# Best Fighter



## GregP (Sep 11, 2003)

Not much activity here ... OK, I propose the best fighter of WWII in several categories:

1) Best low to meduim altitude fighter: Yak-3 / 9U
2) Best high altitude fighter: Ta-152H
3) Best bomber escort fighter: P-51H
4) Best gound attack foghter bomber: P-47 or Tempest
5) Best fighter-vs. fighter: Grumman Hellcat (based on kill ratio)
6) Best photo raconasiiance fighter: Late model Spitfire
7) Best overall fighter of WWII for all missions taken together: Ta-152H

Any discussion?


----------



## mutt66 (Nov 2, 2003)

what about the vought f4u corsair for best pto fighter?


----------



## corpcasselbury (Dec 20, 2003)

GregP said:


> Not much activity here ... OK, I propose the best fighter of WWII in several categories:
> 
> 1) Best low to meduim altitude fighter: Yak-3 / 9U
> 2) Best high altitude fighter: Ta-152H
> ...



1. Best low to medium altitude fighter: P-40N Warhawk
2. Best high altitude fighter: P-38 Lightning
3. Best bomber escort: P-51D Mustang (The 'H' model Mustang never saw combat in WW2)
4. Best ground attack fighter-bomber: De Havilland Mosquito
5. Best fighter vs. fighter: F4U Corsair
6. Best photo reconnaisance fighter: Spitfire Mark XIX
7. Best overall fighter of WW2 for all missions taken together: F4U Corsair


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 21, 2003)

you have got to be kiddin, the best photo recon. plane, and fighter-bomber is easily the de haviland mosquito, and best ground attack/low level fighter is the tempest. Anybody agree?


----------



## corpcasselbury (Dec 21, 2003)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you have got to be kiddin, the best photo recon. plane, and fighter-bomber is easily the de haviland mosquito, and best ground attack/low level fighter is the tempest. Anybody agree?



I prefer the photo Spitfire over the Mosquito for most missions. Both, of course, were outstanding aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2003)

fair enough, but the mosquito is still my favourite


----------



## corpcasselbury (Dec 25, 2003)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> fair enough, but the mosquito is still my favourite



I just think that the photo Spitfire was better suited to certain types of mission profiles than the much bigger Mosquito.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 26, 2003)

i like heinkel HE100D


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 26, 2003)

o and Dornier Do 335 Pfeil which i may add was ready for production but they didnt use it for some reason (cmon 475mph top speed!)


----------



## corpcasselbury (Dec 27, 2003)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> o and Dornier Do 335 Pfeil which i may add was ready for production but they didnt use it for some reason (cmon 475mph top speed!)



They didn't use the Do 335 because the war ended before it could go into combat. And the He 100 was never put into production, save for the prototypes and a dozen pre-production models. The prototypes were sold to Russia and Japan, while the pre-production planes were painted in different color schemes throughout the war and publicized by Josef Goebbels as the ficticious "He 113".


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 27, 2003)

no it was ready it was even seen in battle just not officially by the luftwaffe but dornier did use it to defend its factory and so did heinkel with he100


----------



## corpcasselbury (Dec 27, 2003)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> no it was ready it was even seen in battle just not officially by the luftwaffe but dornier did use it to defend its factory and so did heinkel with he100



I'd like to know your sources for this information, because I've never read anywhere of these two types seeing any combat.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 28, 2003)

well good luck finding it on the net because thats not where i got it i got it from a series thing called Aircraft Of The World which was like a binder and each month they send u various card on all types of planes and not just WWII planes i mean ALL TYPES


----------



## corpcasselbury (Dec 28, 2003)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> well good luck finding it on the net because thats not where i got it i got it from a series thing called Aircraft Of The World which was like a binder and each month they send u various card on all types of planes and not just WWII planes i mean ALL TYPES



I see. Thank you.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 2, 2004)

the best fighter?- with propeller:bf 109 k-14 and fw 190 a-9 and d-12 dornier DO P252 is good! the best turbojet fighters: me p1110 and
henschel hs 135. visit www.luft46.com - there are charactreistics of german super performance aircraft!!!!  allied figters=shit!


----------



## Crazy (Jan 2, 2004)

www.luft46.com = Awesome site!

Great artwork there


----------



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

why do i get the feelin that we're gettin 
a)over run with lovers of german planes (not that there's anything wrong with that)
b)to big for our boots? 

p.s. mosquito all the way man!


----------



## corpcasselbury (Jan 3, 2004)

polish member of NSDAP said:


> the best fighter?- with propeller:bf 109 k-14 and fw 190 a-9 and d-12 dornier DO P252 is good! the best turbojet fighters: me p1110 and
> henschel hs 135. visit www.luft46.com - there are charactreistics of german super performance aircraft!!!!  allied figters=shit!



Indeed. Well, I reckon it's lucky we have you to tell us these things then, isn't it.


----------



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

Best photorecon? Of cours Me262,


----------



## Crazy (Jan 15, 2004)

Lanc, I'm no big fan of German planes. That doesn't make Luft46 any less awesome. 

(Too big for our boots? Like how?






For us Allied lovers:

http://www.dixiewing.org/aircraft/p51/Red_Nose_Take_Off.avi

And, if you're interested in pics from the Eastern front:

http://www.user.dccnet.com/russianfront/


----------



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

best photo recon, the mosquito easily


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 25, 2004)

I would go for the Spitfire Mk XIV - Beautiful 8) 8) 8)


----------



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

MOSQUITO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Viper (Jan 30, 2004)

polish member of NSDAP said:


> the best fighter?- with propeller:bf 109 k-14 and fw 190 a-9 and d-12 dornier DO P252 is good! the best turbojet fighters: me p1110 and
> henschel hs 135. visit www.luft46.com - there are charactreistics of german super performance aircraft!!!!  allied figters=shit!


  Allied planes rock,y did we win the war then!!!


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 31, 2004)

I have sometimes wondered why the Germans did not equip the ME-109 with drop tanks. It seems to me if they had done so, extending the plane's range and time over the target area, they very likely could have prevailed against the RAF in 1941. Anyone have any thoughts about that?


----------



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

good point, but you could say that about allot of aircraft......................


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 3, 2004)

Visitor said:


> I have sometimes wondered why the Germans did not equip the ME-109 with drop tanks. It seems to me if they had done so, extending the plane's range and time over the target area, they very likely could have prevailed against the RAF in 1941. Anyone have any thoughts about that?



If they use them in 1940 they might of won the Battle of Britain as well   

Hot Space


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 6, 2004)

Hot Space: yes, thank you. I was referring to the Battle of Britain, and I mistakenly gave the year as 1941. You are correct, it was 1940 to which I referred. Do you know if there was some technical reason for not equipping the ME-109 with drop tanks? Perhaps the wings weren't structurally able to handle the increased drag? Was the P-51 the first to be so equipped? Do you know?


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 6, 2004)

It just never crossed the Germans minds to put Drop Tanks on the 109E  ...........although in the Winter of 1940 they started doing so. But it was the Japanese who were the REAL pioneer's of Drop Tanks. When the A6M Zero was designed in the later 30's, the Japanese knew at some point that a war with the U.S wouldn't be to far away. So when when the Zero was in it's Design Stage, this was one of it's requirements for it, so when the Zero came into Service in late '39 early 1940 the Japanese knew that they could strike at most U.S and British interests with ease.

The P-51 (and the P-38, P-47) just took the concept to another level  

Hot Space


----------



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

i've seen 109's with drop tanks and bombs before


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 6, 2004)

Yep. But with the Drop Tanks only after the Battle of Britain and with Bombs towards the end of the BoB in Hit and Run Raids.

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Feb 6, 2004)

polish member of NSDAP said:


> the best fighter?- with propeller:bf 109 k-14 and fw 190 a-9 and d-12 dornier DO P252 is good! the best turbojet fighters: me p1110 and
> henschel hs 135. visit www.luft46.com - there are charactreistics of german super performance aircraft!!!!  allied figters=shit!


  why did the allies win the air war then?,cuz our planes were the best!!!!


