enough last night. I'm actually more an 'nearly everything with two engines' kind of guy, I really like twins.

On the other hand something that _is_ quantifiable may well be answered once and for all, in which case i think we should be quiet when we're walking across that particular grave, unless we have a really good reason to dig it up.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 17, 2021)

Can we have a 5 Favorite Amelia Earhart Stories thread?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 17, 2021)

CATCH 22 said:


> Is it a new trend, is it "just for fun" or is it something else I can't fully understand: to revive old threads. Mostly not very informative.
> 
> Cheers!



And yet when someone starts a new topic covered by an old thread, they're told to use the search function. I haven't really seen that here, but often enough elsewhere.

The other thing I like about old threads resurfacing is that it also brings back points made therein, some of which might be very useful to those of us who haven't been here long. What is not very informative to you might be pretty useful to someone like me who still has a lot to learn and chew on about many of these topics.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 17, 2021)

One thing about reviving old threads is the “gold” that it digs up. A Newbie like me reading posts from those no longer with us or aren’t able to post gets a real treat. 
I never got to “meet” Parsifal.

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 17, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> One thing about reviving old threads is the “gold” that it digs up. A Newbie like me reading posts from those no longer with us or aren’t able to post gets a real treat.
> I never got to “meet” Parsifal.



His posts are indeed packed with useful knowledge and insight.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 17, 2021)

Michael (Parsifal) was one of the forum's greats and among other things, was really good at pointing out strengths and weaknesses in alternate battle scenario propositions.

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 17, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Michael (Parsifal) was one of the forum's greats and among other things, was really good at pointing out strengths and weaknesses in alternate battle scenario propositions.



Might I ask what happened to him?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 17, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Might I ask what happened to him?


Health issues overtook him

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 17, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Health issues overtook him



I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure y'all miss him all the more, and belated condolences to his friends here.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ARTESH (Jun 17, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Might I ask what happened to him?








Michael ( Parsifal ) passed away


Hi everyone, Apologies if this is in the wrong section, I came on here to update everyone about regular user Parsifal. I noticed there is an in Memorium section but I couldn’t post in there. I am Parsifal’s nephew, I know these forums have meant a lot to him over the years. Parsifal, or as I...



ww2aircraft.net





May his soul rests in Eternal Peace.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 17, 2021)

Just Schmidt said:


> P-39
> F2A -3
> He 177A-1
> Breda Ba. 88
> ...


I love the bread 88 too...
oh shot this was a joke

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CATCH 22 (Jun 17, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> What is not very informative to you might be pretty useful to someone like me who still has a lot to learn and chew on about many of these topics.


I really hope you'll find a lot of useful information here (no pun intended!).
Previously I didn't have enough time to check all new threads and collect the useful (for me) information when visiting the forum (usually evenings). Since these "revivals" started popping up, I need twice the time to find the really informative threads or questions I can answer. But hey, we are all different, aren't we?
Cheers!

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 17, 2021)

CATCH 22 said:


> I really hope you'll find a lot of useful information here (no pun intended!).



I do, brotha. I definitely do.



CATCH 22 said:


> Previously I didn't have enough time to check all new threads and collect the useful (for me) information when visiting the forum (usually evenings). Since these "revivals" started popping up, I need twice the time to find the really informative threads or questions I can answer. But hey, we are all different, aren't we?
> Cheers!



I'm lucky enough to have the time to browse wide and deep ... though my guitar is complaining for lack of attention.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 17, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Michael (Parsifal) was one of the forum's greats and among other things, was really good at pointing out strengths and weaknesses in alternate battle scenario propositions.



I'm currently reading through the Gibraltar thread, and your description is spot-on. He had a great combination of knowledge and insight and displays it there very clearly.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dash119 (Jun 18, 2021)

P-51
Hornet/Mosquito
DHC-2
DC-3/C-47
Do 335


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jun 18, 2021)

B-26 MA 40-1558
B-26B MA 41-17562
B-26B MA 41-17747
B-26B-25 MA 41-31173
Oh, and I have a soft spot for P-40s too.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Akuma (Jun 19, 2021)

Piper L-4 Grasshopper
Fieseler Storch
Focke Wulf 189
DC-3/C-47
Dehavilland Dragon Rapide

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Philip Burgess (Jun 20, 2021)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> so germany suplied planes so they could defend themselfs to the country they'd bombed 6 years earlier, isn't that rubbing it in?


Nazi Germany's Condor Legion was sent to Spain to help the Facist Uprising against the democratically elected Repuplican Government. The Coup failed and resulted in a civil war where Italy and Germany were allies. The Nacionalist fascists took over and slaughtered thousands of innocent Spaniards, post War. Hitler supplied arms to fascist Spain in return for "Division Azul" volunteers sent to the Russian front.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 20, 2021)

Philip Burgess said:


> Nazi Germany's Condor Legion was sent to Spain to help the Facist Uprising against the democratically elected Repuplican Government. The Coup failed and resulted in a civil war where Italy and Germany were allies. The Nacionalist fascists took over and slaughtered thousands of innocent Spaniards, post War. Hitler supplied arms to fascist Spain in return for "Division Azul" volunteers sent to the Russian front.


If the communists had the advantage they would have probably done the exact same they just didn't have the capabilities too
I'm not saying the white terror was bad but I am saying that radicals on both sides wanted to do the same to each other just one was able to get it done

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 20, 2021)

The Civil War started first, then came foreign help shortly after.
Germany had nothing to do with the political turmoil in Spain.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 21, 2021)

They certainly weighed in once the turmoil started.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 21, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> They certainly weighed in once the turmoil started.


Not as much as some would think, Germany sent ground troops and the Condor Legion, but in limited numbers.
Italy had over twice as many involved than Germany and Portugal combined.
France, Mexico and the Soviet Union had about as many in support of the Marxist Republicans.

Hitler limited his support because he didn't want it escelating into a major war.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 21, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Not as much as some would think, Germany sent ground troops and the Condor Legion, but in limited numbers.
> Italy had over twice as many involved than Germany and Portugal combined.
> France, Mexico and the Soviet Union had about as many in support of the Marxist Republicans.
> 
> Hitler limited his support because he didn't want it escelating into a major war.



Sure. But German forces made an an impact. That's the only point I was making,


----------