----------



## Viper (Feb 6, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> best photo recon, the mosquito easily


the mossy kicks a$$ in every role it plays,its my favortite britesh fighter next to the spit


----------



## Crazy (Feb 6, 2004)

Viper said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > best photo recon, the mosquito easily
> ...



Agreed! 8)


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 6, 2004)

Same here 8) 

Spitfire XIV = Class     

Hot Space


----------



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

are you all agreing about the spit or the mosquito?


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 7, 2004)

Both, but I'm a Spit Fan 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 7, 2004)

Hot Space: thank you for the information on the drop tanks. The finest fighter aircraft of that war was, I think, unquestionably the Supermarine Spitfire. 
This is for you and your Lanc fan pal: I have seen a B-17 bomber up close, and I was impressed with the elegance of its design. Those four big radial engines all idling at once is an expression of real power. Very impressive. "Aluminum Overcast" is the name of the plane. It's a touring exhibition. Perhaps you have seen it. My question is, how does the Lancaster compare in size to the Flying Fortress? The Lancaster is kind of an ugly plane, really. Don't you think? A real dog.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 7, 2004)

Here is the link to the "Aluminum Overcast" tour schedule for 2004. http://www.b17.org/schedule.html
Back on the subject of drop tanks and range, I am reminded of a documentary I saw on television regarding the P-38 Lightning. Charles Lindbergh was touring the frontline combat air bases in the Pacific theater, as an advisor to President Roosevelt. He was particularly interested in the P-38. Given the vast distances involved in the Pacific, the P-38 was not being used to its full potential; its effectiveness being limited by its range. Lindbergh was able to convince the chief of flight engineers that by adjusting the carburetor setting, having the engines run significantly leaner, the range of the planes could be safely extended. In fact, the P-38's range was effectively doubled. The fomidable Japanese Zeros were swept from the skies, shortening the war.


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 7, 2004)

Visitor said:


> Hot Space: thank you for the information on the drop tanks.



Anytime, M8 8) 

Glad I could help.

Hot Space


----------



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

> The Lancaster is kind of an ugly plane, really. Don't you think? A real dog.


how dare you!


----------



## Viper (Feb 7, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > The Lancaster is kind of an ugly plane, really. Don't you think? A real dog.
> 
> 
> i sorta agree its really ugly in some ways but not in all,its so ugly its kool
> how dare you!


----------



## Viper (Feb 7, 2004)

Viper said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > > The Lancaster is kind of an ugly plane, really. Don't you think? A real dog.
> ...


----------



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

cannot you see the pic in my signature, gracefull lines, a very aerodynamic bomb aimers bubble and go faster commoflage stripes


----------



## Viper (Feb 9, 2004)

Hot Space said:


> Both, but I'm a Spit Fan 8)
> 
> Hot Space


i like both,but the lanc on the other hand......lol,no i like it 2


----------



## Viper (Feb 9, 2004)

This is for you and your Lanc fan pal: I have seen a B-17 bomber up close, and I was impressed with the elegance of its design. Those four big radial engines all idling at once is an expression of real power. Very impressive. "Aluminum Overcast" is the name of the plane. It's a touring exhibition. Perhaps you have seen it. My question is, how does the Lancaster compare in size to the Flying Fortress? The Lancaster is kind of an ugly plane, really. Don't you think? A real dog.[/quote]I totally agree with everything you say about the 17 but i never heard anybody talk about a lanc like that lol."a real dog",thats great


----------



## Viper (Feb 9, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> cannot you see the pic in my signature, gracefull lines, a very aerodynamic bomb aimers bubble and go faster commoflage stripes


wut......lol


----------



## Crazy (Feb 9, 2004)

my initial reaction precisely  

i came to the conclusion that it's a Canadian thing


----------



## Viper (Feb 9, 2004)

a canadian reaction is the word"eh" i try very hard not to say it


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 11, 2004)

Many years ago (ca. 1976) I worked on a job with a couple of guys from Toronto. During a break, I asked them whether they (both Anglo) believed English Canadians would go to war to prevent Quebec secession. This is what they told me: maybe, if the war were on a weekend; and if no one got hurt; and if there were no hockey on TV; and, of course, it would have to be over by Monday, because people have to go back to work, eh. Now that's a Canadian thing.


----------



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

Tea. now that's a English thing


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 11, 2004)

Visitor said:


> Many years ago (ca. 1976) I worked on a job with a couple of guys from Toronto. During a break, I asked them whether they (both Anglo) believed English Canadians would go to war to prevent Quebec secession. This is what they told me: maybe, if the war were on a weekend; and if no one got hurt; and if there were no hockey on TV; and, of course, it would have to be over by Monday, because people have to go back to work, eh. Now that's a Canadian thing.



lol     

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Feb 11, 2004)

Hot Space said:


> Visitor said:
> 
> 
> > Many years ago (ca. 1976) I worked on a job with a couple of guys from Toronto. During a break, I asked them whether they (both Anglo) believed English Canadians would go to war to prevent Quebec secession. This is what they told me: maybe, if the war were on a weekend; and if no one got hurt; and if there were no hockey on TV; and, of course, it would have to be over by Monday, because people have to go back to work, eh. Now that's a Canadian thing.
> ...


hey im canadian,thats hitting below the belt,but i agree


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 12, 2004)

While Sweden was neutral in the Second World War, they must have had a substantial defense force, which presumably would have included combat aircraft. Does anyone know? Were the Swedes designing and building fighter/interceptor type planes during that era? Were they good? Anyone have any pictures? The Swiss were able to maintain their neutrality by having a credible deterrent force available, to discourage any incursion by the Nazis. I don't know it for a fact, but the Swedes must have had something similar. Their automotive industry has always been pretty advanced. P.S. Tea is Canadian thing, too. My favorite cup happens to be Red Rose--which, I am pleased to say, is now available in America, as well.


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 12, 2004)

Here's a Link for ya, M8:

http://www.avrosys.nu/aircraft/index.htm

Hot Space


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 13, 2004)

And Dissing any Country is a No No here  

Hot Space


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 15, 2004)

Hot Space: thank you for the link to Swedish aircraft. The J22 is an efficient-looking craft; neat and compact. Note how the Swedes preferred to arm it with cannon, rather than with machine guns. The British Spitfire was armed with machine guns. The German ME-109 was equipped with cannon. I have seen--something on television--comparing the relative effectiveness of the two armaments. The cannon was clearly superior, being more likely to cause catastrophic structural failure with a single hit; as opposed to the reliance on the sheer volume of gun rounds to cause damage.
Someone made a sarcastic reference to "colonies." An ancestor of mine, who happened to be English, by the way, shouldered a musket with Gibson's Company, Second Battalion, Cumberland County Militia, in the Pennsylvania Line. I don't know why I mention it, it just seemed relevant somehow. He was the son of Quaker expatriates, and born in Maryland. I suspect he joined in Pennsylvania to earn the bounty of land on the frontier, which he later claimed. Or maybe it was he just got so g*d d****d pissed off at English presumptuousness.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 16, 2004)

nicely put but u should register


----------



## Viper (Feb 16, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> hey, i wassn't dissin nobody, i was merely stating...............


exactly what are you stateing?


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 16, 2004)

Visitor said:


> Hot Space: thank you for the link to Swedish aircraft. The J22 is an efficient-looking craft; neat and compact. Note how the Swedes preferred to arm it with cannon, rather than with machine guns. The British Spitfire was armed with machine guns. The German ME-109 was equipped with cannon. I have seen--something on television--comparing the relative effectiveness of the two armaments. The cannon was clearly superior, being more likely to cause catastrophic structural failure with a single hit; as opposed to the reliance on the sheer volume of gun rounds to cause damage.
> Someone made a sarcastic reference to "colonies." An ancestor of mine, who happened to be English, by the way, shouldered a musket with Gibson's Company, Second Battalion, Cumberland County Militia, in the Pennsylvania Line. I don't know why I mention it, it just seemed relevant somehow. He was the son of Quaker expatriates, and born in Maryland. I suspect he joined in Pennsylvania to earn the bounty of land on the frontier, which he later claimed. Or maybe it was he just got so g*d d****d pissed off at English presumptuousness.



Sounds like your Family has a long and noble history there, M8 8) 

One thing though, could you please refrain from swearing as some people might take some offensive, M8  

Thanks

Hot Space


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 19, 2004)

Hot Space: I hope everyone understands that the swearing was meant tongue-in-cheek. If anyone has taken offense, I do apologize. Somebody suggested I should register. Someone else hinted there may be something sinister in my relative anonymity. I mean, it's all handles here, right? Maybe I haven't registered because nobody as yet has invited me. Let's see. . .my favorite aircraft of all time is the DC-3, aka. the C-47. Maybe that would be a good handle.
Back on the subject of fighter planes, an advantage of arming with machine guns is that the pilot's marksmanship doesn't need to be as near perfect as it needs to be with the 9mm cannon. In the First World War, at Jutland, the German navy were better marksmen, but the British had a faster rate of fire. It's an example of two different cultures reflected in distinctly different approaches to the problem. Does anyone know, were any of the American fighters equipped with cannon? The P-38 had one in its nose, didn't it? And then the P-47 with those rockets. Now there was a real hog, that P-47. Zoom! Marksmanship? Yup. You bet. Amerikanische ingenuity?


----------



## C-47 (Feb 19, 2004)

Hello everyone. I only feel slightly less anonymous than I did ten minutes ago, but hey, we're all friends here, right? I mean, while I don't feel a need for phasers and photon torpedoes, I never go anywhere without my shields. I read and accept the terms, I only hope there are no serious hackers lurking. (That having been said, I guess I'll find out.) Anyway, I'm glad to be part of the crowd. Having grown up during the Cold War and Vietnam, I was inundated with military conditioning, so I have a predisposition deeply imbedded in my psyche to admire the elegant machines celebrated by this site, and to regard as beautiful machines engineered for lethal purposes. There's a certain ambiguity, or is it ambivalence in the handle I chose: C-47. While I love it as the DC-3, its incarnation as the C-47 wants this recognition. While it is true that there is no peaceful use for a cannon, the DC-3/C-47 demonstrates that there is versatility sometimes, like men who become warriors, then surviving the conflict, return to what they preserved. Anyway, glad to join you. Greetings from America!


----------



## Viper (Feb 19, 2004)

im suprised that there is such a small number of members here....this site really rocks


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2004)

sure does, its a great site 8) and what a great post from C-47, welcome 8)


----------



## C-47 (Feb 20, 2004)

Space, Viper, Cheese--thanks guys. What are some of the sights to see here? Are there other threads ongoing? How about a topic on favorite movies and television series? _Twelve O'Clock High_ has always been a favorite of mine. There was a series we saw here on PBS, from the BBC called _Piece of Cake_, a dramatic account of a Spitfire squadron in 1940. Great aerial footage with vintage aircraft.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2004)

well, a lot of the threads started off as sensible discusions on a particular thing, such as the mustang, naval fighters etc, but most of them - ok then all of them turned into an argument over which was better out of the b-17 and the lancaster. that seems to have calmed down now though and its back to normal (just). if you ever want information about something, just ask and someone will be more than happy to help 8)


----------



## C-47 (Feb 20, 2004)

Sorry, Cheese. That anonymous guest who made the teasing remark about the Lancaster being such a homely thing was me, I'm afraid. Seemed to me everyone had fun with it. That's why I did it; just to stir things up a little. I was only stating the obvious, after all. 
The French had some excellent fighter aircraft in the First World War. Of course, they weren't in the second great war for very long, but did they have any good fighters in 1939-40? Newports? Spads?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2004)

ill look into it 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2004)

right here we go.

in the late 1930's the Dewotine company started development on a modern monoplane fighter. the early prototypes showed promise but the french authorities refused the design but a year later, another prototype was built that was better than the predecessor and this was accepted, the first order was taken. in june 1940, 400 examples were ready for action. unfortunately, most of these were captured by the luftwaffe and used as training planes. however, italy, romania and bulgaria utilized them into successful fighters.

taken from www.tgplanes.com


----------



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

hey, and welcome, i'm affraid you're probery gonna hear allot from me, much to the annoyace of everyone else, i'm the one you don't want to mention the B-17 in front of, i go a 'lil crazy


----------



## C-47 (Feb 21, 2004)

Thanks, Cheese. That French D.520 looks like a hybrid combination of the Spitfire and the Curtiss P-40. The Great Planes site has a really good picture of the D.520--the one in color of the plane on the ground, parked on the edge of the tarmac. I was disappointed to not be able to copy it. I'd like to have posted it here. 
Looking at that P-40 reminded me of a pilot I flew with cross country one time, a long time ago. He had flown C-47s over "the hump" (the Himalayas) from bases in India into China. The association is with the squadron of American volunteers/mercenaries who served in China, Claire Chenault's "Flying Tigers." They flew P-40s. Anyway, I asked the guy--just out of curiosity--if he had made many parachute jumps, expecting that he would say yes, many times. He said he had once been forced to jump from a plane on fire. He said he could see no reason for jumping out a perfectly good aircraft, that it's a good way to get killed. I laughed. That is so true.


----------



## C-47 (Feb 21, 2004)

I prefer to use surnames, so Cheddar Cheese is Cheese, and Hot Space is Space. So. . .The Lancaster Kicks Ass would be--mm, I've been warned about swearing.
The in-line 12-cylinder Rolls-Royce Merlin engine that gives the Spitfire its sweet profile, and its successor the P-51, as well, looks doltish hanging under the wings of a bomber. The radial engine, on the other hand, mounted on the leading edge of the wings of the B-25 and the B-17 really looks good. That's what a bomber ought to look like. The B-29 is the supreme example of the form. Balanced like a fine Swiss watch. Whenever I watch the film "The Dambusters," I think those poor guys, having to fly in an ugly-a** plane like that. (Sorry, Space, but I believe in calling spayed spayed.) No wonder they flew their missions at night, they didn't want to be seen. They were too embarassed. And that tail assembly, what's up with that? If you want to see twin booms done right, take a look at the B-25.


----------



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

I'll let you off that time because you made it funny (and I'm trying to cut downon the B-17 bashing), but the lancaster looked perfect thank you very much!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2004)

hehe, he has a point though lanc, the lancaster is NOT a pretty plane, but oh well, thats what you sacrifce if you want a bloody good bomber


----------



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

that why the P-108 looked good is it? (well, i get it, even if you don't)


----------



## C-47 (Feb 21, 2004)

I'm ragging what's-his-name about the Avro Lancaster's form finally, but a lot of good men served in them, and died in their service. The Lanc had painfully little armor. There was no co-pilot. The only armor installed was a plate behind the pilot's head. That takes a lot of guts. Britain's motto was "blood for treasure." Payload was given precendence above crew safety. The B-17 was meavily armored, and heavily armed. The relatively wealthy American motto was "treasure for blood." Attitribute it to a difference in politics. I mean no disprespect to the men who flew in Lancs, but you've got to admit, they are an ugly beast. The B-24 is similarly unattractive, and a lot of good crews served in them. I once saw a B-29 and a B-24 overhead in formation (the Confederate Air Force) and the sight was breathtaking. The B-29 has to be the premier aircraft of WW2.


----------



## C-47 (Feb 21, 2004)

Maybe we might have an endless single thread here that goes everywhere, and includes everything relevant to the purpose of the site, which is to celebrate the Second World War in the air? I wish more active members would join in here, and contribute articles that were more than one sentence, and a link. Come on, guys, let's get lively! Is this site worth participating in, or not? Let's hear some discussion. I have tried to raise some debate: guns versus cannon, armor plate versus payload weight, range, etc., but no one seems to be biting much. I'm gonna bug out if it don't pick up much soon, ya dig? A site has to be lively. This one is dying on its feet.


----------



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

ooooooooook, if you look in many (well most really) you will more than likely see a debate between the B-17 and the lanc (lots of bitching there), and i can't post more than a single sentence normally because i only get 40 mins. on the "internaet" a day, witch, if you're fighting in many forums, that's nothing.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 22, 2004)

well i would try to take part in more arguments and things but i really dont know much at all about planes at all, im just very interested in them. and i think it is a shame that there are very little active members on the site, but i think it would just be overcrowded and confusing if the site was extremely popular. also i am sorry if the site is not what you expected it to be.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 22, 2004)

This site rules! i've never seen one like it and i think its a fantastic oppurtunity for enthusiasts to talk about this stuff! otherwise we just bore our friends!  i like the number of people on here - they are all intelligent and have something genuine to say. we don't want to many people like you say or it gets overcrowded, i like it the way it is and cheddar cheese...you know more about this stuff than you give yourself credit for


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 22, 2004)

im pretty active but i dont write much beacuse im kinda lazy  and usually no one answers or i have no further commentary and we need a tounge out smiley!!!!!!


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 23, 2004)

C-47 said:


> I prefer to use surnames, so Cheddar Cheese is Cheese, and Hot Space is Space. So. . .The Lancaster Kicks Ass would be--mm, I've been warned about swearing.
> The in-line 12-cylinder Rolls-Royce Merlin engine that gives the Spitfire its sweet profile, and its successor the P-51, as well, looks doltish hanging under the wings of a bomber. The radial engine, on the other hand, mounted on the leading edge of the wings of the B-25 and the B-17 really looks good. That's what a bomber ought to look like. The B-29 is the supreme example of the form. Balanced like a fine Swiss watch. Whenever I watch the film "The Dambusters," I think those poor guys, having to fly in an ugly-a** plane like that. (Sorry, Space, but I believe in calling spayed spayed.) No wonder they flew their missions at night, they didn't want to be seen. They were too embarassed. And that tail assembly, what's up with that? If you want to see twin booms done right, take a look at the B-25.



8)  

Hot Space


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 23, 2004)

Best all round fighter of WW2 : Focke-Wulf 190 , all marques (includes TA152 / 153).

2nds, Me 109 (all marques) ; Spitfire (all marques) ; Mustang ; Corsair ; Ki-61 Hien ; Zero ; Hurricane (all marques) ; Tempest ; Yak 9d ; Macchi C.202 / 205 ; Fiat G.55 ; Reggiane Re 2002-2005 ; 

Comments?

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 23, 2004)

> This site rules! i've never seen one like it and i think its a fantastic oppurtunity for enthusiasts to talk about this stuff! otherwise we just bore our friends! i like the number of people on here - they are all intelligent and have something genuine to say. we don't want to many people like you say or it gets overcrowded, i like it the way it is and cheddar cheese...you know more about this stuff than you give yourself credit for



why thankyou 8) id like to see an example of my intelligence though 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 23, 2004)

The remarks you made on the Gladiator page were pretty intelligent (i'm afraid i'm slightly biased though ) 

But if you're into this kinda stuff you're obviously an intelligent kinda guy, the same as the rest of us otherwise you'd just be talking b******* the whole time wouldn't you? [/quote]


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 25, 2004)

I don't really think it matters at all what the bloody bombers LOOKED like, it could be the ugliest plane on the planet (Like the Avro Lancaster for instance  ) and still do its job! 

In fact, if the Italian aircraft manufacturers paid more attention to performance rather than looks (shock, horror) they might have actually built a few decent aircraft

P.S before i get any hate-mail, that stab at the Lancaster was a joke! I love the old bird too


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 25, 2004)

ironic then that the P-108 wasnt any faster than the lancaster


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 25, 2004)

We were obviously more determined! 8)


----------



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

bronzewhaler82 said:


> I don't really think it matters at all what the bloody bombers LOOKED like, it could be the ugliest plane on the planet (Like the Avro Lancaster for instance  ) and still do its job!
> 
> In fact, if the Italian aircraft manufacturers paid more attention to performance rather than looks (shock, horror) they might have actually built a few decent aircraft
> 
> P.S before i get any hate-mail, that stab at the Lancaster was a joke! I love the old bird too



good save at the end there


----------



## aussie jim (Feb 26, 2004)

> I don't really think it matters at all what the bloody bombers LOOKED like, it could be the ugliest plane on the planet (Like the Avro Lancaster for instance ) and still do its job!



 i think the He111 is decidely more ugly than the Lanc..so is the Grief..the Whitley..Hampden..the B24...put the Lanc in amongst those and she is a pin up girl 8) IMHO i think the Lanc has classic lines(as of corse the b17 )it looks extremely purposeful .

Regards the best fighter..flippin heck...too many choices..all in different theatres ..different time periods.If i had to go back and i had a choice..the spit would be my choice..what model would depend on what time period-the fw190 series is superb too as is the 109 and also the Hurricane..and yeah the mossie is a sweet thing.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 26, 2004)

first england sucks second i think the p -51 d mustang was the best because it was the fastest built propeller plane at that time with a top speed of 448 mph second. how could you pick the the hurricane the armer on those planes are week you were easly shot out of the shy ps im 71 i was shipped two england in ww2 i flew the hurricane i sent back to the us in 1944 the sent me to the phillapenes on air base i flew th p-51d mustang i shot down 15 enemy air planes in the philapenes and in england i shot down 12 geman planes .


----------



## aussie jim (Feb 27, 2004)

poor ole Hurri  she was a lovely plane and without her the BoB was a lost affair..so i think she at least deserves a mention in the dispatches 8) and also the fact that it flew to the end- and had a huge hand in the north african campaign ..was launched from ships amongst many different endeavours.It was an immensly rugged airframe that pilots learnt to trust and love ..and that in itslef puts it on the list.
The Hurricane is easily overlooked..the old girl produced a lot of aces and is only forgotten (By some)for reason of the sweet lines of the Spit and the myth that it won the battle of the britian ..and if you claim to be who you are im sure you would not have started your sentence how you did.  

cheers


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 27, 2004)

Anonymous said:


> first england sucks second i think the p -51 d mustang was the best because it was the fastest built propeller plane at that time with a top speed of 448 mph second. how could you pick the the hurricane the armer on those planes are week you were easly shot out of the shy ps im 71 i was shipped two england in ww2 i flew the hurricane i sent back to the us in 1944 the sent me to the phillapenes on air base i flew th p-51d mustang i shot down 15 enemy air planes in the philapenes and in england i shot down 12 geman planes .



Not really, M8. The Spit XIV was just as fast and so was the Tempest V and the Spit PR XIX could do 460m.p.h  

Hot Space


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 27, 2004)

The Hurri was a damn fine machine. It was, unlike the Spit or FTM the P51-D a multi-role machine. There was little the Hurri could not do and do well. Unlike the Spit it could take enormous punishment and keep flying, it was NOT a fighter in the same class as the Spit but, rather like the SE5A in WW1, was a fine machine overshadowed by a true dogfighter's plane.


















As well read what the site I got the pictures from has to say about the hurri.

http://www.aviation-history.com/hawker/hurrcane.html

Interestingly enough those who flew BOTH spits and Hurris generally have a soft spot for the Hurricane.

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2004)

another reason i like the hurricane is cos it aint as well known as the spit


----------



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

i'd take a hurricane over a spit anytime (especailly the MK.II)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2004)

me too 8) oh god we agreed on something


----------



## Viper (Feb 27, 2004)

hurricane is a awsome airplane,those are some good pics


----------



## Viper (Feb 27, 2004)

but i do prefer a spit over a hurricane


----------



## Viper (Feb 27, 2004)

what game is that from??


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 28, 2004)

What interested me was that the team that had developed the quintessential WW1 dogfighter, the Camel, was largely the team responsible for the Hurricane, while, _vice versa_ the company responsible for the SE5A manufactured the Spitfire.

Fascinating stuff.

Kiwimac


----------



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

Viper said:


> what game is that from??


what do you mean?


----------



## aussie jim (Feb 29, 2004)

Posted by Viper..



> what game is that from??



I think Viper means the pic of the Hurri i posted...its from EAW and is the latest version that has just been made by the modders 8) we have a some really nice new desert hurris with the 4 20mm cannon and also the version with 30mm underwing tank blasting gun pods.

cheers

btw im sitting in my spit1a looking out the cockpit in that pic lol


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 29, 2004)

30mm is wrong m8 the twin "S" cannon were 40mm and make sure that in the game they have only 15 rounds each cuz thats the correct number


----------



## aussie jim (Feb 29, 2004)

ahh yes it would be the 4Omm then  ..and yes it has stuff all rounds  but its enough to get a an Africa corp convoy smoking


----------



## aussie jim (Mar 11, 2004)

Gawd what a load of shite


----------



## Archer (Mar 11, 2004)

Maybe the commonwealth should kick his (and kiwimac's) Fourth Reich ass


----------



## Sudden_strike (Mar 13, 2004)

The Ta152 is my favourite. It gave hell to EVERY fighter it encountered, really whipped those "best fighters of ww2 p-51"... oh but don`t get pissed, the Mustang was a remarkable fighter. But if only the P.1101 would have been completed... it would be as if the Germans had a time machine and gave the allies the Korean war allready in `45! Now THAT was without any doubt a 100% superior machine to anything that has seen the skies at that time.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2004)

whats the ta152?


----------



## Sudden_strike (Mar 13, 2004)

The point beeng? Do your reaserch.


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 13, 2004)

The Ta 152 was a Super-Fw190D 8) 

Here's a Link

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

Hot Space


----------



## San Antonio Bob (Mar 14, 2004)

Greetings All. First Post.

The best fighter title is too subjective to lay on any single machine. I think you should go year-by-year to determine which fighter was truly the dominant killer. I think the p-51 was a great machine, but it was extremely vulnerable to damage because of the radiator placed in it's distended belly. I also think it's kill numbers are skewed because of the strength of it's competition, primarily in the number of undertrained pilots who flew against it. The Me262 was probably the best thing going in 1945. Turn radius wasn't that great and it was vunerable on approach and take off, but nothing (built in significant numbers) could really touch it.

Bob


----------



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

wow, that's a hell of a first post..........................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 21, 2004)

> Super-Fw190D


we leaders of the Fourth Reich prefer "Super Dora-9"

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



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

the dora was ugly, i prefer the short nose


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

talking about viper....where on earth is he.....? any one know the whereabouts of him? I havent seen any posts or anything from him for an age


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2004)

or archer for that matter..... maybe when the site went down they thought it was gone forever ad just left it 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 25, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> well CC, he will make you go to bed without your kiss goodnight from your mummy, nor without your cup of cocoa.
> 
> Sorry Bronze but hey you know me......Unfortunatly....I cant stand those who think they are above us all and feel the need to stop our fun cos thier lives are so empty and meanless they have to make themselves look good. Goddamn yankee cocks!



Yes I do know you...I've known you for 10 years and you've always gone too far...I've lost count of the amount of times i've nearly strangled you


----------



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

at the risk of sounding on topic, the best twin engined fighter of the war was IMO the mosquito...................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 25, 2004)

As much as I love the Mosquito: as a daytime fighter it wasn't the best - yes it was good but (as i beleive has been said before but NO idea what thread  ) its turning circle wasn't good because of its size so other more nimble fighters could outturn it - the Mosquito could outrun anything (apart from a jet!) but in a dogfight with something like a Me109... I would hate to be in a Mossie but (before you get too excited JJ  ) i would hate to be in a JU88 even more!! 

Its nearly impossible to answer but i think the Spitfire has to be way up there on the best fighter list IMO at the top


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 25, 2004)

hurricane for me.... and yes i do know it was interceptor, but the hurricane is the best IMO


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 27, 2004)

Anyway , I agree with Lanc , in the Mosquito being the best Fighter-Bomber [ they could outrun P38's ], the Tempest in a dogfight , the Mustang came along with a Merlin in it , and the Mk.XIV Spitfire was hot n' hairy with a Griffon but didn't reach as far ...The trouble with the Me's Fw's was with the best models , well , too little , too late....


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 27, 2004)

Also , Antonia Bob's Me 262's were out-manoevered and out-numered by the good speed and relatively esteemed 20mm cannons of the Tempest...and there's still a bunch of Kiwi pilots , let alone Brits and other Commywealth pilots that live to tell of it ...


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 27, 2004)

The He 280 was far more manouverable than the ME 262 but was not built in any numbers. Damn shame really.

Hey Gemhorse good to see another kiwi! Where in the North Island?

Kiwimac (Currently a South Islander!)


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 27, 2004)

Welcome gemhorse, not seen you before, so welcome!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 27, 2004)

erm, welcome


----------



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

ditto............................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 29, 2004)

that was half arsed


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 29, 2004)

C.C if you think the Ju87 was so crap (i totally agree by the way) why have you got a picture of the hideous thing on your siggy?

Pick out a nice italian plane like the Cr.42 or the G.50 or the SM.79 - they will look much nicer instead of offending our eyes with this Nazi heap of junk - thats why the aircraft company was called 'Junkers' - because thats what they produced...Junk!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 29, 2004)

the reason it is there is to annoy you


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 29, 2004)

!!!!!!!! THIS POST USED TO HAVE 19 FIRGGIN PAGES!!!!!!!!!!! NOW IT HAS 9!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ARGHHH!!!!!!!!

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 30, 2004)

i know, im pissed off too


----------



## Hugh Janus (Mar 30, 2004)

> C.C if you think the Ju87 was so crap (i totally agree by the way)



what do you mean!!!!!!!!!! the 87 was a great plane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 30, 2004)

Ju87 was that most interesting of things, a plane which performed well in a number of tasks. EXCEPT being able to protect itself from fighters the Dauntless had just the same problem as did the Aichi 'Val'

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 30, 2004)

i think ill go back to having a nice p.108 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 30, 2004)

Hugh Janus said:


> > C.C if you think the Ju87 was so crap (i totally agree by the way)
> 
> 
> 
> what do you mean!!!!!!!!!! the 87 was a great plane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Once again (as with the He52 page) I fail to see your logic in that statement 

By the way C.C the new siggy pic is lovely...but do you think you could maybe shrink it a bit mate? 

Cheers


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 31, 2004)

> but do you think you could maybe shrink it a bit mate?



yup, crazy done it for me (thanks!) but now it doesnt appear to work now


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2004)

Best fighter, overall fighter, the P-51D Mustang. Best dogfigther, Spitfire MkXIV. Best high altitude interceptor, P-38. Best multi-role fighter, either the P-38 or P-47. 

Although I can't quite decide, I think the Lagg-7 was one of the best low level fighters.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

> Best multi-role fighter, either the P-38 or P-47



no i think the mosquito HAS to win that award 8)


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2004)

How did I forget that? Of course, the Mosquito is the best Multi-role fighter, although you could put it in Medium Bomber. I don't care, it's the best.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

yup 8) thats better....


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

plan_D said:


> How did I forget that? Of course, the Mosquito is the best Multi-role fighter, although you could put it in Medium Bomber. I don't care, it's the best.



technically you could call the Mosquito a heavy bomber as it could carry a load equal to a B-17 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

yup, and it was faster and just generally better 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

Definately - the yanks should've used fleets of Mossies to bomb Germany instead of slow B-17s...i bet they would've had fewer losses...could make an interesting thread...'why didn't the Allies use Mossies in place of heavy bombers?'


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2004)

I know the answer...because the Americans were stupid...just joking. I don't think the Americans liked the idea of a wooden aircraft.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

> 'why didn't the Allies use Mossies in place of heavy bombers?'



could do, i mean the mosquito was IMO the best all round plane of the war, i still dont like it though....


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

Fools! crazed American fools! The Mosquito was the BEST all round aircraft of the entire war! one of the reasons it was so damn good was the fact it was made of wood!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> > 'why didn't the Allies use Mossies in place of heavy bombers?'
> 
> 
> 
> could do, i mean the mosquito was IMO the best all round plane of the war, i still dont like it though....



Why don't you like the Mossie?


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2004)

How can you not like the Mossie? It was brilliant. It did everything from Recon to anti-shipping. And IT WAS MADE OF WOOD.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

i know, i respect it but i dont like it  not sure why, it just doesnt seem to have captured my imgination in all the 4 months ive known about it


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2004)

The mosquito couldn't carry as much as the B-17 on a short mission, I was sceptical about that comment you made, sorry. 

The B-17G could carry 17,600 lbs on short missions and 4000 lbs on long. Although it didn't say what distance determines a short or long mission. 
The Mosquito could carry 8000 lbs, and it didn't say long or short, also it wouldn't of been able to carry it as far. 

Still, 8000 lbs is good for a woodern fighter/bomber.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

from what i heard the max any b-17 could carry was 10,000lbs and no more than 6,000lbs for a mossie


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

plan_D said:


> The mosquito couldn't carry as much as the B-17 on a short mission, I was sceptical about that comment you made, sorry.
> 
> The B-17G could carry 17,600 lbs on short missions and 4000 lbs on long. Although it didn't say what distance determines a short or long mission.
> The Mosquito could carry 8000 lbs, and it didn't say long or short, also it wouldn't of been able to carry it as far.
> ...



So it WAS capable of carrying such weights? how about if it used disposable long-range fuel tanks under the wings? that would give it a much better range (although it already had an excellent one  )


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

i cant really see a mossie with jugs on


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2004)

Give what the better range, Mosquito or B-17? 

Fuel is more weight, therefore less bomb load, so it still wouldn't work out.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

> Fuel is more weight, therefore less bomb load, so it still wouldn't work out.



thats a valid point youve missed there bronze


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

plan_D said:


> Give what the better range, Mosquito or B-17?
> 
> Fuel is more weight, therefore less bomb load, so it still wouldn't work out.



I meant the Mossie - you said the mossie didn't have the range of the B-17...besides...what you say is true about less bomb load because of more fuel weight...BUT that just means they would've had to have flown a few more bombers on the mission just to make sure they did enough damage but i still stick by the idea that the mossies would've suffered less losses and been more effective than a huge lump of noisy, slow moving metal which might as well have had the word 'TARGET' pained on the side of it  without fghter escort B-17s suffered huge losses cos you can cover these planes with as many guns as you want but at the end of the day they are still sitting ducks....  (yes, i know its a chicken but they don't have any ducks)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

in the b-17's defence though, it did have a good ceiling for a bomber 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

Besides if a Mosquito bomber gets shot down you only lose two men but if a B-17 goes down you lose 10 men

spot the difference


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2004)

Hahah. I can't imagine mass formations of Mossies, I don't think they'd get the same coverage either. Lets keep the yanks in their big clumsy bombers and we stay in the nimble Mossies..


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

> but if a B-17 goes down



you mean when a b-17 goes down


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> in the b-17's defence though, it did have a good ceiling for a bomber 8)



My sources tell me that the B-17 could only fly 1000ft higher than the Mosquito..its arguable how much difference 1000ft would have made at those kinds of heights


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> > but if a B-17 goes down
> 
> 
> 
> you mean when a b-17 goes down




    

Thats mean but bloody funny 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

> My sources tell me that the B-17 could only fly 1000ft higher than the Mosquito..its arguable how much difference 1000ft would have made at those kinds of heights



well MY sources say it could fly 2000ft less than the mossie 8)


i know im a cruel person


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2004)

Well what good is height when the German fighters perform better at higher altitude?


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

Your sources are wrong!!  

are they American by any chance?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

they come from the lanc, he is so in for it at school tomorrow


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

Give him a kicking from me!     

and tell him (while you're kicking him) to get his arse back here ASAP!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

well, he has tried but he says its not possible to post when youve got no hard drive  what a lame excuse....


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

Having trouble with his hard-drive eh..? what kind of a man is he? does his girlfriend understand?  8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)




----------



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

not funny...............................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 3, 2004)

it is 8)


----------



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

not for me...........................


----------



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

not for me...........................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 3, 2004)

it is funny, you are just protecting your manhood 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 3, 2004)

HAHAHA!    now there is no spam master! u two have the same post number!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 4, 2004)

i have more now....


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 4, 2004)

All your base are belong to us!

Kiwimac


----------



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

he's only got more than me cos i was away for a week


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

i would have caught you eventually - but im going away from thursday till sunday so you will pull away again  talkin of being away, wheres hot space these days?


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 5, 2004)

He's a busy man 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

8) yay someone onlne at last


----------



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

i notice no-one missed me?


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 9, 2004)

Whats that? Did someone say something?

Kiwimac <sniggering>


----------



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

i find that comment to be like the Frence air force, somewhat less than amusing..........................


----------



## Crazy (Apr 10, 2004)

who exactly are the Frence?   


Hot Space is about, just hasn't had time lately to drop in


----------



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

they're a cheap rip off of the French, but even worse................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 11, 2004)

you can get worse than the french?


----------



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

oh yes, frenchmen using stukas....................


----------



## Hot Space (Apr 12, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> i would have caught you eventually - but im going away from thursday till sunday so you will pull away again  talkin of being away, wheres hot space these days?



I've been making a Campaign for IL-2: The Forgotten Battles. So I haven't been around as much as I like  

But I'm back now (Stop groaning in the back  ).

Hot Space


----------



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

yey........................

(BTW, best fighter, mossie)


----------



## plan_D (Apr 12, 2004)

Mossie..agreed.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 12, 2004)

I also agree - The Mossie was the best 8)


----------



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

hurricane second..............


----------



## plan_D (Apr 13, 2004)

Hurricane or Spitfire, I can't choose they are both brilliant. 

Mustang...third. 

Lightning...fouth.

Thunderbolt...fifth.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 13, 2004)

hurricane 8)


----------



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

hurricane, it couldn't perform as well as the spit. but it had more apeal.........


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 14, 2004)

How could anyone say the Hurricane was the best fighter? it was outdated by the mid-forties   

The mosquito was the best fighter


----------



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

the mossie was a hell of a fighter. Tell you what, I'll change my statement, the mossie was the best, but the huricane was my faveourite........


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 14, 2004)

Excellent - a wise choice my friend...Don't get me wrong I love the Hurricane but i had to say it wasn't the best...cos it wasn't


----------



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

it looked pretty cool too...........


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 14, 2004)

Yeah, i've always prefered the Hurricane to the Spitfire in looks actually...


----------



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

nice siggy.................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 15, 2004)

Cheers  

The old cartoons are the best! 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 15, 2004)

> The mosquito was the best fighter


how? maybe nf in some people's opinions (not mine, He219 is better!) but in a dogfight with a one-nine-oh or one-oh-nine it couldnt hold its own unless it snuck up on the (valiant) germans...


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 15, 2004)

There is nothing 'Valiant' about Nazis my freind  

and for your information the Mossie shot down lots of Me109s and FW190s - they used them for bomber escorts sometimes so they could more than handle themselves in dogfights


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 15, 2004)

hey hey hey i mean pilots! not SS (but SS had awesome uniforms) the germans were valiant because of the odds they fought against and the pressures of not having a retirement plan thing (like tours) but true, SS were assholes and aboot the mossies, the bomber escort was for night bombers and still, although it got some, it truly was outmatched against single engined fighters.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 15, 2004)

I don't agree with that at all 

The Mosquito was never 'outmatched' by anything German - the Mosquito was superior to anything the Germans had - the only plane the Germans had that was faster was the Jets


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2004)

> the only plane the Germans had that was faster was the Jets
> _________________



and the ta-152, and some models of the 109 8)


----------



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

and remember it's faster with a bigger payload (I realise hey didn't carry bombs on bomber escorts), but on a normal hop....................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 15, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> > the only plane the Germans had that was faster was the Jets
> > _________________
> 
> 
> ...



and the Komet and the Dora-9 and the He219 and the Ta154 and the 
Fw-190 (they all went over 400, even the F-8 ) and the Natter the Ar240 the Ar-440 (prototype version of the Ar-240) and the Fi103 (manned V2)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 16, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> > the only plane the Germans had that was faster was the Jets
> > _________________
> 
> 
> ...



and the Me 410  

Despite the fact that there were German planes that could go faster than the Mossie - they didn't have the same performance levels - the Mosquito was infinately more useful than any of those planes...besides - the Me410 were only capable of 32,000ft against the Mossies 34,500ft  

I will say the Me109 was a fantastic plane though but it was only capable of doing speeds greater than the Mossie late in the war (1944ish) but early on in the war (42-43) nothing could catch the Mossie - that was its hey-day 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 16, 2004)

the 109 has always been one of my favourite planes and always will be 8) and i always thought the mosie cold go up to 37,000 ft......


----------



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

the mossie was the RAF's fasted plane for most of the war in fact, not until the arival of the tiffy could anything match it.



> i always thought the mosie cold go up to 37,000 ft......



there were so many marks of the mossie, all had their own spesifications, we obviously just have different ones..............


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 16, 2004)

Yep Lancs right...so for the sake of avoiding confusion lets all agree the Mosquito was the best all-round aircraft of WW2 shall we..?  8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 17, 2004)

yup ok 8) (i still dont like it though 8) )


----------



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

"you wouldn't"...............

but it was the best allrounder..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 18, 2004)

i know it was 8) charcterless though...


----------



## Archer (Apr 18, 2004)

How can the Mosquito be the best when it can't land on a carrier safely?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 18, 2004)

it can though, it was the first twin engine carrier aircraft of the FAA 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 19, 2004)

Archer said:


> How can the Mosquito be the best when it can't land on a carrier safely?



The Mosquito could land on a carrier safely (i've got photos to prove it) AND being a corsair fan i'd be VERY careful about saying things like that  as i've pointed out before if it weren't for the Brits the Corsair wouldn't have landed on carriers itself yet i'm sure you would argue it was one of the best fighters? 8)


----------



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

we've had this argument before, i believe that, true to form, the brittish one..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

yes we dont want to go down that road again


----------



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

i don't really think we ever left that road....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

hmmmmmm, we will leave it eventually, unless this road replicates the M5, in which case we will never leave it


----------



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

face it, we brits made the cosair what it was..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 27, 2004)

yup 8) a great plane


----------



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

we make any plane a good plane..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 27, 2004)

talking of the m5, i have a theory that it was built by the cornish to keep northerners out  it has to be true, no sane person would use the m5 8)


----------



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

as a helper member, isn't it your job to keep posts on topic?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

yes, but i was just making a humourous point about the m5 8) like horse said, a bit of spam is ok, but if it looks as if its about to convert into pages of spam then thats the time to take action 8)


----------



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

at least spam on topic, and that comment wasn't humourous..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

you laughed when i first told you that


----------



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

no i didn't

best fighter, DH Mosquito.....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 30, 2004)

I'm stay true to my name and throw the P-38 in for the best fighter. I'm sure that'll cause controversy but that's what makes these forums fun. I will agree when discussing the Mosquito that it was a great plane, but it's versatility was achieved by producing several distinct versions of the plane. A Mosquito B.IV was a great bomber, but it's not winning any dogfights, NO GUNS! No one version of the Mosquito could do it all, but a P-38L came mighty close.


----------



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

many marks carried bombs and guns..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 30, 2004)

Oh yeah, I know that, I'm just pointing out that the Mk.IV was no fighter, and the Mk. VI was no stategic bomber.


----------



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

that's just two of the 43 marks.............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 30, 2004)

I know. The Mosquito probably had the most versatile airframe of the war but there were several distinct versions of it. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 30, 2004)

The Mosquito was the best all rounder of the war, precision bombing in the 40s at its best.


----------



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

the mossie was only beaten in versatility by one plane throughout the whole war, and thet was the Ju-88, but plan_d's right, it was the better plane.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2004)

i prefer the 88 though 8)


----------



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

it was ugly and slow..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

so was the lancaster 8)


----------



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

no it wasn't, it was faster than a B-17 and better looking than most planes.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

> no it wasn't, it was faster than a B-17 and better looking than most planes.........



only faster in cruising speed, and what planes does the lancaster look better than


----------



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

it was 30mph faster cruising speed, which is quite a bit..............

and the lanc looks better than a P.108, so there..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

no it doesnt  the P.108 is a beauty, the italians put great camo on their planes and it has swept back wings


----------



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

just cos it has swept back wings, it don't mean it's good looking................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

it does, the p.108 was a far better looking plane than the lanc


----------



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

no it wasn't, the nose of the lancaster is one of the best i've ever seen..........


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2004)

I like the way a 'Best Fighter' thread becomes an argument on the looks of two BOMBERS!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

ok, back on topic 8) best fighter was the hurricane 8) 

*cough* the nose on a lancaster is the ugliest part  *cough*


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

I'm not sure how you can claim the Hurricane was the best fighter of the war when it was the 3rd best fighter of the BoB.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> I'm not sure how you can claim the Hurricane was the best fighter of the war when it was the 3rd best fighter of the BoB.



excuse me? the hurricane was THE best fighter in the BoB  8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

The Hurrican was probably the most important fighter of the BoB and it had the greatest impact on that battle but both the Spit and the Bf-109 were more than a match for the Hurricane.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

the hurricane was actually the most successful plane of all during the BoB, shooting down more german planes than both spitfires and ground attack combined 8) (i think)


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

the hurricane was actually the most successful plane of all during the BoB, shooting down more german planes than both spitfires and ground attack combined 8) (i think)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

I wouldn't doubt it, which is why I don't doubt it's impact. But I would have rather been flying a Spit, faster and a much better rate of turn.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

hurricane was tougher though, so i would like to be firmly placed in the cockpit of a hurricane during the early years 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

The Hurricane was tougher, I'd agree to that. But the Spit was less likely to be hit.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

probably was, depends on the pilot really though. i assume that the hurricane was easier to fly though


----------



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

it was easyer to fly, but lightening's right, the hurricane wasn't the best, it COULD (i but that in be to suggest that there was a chance it would, not that it would for cirtain) easily be beeten by a 109...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

Everything I've read on the two suggest that it would take either a very skilled or very lucky pilot in a Hurricane to beat a 109 one-on-one.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

well the 109 was just a fantastic plane obviously... 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

Yes it was, the Spit was an even match for it and the Hurricane was slightly below both of them.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

bf-109 is my current favourite plane, and during the later years of the war it and the spit outclassed the hurricane, but during the earlier years, the 3 planes were evenly matched 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

I'm sorry but I just don't see how you can make that argument. The only advantage I can see is that the Hurrican was the toughest of the 3.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

they're just figures, the evidence of the time suggests that the hurricane was just as good as the other during the early years


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

So why did the RAF adopt the policy of using the Spits to tangle with the 109s while the Hurricanes attacked the bombers if the Hurricane was just as good?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

pft i dunno, probably because the spits were faster and more manoeverable, and ive walked into a cul de sac here  you win  i still think the hurricane was the best though  8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

I've got no problem with you liking the Hurricane. It definitely won the BoB and deserves its due. I wouldn't dare argue against that.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Well, that was easily won. I do agree with Lightning though, the Hurricane was the more important of the two but the Spitfire was the better fighter. There were the 32 squadrons of Hurricane and 11 squadrons of Spitfire in the BoB, numbers were another factor of their success. Hurricanes also had the ease of build as one over on the Spitfire. 
Even with that the Hurricane could tangle with the Bf-109 perfectly well, Hurricanes were credited with several 109 kills. 

The Hurricane was easier to fly, but the Spitfire with a veteran at the controls was much more deadly than any other fighter of the war (I'm refering to late marks mostly here).


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

8)


----------



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

> Well, that was easily won.



i hoope you arent talking about the BoB as that was far from easy.............

and stop doing that C.C...............


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

No, what do you take me for? I was talking about that discussion...argument.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

yes about my ease of giving in  though ive always forseen the hurricane as the better fighter 8)


----------



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

ah, and i''m sorry if i caused offence, my favourite fighter is still the meteor.............


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Although, the Hurricane was used as a nightfighter, naval fighter, tank buster and bomber as well as fighter, with great effect.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

The Hurricane was very versatile and every mission it was assigned it was fairly effective (night fighting) to extremely effective (tank-busting). Nevertheless, it was mostly deployed in those other rolls because it's usefullness as an air-superiority fighter was waning.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Exactly, so there's something we can agree on.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

It's always nice when people manage to agree on here.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

even nicer when they dont though


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

It gives more of an interesting discussion if they don't. Now though I've agreed with C.C, damn.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)




----------



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

although C.C. is normally the cause of the arguments................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

Hey, a healthy disagreement is what makes this site so much fun. And I've got to admit, I've greatly enjoyed finding a place to discuss WWII aircraft where people actually know what they are talking about.


----------



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

thanks for the compliment, aint had one of them since samu was around...................


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Very quick to accept it... :grab:


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

i would say thanks too, but as i know bugger all i wont


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Well, you did tell Lanc, and basically everyone on here about the P.108 experiment with the 102mm cannon.


----------



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

i think everyone's learnt allot on this site, it's obvious we al know what we're talking about (apart from you C.C.) and we could all learn allot from each other................


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Yes, this site is very good for learning and encouraging to learn more.


----------



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

we should start an adveritising camping, get more people onto the site, we could stick stickers onto the side of C.C.'s car when he races...............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

You go do that.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

But would that attract people that had any idea what they were talking about?


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

I don't think people that had no clue or didn't care would come here.


----------



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

i wouldn't say that, there's hundreds of members that have registered and haven't even made one post...............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

They are just weird then.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> we should start an adveritising camping, get more people onto the site, we could stick stickers onto the side of C.C.'s car when he races...............



i shall do just that, have it on the back as thats the bit most people see


----------



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

yes, the driver behind you will have a front row view of it, as he rams you........

or we could hire a blimp and put it on the side of that..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

ramming is not allowed in my class  everyone still does it though


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

ramming is not allowed in my class  everyone still does it though


----------



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

back on topic then, best twin piston engined fighter was the mossie............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2004)

sure was 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

Damn straight.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2004)

this has to be one of the only things everyone agrees on


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

The Me-110 was very good at destroying bombers.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 7, 2004)

I'm not going to agree. The Me-110 was a good bomber destroyer and night fighter but horrible in combatting other fighters. My vote for best twin piston engine fighter is the . . . P-38 Lightning.


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

You're not important though  

Well that's what I said, it was a good bomber destroyer.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

Thanks. 'preciate that


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

Of course you do...  
Well I can't be serious all the time, if I was I'd just be boring.


----------



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

> sure was



but you don't like the mossie and you prefere the P-38.............


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

But C.C always goes for the easiest option with the least opposition.


----------



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

true, and i think he's always changing his opinion............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

Yeah. At least I take a stand and stick to my guns.


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

Yes, you do...


----------



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

so do i, as soon as C.C. is proved wrong he just says he knows nothing..........


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

I sometimes accept defeat, but it's a rare occurance. Normally I stick to it.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

I don't view these discussions so much as victory or defeat. I mean, we are all just trying to learn more aren't we?


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

Well, yes but at times you both might already know everything (rarely) about it, and stick to your guns.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

That would be very rare indeed.


----------



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

not in my case 8).................


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

The whole Mustang thing...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

There has been a lot of "sticking to guns" on these threads lately.


----------



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

what mustang thing?


----------



## kiwimac (May 11, 2004)

hmmm....

Listen, d'ya hear that? Its the sound of horse-dung being dropped in ENORMOUS quantities.

Kiwimac <stirring gently>


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

hang on, just because i say i dont like a plane doesnt mean i think its crap, basically, using that theory, i could say, "i really like the Breda 88" and that must mean that its an excellent plane, according to your frankly pathetic theory  the lancaster and the mossie were both excellent planes, but i dont like them, and i HAVE ALWAYS PREFERRED THE P-38, so there 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 11, 2004)

The Mosquito was great though


----------



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

it was better than the P-38...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

i know it was, but i prefer the P-38 to the mosquito, comprend?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

I wouldn't claim that the Mosquito was better than the P-38. The were both better in their own ways and trying to say that one plane was better than the other doesn't really achieve anything.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2004)

the mosquito was bloody good though


----------



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

i have to say the mossie was better than the P-38..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

And I'd have to say you're wrong. But the Mosquito was very good.


----------



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

go on then, how was the P-38 was better?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Well . . . maneuverability, range, speed (depending on what Mark you are discussing), versatility (as far as an individual airframe goes), better as an escort fighter, better air-to-air.


----------



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

> maneuverability





> better as an escort fighter, better air-to-air.



thay're the same thing, you can't use all three and the mossie had better range, once again though, it depends what mark..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Well fine, pick any of the three and the Lightning was better. The P-38L flew combat missions of 2,300 miles. And the final recon version the F-5G could fly somewhere around 3,700 miles with external tanks.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

The Mosquito was cheaper, easier to produce, better bomber, better ground attack, better armament, more versitile.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Not more versatile in an individual airframe. The B.IV would have made a lousy fighter. The Lightning was extremely effective as a ground attack and considered to be the best of the American fighters at divebombing. The P-38's firepower wasn't as heavy but more concentrated and that helps to compensate. Oh, and it could outclimb the Mossie.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Who cares about other American fighters, it's Mosquito against P-38 here.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Just making a point. And again, if it's all about turn radius (best naval fighter thread) the Lightning has the Mossie.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

But this isn't all about dogfighter, the Naval thread is.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

"Best fighter" against "Best naval fighter." So does naval mean dogfighter or have I missed the point?


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Well generally in Naval warfare the divebombers and fighters were more for their indivdual roles. A Dauntless was a divebomber, a Hellcat escorted it. 

But in this moment in time we're not only talking about dogfighting on this thread, but we are on the Naval thread


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Well every advantage you mentioned of the Mossie (excluding armament) isn't applicable to a "fighter" at all.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

In war, ease of build and cost are very good attributes of ANY plane in war time.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

That is true. Of course it has to be remembered that the P-38 was never intended to be mass produced. In the initial specification, Lockheed was told not to expect an order of more than 60 aircraft! Instead they ended up building 10,000!


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Well that just proves what a great plane the P-38 was, I don't think anyone said otherwise.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

I'm saying that the fact that the Lightning wasn't designed to be mass produced should be considered. And that fact obviously didn't cause too much trouble in producing it.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

And I've never said the Mossie wasn't a great plane either.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

But I was saying that the Mosquito was easier and cheaper to produce than the P-38. If they put they put the Mosquito under American construction and they just wanted more and more, I dare say it could have had hte highest production of the war.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

I'm not sure that would have been the case because America had several good designs that were all in production at the same time. If America had been producing the Mossie it probably would have been produced in numbers comparable to the other American planes (10,000 or so).


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

I'm saying it could have been produced in higher numbers if wanted, and it was quite a bit cheaper. Wood is a lot easier to build with, and cheaper.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Easier to build with once the initial costs are taking care of. I'm not sure what the "tooling up" costs for producing the Mossie would have been but that would have, in part, offset the cheaper production costs.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Tooling up to build a wooden construct would be cheaper than metal, it is an easier material to build with therefore less complex machines are used.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

But I was talking about the development and production of the glues. Those were fairly complex (for the time) chemical formulas. The Germans had all kinds of trouble coming up with an equal glue. I imagine that would have added to the costs.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Once you've sorted it though it's not that bad, and plus the savings (by using that design with wood) would have far out weighed the expenses.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

What about maintainance? Just asking, because wood warps with weather.


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

I imagine that MIGHT have been a problem, but the RAF technicians aren't stupid (far from it) they would have put them under for the night plus the survivability of planes was not all that high in World War 2 so I imagine a few got shot down before that problem arose. 
Charles Patterson had the same Mosquito from 1943 to 1945 when the war ended.


----------



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

and the airframe was very easy to repair because it was made from wook, and it wcould take damage like a sponge...............


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

Yes, wood is an easy resource to get hold of. And you must remember metal also detoriates with weather, rust is one problem. Fatigue and cracks appear on metal structures as well.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

I know metal has problems. My point was that wood can warp with changes in temperature and humidity. I imagine if the Mosquito had ever deployed to the South Pacific that could have caused problems.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

I remember that the Americans did use the Mosquito in the South Pacific.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

I've never heard that, and I doubt it was very many. I have heard that the weather could affect the flight characteristics of the Mosquito over Europe and I imagine that would have been magnified in the SWPA.


----------



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

don't forget dry rot and wood worm 

and a few recon mossies were converted by the brits for the pacific, they had a range of 3,500miles, but they were to late to see service...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

i remember you telling me that once...


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

Yes, but for every problem with wood there are almost as many problems with metal. Don't become mistaken into thinking that metal does not corrode, wear or become fatigued.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

Yes metal does, but not as quickly as wood. And wood could warp in shape causing trouble for the Mossie (especially its control surfaces).


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

That's easily repaired as it is wood.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

Not necessarily in the SWPA which was the far end of the supply line for everyone.


----------

